Simon Heffer presenting British music throughout June: Saturday Classics

[antongould]

Where does "talent" come into anyway............
My view: if you think you'll enjoy the music, settle down and listen to the programmes and don't let your personal feelings about SH spoil it for you.

As always ff I will follow your view ..........but SMP divisive surely not

[Flosshilde]

.Yes, he is divisive for his political views (which I detest) and his manner of expressing them (which I find despicable).

My view: if you think you'll enjoy the music, settle down and listen to the programmes and don't let your personal feelings about SH spoil it for you.

Presumably (the BBC's use of a Union Flag bow tie notwithstanding) SH won't be expounding his political views during the programmes, so he is only divisive if the listener knows about them & feels that they are informing SH's choice of music. What matters is, as ff says, that he has a "good, technical, broadcasting technique - which comes from experience, and a pretty good knowledge of their subject". He does need an element of fluency, ... and interact with their audiences (but not by constant invitations to tweet etc in the latter case).

[french frank]

As always ff I will follow your view

I have a feeling I may not, as I am less tolerant and forgiving than my views

Agree with Calum and Floss re packaging. It still rankles that RW spent £100 (exactly?- or was that the limit allowed?) on lunch with SH. Clearly R3 'business', but if SH was to be the beneficiary why couldn't he wangle his expenses from the Telegraph (for whom he then worked) or out of his own pocket, rather than the public having to pay for it?

[teamsaint]

FF, I'm not against the BBC having presenters with interesting or controversial views, and by controversial I include views that I am uncomfortable with.

In this case, I think he is inappropriate, because, whether we like it or not, concepts of "Britishness", British music, and dangerously divisive opinions held by people with influence like Heffer, sit uneasily together.
I hope that they are great programmes, which spread the word about some brilliant music. But I won't be adding to the listening figures, because I think he is an inappropriate presenter, when there are plenty of good alternatives.
I think it is a poor decision to hire him.

Talent was brought into the conversation by Simon. Make of that what you will.

[amateur51]

I have a feeling I may not, as I am less tolerant and forgiving than my views

Agree with Calum and Floss re packaging. It still rankles that RW spent £100 (exactly?- or was that the limit allowed?) on lunch with SH. Clearly R3 'business', but if SH was to be the beneficiary why couldn't he wangle his expenses from the Telegraph (for whom he then worked) or out of his own pocket, rather than the public having to pay for it?

These days, £100 for lunch for two even in London is pushing the boat out, I'd say - there are plenty of 'two courses for £20-25' offers about.

[vinteuil]

These days, £100 for lunch for two even in London is pushing the boat out, I'd say - there are plenty of 'two courses for £20-25' offers about.

... hmmm. Yes, I know about those "two courses for £25" offers. But by the time you've added in a preprandial sherry, a glass of white, a couple of glasses of red, a coffee - you're easily up to £50 per person - so "£100 for two" doesn't seem to me at all extravagant for a London working lunch.

[french frank]

Talent was brought into the conversation by Simon. Make of that what you will.

I did notice that, ts. Emotionally (if I may term it in that way without in any way intending to disparage), our views coincide.

am51 - Don't get me started on expenses

(Yes, I know I started it)

[amateur51]

... hmmm. Yes, I know about those "two courses for £25" offers. But by the time you've added in a preprandial sherry, a glass of white, a couple of glasses of red, a coffee - you're easily up to £50 per person - so "£100 for two" doesn't seem to me at all extravagant for a London working lunch.

Given that RW was spending public money on lunch, I think buying nigh on one-and-a half bottles of wine and two sherries is a bit strong, frankly - no-one would cavil over a glass each I'm sure but ...

Is Roger based at New Broadcasting House? Are there catering facilities there?

[french frank]

... hmmm. Yes, I know about those "two courses for £25" offers. But by the time you've added in a preprandial sherry, a glass of white, a couple of glasses of red, a coffee - you're easily up to £50 per person - so "£100 for two" doesn't seem to me at all extravagant for a London working lunch.

Why do they need two courses? Won't they get a three-course (at least) supper once they get home?

And if it's a 'working lunch' the emphasis should be on 'working' not 'lunch'. £12 each for a pizza and a glass of red at just over the road at Pizza Express should be enough. ( btw I didn't add in the £10 each way taxi fare to get to wherever it was they lunched.)

Am - there's the ground floor caff at BH where I should think they could grab a sandwich. I'm not privy to where the BBC grandees have their culinary and oenophile junketings courtesy of the public.

[vinteuil]

... I must sometime look out Horace Walpole's defence of his use of public money when attacked for the various sinecures he controlled.

But I don't expect to convince our resident puritans, French Frank and Am51...

[amateur51]

... I must sometime look out Horace Walpole's defence of his use of public money when attacked for the various sinecures he controlled.

But I don't expect to convince our resident puritans, French Frank and Am51...

I'd make the distinction between hospitality and largesse, vints After all, why does Roger need to impress Heffer?

[teamsaint]

... I must sometime look out Horace Walpole's defence of his use of public money when attacked for the various sinecures he controlled.

But I don't expect to convince our resident puritans, French Frank and Am51...

You can put me in the puritan camp on this one......the old civil service expenses rules encouraged thrift.

[amateur51]

You can put me in the puritan camp......the old civil service expenses rules encouraged thrift.

Most of my career was spent in the voluntary sector which generally means that if you spend money, you have to convince a beady funder

[french frank]

But I don't expect to convince our resident puritans, French Frank and Am51...

I realise there would have to be changes in contracts, but I reckon anyone who can buy my house, outright, every year, on his basic salary (formula: FF ho x1 pa), could consider his salary to be calculated as including expenses: that way their expenses reqirements might prove more modest.

[amateur51]

I realise there would have to be changes in contracts, but I reckon anyone who can buy my house, outright, every year, on his basic salary (formula: FF ho x1 pa), could consider his salary to be calculated as including expenses: that way their expenses reqirements might prove more modest.

Quite so! Though I do recall one maverick in the voluntary drugs sector whose expenses one year exceeded his not modest salary.