You make the point of post 349 admirably.

Simply out of curiosity, would you feel the same if the sport was rescheduled to catch up live with the potato digging contest - answers on a postcard please to BBC Television.........

Now I wonder whose opinion the BBC gives more credence to; the millions who tune in to the crown jewels sporting events, or the hundreds of saddos who actually waste a fraction of their life complaining through the official channels?

Tennis, crown jewels, do me a favour. The beeb give us wall to wall tennis because they can't afford to compete with the likes of Sky for other sports rights. It's a game for multi-millionaires, wake up smell the coffee. It was even mentioned last night on the beeb how tennis has failed the grass roots game.

Trying to justify a position simply on numbers is hardly a winning argument.

Most popular pastime in the UK - reading, followed by angling and gardening.

All those pastimes are under represented on the BBC - surely we should have lots of programmes on those Crown Jewels to bring the country together? Just a thought.

You

Common sense....

and me

which was perfectly correct at the time I wrote it.

No but thats because the other programmes were far less important . None would have warranted pulling Wimbledon coverage and if they had the complaints would have been huge.
Sport over running and interfering with scheduled programmes has been going on for decades . Its live so there is nothing you can do about . You'll have to live with it .
If your cancelled programme is not a repeat it will be shown the following week

Actually it wins the argument hands down.
I don't know what your programmes were but unless they would have got 20 million viewers the BBC were 100% correct to cancel them

No, you have misunderstood what I was saying. Because something is populist doesn't make the argument right i.e. trying to justify an argument on numbers isn't the way to do things.

As I said earlier, reading is the most popular pastime in the UK. If the BBC had said we are now leaving the tennis and going live to a programme about books do you think you would have been putting forward the same argument, honestly?

...and there was me thinking democrasy was the basis of our civilisation.

No because books are not tv programmes.
The Tennis and your series are both tv programmes . SO when the choice is one of two of the same product then majority rule is all that matters.

The BBC is there to serve the licence fee payer . More licence fee payers would have complained had the tennis been taken off for your programmes that will be aired next week.
Live programmes will always take preference by their very nature.
I despise football and while it pisses me off when my programmes get delayed or cancelled because of extra time I whinge but I don't have any kind of valid argument for taking a live game off air .My programmes WILL appear as they are recorded

Of course books are not TV programmes, but a programme about books is, which was my point.

So if a group of people get together and decide to carry out a distasteful act then as it is being carried out on a numbers basis that makes it OK does it?

You are confusing Apples with Pears.

A group of people (the British public) elected the current government. Even our current leaders admit that they have had to carry out some distasteful acts.

A group of people (the British public) selected to watch a tennis game, and you found it distasteful.

I am confusing the British public with the British public how exactly?

[BTW I do think this not the arena for a political or electoral systems discussion and that we may have strayed a tad 'off topic']

On the event of a technical problem or a journalists strike, the scheduled 'News' programme is replaced with an edition of 'Meet the Author'.
Is Faust happy? Discuss.

Ah but a majority of the British people did not elect this government, not by a long chalk. Similarly a marjority of the British public did not watch a tennis match.

What's your point?

Different scenario, your analogy is a bad one.

That they are similar. Thank you.
Unlike apples and pears and you stating I was confused about fruit.

Maybe. I just wondered what you would think about that scenario.

Actually, the point you originally made was that the majority of people watching tv object when the BBC cancels its scheduled programmes when sport overruns. The fact that over 70% of the population who were viewing TV at the time were watching the tennis on Sunday shows that you are wrong. The other 35 million of the population who were not watching TV at all, clearly couldn't give a fig either way (or were working, young children, etc).

You really are an obstinate, deluded individual. I really feel quite sorry for you.

Firstly I thought that your point was very amusing and secondly it's a bloody great argument, people like reading books so why not have a TV programme with people reading books.

Can't wait for the BBC programme just filming people with their noses in paperbacks, they could of course liven it up with a few e-readers etc and turn the studio lights up really bright to piss off those using tablets.

That should keep many millions glued to their TV screens.


I suppose if reviewing books was a popular activity for the general public they could have a show with people reviewing books ! (actually I think they do that already) Probably a good idea but I can't see it being as popular as Wimbledon.

I never said any such thing? I said according to POV it's one of the biggest complaints they get - not really the same is it? Apology accepted. I love your breakdown of those not watching. How you arrived at this is anyone's guess. How do you know if the majority of those watching were children or not, they could have been.

Anyway you continue to enjoy your rich mans sport, it should cheer you up knowing you're contributing to their bank balance.

I assume your criticism is directed at the players in that sense, so I would be interested in learning of any sport, any at all these days, where that could not be applied. So in a sense that is to denigrate all sports. While I think you are right to be concerned at the ridiculous earnings of sports stars, your position appears to be that all sport is worthless. Shout that out in any sports bar during the football/cricket/rugby (you name it) season and be prepared to run for your life. Or are you simply piqued that your favourite pgms got set aside for sport?
BTW... I never watch any sport other than tennis, football and most others leaves me cold, but I respect others devotion to their particular enjoyment. PVRs were invented for exactly this. After all, the 1000S "brings a smile to your face every time you switch it on".

Tiddlywinks Faust ?

Cheap to play and I've heard the prize money is really shit, enjoy......

I used to be actively involved in Athletics then of all things Motorcycle racing. However that was as a participant, I'm not into armchair sports. I'm also not one of those who lives my life in the reflected glory of what happens on a Saturday afternoon.

For that reason I dislike all sport on TV. Stop watching and start doing has always been my motto.

Ah yes, Faust when faced with uncomfortable truths always resorts to patronising BS. Your reputation goes before you.