Research programmes besides their negative heuristic are also characterized by their positive heuristic.

I often get letters quite frequently from people who say how they like the programmes a lot but I never give credit to the almighty power that created nature.

I've programmed myself musically to come up with love-feeling tracks that are romantic sexy but classy all in one. And that's the challenge. Once I create that music then the lyrical content starts to come - you know the stories and things like that.

The result was that if it happened to clear off after a cloudy evening I frequently arose from my bed at any hour of the night or morning and walked two miles to the observatory to make some observation included in the programme.

That test should not be about ratings. What should weigh is the knowledge that a public broadcaster delivers programmes that matter.

You can only get really unpopular decisions through if the electorate is convinced of the value of the environment. That's what natural history programmes should be for.

In the old days... it was a basic cardinal fact that producers didn't have opinions. When I was producing natural history programmes I didn't use them as vehicles for my own opinion. They were factual programmes.

Our government declared that it is conducting some kind of great reforms. In reality no real reforms were begun and no one at any point has declared a coherent programme.

It is practically impossible to teach good programming to students that have had a prior exposure to BASIC: as potential programmers they are mentally mutilated beyond hope of regeneration.

My duty as a teacher is to train educate future programmers.