It started a bit before then anyway, with shows like Hill Street Blues, L.A. Law, and St. Elsewhere, but those were relatively rare series. Now there's almost too much good television to keep up with; the proliferation of channels, the syndication of shows, box sets, and now streaming has created a huge demand for great drama in large volumes, which surprisingly the US television industry has managed to supply.
The best television drama is now as good as anything you will see in a cinema.
US TV doesn't need kids - its aimed at adults at home, and it doesn't need foreign types - the domestic market is vast enough to fund the smaller budgets of US TV shows. So the TV is superior and smarter.
The exception is animated movies, which just get better and better, but this is because they are aimed at adults - the parents! - and foreigners can use whatever script they like, as it is all rewritten and dubbed.
I would have thought programmes like 'how I met your mother at the Goldberg's in a big bang' ought to dispel the not made for teen ( or infantile) theory of US TV shows
There just aren't enough clever Brits to make a show like that profitable, unless - ironically - they can then sell it to America.
US sitcoms are, also, superior. Not sure we have anything to match Community or Parks and Recs, say. However our recent sketch shows at their best (Big Train, Mitchell and Webb) have reached heights Americans never match (yet). I have no idea why.
The UK made The Office originally. The UK made House of Cards originally. We're good at talent, LA is better at monetising things in the long term.
The BBC made ten episodes of The Office, the US made two hundred and one episodes. The UK made twelve episodes of house of cards, the US made thirty nine and its still running. It's not just monetising, its about fleshing out and giving people what they want.
Both of those shows are great, but the nature of how shows are put together here, usually a couple of writers exchanging scripts with each other, means that the output cannot be scaled. In the US you have a team of extremely talented writers churning the stuff out.
I'm still a massive fan of Waking The Dead even though it ended in 2011.
I noticed on various review websites than US contributors were writing in around 2003 that they were impressed by how good the show was compared to American programmes at that time.
It started a bit before then anyway, with shows like Hill Street Blues, L.A. Law, and St. Elsewhere, but those were relatively rare series. Now there's almost too much good television to keep up with; the proliferation of channels, the syndication of shows, box sets, and now streaming has created a huge demand for great drama in large volumes, which surprisingly the US television industry has managed to supply.
The best television drama is now as good as anything you will see in a cinema.
No, US TV is now much much better than US cinema, which is hamstrung by 1, having to cater for a mainly teen audience at home and 2. having to cater for the Chinese and others abroad (increasingly important to land the really big bucks) - it means ideas, scripts and plots get increasingly generic and simplistic and all nuance is lost.
US TV doesn't need kids - its aimed at adults at home, and it doesn't need foreign types - the domestic market is vast enough to fund the smaller budgets of US TV shows. So the TV is superior and smarter.
The exception is animated movies, which just get better and better, but this is because they are aimed at adults - the parents! - and foreigners can use whatever script they like, as it is all rewritten and dubbed.
I would have thought programmes like 'how I met your mother at the Goldberg's in a big bang' ought to dispel the not made for teen ( or infantile) theory of US TV shows
Duh. Of course some US TV - lots of it, in fact - is utter crap. Aimed at kids or morons, i.e. most of the people. But there are up to 40m very smart American adults who want really good TV drama. Hence Breaking Bad. (Check the audience stats for Breaking Bad - they are tiny by US standards, but still enough to make it viable)
There just aren't enough clever Brits to make a show like that profitable, unless - ironically - they can then sell it to America.
US sitcoms are, also, superior. Not sure we have anything to match Community or Parks and Recs, say. However our recent sketch shows at their best (Big Train, Mitchell and Webb) have reached heights Americans never match (yet). I have no idea why.
Ah, yes I would go with that. But most of the serieses that are being talked about today here are of small interest to me I'm afraid. The procedural types are fine enough for me, but you can spot the poor to average 'manufactured' shows. Usually involving autopsies these days. My attention span must be declining. Success I think is down to luck and the happenstance of the chemistry of casting. I quite like a reasonable bit of American TV. It's just as well we have it, UK TV is rubbish.
Duh. Of course some US TV - lots of it, in fact - is utter crap. Aimed at kids or morons, i.e. most of the people. But there are up to 40m very smart American adults who want really good TV drama. Hence Breaking Bad. (Check the audience stats for Breaking Bad - they are tiny by US standards, but still enough to make it viable)
There just aren't enough clever Brits to make a show like that profitable, unless - ironically - they can then sell it to America.
US sitcoms are, also, superior. Not sure we have anything to match Community or Parks and Recs, say. However our recent sketch shows at their best (Big Train, Mitchell and Webb) have reached heights Americans never match (yet). I have no idea why.
...and it's getting more and more difficult for the Brits to produce sketch shows: they're a bit endangered at the mo'. (When was the last really good one? Catherine Tate?) Compare panel shows, which are cheap as chips, and you see the problem. Six slebs, Rob Brydon and a audience of drunk pensioners from Romford and that's half a hour on a Friday night sorted and it only cost you tuppence.
As for audience figues, am I right in thinking it's the US police procedurals (NCIS, CSi, etc) that have the biggest audience figures, both domestic and globally?
It started a bit before then anyway, with shows like Hill Street Blues, L.A. Law, and St. Elsewhere, but has managed to supply.
The best television drama is now as good as anything you will see in a cinema.
US TV doesn't need kids - its aimed at adults at home, and it doesn't need foreign types - the domestic market is vast enough to fund the smaller budgets of US TV shows. So the TV is superior and smarter.
The exception is animated movies, which just get better and better, but this is because they are aimed at adults - the parents! - and foreigners can use whatever script they like, as it is all rewritten and dubbed.
I would have thought programmes like 'how I met your mother at the Goldberg's in a big bang' ought to dispel the not made for teen ( or infantile) theory of US TV shows
There just aren't enough clever Brits to make a show like that profitable, unless - ironically - they can then sell it to America.
US sitcoms are, also, superior. Not sure we have anything to match Community or Parks and Recs, say. However our recent sketch shows at their best (Big Train, Mitchell and Webb) have reached heights Americans never match (yet). I have no idea why.
The UK made The Office originally. The UK made House of Cards originally. We're good at talent, LA is better at monetising things in the long term.
The BBC made ten episodes of The Office, the US made two hundred and one episodes. The UK made twelve episodes of house of cards, the US made thirty nine and its still running. It's not just monetising, its about fleshing out and giving people what they want.
Both of those shows are great, but the nature of how shows are put together here, usually a couple of writers exchanging scripts with each other, means that the output cannot be scaled. In the US you have a team of extremely talented writers churning the stuff out.
We cant scale up here. Thats the difference.
Maybe it's a bad thing but I like it that we only made a few classic episodes if the office, same for fawlty towers and Blackadder. Only fools and horses was a show il loved until about 88 then it got milked and was very unfunny... Can barely watch five mins of it now
Stereotype maybe, but I think the fact we made 10 episods of the office and the Americans made 201 is why I like being english
Duh. Of course some US TV - lots of it, in fact - is utter crap. Aimed at kids or morons, i.e. most of the people. But there are up to 40m very smart American adults who want really good TV drama. Hence Breaking Bad. (Check the audience stats for Breaking Bad - they are tiny by US standards, but still enough to make it viable)
There just aren't enough clever Brits to make a show like that profitable, unless - ironically - they can then sell it to America.
US sitcoms are, also, superior. Not sure we have anything to match Community or Parks and Recs, say. However our recent sketch shows at their best (Big Train, Mitchell and Webb) have reached heights Americans never match (yet). I have no idea why.
...and it's getting more and more difficult for the Brits to produce sketch shows: they're a bit endangered at the mo'. (When was the last really good one? Catherine Tate?) Compare panel shows, which are cheap as chips, and you see the problem. Six slebs, Rob Brydon and a audience of drunk pensioners from Romford and that's half a hour on a Friday night sorted and it only cost you tuppence.
As for audience figues, am I right in thinking it's the US police procedurals (NCIS, CSi, etc) that have the biggest audience figures, both domestic and globally?
Very important people was a great sketch show and unbelievably didn't get a second series on ch4
Controlled explosion demolition fails to bring down Glasgow tower blocks - the tallest steel framed buildings in the UK according to the report - though I'd have said surely London has bigger?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRzk1b5pbC8
I think you're right that there must be bigger than these. It's my understanding that steel frames must be used for all tower blocks over about 30 stories high. Reinforced concrete is cheaper but can't be used for the highest blocks. (I write as someone who has worked 17 years in the steel industry though I'm not an expert in this aspect)
Why do you think the demolition failed to bring down the buildings?
Because the CIA and illuminati are the experts in demolishing skyscrapers and were otherwise engaged?
Yes, where's a jumbo jet when you need it? Nothing like one of those banging into the side of a steel framed structure to make it vanish into its own footprint.
Though I have evidence that it was a hologram and the planes are being used in black ops...
You must be better versed than me. I'm quite happy to leave the theorising to others and simply point out the impossibilities.
But not tonight - night all.
Sorry its past your bedtime otherwise I could point out that when the explosion blew off the steel fire protection the floors above the impacts eventually collapsed.
Nick, Crusader Kings 2 an Europa Universalis IV should both be right up your street., especially the first though be prepared for a steep learning curve (not the game play but the decision effects) and to wave farewell to sleep.
I played a fair amount of EU III and enjoyed it, but preferred HoI as the WW2 theme was more engaging. Never managed to get into CK2 - the long time scale put me off. Just too fussy!
Both of those shows are great, but the nature of how shows are put together here, usually a couple of writers exchanging scripts with each other, means that the output cannot be scaled. In the US you have a team of extremely talented writers churning the stuff out.
We cant scale up here. Thats the difference.
Lew Grade's ATV used to do that, but that died in the 70s.
Helen Goodman's Bishop Auckland constituency is one of the Tories' main targets at the next election. There's been an 18.5% swing to them since 1997, one of the biggest shifts in that direction over that time.
It started a bit before then anyway, with shows like Hill Street Blues, L.A. Law, and St. Elsewhere, but has managed to supply.
The best television drama is now as good as anything you will see in a cinema.
US TV doesn't need kids - its aimed at adults at home, and it doesn't need foreign types - the domestic market is vast enough to fund the smaller budgets of US TV shows. So the TV is superior and smarter.
The exception is animated movies, which just get better and better, but this is because they are aimed at adults - the parents! - and foreigners can use whatever script they like, as it is all rewritten and dubbed.
I would have thought programmes like 'how I met your mother at the Goldberg's in a big bang' ought to dispel the not made for teen ( or infantile) theory of US TV shows
There just aren't enough clever Brits to make a show like that profitable, unless - ironically - they can t
The UK made The Office originally. The UK made House of Cards originally. We're good at talent, LA is better at monetising things in the long term.
The BBC made ten episodes of The Office, the US made two hundred and one episodes. The UK made twelve episodes of house of cards, the US made thirty nine and its still running. It's not just monetising, its about fleshing out and giving people what they want.
Both of those shows are great, but the nature of how shows are put together here, usually a couple of writers exchanging scripts with each other, means that the output cannot be scaled. In the US you have a team of extremely talented writers churning the stuff out.
We cant scale up here. Thats the difference.
Stereotype maybe, but I think the fact we made 10 episods of the office and the Americans made 201 is why I like being english
I think there's a middle ground to be honest. 10 superb episodes of something is better than 10 superb ones within 100 mediocre ones, but some great US shows have managed to be consistently good across dozens upon dozens of episodes. Even if we cannot manage US full length seasons at high quality, I feel like we should be able to produce shows of 10-13 at a time every year for a few years, for a good enough show, but we rarely seem to.
It started a bit before then anyway, with shows like Hill Street Blues, L.A. Law, and St. Elsewhere, but has managed to supply.
The best television drama is now as good as anything you will see in a cinema.
US TV doesn't need kids - its aimed at adults at home, and it doesn't need foreign types - the domestic market is vast enough to fund the smaller budgets of US TV shows. So the TV is superior and smarter.
The exception is animated movies, which just get better and better, but this is because they are aimed at adults - the parents! - and foreigners can use whatever script they like, as it is all rewritten and dubbed.
I would have thought programmes like 'how I met your mother at the Goldberg's in a big bang' ought to dispel the not made for teen ( or infantile) theory of US TV shows
There just aren't enough clever Brits to make a show like that profitable, unless - ironically - they can t
The UK made The Office originally. The UK made House of Cards originally. We're good at talent, LA is better at monetising things in the long term.
The BBC made ten episodes of The Office, the US made two hundred and one episodes. The UK made twelve episodes of house of cards, the US made thirty nine and its still running. It's not just monetising, its about fleshing out and giving people what they want.
Both of those shows are great, but the nature of how shows are put together here, usually a couple of writers exchanging scripts with each other, means that the output cannot be scaled. In the US you have a team of extremely talented writers churning the stuff out.
We cant scale up here. Thats the difference.
Stereotype maybe, but I think the fact we made 10 episods of the office and the Americans made 201 is why I like being english
I think there's a middle ground to be honest. 10 superb episodes of something is better than 10 superb ones within 100 mediocre ones, but some great US shows have managed to be consistently good across dozens upon dozens of episodes. Even if we cannot manage US full length seasons at high quality, I feel like we should be able to produce shows of 10-13 at a time every year for a few years, for a good enough show, but we rarely seem to.
Good night all.
Yes I have to say that I love the show frasier...prob one of my faves. So maybe there is space for the odd 200 episoder!
It started a bit before then anyway, with shows like Hill Street Blues, L.A. Law, and St. Elsewhere, but those were relatively rare series. Now there's almost too much good television to keep up with; the proliferation of channels, the syndication of shows, box sets, and now streaming has created a huge demand for great drama in large volumes, which surprisingly the US television industry has managed to supply.
The best television drama is now as good as anything you will see in a cinema.
No, US TV is now much much better than US cinema, which is hamstrung by 1, having to cater for a mainly teen audience at home and 2. having to cater for the Chinese and others abroad (increasingly important to land the really big bucks) - it means ideas, scripts and plots get increasingly generic and simplistic and all nuance is lost.
US TV doesn't need kids - its aimed at adults at home, and it doesn't need foreign types - the domestic market is vast enough to fund the smaller budgets of US TV shows. So the TV is superior and smarter.
The exception is animated movies, which just get better and better, but this is because they are aimed at adults - the parents! - and foreigners can use whatever script they like, as it is all rewritten and dubbed.
I would have thought programmes like 'how I met your mother at the Goldberg's in a big bang' ought to dispel the not made for teen ( or infantile) theory of US TV shows
Hey I love those shows! Can put E4 on and leave it on all day except for when Hollyoaks comes on which marks time to find the remote.
As for audience figues, am I right in thinking it's the US police procedurals (NCIS, CSi, etc) that have the biggest audience figures, both domestic and globally?
Not any more.
The biggest shows are The Walking Dead, Game of Thrones and Empire (the last of which is bizarre, makes no sense and suggests that there may be a demographic issue with the Nielsen panel).
A few (mainly older) Procedurals are maintaining good ratings but good today is not what it was once. That means in the mid 2s on the rating**, when 5 years ago this would have been about a 7 rating and 10 years ago a 12 rating.
The only thing that dominates on Network television these days is Padded Rugby but even those comparatively huge ratings (Superbowl gets a 30+ rating, regular season from 5 to 14) are down on historic numbers (except the Superbowl).
** US Rating is based on share of Adults 18-49 nothing else is considered and this sets advertising rates. This doesn't make a lot of sense and is probably based on a model for advertising which is at leat 20 years out of date but it persists. HBO and Showtime run subscription models with no advertising so it's not actually relevant to them.
The Rating system leads to some bizarre outcomes. Some of the older procedurals get huge numbers of viewers (over 15 million) but still only get a 2.x on the Rating while other shows can get the same 2.x despite having one third of the actual viewers.
Osborne – Cunning and evil manipulator of the working class’ false consciousness. Preys on voters by talking about their concerns in a language they understand.
As for audience figues, am I right in thinking it's the US police procedurals (NCIS, CSi, etc) that have the biggest audience figures, both domestic and globally?
Not any more.
The biggest shows are The Walking Dead, Game of Thrones and Empire (the last of which is bizarre, makes no sense and suggests that there may be a demographic issue with the Nielsen panel).
A few (mainly older) Procedurals are maintaining good ratings but good today is not what it was once. That means in the mid 2s on the rating**, when 5 years ago this would have been about a 7 rating and 10 years ago a 12 rating.
The only thing that dominates on Network television these days is Padded Rugby but even those comparatively huge ratings (Superbowl gets a 30+ rating, regular season from 5 to 14) are down on historic numbers (except the Superbowl).
** US Rating is based on share of Adults 18-49 nothing else is considered and this sets advertising rates. This doesn't make a lot of sense and is probably based on a model for advertising which is at leat 20 years out of date but it persists. HBO and Showtime run subscription models with no advertising so it's not actually relevant to them.
The Rating system leads to some bizarre outcomes. Some of the older procedurals get huge numbers of viewers (over 15 million) but still only get a 2.x on the Rating while other shows can get the same 2.x despite having one third of the actual viewers.
The system is bonkers.
Thank you. I think your statement matches my understanding that NCIS has an appeal to the older demographic, which would match your comment about high viewers/low rating
As for audience figues, am I right in thinking it's the US police procedurals (NCIS, CSi, etc) that have the biggest audience figures, both domestic and globally?
Not any more.
The biggest shows are The Walking Dead, Game of Thrones and Empire (the last of which is bizarre, makes no sense and suggests that there may be a demographic issue with the Nielsen panel).
A few (mainly older) Procedurals are maintaining good ratings but good today is not what it was once. That means in the mid 2s on the rating**, when 5 years ago this would have been about a 7 rating and 10 years ago a 12 rating.
The only thing that dominates on Network television these days is Padded Rugby but even those comparatively huge ratings (Superbowl gets a 30+ rating, regular season from 5 to 14) are down on historic numbers (except the Superbowl).
** US Rating is based on share of Adults 18-49 nothing else is considered and this sets advertising rates. This doesn't make a lot of sense and is probably based on a model for advertising which is at leat 20 years out of date but it persists. HBO and Showtime run subscription models with no advertising so it's not actually relevant to them.
The Rating system leads to some bizarre outcomes. Some of the older procedurals get huge numbers of viewers (over 15 million) but still only get a 2.x on the Rating while other shows can get the same 2.x despite having one third of the actual viewers.
In all seriousness, I don't know how the f they are going to get the rest of it down.
Forget airstrikes in Syria - they'll be needed in Glasgow.
They can blow them down again if they're stable enough to allow people in, or use a high-reach nibbler (long-boomed excavator with breaker or hydraulic jaws). I think those can reach over ten storeys with the right machine in ideal conditions.
Given the height remaining, the surrounding area and the dreaded H&S, I'd guess on the latter. But the stability of the wreckage is key: a long reach excavator has to get relatively near to the base to reach high.
Iraq's air force has hit a convoy of Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, a [Iraqi] military statement says...
The BBC's Jim Muir says military statements from the Iraqi authorities on the results of actions against jihadi or insurgent leaders have been unreliable in the past, and are treated with some caution.
Iraq does seem to have been making advances against ISIS in recent weeks. They are obviously now linked in with the Russians, Iranians, and Syrians in terms of intelligence sharing, which may be helping. It may alternatively be the Americans providing additional assistance to 'keep their end up', but in that instance I'd be pretty sure they'd want to bag this particular scalp themselves rather than lead the Iraqi airforce to it.
On your latter clause: not necessarily. Getting the Iraqi air force to do it raises the morale of the Iraqi air force, and it gives the Iraqi government some good news: "Look, we're 'winning' against ISIS!"
It also gives the US deniability if there is collateral damage - they might have been thinking of the Afghan bombing a couple of weeks ago.
Controlled explosion demolition fails to bring down Glasgow tower blocks - the tallest steel framed buildings in the UK according to the report - though I'd have said surely London has bigger?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRzk1b5pbC8
I think you're right that there must be bigger than these. It's my understanding that steel frames must be used for all tower blocks over about 30 stories high. Reinforced concrete is cheaper but can't be used for the highest blocks. (I write as someone who has worked 17 years in the steel industry though I'm not an expert in this aspect)
Why do you think the demolition failed to bring down the buildings?
Note: my family were in demolition and building, although not explosives-based ones (we tended to avoid those like the plague).
Firstly, there will be some paranoia over the use of explosives to demolish tower blocks in Glasgow. In the nineties a woman got killed by debris from a blast, and ISTR such demolition was essentially banned in the city until recent years.
To prevent debris from flying to far in case the primary measures (e.g. layers of geotextile wrapped around the explosives) fail, they ideally don't want the explosives too high up the structure if it can be avoided. Therefore they want momentum to demolish as much as possible of the higher floors. I'd guess (and it is little more than that) that they didn't realise the strength of the structure in the upper floors, and they had not done enough pre-weakening. That it happened in two towers at once suggests it was not failed explosives, as does the fact the other that none of the other blocks that collapsed successfully had obvious blasts on the higher floors.
As an aside, I think these were the same tower blocks that Salmond and co wanted to demolish at the opening of the Glasgow Commonwealth games. I said at the time on here it was a barmy idea, and fortunately wiser heads in Glasgow prevailed.
Comments
The UK made twelve episodes of house of cards, the US made thirty nine and its still running. It's not just monetising, its about fleshing out and giving people what they want.
Both of those shows are great, but the nature of how shows are put together here, usually a couple of writers exchanging scripts with each other, means that the output cannot be scaled. In the US you have a team of extremely talented writers churning the stuff out.
We cant scale up here. Thats the difference.
I noticed on various review websites than US contributors were writing in around 2003 that they were impressed by how good the show was compared to American programmes at that time.
I quite like a reasonable bit of American TV. It's just as well we have it, UK TV is rubbish.
Feel like I'm being ripped off...
As for audience figues, am I right in thinking it's the US police procedurals (NCIS, CSi, etc) that have the biggest audience figures, both domestic and globally?
Stereotype maybe, but I think the fact we made 10 episods of the office and the Americans made 201 is why I like being english
— Dan Hodges (@DPJHodges) October 11, 2015
She has come to her senses.... Bit late though now.
Helen Goodman
Helen Goodman – Verified account @HelenGoodmanMP
Wish to absolutely totally apologise for earlier tweet.
3:30 p.m. - 11 Oct 2015
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8tnkpkiqRM
http://youtu.be/YxD1ffmZrHI
Good night all.
https://youtu.be/hSZEIZ9eFtY
Not every show has to be a hard hitting drama.
The biggest shows are The Walking Dead, Game of Thrones and Empire (the last of which is bizarre, makes no sense and suggests that there may be a demographic issue with the Nielsen panel).
A few (mainly older) Procedurals are maintaining good ratings but good today is not what it was once. That means in the mid 2s on the rating**, when 5 years ago this would have been about a 7 rating and 10 years ago a 12 rating.
The only thing that dominates on Network television these days is Padded Rugby but even those comparatively huge ratings (Superbowl gets a 30+ rating, regular season from 5 to 14) are down on historic numbers (except the Superbowl).
** US Rating is based on share of Adults 18-49 nothing else is considered and this sets advertising rates. This doesn't make a lot of sense and is probably based on a model for advertising which is at leat 20 years out of date but it persists. HBO and Showtime run subscription models with no advertising so it's not actually relevant to them.
The Rating system leads to some bizarre outcomes. Some of the older procedurals get huge numbers of viewers (over 15 million) but still only get a 2.x on the Rating while other shows can get the same 2.x despite having one third of the actual viewers.
The system is bonkers.
http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2015/10/11/the-a-z-of-corbsplaining/
Osborne – Cunning and evil manipulator of the working class’ false consciousness. Preys on voters by talking about their concerns in a language they understand.
...and thank you for the detailed reply
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11925338/Queens-advisers-strip-Jeremy-Corbyn-of-Right-Honourable-title-after-Privy-Council-snub.html
Given the height remaining, the surrounding area and the dreaded H&S, I'd guess on the latter. But the stability of the wreckage is key: a long reach excavator has to get relatively near to the base to reach high.
It also gives the US deniability if there is collateral damage - they might have been thinking of the Afghan bombing a couple of weeks ago.
Firstly, there will be some paranoia over the use of explosives to demolish tower blocks in Glasgow. In the nineties a woman got killed by debris from a blast, and ISTR such demolition was essentially banned in the city until recent years.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12719259.Woman_dies_in_demolition_blast/
To prevent debris from flying to far in case the primary measures (e.g. layers of geotextile wrapped around the explosives) fail, they ideally don't want the explosives too high up the structure if it can be avoided. Therefore they want momentum to demolish as much as possible of the higher floors. I'd guess (and it is little more than that) that they didn't realise the strength of the structure in the upper floors, and they had not done enough pre-weakening. That it happened in two towers at once suggests it was not failed explosives, as does the fact the other that none of the other blocks that collapsed successfully had obvious blasts on the higher floors.
As an aside, I think these were the same tower blocks that Salmond and co wanted to demolish at the opening of the Glasgow Commonwealth games. I said at the time on here it was a barmy idea, and fortunately wiser heads in Glasgow prevailed.
Paging JackW and all Jacobite pretenders.
Although the article makes a good point - the chance of the current monarch subjecting to a DNA screening is nil.