- Mon Feb 24, 2014 9:00 pm
#502173
Not sure whether I think it's coincidence or not. If the ruling had happened when the show was at full steam as it was in the first couple of years I don't think it would have led to its end. I did say that I didn't think this was the direct cause of it ending. It would have had the same, or similar, consequences for Chris and the BBC whether he was on breakfast or the 10-midnight show. So why was he in discussions for that show?
I can't get past the fact that - to repeat myself- the show was poor, listeners were deserting, there was a new controller under increasing pressure and the timing was right and it felt right, for it to end when it did. That was without knowing anything about this stuff. The tax situation MAY have hurried it along, but I don't consider it to be the sole cause.
Nicola_Red wrote:So you think the show ending announcement happening on the same day as the ruling denying Chris anonymity is pure coincidence? Obviously that's entirely possible.
Not sure whether I think it's coincidence or not. If the ruling had happened when the show was at full steam as it was in the first couple of years I don't think it would have led to its end. I did say that I didn't think this was the direct cause of it ending. It would have had the same, or similar, consequences for Chris and the BBC whether he was on breakfast or the 10-midnight show. So why was he in discussions for that show?
I can't get past the fact that - to repeat myself- the show was poor, listeners were deserting, there was a new controller under increasing pressure and the timing was right and it felt right, for it to end when it did. That was without knowing anything about this stuff. The tax situation MAY have hurried it along, but I don't consider it to be the sole cause.