February 13, 2011 · 4:28 pm

#oneaday 26: Flick’s Affliction

When I decided to take part in the ‘One a Day’ project with other citizen bloggers, I knew meeting the criteria would be tough. My judgement was sound, I have fallen behind, consistently. This is down to a few factors. In no particular order, my laziness, lack of time (or perceived lack of time), no carrot or stick and a desire to write too much on too many subjects. Far from writer’s block I have blogger’s bulge. As Flick from Bug’s Life said once, and I have quoted too many times, ‘my head is full of ideas.’ Too many ideas, not enough time.

So, getting this blog done is a nod to ‘just letting go’, I have knocked off blog 26 by simply listing what I need to write about next. Again in no particular order:-

Berlusconi and the women protesters.
Big society and how GamesAid was there first.
Scott Parker, a one man manager and captain who is officially neither.
Second hand games and how they effect the games industry.
The Games Consortium, a new project I am leading
The Gareth Thomas story, which will be made into a film starring Mickey Rourke.
People power and the sell off of the forests
Bankers, their bonuses and how Project Merlin is an act of magic – ie deception.
Internet dating and how people part with large sums of money.
West Ham’s plans for the Olympic Stadium.
What’s radio for? Ie the debate about Radio 4 (and 3).
Democracy – is Britain going to be caught up and then left behind, as normally happens?
Retribution to recovery – more on the bankers, their morals and the issue of president Mubarak’s hidden assets
John Sentamu Archbishop of York, Zimbabwe and his dog collar, or lack of it.

So put simply, there are 14 subjects to cover. Given it is day 43 and I have scribbled 26 episodes, I really need to catch up on these 14 and think of 3 more, just to stand still. Now there is a thought…..

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

February 13, 2011 · 8:31 am

#oneaday 25: Sex discrimination and film awards

So today is the day that The King’s Speech could mop up a fair few BAFTAs and leave the deserving Social Network in it’s wake, at least until the Oscars next month. But the real question for me is why are there still categories that are sexually determined? Why do we have ‘Best Actor’ and ‘Best Actress’ in this day and age? Surely these categories are relics of another age? We don’t have ‘Best Male Director’ we have simply ‘Best Director’ so why bother with ‘actor’ and ‘actress’?

Is it that these categories go back to the days of inequality amongst the sexes, especially in the film industry. The fact was all the jobs were done by men and women only took acting and not technical or craft roles outside costume and make up. Surely now it is the time for all film awards to focus on the ‘best’ in class and ditch the sexual demarcation? Could they, the Academies, do the decent thing and make the changes and bring themselves up to date soon please?

Having said all of that, I still think Colin Firth will pip Natalie Portman to the ‘Best Person Portraying Someone Else’ BAFTA tonight. But in the interests of old fashioned forced equality, Natalie will win her category and Colin will win his one and everyone will put their hands together.

1 Comment

Filed under TV

February 7, 2011 · 10:44 pm

#oneaday 24: The Fall of Rupert’s Empire?

My post #24 talked about the impending  implosion within the mainstream media, which was not neccessarily that life threatening all be it still pretty serious. In the fast moving world of the dark arts, our liberty seemingly is actually never respected. The story of the phone hacking scandal at Rupert Murdoch owned ‘News of the World’ has been well covered, admittedly after a very slow start. Unsurprisingly, there has been little or no coverage in the News International owned papers including The Sun, The Times and obviously the News of the World. The vanguard was led by The Guardian and Channel 4, alhough the BBC has now fully got behind the investigation.

To recap briefly on the scandal. A national newspaper, The News of the World has been accused of sanctioning wide spread phone hacking (of people in the public eye) and specifically Andy Coulson, former editor of the paper and latterly communications director at No 10 Downing Street, accused of knowingly allowing this disgusting practice to carry on regardless. Add to this the Metropolitan Police and the Press Complaints Commission’s credibility being seriously called to question and you have a right old caper. And not a very funny one.  When Andy Coulson resigned a couple of Friday’s back there was little media coverage, which has now called into question whether the phone hacking was restricted to the News of the World or actually whether it was and is rife throughout ‘Fleet Street’?

It is good to see the debate now in full flow and I for one hope that the practice of phone hacking is outlawed and ended. Indeed this scandal could strike deep into the heart of the 4th Estate and question the  power exerted in Britain by a foreigner living abroad. The influence of Rupert Murdoch may now be coming under increasing scrutiny and time will tell if the power of the newspapers, not just his, until now peerless and beyond reproach, is beginning to be questioned at long last.  Ultimately, the truth will out.

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics

Tagged as ,

February 7, 2011 · 8:23 pm

#oneaday23: The Holey Trinity – is it a just Mexican stand off?

As our means of collecting and accessing information becomes faster and more comprehensive and the role of the traditional media becomes both questioned and strained, so the dynamics within the media challenge their very existence and importance.  We begin to see a backlash by the media against the media, especially  in Britain where it is a national habit to ‘build ’em up and knock ’em down’. Sometimes the backlash is serious, at other times somewhat more facile. The increasingly open nature of debate means we are seeing the ‘wisdom of the crowds’ becoming more prevalent , which can be a very good thing and sometimes a little more dangerous. This is nothing new, when people are put down, their natural instinct is to rise up. Think 1789 Paris for example. But the crowd is not always right. A couple of weeks back, two prominent presenters on Sky TV lost their jobs, one voluntarily and one without any choice. The ‘crowd’ was right to pronounce their abhorrence and the broadcaster took neccessary action.

But another broadcaster decided not to take action when 3 of their star presenters made racist and insulting comments about Mexicans on their Sunday evening episode of ‘Top Gear’. I did not see the episode, I gave up with Top Gear at the end of the last series, as it seemed to become far too cliched and actually quite boring, like many of these ‘familiar family favourites’ ultimately become. But I have since seen the clips on YouTube and on the national  news since, and it confirmed one thing that Top Gear is actually quite smug, full of itself and ultimately actually boring. The presenters are talented enough, but seeem to believe that they can do what they want, when they want and say what they want about whoever they want. In short they have believed in their own publicity and that is always a sad thing to witness. I am actually not really that bothered what these boys say, my main issue is one of consistency. If they had directed their ‘humour’ at women would there have been the same mute approach from our national broadcaster or indeed the ‘crowd’ in general?

Indeed, is it a decision or lack of it, dictated to by sheer commercial principle? Sky could afford to dispose of Messrs Gray and Keys, both reported to be on salaries of £1.3M per annum, as there are many more who could fill their football boots. But could the BBC afford to dispense wholesale with the Top Gear  triumvirate ? This series generates a massive amount of cash for BBC Worldwide and removing the holy trinity of Clarkson, Hammond and May would leave a massive hole in their P&L. I actually would not want to see anyone lose their job, but maybe the BBC should have a word in their shell like. Given the Russell Brand/Jonathan Ross episode, there is some track record here. If nothing else, it will give those who write Top Gear a kick up the arse of those Marlboro style cowboy booted, denimed clad legged presenters. Indeed Mr Clarkson stated that ‘it is impossible to be funny without offending someone’. I am not sure I completely agree with that. Mind you,  it may just make the show get back to its roots and bcome more interesting and less predictable.

Dear BBC – please restore our faith in your ability to make genuinely funny programmes.  We can but hope

1 Comment

Filed under TV, World Cup 2010

Tagged as , , ,

February 4, 2011 · 8:35 pm

#oneaday 22: Our democratic right to a reply?

I have just received a letter and Papers  from my local MP , Mr James Gray, in response to my letter to register my disapproval against the proposed sell off of our forests to private owners.

Here it is. Talk about using disingenuous pieces of information…..dear oh dear. It will be interesting to see what reply I get next time round. Hopefully one that actually addresses my questions rather than ‘here’s a load of information, pick the bones out of that’, which appears to be the norm. Transparency  is the word!

————————–

Dear Mr Gray,

Thank you for your letter of 28th January 2011 and for enclosing the recently published papers by Rt Hon. Caroline Spelman MP, Secretary of State for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs. I have posed a number of questions which I would like to put to you for consideration.

In the press notice, I question why it is stated that the ‘new direction for England’s public forest estate will protect for future generations’? Can I ask if the current status quo puts these forests under threat? Indeed, the paper goes on to state that ‘the transfer of heritage forests such as the New Forest and the Forest of Dean to charitable trusts will mean walkers, riders and cyclists will still be able to enjoy them as they do at the moment’. Again, are we to suppose that the current ownership model, by the us the people, will threaten our access in the future?

The paper goes on to state. ‘The proposals would remedy the situation where the Commisson is the largest commercial operator in the sector it also regulates’. Can I ask who exactly has made complaints that this is the case? Is it commercial competitors or is it the state, or indeed the people? Indeed, why has the Government already committed to taking 15% of the public forest estate out of state control over the course of this Parliament? You say you will generate £100m income, but what of the cost longer term? Is this a decision driven by the need to unlock money for assets or is it some other principle? £100m in the grand scheme of things, when we waste money on a daily basis in Afghanistan, is frankly pushing irony to its limit. Indeed, do we know how much this nation has spent on Afghanistan under this Government and the previous Government’s administration? Are these figures agreed, audited and known?

I note also the statement that ‘state control of forests dates back to the First World War. when needs were very different. There is now no need for Government to be in the business of timber production and forest management.’ This statement suggests that the concept of state ownership of forests is wrong, and by referencing the First World War, we are somehow living in an outdated manner. Given that we are still involved in t least one futile conflict, maybe your Government would consider rolling this principle out a little further and re-examining exactly what value we are getting from Her Majesty’s Forces being in Afghanistan?

Pam Warhurst, Chair of the Forestry Commission said, ‘Ministers have set out a new vision for forestry in England that will require a fundamental shift in our thinking and how we work. The proposals provide an opportunity to think about ownership and and sustainable land management in a new way and to engage in a wider cross section of society. The consultation will allow people to have their say and we encourage everyone with an interest to give us their views’.  Can I ask did Ms Warhust make this statement, as a public servant, before or after  Ms Spelman had issued her ideas? Does Ms Warhurst believe this is the righh thing to do, or is she just toeing the line? What was the process in Scotland and Wales, and did their Forestry Commissions decide to reject this policy?

I also refer to the letter to all Coalition MPs dated 27th January from Ms Spelman – headed ‘useful points to be aware of’. Frankly this looks like the work of an over eager undergraduate advisor!

1) Only 18% of England’s woodlands is managed by the Forestry Commission. The remainder being owned by various types of organisation. Is this some sort of statement to mitigate the process. Is she saying  ‘please don’t worry, there is nothing new here, it is quite normal, please move on’?
2) ‘Between 1997 – 2010 over 25,000 acres sold with significantly less access and benefit protections that would be the case now’. This somehow suggests, in that awfuly immature party political way that ‘what we are doing is so much better than the previous lot’. Just because Labour, new or otherwise, made a cock up and sold land off to private ownership does not mean it is OK to do the same, as long as you do it ‘better’. Why did we, the people, not know about this? Maybe, just maybe it was down  the appalling lack of transparency that abounded in our public life 5 years or so back.
3) Continuing along the line of argument that ‘Labour were doing this anyway so we are not sure what the problem is’, she states ‘reform of the public forestry estate has been under consideration for some time under the previous Government, with the 2009 ‘Operational Efficiency Programme’ detailing ‘alternatives to public ownership’ and ‘new commercial opportunities’ for the estate. Does this really make the case that this policy is right??

I have checked and noted that in the Commons vote on selling off our woodlands you have voted to support  this policy.  Over 400,000 people and counting have expressed their dismay by petition and yet MPs seem to take little notice. Many of these MPs are the very same Labour and Conservative MPs that refused to acknowledge 1 million ordinary people in the streets of London who marched against the war in Iraq.

Could you also explain to me why you believe that it’s us – the voters – who have got this wrong and not the government? I hope that as my representative in Parliament you will reconsider your position.

Finally, can you enlighten me on a question of Freedom of Information. If these proposals are made law, will the private companies who buy these forests be subject to FOI requests in the same way that the Forestry Commission are now? We are in an age of transparency after long last, and the Coalition Government pride themselves in a new ‘transparent’ approach.

I look forward to hearing from you,

With kind regards,

Andrew Payne

Leave a comment

Filed under Environment

Tagged as ,

February 1, 2011 · 7:32 am

#oneaday 21: When money is easy, madness follows

Yesterday was a significant day in the (English) Premier League – £135 m spent by football clubs in one day, bringing the spend in the January transfer window to in excess of £200m – tens times what it was last year. Significant, however for all the wrong reasons. Indeed is this the last hurrah before the UEFA’s new financial rules come into play in 2013?

Januray 31st 2011 was the day when the English Premier League broke all bonds with its fans, who have clearly become the least important constituent in the football universe. Sitting way back in stands, we peer at the antics of a bloated game, one which cannot produce a credible national team, despite pouring obscene amounts of money into a whole host of distinctly average players. It all starts with the owners. Nowadays these fall into 3 broad groups.

  • The rich individual – think Roman Abramovich at Chelsea (wealth quoted at £8billion) and Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan and his Abu Dhabi United Group at Manchester City. These people are often quotes as businessmen, yet there is often controversy surrounding their wealth. In the case of Abramovich it was gained in a very short period of time when Vladimir Putin broke up a communist, state owned economic system into pieces and bestowed it piece by piece on a number of favoured friends, the oligarchs. Over in Abu Dhabi, well it is a tale of black gold, oil.
  • The US based business conglomerate who may use debt to leverage the purchase, think the Glazers at Manchester United and Gillette and Hicks formerly of Liverpool who basically got it wrong and had to sell out to fellow American John W  Henry of New England Sports Ventures.
  • The rest, usually business men, whether they have made money in the pornography industry, sportswear or intensively farmed battery chickens, but ones who will find competing with the mega rich, just a little bit too, well, rich for them.

Yesterday saw the redistribution of a fraction of one Russian oligarch owners ‘wealth’, into an owner of a sports goods empire, via New England Sports Ventures. When Roman Abramovich decided to part with a mere £50m of his easy money,in return for Fernando Torres, he passed it to John W Henry at Liverpool, who flicked over £35m to Mike Ashley, owner of Sports Direct and Newcastle United for ‘England sensation’ Andy Carroll. I wonder if that money just goes to pay off some of the debts that Newcastle have accrued down the years? Either way I am sure it will be pretty useful to Mr Ashley. Along the way, the usual cuts would have been taken by the agents, even more money would have been put into the overpaid player’s pockets and who knows, maybe us tax payers will have gained a few quid towards our debts.

These amounts of money are nothing short of obscene. They show that the game at the ‘top end’ is nothing more that a bloated and rotten borough. In these troubled times, when pretty much all of the people who pay to watch the games via entrance fees or less so via a Sky Sports subscription, are facing an age of austerity, this sends out a message that the game has become nothing more than an effete and irrelevant sideshow, a circus. As crowd numbers fall off, the owners literally fiddle. It is yet to be seen if a fire has started, but the mood out there amongst the fans is starting to turn against their ‘heroes’.

Whether you wake up today as a Newcastle fan, a Liverpool fan or indeed a Chelsea fan this morning, you anger or elation may be short lived and the gloss may wear a little thin. Indeed, you have to ask whether the late, great Bill Shankly would ever utter his famous saying, ‘some say football is a matter of life and death. I say it is more important than that’, nowadays. Perhaps he would simply say ‘some say football is a matter of money. I say it is a matter of too much money’. I would like to think the great man would have something to say about the mess our once beautiful game is now in.

Leave a comment

Filed under Premier League

Tagged as , , , , ,

January 26, 2011 · 12:54 am

#oneaday 22: How many hands have we got?

So it has taken precisely 5 days for the eloquent and quite brilliant Charlie Brooker to return to the BBC, restore some faith and deliver his unique blend of acerbic, retro laden wit possibly proving that he is far better working on his own, in a darkened room, without carrying the weight of others far less talented than him. Last Thursday saw the first in the series of Brooker’s team effort ‘The 10 O’Clock Show’ on Channel 4 and tonight also at 10pm, saw the first of Brooker’s solo offering, ‘How TV Ruined Your Life’.

I have to say I was very disappointed with the C4 effort. I will stick with it, naturally as it will only get better, but it really felt like it did not know what it really was or wanted to be. David Mitchell, a talent in the same sphere as Brooker, came across as nervy and a little too snooty and dare I say weak when he had a short discussion with some bankers. Too short, too light, too prescribed. Jimmy Carr is always too prescribed and short. There is just something about him that does not quite work, he is almost trying too hard, dressing too sharp and in short (sorry) just one degree away from being an irritant. In contrast Charlie boy is tight, dry and cutting with some patches of profanity, which always seems natural and easy to him, and me. I suspect that Charles would make me laugh over a pint and James would be less, how do you say, immediately funny. But that is purely a suspicion mind you.

The rest of the show was filled with jagged edges. A cut away to a pre-recorded set piece sketch here and there, something about a ‘Holday in Tunisia’ (Jello Biafra would be proud of the nod) segwaying into some appallingly unfunny and hardly relevant spoof of the US news, fronted by the 4th quarter of the team, Lauren Laverne, who frankly looks and feels like she needs to get her TV ‘comedy’ sea legs on. Attempts to ‘get serious’ see Carr interviewing a serious and controversial (obviously) environmentalist called Bjorn, with young Jim pulling the same old faces to the audience who then dutifully laugh somewhat inappropriately bang on cue when the environmentalist talks about making clouds whiter. Is this a straight comedy or a simplistic spoof? Who knows, Carr cuts the man off mid sentence to shoe horn his playful gag about having Bjorn (back on the show) again. All terribly droll and yes, prescribed and predictable.

The show comes back to life, briefly when David runs his ‘Listen to Mitchell’ piece focused on Culture, Media and Sport Minsiter – Jeremy Hunt complete with the Radio 4 version of his name – and his call for more local news. Funny. The humour button stays engaged for a bit of Brooker doing a sort of Screenwipe live (good), but then lapses back again with Mitchell failing again in the interviewers chair. He loses the battle to a very capable David Willetts, with predictable jabs about the student fees, rounded off with David M answering his own questions and getting just a little bit emotional. David Frost he ain’t, Terry Wogan even? Well not quite, yet.

The show comes to a finale with a sort of ’roundtable’ piece which was just about OK. Ms Laverne continues to look disconnected, getting confused about Yvette Cooper and Ed Balls being MARRIED and in the Shadow Cabinet, which is not exactly earth shattering given they were MARRIED and in the Cabinet 6 months ago. What becomes obvious is that Jimmy seems to be more of a Tory than the others, although his idea to make bankers receive their bonuses live on TV is one of the more amusing utterances from him. That would be a good move. Mind you I have never trusted a man who has to laugh at his own jokes and clearly has taken his body language/hand movements straight out of the Blair/Cameron/Clegg handbook.

Verdict: David and Charlie would be better sticking to their own devices and Lauren was great on the Culture Show after she gave up singing. Jimmy Carr is a stand up comedian.

Thus it was reassuring when I invested half the time tonight at 10pm this time on BBC2. This was far more focused, using a lovely rack of public information films as the subject matter. Indeed, the semi legendary ‘British’ boxer, Joe Bugner appeared in one, the ‘Be Smart, Be Safe’ campaign and I am sure Charlie missed him completely. These films were from a more naive age, kids were not media savvy, and governments were certainly more patronising. Brilliant campaigns like ‘If you want to have fun and stay alive’ warned of the dangers of playing with scaffolding, flying kites or chucking Frisbees near overhead cables. Bliss.

We had a wonderful journey into the centre or back of the brain, literally, the Amygdala – which was all news to me. The politics of fear and terror were seen through the eyes of impressionable youth and lived out in those wonderful kids’ existentialist shows ‘Pipkins’ and ‘Orlov’, no wonder we are a creative race, the randomness of what we are brought up with is simply brilliant. We are hard wired to fear loud noises (bang) and sudden movements (falls) and TV plugs into those fears. Given that Crimewatch was launched on the BBC in 1984, one can’t help appreciating the wonderful irony.

Which rather begs the question, ‘what would public information films look like if they were made today’ Messrs Brooker and Mitchell, perhaps that would be the beginning of a beautiful relationship?

Leave a comment

Filed under TV

Tagged as , ,

January 25, 2011 · 6:09 pm

#oneaday 19: Has the iPhone made the world even more politically correct?

As an update to my previous post from this morning, the news has now broken that Sky Sports presenter and former footballer, Andy Gray has been sacked, because of new evidence of further  unacceptable behaviour. This feels a little harsh and it will be interesting to see what will happen to his co-miscreant. Richard Keys, who by all accounts has made an apology to the referee’s assistant, Sian Massey. His fate is not yet declared as far as I can see.

There are 2 main issues here as far as I am concerned:-

1) When is a conversation private and when is it in the public domain?

2) Have Sky Sports acted against Mr Gray for any other reason than his outburst at the weekend?

The answer to 1) is pretty straight forward. In this world where news is 24/7 and there is a positive need to fill the channels, demand for ‘news’ has  never been higher. Therefore even tittle tattle becomes news, not that Gray and Keys’s outburst is tittle tattle, far from it. They should not have said what they said, but no more is there such a thing as ‘privacy’. With mobile recording devices, telephones, cameras and cables into newsrooms, all vital tools to the journalist, now all packed into an iPhone or a Blackberry, everything you say or do can be recorded and transmitted almost in real time. Thus people in the public eye or positions of responsibility, and there are many of them, will either have to ‘clip’ everything they say, or simply become bland and opinionless.  Do we really want people in the public eye to be briefed so tightly that nothing of any interest ever comes out of their mouths? Don’t answer that, plenty of the output from people in the public eye is utter nonsense and of no material interest, but you get where I am coming from.  Or we enter a new and arguably more exciting time, one where no one cares what they say, political correctness goes out of the window and we become a society of the median and the extreme.  Think Boris Johnson, who, whether you like him or not, really does not care what he says, or more accurately what his brief tells him. Boris tells it as it is, right or wrong and maybe, just maybe that will be a way forward, provided of course it is not too extreme, profane or offensive. Try defining that.   

Question 2) is more difficult to answer. Indeed, we will never know if Andy Gray’s legal case against News International, the owner of The News of the World and the 39% owner of Sky Sports, over the phone hacking scandal has influenced the decision. But Rupert Murdoch has flown into town to have top level meetings with his senior lieutenants over the troubled bid to buy the remaining shares at BSkyB and deal with the phone hacking meltdown.   You do have to wonder if Mr Murdoch has taken a personal interest in the small chinks that have been exposed in his empire, and Mr Gray is a ‘meaningful gesture’? We really will never know.

You could argue that a fully connected mobile devices, such as an iPhone and Blackberries, have done more to accelerate political correctness than any government enforced initiative or law ever has. There’s a thought and an unintended consequence, if ever I saw one.

1 Comment

Filed under Premier League

Tagged as , , , , ,

January 25, 2011 · 10:03 am

#oneaday 18: Is Football Sexy?

So the ‘likely lads’ who are employed by Sky Sports to present the coverage of Premier League football, you know the one with the ‘Odd Bod’ hairy hands and the one who needs subtitles south of the border, well they have gone off piste and cast aspertions over the female race’s right to be involved in any aspects of the professional game.

What utter chumps Keys and Gray are. I am really not bothered at all what they think or indeed what they say, but I am bothered that these chauvanistic clowns hold down such high profile jobs. Andy Gray used to be a formidable centre forward with Aston Villa and Everton, amongst others and put his head, face and mouth where the action was. This time round Andy probably would have been better off if he had taken a kick in the mouth rather than coating off the female linesman. Keys on the other hand, hairy or otherwise,  is a professional commentator/presenter who thinks he is a celebrity and as such exudes hubris where ever he goes, trouble is his hubris is stuck  in the 1970s. 

This is not the first time that Keys has been on the end of controversy. Roy Keane, no stranger to controversy himself, said “I was asked last week by ITV to do the Celtic game,” he said. “A couple of weeks before that I wasasked to do the United game against Celtic at Old Trafford. I think I’ve done it once for Sky. Never again. I’d rather go to the dentist. You’re sitting there with people like Richard Keys and they’re trying to sell something that’s not there”. I think Roy rumbled Richard, not for the first time.

Keys is also much liked in Scotland where he was caught off camera being ‘candid’ about a Euro 2008 qualifying game in the Faroe Islands, you can see this below.

Ultimately these 2 have been found out, off air admittedly, but have blotted their copybooks in the eyes of most of the population. I say most, as some wags will no doubt have found the whole thing ‘exaggerated and blown out of all proportion’. No matter what they think of Karren Brady, vice chair at West Ham,  they managed to work her into their impromptu routine, not for showing poor leadership over the handling of the Avram Grant/Martin O’Neil fiasco, but for mentioning that sexism is still rife in the game.  ‘Yeah right, get over it lads, she’s a bit brighter than you’.

Keys reminds me of a straight version of a less witty Alan Patridge. Banal, amateur and fawning, he continues to blunder through, seemingly thinking that he is something rather special.

Thinking about it, these two could recreate the completely brilliant  ‘The Likely Lads’  and the follow up  ‘Whatever Happened to The Likely Lads?’ . After all ‘Life on Mars’ and ‘Ashes to Ashes’ were huge successes and featured sexist humour and prejudice, all be it with brilliant script writing and acting. The ‘Likely Lads’ centred on two mates Terry (James Bolam) and Bob (Rodney Bewes) rooted in Newcastle in  the 60’s and 70’s. Their humour was ‘of the time’ but it was deliberate and still stands up today. That is because it balanced humour with irony, wit with pathos. If Gray and Keys, or rather their agents pick up the phone and  ring Dick Clement and Ian La Frenais (the creators of ‘The likely Lads’ who also went on to write Auf Wiedersen Pet & Porridge) and were to ask them to script them both in a 1970’s themed football comedy, they may find a ready made retro  audience. It could be  set in a TV broadcasting studio, where the two main characters play out their lives and the issues of the day  in front and behind the cameras.  They give an insight ‘into the game’ and the audience can laugh with them and at them. Everyone would be happy, because it isn’t real life! Have a look at this, imagine Keys and Gray in the roles and you may get where I am coming from.  Meantime, they have been given a yellow card, and both are lucky to stay on the pitch. Next time it will be red, and thereafter lies life on Channel 5.

1 Comment

Filed under Premier League

Tagged as , , , ,

January 23, 2011 · 9:00 pm

#oneaday17: Robin Hood or Robbing Us?

When you read this short but important statement issued by Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra I must admit, I worry, once I understand the context:-

“We are committed to shifting the balance of power from big government to big society by giving individuals, businesses, civil society organisations and local authorities a much bigger role in enhancing the natural environment”

Our ancient forests are going to be sold to private companies, why?

So, with horror, I have read about the UK Government’s stated policy to sell some of our ancient woodlands in a bid to reduce the deficit (here we go again) by some £700 million, a pretty small sum all things considered – think the cost of Wembley Stadium. This includes land in The New Forest, The Forest of Dean  and Sherwood Forest as well as much more.

Government ministers want to transfer power and ownership  from the nation via the Forestry Commission, which owns 18% of woodlands to private business and ‘the big society’, claiming that  this move will giver greater public control. Quite what the logic of this is actually beyond me? I suppose when the land is sold off, then more people may be in control than currently, ie the civil servants, but that is a completely bogus argument.  Apparently a public consultation will begin  next week and a bill to enable the sale is due to go before the House of Lords soon after. Let’s hope the Lords, famed for their independence and propensity to check recklessness by Government, calls this policy into question.

The pressure group 38 Degrees carried out a poll via YouGov and found that 75% of the 2,000 people it polled were against the plans and 84% agreed that that forests should stay publically owned. So far some according to Channel 4 News tonight 130,000 people have signed the petition run by 38 Degrees, it will be interesting to see if this number will rise substantially as the media begins to focus on the issue. For once, this feels like an open vote issue, many traditional left, right and centre voters being united that they want forests to stay free and hold back the small band of private property owners who wish to put their profit, not the environment, first.

Look what happened when the railways, energy companies and airports were sold off in the 80’s. We have ended up with a ludicrously expensive and disjointed railway system, our energy prices are sky high and under foreign ownership and Heathrow, owned by a massively over leveraged (ie skint) Spanish company, can’t get rid of snow and ice as quickly as they should. I am neither pro or anti private ownership of national institutions, but I would like us to weigh up the consequences. For a paltry £700 million do we really think this is the righ thing to do?

Since I watched Channel 4 News, the number of people who have signed the petition has risen to 178,350. If you fancy signing, here’s the link. This is a very sad state of affairs.

http://www.38degrees.org.uk/page/s/save-our-forests#petition

Leave a comment

Filed under Environment

Tagged as , ,