Babadababa... that's all... folks!

I applaud that it was raised for discussion at all, but have to say that, too often, when the bouffant or frock or whoever say, all important-like, 'that's all we have time for' to cut off a decent thread, I often end up asking of the one-eyed monster, Emperor's New Clothes-stylee: 'Why? Who made it a rule? Why is the system more important than developing a decent story to a conclusion?'
Frankly it comes across more as a simple, crass method of control.

Time waits for no man...

But we asked him one question too many. And his answer was a lot longer than we anticipated.

Might the solution be a sensible time allotment at the end of the show for trivia that may simply be dropped?

It's not like a breaking event doesn't find things are made way for.

I'm sorry, but too often I have found a good piece of news and or interviewing cut by the dread phrase 'that's all we have time for', which is basically rubbish. It's the end of a slot that has been assessed as part of a mixture of pieces deemed to make up the character of the programme, with egos and balances and pre-scheduled rigidity, and it takes a lot of effort and sulks to change.

All the more so when the time is subsequently dedicated to a skateboarding turtle. Or ads for a select cabal of on tap execs and their brands, no matter how much the 'scoop' of getting them. A free national audience is worth a lot, which the BBC would do well to remember as much as these guys' producer-on-speed dial PR agencies do.

But kudos for at least raising the issue. Shame only two so far have seen it, or at least seen fit to engage. Usually it gets lost on Newswatch before anyone wakes up at the weekend.