Reply from BBC Complaints regarding Feedback on 1/5/25

 This reply was received on 23 May 2025.

Thank you for contacting us about Feedback on 1 May.

We note your concerns regarding the inclusion of listener comments about the BBC’s coverage of the Pope’s death and funeral, and the impression this may have given about the nature of radio coverage.

The programme aimed to explore the BBC’s editorial approach to a major global event, rather than focus solely on where it was broadcast. Listener correspondence featured in the programme related to the BBC’s overall coverage of “the death and funeral” of Pope Francis, across television, radio, and online platforms.

On BBC radio, regular news updates were provided throughout the day of the funeral. The inclusion of an interview with the BBC’s Religion Editor was intended to offer broader context on how such events are covered across the BBC.

We do hope this provides further clarification, and we appreciate you taking the time to share your concerns with us.

Complaints are sent to senior management and we’ve included your points in our overnight reports. These reports are among the most widely read sources of feedback in the BBC. This ensures that your concerns have been seen by the right people quickly, and helps to inform decisions about current and future content.

If you’d like to understand how your complaint is handled at the BBC, you might find it helpful to watch this short film https://www.bbc.co.uk/contact/complaints. It explains the BBC’s process for responding to complaints, what to do if you aren’t happy with your response and how we share the feedback we receive.

Thanks again for getting in touch.

Kind regards, 
BBC Complaints Team 

Partial transcript of Feedback (BBC Radio 4, 1/5/25)

First section of the programme only. AC = Andrea Catherwood, AM = Aleem Maqbool. I've omitted most of AM's responses as they're not relevant to the point at issue.

AC: Hello and welcome. It's the last Feedback of the series, but that doesn't mean you can't tell the BBC what you think. You may already have received a questionnaire asking for your views on the future of the BBC. Well you've been letting me know what you thought about the coverage of the death and funeral of Pope Francis. And on Radio 3, Clive Myrie's Music on the Front Line has fired up your interest.

From early morning on Easter Monday, when it was announced that Pope Francis had died, that news and coverage of his funeral in Rome has been a major story across the BBC.

[Clips of Radio 4 coverage, including Jane Steel reading news, Paddy O'Connell, Edward Stourton]

AC: Even though the Pope was an elderly man who'd been seriously ill in recent weeks, the news was still a momentous event. After the solemnity and drama of the funeral, the thoughts of those in the Vatican, the wider Catholic church and the media have turned to what lies ahead. Well in a minute I'll be talking to the BBC's Religion Editor, Aleem Maqbool, about the preparations and coverage, but first here's some of your comments.

Voice 1: Hi, this is Susan Teggart in Leeds. I want to thank the BBC for the amazing coverage of the requiem mass and the removal of the coffin of Pope Francis. The commentary was respectful, knowledgeable and informative. I'm certain no other broadcasting corporation would have covered it so brilliantly. It was wonderful to be able to see the whole mass and hear the detailed explanations given.

Voice 2: This is Iris Waugh. I'd like to comment on the death of Pope Francis and the subsequent formalities and services, including the formal funeral procession and laying of the Pope in his preferred spot. I thought the British-based media coverage was professional, courageous, well-researched with expert commentary. Thank you to all involved in this sad event.

Voice 3: Hello, this is Agnes Mack from Glasgow. I would like to thank the BBC for their coverage of the funeral of Pope Francis. It was very much appreciated to have the opportunity to take part in the service. The whole team did a great job.

AC: Well after a very busy time in Rome, Aleem Maqbool, the BBC's Religion Editor, has still found time for Feedback. So Aleem firstly, thank you very much indeed for this. As you've heard, many of the comments from listeners to Feedback have been complimentary about the radio coverage. Words like "knowledgeable", "praise for the detailed explanations". Now obviously you've known for some time that the late Pope was unwell, but I wonder just how much preparation you and the team had been able to do before the news of his death?

AM: Well it's lovely to hear those comments of course. We knew he was a man of 88, he had various complications in terms of his health over recent years [etc.]

AC: Of course the tone is so important at events like this. For some listeners, this is such an emotional, spiritual and profoundly sad occasion, and of course for others it's just a news story. So how do you go about getting that balance?

[Reply from AM]

AC: It's interesting that you brought that up, because one of our listeners said they were very offended. Because they were mourning the passing of an amazing caring man, and they said that all the BBC wanted to talk about was its scandal. Now this is not the day, they said, and yet of course there are others who would be appalled if you were to report on Pope Francis and the Catholic church more broadly without mentioning its many controversies.

[Reply from AM]

AC: Now of course for many listeners, even those with no affiliation to the Catholic church, the next chapter holds a lot of interest. All of those of us who have read or watched conclave will know how much intrigue and politics may be taking place behind the closed doors as cardinals choose the next Pope. I suppose there's a balance too in how you cover that.

[Reply from AM]

AC: Aleem, good luck with all that research, and we look forward to the next chapter. Aleem Maqbool, religion editor of the BBC, thank you so much for joining us on Feedback.

AM: It's been a pleasure.

Misleading item on Feedback (BBC Radio 4, 1/5/25) concerning the Pope's funeral

This is a version of an email that I sent on 7th May to Whistledown Productions, who are responsible for Feedback on BBC Radio 4, including a few explanatory links that weren't necessary for the email.

Update (17th May): There was no reply from Whistledown. A version was submitted to the BBC on 17th May as an official complaint (slightly edited to meet the 2000-character limit).

On Thursday 1st May BBC Radio 4 broadcast an edition of Feedback, the programme devoted to listeners' views on BBC Radio. The first section of the programme consisted of correspondence from a number of listeners apparently complimenting BBC Radio on its coverage of the Pope's funeral, followed by an interview with Aleem Maqbool, Religion Editor for BBC News. The programme is available to hear here.

There was no indication on the programme that there had been no live coverage of the Pope's funeral on the BBC's domestic radio services. As indicated here, there was television coverage on BBC One and on the BBC News channel, but the only radio coverage was on the BBC World Service. This was in an extended edition of the news programme "Weekend" and the service was not covered in full. The World Service coverage was also carried on the "Live News" stream on BBC Sounds but there wasn't much publicity about this.

As Feedback doesn't normally cover either television or the BBC World Service, it seemed an odd thing for listeners to be writing to the programme about. The first comment broadcast by Feedback appeared to be about the TV coverage, as it referred to an opportunity to "see the whole mass".

The second comment was almost certainly about the World Service coverage, as it referred to the "British-based media coverage", so was presumably from an overseas listener. Exactly the same audio clip was played on Over to You, the World Service's equivalent programme, and it can be heard at around 3:40 here. Over to You and Feedback are both made by Whistledown Productions so it's possible that correspondence sent to one programme may have been included in the other. However there was no mention on the programme that the correspondence wasn't sent directly to Feedback.

I'm not sure where the third comment came from.

The comments made by Andrea Catherwood at the start of the interview gave the clear impression that listeners had written to Feedback complimenting BBC Radio on its coverage of the funeral. Some listeners may have been misled into thinking that there had actually been live coverage on Radio 4, 5 Live or elsewhere. There was no correspondence commenting on the lack of coverage, which I had been expecting when I tuned in to the programme.

Please could you explain how Feedback was able to present such a misleading item?

Possible origins of the "Mandela Effect"

The following article is mostly compiled from posts I made to this thread on the former QI Talk Forums in 2017, with a small amount of editing. The final section dates from 2021.

In 2017 I learned via the QI Talk forums that there are people with a clear memory that Nelson Mandela died in prison during the 1980s, when in fact he didn't die until 2013. There's a fascinating page dedicated to the phenomenon here. (It originally dates from 2010, when Mandela was still alive, though it's since been updated.)

Now I can understand why people might have initially gained such a false impression. Maybe there was another anti-apartheid activist who died around that time, and people are conflating that memory with their memory of Mandela. For instance, it was pointed out to me that Steve Biko died in 1977, but his fame in the west spread throughout the 80s, particularly with the release of 'Cry Freedom' in 1987.

But I can't for the life of me work out how they continued believing it during the "Free Nelson Mandela" campaign of the 1980s; or after his release from prison in 1990, which was broadcast all round the world; or after his election as South African President in 1994, which gained worldwide headlines; or after he retired as President in 1999. Surely at some point they'd have said to themselves "hang on, so he isn't dead after all?"

Fiona Broome, who coined the term "Mandela effect" and set up the website, says that Steve Biko wasn't the source of the confusion in her case (though it might be for some other people, of course):

I recall Steven Bantu Biko’s murder. That’s not what I’m remembering as I recall Nelson Mandela’s death in prison. However, I appreciate the reference, in case some readers look at that and say, “Oh. Wait. That might the person and events I’m confusing with Mandela.” For me, there’s no question: I remember the news coverage of Nelson Mandela’s death. It was definitely Mandela, not someone else.

It does seem as though something very odd is going on here. I completely discount Fiona Broome's own explanation that it's a paranormal phenomenon; the phenomenon of "collective false memory" (as it's more generally known) is well documented.

But believing that Nelson Mandela died in prison in the 1980s, when there was so much publicity about the campaign for his release? Really? Even if you had no interest in international politics at the time, you could hardly have missed the song "Free Nelson Mandela" by the Specials (or the Special AKA as they were known at the time), which got to number 9 in the UK charts in 1984. Or the huge 70th birthday concert from Wembley Stadium in 1988, screened in full by the BBC and shown by broadcasters around the world.

At least, not if you lived in the UK. Or in most other countries outside the USA, it seems. (Apart from South Africa itself, of course; but I doubt whether anyone there seriously believed that Mandela was dead.) However, according to the Wikipedia article about the 70th birthday tribute concert, the Fox television network in the US showed only six hours, cut out any references that could be regarded as political, and billed the concert as "Freedomfest" without mentioning Mandela's name in the title.

It's significant that nearly all the supposed recollections of Mandela's death in the 1980s appear to come from the USA. I'm not generally one for conspiracy theories, but were rumours of his death deliberately circulated there in order to discredit the anti-apartheid movement? The USA was one of the strongest opponents of the economic boycott against South Africa. A lot of the anti-apartheid campaign in the 80s was heavily personalized around Mandela. Maybe, if enough people in the USA were led to believe that he was dead, they would have had no reason to support the campaign.

This all sounds a bit Orwellian, but I've read enough about the so-called "Mandela effect" now to think that something must be afoot beyond the usual phenomenon of "collective false memory". This is a thread on Reddit about the phenomenon, and parts of it are quite disturbing. It's comments like the following that make me think that there was some sort of brainwashing exercise going on. (This is perhaps one of the more extreme ones, but it's by no means an isolated occurrence.)

I was taught in kindergarten that he had died in prison. We had funeral/celebrations of life for him in school each year just before Black History Month. We were taught that his death was a symptom of international tyranny, and to fight for freedom of speech, and beliefs, and for people to keep the tight to disagree with each other. We did letters to amnesty international about freeing other political prisoners bc no one should have to die in jail like Mandela. We were taught that the apartheid was still going on, and how evil it was, and how many children were dying of starvation bc of it. Then, abruptly, in fifth grade it was never spoken of again.

Something must have caused a significant number of Americans to believe that Nelson Mandela died in the 1980s, when he quite clearly didn't. Here's a comment from Robert Crowder on the original Mandela Effect site that pins the "death" down to a particular week in 1983:

I haven’t thought about this in a while, but last week I was going through some boxes @ my Dads home and found some of my old notebooks and it contains a copy of the current event that I turned in the week ending on March 11, 1983. My report was only detailed about his death in prison and that he had been sick for a while. It focused on how the country of South Africa was pulled together due to his passing. I did not write the Actual date of his death, but I assume it was earlier that week. We had to turn a current event summary in Every Friday about something that happened that week for my Economics class. I am scanning a copy to my Hard drive but do not see a way to post it here. I did not receive a grade on the paper, just a check at the top of the page to remark that I had done my work. Although I have this paper in hand, it is disturbing to me that what I remember is true. I am kinda Freaked over it. My Dad does not remember it but is confused as to why it exists as he knows I could not have recently planted it there.

At another poster's suggestion, I turned to Snopes, that well-known and normally reliable myth-debunking site, for possible elucidation. However their "explanation" was profoundly unconvincing:

Why do some people remember Nelson Mandela dying 30 years before he did? Perhaps it’s simply a case of two isolated bits of knowledge — that Nelson Mandela spent a long time in prison and that he’s dead — being pieced together into a false memory in the absence of an actual recollection of the announcement of his death.

Given that the so-called "Mandela effect" was documented at least three years before his death, that simply can't be right.

It was then suggested to me that his death might have been conflated with widespread coverage of a long, solemn procession following Mandela's release in 1990, as this article by Brian Dunning has it:

On February 11, 1990, Nelson Mandela was released from prison after 27 years. Reporters from all over the world covered the event. Tens of thousands of South Africans attended. A convoy of cars, escorted by police, transported Mandela into Capetown where he and other leaders of the African National Congress addressed the crowd. The event lasted much of the day and was a powerful moment of solemn pride. Many Americans watched some part of it on the news, and retained some vague memory of something on TV about a large dignified event in South Africa pertaining to Nelson Mandela, a name many generally recognized but didn't (at the time) know a whole lot about. Some leader of the movement to oppose apartheid. It shouldn't be too surprising that in later years, when the name Nelson Mandela came up, some Americans might remember seeing some large state procession on TV that could easily be mistaken for a funeral.

There are at least two problems with this. First of all, pretty much all the people who claim to recall Mandela's premature death place it in the 1980s, and generally the early part of the 1980s - actual dates seem to be a bit vague, but I've seen 1983 mentioned more than once. I suppose that February 1990 was early enough in the new decade that some people might have thought it was the 80s, but it was the "wrong end" of the 80s by most of the accounts that I've read.

But secondly, I find it impossible to imagine how anyone who watched even a few seconds of the coverage could possibly have mistaken it for a funeral. Here's a clip. Cheering crowds, triumphant salutes, flags waving, horns beeping, people running alongside the car to get photos. When did you ever see a funeral like that? And when did you ever see a man give a speech at his own funeral? Who did the great American public think it was, if it wasn't him?

If that theory were true, then Mandela's release from prison would have had to be the last footage of him broadcast on TV - which it clearly wasn't. He was a very prominent figure in world news right up until his election as President and beyond. Unless the US media decided to ignore South Africa from that point onwards.

So it's a good theory, but I'm not convinced. Dunning does make one very good point though:

If Fiona Broome had been a cognitive psychologist instead of a psychic ghost hunter, the idea of a Mandela Effect might never have existed.

I agree. She describes herself as a "paranormal consultant" and only appears to be interested in people who support her psychic explanation of the phenomenon. It's a shame, because it means that it can easily be dismissed as some sort of fringe theory that isn't worth investigating, especially when it gets lumped in with easily explained stuff like misspellings of names in popular culture. This appears to be a phenomenon of a totally different order.

I'm willing to believe that there are substantial numbers of Americans who misremember the "Berenstain Bears" as the "Berenstein Bears", for instance. I'd never actually heard of them before I started reading up on all this, but "-stein" is a much commoner ending for American surnames than "-stain", so it's natural that many Americans would have jumped to that conclusion. They would then have had their erroneous beliefs confirmed by others who believed the same thing. This sort of explanation seems to fit the majority of the so-called "Mandela effects" that seem to get discussed on the internet.

But I don't believe that it's a plausible explanation of the false beliefs about Mandela's early death. I'm starting to wonder whether, when people jump on the "Mandela effect" bandwagon because of some other unrelated false belief, they start claiming that they, too, remember Mandela's early death because that's what other people want them to remember. Could it be that some people are now claiming that they once held a false belief of Mandela's early death when, in reality, they believed nothing of the sort?

All the evidence collected about this so far seems to have been purely anecdotal; there's been no attempt to conduct any sort of scientific study that I know of. It would be interesting to try to find out if there are any reports of false beliefs of Mandela's early death dating from before 2010 when Fiona Broome coined the term "Mandela effect" and launched the website. I'm willing to speculate that they're rare or non-existent.

UPDATE (2021): There is one possible explanation which is arguably more plausible than any of the explanations advanced so far. In 1985 it appears that there were false rumours circulating that Mandela had died in prison. This is from the Canberra Times dated 18 September 1985:

Hundreds of Soweto high school students went on a rampage yesterday because of rumours that black leader Mr Nelson Mandela had died in prison. The incident came as police armed with shotguns barred more than 1,000 students and teachers from reopening Cape Town area schools ordered closed by the Government because of rioting and as South African troops and planes swept into southern Angola to strike at South-West African guerillas the military said were planning attacks on towns and military bases. Mr Mandela's wife, Winnie, said the rumours were false.

Perhaps this is the incident that people were remembering. To date, I can come up with nothing better.

Richard Osman's "Nuts" lecture from The Unbelievable Truth (Radio 4, 21/1/19)

[DM - David Mitchell, RO - Richard Osman, HW - Holly Walsh, SC - Susan Calman, DO'D - David O'Doherty]

DM: Richard, your subject is "nuts". Dry fruit consisting of usually edible seed kernels enclosed in usually inedible hard shells. Off you go Richard, fingers on buzzers the rest of you.

RO: To start this lecture, I took a bag and I stuffed it full of every type of nut I could think of. Join me now, if you will, on a magical journey as I rummage through my bulging nut sack. What's first? Ah, it's a peanut. A peanut is a type of nut. [Buzz]

DM: Holly.

HW: [giggles nervously] I just got so confused with the rules because I realized a peanut isn't a type of nut.

DM: So are you withdrawing your buzz?

HW: I withdraw my buzz.

DM: You're right to withdraw it, because apparently a peanut is not a type of nut. It's a legume, like a pea, but it grows underground. And you know, I just want to say - I've gone on the record with this before - I hate this shit. The fact that half the things that are nuts aren't nuts, and half the things that are fruits are vegetables, and this, that and the other, as if the way we refer to things and the way we cook them is irrelevant, and the biologists have all the say. They've got Latin, haven't they? The people who classify these things have got Latin, they can do what they like with Latin. By all means say that a peanut is not a "nuttus", but don't tell me it's not a nut. It is a nut, it's a major nut. Go into a pub and say "Have you got any nuts?" "Yes, we've got peanuts." "No you haven't, you've got legumes!" [Audience applause] Anyway, I'm going to leave it there, but it is botanically correct that a peanut is not a nut.

RO: Can I go on record as saying something as well?

DM: Go on.

RO: You're going to hate the rest of this lecture! I know about one thousand facts about peanuts. For example, peanut butter rarely contains peanuts. Rather, it is usually made from cashews.

DM [interrupting]: I mean, this is entirely irrelevant to your subject of nuts. I don't know why you're going on about this legume! [Audience applause, buzz] Susan.

SC: I think peanut butter doesn't necessarily have peanuts in it. It's got cashews in it.

DM: Er, no. You're thinking of cashew butter, which you can get apparently at £2.80 a jar from Sainsbury's.

DO'D: Cashew nuts are technically mammals. [Applause] I've always said with The Unbelievable Truth you need to break it right down, because legumes and bulbs are... [Applause]

RO: I tell you what, it's not getting better. Are you ready? The cashew is another type of nut. [Pause, buzz]

DM: Holly.

HW: I think a cashew is definitely a nut.

DM: It isn't. It isn't. What on earth made you think a cashew is a nut? I don't understand it. [Applause] A cashew is the seed of the cashew fruit.

RO: When you make butter out of nuts, you call it "nutter". The Dutch word for peanuts is "mavoenoes", which means "my uncle's nuts". The advert where a peanut M&M provocatively undressed was banned on Dutch television. The Dutch call peanut butter "peanut cheese". [Buzz]

DM: Holly.

HW: I mean, I'm going to guess that's true. The sexy M&M banned on Dutch television.

DM: It was not banned on Dutch television. [Buzz] Susan.

SC: Peanut cheese.

DM: Correct. [Cheering and applause.] Yes, in the Netherlands, peanut butter is called "pindakaas", which literally translates as "peanut cheese".

HW: So are you saying that in Holland, peanut butter is neither nut nor butter?

DM: Everywhere, peanut butter is neither nut nor butter. What it is is legumes ground to a slime.

RO: The trouble is that if you take both the nut and the butter away it's just called "pee", and no one wants to eat it. In Roman times, the flower of the cashew nut was widely believed to be the cause of the common cold. And that is why, even now, we say "cashew" when we sneeze. Back to my nut sack, and what do we find next? A pistachio nut. The pistachio nut is a type of nut. [Buzz, applause.]

DM: Holly, I don't know why you're doing it to yourself.

HW: Is it true though?

DM: No! [Applause] No, the pistachio nut is a member of the cashew family. A pistachio is just a seed. It's just a seed.

RO: Ireland's climate is ideal for growing coconuts. Coconuts are another type of nut. [Buzz]

DM: Holly.

HW: I think Ireland's climate is good for growing coconuts, because there's a Gulf Stream. There's a Gulf Stream and you can grow coconuts in Ireland.

DM: You may be able to, but it's certainly not ideal for growing coconuts.

HW: Well, can you grow a coconut in Ireland?

DM: Well, yes obviously in a greenhouse...

HW: So it's an ideal place to grow coconuts.

DM: I would take issue with your definition of "ideal" as meaning "just about possible".

HW: OK, fine. A coconut is a nut, a coconut is a nut.

DM: Are you going for that as well?

HW: Yes.

DM: I can't believe this. Of course it isn't! It's a drupe or stone fruit.

RO: There is a pattern emerging, I would say.

HW: Yeah, but one of... The thing about this game is, the pattern means that there will be one that you've smuggled through.

SC [smugly]: And it's worth losing those twelve points!

RO: In the olden days, some members of the Irish church believed that geese were actually nuts which grew on trees. [Buzz]

DM: David.

DO'D: I think the people used to believe that geese came from nuts.

DM: Yes they did. [Cheering and applause] The belief was that the geese first developed inside nutshells hanging from trees along seashores, then the nuts fell into the sea and became shellfish, and finally the geese hatched from barnacles. The legend persisted until the end of the eighteenth century, and in County Kerry until relatively recently, Catholics could eat this bird on a Friday because it counted as fish.

RO: Time to give my nut sack some attention again, and what do we have here? Ah! A walnut. The walnut was invented... [Buzz]

DM: David, you just buzzed after the phrase "Ah, a walnut". You can't buzz in on a thing you think he's about to say - well you can, you can say "The next thing is true".

DO'D: The next thing is true.

DM: Richard, carry on.

RO: The walnut was invented by a Japanese nutcracker company in a bid to increase demand. [Applause]

DM: I'm afraid to tell you that isn't true.

RO: Leonardo da Vinci once invented a horse-powered nutcracker, an early incarnation of the Supremes were once called the Nutcrackers, and MC Hammer has a phobia of nutcrackers. [Buzz]

DM: Susan.

SC [shouting]: MC Hammer has a phobia of nutcrackers!

DM: He doesn't. Richard?

RO: OK. Time to empty my nut sack. Brazil nuts... [buzz]

DO'D: I think that means MC Hammer can touch them. [Applause]

RO: Brazil nuts are a type of nut and were named after former Ipswich Town striker and TalkSport show host Alan Brazil. [Buzz]

DM: Holly.

HW: Brazil nuts are a type of nut.

DM: No! [Hysterical audience laughter] No, they're just a seed, just a seed. They're related to blueberries and cranberries, and tea.

HW [incredulous]: Brazil nuts are related to cranberries?

DM: Yeah. I don't think they've kept in touch.

RO: Pine nuts are a type of nut... [buzz]

DM: Holly.

HW: Are pine nuts a type of nut?

DM [abruptly]: No.

RO: ...named after jazz saxophonist Courtney Pine. Almonds are a type of nut... [buzz]

DM [not even waiting for HW's challenge]: Seed inside a drupe. [Applause]

RO: Horse chestnuts are a type of nut. [Buzz]

HW: Yeah.

DM: Horse chestnuts? No, seed.

RO: And finally, hazelnuts. For the film Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, instead of using CGI, director Tim Burton trained forty squirrels over ten months. [Buzz]

DM: Susan.

SC [almost hysterical]: I actually know this one to be completely true. He did train actual squirrels for Charlie and the Chocolate Factory instead of using CGI. I know that for a fact, it's a fact I read somewhere. It's a fact!

HW: Maybe because Susan auditioned for it, but didn't get the part.

DM: You're right, Susan, it is a fact! [Cheering and applause] Yes, he had a team of eight handlers spend ten months training forty squirrels to crack nuts for the scene.

RO: And, amazingly, the hazelnut is not actually a nut at all. [Pause, buzz]

DM [wearily]: Holly, what are you saying is true?

HW: A hazelnut is not a nut.

DM: A hazelnut... is a nut.

HW: Oh! [Applause]

DM: So you have an absolute 100% record of not spotting nuts. And that, I'm very sorry to say, is the end of Richard's lecture! [Cheering and applause] And at the end of that round, Richard, you've managed to smuggle two truths past the rest of the panel, which are that when you make butter made out of nuts you call it "nutter". And the second truth is that Leonardo da Vinci once invented a horse-powered nutcracker. And that means, Richard, you've scored two points!

Moving on

As I'm shortly to leave the QI Forums, which are being closed down, this is just to let you know that my email address is guy.d.barry [at] gmail.com, and I'm always happy to receive correspondence.

I'm currently active on the following forums:

JusttheTalk (recently joined)

DigitalSpy (mainly the radio section)

The Tube Challenge Forum (occasionally)

I use the username "GuyBarry" on all of them. Hope to see you one way or another.

My favourite roads are the A79, the A19, the A136 and the A633.

Thoughts on the clock change

[A few jottings in response to Jessica Furseth's column in today's edition of the i newspaper, entitled "You can turn your clocks back, but I'll be sticking with BST".]

 Daylight Savings Time (DST) is madness.

Just on a point of usage: that's an American term.  In Britain we normally say "daylight saving time" without the "s", although it's more commonly called "summer time".

Winters are bad enough with the cold and rain, so why have we created a situation where, to top it off, we're plunged into darkness at 4pm?

We haven't, certainly not in the south of England.  Tomorrow after the clocks go back, sunset in Bath (where I live) will be around 4.45pm, which means it'll get properly dark around 5pm.  It'll be a little earlier in the north of England and Scotland but not by much.  When we get into December sunset gets close to 4pm, but that change happens gradually - we're not "plunged" into it.

But in any case, that change isn't caused by Daylight Saving Time - it's caused by the end of Daylight Saving Time.  If we got rid of Daylight Saving Time it would make no difference to the times of sunrise and sunset in the winter, only in the summer.

This time last year, I decided to do a little experiment.  When the rest of the country changed their clocks, I just carried on with BST.

So actually you're not saying that Daylight Saving Time is madness - you're saying it's so good that you want it all year round!  This is sometimes known as "permanent Daylight Saving Time", and it was tried in this country under the name "British Standard Time" from 1968-71.  The experiment was not a success.

No, I don't ignore the real time.  I refer to it when making plans with other people, but the prominent clock on my phone screen is set to BST.

What about synchronizing with public transport timetables?  Broadcasting schedules?  Shop opening and closing hours?  School hours (if you have children)?

As a freelance writer I am fortunate to be able to set my schedule, so throughout the winter I keep the same hours as I do through the summer.

Many people aren't in a position to do this of course, but fair enough.

I start the day at 9am, have lunch at 1pm, and wrap up at 5pm.

Well actually, you don't.  You start at 8am, have lunch at noon, and wrap up at 4pm.  Which is absolutely fine of course, and there's a lot to be said for such a working day.  But if it's such a good idea, why not continue with it throughout the summer as well?  That way you'd have even more daylight after the end of the working day.

But as I follow my BST clock, it means that when I pack up for the day, I've had an extra hour of light.

No you haven't.  You've had an hour less of light, because you've started an hour earlier in the morning.  That's why there's an hour left over when you finish work.

My little trick means that when it's 4pm in gloomy Britain and the sun sets, it's actually 5pm for me and, trust me, that one hour makes a world of difference.

Well good for you, but it's not caused by changing the clock.  It's caused by the fact that you've chosen to work an 8-4 day rather than a 9-5 one.  I used to work a 6-2 day (not through choice, I was running a newsagent's) and there were always a couple of hours of daylight after the end of work, even in the depths of winter.  I didn't need to change the clock to appreciate them.

If we stayed on BST, it would save on energy costs and cut down carbon emissions.

I very much doubt it.  What you saved in the evenings you'd lose in the mornings.  Where I live, sunrise wouldn't occur until after 8am in November, and in December it would be dark until nearly 9am.

...my personal summer time rebellion has solved a lifelong problem for me.

Well good for you, but you could have achieved the same thing by simply getting up earlier!