I got ten minutes of Larry the Lamb whilst I was in the shower this morning just before 11:00 o'clock. He seemed quite angry about the spare room subsidy issue. He got even more riled when a bloke phoned in and 'out logic'd' him with such clarity on the ins and outs of the policy he was clearly silenced. All he could do to save face in the arguement was conclude the conversation with "I think you have a real point there, thank you for your call."
A classic bite of speech radio, and how to out manoeuvre a tabloid talk show host. I hope this guy phones in to Ferrari one time when he's off on one.
Hmmm - that's not quite how it happened, though. LL was not riled by the caller at all, although I do accept that he didn't have much to say back to him. I think this may have been because the caller was actually in agreement with LL that, unless suitable alternative accommodation could be provided, no-one should be penalised by this policy. This meant that the bulk of what the caller was saying became academic, because he agreed that the alternatives were not out there.
Hmmm - that's not quite how it happened, though. LL was not riled by the caller at all, although I do accept that he didn't have much to say back to him. I think this may have been because the caller was actually in agreement with LL that, unless suitable alternative accommodation could be provided, no-one should be penalised by this policy. This meant that the bulk of what the caller was saying became academic, because he agreed that the alternatives were not out there.
LL did sound riled in my view. There were a couple of times at the start of the call where he pounced back on the caller with suppressed anger Nick Ferrari or JOB style, demanding answers. The guy came out with answers every time LL responded. I would say that although the caller agreed on the suitable accomodation aspect, most of his call was about putting LL right on the popular misconceptions he was spouting about the policy and educating LL further.
Presumably they felt safe in allowing her to do so. Had she thrown an on-air hissy fit, she wouldn't be allowed back as cover for Vanessa.
Jeni certainly threw a hissy-fit via her website when she was sacked by LBC. A regrettable incident that saw all sorts of accusations being made by her and her deluded and thoroughly unpleasant acolytes.
Andrew 'the sound of paint drying' Castle, Larry 'soapbox boreathon' Lamb and Petrie 'ill-informed faux outrage' Hosken et al have decimated the weekend listening on LBC. Three of the most dreary presenters ever to appear on the station.
Jeni certainly threw a hissy-fit via her website when she was sacked by LBC. A regrettable incident that saw all sorts of accusations being made by her and her deluded and thoroughly unpleasant acolytes.
I suppose because it was so sudden. We don't know if she received any warnings beforehand.
Andrew 'the sound of paint drying' Castle, Larry 'soapbox boreathon' Lamb and Petrie 'ill-informed faux outrage' Hosken et al have decimated the weekend listening on LBC. Three of the most dreary presenters ever to appear on the station.
There are not many you like during the week either!
LL did sound riled in my view. There were a couple of times at the start of the call where he pounced back on the caller with suppressed anger Nick Ferrari or JOB style, demanding answers. The guy came out with answers every time LL responded. I would say that although the caller agreed on the suitable accomodation aspect, most of his call was about putting LL right on the popular misconceptions he was spouting about the policy and educating LL further.
Hi again
I can't agree with you about sounding riled. I don't think LL sounded any different from normal, but fair enough. I certainly don't think he acted like NF or JOB or 'pounced' on the caller.
As for putting LL right, the caller certainly gave an opinion, but I recall finding several flaws in what he said. So I can't agree that he corrected Larry, either.
There are not many you like during the week either!
The number of presenters who offer quality radio is ever decreasing and it really is time for some wholesale changes. Bull, Dale, Collins, Abbot, JHB, Allen and (I suppose) Ferrari can stay.
The Chiswick Socialist, Castle, Lamb, Hosken really need to be replaced as a matter of urgency.
Andrew 'the sound of paint drying' Castle, Larry 'soapbox boreathon' Lamb and Petrie 'ill-informed faux outrage' Hosken et al have decimated the weekend listening on LBC. Three of the most dreary presenters ever to appear on the station.
followed by Emma 'the schoolma'm' Barnett, It really is a write-off on sundays now.
LL did sound riled in my view. There were a couple of times at the start of the call where he pounced back on the caller with suppressed anger Nick Ferrari or JOB style, demanding answers. The guy came out with answers every time LL responded. I would say that although the caller agreed on the suitable accomodation aspect, most of his call was about putting LL right on the popular misconceptions he was spouting about the policy and educating LL further.
If that was the caller I heard Lamb had no answer as the bloke just calmly continued explaining the thinking behind the idea and why it wasn't working as it should, and agreeing it should have been better thought through, which made Lamb look like a dogmatist as he was just following his line of 'it's the evil government persecuting poor people full stop'.
followed by Emma 'the schoolma'm' Barnett, It really is a write-off on sundays now.
The Sunday schedule is more or less unlistenable for the vast proportion of the time. Whoever is making these decisions is going from one disaster to another with Castle being well out of his depth. He is the blandest presenter since records began. Surely he can't last long?
The Sunday schedule is more or less unlistenable for the vast proportion of the time. Whoever is making these decisions is going from one disaster to another with Castle being well out of his depth. He is the blandest presenter since records began. Surely he can't last long?
I can understand when he started he may have been nervous but he can barely get the words out some of the time, which doesn't make very good radio in itself.
If that was the caller I heard Lamb had no answer as the bloke just calmly continued explaining the thinking behind the idea and why it wasn't working as it should, and agreeing it should have been better thought through, which made Lamb look like a dogmatist as he was just following his line of 'it's the evil government persecuting poor people full stop'.
I think it was the same person.
The bit I'm struggling with is the whole 'Lamb had no answer' concept, because when you boil it down, there wasn't much they were disagreeing on.
The policy is a mess and it is punishing people, who have no way out of the problem. Painting Larry as a dogmatist here is just wrong, I feel. The caller's points that I found flawed were the ones about local govt having a vested interest in making central govt look bad, and therefore that they were purposefully mis-executing the policy. I don't think that's generally true.
Having had another look at that Jingle link MartinR posted yesterday I've just realised it is from LBC's website. This makes me more hopeful that they are going to mark their 40th anniversary in a few weeks time after all, and not let it pass unnoticed, apart from a mention in the news and perhaps by Steve Allen.
I wonder if they are planning a special programme - who would you have presenting it?
If that was the caller I heard Lamb had no answer as the bloke just calmly continued explaining the thinking behind the idea and why it wasn't working as it should, and agreeing it should have been better thought through, which made Lamb look like a dogmatist as he was just following his line of 'it's the evil government persecuting poor people full stop'.
If it was the man I think you are referring to I thought he was an articulate and intelligent caller who perhaps dug a bit deeper into the issue than Larry was able to grasp.
No offence to Larry who on the whole I quite like but he was just a bit out of his depth with this guy.
I wonder if they are planning a special programme - who would you have presenting it?
Susan Spence? Allan Dodgeon? Paul Savory? John Warrington? Steve Allen? The possibilities are endless....It'll no doubt be Larry 'The' Lamb or Andrew Castle...
The bit I'm struggling with is the whole 'Lamb had no answer' concept, because when you boil it down, there wasn't much they were disagreeing on.
The policy is a mess and it is punishing people, who have no way out of the problem. Painting Larry as a dogmatist here is just wrong, I feel. The caller's points that I found flawed were the ones about local govt having a vested interest in making central govt look bad, and therefore that they were purposefully mis-executing the policy. I don't think that's generally true.
It isn't unknown for local councils run by the opposition of whoever is in government at the time to implement policies they disagree with in a heavy handed manner and blame it all on central government because they came up with the policy in the first place. Of course it's in their party politial interest to get votes out of it if they think they can, and make the other side look bad as well. The days when local councils were free of party politics are pretty much long gone, unfortunately..
If it was the man I think you are referring to I thought he was an articulate and intelligent caller who perhaps dug a bit deeper into the issue than Larry was able to grasp.
No offence to Larry who on the whole I quite like but he was just a bit out of his depth with this guy.
If it was the caller I am thinking of, he was just another apologist attempting to disingenuously excuse an abhorrent government policy. "There's nothing wrong with the policy - it's the way it's being implemented." What the hell does that mean? The policy is the policy and is being implemented as it stands, so why try to blame a third party (local authorities) for the mess? Have the bottle to call something as wrong whatever your political affiliation or whichever party is in power. Surely that's the way forward.
It isn't unknown for local councils run by the opposition of whoever is in government at the time to implement policies they disagree with in a heavy handed manner and blame it all on central government
I wonder if you might have any examples? My own experience of local govt is that councillors have little or no knowledge about or influence over what happens, which is organised and implemented by the workforce.
If it was the caller I am thinking of, he was just another apologist attempting to disingenuously excuse an abhorrent government policy. "There's nothing wrong with the policy - it's the way it's being implemented." What the hell does that mean? The policy is the policy and is being implemented as it stands, so why try to blame a third party (local authorities) for the mess? Have the bottle to call something as wrong whatever your political affiliation or whichever party is in power. Surely that's the way forward.
I wonder if they are planning a special programme - who would you have presenting it?
Well if we are talking who has been with the station the longest then it has to be Clive Bull or Steve Allen.
However, the presenter that gets the top people onto his programme, Police Commander, Deputy PM, Mayor of London, plus trips to the States etc., it has to be Nick Ferrari. (High profile).
It would be great if they could get Douglas Cameron MBE back.
The first presenter was David Jessel and Ken Guy, the first newsreader.
If that was the caller I heard Lamb had no answer as the bloke just calmly continued explaining the thinking behind the idea and why it wasn't working as it should, and agreeing it should have been better thought through, which made Lamb look like a dogmatist as he was just following his line of 'it's the evil government persecuting poor people full stop'.
I just don't agree with your assessment of the call at all. Mr Lamb isn't really there to have answers to every point put to him, he's there to get the best out of callers. I know presenters like Nick Ferrari seem to think every caller that doesn't agree with them should be beaten down, made to look stupid or be cut off early but that isn't Mr Lamb's style, and he is all the better for it.
I thought Mr Lamb allowed the caller to make his points, challenged him on them, gave him adequate air time develop his opinions and then moved on. The show is about giving people a voice, not a series of battles that Mr Lamb thinks he has to win with everyone that phones him.
Having had another look at that Jingle link MartinR posted yesterday I've just realised it is from LBC's website. This makes me more hopeful that they are going to mark their 40th anniversary in a few weeks time after all, and not let it pass unnoticed, apart from a mention in the news and perhaps by Steve Allen.
I wonder if they are planning a special programme - who would you have presenting it?
Is LBC really 40 years old? I thought LBC ceased to exist in the early 1990s when it lost it's franchise to London News Radio. The station we are listening to now is what the new London Newstalk station evolved into. In 1996, that station took on the LBC brand but it was just still the new station with the old name. There was also no station broadcasting under the LBC banner for about 2 years, so either way it's questionable whether LBC is really 40 years old.
Is LBC really 40 years old? I thought LBC ceased to exist in the early 1990s when it lost it's franchise to London News Radio. The station we are listening to now is what the new London Newstalk station evolved into. In 1996, that station took on the LBC brand but it was just still the new station with the old name. There was also no station broadcasting under the LBC banner for about 2 years, so either way it's questionable whether LBC is really 40 years old.
I suppose you could argue that it isn't the same station that was owned by Reuters, ITN, Chrysalis, Global. Each one has put their own branding on the station. I think when Reuters owned the station they didn't have the copyright to use the LBC name.
However, all through these ownerships it has always been a newstalk station in one form or another.
Comments
Hmmm - that's not quite how it happened, though. LL was not riled by the caller at all, although I do accept that he didn't have much to say back to him. I think this may have been because the caller was actually in agreement with LL that, unless suitable alternative accommodation could be provided, no-one should be penalised by this policy. This meant that the bulk of what the caller was saying became academic, because he agreed that the alternatives were not out there.
Presumably they felt safe in allowing her to do so. Had she thrown an on-air hissy fit, she wouldn't be allowed back as cover for Vanessa.
LL did sound riled in my view. There were a couple of times at the start of the call where he pounced back on the caller with suppressed anger Nick Ferrari or JOB style, demanding answers. The guy came out with answers every time LL responded. I would say that although the caller agreed on the suitable accomodation aspect, most of his call was about putting LL right on the popular misconceptions he was spouting about the policy and educating LL further.
Jeni certainly threw a hissy-fit via her website when she was sacked by LBC. A regrettable incident that saw all sorts of accusations being made by her and her deluded and thoroughly unpleasant acolytes.
I suppose because it was so sudden. We don't know if she received any warnings beforehand.
There are not many you like during the week either!
Hi again
I can't agree with you about sounding riled. I don't think LL sounded any different from normal, but fair enough. I certainly don't think he acted like NF or JOB or 'pounced' on the caller.
As for putting LL right, the caller certainly gave an opinion, but I recall finding several flaws in what he said. So I can't agree that he corrected Larry, either.
The number of presenters who offer quality radio is ever decreasing and it really is time for some wholesale changes. Bull, Dale, Collins, Abbot, JHB, Allen and (I suppose) Ferrari can stay.
The Chiswick Socialist, Castle, Lamb, Hosken really need to be replaced as a matter of urgency.
Save our LBC.
followed by Emma 'the schoolma'm' Barnett, It really is a write-off on sundays now.
If that was the caller I heard Lamb had no answer as the bloke just calmly continued explaining the thinking behind the idea and why it wasn't working as it should, and agreeing it should have been better thought through, which made Lamb look like a dogmatist as he was just following his line of 'it's the evil government persecuting poor people full stop'.
The Sunday schedule is more or less unlistenable for the vast proportion of the time. Whoever is making these decisions is going from one disaster to another with Castle being well out of his depth. He is the blandest presenter since records began. Surely he can't last long?
I can understand when he started he may have been nervous but he can barely get the words out some of the time, which doesn't make very good radio in itself.
I think it was the same person.
The bit I'm struggling with is the whole 'Lamb had no answer' concept, because when you boil it down, there wasn't much they were disagreeing on.
The policy is a mess and it is punishing people, who have no way out of the problem. Painting Larry as a dogmatist here is just wrong, I feel. The caller's points that I found flawed were the ones about local govt having a vested interest in making central govt look bad, and therefore that they were purposefully mis-executing the policy. I don't think that's generally true.
I wonder if they are planning a special programme - who would you have presenting it?
If it was the man I think you are referring to I thought he was an articulate and intelligent caller who perhaps dug a bit deeper into the issue than Larry was able to grasp.
No offence to Larry who on the whole I quite like but he was just a bit out of his depth with this guy.
Susan Spence? Allan Dodgeon? Paul Savory? John Warrington? Steve Allen? The possibilities are endless....It'll no doubt be Larry 'The' Lamb or Andrew Castle...
It isn't unknown for local councils run by the opposition of whoever is in government at the time to implement policies they disagree with in a heavy handed manner and blame it all on central government because they came up with the policy in the first place. Of course it's in their party politial interest to get votes out of it if they think they can, and make the other side look bad as well. The days when local councils were free of party politics are pretty much long gone, unfortunately..
If it was the caller I am thinking of, he was just another apologist attempting to disingenuously excuse an abhorrent government policy. "There's nothing wrong with the policy - it's the way it's being implemented." What the hell does that mean? The policy is the policy and is being implemented as it stands, so why try to blame a third party (local authorities) for the mess? Have the bottle to call something as wrong whatever your political affiliation or whichever party is in power. Surely that's the way forward.
I wonder if you might have any examples? My own experience of local govt is that councillors have little or no knowledge about or influence over what happens, which is organised and implemented by the workforce.
You are thinking about the same man, yes.
Well if we are talking who has been with the station the longest then it has to be Clive Bull or Steve Allen.
However, the presenter that gets the top people onto his programme, Police Commander, Deputy PM, Mayor of London, plus trips to the States etc., it has to be Nick Ferrari. (High profile).
It would be great if they could get Douglas Cameron MBE back.
The first presenter was David Jessel and Ken Guy, the first newsreader.
I just don't agree with your assessment of the call at all. Mr Lamb isn't really there to have answers to every point put to him, he's there to get the best out of callers. I know presenters like Nick Ferrari seem to think every caller that doesn't agree with them should be beaten down, made to look stupid or be cut off early but that isn't Mr Lamb's style, and he is all the better for it.
I thought Mr Lamb allowed the caller to make his points, challenged him on them, gave him adequate air time develop his opinions and then moved on. The show is about giving people a voice, not a series of battles that Mr Lamb thinks he has to win with everyone that phones him.
Is LBC really 40 years old? I thought LBC ceased to exist in the early 1990s when it lost it's franchise to London News Radio. The station we are listening to now is what the new London Newstalk station evolved into. In 1996, that station took on the LBC brand but it was just still the new station with the old name. There was also no station broadcasting under the LBC banner for about 2 years, so either way it's questionable whether LBC is really 40 years old.
I suppose you could argue that it isn't the same station that was owned by Reuters, ITN, Chrysalis, Global. Each one has put their own branding on the station. I think when Reuters owned the station they didn't have the copyright to use the LBC name.
However, all through these ownerships it has always been a newstalk station in one form or another.