| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
|
BBC cuts: Times item today
|
BBC cuts: Times item today
On 23/03/2011 17:06, Bill Wright wrote:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/11023364/BBC%20cuts.jpg Bill I am hoping that they will not cut 'This Week' as suggested today in another newspaper. -- Michael Chare |
BBC cuts: Times item today
"Bill Wright" wrote in message ... http://dl.dropbox.com/u/11023364/BBC%20cuts.jpg Bill The first thing that should be done is for the BBC to stop paying to show the lottery. Either show it for free or allow another channel to show the bloody thing, but for the BBC to be paying to screen it is an abomination. The BBC needs to realise that it should not be competing with other channels for ratings by showing more and more rubbish, but using our money to produce and show progarmmes that are in the public interest, of public relevance and are those which won't be produced by the other channels. |
BBC cuts: Times item today
On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 18:10:35 -0000, "Doctor D"
wrote: The BBC needs to realise that it should not be competing with other channels for ratings by showing more and more rubbish, but using our money to produce and show progarmmes that are in the public interest, of public relevance and are those which won't be produced by the other channels. That is one point of view. Another is that the BBC has a duty to all licence fee payers to provide them with the material they want. When independent TV was introduced in the UK it was so that the new companies would provide competition for the BBC. That was the political justification for independent television. Such competition cannot exist if the BBC stops competing with the independent sector. -- Peter Duncanson (in uk.tech.digital-tv) |
BBC cuts: Times item today
On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 17:06:19 +0000, Bill Wright
wrote: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/11023364/BBC%20cuts.jpg A few comments: 1. If many potential viewers are asleep between 10.35 and 6 am and Question Time is a 'flagship show' then wtf is QT broadcast at 10.40? 2. The idea of transmitting HD programmes in the early hours makes sense but I thought that was what the HD channel did anyway. Maybe they mean merging BBC2 with BBC HD throught the night. I would have thought the savings there would be minimal. 3. What about simulcasting TV and radio? I have already written to Feedback to suggest that the tedious Broadcasting House on Radio 4 could be replace with the Andrew Marr Show soundtrack. 4. I assume there is no saving in transmission costs by shutting a channel when they are part of the same multiplex. I don't imagine there is much original programming shown through the night, so where are the savings? Is BBC3 or BBC4 at risk? |
BBC cuts: Times item today
On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 18:18:48 +0000, Peter Duncanson
wrote: On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 18:10:35 -0000, "Doctor D" wrote: The BBC needs to realise that it should not be competing with other channels for ratings by showing more and more rubbish, but using our money to produce and show progarmmes that are in the public interest, of public relevance and are those which won't be produced by the other channels. That is one point of view. Another is that the BBC has a duty to all licence fee payers to provide them with the material they want. When independent TV was introduced in the UK it was so that the new companies would provide competition for the BBC. That was the political justification for independent television. Such competition cannot exist if the BBC stops competing with the independent sector. Wtf should anyone pay to show the lottery. Surely the lottery needs the publicity more than the TV companies need the lottery. They should charge National Lottery a fee and whoever offers the lowest fee should show the lottery. That would be my idea of competition. |
BBC cuts: Times item today
On 23/03/2011 17:06, Bill Wright wrote:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/11023364/BBC%20cuts.jpg Bill Yeah, there was something similar in the Telegraph. TBH, I don't have a problem with some programmes being repeated on another channel later in the week -- I'm not a fan of iPlayer and I can't be arsed to connect my TV et al to the internet. I would however object to BBC2 becoming a part-time BBC News channel. IMHO, if the BBC needs to make cuts, get rid of BBC Parliament and BBC News. I think that their news coverage on BBC1/2/4 etc. is more than adequate -- BBC News was only launched as a spoiler to Sky News anyway. If push came to shove, get rid of BBC Three too -- that was supposed to fend-off the likes of E4, but as E4 shows largely dross nowadays there's not a lot to choose between them. I have watched a few programmes on BBC Three, but given the high number of repeats now there's more than enough free airtime on the other channels to take the few good programmes that do appear on BBC Three first, such as Being Human. Cut a few radio channels too, come to think of it. Clem |
BBC cuts: Times item today
On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 18:18:48 +0000, Peter Duncanson wrote:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 18:10:35 -0000, "Doctor D" wrote: The BBC needs to realise that it should not be competing with other channels for ratings by showing more and more rubbish, but using our money to produce and show progarmmes that are in the public interest, of public relevance and are those which won't be produced by the other channels. That is one point of view. Another is that the BBC has a duty to all licence fee payers to provide them with the material they want. When independent TV was introduced in the UK it was so that the new companies would provide competition for the BBC. That was the political justification for independent television. Such competition cannot exist if the BBC stops competing with the independent sector. If there is to be competition between the BBC and all the others it should at least be with the same conditions applying to all the "players". So they should all be subject to the same commercial pressures and have to abide by the same scheduling rules (i.e. gaps between and during programmes). -- http://thisreallyismyhost.99k.org/23...2433931774.php |
BBC cuts: Times item today
On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 18:54:29 +0000, Clem Dye wrote:
On 23/03/2011 17:06, Bill Wright wrote: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/11023364/BBC%20cuts.jpg Bill Yeah, there was something similar in the Telegraph. TBH, I don't have a problem with some programmes being repeated on another channel later in the week -- I'm not a fan of iPlayer and I can't be arsed to connect my TV et al to the internet. I would however object to BBC2 becoming a part-time BBC News channel. IMHO, if the BBC needs to make cuts, get rid of BBC Parliament and BBC News. I think that their news coverage on BBC1/2/4 etc. is more than adequate -- BBC News was only launched as a spoiler to Sky News anyway. If push came to shove, get rid of BBC Three too -- that was supposed to fend-off the likes of E4, but as E4 shows largely dross nowadays there's not a lot to choose between them. I have watched a few programmes on BBC Three, but given the high number of repeats now there's more than enough free airtime on the other channels to take the few good programmes that do appear on BBC Three first, such as Being Human. Cut a few radio channels too, come to think of it. I would certainly not support losing BBC News. The function of informing goes back to the days of Lord Reith. There may be some savings, such as using more automated output at off-peak times. News coverage is not 'more than adequate' through the night for example on other channels - and certainly not on holidays such as Christmas Day when the news virtually disappears from the main channels even though events continue to take place throughout the world (including places where there is not the same enthusiasm for celebrating Christmas). |
BBC cuts: Times item today
On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 18:18:48 +0000, Peter Duncanson
wrote: On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 18:10:35 -0000, "Doctor D" wrote: The BBC needs to realise that it should not be competing with other channels for ratings by showing more and more rubbish, but using our money to produce and show progarmmes that are in the public interest, of public relevance and are those which won't be produced by the other channels. That is one point of view. Another is that the BBC has a duty to all licence fee payers to provide them with the material they want. When independent TV was introduced in the UK it was so that the new companies would provide competition for the BBC. That was the political justification for independent television. Such competition cannot exist if the BBC stops competing with the independent sector. Come off it! That was 'one' of the arguments for ITV at the time. But a hell of a lot has changed in the past half century. |
BBC cuts: Times item today
"Scott" wrote in message ... On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 17:06:19 +0000, Bill Wright wrote: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/11023364/BBC%20cuts.jpg A few comments: 1. If many potential viewers are asleep between 10.35 and 6 am and Question Time is a 'flagship show' then wtf is QT broadcast at 10.40? 2. The idea of transmitting HD programmes in the early hours makes sense but I thought that was what the HD channel did anyway. Eh, how does showing HD programs overnight make sense when showing SD programs doesn't? Maybe they mean merging BBC2 with BBC HD throught the night. I would have thought the savings there would be minimal. As the broadcast standard is different how does this work? 4. I assume there is no saving in transmission costs by shutting a channel when they are part of the same multiplex. I don't imagine there is much original programming shown through the night, so where are the savings? That's what I was thinking Is this saving from transmission costs or program costs. I've just had a look at the overnight schedule and most of it is repeated programs or rolling news (presumably from News 24) so it deosn't seem very expensive to me Is BBC3 or BBC4 at risk? Dunno! tim |
BBC cuts: Times item today
On Wednesday, March 23rd, 2011 at 19:27:40h +0000, Charles wrote:
In article , J G Miller wrote: The BBC has a duty to "inform, educate, and entertain" by virtue of its charter; regretfully it doesn't. And what is your justification for that unsupported rebuttal? It clearly states at http://www.bbc.co.UK/aboutthebbc/purpose/ QUOTE Our mission To enrich people's lives with programmes and services that inform, educate and entertain. UNQUOTE This is based directly from the charter issued to the BBC by Brenda's command in 2006 QUOTE 5.How the BBC promotes its Public Purposes the BBC's mission to inform,educateand entertain (1)The BBC's main activities should be the promotion of its Public Purposes through theprovision of output which consists of information, education and entertainment ... UNQUOTE |
BBC cuts: Times item today
"Clem Dye" wrote in message ... On 23/03/2011 17:06, Bill Wright wrote: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/11023364/BBC%20cuts.jpg Bill Yeah, there was something similar in the Telegraph. TBH, I don't have a problem with some programmes being repeated on another channel later in the week -- I'm not a fan of iPlayer and I can't be arsed to connect my TV et al to the internet. I would however object to BBC2 becoming a part-time BBC News channel. IMHO, if the BBC needs to make cuts, get rid of BBC Parliament and BBC News. I think that their news coverage on BBC1/2/4 etc. is more than adequate -- BBC News was only launched as a spoiler to Sky News anyway. If push came to shove, get rid of BBC Three too -- that was supposed to fend-off the likes of E4, but as E4 shows largely dross nowadays there's not a lot to choose between them. I have watched a few programmes on BBC Three, but given the high number of repeats now there's more than enough free airtime on the other channels to take the few good programmes that do appear on BBC Three first, such as Being Human. Cut a few radio channels too, come to think of it. I've always thought [1] that the BBC should not be competing in the local radio market, but I suspect that the saving from this is minimal in the great scheme of things Tim [1] well after independent radio became established Clem |
BBC cuts: Times item today
In message on Wed, 23 Mar 2011 19:38:25 -0000
tim.... wrote: "Clem Dye" wrote in message ... On 23/03/2011 17:06, Bill Wright wrote: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/11023364/BBC%20cuts.jpg Bill Yeah, there was something similar in the Telegraph. TBH, I don't have a problem with some programmes being repeated on another channel later in the week -- I'm not a fan of iPlayer and I can't be arsed to connect my TV et al to the internet. I would however object to BBC2 becoming a part-time BBC News channel. IMHO, if the BBC needs to make cuts, get rid of BBC Parliament and BBC News. I think that their news coverage on BBC1/2/4 etc. is more than adequate -- BBC News was only launched as a spoiler to Sky News anyway. If push came to shove, get rid of BBC Three too -- that was supposed to fend-off the likes of E4, but as E4 shows largely dross nowadays there's not a lot to choose between them. I have watched a few programmes on BBC Three, but given the high number of repeats now there's more than enough free airtime on the other channels to take the few good programmes that do appear on BBC Three first, such as Being Human. Cut a few radio channels too, come to think of it. I've always thought [1] that the BBC should not be competing in the local radio market, but I suspect that the saving from this is minimal in the great scheme of things Tim [1] well after independent radio became established Clem I can't remember the precise figure but I'll think you'll find that all BBC local radio combined costs the licence payer less than 50 pence ... -- Terry |
BBC cuts: Times item today
On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 19:36:05 +0000 (UTC), J G Miller
wrote: On Wednesday, March 23rd, 2011 at 19:27:40h +0000, Charles wrote: In article , J G Miller wrote: The BBC has a duty to "inform, educate, and entertain" by virtue of its charter; regretfully it doesn't. And what is your justification for that unsupported rebuttal? It clearly states at http://www.bbc.co.UK/aboutthebbc/purpose/ QUOTE Our mission To enrich people's lives with programmes and services that inform, educate and entertain. UNQUOTE This is based directly from the charter issued to the BBC by Brenda's command in 2006 QUOTE 5.How the BBC promotes its Public Purposes the BBC's mission to inform,educateand entertain (1)The BBC's main activities should be the promotion of its Public Purposes through theprovision of output which consists of information, education and entertainment ... UNQUOTE Exactly. The BBC has a duty to provide output that entertains all licence payers, both high-brow and low-brow. -- Peter Duncanson (in uk.tech.digital-tv) |
BBC cuts: Times item today
On Wednesday, March 23rd, 2011 at 20:13:45h +0000, Peter Duncanson wrote:
The BBC has a duty to provide output that entertains all licence payers, both high-brow and low-brow. Which it does most effectively for the latter in the form of Eastenders, Casualty, The One Show, Homes Under the Hammer, Britain's Empty Homes, Cash in the Attic, Bargain Hunt, Escape to the Country, and "Would I Lie To You?" to name just a few examples. In fact, most of the schedule of BBC-1 network. |
BBC cuts: Times item today
|
BBC cuts: Times item today
In article ,
tim.... wrote: I've always thought [1] that the BBC should not be competing in the local radio market, but I suspect that the saving from this is minimal in the great scheme of things Tim [1] well after independent radio became established who is doing the competing? The BBC started local radio before the commercial stations appeared -- From KT24 Using a RISC OS computer running v5.16 |
BBC cuts: Times item today
On Wednesday, March 23rd, 2011 at 21:10:15h +0000, Charles explained:
The BBC started local radio before the commercial stations appeared Long before in fact: 2LO in the City of Westminster, 5IT in Birmingham, 2ZY in Manchester, 5WA in Caerdydd, and 5SC in Glasgow. But did these stations every carry commercials? |
BBC cuts: Times item today
charles wrote:
In article , tim.... wrote: I've always thought [1] that the BBC should not be competing in the local radio market, but I suspect that the saving from this is minimal in the great scheme of things Tim [1] well after independent radio became established who is doing the competing? The BBC started local radio before the commercial stations appeared BBC Local Radio generally was a dire peak hours only service listened to by few, (even after it was able to broadcast on MW from '72) until ILR came along and forced it to wake up. -- Mark Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply. www.paras.org.uk |
BBC cuts: Times item today
charles wrote:
who is doing the competing? The BBC started local radio before the commercial stations appeared And anyway BBC local radio doesn't compete in an real sense with local commercial stations. The audiences are very different and there isn't much overlap. Bill |
BBC cuts: Times item today
Mark Carver wrote:
BBC Local Radio generally was a dire peak hours only service listened to by few, (even after it was able to broadcast on MW from '72) until ILR came along and forced it to wake up. I wonder if funding increased at that time, with the Beeb realising that it needed to offer a half-decent service. Bill |
BBC cuts: Times item today
Bill Wright wrote:
charles wrote: who is doing the competing? The BBC started local radio before the commercial stations appeared And anyway BBC local radio doesn't compete in an real sense with local commercial stations. The audiences are very different and there isn't much overlap. Indeed so, but ILR in the 70s had a huge influence on it, and in some cites audience levels ended up neck and neck, but, as you say with little crossover. Radio Trent/BBC Nottingham and Radio City/BBC Merseyside are two prime examples, they kept each other on their toes, and the combined audience dwarfed that of the national stations in those areas. All been ****ed away now of course, the 1991 Broadcasting Act saw to that, and Mark Thomson appears to be constructing a coffin for BBC LR. -- Mark Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply. www.paras.org.uk |
BBC cuts: Times item today
I agree totally. When you have a limited pie, you have to try to divide it
up in the most efficient manner. The big problem of course is that the semi commercial arm of the BBC relies on selling some of its progs abroad. This does not include the lottery obviously, so the sooner this ends up on Ideal World the better. Brian -- Brian Gaff - Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff' in the display name may be lost. Blind user, so no pictures please! "Doctor D" wrote in message o.uk... "Bill Wright" wrote in message ... http://dl.dropbox.com/u/11023364/BBC%20cuts.jpg Bill The first thing that should be done is for the BBC to stop paying to show the lottery. Either show it for free or allow another channel to show the bloody thing, but for the BBC to be paying to screen it is an abomination. The BBC needs to realise that it should not be competing with other channels for ratings by showing more and more rubbish, but using our money to produce and show progarmmes that are in the public interest, of public relevance and are those which won't be produced by the other channels. |
BBC cuts: Times item today
Brian Gaff wrote:
Cut what, hint, jpgs are not textual. Given News International's pay wall, a text link isn't easy in this case without OCRing the scan of the physical newspaper ... |
BBC cuts: Times item today
On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 18:10:35 -0000, "Doctor D"
wrote: "Bill Wright" wrote in message ... http://dl.dropbox.com/u/11023364/BBC%20cuts.jpg Bill The first thing that should be done is for the BBC to stop paying to show the lottery. Either show it for free or allow another channel to show the bloody thing, but for the BBC to be paying to screen it is an abomination. That can't be right surely? The National lottery should be paying them. Perhaps I should go to the filling station and get them to pay me to fill up. The BBC needs to realise that it should not be competing with other channels for ratings by showing more and more rubbish, but using our money to produce and show progarmmes that are in the public interest, of public relevance and are those which won't be produced by the other channels. Hear hear. They don't need to compete with the commerical channels so why do they copy some of the most irritating techiques like DOGS, credit squeezing and my most hated one, advertising the next programme /during/ the previous one. If they really want to save money then they should scrap daytime TV. It's all sh*te anyway. Bring back OU programmes; at least people would learn something. -- (\__/) M. (='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and (")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking some articles posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by everyone you will need use a different method of posting. |
BBC cuts: Times item today
On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 00:43:06 +0000, Bill Wright
wrote: charles wrote: who is doing the competing? The BBC started local radio before the commercial stations appeared And anyway BBC local radio doesn't compete in an real sense with local commercial stations. The audiences are very different and there isn't much overlap. The BBC local radio station near here broadcasts exactly the same kind of crap as the commercial stations and you can hardly tell them apart - crap pop music and stupid DJs talking drivel. The only difference is the adverts. I would say they are in direct competition. -- (\__/) M. (='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and (")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking some articles posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by everyone you will need use a different method of posting. |
BBC cuts: Times item today
On 23/03/2011 18:10, Doctor D wrote:
"Bill Wright" wrote in message ... http://dl.dropbox.com/u/11023364/BBC%20cuts.jpg Bill The first thing that should be done is for the BBC to stop paying to show the lottery. Either show it for free or allow another channel to show the bloody thing, but for the BBC to be paying to screen it is an abomination. The BBC needs to realise that it should not be competing with other channels for ratings by showing more and more rubbish, but using our money to produce and show progarmmes that are in the public interest, of public relevance and are those which won't be produced by the other channels. Absolutely right, I couldn't agree with you more. They should NOT be in competition with others to show the best crap with public money. Don |
BBC cuts: Times item today
|
BBC cuts: Times item today
On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 07:25:47 -0000, "Brian Gaff"
wrote: Cut what, hint, jpgs are not textual. Here are the headline and the first two patagraphs: BBC could close TV channel at night in effort to make 20% licence-freeze cuts. The BBC is considering swingeing cuts to late-night programming on BBC One or BBC Two, which could lead to one of the channels going off air overnight, the corporation’s Director-General warned yesterday. Mark Thompson said that television programmes shown between 10.35pm and 6am, when many potential viewers are asleep, cost the broadcaster more than £150 million a year to produce. Endquote. The Daily Mail had a similar article about it at: http://tinyurl.com/6bnvz5u -- Peter Duncanson (in uk.tech.digital-tv) |
BBC cuts: Times item today
On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 07:15:28 +0000, Mark Carver wrote:
and Mark Thomson appears to be constructing a coffin for BBC LR. Do you think "there is something of the night about him"? |
BBC cuts: Times item today
On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 09:16:04 +0000, Mark wrote:
The BBC local radio station near here broadcasts exactly the same kind of crap as the commercial stations and you can hardly tell them apart - crap pop music and stupid DJs talking drivel. This latter point "talking drivel" is particularly noticeable during the breakfast time shows. At one time, BBC local radio produced informative, interesting, and relevant breakfast news programs. Now these shows consist almost entirely of a man and a woman making silly jokes about the fluff that was on TV the night before with no direct relevance to local current affairs. There was a time for example when BBC Radio Sheffield broadcast the proceedings of Sheffield City Council on a regular basis. Now local politics is almost completely ignored on BBC local radio stations. |
BBC cuts: Times item today
On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 20:34:32 +0000 (UTC), J G Miller
wrote: On Wednesday, March 23rd, 2011 at 20:13:45h +0000, Peter Duncanson wrote: The BBC has a duty to provide output that entertains all licence payers, both high-brow and low-brow. Which it does most effectively for the latter in the form of Eastenders, Casualty, The One Show, Homes Under the Hammer, Britain's Empty Homes, Cash in the Attic, Bargain Hunt, Escape to the Country, and "Would I Lie To You?" to name just a few examples. In fact, most of the schedule of BBC-1 network. Not to mention BBC3 programming for post-operative brain donors |
BBC cuts: Times item today
On Thursday, March 24th, 2011 at 14:58:29h +0000, Albert Ross wrote:
Not to mention BBC3 The digital TV station which is not afraid to try something new, and offers helpful and practical advice to those with social problems. Mondays at 21:00h, a show designed for those considering polygamy -- http://www.bbc.co.UK/programmes/b00z86ym Why polygamy -- the answer is in the title -- "women" plural not "a women" singular. Seems like Islamization by the back door, ne c'est pas? Who can possibly claim that the BBC does not actively engage in social engineering? |
BBC cuts: Times item today
J G Miller wrote:
On Wednesday, March 23rd, 2011 at 21:10:15h +0000, Charles explained: The BBC started local radio before the commercial stations appeared Long before in fact: 2LO in the City of Westminster, 5IT in Birmingham, 2ZY in Manchester, 5WA in Caerdydd, and 5SC in Glasgow. But did these stations every carry commercials? Did they have local programming or were they simply line fed from London? |
BBC cuts: Times item today
Brian Gaff wrote:
Cut what, hint, jpgs are not textual. Brian Sorry Brian. Tried to OCR it but for some reason it came out garbled. I think the scan was too poor, and of course I've lost the original now. Bill |
BBC cuts: Times item today
Mark wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 00:43:06 +0000, Bill Wright wrote: charles wrote: who is doing the competing? The BBC started local radio before the commercial stations appeared And anyway BBC local radio doesn't compete in an real sense with local commercial stations. The audiences are very different and there isn't much overlap. The BBC local radio station near here broadcasts exactly the same kind of crap as the commercial stations and you can hardly tell them apart - crap pop music and stupid DJs talking drivel. The only difference is the adverts. I would say they are in direct competition. That's interesting. BBC Sheffield broadcasts a lot of speech programmes which are spoilt by the fact they play pop music every now and then. Bill |
BBC cuts: Times item today
Brian Gaff wrote:
Cut what, hint, jpgs are not textual. http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011...ng?INTCMP=SRCH BugBear |
BBC cuts: Times item today
On Thursday, March 24th, 2011 at 17:05:55h +0000, Bill Wright wrote:
Did they have local programming They must have, because the BBC National Programme did not come into service until August 21st 1927, when 5GB Daventry came on the air. Admittedly these stations did become more regional in their outlook as their content was rebroadcast by daughter stations when these came on air eg 2FL Sheffield, 2LS Kingston-Upon-Hull, 2LV Liverpool carrying 2MT Manchester and ??? Edinburgh carrying 5SC Glasgow. Listeners in Aberdeen however were privileged to have their own locally produced material throughout the period from 2BD until the inception of the Scottish National Service inaugurated soon after the BBC National Programme came on the air. or were they simply line fed from London? From what I understand [corrections requested] "line feeding" did not happen until a long time afterwards, as the daughter stations rebroadcast their programs from their off air received signal. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:29 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HomeCinemaBanter.com