Psssst. Don't tell the Bride, but BBC Three is about to be jilted

BBC Three fans seeking their fix of that ugly phenomenon chillingly known as factual entertainment will soon only be able to watch programmes commissioned for that channel on the iPlayer, Auntie has said. The Corporation confirmed rumours on Wednesday that suggested that BBC Three would be axed from our telly screens. It's …

[Uncle Slacky]

And nothing of value was lost...

See title.

[Andrew Moore]

Re: And nothing of value was lost...

Indeed. I'm trying to rack my brain over when I last watched the channel. It was probably for a Doctor Who or Merlin catch-up.

[Anonymous Coward]

When I last watched the channel

For me it was Mongrels, and then season 2 appeared, sigh...

As most of my viewing is BBC iPlayer I shall continue to not watch or download content linked to this channel.

.

[Chris Miller]

Re: And nothing of value was lost...

Bluestone 42 (just started series 2) - brilliant (on so many levels). Although I agree that 99% of it is crap (but then 90% of everything is crap).

[NogginTheNog]

Re: And nothing of value was lost...

Just because YOU'RE not entertained by something doesn't necessarily mean it's crap.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: And nothing of value was lost...

Judge for yourself....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=qK945FI979c

Borderline NSFW. It's the sort of thing that you'd find on BBC Three during an evening....

[djack]

Re: And nothing of value was lost...

I disagree, there has been a fair amount of good stuff on BBC Three. As well as those other examples that started on the channel Being Human and The Revolution Will Be televised spring to mind.

I don't think that there has been anything on TV recently that has called out the hipocrisy, corruption and double-dealing in the governemt and large commercial entities.

That said, they could easily fit all of thequality programmes and new experimental stuff on BBC 1 and 2 by cutting down on the number of repeats and examining the synopsis of the shows they have. If the word 'reality' appears in there, then chop the programme. Simple.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: And nothing of value was lost...

do we get a reduction in their tax now then?

[mafoo]

You troll, you

Russell Howard good news? That alone justifies the channel :P

[Jason Bloomberg]

Re: And nothing of value was lost...

Tonight's viewing ...

19:00 - 20:00 Total Wipeout

20:00 - 21:00 Don't Tell the Bride

21:00 - 22:00 Festivals, Sex & Suspicious Parents

22:00 - 22:30 Ja'mie: Private School Girl

22:30 - 23:00 Bad Education

23:00 - 23:25 Family Guy

23:25 - 23:45 Family Guy

23:45 - 00:10 American Dad!

00:10 - 01:10 Festivals, Sex & Suspicious Parents

01:10 - 01:35 Ja'mie: Private School Girl

01:35 - 02:05 Pramface

02:05 - 03:05 Hair

03:05 - 03:30 Great Movie Mistakes

03:30 - 04:00 Pramface

There's been some very good stuff but these days it seems to be endless repeats, mundane tat and mostly crap. I'm above their target audience (16-34) so perhaps I just don't get it any more. But then I wasn't in their target audience when I thought it was good. It won't, for me, be much of a loss to see it go if it stays as it is now.

[teebie]

Re: And nothing of value was lost...

There's a few shows in there I really enjoy, interspersed with a large amount of feculence. If someone saw me watch BBC3 for a whole night they'd probably think I was a frequently bemused manic depressive.

[WonkoTheSane]

Backdoor fundraising?

Perhaps the Beeb are doing this to make a TV license necessary for using the interwebs.

[Mad Mike]

Re: Backdoor fundraising?

You already do if it's in real time. iPlayer doesn't require it, but realtime streaming already does. How they monitor and control it is another matter however!!

[Mattjimf]

"The BBC, which broke the BBC story, reported that the BBC will make an official statement about the BBC on Thursday on the BBC."

I think you could have got a few more BBC into that sentence.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hah... still, it will make room in these 52p TV guides for another crappy sudoku

[Anonymous Coward]

really?

I was going to complement them on the number of BBCs they stuffed into that sentence.

Cheers, ladies and gentlemen!

[Anonymous C0ward]

Re: really?

As long as they used protection.

[Anonymous Coward]

You're new here I guess?

[Norman Hartnell]

Little Britain...

...first aired on Radio 4 actually.

[Havin_it]

Re: Little Britain...

I think in this instance they were using "aired" as an abbreviation of "anyone cared".

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Little Britain...

Just like Mighty Boosh - but after that they needed a platform to see if a TV version would work. This is what BBC Three is for, to take risks with programming. some stuff will be rubbish, but then you'll get a few gems like Mighty Boosh. Bad Education isn't awful compared to the last series of Outnumbered as an example.

The money being saved (£30 million allegedly) isn't being directed at comedy either - its BBC One Drama (which I read as "Eastenders")and a BBC One + 1 service... Just what the licence fee payers wanted......

Surely if ANYTHING should be ditched in exchange for an online only version, it's +1 services!

[David Austin]

Not Necessarily Bad

I'm in the supposed target audience for BBC, but Radio 4 gets my leisure time. The programming on BBC3 is of little interest to me.

However, this could be a great opportunity: If they do genuinely move BBC3 to an iPlayer only channel as opposed to just not doing that kind of content anymore, they don't have to worry about filling up dead airtime with anything they can, and focus on a smaller, higher quality output.

The target audience of BBC3 has a huge overlap with the people that have the time, money, and technical ability to use an online viewing platform (And probably spend a good chunk of their leisure time on a computer/smartphone anyway), so it could be a great test platform for nailing on-demand viewing across a multitude of platforms, as I think everyone's in agreement that Over The Air live broadcasting will have a reduced roll going forward. I think we're a long way off even thinking about shutting down the Digital TV Platforms, but it never helps to look into future-proofing....

[Fibbles]

Re: Not Necessarily Bad

As has been pointed out elsewhere, even if BBC3 goes online only:

- The BBC will still be paying to produce BBC3 content.

- The BBC will essentially be paying for an empty channel since BBC3 simply takes over from CBBC in the evening.

Where are the savings supposed to come from?

[Pete 2]

Re: Not Necessarily Bad

> As has been pointed out elsewhere, even if BBC3 goes online only

And how will the BBC justify having a channel (SD/HD? never watched it, can't say) and a primo slot in the EPG lying used during TV prime time?

That sounds even more wasteful than broadcasting crap on BBC3 - even if it does save them a little money.

[Mattjimf]

Re: Not Necessarily Bad

The follow-up story that will hit the site in a few hours will most likely be a rehash of this - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-26464007 where they are talking about a BBC1+1 and extending CBBC.

The BBC 1+1 is presumably to shoe-horn the Eastenders repeats that will be going with BBC 3.

It does also make it seem a bit pointless introducing the BBC3 HD channel at the end of last year.

[Paw Bokenfohr]

Re: Not Necessarily Bad

@ David Austin: "I think everyone's in agreement that Over The Air live broadcasting will have a reduced roll going forward"

That's what they thought about FM 20 years ago too.

There's a lot to be said about a broadcast platform which means that everyone no matter where they are in the country and no matter what their income level and broadband availability is, can get a basic set of services for nominal cost (the cost of the TV nowadays with FreeView and FreeSat being built in).

Personally, I'd prefer if the bandwidth was used for OTA data where everyone had a PVR type device and all the programming was delivered as data. You could still have schedules - the box would manage that, and you get the benefit of not having to broadcast anything 2, 3, 4, or 10 times for the repeats. Considering how cheap storage is now, you could surely store a weeks worth of FreeView on a PVR?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Not Necessarily Bad

Bandwidth is the problem with this idea. The target audience is distributed throughout the country...

That and iPlayers ("HD" in large quotes) picture quality isn't a patch on over the air.

If they'd let your download at broadcast quality however - I'd be more accepting - even having to wait over night to download a 30 min program.

[Longrod_von_Hugendong]

Crapola...

I do like to watch American Dad and Family guy on BBC3 - great because no adverts. Wish SWMBO would not watch soaps, this is the only reason why we have a TV License

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahhhh BBC3

....ITV2 without the adverts.

[MrT]

The difference between BBC3 and ITV2...

...can be neatly summed up just by watching their respective 1-minute news summaries. BBC3 is professional and presented in a way that assumes the viewer is adult (despite it being followed by shite like that dire single-joke cross-dress Ja'mie import). ITV2 is all "Hiya!" "Awright" bezzie-mate style, presented by chatty truck-stop barmaids.

[d4rkside]

I honestly cannot remember the last time I watched anything on the BBC as a whole I do enjoy family guy however I buy the DVD box sets to get the non censored versions.

I quit cable/and sat TV for the same reason and never looked back.

I do however enjoy paying the TV license so that my wife may continue to watch coronation street -_-

[Anonymous Coward]

How much does..

tripe like Strictly Come Dancing, The Voice, Eastenders, Dr Who cost to make?

For that they could keep BBC3, BBC4 and bring back Formula One to the BBC...

If I come across the director general in a wine bar, I'm gonna chin him...

[Phil O'Sophical]

Re: How much does..

tripe like Strictly Come Dancing, The Voice, Eastenders, Dr Who cost to make?

A lot less than they earn by selling them abroad.

[Fibbles]

Re: How much does..

Do any of those programmes apart from Dr Who actually have a foreign audience?

Add to that list News 24. It's the same 5 minutes of news repeated all day at a cost of £50+ million per year. There are already regular news updates on the main BBC channels.

[Gene Cash]

Re: How much does..

Well, when BBC America shows things, they cram in 20%[1] ads, so things like Top Gear lose entire segments. As a result I torrent it anyway.

[1] People started *seriously* bitching and they started showing Top Gear in its entirety, plus ads, and so it ran an hour and 20 minutes.

[Martipar]

Re: How much does..

20% of 60 != 20 minutes 20 minutes is 1/3 of an hour

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: How much does..

Top gear is on netflix for $5/month

More old top gear is on UK netflix = $5/month for a VPN

New top gear is on iPlayer + $5/month for a VPN

[Sartori]

Re: How much does..

They do get a lot from selling their TV abroad, The Voice however isn't a BBC original unlike the rest as they pay a stupid amount of money out each year to broadcast it -

"The BBC has splashed out an astonishing £22million on a reality entertainment show to take on The X Factor in the Saturday night ratings war.

BBC1 controller Danny Cohen signed a two-year deal to secure the UK rights for The Voice, which is already a success in the U.S. and Holland.

The cost to the Corporation is likely to be ramped up still further as it looks to sign up a big-name judging panel."

[Kristian Walsh]

Repeats...

A BBC repeat channel would actually be very useful for people who get BBC but don't have good enough internet access for iPlayer (yes, there are. A lot.). Especially in conjunction with a PVR/Satellite box that does series linking.

Or, in other words, you might thing BBC does lots of repeats, but they don't: the "another chance to see" stuff is now shunted to iPlayer. What they do do, and what this won't change, is string out popular properties like Come Dancing into endless spinoff and side shows that clog the schedules, but they're not repeats, just repetitive.

I can't remember last time I watched Three, but BBC Four (TV) accounts for about 50% of my TV consumption, so long may it continue.

[The Original Steve]

Re: Repeats...

"Especially in conjunction with a PVR/Satellite box that does series linking."

Maybe I'm missing something, but if you have a STB that does series linking and recording why do you need it repeated?

[HipposRule]

Re: Repeats...

I'm having that issue where I need things repeating - there were a couple of weeks where there were 4 simultaneous things I wanted to record at 9pm. Luckily one was repeated and 1 was available on iPlayer.

[Kristian Walsh]

Re: Repeats...

"Maybe I'm missing something, but if you have a STB that does series linking and recording why do you need it repeated?"

The comment below yours is one reason (too many simultaneous programmes, which is another problem with broadcasters - everything worth watching is on against everything else worth watching).

The other situation, that I really had in mind, is when you stumble upon a series at episode 4, discover that it's actually really good, but now you can't find episode 1,2,3 repeated anywhere. A "Catch-up" broadcast, even late at night, would be very handy for this situation, especially as TV producers are so in love with series-long story arcs these days.

[MrXavia]

Re: It started on BBC2

If they just put all their content on iPlayer, forget repeating shows, then BBC3 & 4 would not be needed.

I've enjoyed documentaries on BBC4 & comedy on BBC3, but I now barely watch BBC2, which used to have loads of great stuff on..

Often I find at night I have 50 channels but nothing to watch...

On demand is the way forward, but Broadcast TV is still important.

[andy gibson]

Re: It started on BBC2

I certainly remember watching "edgy" comedy of The Young Ones first time round on BBC2. Same with Red Dwarf, HIGNIFY and many other shows. Didn't Armstrong & Miller and the two Peep Show lads have their sketch shows on BBC2?

[Anonymous Coward]

The target audience for BBC3 is teenagers

And since they don't generally pay the license fee then its just tough luck. The BBC spends enough money on kids and adolescents already with CBBC , Radio 1, 1 xtra etc. Its time the money was spent on something more worthwhile. The kids can just go surf Myface or Booboo or whatever this week flavour of the month social loser site is and leave us adults to watch the telly.

[Fibbles]

Re: The target audience for BBC3 is teenagers

And when those kids who have never bothered with the BBC grow up, why would they suddenly decide to start watching and pay the license fee?

You won't be around forever. The BBC need to get new viewers somehow.

[M7S]

Where will the savings be made?

"will soon only be able to watch programmes commissioned for that channel on the iPlayer"

There's been plenty of repeats on BBC3 recently, my little one is currently catching up on Dr. Who that I felt he was too young for a couple of years ago. It will be a shame if those go off air as I prefer him to see them on the freeview+ recorder than give him access to the PC, but I digress.

If the programmes commissioned for that channel continue to be made so that they can be seen on the iPlayer, as I infer from the quote above, there will be the ongoing production costs. The rest is just repeat fees ("residuals"?) which I assume apply regardless of the method of transmission and which might for some programmes increase as it is possible to tell how many people watch the more popular ones, and some incidental expenses for the off-screen continuity announcers.

Thus it would appear to my relatively uneducated eye that the only real saving is the cost of transmission. Assuming that Auntie is not selling of part of the multiplex, and IIRC earlier in the day that slot is used by one of the (younger, natch) children's channels, then apart from the electricity bill for the transmitters what is being saved.

Or have I misread this?

[John Brown (no body)]

Re: Where will the savings be made?

then apart from the electricity bill for the transmitters what is being saved."

The transmission network is operated by Arquiva, so yes, the rental fee for the multiplex slot is the main saiving quoted in the story. As an online/on-demand only channel, there will be no need to buy in imports to fill a schedule on a multiplex which they pay £millions per year for.

The freeing up of that multiplex slot will inititially be a loss on Arquivas books but I'm sure they are already touting that spare capacity around now for a commercial or subscription channel. It's a spare slot at peak viewing hours too.

Other annual savings will be the EPG fees for listing the channel which are nothing to be sneezed at either.

[Anonymous Coward]

BBC Director General Tony Hall confessed last week that "tough choices" would have to be made to plug a £100m hole in the Corporation's finances.

And this is the best idea they could come up with?

No ideas about creating an online globally available subscription channel?

£3 pound a month for unlimited access to previous BBC programs say?

Maybe something like the "BBC Boxset" channel, where Doctor who fans could while away days watching all the old episodes.

[Kristian Walsh]

The idea of a "BBC Netflix" is quite tempting, but it would destroy DVD and foreign syndication sales income.

[MrXavia]

Globally online is a good idea, but at the very least it should be £5/Month, the license fee is much higher than that, I would even go so far as to say license payers should have to register an account using their license number to get access, but then give full access to back catalogue.

[Anonymous Coward]

Globally online is a good idea, but at the very least it should be £5/Month

Hmmm I think they'd need to spend sometime seriously considering the price, price it to high and many people in many countries won't subscribe because it becomes an amount which is far to much for them annually, price it to low and they'll get limited returns on it.

I pitched it at £3 because I suspect Netflix have done some amount of reserach to set their monthly price and arrived at that being a price consumers are willing to bear, but I'm only guessing, maybe it should be more than that.

[HipposRule]

re subscription channel

I'd happily pay a small fee to have BBC World - at least the news on it (before BBC Breakfast) is actually news and not a dressed up promotion engine for an actor's latest film/novelist's latest book/musician's latest album.

[Androgynous Cupboard]

Monkey Dust

For that effort alone BBC3 should be lauded to the heavens for all eternity.

Mongrels was also a gem, although boo for axing it. Yes, I watched season 2. It was still good.

[Werner Heisenberg]

Re: Monkey Dust

Loved Monkey Dust. The Peadofinder General rings even truer now than it did then, what with Operation YouWereOnTellyInTheSeventies being in full flight.

And yet, despite being an absolute gem, they only ever bothered to release the first series of Monkey Dust on DVD. Some of the S2 and S3 episodes turned up on iTunes though.

Go figure...

[Eponymous Cowherd]

BBC 3

Aimed at an audience with a mental age somewhere between Cbeebies and CBBC.

[Steve Davies 3]

Re: BBC 3

About the same as the average 'Red Top' reader then?

Mines the one with a copy of Plato in the pocket.

[Tom 7]

Re: BBC 3

Plato - that a greek giant doughnut shop?

[Chris Miller]

The DG speaks

When you've only got £3.6bn annual licence fee income, tough choices must be made. This saving could only otherwise be achieved by sacking my personal chef.

[Pen-y-gors]

Re: The DG speaks

To be fair, the BBC seem to produce a hell of a lot more quality material (even ignoring BBC3) for £3.6bn than say, Sky do with a turnover of £7.2bn

[Chris Miller]

Re: The DG speaks

The vast majority of Sky's budget is spent on sport. I'll bet they have only a fraction as many managers as the BBC.

[Davie Dee]

Blar blar blar, cost cutting nonsence,

How about this, stop paying the Americans a colossal amount of money to air terrible TV like "The voice"

They cut F1 and shafted its viewers for that crappy TV show, I wonder what other crap they will import when they axe BBC3,

[TheProf]

Kill off BBC3

And that's where we find the space for a mooted BBC1+.

Or the BBC could merge BBC3, CBBC, CBeebies and BBC Parliament and keep all the loud shouting confined to one channel.

[Only me!]

Re: Kill off BBC3

I think you will find they would have to put part of BBC1 in there to.... Have you ever turned on the TV and heard the mindless shouting on EastEnders?

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: Kill off BBC3

Some CGI to overlay tellytuby costumes on MPs and parliament channel could be watchable.

[Chz]

Re: Kill off BBC3

More "In The Night Garden" than Teletubbies. Cameron is a dead ringer for Iggle Piggle.

[dogged]

Kill off CBeebies?

A year ago I might have upvoted you.

Not any more. CBeebies is that last hope of the end-of-tether dad attempting to cope after work with a supercharged 11 month old baby who wants to get in the oven while you're trying to cook his dinner because the mrs is on nightshift.

Now granted, the mere fact of knowing that Sir Derek Jacobi is singing the Iggle Piggle song is enough to make my soul scream but not so loudly that I won't take the welcome distraction it offers my horrible spawn.

[TheProf]

VFM

Actually, looking at the BBC's figures, does anyone think that BBC2 is worth almost 5 times what BBC3 costs? Or BBC1 12 times?

[ElNumbre]

Family Guy

I'll be interested to see what happens to Family Guy - it appears that it's not allowed on iPlayer, so I assume Auntie will either punt it onto BBC Two or give up the rights to it.

There's very little else on BBC Three I watch; Russell Howard's Good News and Bluestone 42 are really the other exceptions. And I'm in their target audience range. BBC Four however has some very good content, provided you enjoy being educated rather than being exposed to real life or actor peoples shouting at each other.

[Spoonsinger]

Re: Family Guy

Agree. It'll be interesting to see what happens to Family Guy & American Dad - they are the only things I watch on Three. However as most of the funny references in those programmes probably arn't picked up by the target audience because of their age, it could probably be slotted to four.

[jason 7]

Thank You BBC Three

But I have watched every episode of Family Guy 19 times. Your job is done.

[akeane]

PINGU

I am fortunate enough to not have to pay the "fee" as I left the UK many moons ago.

Sadly the dodgy satellite feed coming into akeane towers now contains 3 BBC channels...

BB1: Unwatchable unless you like James Martin

BB2: Unwatchable unless you like James Martin

CBEEBIES: PINGU!!! Twice a day

So, of the entire BBC output I can receive the only things I can watch are PINGU (YAY!!!) or James Martin

(Don't get me wrong J.M. is somewhat tolerable until his chubby cheeky grin starts to become Richard Herring-ish, but he is never off the telly, ever...)

But ... PINGU

Now, time for bed so I can dream about Pingu and I teaming up with General Kroell to defeat the wicked James Martin and his evil schemes...

[Anonymous Custard]

Re: PINGU

Be careful or he'll set his missus onto you. Ready steady cook'd Pingu...

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Am I getting old ?

I automatically assume anything on TV is going to be dummed down to the point of painfullness. When was the last time Horizon was watchable compared to "In Our Time"?

About the last time TV compared to Radio4 was the port of Absolute Power.

Although a TV version of Cabin Pressure or Hut33 shouldn't be too expensive

[Anonymous Coward]

They are at it again. Salami tactics. 1. It's okay kids, it's not really being axed, it's on line. You kids like things on computers and the like. 2. Wait 12-18 months. 3. Sorry kids, viewing figures are pants. Where did we put that axe?

[mickey mouse the fith]

Meh

Family Guy, American Dad, Russell Howard and bad education are the only things worth watching on bbc3 anyway, and the first two are just the same old episodes looped again and again, so no loss there really.

That bluestone army thing was embarrassingly bad as is most of the channels output (who the fuck watches gavin and stacey and thinks its funny, or even entertaining?).

And to those moaning about the bbc giving up formula 1, good riddance, after cricket, its probably the most tedious `sport` to watch. Id rather my licence fee went on something that didnt send me to sleep.

[DPWDC]

Re: Meh

Thing is... You've listed 4 programs there that are worth a watch.

I can't name that many on BBC 1 or BBC 2...

[Grease Monkey]

Once upon a time there was some quality original programming on the channel, but there has been a steady decline.

When I look at the budgets for the various BBC channels I just can't see where Three has been spending that much money compared to the rest.

[Andrew Jones 2]

So... well I don't know where to start.

1) We are in the middle (well more like at the start really) of the rather enormous task of upgrading a good proportion of the UK to broadband speeds that are actually fast enough to use BBC iPlayer.

2) Unlike other parts of the world, quite a lot of UK broadband contracts are still capped at a download limit.

3) The BBC streaming infrastructure is already creaking at the seams, I can't actually remember the last time we successfully managed to watch an entire programme with no buffering or - even worse - no apparent buffering but after about 15 minutes suddenly being told "you have insufficient bandwidth to stream this programme". I know there are those of you out there who don't have a problem with BBC iPlayer, but I know loads of people who do. (Meanwhile Netflix can deliver 2 HD streams to us at the same time without a problem)

So apart from the points above, I wonder if the BBC are planning to subsidise broadband connections for those of us who will have to pay extra for going over the download limit? Maybe the BBC can convince ISPs to not count traffic to iPlayer as part of the download allowance?

[Dave Bell]

I have reason to suspect that there are ISPs in the UK that do not have adequate backhaul capacity for the growing demand for video streaming.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think they've shown great initiative in switching it over to digital media.

Wait a minute ... initiative ... digital media ... Digital Media Initiative ... must save £85 million.

It all makes sense now.

[Chz]

While it's true that BBC3 is pretty dire, I think the same can be said of 1 and 2 which have several times the budget for their shows. BBC3 probably represents fairly good value for money given that, on average, they've turned out one good show a year over their lifetime. BBC1 would need to turn out 12 good shows a year to be the same value for money, and it sure as hell doesn't do that!

That being said, there's no reason whatsoever they can't can a few repeats and put the entire home-made schedule of 3 onto 1 and 2. Strip the repeats and the imports and 3 only has a couple of hours' programming.

Ah well, I'll fondly remember them for:

Monkey Dust, My Life in Film, Bad Education, Pulling, Being Human, Mongrels, The Fades, Nighty Night, Pramface (well, the first season), and The Mighty Boosh. Little Britain wasn't half bad at first too, but that sort of thing wears thin extraordinarily quickly.

[billat29]

Licence fee ploy

The licence fee is up for renegotiation and the great and the good have been putting their oar in on how to preserve their nice fat income stream.

They have already seen the opportunity with iPlayer. You don't need a licence for catch up and so they are looking at ways to extend the reach of the licence fee.

So we close BBC3, put original content online and then the distinction between catch up vs live TV starts to blur.

Are those the bells of cash registers I hear?

[dogged]

Comment thread as informative tool

I'm amazed, actually.

I'd never have dreamed that people would consider Russell Howard worth watching.

[teebie]

Repeats

Wasn't this story around a while ago, just with a slightly bigger number? And a while before that with a still bigger number and the word radio?

BBC4 and Radio 6 are still around. I suspect Little Lord Fondleboys will still have a place to Badly Educate or the foreseeable future.