So the Radio 4 Wallahs were sitting around in the "Oh Christ, how are we 
going to pad out Monday morning" meeting when someone said "What the R4 
listener really yearns for is a programme about Muslim Wimmin going 
Fishing."  Nobody hooted with derision, in fact someone proffered "Well if 
they don't actually want it they ought to have it because it's good for 
them."

So they did some audience research and people said they'd never actually 
thought much about Muslim Wimmin Fishing, and they discivered it was a topic 
that needed to be promoted up the national agenda. And they
broadcast the programme. To hoots of derision.

Oxymel of Squill wrote:

> So they did some audience research and people said they'd never actually 
> thought much about Muslim Wimmin Fishing, and they discivered it was a topic 
> that needed to be promoted up the national agenda. And they
> broadcast the programme. To hoots of derision.
> 

I agree it's beyond parody. I've never heard anything quite so absurd.

Oxymel of Squill wrote:

> So the Radio 4 Wallahs were sitting around in the "Oh Christ, how are we
> going to pad out Monday morning" meeting when someone said "What the R4
> listener really yearns for is a programme about Muslim Wimmin going
> Fishing."  Nobody hooted with derision, in fact someone proffered "Well if
> they don't actually want it they ought to have it because it's good for
> them."
>
> So they did some audience research and people said they'd never actually
> thought much about Muslim Wimmin Fishing, and they discivered it was a topic
> that needed to be promoted up the national agenda. And they
> broadcast the programme. To hoots of derision.

The vibrant Muslim female piscatorial community is a scandalously
under-addressed strand of the R4 listenership community. You reveal
your hideously stale pale maleness by objecting to a tiny attempt to
overturn decades -- nay, centuries -- of nigh-on genocidal neglect and
oppression of this community. Remember the Holocaust!

turnitup goes:

>Oxymel of Squill wrote:

>> So they did some audience research and people said they'd never actually 
>> thought much about Muslim Wimmin Fishing, and they discivered it was a topic 
>> that needed to be promoted up the national agenda. And they
>> broadcast the programme. To hoots of derision.

>I agree it's beyond parody. I've never heard anything quite so absurd.

Why is it absurd? Should the BBC decide there are certain things not
to be covered? What things? How would that decision be made? 

Does cricket count? 


-- 
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com

Oxymel of Squill goes:

>So the Radio 4 Wallahs were sitting around in the "Oh Christ, how are we 
>going to pad out Monday morning" meeting when someone said "What the R4 
>listener really yearns for is a programme about Muslim Wimmin going 
>Fishing."  Nobody hooted with derision, in fact someone proffered "Well if 
>they don't actually want it they ought to have it because it's good for 
>them."

>So they did some audience research and people said they'd never actually 
>thought much about Muslim Wimmin Fishing, and they discivered it was a topic 
>that needed to be promoted up the national agenda. And they
>broadcast the programme. To hoots of derision.

Hoot. Singular. 


-- 
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com

Alan Hope wrote:
> 
> turnitup goes:
> 
> >Oxymel of Squill wrote:
> 
> >> So they did some audience research and people said they'd never actually
> >> thought much about Muslim Wimmin Fishing, and they discivered it was a topic
> >> that needed to be promoted up the national agenda. And they
> >> broadcast the programme. To hoots of derision.
> 
> >I agree it's beyond parody. I've never heard anything quite so absurd.
> 
> Why is it absurd? Should the BBC decide there are certain things not
> to be covered? What things? How would that decision be made?
> 
> Does cricket count?

One can imagine someone suggesting that a programme about fishing be
made; after all fishing is the most popular sport in terms of number of
participants(*).  A commissioning editor said yes just so long as it was
made *relevant*.  The Muslim women connection made sure that it was
relevant--relevant, that is, to the BBC.

(* At least so I heard a few years ago.)

-- 
Remove "antispam" and ".invalid" for e-mail address.
"He that giveth to the poor lendeth to the Lord, and shall be repaid," 
said Mrs Fairchild, hastily slipping a shilling into the poor woman's
hand.

Frederick Williams goes:

>Alan Hope wrote:
>> turnitup goes:
>> >Oxymel of Squill wrote:
 
>> >> So they did some audience research and people said they'd never actually
>> >> thought much about Muslim Wimmin Fishing, and they discivered it was a topic
>> >> that needed to be promoted up the national agenda. And they
>> >> broadcast the programme. To hoots of derision.
 
>> >I agree it's beyond parody. I've never heard anything quite so absurd.
 
>> Why is it absurd? Should the BBC decide there are certain things not
>> to be covered? What things? How would that decision be made?
 
>> Does cricket count?

>One can imagine someone suggesting that a programme about fishing be
>made; after all fishing is the most popular sport in terms of number of
>participants(*).  A commissioning editor said yes just so long as it was
>made *relevant*.  The Muslim women connection made sure that it was
>relevant--relevant, that is, to the BBC.

That's not what happened, though, is it? 

>(* At least so I heard a few years ago.)

So the question remains, if Muslim women's fishing is an actual
activity, why should the BBC not cover it in some way? Is it because
they're Muslims? Or because they're women? Or perhaps both? 

Just explain what's absurd about it, please. 


-- 
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com

Alan Hope wrote:

> Frederick Williams goes:
>
> >Alan Hope wrote:
> >> turnitup goes:
> >> >Oxymel of Squill wrote:
>
> >> >> So they did some audience research and people said they'd never actually
> >> >> thought much about Muslim Wimmin Fishing, and they discivered it was a topic
> >> >> that needed to be promoted up the national agenda. And they
> >> >> broadcast the programme. To hoots of derision.
>
> >> >I agree it's beyond parody. I've never heard anything quite so absurd.
>
> >> Why is it absurd? Should the BBC decide there are certain things not
> >> to be covered? What things? How would that decision be made?
>
> >> Does cricket count?
>
> >One can imagine someone suggesting that a programme about fishing be
> >made; after all fishing is the most popular sport in terms of number of
> >participants(*).  A commissioning editor said yes just so long as it was
> >made *relevant*.  The Muslim women connection made sure that it was
> >relevant--relevant, that is, to the BBC.
>
> That's not what happened, though, is it?
>
> >(* At least so I heard a few years ago.)
>
> So the question remains, if Muslim women's fishing is an actual
> activity, why should the BBC not cover it in some way? Is it because
> they're Muslims? Or because they're women? Or perhaps both?
>
> Just explain what's absurd about it, please.

Alain, there are millions of potential 'actual activities' to cover.
Adherents of the One True Faith (such as yourself and the BBC) are,
however, interested only in those that enable them to bask in a warm
glow of narcissistic self-congratulation. Muslim wimmin's fishing is
obscure, irrelevant and encompasses no fewer than three oppressed,
marginalised, Otherised, etc communities. So let's pretend to take it
seriously -- warm glow coming up!

> --
> AH
> http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com

Alan Hope wrote:

> turnitup goes:
>
> >Oxymel of Squill wrote:
>
> >> So they did some audience research and people said they'd never actually
> >> thought much about Muslim Wimmin Fishing, and they discivered it was a topic
> >> that needed to be promoted up the national agenda. And they
> >> broadcast the programme. To hoots of derision.
>
> >I agree it's beyond parody. I've never heard anything quite so absurd.
>
> Why is it absurd? Should the BBC decide there are certain things not
> to be covered? What things? How would that decision be made?
>
> Does cricket count?

Yes. It's the most civilized sport on earth. The Scotch and the Yanks
sneer at it, predictably enough.

> --
> AH
> http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com

Alan Hope wrote:

> Oxymel of Squill goes:
>
> >So the Radio 4 Wallahs were sitting around in the "Oh Christ, how are we
> >going to pad out Monday morning" meeting when someone said "What the R4
> >listener really yearns for is a programme about Muslim Wimmin going
> >Fishing."  Nobody hooted with derision, in fact someone proffered "Well if
> >they don't actually want it they ought to have it because it's good for
> >them."
>
> >So they did some audience research and people said they'd never actually
> >thought much about Muslim Wimmin Fishing, and they discivered it was a topic
> >that needed to be promoted up the national agenda. And they
> >broadcast the programme. To hoots of derision.
>
> Hoot. Singular.

Hooten. Dual. As soon as turnitup joined in. It became plural when I
did.

> --
> AH
> http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com

Gaijouw goes:

>Alain, there are millions of potential 'actual activities' to cover.
>Adherents of the One True Faith (such as yourself and the BBC) are,
>however, interested only in those that enable them to bask in a warm
>glow of narcissistic self-congratulation. 

Seems to me the interest is all from the other side. The only people I
hear talking about these programmes are people like you and the Rev.
Calwell. 

>Muslim wimmin's fishing is
>obscure, irrelevant and encompasses no fewer than three oppressed,
>marginalised, Otherised, etc communities. So let's pretend to take it
>seriously -- warm glow coming up!

How do you propose subjects should be covered, then? No darkies, no
women who don't know their place, no pooftahs, no Jews, did I leave
anything out?


-- 
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com

Gaijouw goes:

>Alan Hope wrote:
>> turnitup goes:
>> >Oxymel of Squill wrote:

>> >> So they did some audience research and people said they'd never actually
>> >> thought much about Muslim Wimmin Fishing, and they discivered it was a topic
>> >> that needed to be promoted up the national agenda. And they
>> >> broadcast the programme. To hoots of derision.

>> >I agree it's beyond parody. I've never heard anything quite so absurd.

>> Why is it absurd? Should the BBC decide there are certain things not
>> to be covered? What things? How would that decision be made?

>> Does cricket count?

>Yes. It's the most civilized sport on earth. The Scotch and the Yanks
>sneer at it, predictably enough.

The Scotch? The spirit of Robbie is alive and well, I see. 

What a queer thing to say, a civilised sport. How can those two terms
possibly be linked? You might as well talk about an educated flan. 

This is what happens when you get up close to English exceptionalism.
Scratch the surface even slightly and the whole thing crumbles to
nothing. Civilised sport. What a claim to fame from the land of the
hooligan. 


-- 
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com

Gaijouw goes:

>Alan Hope wrote:
>> Oxymel of Squill goes:

>> >So the Radio 4 Wallahs were sitting around in the "Oh Christ, how are we
>> >going to pad out Monday morning" meeting when someone said "What the R4
>> >listener really yearns for is a programme about Muslim Wimmin going
>> >Fishing."  Nobody hooted with derision, in fact someone proffered "Well if
>> >they don't actually want it they ought to have it because it's good for
>> >them."

>> >So they did some audience research and people said they'd never actually
>> >thought much about Muslim Wimmin Fishing, and they discivered it was a topic
>> >that needed to be promoted up the national agenda. And they
>> >broadcast the programme. To hoots of derision.

>> Hoot. Singular.

>Hooten. Dual. As soon as turnitup joined in. It became plural when I
>did.

Yes, you do follow Simon around rather closely. 


-- 
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com

<...snip...>
>
>So the question remains, if Muslim women's fishing is an actual
>activity, why should the BBC not cover it in some way? 

Talk about WHOOOSH! Because it was a piss-take. And just look at the
right-on dimwits that fell for it....

>Is it because they're Muslims? Or because they're women? Or perhaps both? 
>Just explain what's absurd about it, please. 

Like "British culture", if it has to be explained, it is extremely
unlikely to be understood.

S. wrote:
> <...snip...>
>> So the question remains, if Muslim women's fishing is an actual
>> activity, why should the BBC not cover it in some way? 
> 
> Talk about WHOOOSH! Because it was a piss-take. And just look at the
> right-on dimwits that fell for it....

Was it? If so, it was only theoretically funny. It seemed quite dull, 
the bits I heard.

Gaijouw wrote:
> Alan Hope wrote:
>
>> Frederick Williams goes:
>>
>>> Alan Hope wrote:
>>>> turnitup goes:
>>>>> Oxymel of Squill wrote:
>>
>>>>>> So they did some audience research and people said they'd never
>>>>>> actually thought much about Muslim Wimmin Fishing, and they
>>>>>> discivered it was a topic that needed to be promoted up the
>>>>>> national agenda. And they
>>>>>> broadcast the programme. To hoots of derision.
>>
>>>>> I agree it's beyond parody. I've never heard anything quite so
>>>>> absurd.
>>
>>>> Why is it absurd? Should the BBC decide there are certain things
>>>> not to be covered? What things? How would that decision be made?
>>
>>>> Does cricket count?
>>
>>> One can imagine someone suggesting that a programme about fishing be
>>> made; after all fishing is the most popular sport in terms of
>>> number of participants(*).  A commissioning editor said yes just so
>>> long as it was made *relevant*.  The Muslim women connection made
>>> sure that it was relevant--relevant, that is, to the BBC.
>>
>> That's not what happened, though, is it?
>>
>>> (* At least so I heard a few years ago.)
>>
>> So the question remains, if Muslim women's fishing is an actual
>> activity, why should the BBC not cover it in some way? Is it because
>> they're Muslims? Or because they're women? Or perhaps both?
>>
>> Just explain what's absurd about it, please.
>
> Alain, there are millions of potential 'actual activities' to cover.
> Adherents of the One True Faith (such as yourself and the BBC) are,
> however, interested only in those that enable them to bask in a warm
> glow of narcissistic self-congratulation. Muslim wimmin's fishing is
> obscure, irrelevant and encompasses no fewer than three oppressed,
> marginalised, Otherised, etc communities. So let's pretend to take it
> seriously -- warm glow coming up!

TBH The fact they managed to find any such people to make a programme about 
is interesting. And that alone probably justifies an item if not an entire 
half hour[1]. But I'd be just as interested in - say - skinheads doing 
crochet.


[1] I didn't hear the prog in question - I've been on holiday.

-- 

SB

S. wrote:
> <...snip...>
>>
>> So the question remains, if Muslim women's fishing is an actual
>> activity, why should the BBC not cover it in some way?
>
> Talk about WHOOOSH! Because it was a piss-take. And just look at the
> right-on dimwits that fell for it....

How disappointing. I was looking forward to hearing a repeat.

-- 

SB

Steve Brooks wrote:

> TBH The fact they managed to find any such people to make a programme about 
> is interesting. 

They didn't really. As far as I can tell there are no female Muslim 
anglers. So they had to get the female Welsh fishing champion together 
with some women they had rounded up. Bankside, the conversation 
started... "So tell me all about Islam... what's the difference between 
Shia and Sunni".

This cultural curiosity only seems to extend one way these days, or so 
it seems.

S. goes:

><...snip...>

>>So the question remains, if Muslim women's fishing is an actual
>>activity, why should the BBC not cover it in some way? 

>Talk about WHOOOSH! Because it was a piss-take. And just look at the
>right-on dimwits that fell for it....

The only person who seems to have fallen for it is Calwell, who
actually listened. 

>>Is it because they're Muslims? Or because they're women? Or perhaps both? 
>>Just explain what's absurd about it, please. 

>Like "British culture", if it has to be explained, it is extremely
>unlikely to be understood.

What a stupid thing to say. So explanation actually serves no purpose
ever, is that what you're saying?


-- 
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com

turnitup wrote:
> Steve Brooks wrote:
>
>> TBH The fact they managed to find any such people to make a
>> programme about is interesting.
>
> They didn't really. As far as I can tell there are no female Muslim
> anglers. So they had to get the female Welsh fishing champion together
> with some women they had rounded up. Bankside, the conversation
> started... "So tell me all about Islam... what's the difference
> between Shia and Sunni".
>
> This cultural curiosity only seems to extend one way these days, or so
> it seems.

Now I am confused. Did they try to get these women hooked on fishing?

What programme was this? I may have to LA.

-- 

SB

Alan Hope wrote:

> Gaijouw goes:
>
> >Alan Hope wrote:
> >> turnitup goes:
> >> >Oxymel of Squill wrote:
>
> >> >> So they did some audience research and people said they'd never actually
> >> >> thought much about Muslim Wimmin Fishing, and they discivered it was a topic
> >> >> that needed to be promoted up the national agenda. And they
> >> >> broadcast the programme. To hoots of derision.
>
> >> >I agree it's beyond parody. I've never heard anything quite so absurd.
>
> >> Why is it absurd? Should the BBC decide there are certain things not
> >> to be covered? What things? How would that decision be made?
>
> >> Does cricket count?
>
> >Yes. It's the most civilized sport on earth. The Scotch and the Yanks
> >sneer at it, predictably enough.
>
> The Scotch? The spirit of Robbie is alive and well, I see.
>
> What a queer thing to say, a civilised sport. How can those two terms
> possibly be linked?

Don't judge us by your standards.

> You might as well talk about an educated flan.

No, you might.

> This is what happens when you get up close to English exceptionalism.
> Scratch the surface even slightly and the whole thing crumbles to
> nothing. Civilised sport. What a claim to fame from the land of the
> hooligan.

An Irish word. And look:

Murders involving knives in Strathclyde were three-and-a-half times
higher than anywhere else in the UK.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4690645.stm

Take darkies and the Scotch out of England's murder and violence
statistics and the discrepancy would be even more glaring.

>
> --
> AH
> http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com

"Gaijouw"  wrote in message 
news:1189616572.387199.167770@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> Alan Hope wrote:
>> What a queer thing to say, a civilised sport. How can those two terms
>> possibly be linked?
>
> Don't judge us by your standards.
>
Don't forget the recent jellybean scandal.
-- 
Hungerdunger
To reply by email, remove the MarX from my address