You know, it couldn't have happened to a more deserving fellow...

'Nazi' remark presenter is sacked

This from a BBC report later the same day:

Talksport host Jon Gaunt has said he is "bemused" by the radio station's
decision to sack him for calling a local councillor a "Nazi" live on air.

A clue as to why they sacked him might well be the fact he called someone a Nazi and an "ignorant pig" ON AIR...

Gaunt has been called a "shock jock" by just about every station he's worked for - although this mis-uses, misunderstands and vitally discredits the value of "shock jocks". He isn't one at all, he's a rude, arrogant bully how shouts at his guests if they disagree or try to express another view. I've heard some appalling views expressed on TalkSport over the years, and the fact that listener complaints prompted the station to sack him really says something... "Shock jocks" get sacked for pushing boundaries too far... not for intimidating people with abusive language.

Even the hundreds of supporters that he says have been in contact - or even the "national celebrities" that have expressed support (his book has a nice comment from Anthea Turner on it, so maybe that's the level we're looking at) couldn't save him. And rightly so.

Supporting local causes on local radio - airing the public's views and allowing debate on these subjects is what he, rightly, came to fame for - he deservedly won a Sony Gold for coverage of Vauxhall's decision to close their factory in Luton while he was at BBC Three Counties Radio. Not this - controversial broadcasting is one thing - and shouldn't be discouraged. But there's a far better way than to initimdate, bully and scream.

Has anyone else noticed...?

A certain amount of wicked irony in the US threatening Russia over illegal incursions into another territory?

Surely that ranks alongside Lily Allen mouthing off about the crapness of other "celebrities" and the English football fans' insistance on pointing out Spain's frequent under-performing at major competitions as one of the most hypocritical statements of all time...

Anyone think of any more?

“Return of Routemaster in doubt says transport chief”

Gosh. Now there’s a shock. Boris may not be able to keep one of his unrealistic manifesto pledges… I don’t believe it…

You’ll be telling me that they run some sort of long race with people dressed up like cartoon characters every year next…

They already do that? Really?

Well, well.

The Day of Truth... Have Londoners just "done a Bush"?

"Boris as mayor? Lovely to see other comedians getting work, but four years is a bit long for a comedy routine."
- David Mitchell

This is from a very good Guardian [here] which puts the case against BoJo as he has annoyingly become known. I voted for someone else, with good conscience, and to be honest, out of the people who stand a chance, I hope to all is holy that Ken wins again. If the quotes below don't make you think otherwise, there's something wrong. What scares me most is that someone who is a hypocritical, lying, bumbling, racist, homophobic, ignorant, elitist wally might actually have managed to dislodge someone who - while not universally popular - has done a lot to further the multi-cultural and accepting society of London, as well as try some Green policies (which I admit, he hasn't done enough). I do find him funny. But in the same way I find George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld. And what fine, upstanding, well-informed, in touch and completely unevil gentlemen they are.

I cannot believe that we sat here laughing at the US for "electing" such a man for so long and now we have come so close to following their footsteps almost exactly over here in London. If you hadn't bothered to find out exactly what BoJo is like past the jokes and the "policies", here are some quotes from the Guardian article that sum him up.

Oh, and as much as I respect everyone's right to vote for whoever the hell they like... shame on you if you voted for Boris.

Boris Johnson in his own words

The wannabe mayor on race, sex and politics

On homosexuality
"Gay marriage can only ever be a ludicrous parody of the real thing." · Daily Telegraph, 2005

"If gay marriage was OK - and I was uncertain on the issue - then I saw no reason in principle why a union should not be consecrated between three men, as well as two men; or indeed three men and a dog."· From his book, Friends, Voters, Countrymen, 2001

"We don't want our children being taught some rubbish about homosexual marriage being the same as normal marriage, and that is why I am more than happy to support Section 28." · Daily Telegraph, 2000

"The clerics gave us [journalists] a wigging for being so mean to the Church of England ... Why did we draw attention to tricky subjects like homosexuality, aka the Pulpit Poofs issue?"· The Spectator, 2000

"I'm not bisexual so far ... not that I would condemn myself if I later discovered I were."· Daily Telegraph, 2008

On Africa
"No doubt the AK47s will fall silent, the pangas will stop their hacking of human flesh, and the tribal warriors will all break out in watermelon smiles to see the big white chief touch down in his big white British taxpayer-funded bird."· In 2002, on Tony Blair's visit to the Democratic of Republic of Congo, Daily Telegraph

"Right, let's go and look at some more piccaninnies."· Reported remark, while visiting Uganda, to Swedish Unicef workers and their black driver, the Observer, 2003

On the Commonwealth
"It is said that the Queen has come to love the Commonwealth, partly because it supplies her with regular cheering crowds of flag-waving piccaninnies."· Daily Telegraph, 2002

On failing to recognise his Filipina housekeeper
"When our housekeeper appeared on stage in her hot pink strapless number [as a finalist of the Mrs Philippines 2005 contest in London], I failed at first to recognise her, surrounded as she was by 10 other Filipina mums, each shimmering in every shade from fuchsia to Germolene ... Was that Luz, the No 6, the one with the cleavage? Or was she No 5, with the smile? Surely she wasn't No 11, the one with the legs. No: wait - that was her, with her hair up. No 8! 'We want eight,' we screamed, and waved at good old Luz, a woman who has been exposed to the full horror of the Johnson family washing and yet contrived to look little short of $1m. · The Spectator, 2005

On his prospects
"My chances of being PM are about as good as the chances of finding Elvis on Mars, or my being reincarnated as an olive."· The Independent, 2004

George Bush and Iraq
"He liberated Iraq. It is good enough for me."· Daily Telegraph, 2004

"The Americans were perfectly happy to go ahead and whack Saddam merely on the grounds that he was a bad guy, and that Iraq and the world would be better off without him; and so indeed was I." · Daily Telegraph, 2003

On Islam
"The most viciously sectarian of all religions in its heartlessness towards unbelievers."· The Spectator, 2005

On race
"I'm down with the ethnics. You can't out-ethnic me, Nihal ... My children are a quarter Indian, so put that in your pipe and smoke it."· To Nihal Arthanayake, BBC Asian Network, 2008

On cannabis
"It was jolly nice. But apparently it is very different these days. Much stronger. I've become very illiberal about it. I don't want my kids to take drugs." · GQ, 2007

On sex
"I've slept with far fewer than 1,000."· On whether he has slept with fewer than 30 women, like Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg, Daily Telegraph, 2008

"An inverted pyramid of piffle."· The Mail on Sunday, 2004, on allegations that he had an affair with Petronella Wyatt, later confirmed.

On obesity
"Nothing but their own fat fault."

On transport
"I don't believe [using a mobile phone at the wheel] is necessarily any more dangerous than the many other risky things that people do with their free hands while driving - nose-picking, reading the paper, studying the A-Z, beating the children, and so on."· Daily Telegraph, 2002

"The whole county of Hampshire was lying back and opening her well-bred legs to be ravished by the Italian stallion."· GQ, while in a Ferrari

On Liverpool
"A society that has become hooked on grief and likes to wallow in a sense of vicarious victimhood."· A Spectator editorial, 2004 (Johnson didn't write the editorial, but he approved it)

On his arts role
"Look, the point is ... er, what is the point? It is a tough job but somebody has got to do it."· On being appointed Tory Arts spokesman, 2004

On stag hunting
"I remember the guts streaming, and the stag turds spilling out on to the grass from within the ventral cavity ... This hunting is best for the deer." · From his book Lend Me Your Ears

Voting for ANYONE but Boris...

I am now able to vote on 1st May, so I am going to set out my stall now, in the hope that someone, anyone, will listen...

PLEASE DON'T VOTE FOR BORIS JOHNSON!

He is only popular because of novelty value, and is simply "doing a Cameron" and announcing populist ideas that either wouldn't work or would make things worse in London. As well as opposing environment-improving measures already in place and sharing George W. Bush's view on the Kyoto Protocol (which is selfish, ignorant and criminal, in my opinion - that's Boris, not the Kyoto Protocol...).

Just please, listen to reason. As whimsical and comic on Have I Got News For You as he may have been... and despite of as good an impression of a scarecrow as I've ever seen... Is he really the kind of person you want in charge? Even if you don't want Ken again, Boris is NOT the only alternative!

I would normally look to vote for the Lib Dems, if I'm honest. But this time, their candidate is awful. Essentially, they're fielding a single-issue candidate in Brian Paddick. All he knows is crime, being an ex-Met Police Commissioner. All I've heard him talk about is crime. Y-A-W-N.
But I'd rather he got in than Boris Johnson without question...

For me, the choice is between the Green Party and Left List (formerly part of the Respect Coalition)... and right now, the Greens have the best manifesto of the lot. Cuts to bus and tube fares, free insulation for every home that needs it, affordable housing and a higher minimum wage in the public sector.

All that's left after that is the pointless UKIP, the unspeakable BNP, the English Democrats (who?), and the groan-causing Christian Choice party.

The most bizarre statement I've heard so far is from Richard Barnbrook, the BNP candidate. He opposes the London 2012 Olympic Games, and says he would "offer them to Athens" should he win. Well, he won't. And what's more, he clearly doesn't understand how these things all work if he thinks he'd have that choice...

But please, don't vote for Boris... you won't be able to get rid of him after half an hour...

Springer Case Dismissed by Lords

I am very pleased to hear this...

It should finally put an end to a ridiculous set of events surrounding Jerry Springer: The Opera.

It is just such a shame that Christian Voice have to be so flippin' patronising about it.

This is from the article linked above:

"Christian Voice called the decision an "ignoble move".

"It brings down the judgement of God on us all," said Stephen Green, national director of the evangelical lobby group.

"I love my neighbour and I do not want that to happen."

You love your neighbour enough not to credit them with enough intelligence to work out whether they find the show offensive for themselves? You love them so much that you're telling them that they should find it offensive, and if they don't then the warming coals of Beelzebub's fireplace will greet them in the afterlife?

You love them so much that you thought you'd drag this pathetic, holier-than-thou, anachronistic complaint out for over three years?

This is a controversial show, there's no doubt about it. When it was shown on BBC Two, it prompted 63,000 complaints from viewers. But this was mostly people complaining that it contained over 200 swearwords, not Christians complaining about the content.

Christian Voice complained that the show contained images that "vilify God and the Bible". Of course it does. It's a satirical show that deals with modern life as seen on the Jerry Springer show. You think they're all God-fearing, good-intentioned tea-totalers? Any joke that deals with religion would meet that statement. It doesn't mean that every joke is another nail in the coffin of humanity's future. Maybe it means that God can take a joke because he knows that its not everyone's opinion. And, well, it's just a joke.

If its that serious, why would He need you to take up the fight? I'm sure he could retaliate if He wanted to. Get down off your high horses and let someone else have a rant. You don't represent the whole of Christianity. And you certainly don't represent my "Christian voice". So pipe down.

Obama/Cameron, Cameron/Obama?

This is an interesting view of the debates in the US:
http://blogs.ft.com/rachmanblog/

And in particular, this paragraph catches me - and says what has been troubling me about what I've seen and heard - of both Barak Obama and David Cameron...:

"All this leaves me baffled. I have watched Mr Obama speak live; I have watched him speak on television; I have even watched his speeches set to music on a video made by celebrity supporters… But I find myself strangely unmoved – and this is disconcerting. It feels like admitting to falling asleep during Winston Churchill’s “fight them on the beaches” speech."

I'm afraid that its the same with both of them for me - I just am not moved by anything they do. Cameron in particular makes a grand entrance look like sneaking in via the back door under cover of darkness, and last week's Northern Rock debates simply seem to have proved that the Tories are just as adept as ever at rescuing defeat from the jaws of victory. George Osborn, the great Tory hope, seemed to think he was on to a dead cert, and then watched all the criticisms they threw at Darling and Brown just fade away making them look foolish. Don't get me wrong, Labour certainly didn't come out smelling of roses, and didn’t deserve to either - only the Lib Dems managed that - thanks to Vince Cable showing the bigger boys how they should have dealt with the situation.

But Obama seems to be the living embodiment of the phrase "all mouth, no trouser" - spouting meaningless phrases that somehow catch the imagination and mood of the baying fans that have fallen under his spell. If anyone doubts this, please explain to me what the phrases "the audacity of hope" and "we are the change we've been waiting for" actually either mean or do for the mood of the US... As Mr Rachman points out in the article linked above, it would only genuinely be audacious to run for president for reasons of despair... And the second one, urgh, I don't know.

As for David Cameron, I appreciate that making fun of the government at every step, and shoving fingers into every hole in policy at the first opportunity seems to be working at the moment. But you may have many, many more months to wait for an election, and we've seen before that this behaviour wears thin very easily with the public - and support follows rapidly.

I don't actually want Mr Cameron to win an election - I'd far rather see Titus Bramble in the next England football squad - but if he's serious about being a challenge to Labour, he needs to realise pretty quickly that being able to walk and talk without notes, and being able to come up with a few priceless playground insults will not be the deciding factor in an election.

And if last week was anything to go by, maybe they ought to check that the gift horse standing in front of them doesn't have a "Made In Troy" stamp somewhere on it…

God bless you, Mr President

During 1999 and the first half of 2000, I reckon I spent, on average, about 15-20 hours a week in a cinema, usually in the company of Jon Monkhouse. We'd roll up to the cinema at roughly 11 or 12 (an achievement for a pair of students...) clutching our unlimited passes and then spend the rest of the day watching films, routinely seeing three or four a day. And we saw some brilliant films in that time. We also saw some stunningly awful films (Down To You – I can picture Jon’s expression just at the mention of the title - and Frequency to name just two). When Nikki and I started working in London (in 2004), we took out unlimited passes again. This time, it was just for 1 or 2 films a week, but we picked our films, and saw some really good ones, with the occasional disappointment. Obviously, since Luke’s birth, our movie-going habits have been somewhat… restricted. I have no complaints – as I would far rather see Luke’s little face every day than any film, and I have yet to hear of a film to change my mind (no, not even Batman Begins changed my mind…), so I happily recline in my ignorance.

I am, along with any other potential signs of geekdom, completely unable to commit to being a film fan. And yet, that is what I am. But I don’t much care at the moment. I love films, I really do. But I have finally (and very, very belatedly) discovered The West Wing



Can TV get any better than this show? I’ve never seen something that had me hooked within minutes, caring about the characters enough to want to know more by the end of episode 1 and when I saw the season climax I was beside myself!

I suppose it does help that I have an interest in US politics, and that I like this kind of drama – something that is simultaneously unafraid to address proper, heavyweight issues (the first episode has a potential scandal with a White House staffer and a call girl, and within a few episodes a drug scandal breaks) use humour, and make sure we all understand that these are normal, everyday people going through something extreme every day.

It probably also helps that I’d love to do the job. I’d love to be one of the actors, obviously, but there’s a part of me that aspires to be that essential to the running of the country, and be under that kind of pressure. But its not my priority to get there – there are far, far more important than work, or a career (just as well, the way mine has stalled).

But as far as I am aware, The West Wing isn’t repeated on terrestrial TV… Channel 4, who originally broadcast the series, constantly and tediously repeat Friends and ER (and magnificently, Frasier) during the day, so why not this? The only way I have seen what I’ve seen is through begging and borrowing other people’s copies – downloading, in case you’re wondering, takes far far far too long on my humble little creaky laptop (donations gratefully received). I’d love it if Channel 4 starts repeating it other than on a digital channel that not everyone can receive… And if they’d start showing the Daily Show on the regular channel – shunting it to More4 is a waste and an insult – its better than anything we have on tv at the moment over here in terms of satire.

Funda-Mentalists strike again...

I had an email a couple of weeks ago, forwarded by a friend, who shall remain nameless, about the new film adaptation, The Golden Compass (the movie version of Philip Pullman's excellent "Northern Lights" - book 1 of the His Dark Materials trilogy).

This email went on to explain how damaging for children this movie is.

The sole basis for this claim? That its author has previously admitted that there are atheist themes and aspects in the novels - and that the theme of battling against organised (or in this case, regimented and forced) religion intentionally represents the Catholic Church. Apparently, this is enough to believe that this film will turn kids away from God, should they be dragged to the cinema to see it.

I am, again, appalled by this attitude - displayed by Christians. It is a load of puffed-up, self-satisfied, unfair, unbalanced propaganda drivel, and I am just as shocked that people, especially Christians, are buying into it. I've talked about this before... see here and here.

I am in no doubt that films and TV programmes can and do influence the opinion and behaviour of children. I am also a Christian who has read the 'Dark Materials' trilogy.

Forgive me, but as I was reading the books as FICTION, I took everything in them just as such. But its not just fiction. It is a FANTASY world, with FANTASY and FICTIONAL people, animals, customs, lives and places. And it has to be said that it's a very good fantasy fiction trilogy. Plus, this is a Hollywood movie - any actual themes or moral intentions will have been thoroughly diluted along the way.

I disagree completely with the author's views on religion. But that doesn't mean I should ignore everything he does. I disagree with our troops being in Iraq, but that doesn't mean I don't respect them for being there and doing a job that I certainly wouldn't be keen on doing.

I don't remember reading any criticisms of The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe as being "too Christian" when the film came out a couple of years ago. So why should Christians, who are meant to believe in and practice tolerance, be allowed to level that at a film that mentions the possibility that there might not be a God?

No matter how much I disagree, or I think there is a God, I would not dream of stopping someone else holding a contrary view. This essentially boils down to the argument over whether Harry Potter is "anti-God" because some people think it teaches kids that dark magic is real... I loved Harry Potter too. Why? Because it was a hugely enjoyable FANTASY FICTION... (spot the pattern?)

Just as Harry Potter was not about teaching kids about dark arts, Dark Materials is not about teaching kids to be atheists. They are, purely and simply, about good and evil. They just have different approaches into it.

My last thoughts are a couple of questions:

1) why do people who haven't seen films/plays or read the books feel that they can criticise them like this?

I have the same issue with some of the people who objected to Jerry Springer: The Opera and Paul by Howard Brenton.

2) why do other Christians believe this sort of unfair propoganda?

Some atheists do tend to go over the top with their criticisms of religion, but that doesn't give us the right to use the same tactic. I think the quote is "turn the other cheek"...

Get over yourselves and allow yourself to relax and your imagination to do some work for once. These are stories designed to entertain, not change people's beliefs. And people wonder why churches are losing people when we have this kind of attitude being shouted around?