MM
No, Design:CSI was correct. At the time that article was published, that was the BBC's intention. There's been a change of mind in the last few days. Fact - not supposition.
It did say on Design CSI that Forest wouldn't feature the 'oneness' tag. I assume it's because there are no people in the ident. By the looks of it, they were wrong about it being used seldomly.
No, Design:CSI was correct. At the time that article was published, that was the BBC's intention. There's been a change of mind in the last few days. Fact - not supposition.
RE
No, Design:CSI was correct. At the time that article was published, that was the BBC's intention. There's been a change of mind in the last few days. Fact - not supposition.
I concur with this - Forest was supposed to be for obit use until it was clear that the first two Oneness idents were unsuitable for a wide range of programmes, especially serious programming.
It did say on Design CSI that Forest wouldn't feature the 'oneness' tag. I assume it's because there are no people in the ident. By the looks of it, they were wrong about it being used seldomly.
No, Design:CSI was correct. At the time that article was published, that was the BBC's intention. There's been a change of mind in the last few days. Fact - not supposition.
I concur with this - Forest was supposed to be for obit use until it was clear that the first two Oneness idents were unsuitable for a wide range of programmes, especially serious programming.
WI
No, Design:CSI was correct. At the time that article was published, that was the BBC's intention. There's been a change of mind in the last few days. Fact - not supposition.
I concur with this - Forest was supposed to be for obit use until it was clear that the first two Oneness idents were unsuitable for a wide range of programmes, especially serious programming.
Plus, Forest is not place specific so is more suitable for Nations and regions.
It did say on Design CSI that Forest wouldn't feature the 'oneness' tag. I assume it's because there are no people in the ident. By the looks of it, they were wrong about it being used seldomly.
No, Design:CSI was correct. At the time that article was published, that was the BBC's intention. There's been a change of mind in the last few days. Fact - not supposition.
I concur with this - Forest was supposed to be for obit use until it was clear that the first two Oneness idents were unsuitable for a wide range of programmes, especially serious programming.
Plus, Forest is not place specific so is more suitable for Nations and regions.
SO
No, Design:CSI was correct. At the time that article was published, that was the BBC's intention. There's been a change of mind in the last few days. Fact - not supposition.
Fair enough. I don't see the point in idents being used solely for obits anyway, especially when there are few in the package.
It did say on Design CSI that Forest wouldn't feature the 'oneness' tag. I assume it's because there are no people in the ident. By the looks of it, they were wrong about it being used seldomly.
No, Design:CSI was correct. At the time that article was published, that was the BBC's intention. There's been a change of mind in the last few days. Fact - not supposition.
Fair enough. I don't see the point in idents being used solely for obits anyway, especially when there are few in the package.
LS
Lou Scannon
It did say on Design CSI that Forest wouldn't feature the 'oneness' tag.
I assume it's because there are no people in the ident.
Oh, aren't there?...
DP
D.Page
I know it isn't to a good standard but I can't devote the time required to get it any better. You get my drift, though, I'm sure 
:
:
UK
As Jim Royle might say - " my arse!"
Ah, come on! One person's hideous bum is another person's thing of beauty! I bet our bums are not lovely either! These people are just ordinary folk after all.
As Jim Royle might say - " my arse!"
:-(
A former member
Whats the deal with this??
:-(
A former member
Wait a min, thats a sting?
Only when you take a step back, do you see the full picture.
Only when you take a step back, do you see the full picture.