What did you think of the show? Guest: Jason Isaacs
Tonight Adrian and Christine were joined by actor Jason Isaacs.
Gyles Brandreth delved into the artwork of Adolf Hitler and asked who might be interested in collecting these pieces.
Dom Littlewood visited Wychbold in Worcestershire, a town hit by a credit card fraud scam.
In the second of the Memory Week films, Michael Mosley met Claire. Claire has amnesia and Michael found out about the ways in which she deals with the condition.
And finally, Mike Dilger showed us some of the most primitive vertebrates alive today - lampreys.
How sharp is your memory?
Test yourself with our memory quiz here. Plus: Watch all our memory films.
What did you think of tonight's show? Share your thoughts here.
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~15~RS~)
Comments
You've got to give Jason Isaacs some credit for highlighting his own poor behaviour over his support for the Labour party. But as usual the BBC Lefties excuse their behaviour by saying Labour have changed while in power. Unfortunately the truth is they were always like that. Brown and Blair's behaviour were the same before '97 as after. It was fundamental to New Labour. Just read the many biographies and remember Brown's "moral compass" versus his smear campaign and Blair's "whiter than white" versus the Ecclestone affair which occurred very early in his premiership. Contrast the treatment of Labour to that of the Tories who are always portrayed as being naturally evil. Might also remind everyone that Hitler was the leader of the National SOCIALIST party and rose to power on the back of left wing support.
Complain about this comment
Just a pedantic point - in Dom's report on card machine scams, both he and the police office involved referred to people's 'PIN numbers'. Personal Identification Number Number. Like reversing backwards or repeating again, there seems to be a rash of over-emphasis these days. We get it - really, we do - but it's just a PIN, no need for 'number'.
Sarah
Complain about this comment
this blog is fast becoming a tory party broadcast site constantly linking stories to knock the labour party.
lab-rat and robertbridget need to meet up and discuss the next general election strategy.
Complain about this comment
Regarding the Gyles Brandreth's piece on the artworks of Adolf Hitler, last year Jake and Dino Chapman bought 20 pieces for about £100k and defaced the work with smiley faces, rainbows and lovehearts.
Whether you like or dislike the artists (all three of them) anything that would make hitler turn in his grave is fine by me. Personally I wouldn't buy a piece, deface or not.
Complain about this comment
I see the One Show is on for an hour tomorro, is there something special on that I havent heard about.
Complain about this comment
Please let us not confuse the vacuous utterings on The One Show with serious political commentary about any of the parties. Best to leave that to the competent journalists on Newsnight.
There, I told myself that I wasn't going to say anything tonight and now you've gone and made me do it.
Complain about this comment
geordieangel, I just looked that up. Apparently it is the first of four hour long shows on subsequent wednesday to test whether the format could be extended on a longer term basis:
http://www.broadcastnow.co.uk/news/terrestrial/2009/03/bbc_to_test_hourlong_version_of_the_one_show.html
Complain about this comment
Watched the show tonight really interesting as usual but am I going mad, they were in their usual studio then after a feature they returned to the studio but they were all sitting in leather chairs!! with screens behind them, then after another feature they returned to their usual studio!! did anyone else see this ???
Complain about this comment
re 5: geordieangel2, After reading your blog I thought for one terrible moment that the The One Show was going to treat us to a serious analytical examination of the budget - heaven forfend. Fortunately that is not the case. Tomorrow,according to the Radio Times, Midge Ure will tell us the story behind his biggest hit 'Vienna' while Germaine Greer scrubs up on the laundry.
Complain about this comment
Post 9 Can't wait!!
Complain about this comment
Many viewers might find it irksome that the national broadcasting body once again presents the theory of the protracted Earth's history as fact, cetainly with no caveats like "..some/most scientists believe..". To have a amiable presenter graphically drawing a simple and exacting timeline between the present and the "'original lamphries so many millions of years ago'" is a travesty of so much accepted opinion, some may say presenting as fact in a misleading or dishonest way, especially for our younger impressionable and inquisitive viewers.
In 2006 Ipos/MORI for the BBC found that a significant percentage of the UK population sample thought that the Earth was designed and not and did not evolve over such a time period as protrayed by the BBC ... again!
The BBC and programmes like The One Show must be careful to present theories as theories and not as 'facts' propogated by opinionated [can I say silly?]entertainers . A simple phrase as "..some scientists believe that the lamprey was/is the source of all life..including you and me.." may have added interest and credibility to the fascinating story. You speak for yourself Mr Dilger if you think you are a descendant of the lamprey but don't include me and many millions of others.
Complain about this comment
MikeSkipton - I dearly hope you're joking.
Darwin's evolutionary ideas have so far exceeded the standard of proof required for any scientific thesis to be regarded as fact that it is as useful to refer to gravity as a theory. Or light. Or a round earth, for that matter.
If, as you suggest, we were to introduce the notion of doubt in the face of -literally - a planet full of contrary evidence, then we might as well suspend the teaching of science of any kind in our schools, which, luckily, the vast majority of clear headed citizens are unlikely to endorse.
I respect your faith but please respect my intelligence.
Complain about this comment
12 educateandentertain
I would not consider it intelligent to believe you descended from the lamprey but an opinion you hold.
I do not believe it follows that the science of gravity, light, the round earth etc means that we are descended from the lamprey.
The reality is that it is very difficult to have faith in God but easy to accept some science.
Complain about this comment
13 Robertbridget
I've no idea about the unproved proposition that we descended from the lamprey, but I do know that those referred to in MikeSkipton's post who doubted that the earth evolved and thought instead that it was 'designed' should be treated with respect but intellectual dismissal.
If gravity is a science (your word), since we can verify and measure it, and the earth is round because we can see and record it, then the very same scientific approach proves how we evolved. Fossils, geological layers, techtonic plates and many more incontrovertible ways of measuring time and change make it a matter of willful blindness, not faith, to dismiss Darwin. With respect.
Complain about this comment
re 11: Mikeskipton,
Yeah, dead right. And it might be worthwhile reminding people that the earth is flat. The One Show gets the facts wrong again.
As you say, Mikeskipton, The One Show should have included the caveat that only some people believe in evolution. After all, some people believe the earth is flat while others believe it is round. As for me, I tend to go with the concensus opinion which is that sometimes it is flat and sometimes it is round.
Complain about this comment
15 johnholyer
Does anybody else think that the blog from johnholyer is disrespectful to Mikeskipton.
I do not understand it - perhaps he will explain.
Complain about this comment
re 16: robertbridget, Surely the point is does Mikeskipton believe that I am being disrespectful? If he does then he will tell me so. In those circumstances I would probably apologise. Whether or not anyone else thinks I am being disrespectful to Mikskipton is to me irrelevant.
I do not subscribe to Mikeskipton's explanation of the creation. I chose to assault his argument by way of a rather old joke. The message of which surely does not require an explanation. But maybe someone cleverer than me could show how my proposed consensus can be accommodated by quantum mechanics.
Complain about this comment
johnholyer,,,,,you naughty man .up to your tricks again.
i like your blogs,,,they test people and you do it with a cheeky smile on your face.
people like robertbridget and myself hold strong views and we air them.
things are getting good.
regarding blog 9..i do not want the one show to give a serious analytical examination of the budget i want it to travel the land bringing us interesting topics about the diversity of our nation.
am i wrong in this?
Complain about this comment
re 19: Good evening hokeykokeyalex,
I agree. No one should be prevented from proclaiming their views and must be free to do so robustly. At the same time we must all defend the rights of others to hold an opinion that differs from our own. But we do not have to accept that all opinions are equally valid, and that therefore we must kowtow to them. I am a passionate believer in free speech. No one should be muzzled for the fear of offending an opinion held by someone else. If I put forward a view I do not complain if it comes under attack from others. If people never attacked my opinions then I could easily run away with the notion that I am always right.
I agree with your final paragraph. The UK has a lot to offer and there is much to see.
Complain about this comment
Better brains than mine are better equipped to discuss the content of the One Show. I only joined the site to ask about the 'seating'.
Can someone please tell me why the presenters are seated in such an uncomfortable fashion. So uncomfortable that I often can't concentrate on the subject in hand because I'm waiting for Adrian to fall off or Christine to slide into him. (Which may be the object of the exercise.)
Not only are the two presenters squashed together at one end of their seat, when there are three guests, the first one (Michael Caine last evening) look all squidged up to left of theirs.
I know it is necessary to align the camera angles but, if the camera's have to stay where they are, surely it is not beyond the wit of man (or a designer - which I am) for the seating to be slightly separated from that silly round thing in the middle (on which no one ever sits - or puts anything on) and place the two seater and three seater seating so their occupants look less uncomfortable.
This is compounded by the, recently introduced, gigantic Chesterfield Chairs in which their occupants look even more uncomfortable.
Now I come to think of it, apart from newsreaders, rarely are presenters or their guests given something comfortable to sit on, which is most uncomfortable for the viewer.
I know the BBC needs to save money, but they could sell all this ridiculous seating on E-bay and get something better for less money. Does no one involved in the show ever watch it, and are other viewers as irritated by this as I am??
Complain about this comment
Thought this episode was very good, loved the fact that Jason Isaacs talked about all the varied subjects with genuine interest. Heck, I'm just gonna say it, I love Jason! His eyes are beautiful :D
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS