BBC News: Presenters & Rotas

If you were asking about the lights, or the rotas then I wouldn't have said anything.

You weren't looking at the lights, you were sizing up a presenter's tummy and speculating on her reproductive status.

What possible interest is that to you, or anyone on this forum? What possible relevance to the remit of this forum?

I think that level of prying and speculation is totally inappropriate - and I'll say so if I damned well choose.

You've obviously been on this forum for some time looking at your post count, and being honest, if they are much like the droppings you've made on this thread, I am thrilled to have never read any before.

Look Gavin, if you type the mere words (a) newsreader pregnant into google, a string of results will appear and low and behold from this forum - so YES, it is worthy of discussion, and YES, it has been going on for years dear.. Back in your box if you don't mind.

HEAR! HEAR!

I agree with BBC World's excellent summation of the Wilcox situation.

Jill Dando would be glad you agree.

Pair of stalkers.

And by the way, you creepy individual - you can type a whole lot of things into google and get a result - but that doesn't mean half of it is appropriate for a presentation forum.

Weirdo.

Oh that's good. I like that, well done.

I'm with Gavin on this one. Both he and I have been on this forum since 2001 when the primary aim was to discuss idents, titles, music, studios and graphics. During the past few years, several members have signed up (no names mentioned) who have dragged this forum down with their incessant discussion of presenters, rotas and pregnancies/maternity leave. I don't mind the odd discussion here and there of notable presenter changes, but I couldn't care less how many days per week Lucy Meacock has presented Granada Reports. It's boring, unnecessary and is, frankly, dragging this forum down. Why do you think so many of the original members have left? The answer - they can't stand wading through this ****. I really do think we need to have a back to basics approach here and return to the real meaning of TV Forum.

I thought you were a moderator and are moderators not meant to be neutral? And I do not like the use of **** - thank you very much!

In addition this thread is called ROTAS and PRESENTERS which to any idiot means that a discussion about the latter is acceptable, however trivial.

I was reprimanded by Bail for writing about rotas and presenters on the BBC WORLD NEWS PRESENTATION channel and told in no uncertain terms that I had to restrict my comments on rotas and presenters to the thread specifically designated for that purpose.

Therefore I cannot see why I should not be able to comment on ANYTHING I LIKE with regard to rotas and presenters on this thread.

I sense some hypocrisy here .

I've sensed some strong bias here too. Itsrobert is a puppet of the "Not wanting to wade through endless stalkerish drivel" brigade. LET ME JUST SAY THIS: The day we cannot discuss in explicit detail the daily movements and likely whereabouts of our best-loved local newscasters it will be political correctness gone mad.

HERE HERE.

for someone as obsessed with petty personal details as yourself you'd expect to have known that he retired as a mod many months ago.

oh and lets remember WHY you were reprimanded, because after being asked politely to post about rotas in this thread you insisted you could post where you like as nobody else talked back in here (ooh, i wonder why) and because you personally had not seen the long drawn out battle to get the damn threads split in the first place.

Once again I shall point out that this was a compromise for many of us who think this hideous and tedious cataloging of rotas should be banned. It's worthy of ntoe that Sky and ITV don't have presenter threads and therefore the exciting revamp of Sky news was RUINED by people demanding to know exactly why they couldn't keep their rotas to their satisfaction during half term week. I mean god forbid them having children and booking it as time off.