Watched Sherlock last night…His Last Vow.
Who was the evil mastermind, Sherlock’s new nemesis? Rupert Murdoch…the Australian newspaper owner.
No sorry, it was in fact someone called Charles Augustus Magnussen, a newspaper proprietor…and as the BBC call him…‘The King of Blackmail’….using his newspapers and information gathering power to influence government policy…allegedly….not meant to be anyone we know at all.
The show opened with him up before a Leveson style panel where you get the idea of exactly what the subtext is underlying the show….over powerful media owners using that power to blackmail people using very unsavoury methods.
Here’s some of the opening lines:
‘Mr Magnussen how would you describe your influence over the Prime Minister?’
‘I notice you’ve had 7 meetings at Downing Street this year…why?’
‘Do you think it right that a newspaper proprietor, a private individual, and in fact a foreign national, should have such regular access to our Prime Minister?’
At which point a caption flashes up on screen indicating Magnussen’s thoughts about the questioner’s weak points that he can exploit later….this one…his ‘disabled daughter‘…nasty eh? Boo Hiss the evil rightwing, foreign, newspaper owner.
‘Mr Magnussen, can you recall if at any point your remarks could have influenced government policy or the Prime Minister’s thinking in any way?’
We also had a drug addled character prepared to use a knife called ‘Bill Wiggins’…’Wiggins’ was a ‘Baker Street Irregular’….only known as ‘Wiggins’ originally…though may have been called ‘Sam Wiggins’. Why change his first name?
Bill Wiggins is a Tory MP….pure coincidence I’m sure….though Joan Collins was squired by another Bill Wiggins who was a cocaine addict… Bungalow Bill as he was known…because he had nothing going on upstairs. The character in the show later turns out to be a cut rate ‘Sherlock’ and becomes part of the team.
Later we have a a security guard at Magnussen’s office who is attacked and may be dead.
Sherlock’s response…on seeing he has some sort of tattoo…‘He’s been in prison..and is a white supremacist…so who cares’.
Bet he wouldn’t have said that about a Muslim extremist….nice to associate Murdoch with such things though..never miss a chance to put the boot in.
Magnussen……when asked how he proves his claims about people …..‘Proof…I don’t need proof…I’m in news…I just have to print it.’
Ah..those terrible, untrustworthy rags.
The writer is Steven Moffat…….well known for his support of the Labour Party and previous insertions of leftwing propaganda into BBC shows…such as Dr Who.
‘Sherlock’ of course has form:
BBC’s Sherlock attacks Boris Johnson as ‘dithering’ and ‘self-interested’
A fake newspaper shown during BBC One drama Sherlock included an article mocking the Mayor of London’s ‘hair-brained’ plans
In another episode (Hound of the Baskervilles) from an earlier series we had a martinet, ‘rigthwing’ army officer running a secret research base producing chemical weapons…on his book shelf in his office….books about Maggie Thatcher….someone in props having a laugh I expect.
No doubt there are vast numbers of such little lefty jokes placed through out the programmes.
The Game is afoot….with more comebacks from the dead than Lazarus and Jesus combined.
LOL
Not just fiction, as mentioned in another thread “Sunday” yesterday had item on change of liturgy, and “random” selection of responses on people’s perception of the devil was led by “Margaret Thatcher”. Not exactly relevant to a religious programme but oh how that must have had them chortling over their toast at Islington breakfast bars. Naturally I complained and I await the reply with interest in as to how they are going to demonstrate to me that the editors are completely neutral politically and have no agenda whatsoever. Drip, drip, drip…….
All part of the BBC’s never ending doctrinal behavioral ‘nudging’ experiment. By inserting subtle (and not-so-subtle) ‘nudges’ into programming across all platforms and genres to reinforce current memes (such as anti-Murdoch, pro-CAGW, pro-EU, anti-UKIP, etc, etc) the BBC can slowly ratchet up its long-term thought experiment to ‘nudge’ hapless viewers (especially the young) towards their Approved Way Of Thinking About Things™.
The BBC, naturally, sees nothing immoral about doing any of this. Why would it? It doesn’t have to answer its critics, after all – so it can do that thing it always does…you know… just ignore them.
Sherlock, which is made with British license payers money (itself obtained with menaces), primarily for the lucrative worldwide market that makes such handsome profits for the BBC’s greedy commercial arm, is a sneering, belligerent confection of barely concealed near-constant ‘nudging’ and smug self-congratulation for all concerned in its making.
Can’t help but wonder what Sir Conan Doyle would make of it all. At times like these the sheer brilliance of Jeremy Brett is sorely missed, indeed.
Isn’t the bad guy just a rip off of the Bond villain in Tomorrow Never Dies played by Johathan Pryce? How original.
No, it was an adaptation of Charles Augusts Milverton, who appears in one of Conan Doyle’s original Holmes stories. The original was only a short story, so the character’s role clearly had to be fleshed out for a full length adventure – and where would you put a modern-day blackmailer but in a position where he could exploit, and expose, his victims’ secrets?
Not “lefty shlock”, but modern Sherlock. Poor Alan, don’t blame him if he doesn’t understand the literary source.
Scott .perhaps you could explain that very offensive so called vox pop about Mrs Thatcher and the devil on Sunday.
I was offended. Does nobody have any editorial judgement now at the BBC? It was neither relevant or interesting. It was quite simply appalling.
Don’t scare the poor pro BBC lamb he only does low hanging fruit , Labour BBC brand sexual/race politics and light programming !
As well as trolling a site that obviously touches a deeper nerve than he’d like us to believe for him to keep returning.
You were offended!??! Offended?
Here’s a question for you. Who gives a fuck?
And this is a reply? Touched a BBC nerve did I?
Sounds like you have been offended. I just take the offence given by the BBC in my stride. It is both amusing and pathetic.
liberals really do take offence easily.
Yeah, but usually their offense is taken on behalf of someone who didn’t ask them to, so they can smugly claim to be empathetic. Strange how they have no empathy for anyone who doesn’t share their point of view.
Who indeed?
Thing is, different strokes for different folks.
And you are rather prising open the BBC Box of Pandora (soon doubtless to also be reprised on ‘Atlantis’) on matters of precedent there.
As in whose giving and taking of offence counts and whose does not. Quangos and NGOs and charity empires have been founded on just this, with countless staff given berth on the BBC sofa to emote…. so long as they are from an approved end of the whinge industry.
So here’s a question for you (FOI exemption exempted), who at the BBC decides when the toys go out the pram for weeks and when to move on quicksmart like nothing is to see?
If only that was the bbc’s response whenever some socialist and/or muslim starts whingeing about something or other.
That Milverton chap was a nasty piece of work…
Though it pains me to say this chaps, Scott is quite correct, for once!
Admittedly I’m only familiar with ITV’s adaption of the story, starring the peerless Jeremy Brett and not Conan Doyle’s original, but accusations of political bias aside it’s surely logical to update the character of a ‘master blackmailer’ as a media baron…. and who else would you base such a character on if not Murdoch?
Still, I agree about Steven Moffat as I’ve read a couple of his surprisingly juvenile left-wing tantrums courtesy of The Guardian (where else) in recent times.
That fair enough as far as it goes, But this particular stereotype is so often used its ceases to be contemporary interiptation and becomes propaganda
Example
thoughtful says:
January 10, 2014 at 8:21 pm
Just watched an old Doctor Who series 1 episode which must have been written by someone with considerable insight at the BBC perhaps.
It concerns a broadcaster transmitting several channels from a space station including news. all of which are manipulated to keep the population thinking just what the stations owners want them to.
The owner happens to be a malign slug like creature with sharp teeth which resides in the ceiling of the top floor.
Could it possibly have been a writer giving a coded parallel to the BBC ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Long_Game
15 likes
Reply Report comment
Stewart says:
January 10, 2014 at 8:42 pm
Clearly Russell T Davies meant the slug creature to be seen as Rupert Murdoch. The idea that he and the BBC are actually the ones trying to brain wash the earths population (via the world service?) would not occur to them. Like the inquisitors of old, they see it as guiding the flock.
12 likes
Of course, to make the character even more Murdochish they gave him a Commonwealth accent. But which Commonwealth accent did they choose? Naturally: a South African, what else. After all, white South Africans is another box to be ticked in the BBC’s visions of “evil”.
“………. it’s surely logical to update the character of a ‘master blackmailer’ as a media baron…. and who else would you base such a character on if not Murdoch?……”
How about a Trades Union Leader ?
It’s the hypocrisy though that’s so disgusting. In the same way as the BBC supported Leveson until the results came back to bite them, they actually think they can call others out for influencing policy when they’re doing the exact same thing, at enforced public subsidy no less.
Considering the Labour party is often accused of running a bureau whose purpose is to smear political opponents and blackmail celebrities, wouldn’t that have been more topical?
Or maybe they couldn’t get Mark Benton to play Fatty Watson?
This only goes to prove that Conan Doyle was a lefty too. He probably despised Thatcher.
Doyle stood twice for the politically conservative ‘ Liberal Unionists’ which means the BBC is either subverting his works to their politics and are therefore guilty of abusing the mans legacy and ideals without his written permission [not a shock ] or the BBC are spouting pro conservative leanings ? not going to bet on which one you and scroot believe!
So a text can only have one source, eh? The best literature is awash with complex and intertwined allusions that all add resonance and depth to interpretation. Virgil did not just use Homer.
But maybe you’re saying that Sherlock is too simplistic for that, and that the ‘flexhing out’ of which you speak is entirely innocent and free of any contemporary references and colour.
Poor Des, doesn’t understand how literature works.
Who’s Des?
No idea neither has it !
Anyway the BBC Sherlock can’t be that clever because failed to unmask Jimmy Savile.
ROLF!! ? soz ROFL!
Far less offensive than you clearly not understanding subtext. I don’t even know why you bother coming here since every other comment I’ve seen you post has just been ad hominem towards the staff.
Sherlock is as overated and as dull as that other BBC show Dr Who.
Quite why they continue to congratulate themselves on such dull propaganda amazes me.
As with the Mrs Thatcher and the insulting puerile devil nonsense on Sunday morning the BBC can no longer see itself as many of us see it.
A dull boring propaganda outfit posing as a bad imitation of Pravda in its glory days.
Even the Russians would have seen through the BBC.
Quite by chance Sunday I overhead a group discussing the BBC and Mark Duggan. What I heard would not have made the BBC happy. They were rumbled good and proper.
Keep on digging your hole beeboids.
Quite right, the dialogue was pathetic and the constant un flagged ‘flash backs’ further confused by ‘speculations’ in the same format, were so annoying. As for the storyline……….. ” I have no archives it is all in my head”…… in that case he would have been a sitting duck for anyone who chose to sue him. And Watson’s new wife a trained assassin !!!!*****.
Still if a program can be contrived to demonize the Tories and any perceived supporter then that will fit the BBC bill no doubt.
I have quite enjoyed Sherlock.
High production standards and good acting.
However when they start shoe-horning messages in it all gets a bit tiresome. Stick with the crime and all will be fine (my OJ trial homage). Last week’s was awful.
Here…. better battles to pick. Looking at the the DM comments you diss Sherlock (well, a character played by that dishy Benedict mouthing words of the writer) at your peril. Middle England knows what she likes. Clever girl, Auntie.
As mentioned, I await an episode where our heroes uncover a peado ring operating in a corporation headed by a collection of astoundingly uncurious, temporarily Alzheimers-afflicted public sector media mandarins whose first reaction is to drop each other in it if spotlighted. But no one gets held to account at the end even when they do.
That said, an interrogation by our hero where every steely insight is met with ‘I can’t recall, ‘She said it, not me’, ”It was whispered in a corridor under Chatham Rules’ or… ‘FoI exempted, private dick!’ may be accurate but tedious.
Very, very tedious indeed.
Does the login name come with the cubicle / PC or do you get to choose your own?
‘Very, very tedious indeed’
The persuasive value of the devastating single-line drive-by revealed in all its glory.
” temporarily Alzheimers-afflicted ”
I think it’s called Entwistle’s Disease – the inability to remember anything while working at the BBC….
“Good acting ?!!”
Sorry missed that, must have happened when I went to the toilet.
Not my scene man(to quote Dave from “learn to swim man” public info film)
Didn`t Rolf Harris do one too?(and are we allowed to ignore THAT one too now, a la Savile?)
But I digress.
Heard a bit of Start the Week this morning…some EU toadster, some pro-Catalun, some airy-fairy Scots Gnat, with a faintheart and a plum voice called Linda Collie-correct spelling as far as I`1m concerned!)…and all presided over by a wet Tory type called Anne McElvoy…better than Pluglugs anyway!
My point-apparently Sherlock at one point said last night that he did what he was doing..for ENGLAND!
That so?…certainly drew blood(well a faint whimper and a Billy Idol curled lip) from the assembled BBC courtiers for the EU Project now coming to a boil…well a simmer of the Scots porridge, with hi-viz jackets, blue tape and cones all around it…and with Health and Safety Instructions in 22 languages around it-Esperanto, Gaelic Scots, Catalun. Basque, Arabic first among equals here..English on a par with Haitian Creole)
The BBC forever at the service of the golfing rebel as long as its Salmond at St Andrews…and forever offering itself as a rug for Islam or a pair of pastel shaded slippers for Hitlers coming pale descendents in the EU Dream.
The England reference was a nod from a famous Rathbone film, 1942’s The Voice of Terror, as were the references to the east wind.
Those too were Holmes updated for the times, then to take on the Nazis, whereas the two previous Rathbone films were set loosely in the “correct” era.
My problem with Sherlock, like Moffat’s other vehicle, Doctor Who, is simple. It’s Moffat himself. He is a politically correct, plagiarising hack, who has eschewed decent storytelling for wishing to appear clever.
It’s a measure of the nature of the modern BBC and indeed the modern television audience that he is regarded as a genius, rather than what he in truth is, a jackdaw.
‘Holmes updated for the times’
OTish, but as the resident Flokkers have exploded on landing, a wee indulgence to pop the fox back in the chicken coop….
Homages to past greats can and will always be a tricky deal, but if done well entirely worthwhile.
I can live with the dipping back in this way, especially if it’s done cleverly.
Though I never have been too keen on ‘crime’ series that feel the need to maintain a key villain endlessly, especially one so brilliant they never seem to be smart enough to just knock off the hero simply and finally.
These ranged from the Hook in Thunderbirds through Blofeld in Bond. Good job they were the head honcho, as minions getting vanquished just once usually saw them not bringing in Lucy Adams to handle the HR & payoff negotiations.
I have however also rather enjoyed the US contemporary update, ‘Elementary’.
Wasn’t too sure about Lucy Liu as Watson at first, but the romantic frisson was credible and avoided the plotline that dare not be left out of every BBC drama.
I find Jonny Lee Miller excellent in explaining the character and his foibles in a contemporary sense. Violin yes, Drugs, yes. Deerstalker.. not sure.
Of course they did have to bring in Moriarty, and drag it out over several episodes, but the twist was pretty nifty and the character as messed up as the UK effort.
As with the UK effort, I do worry when deduction gives way to kickboxing.
Credit then to the original author, who inspired such versions and the debate that rages around them.
I rather suspect when next update at 221b New Baker St, Mars Colony, he will be the only constant remembered beyond the characters created.
… a nod from a famous Rathbone film, 1942′s The Voice of Terror, as were the references to the east wind.
Actually, the reference to the east wind coming dates back to Conan Doyle’s His Last Bow, published in 1917, which referenced the oncoming Great War (the story being set before the outbreak of World War I). Holmes’s speech to that effect was then reused in the WW2-set Rathbone film.
The BBC4 documentary on the various screen incarnations of Holmes, which aired last night, is well worth a look via iPlayer – narrator Peter Wyngarde’s very strange pronunciation notwithstanding.
I thought that was good as well Scott, but did you not think they were a bit dismissive of the Granada version?
Possibly because Brett’s very literal interpretation is considered ‘right wing’ but giving how quickly they glossed over the two surprisingly successful Guy Ritchie films ( well I was surprised how much I liked them anyway) and the due credit they gave to the ‘hammer hound’, more likely professional rivalry
Sadly, sometimes those Time Shift documentaries are led a little too much by budget considerations, as they’re often put together on a shoestring – and clearance for clips from recent Hollywood films can be expensive. Yes, it would have been good to touch on both those, and also Elementary, as well as Guy Henry’s Young Sherlock Holmes from the early 1980s. Still, it was better than nothing.
Point taken , much of the earlier stuff seemed to be a re-working of a previous Holmes documentary (though worth revisiting) and the Ritchie films tacked on at the end.
But the Granada series is 20 years old and lasted ten years it seems strange to have analysed it so briefly ,especially as it is ( as they conceded) considered by many Holmes fans ( you will not be surprised to find me among those) to be the definitive version.
The 7 % solution segment was interesting though.
The show is loaded with lefty messages, more so than most of the garbage the BBBC dumps on us. But more than that, it is extremely dull. When a writer kills off the title character, only to bring them back to life again, that is a desperate one-off scratch for ratings. (“who shot JR”) When it happens every week, that shows extremely shallow story-telling capability, another example of the total lack of talent at the BBC.
You do know the BBC didnt invent Sherlock Holmes don’t you?Unless Conan Doyle was writing for a one-off scratch for ratings?
He tended not to do it in successive books though.
Johnny, Holmes was “killed off” just once by Conan Doyle, and reinstated many years later by public demand.
He came close to death very, very occasionally, self-inflicted in The Devil’s Foot, he feigned his impending demise in The Dying Detective after an assassination attempt, and Moriarty’s thugs beat him up once, he also got into a fistfight in The Solitary Cyclist.
Apart from that his problems were all cerebral, by which I mean intellectual, rather than supra-tentorial.
Moffat’s Holmes is rather different, but then again Moffat’s Holmes can be up and out of bed within hours of being shot in the chest by Modesty Blaise, so I suppose all bets are off.
If Moffat really wanted a Holmes for the 21st century he should have written his own tales from the bottom up, rather than nick bits and pieces from canon.
Mr Moffatt’s Holmes is just Dr Who without the Tardis.
So what you’re saying is that every episode is the equivalent of a whole one of his books.
Explain how that’s faithful to the source material, please. Try thinking before you post.
It’s when you get time travel introduced you know any production team are losing sight of actual plots. Or dream sequences. Or time-travelling dream sequences… or…
That all said, I’ll still be watching tonight. I like a romp and can cope with the daft allegories if they feel the need to mess with some folk covertly and titter in the canteen at getting away with it.
Don’t forget the BBC show Spooks which used to show Christian suicide bombers and both Christians and Jews stitching up the poor Muslims
The over-riding hate shown against Murdoch, from the writer, manifested itself in Sherlock Holmes – great detective – resorting to the gun to resolve the problem.
Not shocked as it’s standard repressed ultra violent leftard Borg mentality ‘if it won’t convert shoot it in the face !’
Yes, even the ‘pacifist’ Dr Who regularly resorts to genocide when the opposition refuse to play ball.
It’s what they do …
In the original, it was a woman whose husband was being blackmailed who shot the villain, and Holmes restrained Watson from stopping her, although Watson wrote that he didn’t think they could have stopped her anyway. Holmes then took all the blackmailer’s papers and burned them, and afterwards refused to help Lestrade investigate the murder on the grounds that he felt the murder victim was evil. I just checked my Complete Collection of.
Now, aside from claims by defenders of the indefensible that this story was chosen randomly out of dozens with no ulterior motives, updating the villain to resemble Murdoch was purely a coincidental, logical choice, and only evil crazy extremists would think otherwise, I for one will not pretend that writers don’t look through the old source material with an eye for something which they feel has contemporary resonance.
“Sherlock’s new press baron foe and more evidence of Left-wing bias.
“Holmes’ enemy unveiled in series finale – a sinister newspaper baron.
“Co-creator Steven Moffat previously spoken of his dislike of Conservatives.
“Has scathingly attacked right-wing media and the Murdochs previously.”
By TOM KELLY.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2538350/Sherlocks-new-press-baron-foe-evidence-Left-wing-bias.html#ixzz2qIaRwOeX
But the villain is: left-wing media magnate – George SOROS.
“Obama Campaign Merges with George Soros”
By Daniel Greenfield .
(Jan, 2013).
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/obama-campaign-merges-with-george-soros/
Why was Tony BLiar at the funeral of Ariel Sharon, why was he given a chance to speak, and why was his speech the only one the BBC has chosen to broadcast?
I guess that they’re still in love with him, even if the Labour party aren’t !
‘Telegraph’ (£):-
“The BBC: still as pro-EU as ever after all these years.”
By Norman Tebbit.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/normantebbit/100254284/the-bbc-still-as-pro-eu-as-ever-after-all-these-years/?
Lucky ‘conflict of interest’ rather uniquely becomes a source of strength rather than compromise for the BBC.
Which often makes ‘being fair to them’ an invitation to be resolutely shafted further. Why do all pols insist on these silly love notes in the thorns?
‘I wondered whether, had the Bill been defeated, where that would have come in the BBC pecking order of the events of the day.’
Could always ask, Norm; see where it gets you.
Expedited, probably.
I watched 10 minutes of the last series once and that was enough? It’s a sad fact though that there is subtle and not so subtle PC propaganda in most BBC drama.
I must confess that I have thoroughly enjoyed the Beeb’s contemporary Sherlock. I think it’s been funny, clever with numerous nods to the original. That is until last night’s dreadful episode. Why can’t the BBC leave well alone? The story was so ridiculously convoluted and full of sledgehammer anti Murdoch propaganda that it made me cringe. If they wanted to include a devious and corrupt influence on our lives it would have been braver to have taken a swipe at the BBC. The creepy Milverton could easily have been Greg Dyke. Sherlock could have exposed a dangerous, corrupt and subversive left wing thought machine. He could have unearthed their distasteful adoration of militant Islam and discovered why they harboured one of Britain’s most dreadful paedos for forty years.
Like you, I had been happy enough to be entertained by this series.
I figured last week’s was an indulgence that went awry, and allowed the luvviesphere seduce that this one was form regained (allegories aside).
But golly, what a load of logic-free, incredulous tosh at every turn.
There were indeed a bunch of anti-media news swipes that I considered brave, considering most were more applicable to the BBC’s manner of ‘doing business’.
But for now, the Moriarty reincarnation teaser aside, I simply go to bed pondering the odd notion of BBC-sanctioned summary execution and approval of state hand-washing of due process. It appears it’s now ok to whack a beastly person (was he shown to do anything worse than pee in a fireplace, flick & lick and trade in secrets involving girls who looked older than they were? Not sure that really counts as an excuse outside the BBC car park, your Ladyship), no tears shed. Or, indeed, consequences.
Lucky no jury would get involved in the making of the next episode, though release of a few doves and a guest slot for Diane Abbott would be a nice touch.
I thought it was obvious that the nationality of the villain had been changed after the writer finished the story. It’s as clear as crystal who the media man was meant to be in the select committee. It was also obvious, when he peed on Sherlock’s fireplace, that he was meant to be a brash/crass antipodean (putting out the bbq in the traditional way). I can only assume BBC bigwhigs thought the character too obviously political and asked for a change in national identity – from Aussie to Scandinavian.
But not even that worked.
The BBC doesn’t care how blatant it is, anymore. It has the same contempt for its audience as firms like Microsoft, Electronic Arts, or Cracked.com. Rarely does a show go by without some attempt to dictate the narrative, however subtle or in many cases not even attempting to be subtle. For example, That Puppet Game Show, a series aimed at families (albeit easily pleased ones who don’t get why the Muppets was so popular and are just impressed with puppets) in which there was a completely and utterly pointless scene in which a monkey talked about Clement Atlee and mentioned how he created the NHS and welfare state. Did he mention any other Prime Ministers and their achievements? Of course not – it was all about reminding us how brilliant Atlee was and, thus, how brilliant Labour still are in the BBC’s eyes. Atlee was great, yes, probably one of the only two post-war Prime Ministers (along with Thatcher) you could actually say was honest and wanted to push the country forward. But why was this there? It had no relevance within the show. The answer, again, was obvious – the BBC wanted to drill the idea of ‘Labour good, Tories bad’ into their oblivious and young viewers in a show that should have absolutely bugger all to do with politics. It’s a fucking game show hosted by puppets in which B-list (at best) celebrities try to play ‘Simon Says’ with singing sausages and catch eggs from tropical birds with Essex accents. Where’s the form here for political commentary or satire? There isn’t any, and the BBC knew damn well what it was doing.
It was a poor show (and series), though I seem to remember watching it a few years ago and thinking it was decent…perhaps its just gone downhill.
Cumberbatch, or whatever his name is, really gets me. All the benefits of a privileged background and yet adopts all sorts of stupid socialist causes.
On a related point, Sherlock is so hyped by the Beeb, I think it also is a hit overseas. Given that, it must make money – right? Isn’t that the only future for them? Commercial hits, ergo theres no need for a license fee anymore…
The Mash has it spot on! http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/arts-entertainment/sherlock-baddie-make-me-vote-labour-2014011382532
Oh dear Lord. You do realise it’s satirising bone-headed threads like this and not the BBC’s Sherlock?
The heat generated by this one BBC offering tells me that the BBC is very very short of decent programmes. If Sherlock is all it has got then it is in trouble.
East Enders or nothing ?