The 3am Call

In my not at all humble opinion, it will become one of those great campaign ads. Hillary Clinton’s “The 3am Call" and her shrill insistence that she – and only she – would be able to take that crisis call when it comes through to the US president in the dead of night. Of course, the ad might not work, but at least it is memorable.

But a few points spring to mind about this attack ad – and it is basically an attack ad because it has been used to attack Obama’s perceived lack of experience. But seriously, what experience does Hillary Clinton have of taking that middle-of-the-night phone call that does – sometimes – come through to world leaders? The woman’s been a Senator – OK, for longer that Obama, but still won’t have that executive experience. It will be her husband who has that experience. Hell, Hillary’s experience of the 3am call is probably rolling over in bed and asking her husband to take his call somewhere else if he is going to talk so darned loud.

And why is this 3am phone call so important? What call really needs to be taken at 3am? I’d say only those that directly jeopardise or take the lives of US citizens. There may be all sorts of crises going on throughout the globe, but a decent time manager should let those wait for the morning. Unless America or American citizens are under attack, then the President should want to be informed when they are awake, in the morning, munching on their muesli and actually in the right mindset to make these crucial decisions. Because at 3am, no-one is at their best. There might be just occasions when the President actually needs to take that call at 3am, but those are few and far between.

And even if that call does come through, even if someone is going to nuke the US, why is experience so important at that point? Because hopefully the President – be it Obama, Clinton or McCain – is going to consult with others before they take action. Before you take action that may jeopardise the lives of others, you should really check with others who are specialists in their fields and can offer sage advice.

There’s something in the mindset of a candidate who is focussed on this sort of 3am crisis call. They are the type of people who relish the adrenaline rush of a catastrophe, those who get a hard-on* for making any drama into a crisis. They probably get a bit breathless when they hear a siren. Being part of a motorcade, with all those police officers and all those flashing lights, is the biggest thrill in the world. They wait for that terrorist atrocity, because it will allow them to pose as heroic. They wait for a war, so they can become a war leader. And as a result of all this, they are utterly unsuited to high office.

And, given the constant convening of COBRA every time a sparrow farted when he first came into power, I would include Gordon Brown in that list of unsuitable leaders more interested in the melodrama of their office rather than the actual role. But there’s nothing new in Brown being called a unsuitable wanker on this blog…

*Ok, ok, Hillary won’t get a hard-on, I know…

A Guarantee of Shite

Trawling through the cinema listings to find screening times for a particular film (REC, if you must know) is always an eye-opening but vaguely dispiriting process. It is amazing the amount of absolute shite you could view if you were so inclined. There are some films you think you could force yourself to see if you really want to, some films you wouldn't touch with a ten foot barge pole even if you were wearing major Personal Protective Equipment. Those films you actively want to see are normally few and far between.

One film on general release that falls into the "barge pole" category is Three and Out. It is not the fact that it has attracted some controversy, and probably is insensitive and crass. Such is the state of my *sense of humour* that I find insensitive and crass a selling point in some cases. It is not that it is a British comedy, and therefore probably desperately trying to be like Four Weddings and A Funeral, even though that film went out of fashion pretty much as soon as it hit the screens. No, the thing that make me sure that I would not watch this film even if you paid me is the star.

Mackenzie Crook.

Crook on a film poster has become a guarantee that the film will be shite. It isn't just Three and Out. Take another Crook vehicle: Sex Lives of the Potato Men. A film that makes you curse the very creators of the motion picture, and makes you crave the halcyon days of radio when - no matter how bad a programme was - you never had to witness the degrading spectacle of Johnny Vegas sweating and wobbling for 90 minutes. Crook also starred in the awful Pirates of the Carribean trilogy - films that defy the banner phrase "popcorn movie" because if you were eating popcorn in any of those movies, you would probably want to choke yourself to death on it before you witnessed another second of Johnny Depp playing Keith Richards very, very badly.

It didn't have to be this way. Let's be honest (and shallow and rude whilst we're at), Mackenzie could never have been James Bond.* Not with his looks. But Crook performed very well in The Office, and could have gone on to become a cult actor with mainstream potential - a Rowan Atkinson with blond hair. Yet, somewhere along the lines, Mackenzie got lost. And is now stuck in that terrible, parallel universe where it is actually a *good* idea for British directors to make comedy films.

Mark my words: Mackenzie Crook in a cast list now means you shouldn't go near that film unless you want a temporary lobotomy.

*And I'm not being too judgmental. After all, with my looks, I couldn't play Bond either. Perhaps a villain. Yeah, that's what I could play. A Bond villain. Probably in a second rate Roger Moore entry. You know, one of those films they phoned in to generate a bit of cash.

Ken Livingstone: Spineless Shit

In a staggering interview with The Observer yesterday, Ken pretty much offered Boris a job after next Thursday's election. Audacious stuff. It is a bit like Hillary Clinton offering Barack Obama the vice-presidential slot on the Democratic ticket (which she has actually done). The Observer notes:

“Ken Livingstone yesterday offered to give his Tory rival a job and train him as a future mayoral candidate, in an extraordinary last-minute bid for Tory votes.”

This is the same Boris Johnson that Ken ripped into in a piece for The Guardian:

“The second, conservative, coalition behind Boris Johnson is symbolised by its support for the Iraq war and indifference to environmental issues. Its immediate practical expression is its record of running down London's public transport, talking about crime while cutting police numbers, opposing measures to provide affordable housing and indifference to the problems facing ethnic minorities or women. This coalition has recently acquired a sordid, if uninvited, partner through the BNP calling for a second-preference vote to the Tory candidate.”

From that sort of comment to offering the man a job – Ken has managed a U-turn that would make Gordo himself proud. But his opinion of Boris has clearly radically changed:

'I think Boris is a person of huge potential, but he's never been involved in detailed administration of anything. I would genuinely want Boris to come in, take a job and get some experience.'

Ken goes even further; at one stage, he talks about grooming (don’t tell the News of the World, they’ll probably mis-interpret it) Boris to be a candidate for Mayor in 2012. This is the same Boris who warranted this comment from Ken not so long ago:

Johnson says he considers Margaret Thatcher the greatest 20th-century peacetime prime minister - Thatcher who abolished London's democratic city government and brought the city's public services and infrastructure, and therefore quality of life, to their knees.

There we have it. Ken is prepared to support someone who he believes would bring Londoners to their knees for the purposes of political expediency. Ken is prepared to embrace the man who is his ideological anathema if it helps put him over the top with votes on Thursday. Difficult to know whether Ken is a spineless weasel or a shameless, self-serving cunt. Either way, his sudden unseemly attempt to jump into bed with Boris Johnson should lose him, rather than win him, support.

Still, this being Red Ken, he doesn’t just stop at the controversy of embracing your opponent in a crucial election just days before the ballot boxes open. No, he also has a pop at his own party:

I think people are genuinely thinking "who do I want to win London?", rather than "I want this to be a referendum on the government". If it was a referendum, I wouldn't have a chance.'

I agree – if people were voting based on the record of the national government, then Ken should be looking at the job ads in The Guardian. Still, nice of him to add to the government’s problems by shunning them at a time when the party is asking government ministers and, in particular, the Prime Minister to stay away from the campaign. But as his job offer to Boris shows, Red Ken is out for Red Ken – and no-one else.

This total lack of loyalty and ideological commitment from Ken makes me hope that Boris is offered a job on Thursday – not by Ken, but rather by the voters – and I hope it is Ken’s job.

Doctor Who: The Sontaran Stratagem

I have this theory. As the title of this post might suggest, it is about Doctor Who - more specifically, the new series of Doctor Who. Each of the new seasons has three multi-part stories. The second of these stories tends to be the best - not just of the multi-part stories, but of the seasons as a whole. Think of The Empty Child/The Doctor Dances, The Impossible Planet/The Satan Pit and possibly the greatest Doctor Who story of all time - Human Nature/The Family of Blood. Then you have the multi-part stories that end the seasons - these are good, and given their placings in the season, never fail to be epic. But they often don't stand up to close (well, microscopic, anal fan-boy) analysis. You'll love the epic sway, marvel at the acting, possibly be moved by a departure - but in that final ten minutes you'll probably feel a little cheated that the nemesis has been despatched so easily.

Finally you'll have the first two-parter of the season. This should be an epic as well, but somehow always manages to fall flat. Two examples of this type of story - Aliens of London/World War Three and Daleks in Manhattan/Evolution of the Daleks are strong contenders for the worst story since the series returned. Even Rise of the Cybermen/The Age of Steel were disappointing, despite a wonderful final five minutes. Perhaps there is something about the returning monsters, or the expectation that these stories are twice as long so should be twice as good, but somehow they just don't work.

And last night's episode, The Sontaran Stratagem, seemed to prove that. It had so many great things going on - the return of UNIT, the return of Martha, the return of the villians in the piece - that perhaps there was just too much going on. But whilst there were some great moments, including the pre-credits assassination by car, the product as a whole felt padded, flabby and a little underwhelming. It felt like everything was building up to the cliffhanger, and that the production team would have felt more comfortable had this mean a fifteen minute story, ten minutes of which could be devoted to Martha's cloning, the plight of the Nobles, and the gas coming from the cars.

Still, what a cliffhanger. It managed to present danger at both a micro and macro level, and the shots of the Sontarans chanting as they prepared for war was a nice touch of development for an alien race that - until that point - appeared to be photo-copies of their previous incarnations. It bodes well for next week's The Poison Sky, which hopefully will buck the trend for this type of story and show itself to be a classic.

And even if it doesn't, then the following week sees the broadcast of the intriguingly titled The Doctor's Daughter...

London Mayor: Those Candidates In Full

Couple of days ago the good people of City Hall sent through a document detailing the manifestos of the candidates for London Mayor. An online copy can be found here, although it is not as good as the paper one. Mainly because it lacks all the utterly moronic photos.

The booklet starts with the BNP manifesto. Maybe the organisers wanted to get the appallingly ignorant out of the way first. It is unpleasant stuff, and leaves a bad taste in the mouth. But then again, would you expect anything else from the moronic BNP?

The candidate's message starts with:

"Remember London the way it used to be? Clean, friendly and safe."

No, frankly, I don't. When has London ever been clean, friendly and safe? It has simply never been like that. Throughout the history of London there have been problems. The Blitz, Jack the Ripper, The Great Fire of London, The Great Plague, to name but a few. To be a pig ignorant racist is one thing. To base your pig ignorant racism on a utopian vision of London that has never existed is something else.

Then the manifesto bangs on for a while longer, with the usual toss about putting non-immigrants first, before it introduces us to three people like *you* who are going to vote for the BNP. Of course, given one is a housewife, one a builder and one is a student they are nothing like me. And their opinions on why they vote BNP are the usual shite that you might expect from people who read The Daily Mail and take it as gospel truth. My favourite is the builder, Ken:

“I vote BNP because I’m proud of my country and our heritage. We should celebrate things like St. George’s Day and other Christian festivals like St Patrick’s Day instead of other festivals such as Ramadan and Eid.”

Someone should tell Ken that he doesn't *have* to celebrate Ramadan and Eid. It is totally optional...

Then we have a woman from the Left List. Her photo is striking - she looks like a librarian, someone who lisps and smells faintly of must and gone-off cheese. Her manifesto seems to have been lifted straight from the old BBC sitcom Citizen Smith. Of course, there is much to laugh at with her naive sub-Communism, but my favourite is her policies on war:

"Bring the troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan, no attacks on civil liberties. Spend the money used for war on welfare."

Does she actually realise that she is running for London Mayor rather than Prime Minister? As far as I am aware, the London Mayor doesn't decide where British troops are deployed. Still, since Lindsey has roughly the same likelihood of becoming London Mayor as me, I'm guessing that she won't have to live with the disappointment of realising this herself.

Boris is next up. He notes:

"I am serious about making London safer, protecting our green spaces and giving the taxpayer value for money – and I have the ideas to do it."

Of course, Boris might have ideas, but he can't have that many, as a quarter of his space in the booklet is taken up with a massive photo of him. And he shouldn't show a photo of himself. It just accentuates the fact that he can't comb his hair. Ok, I can't either, but I'm not running for London Mayor.

Still, his policies are saner than the BNP's of the Left List's. Only just, though, in some cases:

"Implement serious strategies on knife and gun crime and arm the police with handheld weapon scanners"

Now, I don't know what a "handheld weapon scanner" is, but it sounds fucking cool. Seriously, it sounds so futuristic that Boris probably nicked the idea from the Jetsons or something. But if he can find this sort of technology to fight crime in London, I think he should be able to find other faintly ludicrous technology as well. Maybe he could go the whole hog and put Robocop on the streets of London.

The Green Party are running with a woman called Sian. There's lots of green on her pages in the booklets, perhaps unsurprisngly. Her policies lurch between the vaguely sensible and the jaw droppingly awful. My favourite is her policy on wages:

"Insist all employers pay a London Living Wage of at least £7.20 per hour."

It is a lot of fun to imagine Sian going to big corporate companies and telling them to pay the living wage. You can picture her really insisting. And then it is even more fun to picture Sian's face cracking up into tears when said companies tell her, in no uncertain terms, to go fuck herself.

Next up is Brian Paddick for the Liberal Democrats - a man who appears to have had his charisma surgically removed. Two things stand out his dreadfully dull manifesto. First of all, he writes:

“If I can’t cut crime and make our streets safer I’ll quit.”

Well, that's a fat lot of fucking use, isn't it? Paddick could fuck up the crime stats in this city, and then fuck off. But then again, there is very little chance of Paddick ever getting the chance to resign in disgrace. After all, he is standing for the perpetual third party. Which makes this statement very, very funny:

"London is my city."

No, Paddick, it isn't. And it won't be after 1st May either.

Onto UKIP. Their candidate looks a lot like someone who was sacked from John Major's cabinet for being too extreme. Hell, he's standing for UKIP, so he probably is someone who sacked from John Major's cabinet for being too extreme. However, his manifesto could not be more bland. Take this as an example:

"Law and Order – Punish the guilty and protect the innocent"

That's his Law and Order key policy. For most people it would be a mindless truism, for Gerard Battem, it is policy.

So onto the Christian Choice. It begins with a quote from Jesus:

"The leader is the one who serves."

Jesus died 2000 years ago, but is heading up this tit's manifesto.

Underneath there is a picture of the candidate with his family. They look a bit like the Robinsons from Neighbours. And the manifesto reads like a character from Neighbours seeking power - full of unrealistic, staggeringly naive thoughts. Only this reveals the true character of the man running:

"Stop the mega-mosque at West Ham near 2012 Olympics proposed by a controversial Islamic sect"

There we have it. The Christians can have as many places of worship as they like. The dirty infidels can't. Alan Craig should piss of to Alabama. Where he might stand a chance of getting elected. Hopefully he'll be utterly shunned here in London.

The English Democrats's candidate looks like a fat reject from Pop Idol. I'd go into the details of his manifesto, but it isn't worth it. The gormless fucker has already left the contest.

Finally, the King of the Newts, Red Ken himself. He writes:

"Over the next four years London needs to go further. It needs a competent Mayor with a proven record of commitment to our city – able to stand up for London, ready to tackle the still bigger challenges ahead."

Absolutely. Absolutely. But the past eight years have convinced me that you are not that mayor, Ken.

So there we have it. Boris wins my vote, because he's the only person who has a chance of unseating the piss midget. But if this sack of shit is the very best that London has to offer, then I despair. And the booklet really makes the case for not having directly elected mayors. If this is the best London can come up with, then imagine the dross that Redditch, Dudley or Crewe might come up with.

Boris: Talking with the voters

Boris Johnson showing his common touch with the (wo)man on the street:

With his reputation with the ladies, you'd have thought that he'd look a bit happier.

(h/t the Moai. Well, he found the link to the photo and send it to me).

Prison is too comfy! *Yawns*

According to some bloke from a union (and, Lord knows, we should believe everything we hear from union officials) prisons are now some comfy that prisoners don't want to escape. I'm going to avoid the knee jerk, Daily Mail esque reaction of "nrrgggh, burn the prisoners! Burn them!" and instead note that it is actually a good thing that prisoners want to stay in prison. Seriously, one of the reasons why they go to prison is so they can't get back out into society. Yes, it would be nice if they were kept in prison because it was so secure and they can't escape, but if the best we can do is keeping them so comfortable they don't want to escape, then I'll take that.

However, I'm not convinced that prisons are environments people want to be in, even if they are really comfortable. After all, even if you were staying in the Savoy, it wouldn't be that comforting if there was someone at the end of the corridor who wants to *shank* you with his *blade*. Likewise, even if prison is like a suite at the Ritz, it ain't going to be that much fun if you are sharing a cell with a Glaswegian thug who goes by the *handle* of Gripper, who wants to make you his *prag* and bum rape you every single day of your stay.

So in summary, prison could be very comfortable. It is the company that bothers me. And if I was inside, I'd want to get out ASAP.

Election 2008: Yep, it should be Obama

Clinton wins, Obama is winning, the contest grinds on and McCain must be grinning.

Cheap, half-baked rhymes aside, the real winner of the most recent Democrat primary is once again John McCain. Clinton lurches on in her flagging campaign, resembling more than ever an unconvincing masked psychopath in an eighties slasher movie. Her. Campaign. Just. Won’t. Die! Obama must be properly pissed off with her. Whatever he does, however many delegates he wins, she just comes back for one more scare.

Her most recent victory has led to another round of smugness from the Clinton campaign. This victory can be used to prove any number of deeply unlikely conclusions, as long as those conclusions are that Clinton is great and cab beat McCain, and Obama can’t. Because he’s a loser. The most recent Clinton campaign strategy is to ask why Obama can’t win big states.

Which seems like a relevant point. Until you realise that, whilst Clinton won the most recent primary, she should have won it by a much higher margin. And that months ago, she was the presumptive Democratic nominee. And that Obama is ahead in the delegate count. And that the only reason why Obama can’t win the larger states is because Clinton is running against him. Something that, if Obama becomes the Democratic nominee, won’t be a problem in November.

My opinion counts for the square root of fuck all, when it comes to the US election – after all I don’t even have a vote. But I can’t help but think that, right now, Obama deserves the Democrat nomination. He has come from nowhere and, despite the massive flaws of wanting to attack Pakistan and of having *no* policies whatsoever, he has managed to become the front runner for the Democratic nomination. Clinton, on the other hand, should have clinched the nomination by now, but she is only holding onto even the slightest chance of winning through a mix of dogged persistence and what were once certain landslides becoming tight, grudging victories. This primary season was Clinton’s to lose. And despite the result of yesterday, she has pretty much lost it.

Clinton should stand aside, and let Obama start to concentrate on a victory for the Democrats in the winter. But she won’t concede, even if it costs her party the White House in November. Because if she doesn’t win, she doesn’t care who does.

Gordon Brown: Failure

As reported by the BBC, a full on plethora of attacks on our beleagured, incompetent and frustratingly crap Prime Minister. From David Cameron:

"Do you have any idea what a pathetic figure you cut today? You are making these changes because you thought you would lose the vote."

And:

Tory chief David Cameron accused (Brown) of "weakness, dithering and indecision".

Oh, and this as well:

"Isn't it the case that the Labour Party have finally worked out that they have a loser, not a leader?"

Even Calamity Clegg is getting in on the action – that’s how bad things are for Gordo. He's being bitch slapped by a baby-faced Lib Dem:

“Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg called Mr Brown "increasingly pointless".”

When a Lib Dem calls you pointless, it is probably time to give up the game, retire with what little grace you have left, and then ride off into the sunset to write your memoirs.

Given the levels of vitriol directed at Gordo from all quarters, one might be tempted to feel some pity for him. I don’t. This mess is completely of his own making. He set himself up to be the champion of the poor, then royally shafted the poor the very second it became politically expedient to do so. And as soon as the political wind changed, he u-turned quicker than… than… well, something that u-turns really quickly.

In fact, the concession that saved Brown’s possession of No.10 – or at least postponed the inevitable, humiliating resignation – was not so much a U-turn as Brown dropping his pants and screaming to Frank Field “take me, Frankie! Take me!” It shows Brown to be spineless, weak, cowardly, pathetic and utterly undeserving of the high office he has somehow obtained. Back in the day, Have I Got News For You used to put a tub of lard in place of Roy Hattersley. These days the Labour party could do the same for Brown. Except instead of a tub of lard they could have a lump of dog crap – fetid, unpleasant, pointless and something people try to avoid.

Everything that has happened to Gordon Brown since the non-election has been a catastrophe. He has failed consistently as each new hurdle hurtles towards him. He is like the crap boxer, dithering around the ring, waiting defencelessly for the knock-out blow. He truly is the dead man walking; the game is up, and I think everyone knows it.

And as his dismal time as Prime Minister crawls toward an ignoble end, you can anticipate what the history books will say about Gordo: a complete, total and abject failure.

Election 2008: Bring Me War!!

We’ve had Obama threatening to attack Pakistan. We’ve had John McCain threatening to “Bomb Iran”. To the tune of “Barbara Ann”. To date, Hillary Clinton’s solitary selling point for me was her failure to make bellicose, hawkish statements about attacking other nation. So it is pretty depressing to see that she has jumped on the attack bandwagon, and joined McCain in proposing the bombing of Iran. Albeit in a much less musical way:

A row erupted when Mrs Clinton was asked how she would respond if Iran launched a nuclear attack on Israel. She replied that: "If I'm the president, we will attack Iran... (if they attack Israel) we would be able to totally obliterate them. That's a terrible thing to say, but those people who run Iran need to understand that, because that perhaps will deter them from doing something that would be reckless, foolish and tragic."

Hmmm. I’m no nuclear strategist, but I can’t help but think that nuking one state in response to them nuking another state is pretty much how things slip out of control and we end up with a nuclear holocaust. And, y’know, there are no real winners from a nuclear holocaust.

Ok, ok, we are talking about a fairly extreme scenario here, where Iran would be the first to push the button and Israel has been destroyed. But it is worrying both that the US voters seem to expect their Presidential candidates to take part in this sort of sabre rattling, and that the presidential candidates seem to be A-Ok with meeting these expectations for sabre rattling.

One of these people – McCain, Obama or Clinton – will have their finger on the proverbial button come next January. And yes, they may, conceivably have to push it. But, fuck me, can’t they be a little less happy to discuss the prospect of global nuclear annihilation? And can’t they, in the case of McCain, anyway, be a little less gleeful when discussing that prospect?

When blogging previously about the US campaign, the song “Bad Moon Rising” popped into my head. Reading this story, this afternoon, the DJ has changed the track. It is now “Don’t Fear The Reaper."

Come on, sing with me! One, two, three, four – “All our times have come/Here, but now they’re gone…”

Mayor of London: A non-choice?

The election rumbles on. No, I’m not talking about the Democratic Primary Season, where the epic* battle for the nomination continues. Here in the UK (well, England. Well, London) we are coming to the end of another epic electoral duel. With a throwback to the 1940’s taking on a Stalinist piss midget. The choice is not so much substandard as downright depressing. And for all the talk of basing the contest on policy and moving away from the Celebrity Big Brother/cult of personality that so dominates society today, this contest has become about personality. And I don’t think I will be alone in casting my vote based largely on personality rather than politics. And I make no apology for doing so – increasingly we are not voting for something (an ideology etc) but rather for someone. Or, more typically, against someone.

There was once a time when people could vote on ideology (cue the sound of soft violins to evoke a haze of nostalgia). No, really, there was. In 1945 you had a choice – between the socialist Labour party, ready to nationalise everything, and the more restrained Tory party. That choice was resurrected in the 1970’s, when the Tory party lurched to the right, and the Labour party to the left. Seriously, look at the 1983 General Election. Margaret Thatcher, who wanted to slash the welfare state and kick start the economy using controversial economics, against Michael Foot – possibly the most left wing leader the Labour Party ever had. You could vote and know you were voting for something. What would happen if there was a general election today? You’d probably end up voting for Cameron, or Clegg, not because you happen to like them, but rather because they aren’t Gordon Brown. The policies are broadly the same, the personalities aren’t. So you vote for the personalities these days.

It is just the same in the London Mayoral Election. Ignoring the minor parties,** this is a straight contest between Livingstone and Johnson. And their policies are broadly the same. Sure, they will do slightly different things and finance it in slightly different ways – Ken from taxing you like a bitch, Boris from the mayor’s promotion budget (which he seems to think is bottomless) – but there is nothing radical in either of their platforms. You put their ideas together, in identical document in plain text, and I’d be surprised if you could genuinely tell them apart.

So you vote, if you want to vote for someone with even a chance of winning, based on what you perceive about the personality types of the two lead candidates. And neither bears up to a close inspection. I like Boris, but I do understand that he has a tendency to put his foot in his mouth a lot. I’m also very wary of his use of racially abusive terms, about his bumbling, and about what that says about his competence to be Mayor. On the flipside, you have Ken – once a radical alternative to Nu Labour, he is now an establishment man through and through. With Ken, there are the rumours – of drinking, of anti-Semitism. Then you have his various contacts – some of whom appear to be grossly corrupt, some of whom are extremists. To back that up, you have those whispered stories, of fights, including one that involved a pregnant woman. Sure, both Boris and Ken, being so firmly in the glare of the media, are going to have stories made up about them. But I think there are enough true incidents floating around to make you question whether either man should be Mayor of this great, cosmopolitan city. And the murky nature of the two candidates may be why the polls have narrowed – ultimately, there isn’t a great deal to help you to choose between the candidates.

But fuck it; that’s the choice we’ve got. Boris or Ken. And, unless he manages to set fire to himself at a campaign stop or joins the Ku Klux Klan or the BNP, Boris will be getting my little “x” next to his name a week on Thursday. Mainly because I find Ken so absolutely odious.

Modern British Politics: “You get my vote because you aren’t as repugnant to me as your opponent.”

*By epic I mean epic in the way The Lord Of The Rings film franchise was epic – i.e. long and a bit pointless.
**As they don’t have a chance of capturing City Hall – even the Lib Dems. Paddick has made zero impact in this contest. And I am aware of the irony of someone who is in a (very) minor party dismissing minor parties. Well, the Libertarians aren’t going to win this election. Although if they ever want a candidate for it, I’ll give it a go.

Defector

UKIP have an MP! A disenchanted Tory, perhaps unsurprisingly. My observation of UKIP is that there are quite a few within their ranks who are simply disenchanted Tories.* Often, they are at the more extreme end of the Tory spectrum, and some UKIP members probably border on the racist. Spink, however, could never have that charge levelled at him.

During the 2005 general election campaign he was accused of whipping up racial tension for running a newspaper advert on immigration, headlined: "What bit of 'send them back' don't you understand Mr Blair?"

Oh, well, scratch that. “Send them back” may mean he has joined the wrong party. Maybe the BNP didn’t return his phone call.

Still, he maybe a borderline racist, but his reasoning about the current state of British politics seems valid to me:

“I think that politics is becoming increasingly dishonourable at Westminster and I am delighted to be joining a strong UKIP team so that we can get some meat on these domestic policies."

Nothing wrong with noting that politics at Westminster has become dishonourable, and nothing wrong with wanting to get some meat on domestic policy. Whether defecting to UKIP is the best way of doing that remains to be seen.

*Although by no means all. There are some very sound people in that party, but I think they struggle to get their voices heard amongst the more shrill ex-Tories.

Doctor Who: Planet of the Ood

Another week, another leap forward. Planet of the Ood was the best episode of the season so far. Of course, since at least one of the episodes was a bit rubbish the competition is not fierce. But it is comforting that the episodes are getting stronger – the other way round would be a bit of a disaster!

And there was a lot to like. The grabbers – despite looking a lot like Doc Ock’s tentacles in Spiderman 2 led to a great action sequence, the Ood were used well and the villains were despatched in original ways – particularly the Ood transformation at the very end. For the first time this season, it felt as if a lot of thought had gone into the script, and there was a definite strong story that could be told. It felt as if the Doctor was a vital part in the story whereas in Partners In Crime, he didn’t really need to be there, except to turn off the machine at the end of the story.

Donna was also surprisingly good. I’m still not a fan, but there was a feeling that she had definite things to do in the episode and has an opinion that is both worth hearing and can provide a counterpoint to the Doctor’s point of view. And Catherine Tate actually did some acting, rather than just barking at the other characters like one of her deeply tedious “comedy” characters.

The episode wasn’t perfect, but I am in no mood to point out the defects for the sake of balance. I mean, anyone who reads this blog will know that balance is something that happens to other people. Planet of the Ood is a great example of why I watch Doctor Who – exciting, fun, tense and actually quite moving in the end.

And to top it all off, next week we have the Sontarans…

I genuinely don't know what to make of this.

There is a whole host of cheap shots and bad puns I could make, but (perhaps the better part of me) doesn't want to make them.

However, I do feel the need to comment on this:

Mr Prescott, who stepped down from Labour's front bench last year after ten years as deputy PM, said people would never suspect he suffered from the disorder and that some could accuse him of not being "a very successful bulimic" because his weight did not drop.

That's got to be a bummer, hasn't it? You have bulimia but the one associated *perk* (for want of a better word) - of getting thin - doesn't happen to you. Maybe that's why Prezza was so angry back when he was Deputy PM.

Brown-bashing: Don't Let Party Loyalty Stop You

Another day, another raft of attacks on our beleagured Prime Minister. Things are so bad for Brown that he is now being attacked openly by members of his own party. Labour peer Lord Desai says the following:

"Gordon Brown was put on earth to remind people how good Tony Blair was," the peer told the newspaper. It is a bit like William Hague, who is a far better shadow foreign secretary than he was a leader of the Conservative party."

Also:

Desai compared Brown's style to "porridge, or maybe haggis; it is not very persuasive if you don't already agree with him."

And:

"He is a worrier with an academic approach to solving problems, but that does not always reassure people when they feel uncertain."

So, this Labour peer thinks that Brown is worse than Blair, better placed to be a minister rather than Prime Minister, is not very persuasive, and doesn't reassure people. What a person to have as Labour Prime Minister at a time when the economy is going down the shitter.

But does Desai want to replace Gordon?

"We are not there yet. It is very difficult to change a Labour leader before an election."

If I was Gordon Brown, I would be very worried by that yet.

Meaningless Celebrity Endorsements

The Democratic candidates for the presidential nomination are still debating each other, sniping about each other’s gaffes in a way that can’t even be interesting to them, let alone anyone in America or the wider world. This *contest* for the Democratic nomination has come to resemble nothing more than a streak of piss from a incontinent old man – long, weak and painful for all involved.

I’m not going to comment on the latest debate between Clinton and Obama. Stuff was said, no-one cared. What I am going to comment on is the latest celebrity endorsement for Obama. Yes, Ladies and Gentleman, it is the Boss himself – I give you, Mr Bruce Springsteen!

And he is not the only celebrity endorsing a candidate in this Presidential Election Cycle. Oh no. There is a comprehensive list here. Clearly celebrity endorsements are a key commodity if you are aspiring to be the (supposed) leader of the free world.

And this mindset – of getting people utterly irrelevant to back your campaign for political office – is catching on in this country as well. Ken has released his list of 20 Celebrity backs – although, Iain Dale rightly contests whether some of them are actually celebrities. Even Charlie Brooker – a person whose work I generally find very amusing – is backing that piss midget Ken. It can only be a matter of time before some celebrity drags their sorry hide out of the woodwork to back Gordo – though fuck knows who it would be. Maybe Peter Sutcliffe could be tapped up – he’s probably one of the few people in the country whose reputation would be enhanced rather than wrecked by backing Brown.

I don’t doubt that some of these people will sway some voters, both in this country and across the pond. But really, who cares who Springsteen backs? Or Charlie Brooker? Or that anodyne cock from The Apprentice? It shouldn’t matter. Every celebrity is entitled to their opinion and to their vote. But if you are so star-struck and celebrity obsessed that actually vote based on their opinions, then you are a tit. You are even more dense that someone who would buy an aftershave because David Beckham endorses it, or a grill because some old boxer endorses it. And with that in mind, shouldn’t be trusted with a vote anyway.

Benedict In America: "Deep Shame"

The Pope (resisting the temptation to put “Panzer” in front of his title) has been in the US, undermining our PM (hurray!) and generally being well received. He’s also started to acknowledge that Catholic Priests have been abusing children, and that child abuse is not a good thing. Yes, I know most people know this anyway, but given the standards of the previous pontiff this point needs clarification from Benedict XVI:

“The pontiff called the scandal a cause of "deep shame", and spoke of the "enormous pain" that communities have suffered from such "gravely immoral behaviour" by priests.”

This probably stops short of being the total condemnation of child abuse that most people would expect: priests using their positions of authority and responsibility to rape children of more than “gravely immoral”; it is utterly evil. Still, at least the pontiff is acknowledging paedophilia isn’t the done thing, even within the monastic orders of the Catholic Church.

But it is not just the fault of the Church, you see. Oh, no, not at all:

“However, he also brought up what he saw as problems in the wider world, saying the media were to blame for broadcasting unsuitable material.”

‘What sort of unsuitable material?’ you’d be well within your rights to be asking.

"What does it mean to speak of child protection when pornography and violence can be viewed in so many homes through media widely available today?" he asked.

So much wrong with that statement that I don’t know where to start. Turns out, in Benedict-land, it is not child pornography causing paedophile priests, which is hardly surprising as child pornography is condemned and restricted across the world. But rather pornography and violence, beamed into households all over the world via the vile media. Benedict’s paedophile priests must be very susceptible to the influence of the media, and also very imaginative about what they see, if they are going to turn the porn and violence broadcast by the media into a calling to rape children. Frankly, if they are that susceptible to the media, you’d have thought that they wouldn’t be the right calibre of individual to spread the word of Benedict’s God on earth, would you?

And even given the violence and pornography beamed around the world by the media, why does it become meaningless to talk about child protection? Probably always worth having a conversation at some point about child protection. You know, to protect children ‘n’ all.

But Benedict and the upper echelons of the Catholic Church don’t want to have a proper conversation about how they can help to protect children – which has nothing to do with porn or violence in the media. Rather it is about how their priests behave and what they do when cases of child abuse come to light. I don’t think the Panzer Pope will be admitting this, though. That would challenge the authority of his church and, as we know, the church is infallible.

Cue the sound of hollow laughter.

Snot worth a caution

It really was the Crime of the Century:

A boy was cautioned by police after pretending to sneeze and then wiping his hand on David Cameron's jacket as the Conservative leader visited Sussex.

The boy himself knew he did something wrong.

"It's not really that funny. I know it's not big. I just did it for a laugh."

But is this really an example of a *crime* that requires a caution? Boy behaves like tit to politician. I mean, some could say that he was making a valid political point. Cameron is best used as a receptacle for snot. It may not be that the most well thought through political point, and it is not that satirical. But really, is this sort of stupidity worth a caution?

Also, I think a lot of voters would have more time for Cameron had he twatted the boy in the side of the head for being a tit. Like that fat fuck Prescott did.

The Drugs don't work. Nor does prison...

A little while back DK suggested, with customary use of base, vitriolic English, that prison may not be the best place to put tedious, scabby, wasted *rocker* Pete "Pissing my talent up against the wall with crack" Doherty. What with prisons being awash with junk and drugs and all.

And here, from the Sun of all places, we have proof that he was right. Not least because Doherty is sharing a cell with a dealer...

The Wisdom of The Fall

The Moai sent me this link to an interview with the Fall frontman, Mark E Smith. Anyone who doesn't know who the Fall are should... oh, what's the point?

Anyway, the comments from Mark E Smith are very entertaining. I mean, I thought I was curmudgeonly, but I've got nothing on Mark E Smith. The two stand out comments for me:

I crave space. I only have three chairs in the house: one for the wife, one for me, and one for a guest. No more. One guest at a time - that's my philosophy. You don't want your house turning into a hippy commune.

And:

Geldof's a brilliant chancer. He's built a whole career on Live Aid and do-gooding; a whole career that wasn't there before. I mean, who listens to the Boomtown Rats and who buys his albums? At least Bono, for all his faults, has a career outside of all that hand-shaking.

Magic stuff.

Summing up Stalinism

From an article in The Independent:

"Legend has it that the institute, which opened in 1927, was born of a secret Soviet plan to create a man-ape hybrid that would become a Soviet superman and propel the Soviet Union ahead of the West. The Soviet elite, goes the apocryphal tale that has appeared widely in Russian media, wanted to create a prototype worker that would be inhumanly strong and mentally dulled, to carry out the gruelling work of industrialising the vast expanses of newly Sovietised territory."

Legend or not, it neatly sets out the Stalinist mindset. If I was feeling unkind, I'd say the the creation of a dull but strong worker is pretty much the mindset of any socialist.

The (Sometimes Flawed) Voice of Democracy Speaks!

Can’t keep a good man down. Or a bad one, come to think of it. Like Silvio Berlusconi, who today becomes Italy's PM for the third time. There is nothing quite like having control of the media and utterly incompetent opponents to help you return to power despite ongoing accusations of corruption now, is there?

I can’t really think of what the British equivalent of Berlusconi would be. I suppose for the Labour party, it might be Peter Hain suddenly emerging from the shadows and taking his perma-tan straight into Number 10. Or maybe Derek Conway – or even Jonathan Aitken – challenging Cameron to the Tory leadership, winning, and at the next election trouncing Brown. Except neither Hain, nor Conway, or Aitken have the control over the media that Berlusconi has. Or even the charisma. Mercifully, Britain doesn’t have an equivalent to Berlusconi. Yet.

Still, as Italy gets used to the 62nd government since World War II, I can’t help but feel that Berlusconi may not be the right politician for that nation. After all, he wasn’t two years ago, and he hasn't radically changed since then…

Stalking Horse

Via Guido, I see that Charles Clarke may be planning a stalking horse challenge against Gordon Brown after May 1st. Well, if it does happen, at least you won’t be able to claim that it is a beauty contest.

Baboomtish! I thank you!

Anyway, Charles Clarke as PM doesn’t gear thinking about. In fact, he is probably one of the few people less capable of being PM than Brown. Ignoring the cosmetic problems - although, Lord knows, Clarke does look like an Orang-utan with a skin condition who has been brutally shaved (by a cack handed zoo keeper) and is not much pleased by it – Clarke really is a waste of (really quite a lot of) space. I mean, he was binned by Tony Blair – and Blair didn’t even sack that tub of lard Prescott. You had to be uber shit to be binned by Blair. In fact, Clarke was so bad that even John “Rent-A –Thug” Reid appeared to be a better option. Clarke was not so much shite as Home Secretary, as the absolute definition of shite. The last thing we need in this country is a PM who makes Brown look capable.

That said, the chances of Clarke actually becoming PM are minimal. A "stalking horse challenge" is similar to a "waste of time challenge", since the person doing it will never become PM. So I’d support Clarke, if he chooses to run. Mainly because by doing so he would further embarrass and humiliate the PM, and make the wonderful day when Brown and this whole scabby Nu Labour abortion of the government are consigned to the dustbin of history.

Mark Speight, kids TV presenter, has been found dead near/in Paddington station. Cue a thousand and one slack-jawed idiots saying "oooo, this is what happens when you take drugs."

Now, his fiancée did die after a drink and drugs bender. In fact, she did die in a pretty fucking horrific way after a drink and drugs bender. To die of heart failure after getting into a scalding bath (and getting burns on 60% of your body) is an awful way to go. I’m not of the opinion that any way of dying is particularly nice, but her death is one hell of a lot different than passing away in your sleep, surrounded by your loved ones.

Had she not taken the drugs, she might have survived. Equally, had she not taken the drugs and been really drunk, she might have still had this accident. Likewise, people binge on drink and drugs all the time, and don’t die in the bath. This was a tragic accident. That led (or so it appears) to the tragic death of Speight. This is not an example of how drugs can destroy you – this is an example of what can happen if you are not compos mentis.

A tragic accident, and a probable suicide, destroyed two lives. This is a time for their families to greive - it is not a fucking agenda to bang on about how evil drugs are.

Brown Bashing: “Right now, the problem is Brown himself.”

A wonderful piece over at The Guardian rips into Gordon Brown. There are a number of comments that stand out, this being one of my favourites:

“Gordon lost it with the aborted election, has been defined by the episode as indecisive, and continues to indulge in confirmatory behaviour.”

Absolutely. Gordo lost it by not calling an election he would have won. History is filled with fuck ups by politicians that cost them dearly. This is an example of one.

Even Labour MPs have started ripping into their PM – less than a year after he was elected unopposed. Take these comments:

“Psychologically, Brown is brooding in a very bleak place, says one MP. He's clinically depressed, opines another. The old demons that warned him he might not be up to the job are gnawing at him again, says a third. And so it goes on. He feels remorse and guilt that he has messed it up so badly. He thinks the public have turned against him. He's haunted by going down in history as Labour's worst prime minister.”

This all sounds like the last days of the Nixon administration, as Watergate drowned the Nixon presidency. Brown has fucked up. He knows it. His MPs know it. This is a bleak time for any Prime Minsiter.

And this is perhaps the most withering comment in the whole piece:

“There isn't an Attlee or Roosevelt lurking inside the prime minister. There's just the same old Gordon with the same old strengths and weaknesses.”

There you have it. A piece in The Guardian stating that the PM isn’t great, and is just the misanthropic old Gordon Brown that some of us have known about all along.

And that is what is so striking. These are comments from Labour MPs. It is a comment piece in a left-wing publication. Gordon Brown has fucked up with unseemly speed. If his own support base and if his own MPs are turning against him, then it is only a matter of time before he truly becomes a dead man walking.

Doctor Who: The Fires Of Pompeii

Well, it was a big improvement on last week’s episode, let’s put it that way. Rather than fighting bits of fat and a slightly strident nanny, this week the Doctor fought violent rock monsters and power hungry soothsayers. Rather than acting like a stalking, strident super chav like last week, this week Donna acted like a strident, super chav with a valid point to make. It wasn’t a classic episode, but at least Doctor Who is back on form after last week’s lacklustre opening shot.

And there was a lot to enjoy. The rock monsters, the conversion of humans into the rock monsters, the performances (particularly Peter Capaldi – a thousand miles away from his performance as The Thick Of It’s Malcolm Tucker) were engaging and the finale, detailing the end of Pompeii were both spectacular and tragic. The whole piece had the air of a Hollywood production – albeit one with much more intelligence than the standard Blockbuster.

See, there were scenes of sheer genius. The moments where the soothsayers were able to speak truths that they could not possibly know about the Doctor and Donna were very strong – not least because they hinted at things that may be happening in the future, including the phrase “she is returning” – a reference perhaps to Rose Tyler.

On top of that, there was the debate about why the Doctor can save some and not others. His answers were wishy-washy to say the least, and I can’t help but think that this issue should be explored further. And the resolution – that Pompeii has to die so the world can live – is a nice twist on the tale as a whole.

Of course, there were problems. The story, whilst having moments of satisfying depth, was actually – on the whole – bland, with characters moving from one scene to the next for no greater purpose than pushing the story to the dénouement. After Lucius's arm was broken off by the Doctor, you could still see… his arm, underneath his toga. And the less said about the Doctor’s water pistol, the better. Convincing monsters should not be taken out a frickin’ water pistol.

But overall, this felt like an adventure. And with the Ood to come next week, series four seems well placed to be as good as the three predecessors. See, I reckon Doctor Who always takes a while to warm up. The Empty Child/The Doctor Dances were streets ahead of Rose and The End Of The World, and Smith and Jones and 42 were nowhere near as good as the wonderful run of episodes that started with Human Nature and ended with The Last Of The Time Lords. The precedent is there – fingers crossed that the episodes get even better!

London Mayor: Who should *you* vote for?

Here's a link that tells you (if you are stupid or easily won over or both) who to vote for in the London election, or suggests who you should vote for if you have a little bit of backbone and aren't completely won over by every bullshit test on t'interweb.

Apparently I should vote for:

1. UKIP
2. Boris
3. Ken

(My likely vote is in bold.)

The third result is where the test really loses it for me. I'd rather fight an angry, rabid and hungry leopard that vote for that evil piss midget Red Ken. I'd rather burn off my own genitals with acid whilst listening to Westlife than vote for that fucker Livingstone.

As you might be able to tell, I'm not a fan of Ken and certainly wouldn't place him third on my list. So take the test results with a pinch of salt...

Oh goody! CCTV cameras in exam rooms. In no way are we in a surveillance obsessed culture. And in no way could having CCTV cameras as well as invigilators increase the pressure for students in the exam room.

Still, it may well help catch some cheats. And it might also act as a deterrent, as this analogy completely proves:

"If a pupil knows CCTV cameras are around, it's like slowing down for a speed camera on a main road - it acts as a deterrent."

Yeah, because no-one speeds on the roads anymore. And no-one has ever managed to get outwit a speed camera. And in no way are speed cameras deeply controversial.

Twats.

Dear Hillary, here's £1.3 million, with love, from Elton

Elton John has made some money for Hillary Clinton. A lot of money, in fact. £1.3 million. Wish he would do a fundraiser for me. I could do with £1.3 million. And I would promise not to waste it on a failing presidential campaign.

Still, Elton has been quite passionate in his support of Clinton. He’s almost completely wrong in his reasons for being passionate about her, but at least he is passionate. He says:

"There is no-one more qualified to lead America."

Maybe, in Elton’s humble opinion. Of course, I can’t think of many people less qualified to talk about who is qualified to lead America that Elton John. Homer Simpson, maybe. But Homer is a fictional ejit, so could never be more qualified than Elton. Because at least Elton isn’t fictional.

The BBC also notes that Elton thinks he knows why Clinton is behind in the race:

He also accused people who think Mrs Clinton is an unsuitable candidate of being sexist. "I'm amazed by the misogynistic attitudes of some of the people in this country, and I say to hell with them," he told the crowd.

Hmmm. Not entirely sure it is misogyny that is costing Mrs Clinton the campaign. Sure, there will be some misogynistic voters, but I think a lot of the votes have gone against Hillary because people just plain don’t like her. For what it is worth, I reckon she is the best candidate who has run this time out. She’s not hinted at attacking Pakistan, like Obama; she doesn’t sing “Bomb Iran” like McCain; and she is not a total sky fairy worshipping theocratic nutjob like Huckabee. But she has missed the point that, at least on some levels, elections are popularity contests. So there is nothing wrong with being popular with the voters.

Rather than with ageing piano playing rock stars.

When is a boycott not a boycott?

When Gordon Brown is organising it.

Because Brown is not going to the Olympics! Except he is. But he isn't going to the opening ceremony! But he may be attending plural ceremonies. Possibly.

If the above is about as clear as mud, apologies - but it is Gordon's fault, not mine. Over to Nick Clegg for some clarity (no, really):

"Chancellor Merkel in Germany and President Sarkozy in France saying quite specifically that they might not go to the opening ceremony shows that the debate has always been about the opening ceremony. So now suddenly to be asked to believe by Number 10 that they never really intended to go in the first place either smacks of a rather odd way of going about things or just downright incompetence."

Quite.

No doubt the Chinese are taking the news that Brown may or may not be attending some or all of the Olympics in their stride. I mean, they'd probably be pleased if he didn't attend. I'd imagine Brown can put the kiss of death on any ceremony, opening or closing.

Ultimately I think this crippling indecision over whether to attend the Olympics and, if so, what to attend, is typical of that complete wanker Brown. It isn't just the Olympics, it will be every single decision that fucker has to make. Every. Last. Decision. That is why our country looks increasingly crippled and utterly without direction. Gordon Fucking Brown.

Hell, I'd even bet Brown was paralysed for days over whether to appear on American Idol - for fear he would be voted off, even though he wasn't a contestant.

Gordon Brown. Not fit for his job. Not fit for any job. What a wanker that man is.

Brown-bashing: In the Doldrums

Another poll, another kick in the face for Gordon Brown. And there is much that the Brown hater can relish. Like his party trailing the Tories. Or a third of voters thinking he is worse that Blair. Or that the voters think that the country is going in the wrong direction under Brown. And the fact that he has achieved these dire approval levels after less than a year in power. Even better are the headlines of some of the articles on the Times website: “The Last Hope for Gordon Brown…”, “Gordon Brown: Stalin to Has-been”, and “Labour MPs revolt…” For anyone who shares my naked scorn of Gordo, these are wonderful headlines. I only hope he has seen them. If not, I’m sure he’ll get the chance to revisit them when he is enjoying his long retirement after a likely defeat in the next election.

However, one sentence does stand out in the article:

“The Tories have been in the lead for all but three months of the past two years, although they are well below the level of the Labour Opposition in the 1990s.”

The question for me (originally posed via e-mail by the Moai) is why aren’t the Tories at the level of the Labour Opposition in the 1990s? I mean, the situation politically is similar – we have a grey faced former Chancellor replacing a once-popular, long serving Prime Minister. We have a fresh-faced, media savvy policy vacuum leading a resurgent opposition. And we have the Liberal Democrats eating each other like cannibals at a picnic. So why aren’t the Tories more ahead in the polls?

Well, it is the economy, stupid. By the mid 1990’s, the Tories had royally fucked the economy through the ERM debacle. And despite having worked to undermine the Tory led recovery (after 1992) systematically since becoming Chancellor, it is only now that the disastrous nature of Brown’s policies are becoming clear to the electorate as a whole. Brown based his economic policies on smoke and mirrors. Only now is the smoke clearing, and the mirrors are breaking.

Which is the scary thing. It is not a case of “things can only get better”; whilst Gordo clings to power, things may well get worse before they get any better. It is a terrifying thought, but the Tories might yet hit the dizzy heights of popularity of Labour in the 1990’s. But only once Gordon has taken our economy and flushed it completely down the toilet.

Diana, Paris, and Sky News

At the risk of banging on too much about Diana and becoming like The Daily Express, I caught a glimpse of Sky News earlier today. They were reporting on the Princes' response to the Inquest verdict, and had a split screen on their channel. One side was showing Kensington Palace, which I suppose makes an obscure form of sense. However the other side was showing the tunnel in Paris where Diana died. And I cannot work out why.

What on earth did they expect to see? Another fatal car accident? The rusting wreck of the beamer, still not cleared away by the French authorities? Perhaps the ghost of Diana, looking forlorn by the tunnel entrance. Maybe an MI6 agent arriving at the tunnel, only to breakdown in tears and confess to murder? I mean, there must be a cost attached to sending a camera operative to that site in Paris. And what did Sky News get in return? Footage of traffic. On a road. And not much else.

Maybe it is my inability to see a point in that footage that has denied me the chance to have a career in media...

Idiot of the Day #1.

Today's idiot is John Loughery. Here's a picture of the fool:



Why is he an idiot, you might ask? And I'll refer you straight back to the above photo. But there are other reasons as well, according to the profile on the BBC:

He gave up his job to attend every day and is the only member of the public who has. He got up at 5am every morning and even slept outside the Royal Courts of Justice for three days to secure a seat on the first day.

Now, we all have interests and hobbies. Some struggle to keep those hobbies and interests in perspective. Loughery is one of those. His "interest" has cost him his job, his flat, his life and, from the sounds of things, his sanity. Keeping things in perspective seems to be an alien phrase to Loughery.

But it is not just the level of his obsession, it is the content of it that gets to me as well. He is obsessed with a dead woman. Not only is that unhealthy, but it also doesn't sound like much fun. At least most people derive some sort of pleasure from their obsessions.

Still, Loughery has a reason for wasting six months of his life:

"I'm going down in history for this. It wouldn't surprise me if there wasn't a portrait of me hanging in Kensington Palace in 100 years time."

It would surprise me, Mr Loughery, if there is a portrait of you hanging in the palace in 100 year's time. In fact it would surprise and disappoint me. Although I concede that the man might go down in history.

Perhaps not in the way he wants, though...

Protesting at the Olympic Flame

As anyone who has even glanced at a news outlet over the past 24 hours will know, there has been a tad of controversy over the Olympic flame being brought through London and now through Paris. Can’t think what might be encouraging the attempts to grab and extinguish the Olympic flame. Except perhaps the utter subjugation of the Tibetan people.

Still, at least we have these comforting words from the IOC:

Speaking in Beijing earlier, IOC President Jacques Rogge said the IOC "called for a rapid, peaceful resolution of Tibet".

Presumably he means resolution of the Tibetan situation, or instigation of a Tibetan nation state. Because the Chinese arguably resolved Tibet many moons ago. When they invaded, and began to wipe out the indigenous culture. Semantics, I know, but words can be important.

However Rogge is quick to let slip what is really on his mind:

He also condemned attempts to disrupt the Olympic torch relay, saying violence "is not compatible with the values" of the Olympic Games.

Absolutely. I would imagine the protests aren’t compatible with the values of the Olympics. But the subjugation, and slow extermination, of the Tibetan people by the Chinese government won’t be compatible with the views of those protesting. At since human lives are at stake, then the protestors probably rank the values of the protests just a little higher than the values of the Olympic Games.

Now, I have serious issues with the Chinese government (a statement which, no doubt, fills the Chinese government with precisely no fear whatsoever). Ignoring for a moment the occupation of Tibet, this is also a totalitarian Communist/Maoist state. There is no democracy in China, and they liberally apply the death penalty and imprison supposed political dissidents. I understand the need for the likes of Rogge to defend China, and to criticise the actions of the protestors. However Rogge and the IOC should have anticipated these protests when they awarded the games to China, and should understand why so many people should attack the symbol of the Olympics as it traverses the globe. Because they are not attacking the Olympics, but rather the totalitarian government ruling the host of the games this year.

Personal Should Be Personal

For once I agree with Red Ken. It is an odd feeling; not that pleasant. In fact, it makes me feel a little dirty. However, on the subject of his fertile loins and the subsequent sprogs, he is pretty much spot on:

“I don’t think anybody in this city will be shocked by what two consenting adults do, as long as you don’t include children, animals and vegetables.”

Seems a little bit harsh on the vegetable fetishists, but aside from that, he’s right. His personal life should be an irrelevance. Ken could have 12 children, and it doesn’t matter one jot. I’m more concerned about the rise in crime in London. Or his propensity to spend money like it is going out of fashion. Those things actually matter. His kids shouldn’t – at least for the voters.

Likewise, who cares if Nick Clegg as played hide the chipolata with 30-odd women? It shouldn’t matter whether he has touted his pork sausage about a bit or lived like a frickin’ monk. The personal life of Nick Clegg – and any other politician – should be irrelevant, as long as it does not impact on their abilities to do their job.

So don’t vote against Ken because of his kids. Don’t vote against Clegg because of his claim of numerous lovers. There are enough policy and competence reasons to vote against both of those guys; there is no reason to give a flying fuck about their personal lives. Let’s leave behind the prudish morals for the 1950’s, and instead focus on their politics. That way we might get competent politicians in power, as opposed to those who are elected simply because they would fit into a 1950’s US sitcom without any problems.

Election 2008: Clinton, Rats, Sinking Ship, etc

In my humble opinion it can only be a matter of time before Hillary Clinton drops out of the campaign for the Democrat nomination. Then again, I could be wrong. I thought that John Kerry would probably beat George W. Bush back in 2004. I thought Charles Kennedy would cling to the leadership of the Liberal Democrats. And I thought David Cameron would struggle in the polls against Gordon Brown. So I am often wrong. But there is evidence (aside from the results) that the Clinton campaign is struggling. Personnel are starting to leave, like proverbial rats from the proverbial sinking ship.

The most recent departure, owing to a “conflict of interest” (which is surely synonymous with “spending more time with my family”), is Chief Strategist Mark Penn. I rather think he is leaving because whatever strategies he has come up with to achieve the overall objective of making Hillary Clinton the Democratic nominee have not really worked. In fact, they seem to have helped to make, the way things are going, Obama the Democratic nominee. But if this theory is correct I can understand why the Clinton campaign came up with another excuse. After all, “sacked for failing” may be sending out the wrong message to the voters.

And yet, despite standing down, Penn will still be part of the campaign. According to the BBC Clinton’s campaign manager said:

“…he would "continue to provide polling and advice to the campaign".”

Nice. That seems to be a new definition of leaving a job that I haven’t been made aware of. You leave your job, and yet you keep on doing it. For me, this sets a dangerous political precedent. Imagine if George W. Bush follows this logic. Next year, after Bush leaves the White House, he could cite this precedent and try to continue with his presidency. I doubt he will do, though, as I reckon he's quite lazy. Far worse would be Gordon after the next election, when hopefully he has been given his marching orders by the electorate, trying to continue in his role as PM. That would be a fucking disaster.

Still, my point stands – the Clinton campaign is suffering. It is difficult to know how it will recover, and I think the day when Clinton is sat alone in her campaign office, without funds and without staff (with even her husband having deserted her, probably for the golf course) is looming. It must be a sad – if not devastating – time for any candidate, particularly one who used to be the presumptive nominee. But it is happening, slowly but surely. And those close to Clinton will fade into the background, not wanting to be too closely linked to a campaign that did, at the end of the day, fail.

Doctor Who: Partners In Crime

NB: Couple of things for any regular readers to be aware of: a new season of Doctor Who has started, so there will be a least on post a week on that subject on this blog. If you're not a fan, then you should skip this post and find a more typical one, probably where I suggest Gordon Brown is an old Anglo-Saxon word for a private part of the female anatomy. Also, there will be spoilers ahead - if you haven't seen the episode in question, then don't read this before you have.

And so it started again. A new season of Doctor Who, another 13 weeks of David Tennant lurching around the universe in his battered TARDIS like a hyperactive puppy, another 13 weeks of adventures that vary in quality quite dramtically. And whatever tone you read into this paragraph - and whatever I think of the episodes - I'll love it.

Which is just as well because the first episode out of the box - Partners In Crime - wasn't great. The enemy, if you can call them that, were little balls of human fat that turned into half cute, half creepy aliens. And alien babies at that. They weren't menacing at all. I kept on half expecting them to turn into snarling beasts, like the toddler aliens in Galaxy Quest, but they didn't. The waddled around right until the end of the piece, when a Close Encounters of the Third Kind style space ship took them away. They weren't terrifying alien nemesis of the Doctor - frankly, a Dalek would have just trundled over them all without batting an eyestalk. Yes, there method of birth was painful, and yes a fat bird bought it when several of the Adipose came into being. But it wasn't their fault (in fact Donna inadvertently caused the fat bird death) and they showed no malice whatsoever. The real villian was Mrs Foster, and she was a surprisingly helpful, non-homicidal nemesis. The Doctor didn't even break into a sweat kicking her butt. It was difficult to fear Foster - it was easier to find her midly irritating*. This wasn't an adventure, by Doctor Who standards. It was a mildly diverting detour to Earth.

And yet, even within what was quite a lacklusre effort, there were moments of genius. Donna's conversation about the Doctor with her grandfather (a wonderful turn by Bernard Cribbins) was by turns funny and moving. When she first sees the Doctor again (and he first sees her), there was a great comedy scene where they mouth and mime at each other, before they realise that the aliens have seen everything that was going on.

But the best scene was right at the end, when Donna was looking for someone to tell her mum where the car keys were. You think it was just an tedious bit of padding; a demonstration that Donna is very practical etc. Then the camera pulls back to reveal who the random woman Donna was ranting at - Rose Tyler. A breath taking twist that helped to redeem the episode.

So all in all, a lacklustre start - but the series hasn't jumped the shark (yet). And with rock monsters, volcanoes and Pompeii to come (plus, hopefully, an intelligent debate about why the Doctor can't just history but happily changes the present and the future) next week, here's to the quality of the programme going up again to the standards we are used to.

*Although a great unanswered question from the script: where did she get her Sonic Pen from? And why didn't the Doctor worry about a random alien having something that looked a lot like Time Lord technology?

The Expense of Our Leaders

The expense claims of some of our top leaders have been revealed by the obese Speaker of the House. It should go without saying, but I will say it anyway. The make for pretty sickening reading. But after all the revelations of the past few months, I can't say that I am that surprised, despite my disgust.

I can get over the fact that John Prescott spent £4,000 of our money on food. In fact, I'm surprised, giving the size of that behemoth, that it wasn't a lot more. I can just about forgive Michael Howard for claiming more on expenses than I earned as my annual salary for the first three years of my career. Yes, they have pissed tax money away. But I'm completely used to it these days.

But what really riles me - what really fucking pisses me off - is Tony Blair claiming his TV licence. Yes, it is not a massive amount of money. Yes, it is a drop in the ocean next the total amounts our elected leaders have been cunting away. But it is just so... petty of Blair to claim back his TV licence. He could afford it a thousand times over; he expected everyone else in the fucking country to pay it; he lived in Number 10 Downing Street at the very heart of government surrounded by every technological innovation and invention he could need; and despite all of that he still claimed his TV licence. The tight-arsed, penny pinching, hypocritical bastard.

These disclosures of expenses remind of one key thing - that as we all sit - aghast at the incompetence of Brown and the corruption of his minions - we are witnessing them following the lead of the former PM.

It is starting... again!

There’s a lot of important stuff going on this weekend. Probably. I don’t know, and I can’t be bothered to find out either. However, as the more sage amongst you will know doubt know, there is only one crucial event of the weekend. That is the start of the new series of Doctor Who.

Of course, I am a shameless Who geek, so I’m going to be looking forward to it. But I genuinely think that it is worth watching, even if you are not a fan. It is (generally speaking) very well written and very entertaining. So tune in. Enjoy.

There is one potential problem, though. Tomorrow night sees the return of Donna Noble, as played by Catherine Tate. I’m not a fan of Catherine Tate – in fact, her voice sends shivers of rage and disgust down my spine, and her gormless face makes me want to burn down crowded building. She wouldn’t have been my choice for companion.

But I have some faith in the programme makers. I wasn’t sure Billie would be a good companion, and she turned out to be excellent. I wasn’t sure how well David Tennant would do in the role of the Doctor, and he has made it his own. So hopefully the producers know what they are doing. And if they don’t – even if Tate is appalling and drags the programme down for the whole of this new season – I’ll still watch it. I’ll watch it even if I spend every second of every minute of every broadcast hating it.

Such is the curse of being a fanboy…

Nu Labour and t'interweb.

Don’t get me wrong, paedophilia is a blight. Anyone who abuses kids deserves to be seriously punished. And it is absolutely correct that government should try to stop abuse and limit any potential opportunities for abuse. It doesn’t, however, stop our government from coming up with some seriously stupid ideas.

Today’s stupid idea is around e-mail addresses. Those dirty paedos are doing to have to give the authorities their e-mail address, so stop them grooming children on line and abusing social networking sites. Don’t worry – this proposal is backed up by the full force of the law.

Under government proposals, offenders who do not give police their address - or give a false one - would face up to five years in jail.

Fair enough. I have to say that it would be a stupid person who doesn’t hand over their e-mail address in a pretty damn sharpish way under those circumstances.

Because – ignoring the five year prison sentence incentive/threat – it is really easy to get a new e-mail address. Seriously. In-between typing these very words, I’ve set up a new e-mail address.* And regardless of what e-mail addresses sex offenders might give the government, they would find it just as easy to set-up a new e-mail address.

There is a risk posed by social networking websites – and the interweb as a whole – and that threat is not just limited to kids. However, the internet is less of a scary place than the government would have you believe. The government seems to be carping on about how threatening and terrible the internet is, and actively campaigning for other ways for kids to enjoy themselves. Whilst I conditionally support plans to make kids more active, part of me wonders why the government appears to be so scared of the internet.

Maybe it is as simple as they don’t understand it. Certainly, they seem to have a very limited understanding of web design…

*I haven’t actually. I’m hungover and can’t be arsed. But it is very easy, if memory serves.

The Orphanage - Yes, it is in Spanish

Went to see The Orphanage last night. And fucking hell, it was scary. I genuinely mean that. It is the sort of film that makes you jump, and in periods (such as the séance) was genuinely unsettling. It managed to create such a potent atmosphere that I didn’t focus on the more major plot holes. Which is nothing short of a miracle, because some of the plot holes were so large that you could drive a lorry through them.

So I’d heartily recommend it. With two caveats. First of all, if you like psychological horror films, then you will love this film. It is very much in keeping with the likes of The Sixth Sense, Ghostwatch, The Stone Tape and the film version of The Woman In Black. It aspires to be scary, rather than grisly. If you like the Saw style of film, then this – despite a couple of moments of brutality and gore – will not be the film for you.

Also – and I never thought I’d have to add this caveat, but there we go – it is in Spanish. After several people expressed incredulity that anyone would watch a Spanish film (including one person who asked if I could speak fluent Spanish, not thinking for a moment that there might be subtitles), I think it is worth pointing out that it is a subtitled film. Not a problem for me, but clearly is for some other people. And for others still, the very concept of subtitles seems to be mystifying.

*Sighs*

So if you want to watch a psychological horror films and don’t mind subtitles, go watch The Orphanage. If you want something in English with less subtlety and more gore, wait for the US remake. Which, no doubt, will star Naomi Watts – the queen of the remake, particularly of films originally made in a language other than English.

*They* Say You Lose Your Looks As You Get Older

Judging by this photo of Keith Richards, *they* are right:

Rock star? Not quite. Keith looks more like a curious mix of Worzel Gummidge and a granny after a sherry binge.

Still, had I taken as many drugs and done as many stupid things as Keith Richards, it would be a case of "looks be damned. I'm just glad to be alive..."

Accepting the Torch

Gordon Brown will be welcoming the Olympic Torch to Britain, for fear offending the Chinese if he doesn't.

"A failure to welcome the torch would have been seen by Beijing as a dreadful snub."

God forbid we should snub totalitarian, human rights abusing communists. That would be terrible.

Actually, scratch that. Gordo probably feels completely at home with totalitarian arseholes.

Fin-tastic!

Via Mr E, a picture of the new Foreign Minister for Finland:

It might be tempting to call this guy a "card". Judging by his website, I'd go go another four letter word beginning with "c".

UPDATED (now his website is working properly again). I'd call him that "c" word partly because of this even more striking photo:

Proof positive that looking, and acting, like a kid's TV presenter is not a barrier to high political office in some countries.

Toby Anstis must be delighted.

Protect yerself

We hear it a lot from our elected leaders, don’t we? That crime is going down. That the streets are safer. That their policies mean you can walk anywhere in your home city without fear of being attacked and stabbed.

It is just that you need to take some responsibility for yourself, that’s all. As Harriet Harman showed when she went on a walk about with the police in her home constituency. Wearing a stab proof vest. Take a look:


And Harman’s insensitivity is so great that she actually put that photo on her own website. Jeez.

Of course, this is Nu Labour. So rest assured that there is a reason why she was wearing a stab proof vest whilst she was walking the streets that she purports to represent. It was to fit in with the police, you see. They were all wearing them, so she felt she had to too:

"It was just a courtesy, there was no security issue whatsoever, it was almost like wearing the kit when you go out with the team."

Which could, I suppose, be true. Maybe she does view police officers as so insecure that they need her to wear the same personal protective equipment as them so they don’t feel like freaks. I rather doubt that, but you never know. And God help us if Harman ever visited a Wrestling event. She's probably end up wearing a leotard to be like Hulk Hogan or something.

What is much more interesting, and what hasn’t been mentioned in any of the coverage I’ve seen, is the fact that the police wear these stab vests day in, day out when they are patrolling the streets. Harman may feel safe enough to walk through her own constituency without protection, but the police don’t.

And, of course, the police are at the front line of fighting crime, so they are more at risk than, say, the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party who lives in a self-constructed, protective bubble. But the real issue is the police feel the need for extra protection, and one of the reasons might be this inconvenient (both for Harman, the police and for anyone living in the area) little stat:

Incidents of violent crime in the borough of Southwark, which includes Peckham, have increased by 6.9 per cent in the last 12 months.

Enough said.