AE on Telly News (NEW CONCEPTS)

[Mick Harper]

Vera (ITV)

I just realised who Vera reminds me of. Me.

[Mick Harper]

Sandbaggers (London Live)

Head of Sandbaggers: Have you got a file on Sandbagger 2?
Head of Psychiatry, MI5: Of course, what do you need to know?
H of S: Does she have any hang-ups?
Hof P: Well, only sexual.
H of S: Rumour has it that she's a lesbian.
H of P: Definitely not. She's frightened of sex, that's all.
H of S: But would she, say, go out with a chap?
H of P: Sure but after that it'll take several months.

Is this what we pay our tax-dollars for? What I like about Sandbaggers is not just this kind of authenticity, not just the action being confined to offices but the fact that Britain actually counts for something in the world. Great days.

[Mick Harper]

What I don't understand is that when Sandbag Leader 'holds Sandbagger 2 in reserve' (we know why, Scumbag leader) he has to send 'a rookie from Sandbagger School' for a two-man op (she's another woman, it's feminism gone mad) to Cyprus.

I mean, come on, a whole school to fill the ranks of three Sandbaggers (one got killed on the Russian border the week before last). Must be a very high drop out rate is all I can say. Though of course being a Sandbagger has a high drop out rate as well so possibly it's justified. I'm just saying, as a concerned taxpayer. This concerned me even more

[Mick Harper]

Chain Reaction (BBC R4)

This is quite a weird concept.
Week one: humorous personality A interviews humorous personality B.
Week two: humorous personality B interviews humorous personality C.
And so on ad infinitum. The continuity bloke said jocularly, "Well, this will need no introduction, it's the four hundred and fiftieth Chain Reaction."

I don't listen to the programme myself, I hate chat shows of any kind, but it did get me to thinking. Personality A is easy to recruit, they're all gagging for exposure on Radio 4. But obviously he'll want to know who Personality B is. You say, what about X. He says, fine. So you ring X and he's up for it like a shot. But he'll want to know who C is because he'll have to be interviewing him. So you say what about Y? And X says fine so you ring Y who's up for it like a shot except he'll want to know who D is. And so on ad infinitum.

We might accept that 'four hundred and fifty times' is an exaggeration but if any length of chain is to be unbroken the BBC will surely have to check on the availability and consent of all of them. And ad infinitum is an awfully long time even by BBC standards.

Or have I got something wrong?

[Mick Harper]

According to Dame Derbyshire on Newsnight there's an illegal migration minister doing the rounds. I say he (or she) should be tracked down and dealt with. It reminds me of the old IPO caper. Impersonating a Police Officer. That got you six months without the option.

[Mick Harper]

Now even the police are at it. (Yes? No? Doofa?)

[Mick Harper]

I accept there can be no glass ceiling when it comes to Sandbaggers. I accept, if there are only two Sandbaggers, you have to have one of each. But when Burnside starts getting soft on one of them (the female one) I begin to get queasy. And not just because his estranged wife is the daughter of the Permanent Under-Secretary of the Foreign Office and therefore Burnside's boss of bosses. This is exactly what happened with Burgess, Maclean and the Third Man.

[Mick Harper]

American Dynasties (PBS America)

Oh good, right up my street. I'll skip the first one though, I know all about the Kennedys. Oh, that seems to be it.

[Mick Harper]

[Mick Harper]

Justified Alibi Channel

Now don't get me wrong, this is straightforward hokum. You settle back for fun and games that wouldn't happen in a million years. But that doesn't mean the laws of the universe are going to be suspended. All genres have to be 'true' within their own parameters. So when Raylan's ex-wife succumbs to temptation and nicks some stolen money from an evidence locker because of the misdeeds of her present husband, that is acceptable. Hey, we've all done it.

When she goes into a bank but has a last minute change of heart, that's also acceptable. We knew she had it in her, we're rootin' for you, gal. But when, just as she is leaving the bank to return the cash to the hurt locker and is prevented from doing so by an armed gang entering the bank with the intention of robbing it, that isn't acceptable. What are the chances?

[Mick Harper]

Vera (ITV)

I have watched many thousands of television dramas which involve people drinking tea (sometimes other hot drinks). Despite the plot requiring the cup having just been filled, and despite the camera angle requiring the liquid to be theoretically visible as people sip it, I have never yet caught sight of an actual beverage.

There must be some explanation for this other than 'there's no tea in the cup, you daft prat' because these are actors, there is no requirement for actual hot tea to be used, any cheap and cheerful brownish liquid will serve the purpose of retaining credibility and authenticity.

It is, I suppose, too late for Vera to investigate the mystery since this is the last in the current series and nobody in their right mind will be commissioning another one. I don't know how this one got the nod. It is highly appropriate therefore that DCI Stanhope's last case involved fish and chip suppers.

[Mick Harper]

Why do news programmes persist in saying, after they have excoriated some government department or other, "We asked them for a comment but nobody was available"? You know, we know and they know this is not true. There were dozens of people from the Secretary of State to the under-assistant West Coast promo man available for a comment. My recommended formulation:

[Mick Harper]

A tip for people who have to monitor several news programmes every day.

[Wile E. Coyote]

[Mick Harper]

You are using 'interesting' in two different ways. Having the orthodox position set out can be done in a way that engages the viewer or not. Generals and diplomats are not trained to 'engage' a lay audience, they are trained to communicate in position paper-speak. Journalists, academics, think-tank personnel etc have to engage a lay audience as part of their day to day work.

When it comes to content, generals and diplomats never stray outside the boringly familiar. Journalists et al sometimes do.