Yep - it's a James Bond send-up based loosely on Thunderball.
Bill Turnbull is the man himself, squaring up against Jeremy Bowen's stint as the evil villain. Kate Silverton, Natasha Kaplinsky and (if I remember rightly) Sophie Raworth make up the bevy of seductive Bond girls.
Well Sophie makes a return to the 6 o'clock news next Friday, because Natasha is obviously involved with Children in Need. Also Dermot is doing both the 6 and 10 on that day, so Fiona will not be taking part in this years Children in Need, unless it is prerecorded. Atleast with the Bond theme this year, Dermot should not have to hide behind the news desk, like Fiona has had to do in recent years and Michael Burke before her, after all we all know about the time Michael Burke had to do the 10 o'clock news in a leather mini skirt and a pair of fishnets.
Some particularly scathing comments about Natasha Kaplinsky
A slightly amusing read on the whole, even if I do find myself thinking its just one person having a go for the sake of it and that I do not agree with a lot of what has been written.
Some particularly scathing comments about Natasha Kaplinsky
A slightly amusing read on the whole, even if I do find myself thinking its just one person having a go for the sake of it and that I do not agree with a lot of what has been written.
what drivvel. sounds like one of those idiots who write in to newswatch to complain about the news people using their names when talking to one another.
Yes, it's just a horrible, bloated, pompous piece of 'journalism'. I'd say it was badly argued, but it's just not argued at all. The main thrust of the article seems to be 'They shouldn't do this, because
I don't like it'
.
The writer clearly just fancied having a go at a few people who she didn't like on TV, and thought if she included the word 'mucilaginous', people might think she was being high-brow.
Personally, this reply to the article summed up my opinions.
"Slow news day I guess.
Posted by John Walker on November 8, 2006 2:20 PM"
I was slightly taken aback by the sheer venom in Jan Moir's article.
What's slightly short sighted is not the vain and rather arrogant attempts to criticise a whole news operation, it is the link between Fiona Bruce and John Simpson, two esteemed and respected broadcasters who, quite vividly in John Simpson's 'A Mad World', avoid the cult of celebrity.
John goes at length to illustrate the "newsreader with no concept of events on the ground.. merely someone at the end of a line".
The whole article smacks of a BBC attack, veiled within the constraints of some form of social response to celebrity. "the joyless prospect of watching Sophie Raworth", "vampiric John Simpson at bay" and "inherent lameness of the news team's". It seems a confused concept, yes, attack the rise of 'newstainment' or even the performances on Children In Need, incidentally only one night every two years, but what it really lacked was an analysis of BBC News and if you're going to so viciously attack the operation surely it would be worthy of an actual analysis of the programmes instead of the rather simplistic version offered by Moir. Has she not seen the continuing, and rather exhaustive, reporting of Saddam's execution verdict and the recent US elections?
Whilst it's hardly surprising to see the Telegraph attack a public funded service I would rather agree with a previous poster, when the job at the Mail up for offer?
