BBC Television programmes  permalink

Changes to the PoV Message Boards

This discussion has been closed.

Messages: 971 - 1020 of 2160
  • Message 971

    , in reply to message 970.

    Posted by Curmy (U10228939) on Thursday, 7th May 2009

    Cricket, deansay and holly, what you all say is so true smiley - ok

    Report message1

  • Message 972

    , in reply to message 971.

    Posted by cricket-Angel Baratheon (U3382697) on Thursday, 7th May 2009

    Thing is, holly, we DIDN'T rant to start with.

    Despite many of us guessing what was coming up, having gone through it with other BBC boards, we were still responsive, polite and enthusiastic to Nick's requests for suggested improvements. I even posted on blogs! And then things went horribly wrong ... smiley - sadface

    That's what I don't think a lot of posters here understand. For a lot of us these half-baked decisions were the last straw for those of us who have been engaged in "open dialogue" with Nick since before Christmas. THAT'S why we're ranting now.

    Report message2

  • Message 973

    , in reply to message 969.

    Posted by JanetDoe (U10211737) on Thursday, 7th May 2009

    cricket-Angel Monroe:

    I'm genuinely baffled as to a) why Nick even consulted with us in the first place if this was always the intended outcome, and b) why they won't listen to us now. 
    As with ALL "consultations" from the BBC, the Government or whatever, the word they really mean to use, but it doesn't sound as friendly, is "dictation".

    Now they'll be saying "Da**, we've been rumbled!"

    Report message3

  • Message 974

    , in reply to message 972.

    Posted by deansay (U5811575) on Thursday, 7th May 2009

    Exactly cricket, when the dialogue first opened, I genuinely thought that maybe, just maybe the BBC really did want out imput into how the MB would be run in the future.

    Obviously I was a fool, but one always has to live in hope that, that was first intention. I really wonder if all our comments actually went back to the meeting, for I doubt if the rest of the deciding committee bothered to pop in here and view the threads. As you say cricket would love to see the minutes.

    Report message4

  • Message 975

    , in reply to message 974.

    Posted by cricket-Angel Baratheon (U3382697) on Thursday, 7th May 2009

    I was similarily naive, deansay smiley - sadface

    At least with the TMS boards they just closed them and didn't fence and dodge around the issue. They treated us with contemptible disdain without hiding behind a facade of polite interest.

    Report message5

  • Message 976

    , in reply to message 975.

    Posted by Gizmomoo (U10999499) on Thursday, 7th May 2009

    Yes, when Nick first asked the question (on a blog) what could be done to improve messageboards we jumped at the chance to inform him.

    Search facility.
    Better more consistent modding.
    More interaction with people at the BBC.

    What do we get, still no search facility. Supposed reactive moderation (although that is not happening as StM and Rozking have discovered on the Green Room thread, and cricket and myself have also realised).
    More interaction with the BBC. Well Nick did respond to this, by saying we can't host the boards and interact with you, so we'll close them, and it's not a BBC programme and we won't interact about them, so we'll ban them.

    Report message6

  • Message 977

    , in reply to message 976.

    Posted by deansay (U5811575) on Thursday, 7th May 2009

    I really think it is not too late for them to compomise a little.

    They could keep in the main for BBC programme threads, but introduce one thread for non-BBC programmes and one as a general radio board. So when the POV team come on here to get all they want for the next episode of POV, they an easily ignore those threads.

    Report message7

  • Message 978

    , in reply to message 977.

    Posted by WinstonSmith (U2786594) on Thursday, 7th May 2009

    You're all more up to date here than me about what is happening, although I've thought for some while there was something funny going on (funny very peculiar!).

    So, if nobody listens are we all just ranting?

    smiley - sadface

    Report message8

  • Message 979

    , in reply to message 978.

    Posted by Gizmomoo (U10999499) on Thursday, 7th May 2009

    So, if nobody listens are we all just ranting? 

    Sadly I believe the answer to that is yes.

    Doesn't mean we should stop though. smiley - biggrin

    Report message9

  • Message 980

    , in reply to message 979.

    Posted by BHP (U4732638) on Thursday, 7th May 2009

    I agree Giz, but for the record, I've just sent in an e-form to the Radio asking for the Radio POV Message Board to be reinstated.
    I cannot begin to tell you how long it took to find out how to do it, either, nor the amount of info about self that I was required to submit.

    Report message10

  • Message 981

    , in reply to message 966.

    Posted by Gonzo the Legendary Detective (U13881245) on Thursday, 7th May 2009

    Thu, 07 May 2009 10:50 GMT, in reply to Nippie Sweetie in message 966

    And, just to let us know that they are listening, they pay attention to your post, Nippie, and close down the lot! smiley - doh smiley - biggrin I know - you didn't manage to get the full set of all 5 boards closed down! Where did it all go wrong?! 

    Report message11

  • Message 982

    , in reply to message 980.

    Posted by LaConchita (U8276927) on Thursday, 7th May 2009

    Worryingly on the Food Boards the host is asking what we think of Twitter because they've just had a meeting about it.

    I wish the Beeb would stop worrying about Twitter and blogging and just keep lovely message boards and focus on being the best at that.

    Report message12

  • Message 983

    , in reply to message 982.

    Posted by cricket-Angel Baratheon (U3382697) on Thursday, 7th May 2009

    Or at least recognise that Twitter, blogs and messageboards are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT, serving different needs and having different uses and value ... except Twitter - which has NO value!

    Report message13

  • Message 984

    , in reply to message 983.

    Posted by JanetDoe (U10211737) on Thursday, 7th May 2009

    Oh Gawd! Twitter was just being pushed on my local BBC radio station. Looks like someone at the BBC has decided to push it in an empire building attempt.

    Report message14

  • Message 985

    , in reply to message 984.

    Posted by Midsomer Marple aka EssexBetty (U11487381) on Thursday, 7th May 2009

    Having been away from the boards for a couple of days I'm now completely lost as to what is exactly going to happen from Monday - can anybody give me a short precis? Or shall I set aside an hour or two to go through the latter pages of this thread? smiley - smiley

    Sorry but I've had to give up on the ask Nick Reynolds a question thread - it's making my head hurt!! smiley - doh

    Confused EssexBetty smiley - sadface

    Report message15

  • Message 986

    , in reply to message 985.

    Posted by Faye Tsar (U1683210) on Thursday, 7th May 2009

    Sorry but I've had to give up on the ask Nick Reynolds a question thread 

    It seems Nick has too, but Sarah has stepped in.

    Report message16

  • Message 987

    , in reply to message 986.

    Posted by The Great Gildersleeve (U1650602) on Thursday, 7th May 2009

    What exactly can you discuss on Twitter that would be appropriate on a website dedicated to food...

    If you want to know how bad Twitter or Facebook can be used go no further than Richard Bacon's programme on Radio 5 especially the Special Hour which cannot be mentioned before Midnight Thirty.smiley - doh

    My internet magazine said that many people sign up for Twitter and leave very quickly. Well, how much can you write that you are on a bus traveling to work or in the supermarket etc...how many live a celebs life.

    The economic crunch and last night we had people in Bacon's studio telling you what they had done for their birthday's(most of which the majority of listeners could not afford to do)and a celeb mentioning what lovely food they are offreed after appearing on tv programmes and how they are still being given "Goodie" bags containing lovely gifts.

    They are still not in the real world.

    Report message17

  • Message 988

    , in reply to message 987.

    Posted by niclaramartin (U13719387) on Thursday, 7th May 2009

    For those who are coming late to this "improvements" exercise which Nick undertook on the bbc.co.uk board and his blogs, I'll repost a comment I made on the "Questions for Nick Reynolds" thread, which sums up what WE asked for, and what NICK delivered.

    Apologies for the length, but it's basically a list.

    <quote>Sarah wrote...


    As host, I’ve made the decision that I’m going to take over this thread and try and answer your questions

    I responded...


    THIS thread gives us a chance to do EXACTLY what NICK asked us to do. Ask DIRECT questions. As soon as we do that, Nick disappears

    Sarah I appreciate that you are now trying to field the force of questions which have been building up for six months. However, we shall never get the answers from you which we need. Nick is the man who put forward the decisions.

    We asked for

    1. a Search facility,
    2. for better moderation,
    <quote>The most irritating aspect of all boards is the blatent lack of consistency on the part of the Mods when applying the house rules...your house rules!</quote>(dozens said the same thing),
    3. for the 3 minute rule to be removed,
    4. for the return of the Quote function,
    5. the problem of Multiple threads,
    6. closer attention to WUMs,
    7. having to go on pre-mod every time you change areas in the message boards,
    8. an "off" topic board,
    9. we don't want to blog,(nick linked constantly to his blog)
    10. indication of who is online,
    11. who the last poster was,
    12. more input from the "High Heidjins" at BBC (Heads of Depts/Editors/producers/journalists),
    13.first post titles not being hiddens so that even if the first post is hidden, we at least know what the thread is about,
    14. easier deletion of "your discussions",
    15. change of name of the boards FROM "Points of View",
    16.removal of Media Students requests for help with course work,,
    17.more smileys,
    18.discussion of non-BBC channels programmes,
    19.better linking to complaints/info/"Contact Us" sections,
    20.longer opening hours,
    21.BBC staff to jump in and become part of the community,
    22.treat us like adults,
    23.clearer indication in emails explaining WHY posts have been hidden,
    24.change the perception of posters that BBC just don't value or pay attention to THEIR message boards.........etc etc etc.

    and WHAT did Nick actually give us.....

    1.He CLOSED three boards
    2.Aligned the boards closer to Points of View programme (the OPPOSITE of what we asked for)
    3.Gave us a "Green Room" to discuss "off" topic -
    (well actually Rowan gave us the "Green Room".

    I'm actually struggling to see where ANY of THOSE three "improvements" appeared in OUR input.

    There is far too big a discrepancy between what we suggested, and what Nick delivered, for you to be able to provide the answers. Nick asked US to suggest "improvements". We did, and nick disregarded EVERY single one of them and implimented HIS OWN criteria for "improvements" to the boards, citing better Hosting as his main area of improvement (something over which we have no control). We were happy with the Hosting. It was the MODERATION which poster after poster after poster after poster wanted IMPROVED.

    I see NO common ground between US and Nick, and yet we have HIS "improvements", whilst he has now disappeared, having fulfilled his remit to "improve" an area he had no expertise in.

    Report message18

  • Message 989

    , in reply to message 988.

    Posted by Alf Hartigan (U2277114) on Thursday, 7th May 2009

    Thu, 07 May 2009 13:02 GMT, in reply to niclaramartin in message 988

    I think that about sums it up.

    The decision was made before the "consultation" began, in case anyone's in any doubt.

    Report message19

  • Message 990

    , in reply to message 988.

    Posted by hollybeau (U13700692) on Thursday, 7th May 2009

    Well said Niclara. smiley - ok

    Report message20

  • Message 991

    , in reply to message 985.

    Posted by deansay (U5811575) on Thursday, 7th May 2009

    Essex Betty, nothing has changed since you were here last.

    Namely, from Monday 11th May all off-topic threads, i.e. non-BBC programme threads will be closed. Any discussion regarding general radio or all other off-topics are to be discussed in the 'off-topic' thread the Green Room. ONLY BBC TV programmes or general BBC discussion can have threads on the TV section or in The BBC section!

    Report message21

  • Message 992

    , in reply to message 989.

    Posted by OfficerDibble (U1158251) on Thursday, 7th May 2009

    Thanks Niclaramartin! Very useful.

    One final question to Sarah or Nick - looking at Niclara's list - what was the point of Nick consulting us?

    Report message22

  • Message 993

    , in reply to message 987.

    Posted by niclaramartin (U13719387) on Thursday, 7th May 2009

    Gildy

    My internet magazine said that many people sign up for Twitter and leave very quickly. 

    I spotted that too.

    blog.nielsen.com/nie...

    Even the "update" says that 60% leave within a month.

    BBC received some bad press a few months ago for the over-enthusiasm of linking of Twitter by Radio presenters and BBC celebrities.

    They complain about the quality of some postings on message boards, and yet, THEY Twitter. smiley - doh

    Report message23

  • Message 994

    , in reply to message 993.

    Posted by niclaramartin (U13719387) on Thursday, 7th May 2009

    Officer Dibble

    The point is that those of us who have been on the boards for a few years have seen so many boards closed that we take "improvements" to be the BBC code for "CLOSED".

    However, having said that, if you look at Nick's first blog, we all piled on there, and put aside out sceptisism, and OFFERED genuine assistance.

    It became clear with Nick's constantly asking us how to IMPROVE the blogs, that we were taking part in a one-way discussion.

    He may have taken some of our suggestions to IMPROVE his blogs, BUT, we have seen NONE (not one) of the suggestions adopted on the boards. We didn't have a problem with Hosting, but Nick obviously had decided to sort that BEFORE he even spoke to us. WE had problems with Moderation, but as that is undertaken by a private company Nick won't address THAT problem.

    Even Tom, and his list have disappeared since 2nd December. Not a dickie bird. smiley - doh

    And they wonder WHY we feel we are ignored over here.

    Report message24

  • Message 995

    , in reply to message 994.

    Posted by becky sharp (U4544768) on Thursday, 7th May 2009

    I think we should insist on a face to face meeting between niclaramartin and Nick...smiley - oki would bet on her to talk sensibly him round to our way of thinking..it's easy to hide behind a keyboard and carry on regardless of any views voiced on here.

    Lots of sense being talked by the majority of posters on here on how these boards could be improved....not closed...not hearing much from the other side.

    Report message25

  • Message 996

    , in reply to message 993.

    Posted by The Great Gildersleeve (U1650602) on Thursday, 7th May 2009

    Niclaramartin,
    Thanks for veriftying my post about Twitter smiley - winkeye
    I joined a service that was similar and said to be better and after two posts I thought...what can I really write that will be short(as posts have to be only so many characters long)unless you use a mobile and post whilst out doing something, you are sat at a desktop or laptop in the home and so are static.

    Therefore a messageboard is as good as anything as you can talk to many and often get a reasonably quick response and it's exchanging views that make them work.

    I have a blog and even I cannot post every day with something worth saying. And until I get a comment all I am doing is giving my opinion.

    And so the blogs that the BBC are using are similar, they can either give you information or opinions of the blogger and nothing more.

    If they want to use blogs, twitter or social network...so be it but a messageboard should be allowed.

    Report message26

  • Message 997

    , in reply to message 996.

    Posted by Curmy (U10228939) on Thursday, 7th May 2009

    think we should insist on a face to face meeting between niclaramartin and Nick...i would bet on her to talk sensibly him round to our way of thinking..it's easy to hide behind a keyboard and carry on regardless of any views voiced on here. 

    Good idea Becky smiley - ok

    Gildy, I agree with you about Twitter, it's the Devil's spawn smiley - yikes

    Report message27

  • Message 998

    , in reply to message 997.

    Posted by The Great Gildersleeve (U1650602) on Thursday, 7th May 2009

    I agree Curmy,
    Having tried something like Twitter(so I can at least pass judgement)I don't get it!

    Report message28

  • Message 999

    , in reply to message 998.

    Posted by Gizmomoo (U10999499) on Thursday, 7th May 2009

    Nick did agree to a face to face with Niclaramartin a few months back. However she has other very important commitments, and had to decline.

    Unfortunately if the idea was put forward now I believe the answer would be that the decision has been made.

    Report message29

  • Message 1000

    , in reply to message 999.

    Posted by cricket-Angel Baratheon (U3382697) on Thursday, 7th May 2009

    Niclara saud she was available via Skype, as I recall.

    Nick beat a hasty retreat! smiley - laugh

    Report message30

  • Message 1001

    , in reply to message 1000.

    Posted by Gonzo the Legendary Detective (U13881245) on Thursday, 7th May 2009

    Thu, 07 May 2009 14:51 GMT, in reply to cricket-Angel Monroe in message 1000

    Skype is great for long distance meetings, it has a video facility, and, if necessary, you can send files to each other, what more could you ask for?

    It is much better than blogging.

    Report message31

  • Message 1002

    , in reply to message 1000.

    Posted by LogoHater (U1159969) on Thursday, 7th May 2009

    As I read in one of todays daily papers, the people who work at the BBC have lost touch with the real world. As have so many others who are employed in jobs where there is very little threat of redundancy, wages are superb and their pensions make everyone else green with envy.

    If only they would step out of their ivory towers and speak to us, the people whos taxes they are reliant on. They may, just may, begin to understand why the decisions they make are unpopular, however unlikely that may seem. But, from where I am sitting, it's looking extremely unlikely.

    Report message32

  • Message 1003

    , in reply to message 1002.

    Posted by lifeHAZELNUT (U3501987) on Thursday, 7th May 2009

    This sounds alot like sour grapes to me, 'you're not talking about us so we son't let you play!'

    Shame that there isn't more good BBC prgramming about, erhaps then we wouldn't feel the need to compare with other channels the mediocrity that is served up on the BBC.

    I know there are a few exceptions, and I watch them but they are few and far between!

    Report message33

  • Message 1004

    , in reply to message 1003.

    Posted by cricket-Angel Baratheon (U3382697) on Thursday, 7th May 2009

    If the BBC USED this board then they would find it very useful.

    But, Hosts aside, nobody really comes on.

    Report message34

  • Message 1005

    , in reply to message 1003.

    Posted by germinator hebdo (U13411914) on Thursday, 7th May 2009

    Host,I can appreciate the need to modernise message boards, but surely, as a compromise, existing non-BBC threads could have been allowed to continue, (Coronation St, Emmerdale etc) ?

    Report message35

  • Message 1006

    , in reply to message 1003.

    Posted by Gingersnapdragon (U11010982) on Thursday, 7th May 2009

    Shame that there isn't more good BBC prgramming about, erhaps then we wouldn't feel the need to compare with other channels the mediocrity that is served up on the BBC. 

    I have noticed, and it has been pointed out by someone else, that there is an inordinate amount of first time posters singing the praises of a certain BBC drama centred around a church choir. I know this happens, but it seems very suspicious to me that so many people, while watching this "gentle" BBC programme were moved to voice their unadulterated love of it on the POV messageboard.

    Maybe it is a conincidence, but, together with everything else that's happening to boards at the moment, I just feel like I don't trust the BBC these days, and wouldn't put them past posting those threads from "the inside".

    Sad, that. I mean that I can't trust the Beeb smiley - whistle

    Report message36

  • Message 1007

    , in reply to message 1006.

    Posted by Faye Tsar (U1683210) on Thursday, 7th May 2009

    I have noticed, and it has been pointed out by someone else, that there is an inordinate amount of first time posters singing the praises of a certain BBC drama centred around a church choir. 

    The same happened about Bonekickers on it's dedicated board (and elsewhere). So many one times posters have made it onto the POV programme too, never to be seen again.

    Report message37

  • Message 1008

    , in reply to message 1007.

    Posted by EggOnAStilt (U7111730) on Thursday, 7th May 2009

    When you say the BBC, it's more likely to be people that were involved in the making of the film/series/programme that are just trying to support it.

    Report message38

  • Message 1009

    , in reply to message 1008.

    Posted by EurekaBlitzen (U11200477) on Thursday, 7th May 2009

    Yup. I see no need to be more lucid, there.

    Report message39

  • Message 1010

    , in reply to message 1009.

    Posted by browngravydavey (U13912729) on Thursday, 7th May 2009

    So coming to this from a fresh perspective, have in fact any improvements been made to these boards that benefit US, as licence payers, rather than heads of department at the BBC?

    Because I'm damned if I can see any.

    Report message40

  • Message 1011

    , in reply to message 1010.

    Posted by deansay (U5811575) on Thursday, 7th May 2009

    There haven't been browngravydavey, or should I call you 'Ah Bisto' smiley - winkeye

    Report message41

  • Message 1012

    , in reply to message 1006.

    Posted by Drsdaughter (U12521046) on Thursday, 7th May 2009

    Well said Gingersnap. I don't trust the BBC either. I watch the repeats of "Dr Who" on BBC3 when I can but generally, I don't watch any primetime shows on the BBC. I never watch the news as I believe that much of it is propaganda and I have to look after my blood pressure. It makes me too angry to mention. I get the news off the Teletext or the computer. Never the BBC now.

    Report message42

  • Message 1013

    , in reply to message 1012.

    Posted by EurekaBlitzen (U11200477) on Thursday, 7th May 2009

    Well, TV news has nothing left, for the most part. Journalism is often considered a dirty word - some remember why they started, and go for it. I respect them greatly, but the dont make friends there. The papers all pander to their respective audiences. And much Web news, is taken from some or all of those. Doesnt leave many with a great deal... Just imagine if all journalists, stood up and said, No. We are going to do the job we signed up for now.

    Report message43

  • Message 1014

    , in reply to message 1013.

    Posted by Midsomer Marple aka EssexBetty (U11487381) on Thursday, 7th May 2009

    Thanks for the update deansay - I was hoping somebody at the BBC would have taken notice of the comments on this thread.

    Sadly not! smiley - sadface

    Report message44

  • Message 1015

    , in reply to message 1014.

    Posted by cricket-Angel Baratheon (U3382697) on Thursday, 7th May 2009

    I admire your optimism, Betty smiley - sadface

    Report message45

  • Message 1016

    , in reply to message 1015.

    Posted by EurekaBlitzen (U11200477) on Thursday, 7th May 2009

    Aye....

    Report message46

  • Message 1017

    , in reply to message 1015.

    Posted by LaConchita (U8276927) on Thursday, 7th May 2009

    I've just been on the ER thread and I can't quite believe that this is the last week we'll be discussing it on here.

    It's the very last series ... ever ... and only a few episodes to go.

    Heartless really and without good reason.

    smiley - sadface

    Report message47

  • Message 1018

    , in reply to message 1015.

    Posted by Midsomer Marple aka EssexBetty (U11487381) on Thursday, 7th May 2009

    I admire your optimism, Betty  


    I never learn do I? It was me who started the "so looking forward to Bonekickers" thread!
    smiley - laugh

    That was funny - this situation isn't. smiley - sadface

    Report message48

  • Message 1019

    , in reply to message 1012.

    Posted by Gonzo the Legendary Detective (U13881245) on Thursday, 7th May 2009

    Thu, 07 May 2009 19:41 GMT, in reply to Drsdaughter in message 1012

    That is a problem that is clearly recognized by the BBC Trust, but, is it recognised by those in the middle, or upper-middle of the BBC.

    To repeat myself from Message 482:

    "although respondents feel that the internet has made it easier to feedback to the BBC using forums and message boards, they do not yet think there is a process which allows them to have an open and honest two-way dialogue with the BBC". They go on to note that these people were distrustful of BBC procedures and sceptical about whether producers and programme makers were able to accept comments and criticism of their programmes from the public. 

    But I do not think that many in the middle, or upper-middle understand this. They see what is right, from their perspective, and cannot always grasp that "other's" viewpoint is reasonable, or even if it is sometimes unreasonable, necessary to listen to.

    On one of the threads or blogs, they say that they want to align the boards more with the TV program. That might be a noble aim, but, I feel that, in the context of this discussion and the fears expressed by the Trust, it is not adequate. Even now, it is NOT obvious that there is a direct link between the Board and the program. We are told that this board is "The place to discuss BBC Television Programmes with other viewers." That is a direct quote from the first page of the BBC Television Board. yes, there is a reference to the Points of view program, but that simply states "Why not make a film of your opinions and send it in for broadcast on the Points of View programme? Please email your video files (10MB limit) to videopov@bbc.co.uk".

    You have a wonderful greeting for people:

    "Welcome to Points of View, where you can share your thoughts and pose your questions on any aspect of BBC Television via our message board."

    Share them with whom? Pose questions to whom?

    The Trust asks for more open dialogue between the BBC and its audience. Now, you might say that it is not within your remit to suggest that these message boards be that interface. But, there does not seem to be a place where this need is being met. It isn't just something nice, it is necessary. These boards seem as good a place as any for this dialogue to be implemented. And, take it from there. Take it seriously, and those around you will take it seriously. And, do things in a place where the public can be proactive.

    Of course, the cynical amongst the posters on these boards, might want to suggest that this is a scorched earth policy, designed to put off the inevitable breaking of the public through the barrier of inconvenience that seems to have been put up in the past. But, I want to give you the benefit of the doubt.

    Report message49

  • Message 1020

    , in reply to message 1019.

    Posted by Curmy (U10228939) on Thursday, 7th May 2009

    I've just been on the ER thread and I can't quite believe that this is the last week we'll be discussing it on here.

    It's the very last series ... ever ... and only a few episodes to go.

    Heartless really and without good reason. 


    La Conchita ,if you google 'Gavin's station board' we've got a TV thread

    there where you're all more than welcome to continue your ER

    conversations . (There's no 3 minute wait either )smiley - laugh

    Report message50

Back to top

About this Board

The Points of View team invite you to discuss BBC Television programmes.

Add basic Smileys or extra Smileys to your posts.

Questions? Check the BBC FAQ for answers first!

Go to: BBC News Have your say to discuss topics in the news

Make a complaint? Go to the BBC complaints website.

BBC News: Off-topic for this board, so contact them directly with your feedback: Contact BBC News

or register to take part in a discussion.


The message board is currently closed for posting.


Mon-Sat: 0900-2300
Sun: 1000-2300

This messageboard is reactively moderated.

Find out more about this board's House Rules

Search this Board

Recent Discussions

Copyright © 2015 BBC. 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.