Further to my last post about pretentious nits reading whatever they like into a famous, and therefore deeply meaningful, book, this article on Frankenstein rather amused me
My favourite has to be the Scottish guy who apparently wrote at university that it was about the English treatment of the Irish....right
Did he look at the publishing date? The guy is going on about creating a murderer (i.e. Irish republicanism) - but it was published in 1818, unless Mary Shelley had exceptional foresight this is post-modern, anti-English wishful thinking
The sheer fact that the book is subtitled (which many classics often are, and which tend to be ignored by reviewers looking for their own meaning) 'The Modern Prometheus' should tell you what it was alluding to, I hope he didn't get a good mark for that drivel
Personally I believe Shelley was really trying to promote vegetarianism and support Israel
(If you want to really know how intelligent some of these amateur literary scholars are, just look at how many think she was critiquing Victorian society - 'Victorian ambition', 'Victorian paradigm' - remind me when the Victorian era started?)
Ironically, Queen Vic was born in...1819
Showing posts with label BBC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label BBC. Show all posts
22 March 2011
04 November 2010
Am I Missing Something?
From a BBC magazine article
Now, I may be missing something vital about the policy, so feel free to weigh in - but the lowest cap is £290 for a flat
He's getting less than half that...why would it be cut? He's getting £6,500 a year to live in a bedsit
Maybe I am missing something obvious - but nowhere in that article does it point out why a person getting this modest amount would be hit - the only change mentioned is the cap, as always - as far as I'm aware he's well under it and shouldn't be affected, the BBC should explain the reason here
Job-hunting IT worker Christian Romane, 53, lives in a bedsit in leafy Earl's Court, west London, with £125 a week in housing benefits
"At the moment I spend 40 hours a week looking for work, but if these changes go through that would stop.
To make up the shortfall in rent I'd have to cancel my broadband so it would be harder to search for jobs and keep up my IT skills. I have no other spare funds - as it is I get by on one meal a day right now.
I could move further out of London, but most of the work I'm looking for is in the city and the increased transport costs mean I'd be no better off.
I've lived here for 20 years, this is my home. It doesn't seem fair that I could be thrown out because of a political decision."
Now, I may be missing something vital about the policy, so feel free to weigh in - but the lowest cap is £290 for a flat
He's getting less than half that...why would it be cut? He's getting £6,500 a year to live in a bedsit
Maybe I am missing something obvious - but nowhere in that article does it point out why a person getting this modest amount would be hit - the only change mentioned is the cap, as always - as far as I'm aware he's well under it and shouldn't be affected, the BBC should explain the reason here
25 October 2010
Jesus wept (that's offensive too)
Oh for ****'s sake
Ofcom call Top Gear offensive for describing the Ferrari F430 Speciale as 'Speciale needs'
It's a pun! Go and jump off a pissing cliff, you humourless twats
That's offensive too, you know - should I apologise?
When will they learn - everything is offensive! Even my shoes are offensive to some people - want to ban them too?
Good, I find Ofcom offensive - ban that
(and it was post-watershed...)
Ofcom call Top Gear offensive for describing the Ferrari F430 Speciale as 'Speciale needs'
It's a pun! Go and jump off a pissing cliff, you humourless twats
That's offensive too, you know - should I apologise?
When will they learn - everything is offensive! Even my shoes are offensive to some people - want to ban them too?
Good, I find Ofcom offensive - ban that
(and it was post-watershed...)
19 October 2010
Best BBC Graph Ever
This is the 'savage' spending cuts in relative terms
As reported on the BBC ten o'clock news, by Stephanie Flanders
This is the truth, note the rise into a almost vertical incline after 2000, when Labour abandoned the previous Tory government's spending model and pumped huge amounts into the public sector, much of it the NHS
Does that look sustainable to you? Does it even look sensible? No - every post-war government, even the two Labour ones, has had to keep the constant rise in spending in line with economic growth - as shown by the broad trend, that rule was absolutely demolished in the past decade - to claw spending back to 2006/07 levels is moderate, even tame
I've known this for a long time, as these figures have been all over the right-wing blogosphere, I am no economist but people like Guido, the Taxpayers Alliance and others have all made the point that these are barely spending cuts, but reigning in the rise in spending, depending on inflation
This is the first time I've seen this graphic interpretation on any major broadcaster, and frankly it's about time - we can talk about the impact of the cuts, but this is the actual reason for them, and it really helps to show why we need them, and this rather dents the anti-BBC lot's case
The real issue is - why is essentially a clawing back of roughly 4% to the expenditure level of three years ago so bloody destructive? We're talking about a snip of money that simply wasn't there four years ago, and yet we're losing 25,000 MoD staff and god knows how many more public sector workers*
Not that I'm against reigning in the public sector, but it seems rather a lot for what is a relatively small cut - I know some is about future spending commitments, and it's over five years, but I can't help feeling it's a bit... inefficient, and it's the waste that's most important to cut, and I also can't help thinking that ring-fencing the NHS was a costly political manoeuvre
*though I may be underestimating the rise in the public sector workforce
This is the truth, note the rise into a almost vertical incline after 2000, when Labour abandoned the previous Tory government's spending model and pumped huge amounts into the public sector, much of it the NHS
Does that look sustainable to you? Does it even look sensible? No - every post-war government, even the two Labour ones, has had to keep the constant rise in spending in line with economic growth - as shown by the broad trend, that rule was absolutely demolished in the past decade - to claw spending back to 2006/07 levels is moderate, even tame
I've known this for a long time, as these figures have been all over the right-wing blogosphere, I am no economist but people like Guido, the Taxpayers Alliance and others have all made the point that these are barely spending cuts, but reigning in the rise in spending, depending on inflation
This is the first time I've seen this graphic interpretation on any major broadcaster, and frankly it's about time - we can talk about the impact of the cuts, but this is the actual reason for them, and it really helps to show why we need them, and this rather dents the anti-BBC lot's case
The real issue is - why is essentially a clawing back of roughly 4% to the expenditure level of three years ago so bloody destructive? We're talking about a snip of money that simply wasn't there four years ago, and yet we're losing 25,000 MoD staff and god knows how many more public sector workers*
Not that I'm against reigning in the public sector, but it seems rather a lot for what is a relatively small cut - I know some is about future spending commitments, and it's over five years, but I can't help feeling it's a bit... inefficient, and it's the waste that's most important to cut, and I also can't help thinking that ring-fencing the NHS was a costly political manoeuvre
*though I may be underestimating the rise in the public sector workforce
15 October 2010
Oh no he shouldn't!
Chris Evans has said Chris Moyles should leave Radio 1, after that little rant of his
While I agree it was wrong to 'hijack a BBC microphone', as I said at the time, I don't see why he should have to leave when his listeners don't seem to care, it wasn't out of character or untypical for the show, he frequently argues with callers, usually very early in the morning, and it's usually some of the best entertainment
That said, the show has been getting a bit stale for a while, and you maybe can't settle in front of the radio in comfort like you can with Radio 2's ever-familiar line-up, the audience changes far more rapidly (i.e. we all get old)
Likewise Moyles is probably starting to push it - he's getting to nearly forty, the last really successful host (Evans himself) left at 31, there comes a point when you are seen as middle-aged, no matter how youthful your behaviour - he might have appeal to me and other twenty/thirty-somethings, but he's a generation removed from the younger part of the audience
But there is a reason he should stay, and I come back to that point about Evans being the last good host - it took years to find someone decent, and Moyles is not known as 'the saviour of Radio 1' for nothing - it was languishing ten years ago and he is a big reason for it's success today, if he were to go then the BBC would probably struggle to find a decent replacement
Remember that Moyles built up his reputation over ten years ago, working in various slots and eventually the drive-time, or number 2, show - there is no one ready to take on the mantle
Scott Mills, whose not young himself, is an unlikely choice, I personally don't like his show and there are very few people who seem to like it when he fills in for Moyles, as he's clearly the second talent at the station
Likewise, Fearne Cotton, who I assume is well thought-of by the management, is seemingly hated by the listeners I know and there is a fear she would be moved in as she's a rising young star, but I doubt she'd be liked and isn't known for her humour, while there are still people like Sara Cox, who got bumped down a few years ago, hanging around
In fact the only person at the station I can think of who is mildly entertaining is Vernon Kay, but as he's exactly the same age as Moyles and Mills (bizarrely they are all within three months of each other), he seems unlikely as a long term replacement, so that does not bode well for finding a successor to the flagship show
So is it any wonder they are reluctant to think about losing Moyles?
He should stay for as long as possible...
While I agree it was wrong to 'hijack a BBC microphone', as I said at the time, I don't see why he should have to leave when his listeners don't seem to care, it wasn't out of character or untypical for the show, he frequently argues with callers, usually very early in the morning, and it's usually some of the best entertainment
That said, the show has been getting a bit stale for a while, and you maybe can't settle in front of the radio in comfort like you can with Radio 2's ever-familiar line-up, the audience changes far more rapidly (i.e. we all get old)
Likewise Moyles is probably starting to push it - he's getting to nearly forty, the last really successful host (Evans himself) left at 31, there comes a point when you are seen as middle-aged, no matter how youthful your behaviour - he might have appeal to me and other twenty/thirty-somethings, but he's a generation removed from the younger part of the audience
But there is a reason he should stay, and I come back to that point about Evans being the last good host - it took years to find someone decent, and Moyles is not known as 'the saviour of Radio 1' for nothing - it was languishing ten years ago and he is a big reason for it's success today, if he were to go then the BBC would probably struggle to find a decent replacement
Remember that Moyles built up his reputation over ten years ago, working in various slots and eventually the drive-time, or number 2, show - there is no one ready to take on the mantle
Scott Mills, whose not young himself, is an unlikely choice, I personally don't like his show and there are very few people who seem to like it when he fills in for Moyles, as he's clearly the second talent at the station
Likewise, Fearne Cotton, who I assume is well thought-of by the management, is seemingly hated by the listeners I know and there is a fear she would be moved in as she's a rising young star, but I doubt she'd be liked and isn't known for her humour, while there are still people like Sara Cox, who got bumped down a few years ago, hanging around
In fact the only person at the station I can think of who is mildly entertaining is Vernon Kay, but as he's exactly the same age as Moyles and Mills (bizarrely they are all within three months of each other), he seems unlikely as a long term replacement, so that does not bode well for finding a successor to the flagship show
So is it any wonder they are reluctant to think about losing Moyles?
He should stay for as long as possible...
11 October 2010
'Equality'
So apparently Trevor Philips is still about, being paid by the rather frivolous 'Equality and Human Rights Commission' to tell us:
An average, widening in the older groups...I'm shocked - does this mean it's narrowing in the young?
Hang on - five-fold? Does that mean it's roughly equivalent to a measly 5% in young people?
I've said before that to compare older workers is ridiculous when there is nothing you can do about their educational prospects thirty years ago - instead what we have is females being given massive advantages to even out the figures, which does nothing for older 'unequal' women, and creates real, state-sponsored inequality in the education and employment sectors
Essentially they offset older women being held back by deliberately holding young men back, this is 'equality'
Other gems include: 'while one in five people lived in a household with less than 60% of average income.'
Really - 20% live in households more than 40% away from the average? As streams of people have said before - it's relative! If they earned more the average would in turn be higher! The only way of ever lifting people out of 'relative poverty' is to pay everyone the same
Is that code for: we can't catch up with the inequality of generations past? Or is he just bleating that we still haven't met the targets, and reality be damned
There 70 million of cuts right there (operational costs - £175k per employee, nearly twice that of the NHS)
In other news - people who are (about) my age are idiots, they think that of all cuts benefits Jobseekers' Allowance should be cut, many of whom said by 'a lot' - are they aware how tiny JSA is? It's a pittance, equivalent to less than a day's work a week and is heavily restricted - the real benefit money is in housing and income support, not counting disability
However, they did also support benefit capping (again, showing this cap is actually a good, popular idea, despite the Labour howls), but christ..cut the dole - to what? Zero?
Looking forward to 'the cuts' next week...
'The commission said that on average women earned 16% less than men, widening to 27% for women aged 40'
An average, widening in the older groups...I'm shocked - does this mean it's narrowing in the young?
'When it came to pay, the report said that the gender pay gap was lowest for the under 30s, rising more than five-fold by the time workers reached 40'
Hang on - five-fold? Does that mean it's roughly equivalent to a measly 5% in young people?
I've said before that to compare older workers is ridiculous when there is nothing you can do about their educational prospects thirty years ago - instead what we have is females being given massive advantages to even out the figures, which does nothing for older 'unequal' women, and creates real, state-sponsored inequality in the education and employment sectors
Among other equality issues, it said that girls of all ethnic backgrounds outperformed boys in education.
Essentially they offset older women being held back by deliberately holding young men back, this is 'equality'
Other gems include: 'while one in five people lived in a household with less than 60% of average income.'
Really - 20% live in households more than 40% away from the average? As streams of people have said before - it's relative! If they earned more the average would in turn be higher! The only way of ever lifting people out of 'relative poverty' is to pay everyone the same
Mr Phillips said: "This review holds up the mirror to fairness in Britain. It is the most complete picture of its kind ever compiled.
"It shows that we are a people who have moved light years in our attitudes to all kinds of human difference, and in our desire to be a truly fair society, but that we are still a country where our achievements haven't yet caught up with our aspirations."
Is that code for: we can't catch up with the inequality of generations past? Or is he just bleating that we still haven't met the targets, and reality be damned
There 70 million of cuts right there (operational costs - £175k per employee, nearly twice that of the NHS)
In other news - people who are (about) my age are idiots, they think that of all cuts benefits Jobseekers' Allowance should be cut, many of whom said by 'a lot' - are they aware how tiny JSA is? It's a pittance, equivalent to less than a day's work a week and is heavily restricted - the real benefit money is in housing and income support, not counting disability
However, they did also support benefit capping (again, showing this cap is actually a good, popular idea, despite the Labour howls), but christ..cut the dole - to what? Zero?
Looking forward to 'the cuts' next week...
02 October 2010
Profit!
This morning punters were backing BBC strikes to take place over the Tory conference at 80%
Now they have been called off...
Guess who got a piece of that action...
Now they have been called off...
Guess who got a piece of that action...
25 September 2010
Taking 'fairness' to a new level
I found this rather bizarre entry in the BBC's Magazine (which let's face it, is usually bizarre)
Can men and women ever compete fairly in a sport like running?
Well, um no is the answer
In short, Lucy Proctor has used statistics to work out when men and women can, on average best performances, perform equally well - in a nutshell, men in their early fifties are equal to peak performance women. Now, while I am rather fond of daft academic studies that seek to work out these things for the hell of it (she is clearly not being serious or promoting a Harperson-esque agenda), the fact is 'fairness' means all things to all men
I don't actually consider it fair to test a much older male against a younger female just so that they are on a supposedly level-playing field, in the same way it's not fair to work out the best time a lardarse can do and weight a lithe runner against him, that's equalising, not fairness
It's just statistics - fairness is in the eye of the beholder - to me, that means shoving everyone onto a start line and saying 'go' - that's a fair fight between all
Yes you can adjust the results for age, a seventy year old is hardly likely to match Paula Radcliffe, and it's a different expectation of achievement, but they are never going to be fairly competing - for a start the statistics are far too malleable and only relate to the very best athletes, not your common runner who will have a host of other advantages or disadvantages besides sex
I would like to see a team sport equalised in such a way - how do you make women's football as fast and powerful?
Answer: you don't
Can men and women ever compete fairly in a sport like running?
Well, um no is the answer
In short, Lucy Proctor has used statistics to work out when men and women can, on average best performances, perform equally well - in a nutshell, men in their early fifties are equal to peak performance women. Now, while I am rather fond of daft academic studies that seek to work out these things for the hell of it (she is clearly not being serious or promoting a Harperson-esque agenda), the fact is 'fairness' means all things to all men
I don't actually consider it fair to test a much older male against a younger female just so that they are on a supposedly level-playing field, in the same way it's not fair to work out the best time a lardarse can do and weight a lithe runner against him, that's equalising, not fairness
It's just statistics - fairness is in the eye of the beholder - to me, that means shoving everyone onto a start line and saying 'go' - that's a fair fight between all
Yes you can adjust the results for age, a seventy year old is hardly likely to match Paula Radcliffe, and it's a different expectation of achievement, but they are never going to be fairly competing - for a start the statistics are far too malleable and only relate to the very best athletes, not your common runner who will have a host of other advantages or disadvantages besides sex
I would like to see a team sport equalised in such a way - how do you make women's football as fast and powerful?
Answer: you don't
22 September 2010
Moyles needs to come back to Earth
Whilst it is regrettable that anyone isn't paid by their employer for two months, I would generally not recommend that media stars have a strop about it live on air
While Chris Moyles is right to feel aggrieved, does he really think whingeing to listeners that he's missed out on two months of his mega-fat paycheck is going to get him much sympathy?
I don't know how much he earns, Wikipedia claim it was 630k in 2007, he took a 20% paycut last year and just signed a new contract (a cock up on that being the reason his pay hasn't come out apparently) so who knows, but we can safely assume it is at least half a mill a year
Or at least 40k a month, roughly double the average annual salary in one month - complaining about missing a bit of this to workers sat in traffic or asleep in their cereal bowl before another full day of work is not going to win much sympathy for a man employed to talk for 3 and a half hours
Moyles responded: "What, because I get paid more than you, if I don't get paid for two months I should just go 'oh well, harrumph'?
Not at all, I do think he has every right to feel annoyed, scale doesn't matter and I'm not going to bash the level media stars earn either, the same way unpaid footballers have a right to their millions - but I question whether he should be airing this
Firstly, as we all know it's unwise for high earners to whinge to the common folk about money, many would consider it tactless and it's natural for people to lack sympathy for a person who earns their annual salary in two weeks - what was he expecting?
Secondly, it's completely unprofessional and an abuse of your position to use your own show to air your issues - most workers do not get this opportunity and generally would not announce a pay issue in the office, let alone the whole country - again, not a reason to show sympathy to someone, it smacks of being self-important
He's entitled to the money, he's entitled to be angry, he's even entitled to not show up for work, but using his show to air it in public? No, just deal with it like the rest of us have to
While Chris Moyles is right to feel aggrieved, does he really think whingeing to listeners that he's missed out on two months of his mega-fat paycheck is going to get him much sympathy?
I don't know how much he earns, Wikipedia claim it was 630k in 2007, he took a 20% paycut last year and just signed a new contract (a cock up on that being the reason his pay hasn't come out apparently) so who knows, but we can safely assume it is at least half a mill a year
Or at least 40k a month, roughly double the average annual salary in one month - complaining about missing a bit of this to workers sat in traffic or asleep in their cereal bowl before another full day of work is not going to win much sympathy for a man employed to talk for 3 and a half hours
Moyles responded: "What, because I get paid more than you, if I don't get paid for two months I should just go 'oh well, harrumph'?
Not at all, I do think he has every right to feel annoyed, scale doesn't matter and I'm not going to bash the level media stars earn either, the same way unpaid footballers have a right to their millions - but I question whether he should be airing this
Firstly, as we all know it's unwise for high earners to whinge to the common folk about money, many would consider it tactless and it's natural for people to lack sympathy for a person who earns their annual salary in two weeks - what was he expecting?
Secondly, it's completely unprofessional and an abuse of your position to use your own show to air your issues - most workers do not get this opportunity and generally would not announce a pay issue in the office, let alone the whole country - again, not a reason to show sympathy to someone, it smacks of being self-important
He's entitled to the money, he's entitled to be angry, he's even entitled to not show up for work, but using his show to air it in public? No, just deal with it like the rest of us have to
21 September 2010
I doubt they are...
I do wonder if Tim Montgomerie and whoever runs the Mail's rather obvious 'Whingewatch' campaign against the BBC were watching Panorama: Public Sector Pay tonight
Vivian White took a fairly balanced approach, highlighting some excellent, deserving work in education and policing, with constant input from Francis Maude (Tory Cabinet Secretary) - the theme was very much 'why are public sector workers being paid more than the PM?'
In some cases you could see a return, in others, notably local government and certain Quangos, you couldn't really justify 'market rate' (which it's not really in many cases) - the NHS figures were eye-watering, even without GPs and consultants
I found it fairly balanced, there was certainly some defence of high salaries, and personally I don't object to the head of the army or civil service being paid more - these are far more experienced and knowledgeable public servants than David Cameron, or any PM, politicians don't really require, or necessitate higher salaries than they already have
But it was laced throughout with scepticism about paying four people at the waterways nearly a million quid and so forth, interesting to see if the Mail will take note, I see the usual crowd have decided to press on ahead with next week's show which involves the military, because the BBC hate them, and never produce a show critical of public sector pay...
Vivian White took a fairly balanced approach, highlighting some excellent, deserving work in education and policing, with constant input from Francis Maude (Tory Cabinet Secretary) - the theme was very much 'why are public sector workers being paid more than the PM?'
In some cases you could see a return, in others, notably local government and certain Quangos, you couldn't really justify 'market rate' (which it's not really in many cases) - the NHS figures were eye-watering, even without GPs and consultants
I found it fairly balanced, there was certainly some defence of high salaries, and personally I don't object to the head of the army or civil service being paid more - these are far more experienced and knowledgeable public servants than David Cameron, or any PM, politicians don't really require, or necessitate higher salaries than they already have
But it was laced throughout with scepticism about paying four people at the waterways nearly a million quid and so forth, interesting to see if the Mail will take note, I see the usual crowd have decided to press on ahead with next week's show which involves the military, because the BBC hate them, and never produce a show critical of public sector pay...
16 September 2010
Questionable Time
I'm a bit perplexed by Question Time's Labour special
Now at first I found it rather amusing, watching them all scramble over each other over 'left-wing', 'new labour' and unions
However, once they started talking about Tory cuts it became very apparent this was a mistake - as much as Dimbleby tries to play devil's advocate you have five people who are, as D. Mili says, 'all united on this' - that they are all anti-Tory
Allowing them to set up a narrative against 'cuts' and the government was questionable in my view
I think Dimbleby has done reasonably well steering them away from unopposed Tory bashing, and it was inevitable they would bash their main opposition, but it makes me uneasy letting them say 'jobs are going', 'harsh cuts' etc without response
We knew it wasn't going to be balanced, so fair play, but this feels very strange on QT
By the by, Andy Burnham is by far the most appealing to me - not politically, of course, but he's honest, he admits mistakes of the past and he's got a more rational stance - he could've done a lot more before, while in government, but compared to the other three men he's a bloody saint
I like Abbott's sincerity, but she's just too far gone for me
Now at first I found it rather amusing, watching them all scramble over each other over 'left-wing', 'new labour' and unions
However, once they started talking about Tory cuts it became very apparent this was a mistake - as much as Dimbleby tries to play devil's advocate you have five people who are, as D. Mili says, 'all united on this' - that they are all anti-Tory
Allowing them to set up a narrative against 'cuts' and the government was questionable in my view
I think Dimbleby has done reasonably well steering them away from unopposed Tory bashing, and it was inevitable they would bash their main opposition, but it makes me uneasy letting them say 'jobs are going', 'harsh cuts' etc without response
We knew it wasn't going to be balanced, so fair play, but this feels very strange on QT
By the by, Andy Burnham is by far the most appealing to me - not politically, of course, but he's honest, he admits mistakes of the past and he's got a more rational stance - he could've done a lot more before, while in government, but compared to the other three men he's a bloody saint
I like Abbott's sincerity, but she's just too far gone for me
17 April 2010
I don't actually need you, Dermot
Dermot O'Leary makes a good point
Only, why exactly is this 36 year old bloke off X Factor supposedly representing my views?
Aren't the BBC stepping into exactly the same trap as the politicians by treating young people as some sort of mystic force that must be understood and communicated via the means of popular entertainment which we all must watch?
Dermot's bang on that we don't want to be patronised by idiots like Cameron and Brown trying to sound like they can rap, but nor do we want to be patronised by the BBC who thinks we need our own 'first voter question time' (not that I personally am), or that we all watch X Factor, listen to 'black and urban music' and use bloody Twitter
All we want is someone to represent the views of the disaffected youth, the main parties cannot offer that with their middle aged mandates - they never have been able to, and I don't need sodding Dermot O'Leary talking down to me to tell me that
What's obvious is that these "young people" don't want to be patronised, they don't want to be pigeon-holed or spoken down to. They are better informed with far more information at their fingertips than the generation that went before them.Oh so true, well done, that Dermot
They just want some straight talking.
And you can bet that the decisions first-time voters make will be predominately on policy, trust and ideology - not who can use a smart phone, is the best dressed, the most attractive or who can name the coolest band
Only, why exactly is this 36 year old bloke off X Factor supposedly representing my views?
Aren't the BBC stepping into exactly the same trap as the politicians by treating young people as some sort of mystic force that must be understood and communicated via the means of popular entertainment which we all must watch?
Dermot's bang on that we don't want to be patronised by idiots like Cameron and Brown trying to sound like they can rap, but nor do we want to be patronised by the BBC who thinks we need our own 'first voter question time' (not that I personally am), or that we all watch X Factor, listen to 'black and urban music' and use bloody Twitter
All we want is someone to represent the views of the disaffected youth, the main parties cannot offer that with their middle aged mandates - they never have been able to, and I don't need sodding Dermot O'Leary talking down to me to tell me that
18 February 2010
Comedy Genius
'Sir' Nicholas Winterton, who has already made an arse of himself with his fellow-MP wife over renting his own property, has, as I'm sure you've heard by now, said that MPs 'need' to travel first-class
Guido's already picked it up, and I don't really need to have a rant (did that in the car..) but I heard it live and it was brilliant, particularly as he was on to discuss the Falklands..
But what I do want to say is that Stephen Nolan has been brilliant the last few days, he's been covering Victoria Derbyshire this week and he's turned the slot into a Paxman-esque grilling of politicians, far more fun, I wish he'd stay, Victoria is alright, but she wouldn't get him to announce that MPs are a different type of people (although knowing Sir Nick...)
I would like to address a few issues, however
Why exactly was it fair to pay rent for a property he already owned? How is that justified, even if it's an 'allowance' not 'expenses' - that's taking all you can get regardless
Secondly he said you can't get a seat in standard class, that would only apply to rush hour, but he also said children travel in standard class - I've never experienced children in rush hour, at 7am there are no seats, but also no kids
Furthermore, he's from Macclesfield and has a London flat...so he's not a commuter and wouldn't even be on a train in rush hour...hence he experiences noisy children in standard, and hence there would be seats available
I am reminded of that train ad that suggests you go by train (standard class) to get some much-needed work done rather than having to drive...apparently not MPs
I also found this from his local paper
So when the hell is he claiming for first class travel?? He claims 6 grand on it, not a low figure - he says he's cheap but that's overall and down to an incredibly stingy office budget - generally I'd say office budgets are far more beneficial to the public, and they don't go on the individual but staff and costs
This also raises the issue of MPs standing down - why should we be subject to this sort of behaviour? Because he's not going for re-election he can do absolutely anything, he might as well start waving a Nazi flag around for four or five years, MPs should be subject to some sort of scrutiny, not given five years of complete freedom, perhaps we need a power of recall in these cases
Guido's already picked it up, and I don't really need to have a rant (did that in the car..) but I heard it live and it was brilliant, particularly as he was on to discuss the Falklands..
But what I do want to say is that Stephen Nolan has been brilliant the last few days, he's been covering Victoria Derbyshire this week and he's turned the slot into a Paxman-esque grilling of politicians, far more fun, I wish he'd stay, Victoria is alright, but she wouldn't get him to announce that MPs are a different type of people (although knowing Sir Nick...)
I would like to address a few issues, however
Why exactly was it fair to pay rent for a property he already owned? How is that justified, even if it's an 'allowance' not 'expenses' - that's taking all you can get regardless
Secondly he said you can't get a seat in standard class, that would only apply to rush hour, but he also said children travel in standard class - I've never experienced children in rush hour, at 7am there are no seats, but also no kids
Furthermore, he's from Macclesfield and has a London flat...so he's not a commuter and wouldn't even be on a train in rush hour...hence he experiences noisy children in standard, and hence there would be seats available
I am reminded of that train ad that suggests you go by train (standard class) to get some much-needed work done rather than having to drive...apparently not MPs
I also found this from his local paper
And I drive with my wife to and from London, which is vastly cheaper than the train, and I also subsidise my travel with my salary." (April 2009)
So when the hell is he claiming for first class travel?? He claims 6 grand on it, not a low figure - he says he's cheap but that's overall and down to an incredibly stingy office budget - generally I'd say office budgets are far more beneficial to the public, and they don't go on the individual but staff and costs
This also raises the issue of MPs standing down - why should we be subject to this sort of behaviour? Because he's not going for re-election he can do absolutely anything, he might as well start waving a Nazi flag around for four or five years, MPs should be subject to some sort of scrutiny, not given five years of complete freedom, perhaps we need a power of recall in these cases
17 December 2009
Glug
Ah, good old sir Liam, he was the one who warned us all about swine flu deaths...remember?
Now he's saying parents (specifically middle class ones) who let their teenage kids 'taste' booze will make them more likely to be heavy drinkers as adults
Any stats for that?
I'm not saying he's wrong...but if you've been wrong before you can be wrong again, right?
Far be for me to use anecdotal evidence - but I was tasting booze from about 14, drinking possibly too much at 17 and 18, but nowadays I barely drink at all - I got bored of it once I got away from the first-year student culture, and I'd have to blame my friends and the culture of binge-drinking far more than my parents for my occasional excesses back then, I was a teenager - teenagers are quite stupid
Yet, here I am, faculties in order, with a proper academic degree and writing in prose - we all know alcohol is harmful, worse than a lot of illegal drugs in many ways - but it's not a substantial risk to drink it, particularly in moderation, we have a life expectancy of what? 78? And we've been drinking the stuff for millenia, while kids all over the world do fine after drinking, the stats do show that more liberal countries in Europe don't get nearly as much alcohol-related-violence so there's some balance to this debate, Liam
But don't take my uninformed opinion on it, thankfully the BBC love a good counter-argument
here's Jeremy Todd of Parentline Plus
Quite right, and banning stuff = not talking, I'm not sure if Sir Liam has ever met a teenager
I particularly liked Professor Ian Gilmore:
Spot on - why isn't this man Chief Medical Officer? (He's already president of the Royal College of Physicians)
What we do not need is more bloody preachy adverts:
Stop wasting our bloody money on 'don't drink' adverts! Unless they actually return a profit through less cost to the NHS then they are a frivolous drain on our ever-growing deficit - don't they know there's a recession on?
Now he's saying parents (specifically middle class ones) who let their teenage kids 'taste' booze will make them more likely to be heavy drinkers as adults
Any stats for that?
I'm not saying he's wrong...but if you've been wrong before you can be wrong again, right?
Far be for me to use anecdotal evidence - but I was tasting booze from about 14, drinking possibly too much at 17 and 18, but nowadays I barely drink at all - I got bored of it once I got away from the first-year student culture, and I'd have to blame my friends and the culture of binge-drinking far more than my parents for my occasional excesses back then, I was a teenager - teenagers are quite stupid
Yet, here I am, faculties in order, with a proper academic degree and writing in prose - we all know alcohol is harmful, worse than a lot of illegal drugs in many ways - but it's not a substantial risk to drink it, particularly in moderation, we have a life expectancy of what? 78? And we've been drinking the stuff for millenia, while kids all over the world do fine after drinking, the stats do show that more liberal countries in Europe don't get nearly as much alcohol-related-violence so there's some balance to this debate, Liam
But don't take my uninformed opinion on it, thankfully the BBC love a good counter-argument
here's Jeremy Todd of Parentline Plus
So irresponsible and draconian approaches don't work - meaning being responsible does work, unfortunately no amount of government interference can make people responsible - stop trying, Liam
He said: "Parents can have a huge influence on their child's drinking choices.
"Rates of teenage drunkenness are higher amongst both the children of parents who drink to excess and the children of parents who abstain completely.
"Whilst parents have a greater influence on their children's drinking patterns early on, as they grow older their friends have a greater influence.
"It is therefore crucial for parents to talk to their children about alcohol and its effects."
Quite right, and banning stuff = not talking, I'm not sure if Sir Liam has ever met a teenager
I particularly liked Professor Ian Gilmore:
"We know that adults who drink sensibly tend to pass these habits on and that some families choose to introduce alcohol to their children younger than 15 in a supportive environment."
He stressed that not drinking alcohol at all remained the "healthiest option" for children.
Spot on - why isn't this man Chief Medical Officer? (He's already president of the Royal College of Physicians)
What we do not need is more bloody preachy adverts:
"He announced a major publicity campaign on the subject in England, which will get under way in January 2010."
Stop wasting our bloody money on 'don't drink' adverts! Unless they actually return a profit through less cost to the NHS then they are a frivolous drain on our ever-growing deficit - don't they know there's a recession on?
09 December 2009
Too bloody right
On a day in which we're being subjected to the PBR I felt we should have some good news
Firstly, that stupid religious hatred case has been dismissed - how could it not be? It was someone's word against another's, and was in blatant contradiction of free speech laws
It's good news for justice and common law, but what's scary is the legislation and its use by the police and the CPS - they spent eight months following up this nonsense, the legislation itself is just a ticking timebomb waiting to go off until someone brings in a real free speech clause (fat chance)
Other good news is that a large group of people are lobbying for the government to change the archaic English libel laws - if he actually did it I might be able to forgive Brown one day, but there's not a chance Labour will get it through, if they even want to - the only party I'd trust on this would be the Lib Dems (fat chance)
Firstly, that stupid religious hatred case has been dismissed - how could it not be? It was someone's word against another's, and was in blatant contradiction of free speech laws
It's good news for justice and common law, but what's scary is the legislation and its use by the police and the CPS - they spent eight months following up this nonsense, the legislation itself is just a ticking timebomb waiting to go off until someone brings in a real free speech clause (fat chance)
Other good news is that a large group of people are lobbying for the government to change the archaic English libel laws - if he actually did it I might be able to forgive Brown one day, but there's not a chance Labour will get it through, if they even want to - the only party I'd trust on this would be the Lib Dems (fat chance)
03 December 2009
Noughtie TV shows
I recently stumbled across the Telegraph's top 100 TV shows that defined the decade (what with it being in its last month) - it's a bit of a hodge podge that includes some big american TV shows with worldwide appeal that didn't actually air terrestrially here, while being mostly Brit-centric and including some very minor British shows
So I thought I'd do my own version according to the same lax rules and try to improve it a bit by doing it in sections, because what's the point ranking genres against each other? We shall see how it turns out...
(hat tip to From the North.. blog for pointing me to it)
I shall start with...Comedy and I think then I'll do Animation separately after, so I don't get cries of 'where's South Park/Family Guy etc' so, onward - sections are of no particular length, so I'm hoping 'reality TV' can be brief, if intense
Comedy
20. The Kumars at no.42 (BBC 2001-6) The successor to Goodness Gracious Me was as important for its cultural impact as much as its critical success, even if the comedy was fairly benign
19. Trigger Happy TV (Channel 4 2000-1) HELLO!? YES, I'M IN THE CINEMA!...You had to be there, red fox
18. Malcolm in the Middle (Fox 2000-6) There aren't many decent Fox comedies out there, but Malcolm in the Middle was a classic that went global and won various awards
17. Scrubs (NBC 2001-8) Not much point counting the butchered ABC version after this classic - Scrubs was the Friends of the noughties - countlessly repeated on daytime and digital TV, couldn't really miss it, oh and it was a good laugh
16. Outnumbered (BBC 2007-) A surprising entry for a show that's only produced 13 episodes (and isn't Fawlty Towers) and spent its first season on late at night, but its obvious quality shone through and got everyone watching this brilliant improv-comedy by the second series (and buying the first en masse)
15. Marion and Geoff (BBC 2000-3) Although a bit forgotten now, this Rob Brydon monologue-fest was a big hit in the early part of the decade
14. Da Ali G Show (Channel 4 2000) ah, is it because I am black? Hard to ignore this ridiculous send-up that appealed to both the intelligent and the illiterate, and of course, gave the world Borat
13. Peep Show (Channel 4 2003-) Excruciatingly painful comedy about two pathetic losers, its sheer brilliance could have you in tears, but its 'alternative' appeal has kept it restrained to younger people and late nights, reducing its impact (and 13 just felt right for Mark, you know...)
12. My Family (BBC 2000-) This mild sitcom is not particularly edgy, and lost it's appeal many years ago but spending a decade as the BBC's mainstream family comedy is no mean feat
11. QI (BBC 2003-) This intelligent game show made a nice change from the usual dumbed-down rubbish, without being elitist, and became a quick hit with anyone who considered themselves to have a brain
10. Mock the Week (BBC 2005-) The satirical stand-up show is one of BBC two's biggest successes and has done a good job in taking over from the aging HIGNFY as well as launching several stand-ups
9. Extras (BBC 2005-7) - Gervais' second big hit was a more usual sitcom, I didn't realise it was so long ago already...
8. Gavin and Stacey (BBC 2007-) This quaint, off-the-cuff little comedy about Essex and Welsh people that started life on BBC 3 somehow became a household staple that we all watch at Christmas
7. Brass Eye - paedophile special (Channel 4 2001) - Few single episodes can cause such an impact as Chris Morris' send up of tabloid hysteria
6. The Daily Show/The Colbert Report (Comedy Central 1999-) Both shows made their name as the major American voices of satire during the Bush years, lampooning the ridiculous right-wingers of Fox
5. Bremner, Bird and Fortune (Channel 4 1999-) The major British voice of satire during Bush/Blair years
4. Curb your Enthusiasm (HBO 2000-) Yet another masterpiece from HBO, so painfully funny it could almost be British
3. Little Britain (BBC 2003-6) This at-times vulgar and repetitive sketch show somehow became a mainstream staple on the BBC, and a worldwide hit, thanks to its many catchy catchphrases
2. The Thick of It (BBC 2005) The incredibly produced replica of the New Labour spin machine won't have you laughing out loud, but rather terrified, a worthy successor to Yes, Minister
1. The Office (BBC 2001-3) Need I say more? Gervais' and Merchant's mockumentary was not only brilliant, but groundbreaking
Animations (I felt this deserved a separate section seeing as how many there have been)
7. The Simpsons (Fox 1989-2126) I had to include it, didn't I? While the show has arguably not produced anything of worth in the whole decade, it was still there! Making a 2007 movie blockbuster at the same time, which was equally as rubbish
6. Robot Chicken (Cartoon Network 2005-) Certainly not the most mainstream of shows, but it's developed into a worldwide cult hit
5. American Dad (Fox 2005-) Seth MacFarlane's second big hit is arguably better, considering it has actual plots, but is also still very, very silly
4. Family Guy (Fox 1999-) Dumped by Fox, but saved by fans and DVD sales, this thoroughly annoying show featuring random surreal clips seems to have been wildly popular
3. King of the Hill (Fox 1997-2009) This well-observed comedy about a mild-mannered conservative family from Texas is deceptively brilliant
2. Futurama (Fox 1999-?) Another show Fox tried to dump, but the comedy prospered and lived on to provide a show much better than the contemporary Simpsons episodes, as well as some legendary characters and catchphrases
1. South Park (Comedy Central 1997-) It was big in the late 90s, with its major film coming out in 1999 - but the fact remains that several of its best episodes came out this decade and even after the mainstream success waned it's remained very popular , and arguably better now that parents have stopped whingeing (since that generation of precious children are now probably the adults who watch it)
(Overall I would rank the animations as fairly low as important for the decade however)
Documentaries
8. Traffic Cops (BBC 2003-) I'll be honest, I have no idea which one this is, I stole it off the Torygraph as a representative of those many inane police shows that are really propaganda
7. Monarchy (BBC 2007) Typical royalist bilge turned into a national scandal when the production company misrepresented our dear queenie in a trailer, had the tabloids salivating like Pavlov's dogs
6. The Power of Nightmares (BBC 2004) Ah remember this? Exposing Blair's lies about terrorism after the Iraq invasion, the irony of course, is that Labour used this exact title for its own sodding advert about global warming (which was banned)
5. The Blue Planet (BBC 2001) Let's face it, any Attenborough documentary, made in any decade, makes it in
4. Living with Michael Jackson (ITV 2003) 'That's ignorant'....This is that one with Martin Bashir, caused a bit of a stir if I remember correctly
3. Pedigree Dogs Exposed (BBC 2008) This was one of the most memorable BBC investigations in many years, it was strange considering the common knowledge that pedigree animals are more inbred than your average royal, but it certainly had an impact on people and resulted in Crufts getting a very bad press and being dumped by the Beeb
2. Coast (BBC 2005-) Quite impressive how much material you can get out of one little island's craggy coastline, one of those BBC two programmes that most intelligent people quite like
1. Planet Earth (BBC 2006) David Attenborough is still going - and about the only thing worth watching in HD
This is very tough, what 'defines' a decade - popularity, or quality?
15. Shameless (Channel 4 2004-) Comedy or drama? This show set in a Manchester council estate is delightfully funny, while being well-observed and realistic (apparently)
14. Cranmer (BBC 2007, 2009) It seems odd to include such a minor drama (compared with CSI, House etc) but this is a British list and it was pretty defining
13. CSI (CBS 2000-) Like it or not, this pretty crappy cop show about forensics is the most popular franchise in the world, the modern day general interest cop show
12. The Trial of Tony Blair (More4 2007) This imagined future of Tony Blair expressed a lot of the nation's outrage at the run-up to the controversial Iraq war, and seems to be a little too fondly remembered by a lot of people
11. Bleak House (BBC 2005) Another critically acclaimed costume drama, if there's one thing we can do, it's dress-ups!
10. 24 (Fox 2001-) More Fox...and it just keeps going, this initially ground-breaking series made waves all over the world, it labours a bit now, and there's little to take from what is effectively die hard for your tv screen, but it works...
9. Battlestar Galactica (SciFi 2003-9) Not many sci-fi shows can boast such an impact on wider culture - this re-imagining of the cheesy 70s show, whilst not a massive ratings winner by any means, inspired debates about humanity, religion and human rights, as well as winning truckloads of accolades for its storytelling and acting (and making sci-fi credible)
8. Band of Brothers (HBO 2001) Effectively Saving Private Ryan for the small screen, had a similar effect on the audience and is on many DVD shelves and often repeated on TV channels around the world
7. The Wire (HBO 2002-8) Praised as the best show in the world by people cleverer than you or I, but it's lack of mainstream interest kept it off most people's radar, hence it's lower position (commence egg throwing...)
6. Spooks (BBC 2002-) One of the few top-notch dramas to come out of Britain recently, this modern spy thriller was our saving grace
5. Desperate Housewives (ABC 2004-) Surprisingly the Torygraph left out one of the most popular shows in the world, featuring an ensemble cast of women and a dead narrator, in what is a very witty comedy-drama about suburban life - surely it's very influential?
4. House (Fox 2004-) Hugh Laurie puts on an accent and suddenly Blackadder will never be the same again as we watch this limping, drug-addicted, cynical, medical genius work his magic
3. Lost (ABC 2004-2010) The happenings on the mysterious island have enticed millions around the world, as well as pissed off quite a few, but nonetheless it remains a truly global show and has sparked it's own sub-genre
2. The West Wing (NBC 1999-2006) The Torygraph put this as its top drama, it's just a matter of taste I guess
1. The Sopranos (HBO 1999-2007) - I went for the mafia family for the fact that it's the most watched cable show ever, and had the most reach
Big group, this
17. Bargain Hunt (BBC 2000-) Who would've known rubbishy daytime TV about flea markets could be so defining, this show gave the world David Dickinson and was pretty popular for a few years, inspiring other nonsense such as Flog It and Cash in the Attic, as clearly people were a bit too obsessed with quick money back then
16. Location, Location, Location (Channel 4 2001-) Sigh, such drivel, but it was indicative of our fascination with house prices, late 2007 put an end to all of that
15. Jeremy Kyle (ITV 2005-) ITV finally gets a show in, and it's the British version of Jerry Springer, exposing the very worst of our society while Kyle behaves like a complete tosser - it's surprisingly watchable
14. Harry Hill's TV Burp (ITV 2001-) Another ITV show that became surprisingly popular - this rehash of Tarrant on TV became a family staple, winning Baftas and being exported globally
13. 100 Greatest Britons (BBC 2002) It was big back in the day and is the pinnacle of all those public-voting shows (although I personally preferred the greatest comedy - Blackadder all the way!), the public weren't even that bad - the BBC deliberately giving prominence to people like Brunel and Darwin prevented the list becoming too much of a joke, Churchill won in the most surprising upset since England went out of the world cup
12. Soccer Saturday (Sky 1994-) Technically started way back, but didn't become big until the vast majority of people could get Sky Sports News with the rise of digital TV, Jeff Stelling and friends' comical banter drew millions away from the BBC's ancient football focus show
11. Spongebob Squarepants (Nickolodeon 1999-) Any show which has the lines 'Who lives in a pineapple under the sea...' and 'absorbent and yellow and porous is he' deserves a spot as the defining kid's cartoon of the decade
10. SM:TV (ITV 1998-2003) Although Ant and Dec left in 2001, virtually destroying the show at that point, (and ITV Saturday morning kids' shows) it has a recognised golden age from 2000-2001, which really felt like it was a lot longer back then, it was easily the best kids' show in decades, and of course, gave us Ant and Dec, who were that show
9. Grand Designs (Channel 4 1999-) More on our fascination with property and having a good nose around other people's homes
8. Who do you think you are (BBC 2004-) This 'genealogy show' proved to be a highly popular franchise which has been taken up across the pond and in various other countries, more of that nosey-parker stuff that seemed to dominate us
7. Deal or No Deal (Channel 4 (+ various worldwide) 2005-) Oh god, no! Sorry, but it's impact was phenomenal for a gameshow, and it brought Noel Edmonds back from the grave...fortunately only a few such shows can claim to be important
6. The Weakest Link (BBC 2000-) - Who would've thought dressing up Anne Robinson as some sort of dominatrix would work so well on daytime tv, this show epitomised our strange fascination for being cruel in the early noughties
5. Jamie's School Dinners (Channel 4 2005) - Already a well-known celebrity chef, but this show catapulted Jamie Oliver into politics and saw him meeting world leaders and become a champion for childhood obesity and food ethics
4. Life on Mars (BBC 2006-7) Yet another renewal to define this decade (as the one that couldn't think for itself, perhaps) this time it was the seventies - the public lapped up the nostalgia...and political incorrectness
3. Doctor Who (BBC 2005-) Technically a drama, but it's really light entertainment for the family - the resurrection of the longest running sci-fi show in history proved surprisingly successful and a Saturday night staple
2. Strictly Come Dancing (BBC 2004-) The return of ballroom dancing on tv proved remarkably popular, the show became a worldwide hit as dancing with the stars (I've decided it's not 'reality' tv as it's celebrities doing an act)
1. Top Gear (BBC 2002) - Biggest entertainment show..............in the world, this re-invented motoring show made Jeremy Clarkson Britain's number one choice for PM, and is watched by an estimated 350 million (men)
Reality TV
This is the biggie, truly the concept of reality TV itself defines this phenomenally lazy decade more than any other, and of course, launched pretty much in 2000
10. Castaway 2000 (BBC 2000-1) God, this was an awful show that was the BBC trying doing its own version of reality TV in a non-tacky way, it bombed, and yet - Ben Fogle...why??
9. Survivor (ITV 2001-2) Considered to be the 'original' reality show coming out of the US, this show was actually a massive flop in the UK, despite the media hype - clearly we did have some taste, but it remains pretty definitive because of said hype back in 2001, and the fact that it still running in the US, and various other places, after 20 seasons...
8. Britain's Got Talent (ITV 2007-) Another Cowell creation, you could argue it wasn't that defining, more minor than the other talent shows, but it's gone global, and of course gave us Susan Boyle...because ugly people shouldn't be able to sing, or something
7. The Osbournes (MTV 2002-5) So this is why Sharon Osbourne was a judge on one of those pop shows...
6. I'm a Celebrity...put me down get me out of here! (ITV 2002-) How is this stuff still going? Basically Big Brother but with minor celebrities and nastier challenges in the jungle, people apparently still watch it
5. Wife Swap (Channel 4 2003-9) Yet another one that falls firmly in the category of 'getting off on other people's misery', mixing families with completely opposite lifestyles resulted in the best type of car-crash TV - the fights at the end were especially beloved
4. Masterchef (BBC 2005-) The reinvented version of the drab cookery programme from the 90s proved remarkably successful as people seemed to gain an interest in reality cooking shows over the ones where we watch a load of people sleep, it went global and became ridiculously popular in Australia, among others
3. The Apprentice (BBC 2005- US: NBC 2004-) Something we imported from them for once, but improved by actually having an entrepreneur as the boss rather than some wealthy landowner, anyway, this show went from minor BBC2 reality show to full-on household favourite about a bunch of shallow, backstabbing whingers being fired...we still love the cruelty
2. Pop Idol / Popstars / X Factor (ITV 2000-) Let's face it, they're all the same, and X Factor remains popular for some reason, despite the shows only ever giving us one major musical act, millions vote via premium rate phone numbers and fill ITV's coffers, also see American Idol and various other exported versions
1. Big Brother (Channel 4 2000-2010) You know it, and absolutely perfect dates as well - this show may be utter dross, and barely watched by anyone any more, but the first couple of series had the nation hooked, we grew tired of it years ago, but it was defining, no doubt about it (and it gave us Jade bloody Goody)
------
That's only 77 - I wanted 90 and to leave the last ten blank for your own entries, but I don't see the point filling it in with stupid shows like Two pints of Lager... - how is that late night rubbish 'definitive' anyway?
One hundred is such a pointless number to aim for, but I have no doubt missed some (many) so please feel free to offer suggestions, and of course disagree...it's only opinion after all
So I thought I'd do my own version according to the same lax rules and try to improve it a bit by doing it in sections, because what's the point ranking genres against each other? We shall see how it turns out...
(hat tip to From the North.. blog for pointing me to it)
I shall start with...Comedy and I think then I'll do Animation separately after, so I don't get cries of 'where's South Park/Family Guy etc' so, onward - sections are of no particular length, so I'm hoping 'reality TV' can be brief, if intense
Comedy
20. The Kumars at no.42 (BBC 2001-6) The successor to Goodness Gracious Me was as important for its cultural impact as much as its critical success, even if the comedy was fairly benign
19. Trigger Happy TV (Channel 4 2000-1) HELLO!? YES, I'M IN THE CINEMA!...You had to be there, red fox
18. Malcolm in the Middle (Fox 2000-6) There aren't many decent Fox comedies out there, but Malcolm in the Middle was a classic that went global and won various awards
17. Scrubs (NBC 2001-8) Not much point counting the butchered ABC version after this classic - Scrubs was the Friends of the noughties - countlessly repeated on daytime and digital TV, couldn't really miss it, oh and it was a good laugh
16. Outnumbered (BBC 2007-) A surprising entry for a show that's only produced 13 episodes (and isn't Fawlty Towers) and spent its first season on late at night, but its obvious quality shone through and got everyone watching this brilliant improv-comedy by the second series (and buying the first en masse)
15. Marion and Geoff (BBC 2000-3) Although a bit forgotten now, this Rob Brydon monologue-fest was a big hit in the early part of the decade
14. Da Ali G Show (Channel 4 2000) ah, is it because I am black? Hard to ignore this ridiculous send-up that appealed to both the intelligent and the illiterate, and of course, gave the world Borat
13. Peep Show (Channel 4 2003-) Excruciatingly painful comedy about two pathetic losers, its sheer brilliance could have you in tears, but its 'alternative' appeal has kept it restrained to younger people and late nights, reducing its impact (and 13 just felt right for Mark, you know...)
12. My Family (BBC 2000-) This mild sitcom is not particularly edgy, and lost it's appeal many years ago but spending a decade as the BBC's mainstream family comedy is no mean feat
11. QI (BBC 2003-) This intelligent game show made a nice change from the usual dumbed-down rubbish, without being elitist, and became a quick hit with anyone who considered themselves to have a brain
10. Mock the Week (BBC 2005-) The satirical stand-up show is one of BBC two's biggest successes and has done a good job in taking over from the aging HIGNFY as well as launching several stand-ups
9. Extras (BBC 2005-7) - Gervais' second big hit was a more usual sitcom, I didn't realise it was so long ago already...
8. Gavin and Stacey (BBC 2007-) This quaint, off-the-cuff little comedy about Essex and Welsh people that started life on BBC 3 somehow became a household staple that we all watch at Christmas
7. Brass Eye - paedophile special (Channel 4 2001) - Few single episodes can cause such an impact as Chris Morris' send up of tabloid hysteria
6. The Daily Show/The Colbert Report (Comedy Central 1999-) Both shows made their name as the major American voices of satire during the Bush years, lampooning the ridiculous right-wingers of Fox
5. Bremner, Bird and Fortune (Channel 4 1999-) The major British voice of satire during Bush/Blair years
4. Curb your Enthusiasm (HBO 2000-) Yet another masterpiece from HBO, so painfully funny it could almost be British
3. Little Britain (BBC 2003-6) This at-times vulgar and repetitive sketch show somehow became a mainstream staple on the BBC, and a worldwide hit, thanks to its many catchy catchphrases
2. The Thick of It (BBC 2005) The incredibly produced replica of the New Labour spin machine won't have you laughing out loud, but rather terrified, a worthy successor to Yes, Minister
1. The Office (BBC 2001-3) Need I say more? Gervais' and Merchant's mockumentary was not only brilliant, but groundbreaking
Animations (I felt this deserved a separate section seeing as how many there have been)
7. The Simpsons (Fox 1989-2126) I had to include it, didn't I? While the show has arguably not produced anything of worth in the whole decade, it was still there! Making a 2007 movie blockbuster at the same time, which was equally as rubbish
6. Robot Chicken (Cartoon Network 2005-) Certainly not the most mainstream of shows, but it's developed into a worldwide cult hit
5. American Dad (Fox 2005-) Seth MacFarlane's second big hit is arguably better, considering it has actual plots, but is also still very, very silly
4. Family Guy (Fox 1999-) Dumped by Fox, but saved by fans and DVD sales, this thoroughly annoying show featuring random surreal clips seems to have been wildly popular
3. King of the Hill (Fox 1997-2009) This well-observed comedy about a mild-mannered conservative family from Texas is deceptively brilliant
2. Futurama (Fox 1999-?) Another show Fox tried to dump, but the comedy prospered and lived on to provide a show much better than the contemporary Simpsons episodes, as well as some legendary characters and catchphrases
1. South Park (Comedy Central 1997-) It was big in the late 90s, with its major film coming out in 1999 - but the fact remains that several of its best episodes came out this decade and even after the mainstream success waned it's remained very popular , and arguably better now that parents have stopped whingeing (since that generation of precious children are now probably the adults who watch it)
(Overall I would rank the animations as fairly low as important for the decade however)
Documentaries
8. Traffic Cops (BBC 2003-) I'll be honest, I have no idea which one this is, I stole it off the Torygraph as a representative of those many inane police shows that are really propaganda
7. Monarchy (BBC 2007) Typical royalist bilge turned into a national scandal when the production company misrepresented our dear queenie in a trailer, had the tabloids salivating like Pavlov's dogs
6. The Power of Nightmares (BBC 2004) Ah remember this? Exposing Blair's lies about terrorism after the Iraq invasion, the irony of course, is that Labour used this exact title for its own sodding advert about global warming (which was banned)
5. The Blue Planet (BBC 2001) Let's face it, any Attenborough documentary, made in any decade, makes it in
4. Living with Michael Jackson (ITV 2003) 'That's ignorant'....This is that one with Martin Bashir, caused a bit of a stir if I remember correctly
3. Pedigree Dogs Exposed (BBC 2008) This was one of the most memorable BBC investigations in many years, it was strange considering the common knowledge that pedigree animals are more inbred than your average royal, but it certainly had an impact on people and resulted in Crufts getting a very bad press and being dumped by the Beeb
2. Coast (BBC 2005-) Quite impressive how much material you can get out of one little island's craggy coastline, one of those BBC two programmes that most intelligent people quite like
1. Planet Earth (BBC 2006) David Attenborough is still going - and about the only thing worth watching in HD
Drama
This is very tough, what 'defines' a decade - popularity, or quality?
15. Shameless (Channel 4 2004-) Comedy or drama? This show set in a Manchester council estate is delightfully funny, while being well-observed and realistic (apparently)
14. Cranmer (BBC 2007, 2009) It seems odd to include such a minor drama (compared with CSI, House etc) but this is a British list and it was pretty defining
13. CSI (CBS 2000-) Like it or not, this pretty crappy cop show about forensics is the most popular franchise in the world, the modern day general interest cop show
12. The Trial of Tony Blair (More4 2007) This imagined future of Tony Blair expressed a lot of the nation's outrage at the run-up to the controversial Iraq war, and seems to be a little too fondly remembered by a lot of people
11. Bleak House (BBC 2005) Another critically acclaimed costume drama, if there's one thing we can do, it's dress-ups!
10. 24 (Fox 2001-) More Fox...and it just keeps going, this initially ground-breaking series made waves all over the world, it labours a bit now, and there's little to take from what is effectively die hard for your tv screen, but it works...
9. Battlestar Galactica (SciFi 2003-9) Not many sci-fi shows can boast such an impact on wider culture - this re-imagining of the cheesy 70s show, whilst not a massive ratings winner by any means, inspired debates about humanity, religion and human rights, as well as winning truckloads of accolades for its storytelling and acting (and making sci-fi credible)
8. Band of Brothers (HBO 2001) Effectively Saving Private Ryan for the small screen, had a similar effect on the audience and is on many DVD shelves and often repeated on TV channels around the world
7. The Wire (HBO 2002-8) Praised as the best show in the world by people cleverer than you or I, but it's lack of mainstream interest kept it off most people's radar, hence it's lower position (commence egg throwing...)
6. Spooks (BBC 2002-) One of the few top-notch dramas to come out of Britain recently, this modern spy thriller was our saving grace
5. Desperate Housewives (ABC 2004-) Surprisingly the Torygraph left out one of the most popular shows in the world, featuring an ensemble cast of women and a dead narrator, in what is a very witty comedy-drama about suburban life - surely it's very influential?
4. House (Fox 2004-) Hugh Laurie puts on an accent and suddenly Blackadder will never be the same again as we watch this limping, drug-addicted, cynical, medical genius work his magic
3. Lost (ABC 2004-2010) The happenings on the mysterious island have enticed millions around the world, as well as pissed off quite a few, but nonetheless it remains a truly global show and has sparked it's own sub-genre
2. The West Wing (NBC 1999-2006) The Torygraph put this as its top drama, it's just a matter of taste I guess
1. The Sopranos (HBO 1999-2007) - I went for the mafia family for the fact that it's the most watched cable show ever, and had the most reach
Entertainment
Big group, this
17. Bargain Hunt (BBC 2000-) Who would've known rubbishy daytime TV about flea markets could be so defining, this show gave the world David Dickinson and was pretty popular for a few years, inspiring other nonsense such as Flog It and Cash in the Attic, as clearly people were a bit too obsessed with quick money back then
16. Location, Location, Location (Channel 4 2001-) Sigh, such drivel, but it was indicative of our fascination with house prices, late 2007 put an end to all of that
15. Jeremy Kyle (ITV 2005-) ITV finally gets a show in, and it's the British version of Jerry Springer, exposing the very worst of our society while Kyle behaves like a complete tosser - it's surprisingly watchable
14. Harry Hill's TV Burp (ITV 2001-) Another ITV show that became surprisingly popular - this rehash of Tarrant on TV became a family staple, winning Baftas and being exported globally
13. 100 Greatest Britons (BBC 2002) It was big back in the day and is the pinnacle of all those public-voting shows (although I personally preferred the greatest comedy - Blackadder all the way!), the public weren't even that bad - the BBC deliberately giving prominence to people like Brunel and Darwin prevented the list becoming too much of a joke, Churchill won in the most surprising upset since England went out of the world cup
12. Soccer Saturday (Sky 1994-) Technically started way back, but didn't become big until the vast majority of people could get Sky Sports News with the rise of digital TV, Jeff Stelling and friends' comical banter drew millions away from the BBC's ancient football focus show
11. Spongebob Squarepants (Nickolodeon 1999-) Any show which has the lines 'Who lives in a pineapple under the sea...' and 'absorbent and yellow and porous is he' deserves a spot as the defining kid's cartoon of the decade
10. SM:TV (ITV 1998-2003) Although Ant and Dec left in 2001, virtually destroying the show at that point, (and ITV Saturday morning kids' shows) it has a recognised golden age from 2000-2001, which really felt like it was a lot longer back then, it was easily the best kids' show in decades, and of course, gave us Ant and Dec, who were that show
9. Grand Designs (Channel 4 1999-) More on our fascination with property and having a good nose around other people's homes
8. Who do you think you are (BBC 2004-) This 'genealogy show' proved to be a highly popular franchise which has been taken up across the pond and in various other countries, more of that nosey-parker stuff that seemed to dominate us
7. Deal or No Deal (Channel 4 (+ various worldwide) 2005-) Oh god, no! Sorry, but it's impact was phenomenal for a gameshow, and it brought Noel Edmonds back from the grave...fortunately only a few such shows can claim to be important
6. The Weakest Link (BBC 2000-) - Who would've thought dressing up Anne Robinson as some sort of dominatrix would work so well on daytime tv, this show epitomised our strange fascination for being cruel in the early noughties
5. Jamie's School Dinners (Channel 4 2005) - Already a well-known celebrity chef, but this show catapulted Jamie Oliver into politics and saw him meeting world leaders and become a champion for childhood obesity and food ethics
4. Life on Mars (BBC 2006-7) Yet another renewal to define this decade (as the one that couldn't think for itself, perhaps) this time it was the seventies - the public lapped up the nostalgia...and political incorrectness
3. Doctor Who (BBC 2005-) Technically a drama, but it's really light entertainment for the family - the resurrection of the longest running sci-fi show in history proved surprisingly successful and a Saturday night staple
2. Strictly Come Dancing (BBC 2004-) The return of ballroom dancing on tv proved remarkably popular, the show became a worldwide hit as dancing with the stars (I've decided it's not 'reality' tv as it's celebrities doing an act)
1. Top Gear (BBC 2002) - Biggest entertainment show..............in the world, this re-invented motoring show made Jeremy Clarkson Britain's number one choice for PM, and is watched by an estimated 350 million (men)
Reality TV
This is the biggie, truly the concept of reality TV itself defines this phenomenally lazy decade more than any other, and of course, launched pretty much in 2000
10. Castaway 2000 (BBC 2000-1) God, this was an awful show that was the BBC trying doing its own version of reality TV in a non-tacky way, it bombed, and yet - Ben Fogle...why??
9. Survivor (ITV 2001-2) Considered to be the 'original' reality show coming out of the US, this show was actually a massive flop in the UK, despite the media hype - clearly we did have some taste, but it remains pretty definitive because of said hype back in 2001, and the fact that it still running in the US, and various other places, after 20 seasons...
8. Britain's Got Talent (ITV 2007-) Another Cowell creation, you could argue it wasn't that defining, more minor than the other talent shows, but it's gone global, and of course gave us Susan Boyle...because ugly people shouldn't be able to sing, or something
7. The Osbournes (MTV 2002-5) So this is why Sharon Osbourne was a judge on one of those pop shows...
6. I'm a Celebrity...
5. Wife Swap (Channel 4 2003-9) Yet another one that falls firmly in the category of 'getting off on other people's misery', mixing families with completely opposite lifestyles resulted in the best type of car-crash TV - the fights at the end were especially beloved
4. Masterchef (BBC 2005-) The reinvented version of the drab cookery programme from the 90s proved remarkably successful as people seemed to gain an interest in reality cooking shows over the ones where we watch a load of people sleep, it went global and became ridiculously popular in Australia, among others
3. The Apprentice (BBC 2005- US: NBC 2004-) Something we imported from them for once, but improved by actually having an entrepreneur as the boss rather than some wealthy landowner, anyway, this show went from minor BBC2 reality show to full-on household favourite about a bunch of shallow, backstabbing whingers being fired...we still love the cruelty
2. Pop Idol / Popstars / X Factor (ITV 2000-) Let's face it, they're all the same, and X Factor remains popular for some reason, despite the shows only ever giving us one major musical act, millions vote via premium rate phone numbers and fill ITV's coffers, also see American Idol and various other exported versions
1. Big Brother (Channel 4 2000-2010) You know it, and absolutely perfect dates as well - this show may be utter dross, and barely watched by anyone any more, but the first couple of series had the nation hooked, we grew tired of it years ago, but it was defining, no doubt about it (and it gave us Jade bloody Goody)
------
That's only 77 - I wanted 90 and to leave the last ten blank for your own entries, but I don't see the point filling it in with stupid shows like Two pints of Lager... - how is that late night rubbish 'definitive' anyway?
One hundred is such a pointless number to aim for, but I have no doubt missed some (many) so please feel free to offer suggestions, and of course disagree...it's only opinion after all
22 November 2009
That's 182 *kilograms*
For some reason the BBC have decided to describe the bomb found in Belfast as 400lb
This I am afraid, is jibberish to me - I know it's heavy, but I have no point of reference for pounds except knowing that babies weigh about seven of them
Forgive me for sounding like an anti-Peter Hitchens-type fogey, but seriously, every person educated in the past forty years has learnt metric to the point where imperial measures are pretty much dead to the under-50s - at least provide a conversion
Did they let the oldest guy in the office run copy or something?
This I am afraid, is jibberish to me - I know it's heavy, but I have no point of reference for pounds except knowing that babies weigh about seven of them
Forgive me for sounding like an anti-Peter Hitchens-type fogey, but seriously, every person educated in the past forty years has learnt metric to the point where imperial measures are pretty much dead to the under-50s - at least provide a conversion
Did they let the oldest guy in the office run copy or something?
18 November 2009
Wednesday Randomness
I notice that Archie Norman is to be the next person to take over the doomed-ITV network
He is known for building up Asda from near bankruptcy before its sale to American giant Wal-mart in 1999, as well as heading retail giant Kingfisher before that, and for being the only FTSE 100 chairman to have ever sat in the Commons (apparently)
I couldn't help remembering Rod Liddle's recent article about how these top directorship jobs always go to the same people, who are often seemingly about as bright as an EU-standard light-bulb and proceed to run companies into the ground - he was referring to Terry Burns specifically, and clearly Norman is very successful in business - but I couldn't help thinking why appoint someone who's been successful in retail in a publicly-owned media company? He did excellent work building up retail chains - but isn't that somewhat different to increasing profitability for a television channel that's on its knees?
What skill set does he bring? There's only a track record of success in retail - if you are good at leading a company in one field does that naturally mean you can lead any company? Is it just a success thing, you either got it or you don't?
Because to me, all I see is ITV saying about a champion swimmer 'ooh he's good, let's have him', when they're in a rowing competition
I'm not out to disparage the man, I'm just struggling to work out why being the very successful head of a retail giant means you can run a TV network - is he just smart enough to make profit out of anything?
From what I've seen of top executives, if you actually are bright, and not just some rich bastard, you can usually make anything work, Terry Leahy would be comparable as chief executive for example - but it still strikes me as odd to not go for a successful media man (although I admit they're running out of them)
---
Secondly, why is a fairly obscure story about an Australian independent senator's challenge to Scientology the most read (international) story on BBC? It's only in the sidebar, and yet it's above Obama and all the rest
I only pick up on this because I happen to be there, and it's just Nick Xenophon saying things - it's not the government attacking it, or throwing it out
The power of Scientology eh?...
He is known for building up Asda from near bankruptcy before its sale to American giant Wal-mart in 1999, as well as heading retail giant Kingfisher before that, and for being the only FTSE 100 chairman to have ever sat in the Commons (apparently)
I couldn't help remembering Rod Liddle's recent article about how these top directorship jobs always go to the same people, who are often seemingly about as bright as an EU-standard light-bulb and proceed to run companies into the ground - he was referring to Terry Burns specifically, and clearly Norman is very successful in business - but I couldn't help thinking why appoint someone who's been successful in retail in a publicly-owned media company? He did excellent work building up retail chains - but isn't that somewhat different to increasing profitability for a television channel that's on its knees?
What skill set does he bring? There's only a track record of success in retail - if you are good at leading a company in one field does that naturally mean you can lead any company? Is it just a success thing, you either got it or you don't?
Because to me, all I see is ITV saying about a champion swimmer 'ooh he's good, let's have him', when they're in a rowing competition
I'm not out to disparage the man, I'm just struggling to work out why being the very successful head of a retail giant means you can run a TV network - is he just smart enough to make profit out of anything?
From what I've seen of top executives, if you actually are bright, and not just some rich bastard, you can usually make anything work, Terry Leahy would be comparable as chief executive for example - but it still strikes me as odd to not go for a successful media man (although I admit they're running out of them)
---
Secondly, why is a fairly obscure story about an Australian independent senator's challenge to Scientology the most read (international) story on BBC? It's only in the sidebar, and yet it's above Obama and all the rest
I only pick up on this because I happen to be there, and it's just Nick Xenophon saying things - it's not the government attacking it, or throwing it out
The power of Scientology eh?...
16 November 2009
Plotters
Nick Robinson has finally written an entertaining blog, [almost] satirising the Labour party
Here's my favourite bit:
Here's my favourite bit:
The quitters' view
• We've had a good run... I wonder if there are any directorships I could take on?
10 November 2009
Still Alive! I think...
I have finally risen from my bed, thankyou to those who expressed concern (and don't worry spidie I wouldn't go near any hastily-manufactured vaccines), I was sick a bit longer than I anticipated - a mild case of food poisoning which seemingly led into other issues, nothing major, but it was 'unpleasant' and I shall leave it at that
Think I'll be keeping blogging light for today, I'm still slightly malnourished - some things I noticed at the weekend
Is it just me or do both Cameron and Brown look ridiculous? Brown is obviously trying to look solemn and is pulling a fierce frown, for fear of disrespecting the dead (you were never going to get out of that one, Gordie) while Cameron looks like a plucked chicken
Now, I know I should not be judging on looks, but they do have some relevance and Cameron looks like such a wannabe to me, he just looks weak
Conclusion: based on looks, Clegg all the way...
Secondly I noticed this over at Nick Robinson and you know when your net drops out and the site doesn't load very well, all the scripting fails or something and the banners and pictures don't load (or not, maybe it's me)
Well here's what we normally see
and here's what I saw yesterday
Can you read that?
Is someone at the BBC being silly with their descriptions, or are they just being very literal? Either way struck me as an odd thing to put there
Think I'll be keeping blogging light for today, I'm still slightly malnourished - some things I noticed at the weekend
Is it just me or do both Cameron and Brown look ridiculous? Brown is obviously trying to look solemn and is pulling a fierce frown, for fear of disrespecting the dead (you were never going to get out of that one, Gordie) while Cameron looks like a plucked chicken
Now, I know I should not be judging on looks, but they do have some relevance and Cameron looks like such a wannabe to me, he just looks weak
Conclusion: based on looks, Clegg all the way...
Secondly I noticed this over at Nick Robinson and you know when your net drops out and the site doesn't load very well, all the scripting fails or something and the banners and pictures don't load (or not, maybe it's me)
Well here's what we normally see
and here's what I saw yesterday
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
