With all due respect to you, Mr. Turnip, I'm afraid I won't believe any of their rubbish until I see it happen. All these promises they have been making are full of holes. What's worse is that the BBC now uses young people to act as their representative and "explain", with a big smile on their faces, why no one thought of saving programmes in the old days. Those who do all that explaining are, without a doubt, just as unfamiliar with the history of the BBC as so many others are. The truth is that the BBC has always had its own priorities. In the 1930's when, supposedly, they mistakenly overlooked saving programmes, their priority was, in fact, the complete destruction and eradication of Radio Luxembourg. How dare anyone intrude on their turf?

They spent years bringing THEIR brand of religious programming to the masses and THEIR news broadcasts which, for too long, were the only ones available in Britain and they also spent lots of time "banning" records that did not meet their precious standards. The only people who might benefit from programmes being saved were the licence-fee paying public and why bother about them? This Ms. Bennett individual is more to be pitied than laughed at for her description of the BBC archive as "the richest...in the world." Is she living on another planet or, more likely, is she just doing what her bosses at the BBC tell her to do?

There is now a BBC archive section on the Titanic with recordings made by some of the survivors of that disaster including Cmdr. Lightoller. But if you're not one of those who pay that exorbitant annual fee to that lot, the old story applies, the one that goes "ya ain't gettin' it." Money is apparently more important than educating the masses. Besides, the less the public knows, the more the BBC can continue on its merry, money-making way.

I don't have a single relative in Britain who doesn't decry that annual licence fee. The trouble is that so many people are so used to that antiquated system that they fail to recognize what a rip-off it is in the 21st century. It's nice and smug for all the "we don't have commercials" people to embrace a system that soaks hard-working people who are less well off until they reach the glorious age of 75!

Any attempt to salvage what still remains in the hope of putting some sort of archive together is always highly admirable. But as long as the very people who destroyed everything in the first place are involved in such efforts then those efforts are a complete waste of time. It's tantamount to putting the fox in charge of the chickens and that's unacceptable.

John

In all honesty, Focalist, I burst out laughing when I read your comment. You're quite right, of course. Anything concerning that rotten lot does, as you say, "get my goat." But, in fairness to everyone else, I have tried, in recent times, to stay out of discussions concerning that illustrious, money-soaking organisation. But their talk of this greatest archive in the world and all of the great things they were going to do with it was a bit much to ignore. And notice that, it's just not more of their lies and deceit, but, this time, the announcement was not made in the U.K., which would be the most logical place for it to be made, but on the continent of North America where most Canadians and Americans are not at all as familiar with this group of people as are those in the U.K.

Their current complaint, believe it or not, is that they don't have enough money!!! But considering all the business this so-called public corporation does in the United States, it's hardly surprising that they long ago learned all the angles and all the trickery that has long been practiced in the American free enterprise system. Does it anger me to see these people putting one over on the people in Britain? You bet it does.

John