Sorry to go off-piste as it were but here is a BBC reply.

For my Dear Blog readers, sorry to go off-piste as it were but I thought I might copy
to this forum a BBC reply to a complaint of mine on unsuitable material broadcast to
young children. I was quite surprised by the Beeb's arrogance. They will never admit they are wrong.

Dear Mr *******

Thanks for your e-mail regarding 'Horrible Histories' broadcast on 23 July 2009.

I understand that you felt a number of scenes in the programme were inappropriate
for broadcast on children's television and it was it insensitive for the programme
to feature corpses during this episode which looked at the reign of Henry VIII.

The series aims to introduce history to children by taking an irreverent look at
various historical events. It's certainly not intended to shock or cause offence,
merely to bring a fresh approach to introducing history to younger viewers.

Having said this, I understand that you were left unimpressed the show and to that
end I would like to assure you that we have registered your feelings on our audience
log.

This is the internal report of audience feedback which we compile daily for all
programme makers and commissioning executives within the BBC, and also their senior
management. It ensures that your points, and all other comments we receive, are
circulated and considered across the BBC.

Thank you once again for taking the trouble to share your views with us.

Regards

Gerald McCusker
BBC Complaints
____________________________
www.bbc.co.uk/complaints

-----Original Message-----

I want to complain about the graphic scenes on the kids programme discussing the
reign of Henry VIII. The idea of having heads sowed back on deathly white bodies
defies comprehension. What are you guys on? I thought that could be an X rating.
Those responsible for the programme should be sacked forwith. Yours, ******

(Sorry to retain anonymity but I don't want to be a celeb in celebrity mad Britain).

Sir Richard Dannatt lays a few blows on the British Government.

The head of the British Army, Sir Richard Dannatt, is laying a few blows on Her Majesty's Government over the lack of resources (helicopters etc) in Afghanistan
to help our troops. Apparently, New Labour sources are muttering about possibly Sir Richard being "political". I suppose there is a fine line between "fighting your corner" and being openly disloyal.
UK Premier Gordon Brown looked absolutely awful yesterday in front of the Defence Select Committee by trying to avoid giving a direct answer. Apparently, Defence Minister
Bob Ainsworth is 21 out of 23 Labour portfolio holders and gives mediocrity a bad name according to Jeff Randall in today's Daily Telegraph. There have been five defence secretaries since 2005.
If I was Brown, I would have blamed the NATO allies for not stumping up combat troops
such as the Germans just to divert attention.

Gordon Brown is taking a few blows to his body.

Estimed British Prime Minister Gordon Brown seems to be a sitting duck for the criticism of past and serving UK military officers. His bright idea of appointing experts to his government, such as Lord Darzi and Lord Malloch-Brown, has fizzled out as they are leaving the sinking ship. Former minister and ex-CBI luminary Digby Jones appears to be a one-man opposition party as he vigorously takes on the fight to New Labour.
The British unemployment figures are just awful and give testimony to the recent negative forecasts of over 3m for 2010. The Chief Medical Officer looks uncomfortable on breakfast TV as the BBC presenter does not believe a word he says.
I supposes this follows the World Health Organisation (WHO) contradicting the British government on the future availability of a vaccine for swine flu.
http://www.searchaccountant.co.uk/Accountants/Accountants-In-Dundee.html

Gordon Brown is having a poor war in Afghanistan.

Folllowing the recent dreadful casualties suffered by the British Army, Gordon Brown is having a poor war in Afghanistan. In a trenchant article in the Independent, Bruce Anderson accuses the UK premier of corporate manslaughter. Brown has not spent the money required on helicopters and armoured vehicles. Anderson argues, however, if the West pulls out then the Taleban would regain control.
I remember reading that UK forces would sometimes pass by Victorian memorials to earlier campaigns in Afghanistan.
In the Times Matthew Parris simply says we will not win. The tribal politics are too complicated for a start.

I suppose the Afghanistan campaign has suffered from mission creep. The initial plan from what I gather was to kill Bin Laden and wipe out as much as the Taleban as possible. Then, the objectives have been expanded to introducing development and Western-style democracy. These are very expensive. Now, another objective is to protect Pakistan through our presence in Afghanistan.

Fighting wars (and not paying for them) is not very good for currencies, interest rates etc. The UK will probably run out of money to fund its involvement in Afghanistan.

Liam Halligan is a bit concerned about the UK printing presses.

Writing in the Sunday Telegraph economist Liam Halligan has expressed his concern about the quantitative easing (QE) being carried out by the Bank of England. This has not led to a lowering of UK gilt yields and will increase inflation. Halligan says the banks are keeping the QE cash themselves, on reserve or lending to their off-balance sheet vehicles.

Are we experiencing the green shoots of recovery?

In the United Kingdom are we experiencing the green shoots of recovery? www.searchaccountant.co.uk The housing market seems to be stabilising but there is the danger that the Bank of England will raise interest rates too early. Despite the 0.5 pct base rate mortgage lenders are still demanding high deposits and quite a few commentators consider that the British housing market is still too expensive. The relatively painless adjustment would be a few years of sideway movement combined with a rise in general prices. However, the more painful adjustment would involve increasing repossessions and general
deflation.
You don't get the sense that UK Chancellor Alistair Darling is on the top of his brief. He is not pushing through help for the British housing sector and he seems to be stalling on help for the car industry in Britain.
However, he showed dogged determination in seeing off Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who wanted the job to go to close friend and ally Ed Balls. Darling is going to have to navigate a spending statement in the winter. This will be quite tricky
and he might regret not being pushed out. Normally, when the relationship between a chancellor and a prime minister breaks down, the PM remembers he is the First Lord of the Treasury. Apparently, Darling was saved when the cabinet staged a revolt against the promotion of Balls, so we are living in extraordinary political times.

I think it is a shame that Hazel Blears is not in the cabinet.

I wonder who else thinks it is a shame that feisty northern MP Hazel Blears is not in the Brown cabinet. Politicians spend years climbing up the greasy pole and then in a fit of madness (Youtube if you want to) and it is gone. Blears must have felt more confident of her position when she directly criticised UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown. Her recent abject apology about her resignation was toe-curlingly bad.
It is a shame because Blears would take to the airwaves fighting her government's cause, especially when there seemed to be a deafening silence coming from No.10.
www.searchaccountant.co.uk
We do have Lord Mandelson in the cabinet. A former foe of Brown, the peer has been credited with the prime minister's survival. However, Mandelson faces tough problems trying to help out the British car industry. LDV has been allowed to crash and the fate of Vauxhall looks very uncertain. Mandelson will be hard-pressed to maintain his current high reputation. However, he seems to benefit from unlimited energy and does not shirk the challenge of appearing on the news channels.