Little things that irritate you

[Dover KUMB fan]

Dirty inconsiderate c***s that allow their dog to s**t on the pavement.
Just got back to the office, & I'm sitting wondering where the horrible smell is coming from (It didnt smell like s**t to be honest) I finally look down , & see it in the tread of my boot. I then spend the next 10 minutes scrubbing it off in the sink!!!
I'd make the fecker eat it if I got hold of him!!!

[westham,eggyandchips]

Dirty inconsiderate c***s that allow their dog to s**t on the pavement.
Just got back to the office, & I'm sitting wondering where the horrible smell is coming from (It didnt smell like s**t to be honest) I finally look down , & see it in the tread of my boot. I then spend the next 10 minutes scrubbing it off in the sink!!!
I'd make the fecker eat it if I got hold of him!!!

Its only irritating when it happens to you.

Funny asfuck when someone else steps in dogshit!! :lol:

[Dover KUMB fan]

Glad it made someone happy!

[Dyl]

TBF, if nothing else, she's right in her evaluation of the importance of watching American Football.

Indeed
And only a short mental step from seeing that on the box, to thinking about the paint in the bathroom drying

People who don't appreciate the best sport in the world irritate me.


Next you'll be one of those who claim rugby players are better athletes!

[Hambrosia Stu]

People who don't appreciate the best sport in the world irritate me.


Next you'll be one of those who claim rugby players are better athletes!

I doubt you'll get many who don't appreciate the best sport in the world on a football forum
Football, that is. The beautiful game played with a ball and your feet, hence the name....

As for bugry, and that poncy foreign version with the girly shoulder pads, I try and avoid all that if possible, so wouldn't really know.

[Hambrosia Stu]

Its only irritating when it happens to you.

Funny asfuck when someone else steps in dogshit!!

Glad it made someone happy!

indeed....

That's actually one of my biggest little irritations in life.
People who rejoice in others misfortune

[fjthegrey]

That's the British way Stu. An overarching, national character trait specific to more people I know than any other.

Stiff upper lip, sarcasm etc, fall into insignificance.

[The Old Man of Storr]

Not a ' little thing ' , but quite a big thing that irritates me , is why we all pay our TV licence , and the BBC use our money to make rich people richer, as in ' Dancing On Ice ', ' Strictly Come Dancing ' , and fill our screens with game shows and reality rubbish or that mind numbing ' comedy / drama ' ,' Atlantis ' !!
You might as well forget tuning in on a Saturday , apart from MOTD , and even that is going down hill .

My favourite show on BBC is ' Doctors ' which is on in the afternoon when everyone is at work , it's a bit strange and surreal at times , but at least it's good.

I've given up on the evening stuff .

[Kludgehammer]

Indeed - not just the BBC but the whole of the media pay ludicrous amounts of money for on-screen "talent", and I just don't believe that they couldn't get the same quality of television for much, much less, or that there aren't 10,000 other people who could do what (say) Jonathan Ross or Adrian Chiles or Graham Norton, or 95% of the people fronting a show on any channel.

I think it's the same fallacy as says corporate execs and bankers have to have their pay accelerated so much over the last 10-20 years because there's an international competition for the top ones. Really? There are 20,000 executives who can all just f*** off at the drop of a hat and work anywhere, and there's no other people who could do their job, just as well, for a much saner multiple of their average employee's wage?

(maybe this rant should have gone into NUMB! But you started it!)

[the celestial insect]

Indeed - not just the BBC but the whole of the media pay ludicrous amounts of money for on-screen "talent", and I just don't believe that they couldn't get the same quality of television for much, much less, or that there aren't 10,000 other people who could do what (say) Jonathan Ross or Adrian Chiles or Graham Norton, or 95% of the people fronting a show on any channel.

I think it's the same fallacy as says corporate execs and bankers have to have their pay accelerated so much over the last 10-20 years because there's an international competition for the top ones. Really? There are 20,000 executives who can all just **** off at the drop of a hat and work anywhere, and there's no other people who could do their job, just as well, for a much saner multiple of their average employee's wage?

(maybe this rant should have gone into NUMB! But you started it!)

I couldn't agree with you more.

In both cases (celeb presenter types and CEOs), a known name carries a degree of cache, I'm sure. But when you boil it down to what they can actually do, few if any are unique.

[Estuary]

[
I think it's the same fallacy as says corporate execs and bankers have to have their pay accelerated so much over the last 10-20 years because there's an international competition for the top ones. Really? There are 20,000 executives who can all just **** off at the drop of a hat and work anywhere, and there's no other people who could do their job, just as well, for a much saner multiple of their average employee's wage?

(maybe this rant should have gone into NUMB! But you started it!)[/quote]

I couldn't agree with you more.

In both cases (celeb presenter types and CEOs), a known name carries a degree of cache, I'm sure. But when you boil it down to what they can actually do, few if any are unique.[/quote]

No exec or talent is indispensable, but organisations, especially the BBC get into a state of co-dependency with agents and talent which leads to the baffling situation we see there continually. Take the Danny Baker case, acknowledged as the greatest radio presenter of his age, in the week he was due to receive a lifetime achievement award from his peers the BBC via its London local radio station fired him. Else where in the dinosaur of an organisation it was spending hundreds of millions of our tax £'s moving a large potion of its operations to Salford, a move which hardly anyone in the organisation wanted, or could fully justify in face of such crass cuts. The point I make is what is it for, if not to bring us the best of what it can offer? In Bakers case a political point got made, in direct contravention of the whole point of the place.

Re cost. The value of talent is in the timing of the asking, Miranda Hart will be on truck loads, as will Graham Norton (who I rate as a talent), and Lee Mack, (who I don't). Personally I don't see what reason the BBC can justify in paying on screen presenters or "tied" stars huge long term salaries, other than "its what I charge so pay me that or I am off". Its not like the commercial sector will ignore the publics taste, and that these performers wont be there for the public to see if they want to. For me the BBC skew the cost of TV as a whole by using public money to compete with commercial organisations in areas that don't require public funding to get airtime. Shows like "Strictly" should be on a commercial channel, and what the f*** is "the voice"? Why is it on air when ITV have perfectly acceptable talent show in X Factor and Britain's Got Talent, yet the BBC try and compete with those shows, why? Who says they should? In effect is using public money to the disadvantage a commercial organisation, that is surely against the law, it is certainly in breach of EU completion rules as west Ham found out.
The BBC should commit more to developing both new and classic drama, broadening regional TV, including covering sport at a more junior level such as there is in the US, there should be much more coverage of local political news, and far far less of the kudos that is ratings chasing,. anyone with £3bilion to spend every year could get ratings.
The BBC is also a closed shop as far as commissioning drama is concerned, of the dozen or so new drama commissions three quarters will be put for tender to existing drama suppliers, and three will find their way out into the market for non-existing producers to supply, there are hundreds of production outfits chasing a potential commission, many very good. But the system that the BBC operate, which see's a large slice of commissioning budgets going to production companies set up by ex heads of BBC drama, is as near as dam it a closed shop, even to award winning producers, such as those of my height, weight and general description.
Finally it the BBC needs to really look to tackle the leftish bias that pervades every aspect of the organisation, but most notably its news and current affairs output, and that in its own internal report labelled it institutionally politically bias in favour of a left wing liberal agenda, and most damming, in a reactionary way.
Otherwise, its OK.

[the celestial insect]

Take the Danny Baker case, acknowledged as the greatest radio presenter of his age,

Acknowledged by whom though? It's highly subjective and I certainly don't place a great deal of value on the votes of his cronies or colleagues. I could probably find a fair few replacements among the cab drivers of London alone who could do what he does.

For me the BBC skew the cost of TV as a whole by using public money to compete with commercial organisations in areas that don't require public funding to get airtime. Shows like "Strictly" should be on a commercial channel, and what the **** is "the voice"? Why is it on air when ITV have perfectly acceptable talent show in X Factor and Britain's Got Talent, yet the BBC try and compete with those shows, why? .

Absolutely. The BBC has no business churning out soap operas and **** talent-cum-reality shows. Ratings should be irrelevant and, in an age of a million commercial channels, they should now be providing content that is in some way important or informative.

[White Goodman]

The best example of the BBC making rich people richer was those shows where they recruited a lead part for an imminent Lloyd Webber show in the West End.

Effectively, LLoyd Webber (net worth more than half a billion) got a non-household name, who became a household name during the period on which the show broadcast (probably meaning he could pay them less as they're just happy for the chance) AND more importantly used a publicly funded channel for free ****ing advertising for the show.

[hammerdivone]

Not a ' little thing ' , but quite a big thing that irritates me , is why we all pay our TV licence , and the BBC use our money to make rich people richer, as in ' Dancing On Ice ', ' Strictly Come Dancing ' , and fill our screens with game shows and reality rubbish or that mind numbing ' comedy / drama ' ,' Atlantis ' !!
You might as well forget tuning in on a Saturday , apart from MOTD , and even that is going down hill .

My favourite show on BBC is ' Doctors ' which is on in the afternoon when everyone is at work , it's a bit strange and surreal at times , but at least it's good.

I've given up on the evening stuff .

The thing is OMoS, MOTD pays the Premier league, which in turn gives the money to clubs, which in turns gives money to rich footballers and agents the sum of £180m, which is more than 20x what they have paid for the whole 11 series of Strictly.

My Daughter starred in Doctors once, sadly we're still 'poor'

[Estuary]

Acknowledged by whom though? It's highly subjective and I certainly don't place a great deal of value on the votes of his cronies or colleagues. I could probably find a fair few replacements among the cab drivers of London alone who could do what he does.

Not you clearly. Those who vote or judge the Sony awards are not all colleagues and cronies, and as you say, preference is subjective, the awards are their personal professional opinion, as well as my subjective critique.
But you make my point for me, undoubtedly you could find a cabbie or a bloke off Berwick St market who given the access could be just as entertaining, trouble is the BBC will not put them on the radio if they can give the gig to someone who will work to carry the internal polling needed to keep the good ole career on track, or maybe they are preferring to spend the licence fee on administrative infrastructure, or over paying severance to non performing executives over the financial and career ending cost of fostering an unheard of talent, but my money would be on the career safe option of giving a radio show to Miranda Hart, she's a girl for all seasons, How much, £500K? Done, its only other peoples money.

[Gormalysis]

I'll tell you what f*cking irritates me shall i ?

I'll be driving along at 45-50 mph and some twat pulls out in front of me causing me to brake fairly sharpish.

If that wasn't enough, they then proceed at 25 mph for the duration of their journey. If ever there's a legitimate case for road rage, that's got to be up there.

It's usually some old coffin dodger who looks like they've just been dug up (see my rant on old people)

This, a nice long back road with no other cars in front of you when Mavis pulls out of a side road and does 20 mph!

[Estuary]

Four coach trains on C2C rail on match day on the west bound line all day, and eight carriage trains on the east bound, with know one on them!!

[Hambrosia Stu]

Absolutely. The BBC has no business churning out soap operas and **** talent-cum-reality shows. Ratings should be irrelevant and, in an age of a million commercial channels, they should now be providing content that is in some way important or informative.

Whilst I personally agree, I do think there is an argument for the BBC producing programmes other than the purely factual.

I could make the same case about Top Gear, yet some would see that as a good use of BBC funds (as some would regarding 'stenders etc). There's no denying that Top Gear is head and shoulders above any programme of a similar nature. But whilst it may be mildly informative, it is essentially an entertainment show.
If what they are producing is entertainment, but is of a quality rarely found elsewhere, should that be outside the BBC's remit?
Personally I'd say no.
The BBC surely should cover all bases imo. To some degree at least. We all pay the licence fee, but all have different tastes.
To my mind, the issue isn't so much that the BBC shouldn't produce entertainment shows. But they should be of high quality, and shouldn't be it's major focus. A few decent entertainment programmes have always been part of it's remit, and I don't see that changing. But I do agree they should be few and far between, and it's focus should be on quality, and not viewing figures

In terms of what is important or informative, I'd have to say the BBC are just about the only broadcaster who produce anything worth watching in that field. Pretty much anything that is important or informative is on the BBC

[the celestial insect]

Whilst I personally agree, I do think there is an argument for the BBC producing programmes other than the purely factual.

It's subjective, but when I say 'important' I wouldn't necessarily restrict that to factual stuff. For example, quality drama and comedy is important, I think.

To my mind, the issue isn't so much that the BBC shouldn't produce entertainment shows. But they should be of high quality, and shouldn't be it's major focus. A few decent entertainment programmes have always been part of it's remit, and I don't see that changing. But I do agree they should be few and far between, and it's focus should be on quality, and not viewing figures

Yes, that's a better way of putting what I was trying to get at. Of course, there'll always be arguments about what constitutes 'quality', but I think what many seem to agree on is that they shouldn't be chasing ratings. That's probably the source of most of what's wrong.

[Estuary]

[Whilst I personally agree, I do think there is an argument for the BBC producing programmes other than the purely factual.

I could make the same case about Top Gear, yet some would see that as a good use of BBC funds (as some would regarding 'stenders etc). There's no denying that Top Gear is head and shoulders above any programme of a similar nature. But whilst it may be mildly informative, it is essentially an entertainment show.
If what they are producing is entertainment, but is of a quality rarely found elsewhere, should that be outside the BBC's remit?
Personally I'd say no.
The BBC surely should cover all bases imo. To some degree at least. We all pay the licence fee, but all have different tastes.
To my mind, the issue isn't so much that the BBC shouldn't produce entertainment shows. But they should be of high quality, and shouldn't be it's major focus. A few decent entertainment programmes have always been part of it's remit, and I don't see that changing. But I do agree they should be few and far between, and it's focus should be on quality, and not viewing figures

In terms of what is important or informative, I'd have to say the BBC are just about the only broadcaster who produce anything worth watching in that field. Pretty much anything that is important or informative is on the BBC[/quote]

that's a myth fella, without boring the pants of this forum with another massively tedious stream of blurtness, an example, Saville, and it was left to ITV to run that particular story, C4 are as investigative a news channel.
Also, you are missing my point by a country mile, I am not saying the BBC should not make entertainment shows, in fact I think they should make more sit com style ent shows, and even re invent sketch shows for the modern audience, but they should not be making soaps, game shows, audition based talent shows, nor should they be spending millions on hit US drama series that will find a ready audience on a commercial network. Panel shows, yes, music shows, yes, I love the proms stuff they do, but leave the ratings chasing to those who need it to pay the bills. To chase ratings to justify the licence fee is self serving and immoral, the fee being a tax felt hardest by those poorest.