He was a complete asshole as a politician but he makes a rather good television presenter.
I happened to be working at a newspaper office the night of the 1997 General Election and there was an enormous cheer when the news came through that he'd lost his (supposedly safe) seat in Southgate.
I doubt whether it will make any difference. The name Snowden will just be remembered with all the other traitors like Philby, Burgess, MacLean etc.
Talking of which, Storyville screened a documentary last night on George Blake; "Masterspy of Moscow"
He said he was doing God's work on earth, but betrayed his colleagues to the KGB. Sentenced to 42 years in jail, George Blake escaped from Wormwood Scrubs five years later and fled to the Soviet Union. George Carey's film follows the strange life of this enigmatic traitor, tracking down people who knew him, and ending with an unexpected encounter in the woods outside Moscow.
Didn't think it was that lightweight, thought all the murders and hangings was quite gruesome for 6.30pm!
By lightweight I was meaning skimmed the surface of the subject matter. Probably used wrong word. Superficial may have been better. Mind you that is all it is supposed to be. If folks want to know more they can find out.
Don't suppose they'll reveal any important stuff, such as 'how many paedophiles does it take to run a government?'
But I suppose the idea is 'give the masses meaningless tidbits and they'll not bother with the important stuff.'
Michael Portillo unearths documents from the National Archives revealing the secret files of Britain's last hangman, the private letters sent to Sherlock Holmes and the hidden history of Dr Crippen.
Yeah they're distracting the 'masses' on BBC Two at 6:30 of weekday.
You're obviously onto the Government and the BBC's little game here.
There's always UK Confidential on Radio 4, though, a few episodes still sitting on the server, use get_iplayer and you can download and listen at your leisure. 30/12/14 for example. Martha Kearney reviews today's release of secret government files from the mid 1980s.
Martha is joined in the studio by key political players from the time - Defence Secretary Lord (Michael) Heseltine, Shadow Chancellor Lord (Roy) Hattersley, Margaret Thatcher's private secretary Lord (Charles) Powell, and Channel 4 Political Correspondent Elinor Goodman.
As an aside he was trying to bash people up a couple of weeks back when his program that was part of the BBC Two's Violence season got another airing.
I found him trying to get busy with the Boxing gloves amusing anyway
Just watched my recording, the 'setup' from the titles and intro is a bit 'strong' and overselling the importance of contents if you ask me and resulted in a 'oh do calm down' from me.
Not sure what, if any, of this was actually Secret or just something from the Archives.
Interesting 'enough' if you've got nothing better to do, I'll carry on watching repeats of the Dog Whisperer on Pick
Don't suppose they'll reveal any important stuff, such as 'how many paedophiles does it take to run a government?'
But I suppose the idea is 'give the masses meaningless tidbits and they'll not bother with the important stuff.'
That's what I was intimating before, all the best secrets will be locked away for many decades after they were kept secret initially. We'll get some lame stuff that could fit into any crime documentary.
Also why is Portillo's name put in the title of the program?
That's what I was intimating before, all the best secrets will be locked away for many decades after they were kept secret initially. We'll get some lame stuff that could fit into any crime documentary.
Also why is Portillo's name put in the title of the program?
I've mentioned this many times.
When any network believes that the name of the presenter (some actually knowing sod-all about the subject) needs to be in the title of the programme, to get people to watch it, (with some notable exceptions) then the contents won't be actually up to much.
I've nothing against Portillo, his railway programmes are quite good, but this?
When any network believes that the name of the presenter (some actually knowing sod-all about the subject) needs to be in the title of the programme, to get people to watch it, (with some notable exceptions) then the contents won't be actually up to much.
I've nothing against Portillo, his railway programmes are quite good, but this?
Wasn't worth the effort of watching.
A presenters name is in the title so the target audience gets a clue what it might be like. The idea being if you liked a previous show of theirs you might like this one. A presenter's name doesn't make people watch rubbish, if that's what it is. They might watch it once, but if it's bad they won't watch whoever's name is in the title. So the idea it's a sign of desperation, to get people to watch rubbish, makes no sense.
Portillo's name is in his railway programmes too. They should be dire if your theory was correct. The problem is, it's not much of a guide to quality if it doesn't always apply. Clearly Portillo's name is on this one to get people to think it will be similarly interesting and informative. The railway journeys dig out interesting and little know historical facts. Sadly this show doesn't. His name being in the title of drivel like this devalues his "brand", so it's not in his interest that it is really.
A presenters name is in the title so the target audience gets a clue what it might be like. The idea being if you liked a previous show of theirs you might like this one. A presenter's name doesn't make people watch rubbish, if that's what it is. They might watch it once, but if it's bad they won't watch whoever's name is in the title. So the idea it's a sign of desperation, to get people to watch rubbish, makes no sense.
Portillo's name is in his railway programmes too. They should be dire if your theory was correct. The problem is, it's not much of a guide to quality if it doesn't always apply. Clearly Portillo's name is on this one to get people to think it will be similarly interesting and informative. The railway journeys dig out interesting and little know historical facts. Sadly this show doesn't. His name being in the title of drivel like this devalues his "brand", so it's not in his interest that it is really.
Try properly reading my post before rushing into print.
I said a few "notable exceptions"
So I didn't say they were all "dire," did I?
Perhaps my idea of a quality documentary differs from yours, anyway.
I don't have a problem with that.
"A presenters name is in the title so the audience get's a clue what it's like?"
As most of those with names in the title often present a diverse selection of programmes, that makes no sense.
Some people want to come on here and argue for the sake of arguing.
Try properly reading my post before rushing into print.
I said a few "notable exceptions"
So I didn't say they were all "dire," did I?
Perhaps my idea of a quality documentary differs from yours, anyway.
I don't have a problem with that.
"A presenters name is in the title so the audience get's a clue what it's like?"
As most of those with names in the title often present a diverse selection of programmes, that makes no sense.
Some people want to come on here and argue for the sake of arguing.
Doh!
You're going to turn this into 'Points of View thread Mk2', aren't you?
As soon as I saw post #13 (the one where you proclaimed that this series will not reveal anything of interest - before Episode 1 had even aired) it was painfully obvious you would then diss it. And so it proved.
You've now said you won't be watching the remaining episodes. So I confidently predict that you'll pop up after each one, slagging it off (exactly as you do with PoV - which you also claim not to watch).
You're going to turn this into 'Points of View thread Mk2', aren't you?
As soon as I saw post #13 (the one where you proclaimed that this series will not reveal anything of interest - before Episode 1 had even aired) it was painfully obvious you would then diss it. And so it proved.
You've now said you won't be watching the remaining episodes. So I confidently predict that you'll pop up after each one, slagging it off (exactly as you do with PoV - which you also claim not to watch).
Tedious in the extreme.
I find it even more tedious that you seem particularly interested in my opinions, when I've absolutely no interest in yours, or is that really the problem?
I really don't mind whether you like a programme or not, why should it make any difference to me?
You really do like to dish it out to other people, but aren't very good at taking it back.
I made no reference to you when I posted about this programme.
I suggested that there would be little of "secrets" to be discovered and why I thought that and the first episode proved my point. Others concur, but like me don't feel the need to have a go at other people, a far more adult attitude.
Save us from people who feel it their "duty" to attack posters who "diss" programmes they like.
You've had your two penn'oth now try scrolling down and give everyone a break.
Don't quote my posts in that manner and I won't respond. It's that simple.
I didn't realise there was any doubt about us competing in the Berlin Olympics. We continued to play football against Germany until 1938, and our players were made to give the Nazi salute when we played them
Stan Cullis ( later Wolves Manager) refused to salute and as dropped >:(
I've always found Michael Portillo's programmes to be entertaining and interesting,whether it be politics,trains or state secrets.Pity its not hourly and on later,then it could be after the watershed and even more interesting.
I am sure that either the Russians will get bored of him one day and he will either be deported or just disappear. If not then he will get bored of life there, previous spies who escaped to the USSR seem to have had very sad lives there.
Comments
I happened to be working at a newspaper office the night of the 1997 General Election and there was an enormous cheer when the news came through that he'd lost his (supposedly safe) seat in Southgate.
Didn't think it was that lightweight, thought all the murders and hangings was quite gruesome for 6.30pm!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b05nyyd9/storyville-20142015-22-masterspy-of-moscow-george-blake
By lightweight I was meaning skimmed the surface of the subject matter. Probably used wrong word. Superficial may have been better. Mind you that is all it is supposed to be. If folks want to know more they can find out.
But I suppose the idea is 'give the masses meaningless tidbits and they'll not bother with the important stuff.'
Michael Portillo unearths documents from the National Archives revealing the secret files of Britain's last hangman, the private letters sent to Sherlock Holmes and the hidden history of Dr Crippen.
Yeah they're distracting the 'masses' on BBC Two at 6:30 of weekday.
You're obviously onto the Government and the BBC's little game here.
There's always UK Confidential on Radio 4, though, a few episodes still sitting on the server, use get_iplayer and you can download and listen at your leisure.
30/12/14 for example.
Martha Kearney reviews today's release of secret government files from the mid 1980s.
Martha is joined in the studio by key political players from the time - Defence Secretary Lord (Michael) Heseltine, Shadow Chancellor Lord (Roy) Hattersley, Margaret Thatcher's private secretary Lord (Charles) Powell, and Channel 4 Political Correspondent Elinor Goodman.
Edit: Podcasts are available.
As an aside he was trying to bash people up a couple of weeks back when his program that was part of the BBC Two's Violence season got another airing.
I found him trying to get busy with the Boxing gloves amusing anyway
As you were, back to pastel chap being pastel
I was really impressed.....
With the "dramatic" background music, that is, I fully expected to see Jason Bourne at any moment, but we only got "Mr Bland."
Ruth Ellis?
Nothing new there, it's been done to death.
Crippin?
Likewise.
Sherlock Holmes?
"Help me out here," where was there any "State Secret?"
This was pitched at the level of "The One Show."
Perhaps that wasn't the original intention, but the reason why it ended up in the particular schedule slot.
I won't bother with it any more. But I'm sure some liked it.
Not sure what, if any, of this was actually Secret or just something from the Archives.
Interesting 'enough' if you've got nothing better to do, I'll carry on watching repeats of the Dog Whisperer on Pick
That's what I was intimating before, all the best secrets will be locked away for many decades after they were kept secret initially. We'll get some lame stuff that could fit into any crime documentary.
Also why is Portillo's name put in the title of the program?
I've mentioned this many times.
When any network believes that the name of the presenter (some actually knowing sod-all about the subject) needs to be in the title of the programme, to get people to watch it, (with some notable exceptions) then the contents won't be actually up to much.
I've nothing against Portillo, his railway programmes are quite good, but this?
Wasn't worth the effort of watching.
Portillo, on the other hand, hasn't revealed any secrets, state or otherwise, in this show.
Henry VIII's shopping list, might possibly have just been declassified
Got to be some interesting snippets in there, not sure I can be ar$ed watching it to find out though.
I'm watching Dog Whisperer repeats.
A presenters name is in the title so the target audience gets a clue what it might be like. The idea being if you liked a previous show of theirs you might like this one. A presenter's name doesn't make people watch rubbish, if that's what it is. They might watch it once, but if it's bad they won't watch whoever's name is in the title. So the idea it's a sign of desperation, to get people to watch rubbish, makes no sense.
Portillo's name is in his railway programmes too. They should be dire if your theory was correct. The problem is, it's not much of a guide to quality if it doesn't always apply. Clearly Portillo's name is on this one to get people to think it will be similarly interesting and informative. The railway journeys dig out interesting and little know historical facts. Sadly this show doesn't. His name being in the title of drivel like this devalues his "brand", so it's not in his interest that it is really.
Try properly reading my post before rushing into print.
I said a few "notable exceptions"
So I didn't say they were all "dire," did I?
Perhaps my idea of a quality documentary differs from yours, anyway.
I don't have a problem with that.
"A presenters name is in the title so the audience get's a clue what it's like?"
As most of those with names in the title often present a diverse selection of programmes, that makes no sense.
Some people want to come on here and argue for the sake of arguing.
Doh!
You're going to turn this into 'Points of View thread Mk2', aren't you?
As soon as I saw post #13 (the one where you proclaimed that this series will not reveal anything of interest - before Episode 1 had even aired) it was painfully obvious you would then diss it. And so it proved.
You've now said you won't be watching the remaining episodes. So I confidently predict that you'll pop up after each one, slagging it off (exactly as you do with PoV - which you also claim not to watch).
Tedious in the extreme.
I find it even more tedious that you seem particularly interested in my opinions, when I've absolutely no interest in yours, or is that really the problem?
I really don't mind whether you like a programme or not, why should it make any difference to me?
You really do like to dish it out to other people, but aren't very good at taking it back.
I made no reference to you when I posted about this programme.
I suggested that there would be little of "secrets" to be discovered and why I thought that and the first episode proved my point. Others concur, but like me don't feel the need to have a go at other people, a far more adult attitude.
Save us from people who feel it their "duty" to attack posters who "diss" programmes they like.
You've had your two penn'oth now try scrolling down and give everyone a break.
Don't quote my posts in that manner and I won't respond. It's that simple.
Hopefully no more Sherlock Holmes type 'secrets' ... can't be doing with that.
He's a traitor.
I am sure that either the Russians will get bored of him one day and he will either be deported or just disappear. If not then he will get bored of life there, previous spies who escaped to the USSR seem to have had very sad lives there.