anoilyrag, I really do value your contributions and they're very much appreciated, but why post a short string of words when a proper sentence would give away the same information? Would it really cause any problems for you to say "They're returning to studio 5"?
I guess it makes it seem more dramatic when leaking info.
anoilyrag, I really do value your contributions and they're very much appreciated, but why post a short string of words when a proper sentence would give away the same information? Would it really cause any problems for you to say "They're returning to studio 5"?
I guess it makes it seem more dramatic when leaking info.
What do you want - a press release?!
Thank you anoilyrag for the information you have provided and participating in the forum.
Thank you anoilyrag for the information you have provided and participating in the forum.
Don't say that as if I haven't already said how appreciative I am of the information! I already acknowledged that, and I have done so previously. Just in my opinion there's no reason it couldn't be worded in full sentence form and actually take part in the discussion further.
If indeed the launch is April 28th, it gives just over a month. In that time Susanna could leave breakfast, if she hasn't already. Studio 5 idea seems to make sense? As studio 3 has the current daybreak/lorraine set in. For all we know the new set could be in construction, graphics etc being finalised. Or, this so called insider could be feeding a load of rubbish, to get people off the track. Although, if they're launching a new breakfast show i thought there would be some advertising by now. I may be wrong, but i have a gut feeling they will officially announced details sometime within the next two weeks. Presumably the lorraine show will stay in studio 3 with the daybreak set removed. Pure speculation, although most plausible imo.
While I welcome the enthusiasm of people who don't work in the industry, the reason anoilyrag can't divulge specific details about his place of work is the same reason I can't divulge specific details about mine (a competitor of his, by the way) - because it would violate the confidentiality of a whole set of decisions that probably haven't even fully been made yet and would cost whoever did let the cat out of the bag their job.
The same applies if you work in any public-facing company or organisation, TV-related or otherwise. Simple as that.
Good point Skygeek, I expect anoilyrag is taking advantage of a clause in his contract that means he can post what he likes to a public forum as long as he doesn't use complete sentences. Post "Return to studio 5" and they can't touch you. Add as little as a full stop to the end and you are likely to be asked to clear your desk. Of course, people outside of the industry just don't understand that. I don't think anyone outside of the television industry even have contracts of employment, do they?
I think she is staying in Salford. There is an article in the Mirror stating she's spilt from her boyfriend because of her work commitments. He's now on Match.com.
While I welcome the enthusiasm of people who don't work in the industry, the reason anoilyrag can't divulge specific details about his place of work is the same reason I can't divulge specific details about mine (a competitor of his, by the way) - because it would violate the confidentiality of a whole set of decisions that probably haven't even fully been made yet and would cost whoever did let the cat out of the bag their job.
I agree with all of that, but I don't see why there is a need for any information to be given in disjointed sentences when proper sentences could be used, and no more information given away. Like I said adds to the mystery of it all I guess.
While I welcome the enthusiasm of people who don't work in the industry, the reason anoilyrag can't divulge specific details about his place of work is the same reason I can't divulge specific details about mine (a competitor of his, by the way) - because it would violate the confidentiality of a whole set of decisions that probably haven't even fully been made yet and would cost whoever did let the cat out of the bag their job.
I agree with all of that, but I don't see why there is a need for any information to be given in disjointed sentences when proper sentences could be used, and no more information given away. Like I said adds to the mystery of it all I guess.
Because a cryptic clue is a cryptic clue, and a full sentence is probably grounds for disciplinary action (or worse).