PDA

View Full Version : The Chaser's Royal Wedding



Pages : [1] 2

Ext User(DavidW)
21-04-2011, 09:43 AM
7.00 pm Fri 29th, ABC2. Don't forget.

Ext User(Dingo Bob)
21-04-2011, 11:03 AM
On Apr 21, 9:37*am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
> 7.00 pm Fri 29th, ABC2. Don't forget.

Don't forget what?

Ext User(DavidW)
21-04-2011, 11:33 AM
Dingo Bob wrote:
> On Apr 21, 9:37 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>> 7.00 pm Fri 29th, ABC2. Don't forget.
>
> Don't forget what?

I've forgotten.

Ext User(bringyagrogalong)
21-04-2011, 11:53 AM
"DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
> Dingo Bob wrote:
> > "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
> >>
> >> 7.00 pm Fri 29th, ABC2. Don't forget.
>
> > Don't forget what?
>
> I've forgotten.

This will refresh your memory...

http://tinyurl.com/3l86wgk

Ext User(DonH)
23-04-2011, 06:26 AM
"DavidW" <no@email.provided> wrote in message
news:4daf6e5f$0$25741$882e7ee2@usenet-news.net...
> 7.00 pm Fri 29th, ABC2. Don't forget.
>
>

# Is that in lieu of the News, or part of it?
Whether you view, or not, rather depends if you regard the wedding as
significant, and thus a satire on it as subsequentially valid.
The Queen, on inheriting the Throne, adopted as her motto, "I serve", and
has stuck with this. (What option did she have?)
But then, maybe, it is a case of just doing a job, or tackling it with
dedication and vigor - maybe following the example of her parents.
Whatever the faults of other royals, the Queen is hard to criticise.

Ext User(The Man From Havana)
27-04-2011, 04:34 PM
On Apr 21, 9:37*am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
> 7.00 pm Fri 29th, ABC2. Don't forget.


now been canceled. Sounds like the "royal ****s" don't like being made
to look like idiots. LOL.

Ext User(Brad)
27-04-2011, 05:23 PM
On Apr 27, 4:33*pm, The Man From Havana <thehouseoftro...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Apr 21, 9:37*am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>
> > 7.00 pm Fri 29th, ABC2. Don't forget.
>
> now been canceled. Sounds like the "royal ****s" don't like being made
> to look like idiots. LOL.

It won't be the Royals who have made the request, it will be
humourless staffers and the BBC.

Ext User(bringyagrogalong)
27-04-2011, 05:34 PM
"DonH" <donlhumphr...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote in message
>
> > 7.00 pm Fri 29th, ABC2. Don't forget.
>
> # Is that in lieu of the News, or part of it?
> * *Whether you view, or not, rather depends if you regard the weddingas
> significant, and thus a satire on it as subsequentially valid.
> * *The Queen, on inheriting the Throne, adopted as her motto, "I serve", and
> has stuck with this. * (What option did she have?)
> * *But then, maybe, it is a case of just doing a job, or tackling it with
> dedication and vigor - maybe following the example of her parents.
> * *Whatever the faults of other royals, the Queen is hard to criticise.

You are kidding.

Look at her dysfunctional family, every one of her kids have been
divorced.

Some mother!

And what dedication and vigour is required in cutting the odd ribbon?

And the less said about her extra-marital activities the better. We
all remember the naked man found sitting on the end of her bed by an
over zealous security guard some years back.

But what put be off the Queen once and for all was went she went on
national television and spoke about her horrible anus. Some things are
best left private.

Ext User(B J Foster)
27-04-2011, 07:43 PM
On 27/04/2011 5:27 PM, bringyagrogalong wrote:
>> Whatever the faults of other royals, the Queen is hard to criticise.

She's a wonderful example to the rest of us.

If you don't like the Queen, then go back to wogville and bow to the
mufhthi or whatever.

Ext User(Wolfgang Wildeblood)
27-04-2011, 07:54 PM
On Apr 27, 3:22*pm, Brad <goog...@vk2qq.com> wrote:
> On Apr 27, 4:33*pm, The Man From Havana <thehouseoftro...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 21, 9:37*am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>
> > > 7.00 pm Fri 29th, ABC2. Don't forget.
>
> > now been canceled. Sounds like the "royal ****s" don't like being made
> > to look like idiots. LOL.
>
> It won't be the Royals who have made the request, it will be
> humourless staffers and the BBC.

Or perhaps it's a simple case of the Chaser boyz being of interest to
far fewer people than a royal wedding is, and one of the few things
less interesting than watching paint dry.

Ext User(Wolfgang Wildeblood)
27-04-2011, 08:04 PM
On Apr 27, 3:27*pm, bringyagrogalong <sof...@aapt.net.au> wrote:
> "DonH" <donlhumphr...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> > "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote in message
>
> > > 7.00 pm Fri 29th, ABC2. Don't forget.
>
> > # Is that in lieu of the News, or part of it?
> > * *Whether you view, or not, rather depends if you regard the wedding as
> > significant, and thus a satire on it as subsequentially valid.
> > * *The Queen, on inheriting the Throne, adopted as her motto, "I serve", and
> > has stuck with this. * (What option did she have?)
> > * *But then, maybe, it is a case of just doing a job, or tackling it with
> > dedication and vigor - maybe following the example of her parents.
> > * *Whatever the faults of other royals, the Queen is hard to criticise.
>
> You are kidding.
>
> Look at her dysfunctional family, every one of her kids have been
> divorced.
>
> Some mother!

What about Edward and Sophie?

Ext User(jg)
27-04-2011, 10:03 PM
DonH wrote:
> "DavidW" <no@email.provided> wrote in message
> news:4daf6e5f$0$25741$882e7ee2@usenet-news.net...
>> 7.00 pm Fri 29th, ABC2. Don't forget.
>>
>>
>
> # Is that in lieu of the News, or part of it?
> Whether you view, or not, rather depends if you regard the wedding as
> significant, and thus a satire on it as subsequentially valid.

For some of us it also depends heavily on whether we can stomach The
Chasers. I personally couldn't watch it if they had Mark Latham or Mal
Turnbull drinking Draino.

Ext User(Sylvia Else)
27-04-2011, 10:34 PM
On 27/04/2011 5:22 PM, Brad wrote:
> On Apr 27, 4:33 pm, The Man From Havana<thehouseoftro...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On Apr 21, 9:37 am, "DavidW"<n...@email.provided> wrote:
>>
>>> 7.00 pm Fri 29th, ABC2. Don't forget.
>>
>> now been canceled. Sounds like the "royal ****s" don't like being made
>> to look like idiots. LOL.
>
> It won't be the Royals who have made the request, it will be
> humourless staffers and the BBC.

It appears from reports that the requirement has indeed been imposed by
the royals.

Sylvia.

Ext User(Sylvia Else)
27-04-2011, 10:34 PM
On 27/04/2011 7:54 PM, Wolfgang Wildeblood wrote:
> On Apr 27, 3:22 pm, Brad<goog...@vk2qq.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 27, 4:33 pm, The Man From Havana<thehouseoftro...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Apr 21, 9:37 am, "DavidW"<n...@email.provided> wrote:
>>
>>>> 7.00 pm Fri 29th, ABC2. Don't forget.
>>
>>> now been canceled. Sounds like the "royal ****s" don't like being made
>>> to look like idiots. LOL.
>>
>> It won't be the Royals who have made the request, it will be
>> humourless staffers and the BBC.
>
> Or perhaps it's a simple case of the Chaser boyz being of interest to
> far fewer people than a royal wedding is, and one of the few things
> less interesting than watching paint dry.
>

That doesn't make a lot of sense unless you're saying that the ABC have
falsely represented that the BBC has said they cannot use the footage
for the Chaser program, as a pretext for not broadcasting it.

Sylvia.

Ext User(DavidW)
28-04-2011, 09:24 AM
Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 27/04/2011 5:22 PM, Brad wrote:
>> On Apr 27, 4:33 pm, The Man From Havana<thehouseoftro...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> On Apr 21, 9:37 am, "DavidW"<n...@email.provided> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 7.00 pm Fri 29th, ABC2. Don't forget.
>>>
>>> now been canceled. Sounds like the "royal ****s" don't like being
>>> made to look like idiots. LOL.
>>
>> It won't be the Royals who have made the request, it will be
>> humourless staffers and the BBC.
>
> It appears from reports that the requirement has indeed been imposed
> by the royals.

And there are now specific "Chaser" clauses in the ABC's contract to broadcast
the wedding. You know you've made a splash when you get banned by name in an
otherwise standard commercial contract.

Ext User(Sylvia Else)
28-04-2011, 11:03 AM
On 28/04/2011 9:15 AM, DavidW wrote:
> Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 27/04/2011 5:22 PM, Brad wrote:
>>> On Apr 27, 4:33 pm, The Man From Havana<thehouseoftro...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Apr 21, 9:37 am, "DavidW"<n...@email.provided> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 7.00 pm Fri 29th, ABC2. Don't forget.
>>>>
>>>> now been canceled. Sounds like the "royal ****s" don't like being
>>>> made to look like idiots. LOL.
>>>
>>> It won't be the Royals who have made the request, it will be
>>> humourless staffers and the BBC.
>>
>> It appears from reports that the requirement has indeed been imposed
>> by the royals.
>
> And there are now specific "Chaser" clauses in the ABC's contract to broadcast
> the wedding. You know you've made a splash when you get banned by name in an
> otherwise standard commercial contract.
>

Well, it's not so clear that "Chaser" are mentioned by name.

Sylvia.

Ext User(The Man From Havana)
28-04-2011, 11:03 AM
On Apr 28, 10:57*am, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote:
> On 28/04/2011 9:15 AM, DavidW wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Sylvia Else wrote:
> >> On 27/04/2011 5:22 PM, Brad wrote:
> >>> On Apr 27, 4:33 pm, The Man From Havana<thehouseoftro...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> On Apr 21, 9:37 am, "DavidW"<n...@email.provided> * wrote:
>
> >>>>> 7.00 pm Fri 29th, ABC2. Don't forget.
>
> >>>> now been canceled. Sounds like the "royal ****s" don't like being
> >>>> made to look like idiots. LOL.
>
> >>> It won't be the Royals who have made the request, it will be
> >>> humourless staffers and the BBC.
>
> >> It appears from reports that the requirement has indeed been imposed
> >> by the royals.
>
> > And there are now specific "Chaser" clauses in the ABC's contract to broadcast
> > the wedding. You know you've made a splash when you get banned by name in an
> > otherwise standard commercial contract.
>
> Well, it's not so clear that "Chaser" are mentioned by name.
>
> Sylvia.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -



I think it would work if the chaser jumped onto abc radio national and
did it there. No picture no trouble ! How about the abc fading to
black while the chaser did their thing ?

Ext User(DavidW)
28-04-2011, 11:16 AM
Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 28/04/2011 9:15 AM, DavidW wrote:
>> Sylvia Else wrote:
>>> On 27/04/2011 5:22 PM, Brad wrote:
>>>> On Apr 27, 4:33 pm, The Man From Havana<thehouseoftro...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On Apr 21, 9:37 am, "DavidW"<n...@email.provided> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 7.00 pm Fri 29th, ABC2. Don't forget.
>>>>>
>>>>> now been canceled. Sounds like the "royal ****s" don't like being
>>>>> made to look like idiots. LOL.
>>>>
>>>> It won't be the Royals who have made the request, it will be
>>>> humourless staffers and the BBC.
>>>
>>> It appears from reports that the requirement has indeed been imposed
>>> by the royals.
>>
>> And there are now specific "Chaser" clauses in the ABC's contract to
>> broadcast the wedding. You know you've made a splash when you get
>> banned by name in an otherwise standard commercial contract.
>>
>
> Well, it's not so clear that "Chaser" are mentioned by name.


I've heard several of the Chaser team say that the contract has been modified to
specifically bar the Chaser from commentating on the wedding. They've also
barred other broadcasters from allowing the Chaser access to footage. E.g.,
Julian Morrow on last night's The Drum (story starts 21:30):
http://www.abc.net.au/iview/?series=2955433#/view/746869

Ext User(Sylvia Else)
28-04-2011, 11:16 AM
On 28/04/2011 11:01 AM, The Man From Havana wrote:
> On Apr 28, 10:57 am, Sylvia Else<syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote:
>> On 28/04/2011 9:15 AM, DavidW wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>> On 27/04/2011 5:22 PM, Brad wrote:
>>>>> On Apr 27, 4:33 pm, The Man From Havana<thehouseoftro...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On Apr 21, 9:37 am, "DavidW"<n...@email.provided> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> 7.00 pm Fri 29th, ABC2. Don't forget.
>>
>>>>>> now been canceled. Sounds like the "royal ****s" don't like being
>>>>>> made to look like idiots. LOL.
>>
>>>>> It won't be the Royals who have made the request, it will be
>>>>> humourless staffers and the BBC.
>>
>>>> It appears from reports that the requirement has indeed been imposed
>>>> by the royals.
>>
>>> And there are now specific "Chaser" clauses in the ABC's contract to broadcast
>>> the wedding. You know you've made a splash when you get banned by name in an
>>> otherwise standard commercial contract.
>>
>> Well, it's not so clear that "Chaser" are mentioned by name.
>>
>> Sylvia.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>
>
> I think it would work if the chaser jumped onto abc radio national and
> did it there. No picture no trouble ! How about the abc fading to
> black while the chaser did their thing ?

Apparently Chaser's program plan includes sufficient visuals to make a
radio broadcast problematic. On the ABC message boards, I've suggested
they broadcast their program on ABC2, without the live feed, so that
those of us who can arrange two televisions side by side, or picture in
picture (probably most people these days), could see what was intended.

Alternatively, the ABC could announce that they do not intend to
broadcast the wedding at all, which, as they're the state funded
broadcaster, would be something of a snub.

But I expect the actual end result will simply be no Chaser.

Sylvia.

Ext User(Sylvia Else)
28-04-2011, 11:16 AM
On 28/04/2011 11:08 AM, DavidW wrote:
> Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 28/04/2011 9:15 AM, DavidW wrote:
>>> Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>> On 27/04/2011 5:22 PM, Brad wrote:
>>>>> On Apr 27, 4:33 pm, The Man From Havana<thehouseoftro...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On Apr 21, 9:37 am, "DavidW"<n...@email.provided> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 7.00 pm Fri 29th, ABC2. Don't forget.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> now been canceled. Sounds like the "royal ****s" don't like being
>>>>>> made to look like idiots. LOL.
>>>>>
>>>>> It won't be the Royals who have made the request, it will be
>>>>> humourless staffers and the BBC.
>>>>
>>>> It appears from reports that the requirement has indeed been imposed
>>>> by the royals.
>>>
>>> And there are now specific "Chaser" clauses in the ABC's contract to
>>> broadcast the wedding. You know you've made a splash when you get
>>> banned by name in an otherwise standard commercial contract.
>>>
>>
>> Well, it's not so clear that "Chaser" are mentioned by name.
>
>
> I've heard several of the Chaser team say that the contract has been modified to
> specifically bar the Chaser from commentating on the wedding. They've also
> barred other broadcasters from allowing the Chaser access to footage. E.g.,
> Julian Morrow on last night's The Drum (story starts 21:30):
> http://www.abc.net.au/iview/?series=2955433#/view/746869
>
>

I think that's their take on the thinking behind the new rules (and I'm
sure they're right), rather than a claim that there is express wording
to exclude Chaser.

Sylvia.

Hosted by: Eyo Technologies Pty Ltd. Sponsored by: Actiontec Pty Ltd