pap

It all still happens, Turks. Alan Partridge and his attitudes to well, almost anyone, are an example. The entire last series of Little Britain was pretty spicy on the race front. Comedians of today pull the same trick today as Cleese did back then. Cleese never had a go at the Germans, but Fawlty did. You should also check out the US animated shows, or Always Sunny In Philadelphia - which revel in their characters tripping up over their own racism, misogyny etc. However, if you're looking for an example of something in Fawlty Towers that wouldn't make the grade today, look no further than the Major's mechanism of delineating people from the West Indies and those from the Indian subcontinent.

I already said they weren't the same show. Superficially, they have a lot in common, both in terms of how they came to be made and their perceived appeal. I doubt anyone watching OFAH thought "I simply must tune into Fools and Horses for its authentic depiction of working class London". They tuned in for the lols, mate. Who said E4 was a comedy incubator apart from you? Digital TV channel shows loads of American imports shocker Not sure what you're trying to prove here.

Your point was about executives craving instant rewards. My point was that there's nothing instant about it. I also feel that you're splitting hairs a little when you're saying that mainstream BBC doesn't incubate comedy because the likes of R4 or BBC2 do. There have been numerous examples of shows being allowed to develop on smaller channels, finding an audience and shifting over to BBC1. Their initial success might not have been paid for directly out of the BBC1 budget, but it was paid for (either directly or indirectly) by the BBC. The BBC incubates comedy, and I'd argue as a beneficiary of niche programmes that go big, BBC1 has an interest in making sure shows find their feet. It's not like Only Fools And Horses even represents a shift from today. John Sullivan already had Citizen Smith to his name and was knocking out Just Good Friends at the same time, David Jason was an established comedic performer after his stint on Open All Hours. The BBC were not taking a huge risk with this show. BBC One was a mainstream channel making a mainstream decision; using mostly proven quantities to put out a prime-time comedy show. I accept that Only Fools and Horses occupies a special place in many people's hearts. I'll certainly watch it it's on, but even the thing it did best - the slow build-up to true hilarity, has been bettered since, and on mainstream BBC1 too. Lyndhurst in particular has been a beneficiary of this commissioning strategy himself. He spent six years cashing cheques for Goodnight Sweetheart. He's the last one to talk. Essentially though, it sounds like you're saying won't let just anyone onto their flagship channel. Lyndhurst reckons that a show like Only Fools and Horses would never get made. In order to fully assess his complaint, we need to define what sort of show Only Fools and Horses is. For the benefit of Lyndhurst's argument, I'd classify it as a situation comedy that allowed the social issues of the day to seep into its scripts, written by a recognised comedy writer, that started on BBC1. Not saying it's the same show, but you could just as easily place Outnumbered in that category.

Comedy is a very subjective thing. People loved "My Family", FFS. I don't think Only Fools and Horses is that funny. One Foot In The Grave still pips it for me as a mainstream BBC thing. My general point is that comedy, particularly situation comedy, is still being made and is still incredibly successful. There's little that is short-term about that process. Now if we're at the point where you're saying "pap, you're right, but I don't find these shows funny", then my point still stands. Lyndhurst's moan is, when you boil it down, is that TV companies won't allow a comedy show to be on telly for a couple of years without being funny. Fair enough, IMO.

Heisenberg hits Manchester:- https://twitter.com/IzzyEsco/status/369498085371568130/photo/1

Spaced is a great example. It may be from 1999, but its comedy has continued to be developed in movie form. The most recent example of this is World's End, in cinema's now. The Day Today is one of Ianucci's projects, someone who is still a massive influence on British (and American) comedy today. It also led to Chris Morris' Brass Eye and Blue Jam, both extremely innovative shows that took the format further. Peep Show is still running. The Mighty Boosh is a prime example of something that on paper, should never have gotten near a TV screen. Ran for three series. Actually got one of those shows wrong. I meant "How Not To Live Your Life", not "How Do You Want Me" ( both shows excellent, btw ) - which is far more recent. Stewart Lee's Comedy Vehicle has been commissioned for two more series.

He's still wrong, particularly in this country. Thanks to the Beeb, comedy has had time to develop in this country for decades. Used to be the case that it'd develop on BBC2, and that still happens. The Beeb have since widened their pool of potential incubators by starting a lot of new comedy on BBC3 in addition to the traditional BBC2 home. We haven't even discussed the role of Radio 4 in developing new shows. Most of what you see on the screen arrives at least partially developed from another format. Examples would include The Day Today ( On The Hour ), Alan Partridge ( KMKY ) and the more recent Mr Khan ( Down The Line ). Switch over to Channel 4, and there has been plenty of decent comedy coming from that channel too. It's why I have difficulty accepting your suggestion that commissioning is a short-term decision. Many of the characters that hit our screens have been in development for years. By the time they transfer format, certain characters are fully-formed, representing an educated bet rather than a wild punt to please the masses. Besides, there have been plenty of shows since that have been far funnier. On what basis are you making your decisions? In recent years, we've had The Office, The Thick Of It, Extras, Peep Show, The Mighty Boosh, Inbetweeners, How Do You Want Me, Spaced or Stewart Lee's Comedy Vehicle. Those are just good shows off the top of my head. Most of these shows had fairly low ratings when they started. Most of them are either still being commissioned or have ended because the creative talent have buggered off to do other projects. Are there casualties? Sure. I happened to love a BBC3 show called Cyderdelic a few years ago, which showcased the excellent comedic talents of Marc Wooton ( gone on to bigger things, thankfully ) which lasted precisely six episodes. However, it's a nonsense to suggest that we can't or don't develop comedy in this country anymore. It's one of the few exports we have left.

The major issue Lyndhurst is talking about is scripted vs non-scripted television. Basically, it turns out that pointing a camera at a load of untalented morons is a lot cheaper than having professionals write and star in scripted TV shows. He's wrong, though. There are plenty of new shows out there that are just as off-beam as Only Fools and Horses. They're just all over the shop now. Channel 4 probably shows the best scripted stuff on TV, although the Beeb remains very good for comedy.

Just looked at the odds on Skybet. We're 3/4 to win this one. Wow.

Concluding that we might be committing unconditional surrender is an odd position for someone who is doubtful about the so-called "war on drugs". There is no war on drugs. Never has been. The term was an American invention, used to justify mandatory term sentences. http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-prison-industry-in-the-united-states-big-business-or-a-new-form-of-slavery/8289 This is how the leader of the free societies winds up with the biggest prison population in the world. whichever way you fancy slicing it. I think there is a case to be made in comparison with alcohol. When was the last time you heard of an alcohol turf war, or a kid being caught in the crossfire of a gun-battle run by booze runners? The last time people were locked up for distributing alcohol? While I'm sure HMRC have nicked people for dodging duty, you have to go back to 1930s prohibition America to get the set. Prohibition didn't work with alcohol, so it was eventually brought to an end, despite the public health or social issues it caused. Now if alcohol is legal, and kills 33K people in a year, then we should look at other substances on a case by case basis, particularly as many are far less harmful and that our present system criminalises people who don't fancy a beer at the end of the night.

They look like POWs discussing an escape.

It was a quieter Breaking Bad this week, mostly dealing with the ripple effect of last episode's showdown between Walt and Hank and of course, Jesse's insane plan to bung millions of dollars out of a moving car. Interesting episode which draws the battle lines. Skyler and her sister are now irreconcilable after tonight's events. Both see each others' offence as unforgivable. Both are probably right. The result is that Mrs White is firmly on Team Heisenberg. For better or worse, eh? Saul continues to be a comedy goldmine. His justification for arranging a "trip to Belize" is Saul's appeal is as brilliantly argued as it is funny. I hope they get the spin-off show off the ground.

Hey may just be the coolest player Saints have ever signed. The chap has permanent swagger going on, which is hopefully a result of his goal ratio I have seen many posters on here saying that us Saints fans do not want a "Billy Big Boll*cks". I wonder if they feel the same now.

Think I called the "they were the club that showed the most interest" spin Bloke looks like a f**king rock star. I approve.

That'll do nicely. No real expectation of the three points, given their double over us last year. Caught the last 20 minutes. Both new signings looked great. Has anyone mentioned the fact that the winning goal came after Ads left the pitch? /ducks

I was due to go to a wedding in Southampton today but have had to call if off due to work. What's your cousin's first name?

Possibly, but the attitude of some of the perennial England players, one in particular, has been very difficult to take.

A bloke in my digs lost 300 quid on a three match accumulator. Russia to beat NI Man Utd and Chelsea to win their respective games Now personally, I've always thought of accumulators as something you put a little money on to win a lot, not something you'll spunk 300 notes on. Worse still, the bloke has no job and borrowed the money from Wonga. Apologies to Twitter followers for repetition.

I worry about the ego of the England team with all these hardworking professionals under consideration. Seriously though, good to see. Plenty of English players do an excellent job for their unfancied team. Nice to see Hodgson widen the pool.

Very good, Gemmel, if a little OT.

When Fox first joined, I have a Twitter conversation with a Burnley fan about his qualities. Was told he was a good crosser, had a decent free kick, but was dodgy defensively and was likely to make challenges that'd get him sent off. I'd agree with that assessment. Seems like a decent enough chap, but was never entirely convinced with him at Championship level, and I find myself subconsciously downgrading our chances when he's on the pitch. Didn't matter as much in the Championship because often, the talent wasn't there to either expose him or capitalise on any blunders, but it's deadly in the Prem. I watched the highlights of the Real Sociedad game, and while it was good to see us eventually triumph, seeing the defensive problems sent shivers down my spine. Not blaming Fox for those goals, but he does add an element of defensive uncertainty. He'd probably be the weakest player in any realistic back four you played him with. I've seen the arguments made about the difficulties of signing a left back, that no-one is going to play second fiddle to a seventeen year old. Shaw is early on in his development. He may have Bale-like aspirations to play further up the pitch, and it'd certainly suit Pochettino's aims of pressing high. That could leave the door open for a decent left back, and leave us with genuine options in terms of formations and cover.

The plot was internally consistent, and unlike the other TNG films, no real attempt was made to Kirkify Picard. Feels more like a double episode than movie though. Structurally, there's not much to separate Nemesis from WoK. Major character dies, character hellbent on destroying the Captain. The first real attempt to riff on WoK in the movies. Into Darkness is fkn terrible Trek. Made allowances with first film. Hate this one. Works as big dumb action movie though, but f*ck, it's dumb. That ain't Trek.

Er. Doesn't the deal change on Dec 31st?

We're spending a ton of cash on an unwinnable war so that we can collectively say "we don't approve", even though loads of us do. Per figures. Most ecstasy deaths in one year in UK is eight (. 33k people died the same year on booze.

Final Frontier is a self-indulgent piece of arse that is exactly what I'd expect from seeing Shatner in the director's chair. It features possibly the worst single moment in all of Trek, Uhura's Dance. It is still better than Into Darkness. Insurrection is MILES better, perhaps the only TNG film which was true to the characters.