º£½ÇÊÓƵ

The º£½ÇÊÓƵ is such a centralised place, the idea of seems akin to announcing proposals to paint all the country's dogs pink.

But why should it be? Birmingham is a city of more than a million people amidst a conurbation of more like five million - it should be making television that the world wants to see.

Reports today claim there is a possibility the station could be moved to the city by a Government keen to make the broadcasting sector more efficient and, more importantly, more regional.

, BBC Two, BBC Three, Sky, , and so on, have no real footprint here. And yet, if you want to be close to your audience, the heart of the country isn't a bad spot.

More importantly than that, Birmingham is where the audience of the future lives. Europe's youngest city is also one of its most vibrant and diverse - if you can find a home here, things are looking good for the next 10 or 20 years.

I'd also venture now is the time for a move such as this. Youtube has already changed television so much that stations have gotten old quickly. More and more, television is going to be made in front of a computer screen, rather than behind a camera, and that can just as easily, and far more affordably, be done in the second city as the capital.

Also, how healthy can it be to have such London dominance? I'd venture Birmingham is a decent alternative and isn't Channel 4 supposed to be, well, alternative?

There would be no shortage of seemingly ideal places - . Its vast developable space, combined with an independent spirit, would appear to tailor-make it for Channel 4. And the talent is out there. Most of the country is less than 90 minutes away.