Talkswindon

Politics: Swindon & Westminster => A Directly Elected Leader For Swindon? => Topic started by: Geoff Reid on October 13, 2008, 12:55:38 PM

Title: Adver 'Elected Mayors' Webchats
Post by: Geoff Reid on October 13, 2008, 12:55:38 PM

http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/3751252.WEBCHAT__With_Justin_Tomlinson/

When the webchat closes at 1pm today we could, if you like, continue discussing Cllr Tomlinsons comments here.  :)
Title: Re: Adver 'Elected Mayors' Webchats
Post by: James on October 13, 2008, 01:15:04 PM
I like this one:
Quote
As to the 2001 meeting, if memory serves me right it was one of the last items on a very long agenda (I think the meeting went onto 1am) and as you said shortly after Sue Bates's administration had imploded, so everything was in a state of flux. In addition the report presented was based on an extremely limited consultation, not good for such a potentially important decision.

If Justin is suggeting that the original consultation was not fit for purpose, then don't the council have a responsibility to do a proper one, as per the legislative requirements?

I wonder if the council's legal people have a view...
"Is a consultation which is not fit for purpose adequate in law to enable the council to say it HAD done a consultation, under the terms of the [insert proper name for mayor thing here] act ?"


James
Title: Re: Adver 'Elected Mayors' Webchats
Post by: Justin Tomlinson on October 13, 2008, 01:15:28 PM
Hi Geoff...

Thank you for the questions on the Adver web chat  O0
Title: Re: Adver 'Elected Mayors' Webchats
Post by: Justin Tomlinson on October 13, 2008, 01:20:53 PM
I like this one:
Quote
As to the 2001 meeting, if memory serves me right it was one of the last items on a very long agenda (I think the meeting went onto 1am) and as you said shortly after Sue Bates's administration had imploded, so everything was in a state of flux. In addition the report presented was based on an extremely limited consultation, not good for such a potentially important decision.

If Justin is suggeting that the original consultation was not fit for purpose, then don't the council have a responsibility to do a proper one, as per the legislative requirements?

I wonder if the council's legal people have a view...
"Is a consultation which is not fit for purpose adequate in law to enable the council to say it HAD done a consultation, under the terms of the [insert proper name for mayor thing here] act ?"


James

I have to say this is based on my limited memory of the meeting and report, which was back in 2001, plus Geoff's summary of what happened.
Title: Re: Adver 'Elected Mayors' Webchats
Post by: James on October 13, 2008, 01:35:53 PM
I appreciate it is a long time ago, but the question of whether it was good enough to pass the threshold of legality should be an easy one to establish I would have thought.

May also give those currently in power a "get out of jail free", as it would let them appear to be part of the move to correct a wrong. (well two wrongs actually, the report itself, and the way it was treated on the night)

Of course if they think nothing will come of any petition, they can do as they please.


James
Title: Re: Adver 'Elected Mayors' Webchats
Post by: Justin Tomlinson on October 13, 2008, 01:40:53 PM
Geoff - I presume you have asked this directly of the Council, if so - did you get a response?

James - I am sure if local residents are keen on this issue then the petition will rally sufficient numbers.
Title: Re: Adver 'Elected Mayors' Webchats
Post by: Geoff Reid on October 13, 2008, 01:43:53 PM
 
Hi Geoff...

Thank you for the questions on the Adver web chat  O0

No problem, it was an interesting chat and I'm grateful that at least one councillor has finally acknowledged that the councils 2001 decision to adopt our current leadership system, at the time and in the manner it did so, was a mistake.

Knowing when to admit something was a mistake is a trait the voters in North Swindon will appreciate in their Parliamentary candidates.



I have to visit the bombsite  pop into town, so I'll come back to this a bit later.  :)


Looking forward to my webchat tomorrow.
Title: Re: Adver 'Elected Mayors' Webchats
Post by: Geoff Reid on October 13, 2008, 02:44:10 PM
 
Geoff - I presume you have asked this directly of the Council, if so - did you get a response?


Roger Ogle and I brought it up directly (http://www.talkswindon.org/politics/elected-mayor/correspondence/elected_mayor_letter_to_rod_bluh-27-06-08.jpg) with the indirectly elected leader of the council and the leaders of both opposition parties in June 2008.

The leader of the council, Rod Bluh, did respond (http://www.talkswindon.org/politics/elected-mayor/correspondence/letter_from_rod_bluh-re-elected_mayors_04-07-08.jpg), although judging by his response I'm wondering whether our question wasn't framed simply enough for him....

Then Rod seemed to entirely forget about our correspondence because he has recently begun stating in his various Adver articles that he has not received "a single letter" regarding the issue(s).

I'm fairly modest by nature, but I would go so far to say that, as far as letters to local councillors go, this really was a letter which shoul be hard to forget, nevertheless he seems to have managed it  ;D

Perhaps TS members and readers would consider the last paragraph....

Quote from: Geoff Reid & Roger Ogle
Having reviewed the conduct of the public consultation on the model of local government to be adopted in Swindon by the previous administration in 2001, there are sufficient grounds to question the methodology employed and the outcome arrived at. We feel it is appropriate for the Borough Council to re-visit the legislation and this time conduct an open and well publicised debate as to whether the time is right to have an elected mayor in the town.

We look forward to hearing if this is an item the cabinet is willing to discuss with a view to engaging the wider population.


....and decide for themselves whether the leaders reply to it was relevent, and whether his subsequent denial of having received the letter was just an oversight.

Title: Re: Adver 'Elected Mayors' Webchats
Post by: Geoff Reid on October 13, 2008, 03:35:20 PM
 
My webchat starts tomorrow at midday

Feel free to put your head round the door and chip in.

It doesn't matter which side of the fence you're on either  :)



Anne Snelgrove is performing on Wednesday, Stan Pajak on Thursday and Rod Bluh on Friday.
Title: Re: Adver 'Elected Mayors' Webchats
Post by: Justin Tomlinson on October 15, 2008, 04:02:59 PM
Well done on your web chat yesterday.   O0

I would have asked a question, but last time I did on a web chat someone complained - annoying that as I am a local resident myself, so I am interested in what people have to say / will do etc.
Title: Re: Adver 'Elected Mayors' Webchats
Post by: Terry Reynolds on October 15, 2008, 06:57:55 PM
The adver, today asks the readers if they would like to vote for Mr Small as the new mayor, so that says it all then,
keep the system as it is, and if required, bring in rules, where a mayor can be challenged
regards..
Title: Re: Adver 'Elected Mayors' Webchats
Post by: Geoff Reid on October 15, 2008, 08:52:03 PM
Well done on your web chat yesterday.   O0

I would have asked a question, but last time I did on a web chat someone complained - annoying that as I am a local resident myself, so I am interested in what people have to say / will do etc.
 

Ask it now  :)
Title: Re: Adver 'Elected Mayors' Webchats
Post by: Geoff Reid on October 15, 2008, 08:52:40 PM
The adver, today asks the readers if they would like to vote for Mr Small as the new mayor, so that says it all then,
keep the system as it is, and if required, bring in rules, where a mayor can be challenged
regards..

eh?
Title: Re: Adver 'Elected Mayors' Webchats
Post by: concerned_of_Old_Town on October 15, 2008, 08:54:11 PM
Geoff Is it possible you could post the links to the various webchats as can't find yours and Justins on Advertisers web site!  Although saw them briefly the other day when I logged on on holiday would like to re-read them at my leisure


I would have asked a question, but last time I did on a web chat someone complained - annoying that as I am a local resident myself, so I am interested in what people have to say / will do etc.

Could you not have asked a question as an alias such as concerned_of_Abbey Meads?
Title: Re: Adver 'Elected Mayors' Webchats
Post by: Geoff Reid on October 15, 2008, 08:58:34 PM

No problem.

(http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/resources/images/669897/)


http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/mayor/mayornews/3751252.WEBCHAT__With_Justin_Tomlinson/

http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/mayor/mayornews/3754401.WEBCHAT__With_Geoff_Reid/

http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/3756404.WEBCHAT__with_Anne_Snelgrove/
Title: Re: Adver 'Elected Mayors' Webchats
Post by: concerned_of_Old_Town on October 15, 2008, 09:48:43 PM
Thanks for links Geoff

Must admit confused!  How do you respond/vote?

http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/mayor/

Can't see any obvious voting buttons.

As mentioned previously find Advertiser site very unfriendly to use!
Title: Re: Adver 'Elected Mayors' Webchats
Post by: Geoff Reid on October 15, 2008, 11:25:08 PM
 
Might be a problem with their website...

...will email their Digital Media Editor and tell 'em.
Title: Re: Adver 'Elected Mayors' Webchats
Post by: komadori on October 16, 2008, 12:38:29 AM
The Adver website is showing the ballot as having closed on 11:08 am on 10 October
http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/ballots/vote/335/
Title: Re: Adver 'Elected Mayors' Webchats
Post by: Geoff Reid on October 16, 2008, 09:57:21 AM
 

hahahahaa....3 days before it was supposed to open   ;D
Title: Re: Adver 'Elected Mayors' Webchats
Post by: concerned_of_Old_Town on October 17, 2008, 10:48:36 AM
The voting now seems to be re-opened.

http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/mayor/


However in my opinion the question(S) and how they seem to calculate the percentages it is flawed. They should be two entirely different yes or no questions and it should not be possible to vote for all four options (which are mutually exclusive) and thus mess up the percentages
Title: Re: Adver 'Elected Mayors' Webchats
Post by: Alligator on October 17, 2008, 01:56:55 PM
The voting now seems to be re-opened.

[url]http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/mayor/[/url]


However in my opinion the question(S) and how they seem to calculate the percentages it is flawed. They should be two entirely different yes or no questions and it should not be possible to vote for all four options (which are mutually exclusive) and thus mess up the percentages


Although it is still allowing people to voe, I think it is actually closed.  It is all a little confusing, I think the software is only really designed for a yes/no type of response, it was initially suggested that you have to double the results of each question in order to get the total percentage results, however at the moment, the online poll results are showing as:

Yes, I want a referendum  - 30% - meaning a result of 60% response to that question

No, I do not want a referendum - 22% - meaning a result of 44% response to that question

In a referendum, I would vote for an elected mayor - 28% - meaning a result of 56% response to that question

In a referendum, I would vote against an elected mayor - 20% - meaning a result of 40% response to that question

So, if you take the first two questions as being mutually exclusive, then doubling the nubers up would mean that the first two questions generated a 104% response and a 96% response to the 3rd and 4th questions.  I guess that this may mean that some people didn't respond to both sets of questions.  All in all, I can't make much sense of it.

I guess someone at the Adver may need to do some number crunching on the actual number of votes to make any sense of this.

As an indication though, it does tend to suggest that the poll shows a slight maroity in support for a referendum and for an elected mayor, however the paper poll is still to be counted, so who knows?  :-\
Title: Re: Adver 'Elected Mayors' Webchats
Post by: Geoff Reid on October 17, 2008, 02:31:06 PM
 
I think I'll view whatever results the adver poll produces as a snapshot of reader interest as of now.

Rod said in his adver webchat today:

Quote
If there is to be referendum at significant cost to the taxpayer then I and my colleagues have to be satisfied that there is demand for one. This has not been demonstrated as yet. I have no problem with a referendum but at present I see no call for it

We've been consistent in saying that a thorough debate must come well before we rush to a poll. This is why we're not rushing out gathering petition signatures as fast as possible.

Events in towns like Stoke and cities like Bristol give us a great opportunity to observe, learn and discuss. None of which will cost us council tax payers a penny  :)

As I replied to Rod:

Quote
Debate is free and costs us council tax payers nothing.

A thorough debate is essential before any voting is even considered.

Just as regenerating the town is examined, discussed and actioned over several years... so must the regeneration of faith in the political system.

Interest will grow Rod, it's very early days and too soon announce that there's no interest.

That mistake was already made in 2001.

Let's not make it again now.


In 2001 fools rushed in because they were afraid of where the electorate wanted to tread.  I'm satisfied that we are not only treading more responsibly than Bawden Bates and Evemy did, but we're also looking properly at the pros and cons of directly elected leaders and keeping open minds.


Let's see what happens over the next 12 months and see what the level of interest is then.





Title: Re: Adver 'Elected Mayors' Webchats
Post by: komadori on October 18, 2008, 05:07:01 PM
The Adver are now saying (http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/3769578.Apathy_wins_the_mayoral_debate/) they got a grand total of 125 votes, which they put down to voter apathy. Whilst not disagreeing with that, I can think of several other reasons that contributed to the Adver getting such a poor response.
Title: Re: Adver 'Elected Mayors' Webchats
Post by: Geoff Reid on October 18, 2008, 09:02:29 PM
 
I've had a wry chuckle.


The Adver are now saying ([url]http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/3769578.Apathy_wins_the_mayoral_debate/[/url]) they got a grand total of 125 votes, which they put down to voter apathy. Whilst not disagreeing with that, I can think of several other reasons that contributed to the Adver getting such a poor response.


Be interested to hear your opinion K.

Mine is:

The online poll went active a week early, attracted 120'ish votes in the few hours it was on before it was deactivated again. 

It then spent the entire week of he poll switched off, before being activated again on the morning of the last day for just a couple of hours....and was then switched off again  ;D

Can't comment on the paper poll as far as other people are concerned but: Tig saved two ballot papers for her and the boy, (I'd already voted online), they ticked the relevent boxes and were intending to post them after work on Friday....only to find that the poll had been closed at lunchtime. We must have missed the published end time......

Still, it was a bit of fun on the one hand and, whether or not they voted, it has hopefully served to further inform about 1/7th of the towns population.

I suppose it was inevitably going to be a little sensational/tabloid although James Wallin did a good job reporting the bits that weren't butchered by the editors.  The editors insistence on running a poll during a discussion was an odd decision and I can't help thinking that if I were an average Adver reader, (whatever that is when it's at home), I wouldn't wish to vote until I'd read all the articles and webchats, especially the last webchat with Rod Bluh.

Unfortunately the last webchat didn't actually begin until the poll was closed.......


There does seem to be a general urge to 'rush to judgement' though, which would worry me if a large amount of people had suddenly decided they wanted an elected Mayor soon, especially when Stoke and Bristol are going to provide us with a great opportunity to have a really good look.
 
Title: Re: Adver 'Elected Mayors' Webchats
Post by: komadori on October 19, 2008, 02:57:48 PM
My views of why the Adver poll got so few votes are

The editors insistence on running a poll during a discussion was an odd decision and I can't help thinking that if I were an average Adver reader, (whatever that is when it's at home), I wouldn't wish to vote until I'd read all the articles and webchats, especially the last webchat with Rod Bluh.

I don't think there is anything odd about his decision. It enables them to capture views from those with only a passing interest in the topic, or who only visit the website occasionally, who wouldn't bother voting if forced to wait until the end. And those that do want to see all the debate can always wait until the...

Unfortunately the last webchat didn't actually begin until the poll was closed.......

end. Ho hum. ???
Title: Re: Adver 'Elected Mayors' Webchats
Post by: Buster on October 19, 2008, 08:20:06 PM
I think if anyne should be disappointed by the outcome of the poll, it's the editor of the Adver.  If I was running a daily paper in a large town like Swindon, I would hope that a week long campaign, covering various angles on the subject matter, could draw in greater interest.

Having said that, it may simply be down to a general lack of interest in the subect at the moment.   :-\

As for how the Adver ran the poll, I think they need to take a long hard look at themselves and who they have working for them.

The poll opened a week before it was advertised to start, then it was tucked away on a page that was two/three mouse clicks away from the home page, then they closed the poll, then they opened it again and then they closed it before perhaps one of the most influential people had finished with webchat.

It all seems too incompetent to be real to me.   :D
Title: Re: Adver 'Elected Mayors' Webchats
Post by: Alex on October 20, 2008, 09:20:34 AM
Yep I agree- what a waste of time and energy- I tried to vote online only to find it was unavailable- and had no idea that it had re-opened. I bet lots of others were in the same boat.
Title: Re: Adver 'Elected Mayors' Webchats
Post by: swindonlinkman on October 21, 2008, 06:10:19 PM
I'll second that. An utter cock-up. I couldn't believe that they announced the result of their campaign in Friday's edition, which also included a ballot form to be sent in. Indeed I delivered the 6 ballot forms I had filled in and had collected from friends on Saturday morning. A waste of time I know, but there was a small point to be made.

So, why did the Advertiser readers not respond? Can you help by adding one liners to the list below:
1. Nobody reads the Advertiser
2. The subject was too complex for Advertiser readers
3. People are satisfied with the way the council is currently being run
4. People are so cynical about changing anything, that they couldn't see the point of participating
5. People were too distracted by financial worries
Title: Re: Adver 'Elected Mayors' Webchats
Post by: swindonlinkman on October 21, 2008, 06:11:49 PM
Karate King wants to be mayor of Swindon. See www.swindonlink.com (http://www.swindonlink.com)



[attachment older than 365 days auto saved then deleted by admin]
Title: Re: Adver 'Elected Mayors' Webchats
Post by: avtar on November 28, 2008, 05:31:33 PM
if elected mayors for cities are acceptable, why not elected Prime Ministers?

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/abolishMPs/
Title: Re: Adver 'Elected Mayors' Webchats
Post by: Critique on November 28, 2008, 06:33:28 PM
Spell out why you want PMs elected.
Title: Re: Adver 'Elected Mayors' Webchats
Post by: Alligator on November 28, 2008, 06:47:05 PM
if elected mayors for cities are acceptable, why not elected Prime Ministers?

[url]http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/abolishMPs/[/url]



Campaigns on either of these are not mutually exclusive.  The shortcomings in one level of government shouldn't be used as a justification for shortcomings at another level.

The link you posted doesn't give much detail of the arguments for a directly elected PM, or why the campaigners see the abolition of the houses of parliament as helping matters.  i.e. what would replace them?

I am inclined to agree with the people who initiated this campaign that party politics has damaged democracy in this country in a number of ways, however the campaign you have linked to doesn't really do itself any favours by failing to offer a full explanation of their aims and the desired alternative.

Perhaps this topic should have its own thread.
Title: Re: Adver 'Elected Mayors' Webchats
Post by: Mart on November 28, 2008, 09:15:34 PM
G O R D O N B R O W N.

How's that for a coherent and ironclad argument?

In fact, now I dwell on it, I'd settle for a raffle, tombola, Camelot, darts at photos, rock paper scissors, X Factor, that poxy Jungle thing, or Willy Wonka's golden ticket.

Tell me how any of those methods have less credibility than the current bastardised, manipulated and right royally screwed up system.

Hands up everyone one who voted for a scotch troll as PM.
Title: Re: Adver 'Elected Mayors' Webchats
Post by: Geoff Reid on November 28, 2008, 10:15:04 PM
G O R D O N B R O W N.

How's that for a coherent and ironclad argument?

Didn't need to go any further than that imho  O0
Title: Re: Adver 'Elected Mayors' Webchats
Post by: Buster on November 29, 2008, 12:35:49 AM
G O R D O N B R O W N.

How's that for a coherent and ironclad argument?


It's a good one, but what about J O H N M A J O R?  setting aside whether you like or dislike the individual, isn't this about the power, influence and prestige that being our PM brings in terms of representing each of us and who gets to decide on who is given this power, influence and prestige?

JM became PM without any electoral mandate and I highlight this to show that each party will play the rules to suit their own ends.  I don't support the imposition of any bod, simply 'cos they lead a big party, but all parties use and abuse the fact that this is what they can get away with when they see fit. 

I think that the current system is rotten and made so by political parties, but simply saying that we don't like the current model isn't enough, we need to say what will follow, otherwise what model are we asking people to vote on?

If parliament was full of free thinking, people focused, MPs. I think our world would be a different place.  Alas, it's not, it's full of people who think politics is about a career and a good pension.

A debate on our parliamentary system should be non party political as it's the parties that have got us all neck deep in the brown smelly stuff as it is.

What we need is good, honest decent, politicians who put their electorate and their own thoughts, values and opinions ahead of those of some back stage party political oaf who subscribes to a bible of party self interest.

All that said, any campaign to abolish the status quo does need to set out alternatives, afterall it ain't necessarily the model that's wrong, it's the people riding on the back of it that need to face the wrath of the voter.
Title: Re: Adver 'Elected Mayors' Webchats
Post by: Mart on November 29, 2008, 10:37:50 AM
JM became PM without any electoral mandate and I highlight this to show that each party will play the rules to suit their own ends.  I don't support the imposition of any bod, simply 'cos they lead a big party, but all parties use and abuse the fact that this is what they can get away with when they see fit.

I agree, but I choose G O R D O N B R O W N because what he has succeeded in delivering is significantly more brown and smelly than anything JB could have ever dreamed of, additionally GB has cocooned himself in a seemingly impregnable bunker of law and order to extend his reign of ineptitude, aided by a gang of no accounts he is pleased to call ministers. These ministers are forever fixed in my mind as party apparatchiks (is that spelled right?) a la John La Carre, they do what is expedient to maintain their position, their influence and their power. The only way this imbalance can be resolved is by severing this aspect of the relationship between ministers and the prime minister. The present devaluer of a noble office had his chance to gain the electorates mandate, under the present system, he chose not to and that decision has forever characterised him as a self serving nob, in my personal view. At least JM had the nuts to eventually give the electorate the chance to comment. And he was cheaper.


What we need is good, honest decent, politicians who put their electorate and their own thoughts, values and opinions ahead of those of some back stage party political oaf who subscribes to a bible of party self interest.

I think the word I am looking for is oxymoron. While we are about it I would like world peace, hanging, more bobbies on the beat, national service for immigrants, a transparent and meaningful benefit system that delivers hope and nurtures aspiration rather than dependence, a few more aircraft carriers, British owned utility companies, a coherent 'green' policy, the Empire, C&A, an education system you don't need a qualification to understand, Wagon Wheels returned to their original size, a car industry, the decimation of NHS 'managers', an end to Ministers for departments with made up names, someone else to have the Olympics, an end to 42 years of hurt, railways stations in villages, a national pension policy, football on Saturdays only, more overtaking in Grand Prix, the banning of minority groups who concentrate on being 'shouty' in a militant way, an environment where the banning of such groups is not a disadvantage, the death penalty for 'authority' officials when pensioners and children die in an avoidable way on their patch, ministers with direct and relevant experience of the industries their departments run, a referendum on eu membership, a renegotiation of what a european trade partnership should deliver, another referendum to see if we want to rejoin shortly thereafter, peoples' peers people have heard of, a system of punitive measures for MP's who fail to accord to their electorates wishes, a hotel in London for MP's to live in, an end to the need to print official leaflets in 9 languages, religious tolerance that is meant, not legislated, council houses, restoration of hedgerows, closed shops on Sundays, cod in the North Sea and the banning of Christmas decorations until 14th December. That's just for now.

All that said, any campaign to abolish the status quo does need to set out alternatives, afterall it ain't necessarily the model that's wrong, it's the people riding on the back of it that need to face the wrath of the voter.

Anti terror legislation means no minister will ever face any wrath other than that of the Whip, the model is quite possibly beyond economical repair and these people are not riding on the back of it, they infest it like a virulent form of bindweed, and like bindweed, they obscure and strangle.

Canton style thingummys and Direct Democracy read very well as an alternative.
Title: Re: Adver 'Elected Mayors' Webchats
Post by: robert feal-martinez on September 05, 2009, 09:46:42 AM
What is the current state of play over this.
Title: Re: Adver 'Elected Mayors' Webchats
Post by: Chav on January 25, 2010, 06:16:13 PM
Hi All

I just see on the news something about Bristol having a directly elected Mayor !
Title: Re: Adver 'Elected Mayors' Webchats
Post by: Geoff Reid on January 25, 2010, 08:19:44 PM

Typical. I can't news from the 'West' region because the digital signal from the Mendip transmitter is so low. I have to watch 'South' from the Oxford transmitter.

In March '10 the mendip transmitter ups its output from 9,000 watts to 100,000 watts so I'll be forcing the Mellon onto the roof to turn the aerial around again!
Title: Re: Adver 'Elected Mayors' Webchats
Post by: Steve Wakefield on January 25, 2010, 08:22:03 PM
Chav

Bristol

Is Lib Dem so they have always favoured the role. Anyway for what its worth read this:http://www.nlgn.org.uk/public/2010/new-model-mayors-democray-devolution-and-direction/
Title: Re: Adver 'Elected Mayors' Webchats
Post by: Mart on January 25, 2010, 08:35:59 PM
Typical. I can't news from the 'West' region because the digital signal from the Mendip transmitter is so low. I have to watch 'South' from the Oxford transmitter.

In March '10 the mendip transmitter ups its output from 9,000 watts to 100,000 watts so I'll be forcing the Mellon onto the roof to turn the aerial around again


Oh God.

Here's some transmitter porn for you. There's pictures if you are good.

At 500 kW E.R.P. (for the four main analogue channels) Belmont is one of the most powerful transmitters in the UK, though there are four UK transmitters which are more powerful. Sutton Coldfield, Crystal Palace and Sandy are all 1000kW and Emley Moor is 870kW. Channel 5 is only broadcast at 50 kW from Belmont and digital at 10 kW (Multiplex 1, 2, A, B) and 4 kW (Multiplex C, D) although this level of digital power is theoretically equal to 500 kW on analogue in terms of the received carrier to noise ratio required to give a "perfect" picture. After digital switchover Belmont's digital transmitting power will rise to 50 kW (for MUX4), 100kW (for MUXES 5 & 6) and 150kW (for MUXES 1 to 3),
Title: Re: Adver 'Elected Mayors' Webchats
Post by: Geoff Reid on January 26, 2010, 12:33:38 AM

Phwooooooarrrr, will you look at the kw's on that beauty!!
Title: Re: Adver 'Elected Mayors' Webchats
Post by: komadori on January 26, 2010, 12:57:44 AM
Here's some transmitter porn for you. There's pictures if you are good.


Lots of pictures, including some of Mendip transmitter fully exposed.
http://tx.mb21.co.uk/gallery/mendip/index.php
(http://tx.mb21.co.uk/gallery/mendip/mendip30.jpg)
Title: Re: Adver 'Elected Mayors' Webchats
Post by: Mart on January 26, 2010, 08:12:19 PM
This will end poorly.

Should have it's own thread. Magnificent Erections.

Fnar.