All posts by MikeB
Below are all of MikeB's postings, with the most recent are at the bottom of the page.Scott: Firstly, check that the cable is set up correctly - passing through is the easiest way. Obviously if your TV is fine, the the Humax should be fine as well, unless the feed is dodgy in some way.
Next, check that your TV and the Humax are on the same transmitter. It should be excellent on Craigkelly (if anything, too good), and I can't see how the Humax (which often self tune these days, with no manual tuning) could 'miss' that for another transmitter. But alternative possibilities dont make much sense.
There is also the possibility that the Humax is dodgy, and the tuners are duff. But I'd check out the feed and the transmitter first. And it might be worth checking out the signal strength on the TV - if you do have a problem with your system, the TV might be more forgiving than the Humax.
| link to this comment |
Brian Butterworth: So Whittingdale's story is spiked by 4 newspapers - newspapers that he has a fair amount of power over. But that's not a scandal, according to the Telegraph. They are printing the version coming out of the government that its the BBC to blame, for finally revealing the story BBC 'pursuing agenda' over John Whittingdale prostitute claims, Cabinet Minister says , even though it was apparetly well-known all over Westminster. The reason - of course is because the BBC is at war with the government. Frankly, if they were arguing about the licence fee that much, why didn't the BBC threaten to run it, unless they got a better deal?
I'm amazed that anyone should believe that blatant misdirection, but I'm sure all the usual suspects (ie - all the papers that didn't run the story originally) will back it up.
At some point, Whittingdale will fall - if only because once he knew that the actual profession of the lady in question, and that it was known to the papers, not telling at least the whips, never mind the PM, was opening up himself, and the government, to a huge potential scandal, Its not been a good week for David Cameron. I'm just surprised that the Telegraph hasn't blamed the BBC for the Panama story as well, although the Barclay Brothers are mentioned, so I'm sure they will!
| link to this comment |
LindaB: Normally, I'd agree. In fact I have no particular problem who he wants to date, and as long as he's not open to blackmail (and hence a security risk), its up to him.
However, this story is a bit like the famous example from Sherlock Holmes - why didn't the dog bark in the night? Or rather, why did 4 newspapers, including a tabloid, keep quite about it?
A former editor of various newspapers (including the Times and the Independent) was on Today this morning ( who sounded just a bit breezy in defending the newspaper industry), and made the case that the story appeared just after Levenson, and therefore the papers didn't feel that the story was right for the time. Fair enough, although they havn't generally been that picky, even post Levenson. Put it this way, if a Labour MP had had such a relationship, would a tabloid have published it? The answer is probably yes.
However, if, as Brian points out, there are aspects of the story which are not correct, then you do have to wonder as to the real version of events, and who is telling the truth.
What probably troubles the government chief whip is that Whittingdale never mentioned a word, once he knew the story was in circulation. Thats not good if you were head of the committee whose responsible for looking over the media - its a clear conflict of interest. And its even worse once you become the Minister, part of whose remit is to regulate the press. Think of it in these terms - an MP on the committee overseeing banks ends up with several very large and potentially embarrassing outstanding loans (unknown to everyone, including Party officals) , held by a number of large banks, who could publicise or even call them in at any time. Then he gets made the minister responsible overseeing those very same banks. You can see the issue. As one Labour MP put it, it was like a Sword of Damocles over his head.
The problem cuts both ways. Was a there a quid pro quo to avoid more meaningful regulation of the press? Or did the press put pressure on him? Either way, he doesn't come out well.
And of course its a landmine just waiting to to be stepped on - and considering the months the government has had (Panama Papers, Brexit, IDS, poor economic forcasts, etc), no government needs this.
The real brass neck is of the government and certain parts of the press in blaming the BBC. I can understand exactly why the government seeks to deflect the story, but the Telegraph story is a disgrace. The story had been floating around the net for weeks - Byline had it out 12 days before the BBC finally spoke about it. At some point, it was going to come out, but of course you have to wonder why nobody wanted to. I don't think it was privacy issues.
The Telegraph/government drums up fake outrage at the BBC, for actually reporting something that had become an important story by that point, and alleging that the BBC had an agenda (as if the Teelgraph did not!). It also helps deflect from the story of the Barclay Brothers off shore holdings, which has got a mention or two recently. The laughable thing is that the Telegraph story floats the theory that the BBC want Whittingdale replaced with someone nicer. looking at the current crop, I'm stuggling to think of who that would actually be. If the BBC had wanted to put pressure on him, why didn't they just let him know they were not going to say anything, as long as the Charter renewal went smoothly?
Whittingdale had issues even before this - his attitude to Brexit had caused friction. The government is not strong at the moment, and there is probably more bad news to come. And if parts of the story are untrue (how he met her), then thats lying. And as Nixon found out, the coverup is often far more damaging that the crime itself.
| link to this comment |
Brian Butterworth: He always struck me as somewhat conflicted. His years on the Select Committee, I suspect, led him to respect many aspects of the BBC, and he possibly recognised that the best way to continue with quality public broadcasting was to keep much of the current remit and resources of the BBC. At least he had some idea about broadcasting, unlike (as became most evident), Jeremy Hunt.
But he's also a long standing free market ideologue, perhaps to the point of zealotry. So, rather like those computers that Kirk used to come across and eventually confuse to the point where they'd blow themselves up, he's tried to argue nonsensical ideological get out of jail ideas.
The idea that there should be a voluntary licence fee is one example (so they are still paying for it, but they are not forced to..), the idea that the BBC should stump up for court reporters, thus letting the local press off the hook is another.
The one the other week about top slicing the licence fee to pay other broadcasters to make decent childrens programmes takes the biscuit. The fact that other broadcasters should be making dcent kids programmes because its part of their public broadcasting obligation and because it might make good business sense is evidently a lost cause. Apparently BBC money (which is used to make decent kids programmes) should be used to bribe people to make the sort of programmes they should be making anyway - which sounds a lot like interfering in the market - which is something he doesn't like.
Getting back to his career - yes, you do have to wonder what happened over press regulation, etc. I suspect he's now toast. It sounds like there is more to come out, if not from the lady herself, from others. And he didn't tell the whips - and thats fatal. He might not go now, but I'd be surprised if he's not a backbencher within months. And he only has himself to blame.
So whose next for the job?
| link to this comment |
LindaB: But if you read the Byline article, you'll see the problem isn't about the 'scandal'/story itself - its how the various players reacted to it.
4 newspapers backed off publishing anything about it - why? If the journalist who wrote the story is right, then Whittingdale was basically beholden to the press. You don't have to be all that cynical to think that potentially went far beyond the normal mutual back scratching/favours owed between politicians and the media.
If Whittingdale did stop crucial parts of Levenson moving forward (having been very keen to push ahead with it while on the Select Committee), then you have to ask what made him change? The same goes for regulation of the BBC - why did he change direction? Was there pressure?
So potentially you have a case where newspapers have an amazing 'asset' in the senior minister responsible for press regulation - that's a huge and undemocratic conflict of interest. And I'm no happier about large parts of the press hushing up the conduct of a senior minister, because he also holds power over them. Either way, we should all be worried.
| link to this comment |
Jim Taylor: Its probably because you don't need any more than wet string that's the likely cause. Search for 'too much of a good thing' on this site, which should help you.
| link to this comment |
Brian Butterworth: Interesting poll from 38 Degrees - Hands off our cherished BBC, say older voters | Media | The Guardian . Since the over 60's are the only demographic which the Tories had a majority of in 2015, thats a big warning to them. Could you write an article laying out what might happen to Charter renewal if Whittingdale stays/goes?
| link to this comment |
Martin: Check the cabling is a good start. A dodgy cable might hit one mux more than the others - compare the signal strength of all of them - if they are all on the low side, then the cable is the likely party - but might be no more than the fly lead.
| link to this comment |
Ron Charlton.: Put it this way - you are just 7 miles from a transmitter. We dont have a postcode, so we have no idea is that is a clear line of sight, but all things being equal, you should get a very good signal!
75-80% signal strength is fine, but of course your strength will bounce around a bit, depending on all sorts of small factors. Sometimes it will be a bit higher than that, and when tuners are hit with a strength which is too high for it, they can act in much the same way as when its too low. I suspect thats whats happening - check the signal strength on a prone mux and its will float a little, and is perhaps just pushing things too far.
Search for 'too much of a good thing' on this site, and there is a lot of info about it. I've had that problem on HD channels, and an attentuator (variable of series of fixed) will bring it down enough so you dont have the problem. Even a cheap fly lead might be enough!
| link to this comment |
Tuesday 12 April 2016 5:40PM
Mick:
'We've had two days where the channels were working well, but last night the pixelation and missing channels recurred.
When the channel is good, the signal strength is about 95% (almost a full bar) and the signal quality is "very good".
When the channel is pixelated, the signal strength is still 95% but the signal quality says "none". '
95% is far too high - 75% is normally just fine. The tuners in your various bits of equipment are really robust, my Sony PVR got up to 93% strength when it started to wobble a little. However, they are all just teetering on the brink of breaking up, and it can be a slight fluctuation which makes them go.
Search for 'too much of a good thing' on this website, and there will be answers. Attenuators are really cheap - fixed or variable, and if one isn't quite enough, you can always add another. make sure of course that you have no boosters, etc working - if you take that out of the system, everything might be fine.