BBC's "Survivors" hasn't survived the chop.

Well it's been confirmed after a lot of rumours, that the remake of 70's post apocalyptic drama "Survivors", also called, surprisingly "Survivors" (2008-2010), has been axed and will not be returning for the third season it would have had, had it continued. Largely due to the fact that it was a sci-fi show with decreasing ratings (unlike say Torchwood), and also because (IMHO); lets face it, it was a bit shit as well.

Survivors had a great premise, wipe out just about every human being with a virus, and see how a bunch of "normal people", and others try to eke out a living, with all the comforts and familiarity they took for granted totally stripped away. It's the classic eschatological; fantastic fish out of water - scene setting; that sci -fi writers are so keen to utilise, and when well done it's an ideal environment for a good bit of sci-fi.

Perhaps because I purchased a copy of Alan Weismans. "The World Without Us." , that despite a promising start, the series never capitalises on the premise of this new, nearly post human world (which, the human part would fall apart very quickly, as "World" describes"), in some of the rural scenes, apparently the end of mankind, will be a bit like having a rubbish camping trip, with no one about, and no electricity. Hmmm. The good, apocalyptic sci fis, like the first episodes of the newer "Battlestar Galactica" and Stephen Baxter's novel, "Flood" manage to convey the dire (and unusual) situation these people face, in their now destroyed worlds, in the context of keeping it with a tight character piece. Survivors doesn't do this. The show had an aimless quality, where the characters more often than not, encountered the dull plot of the week, and everything would be fine by the credit roll. There was little scope to see how society adopts to this new world. Indeed when they discovered a colony set up by the highest surviving government official, they fled it due to the harsh rules, so in a way the series ducked the bigger questions of how a new order would be built, in exchange for our characters walking around the Peak District, pretending to be in an apocalyptic wasteland.

The plotting did have the odd good bit now and then, but the origin of the virus plot was far too tenuously spread, and went on for so long without giving us anything to go on, it just became boring. The characters and (bad) script were uninteresting (especially the Doctor, and the Asian guy.) and poorly realised. We couldn't really relate to Abby Grant (the lead) finding her son, as much as the show wanted. The dodgy hard man Tom character, should have been an intriguing one, but spent 90% of his screen time, glaring at stuff in a menacing way. It was all in all, a very long - drawn out, and lacklustre series. And I'm not surprised that it hasn't been renewed, it certainly didn't deserve to be.

Sachsgate. The Saga continues. (No really.) Groannnn!

I really thought that the Daily Mail couldn't possibly wring out any more drips of bile from the "Sachsgate" (the answerphone messages, Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand left on Andrew (Manuel) Sach's phone on their Radio 2 show.) fallout, I was wrong. Because today we have this latest twist in the tale.

To be fair to Ross (The interview that spawned this article is here.) He describes the suspension, and the turmoil, and sudden change in his circumstances as "fun". Likewise, he describes the media furore and the huge over reaction; as "hilarious" and an "intrinsically unimportant" (which it was definitely, on this point) issue in the greater scheme of things. Whether you conclude that [the interview] paints Ross as an irreverent eccentric who sees life as one tragi -comic, whimsical adventure, or an egotistical, overpaid man -child who lives for the day, to hell with everything else. (and I feel that from the tone of the interview, it's the former, sprayed with hints of the latter) I felt that it is wrong to think that it is an attack on Andrew Sachs, but perhaps an up yours to the Mail, and others. A man trying (perhaps a bit to hard) to keep up a cheery; one fingered salute against a fierce barrage of shit. Who is being defined by his critics from the rougher edges of his whimsical exuberance, than the more esoteric side he'd rather be noted for.

There's not much more to add to the narrative of this whole sorry saga. It started with the incident happening and largely passing unnoticed. MoS gets wind of it, and start a feverish campaign to "ban this filth" against a long term hate target(s) (Ross seems to be a particular Dacre hobby horse. Possibly because of his reputed wages at the bloated money burning communist furnace, that is the BBC or what the hell ever it is. Brand also has a few crosshairs on his forehead. He's screwed more people than Bernie Madoff did in a lifetime, scarcely appropriate behaviour for the Amphill WI jam making and annual hot cross bun reviewing Middle England ladies society, and he's also a bit weird looking and thus reduces house prices.) Get people to ring ofcom to complain about second hand stuff they never even listened to. Cue Auntie desperately try to reign in the storm by suspending the pair (Brand is eventually fired) and sacking the controller of R2 (Lesley Douglas). See the BBC fail to understand that their enemies aren't interested in being placated, they wan't them finished, and denounce the BBC anyway. Let's face it, if the DG of the Beeb allowed the pair to have been disemboweled by Melenie Philips herself and Steven Glover had then boiled them alive in hot tar, on the Television Centre car park, the Mail would have ragged the Beeb for inflating petrol prices for the gratuitous use of oil. This is the kind of mentality the organisation is up against.

Now I think that the calls were (no pun intended) a a bad call. There are questions to how much Sachs was aware of what was finally transmitted. Unlike the famous Brass Eye "Cake" spoof, where people were again unaware they were the butt of a joke at their expense, Sachs hadn't done anything to warrant it. In the cake sketch, celebrities were willing to swallow whole blatant bullshit to look good. For me this is why I think someone should have said "hang on" before transmission, and have contacted Sachs, as to what would be put out (it was put out 2 days after recording) and if he was OK with it. For what happened to the trio after the backlash, Sachs was surprisingly dignified about the affair, taking care to not give the press the vengeful soundbites they wanted, (in substantial contrast to the Mail), and just seemed to want the whole thing to blow over. Really an apology to Sachs (which seems to have been how he wanted it to end. He was always very politely keen to bring the whole thing to an end, from what he said at the time), and a bollocking at BBC HQ should have been the end of it. But in the end who really thinks this was just about looking out for a Fawlty Towers legend?

More Tabloid Immigrant Horde Figures. More Statistics pulled out of the Metaphorical Rectal Areas.

As today's post concerns numbers and statistics, I ended up remembering the memorable equation that an old genius of arithmetic (i.e just me attempting a lame attempt at ironic humour) taught me on "Tabloid headline statistics" that:

Numbers of Migrants headlines + Jobs + Tenuously Assigned Percentage + Jobs (subset: stealing our) = Utter bollocks + Ruddy faced tabloid reader choking on breakfast cereal x Incoherent badly spelt comments about immigrants taking over on websites / 300 odd comments in the green.

Yes whenever we see a Daily Express headline with some scary looking figures lifting the lid on the true extent of the "barbarian hordes" foothold on "our jobs", it is a good idea to follow the "proof" back to the source, in order to see how accurate (or better still how inaccurate) these figures are. Now I'm no big fan on digging through statistics, so if you want a meatier analysis of the stats try Left Foot Forward, Hagley Road or for a full breakdown of the actual statistics, try office of National Statistics which were the genesis for the Spectator article that spawned the Express headline above.

Now this article basically came about by the following two partially related sets of statistics. Just shy of 1.67 million new jobs (thought the Express has been shy on what classifies as a job for the purpose of this article.) have been created since 1997. However the number of workers not UK born has increased by 1.64 million. Therefore they've come to the conclusion that foreigners have nicked all the new jobs. However they neglected to mention that they've been working on selective data. The following groups are excluded or conflated, from the Spectator article.

• Excludes UK workers over state pension age – a method that excludes 1,419,000 workers. (5 % of workforce.)

• Conflates “non-UK born” with “nationality” – there are many (around 1,432,000) non-UK born (5% of the workforce now falls of the radar.)

Excludes public sector jobs – meaning that around 20 per cent of the jobs (public sector jobs excluding those in financial corporations) in the entire UK economy are discounted.

The researchers for the article in the Express have no excuse for "missing" the last point, as it's splashed across the graph at the top of the Spectator article, as bright as a summers day. Call me old fashioned, but "forgetting" to mention that large swathes of the working population don't even register on these figures, does seem to indicate that this number was shoehorned to appeal to anti-immigrant sentiment, not to highlight the true state of the jobs situation. Not even taking into account any of these factors; which would alter the true number of UK / non UK born employment figures:

* An increasingly aging population.

* More Working age Britons working / living in the EU, and elsewhere

* Student and Temporary Workers.

* No attempt to factor in correlations between incomers, and emigres.

* An increased public sector (not factored) that the press are at pains to highlight.

* The Express is sub edited by burks.

It actually transpires (see Left Foot Forward link provided) that the real number of new jobs since '97 that are done by non - UK nationals is the slightly lower 49.7%. If this discrepancy of figures is, as the press are keen to point out; "contributing to the debate." Then perhaps that debate has been derailed. The press will always complain that they are being called "racist" for questioning the benefits of immigration, and that debates are being stifled in the name of political correctness. Like anything else, there are problems with immigration as well as benefits. Housing and accommodating, in a time of diminishing is one area that comes to mind (even general population increase from anyone, not exclusively immigrants will increase this.) We have issues of immigrants being exploited in the work place. Incentives to big corporations to encouraging investing in local employment in deprived and unemployed areas. Communication and language gaps etc. They are all issues that should be highlighted. As well as the many benefits of immigrant workers, (and increased mobility.) and the frequently overlooked fact that all over the world, and in all 5 continents people are moving more freely than ever. People are more able to uproot from their birthplace, and do so. Almost all countries are subject to a more fluid demographic shifting. But articles like these just derail any of this. It seems that the press themselves are guilty of obfuscating the immigration question, and actively giving aid and comfort to the xenophobes and other unsavoury base prejudices. That isn't an open debate, it's just pandering to peoples worst instincts.

Littlejohn doesn't know what "Circular Logic" is.

Unsurprisingly Littlejohn has stuck his oar in on Chris Graylings comments about the gay couple turned away from the B&B story which were leaked to the Observer. Where he claims that he believes that B&B owners should be allowed to turn away gay couples if they object to it. (in opposition to his party's official stance on homosexuality, and the current discrimination laws.) There's only one way Littlejohn articles go, when gays and "liberal diversity" and "tolerance" are mentioned and it duly goes there.

"The Observer newspaper prides itself on its impeccable 'liberal' credentials. Indeed, the latest edition carries a splendid editorial in support of free speech.

Yet the very same paper splashed on its front page a vituperative attack on the shadow home secretary Chris Grayling, who had the audacity to suggest that perhaps people who run bed and breakfast establishments should have the right to decide who sleeps under their own roof "

That's called free speech. I mean the Observers editorial hardly going to agree with him anyway. Anyhoo, we continue:

"That is a perfectly respectable view to take. But Grayling's remarks were secretly taped and passed to The Observer, which decided that this was a major scandal, whose importance outweighed anything else which had happened in the world last week.

It was cited as evidence that the entire Conservative Party is anti-gay."

I don't know whether it paints the entire party as anti-gay, (I don't think Grayling is a homophobe either. I actually think his comments are a lukewarm "endorsement" of allowing B&B owners to "use their consciences" to say the least.) and the question of how the paper obtained the speech is another matter (like the Mail wouldn't have done something similar to taping private(ish) speeches?). But it is still quite a serious revelation. So stick with me my lovelies, as I explain why.

A) It contradicts the official Tory party line on their stance on homosexuality. He says he believes (on some level.) that it should be possible for B&B owners to bar gays if they want to. This does raise questions to how much of a shift in attitudes to gay rights has actually occurred as a whole.

B)As shadow Home Secretary he is unique in actually having some chance (unlike most people)of being able to go some way to implementing what he has said. (Though I don't think, if he gets the job; that he really has any intention of changing the existing laws.

Littlejohn now has to square the paradox, that he thinks the criticism of the comments is just Stonewall bolshiness, with the circle; that he is some major league gay rights champion. Hmm.

"I've been on the receiving end often enough. It comes with the turf."

"Even though I have been vocal in supporting civil partnerships and equal rights for gay couples in areas such as housing, health and pensions, I have been tarred as a 'homophobe' because I don't believe 'post-dusk social networking' in public toilets is a way to behave and think that adoptive children should be placed with a man and a woman wherever possible."

So does Littlejohn have "issues" with homosexuality? How would we know? I can only go on what he writes, but you do wonder when he uses things we associate with a prejudice, like:

*Describing a minority rights program as a bunch bolshy fanatics trying to "force" people to their agenda. This implies a latent fear or undue defensive fixation of the group in question.

"The usual hysterical suspects queued up to demand Grayling's resignation. Hereditary Labour lackey Dame Ben Summerskill, the hate-mongering bigot who runs the homosexual pressure group Stonewall, predictably went ballistic.

His tried-and-tested tactic is always to howl down and smear anyone who questions any aspect of his own selfish agenda."

If you go to the Observer link, you can see what Summerskill actually said, and it really was quite muted. Oh and calling a homosexual man a dame, implies all gay men are an effeminate stereotype. That's textbook prejudice.

"Self-styled 'liberals' are now trying to destroy the career of a decent politician simply for expressing a point of view which I would guess is held by at least half the population. Secret tape recordings, smear campaigns. These are the disreputable weapons of fascists, not liberals.

I have often argued in this column that those who force 'tolerance' down our throats are among the most intolerant bullies on Earth. They only tolerate opinions which chime with their own world view. Anyone who dissents must be traduced and punished.
They enforce their beliefs with totalitarian ruthlessness and, under New Labour, often with the full support of the law."

*The critic trying to deflect the criticism from the other side, not by refuting the claims, but by counterclaiming that they are the discriminated against, thus changing the nature of the debate, without quelling the claims.

"Those who speak out against the fashionable Leftist agenda are not merely wrong, they are denounced as inherently evil.
Until the election campaign loomed, anyone who expressed even the mildest reservations about the uncontrolled level of immigration was trashed as 'BNP', 'Little Englander' or 'racist' - the guardianistas' favourite term of abuse.

Along with many of our other traditional liberties, New Labour has mounted a sustained assault on freedom of speech."

"But, as I wrote last week, 'diversity' and 'tolerance' is a one-way street."

"I am reliably informed there are gays-only boarding houses which exclude heterosexuals, but I have yet to hear of one being prosecuted for operating such a policy."** Which sources, and what B&B's?

*A bizarre obsession with a minority, much more than we would expect from a casual commentator. Freudian innuendo.

"Marina Hyde of the Guardian has helpfully compiled a log of Dick’s references to homosexuality. In 2003, he referred “24 times to gays, 17 to homosexuals, 15 to cottaging, seven to rent boys, six to lesbians, six times to being "homophobic" and four times to "homophobia" (note Richard's scornful inverted commas), twice to poovery and once to buggery. That's a mere 82 mentions in 90-odd columns.” In 2004, he excelled himself, and “referred 42 times to gays, 16 times to lesbians, 15 to homosexuals, eight to bisexuals, twice to "homophobia" and six to being "homophobic" (note his scornful inverted commas), five times to cottaging, four to "gay sex in public toilets", three to poofs, twice to lesbianism, and once each to buggery, dykery, and poovery. This amounts to 104 references in 90-odd columns.”

"force 'tolerance' down our throats"

"I have been tarred as a 'homophobe' because I don't believe 'post-dusk social networking' in public toilets is a way to behave"

*Then there are just gay bashing articles.

"Officers from Scotland Yard's special hate crimes unit are investigating a formal complaint brought by the Gay Police Association, which has had enough of the writer's homophobic comments. The GPA is particularly outraged by an article Mr Littlejohn penned for The Sun that referred to cottaging as a "career move" for gay police officers. These comments and other homophobic sentiments were published under the heading "Just a little light spanking, sarge" on 6 January. The GPA accuses Mr Littlejohn of stirring up hatred not only against gay police officers but against the gay community as a whole.

There is no specific law in Britain making it a criminal offence to stir up homophobic feeling. It is understood that the Met's Racial and Violent Crimes Task Force is examining existing laws to see if there are any grounds for prosecution. The GPA said it has also contacted the Commission for Racial Equality to make it aware of the article.

The catalyst for Mr Littlejohn's rant against gay police officers was a proposal by senior officers to introduce new quotas to ensure homosexuals and lesbians are properly represented in the police service. In his article, Mr Littlejohn directly accused Commander Brian Paddick, the highest profile openly gay police officer, of using his sexuality to gain promotion.

"You used to get nicked for cottaging. Now it's a career move. Commander Paddick, the man who turned Brixton into an open-air drugs den, has milked his homosexuality for all it's worth in his relentless assault on the greasy pole."

The columnist also lashed out at Inspector Paul Cahill, the chairman of the GPA. "Inspector Brian [sic] Cahill, 32-year-old chairman of the Gay Police Association, has been awarded the MBE. Good luck to him but what marks him out from hundreds of other inspectors other than his predilection for same-sex sex?"

The columnist also informed readers that he had "assumed all policewomen are lesbians anyway, unless provided with incontrovertible proof to the contrary".

You can't claim to be a defender of gay rights with a record. You can't claim that you are a passionate defender of free speech, when you order a retraction from a spotty student on "Question Time" for pointing out that the leader of the BNP bigged up your column. You can't claim that your opponents are bastards for screaming down their critics as "fascists, and then bang on about "elf n safety Nazis." every bloody week. That's just circular reasoning, and makes you look like a bit of a tit.

So much for writing just a "short entry on this subject."

Great Review on Youtube by "Red Letter Media"

If you ever want to see how Youtube might become one of the most promising doorways to small but talented amateur film makers. Then look no further than Red Letter Medias absolutely brilliant critiques cum deconstructions, cum ripping George Lucas a new one,- reviews of the Star Wars prequels. It is no exaggeration to say that these reviews are some of the most astounding bits of film making; from a layman in his home, to grace the youtube site. They combine top rate execution, with a brilliantly prepared and hugely insightful delivery, and have the added benefit of being ballachingly funny.

The reviews are presented as the musings of Harry Plinkett (the screen persona of Mike Stoklasa, a wedding video producer.) a sociopathic elderly pervert who murders prostitutes in his basement and ex wives, when he's not floridly critiquing three films that defiled a trilogy of great ones that came before;- on the alter of profit, and shitty special effects. Plinketts reviews will even be entertaining to a casual, or even a non-fan of Star Wars. They aren't the sort of nitpicky, fan boy review we might expect. The kind of thing where a wheezy looking American with spectacles and a beard point out that that droid standing around in the background in one tiny scene wasn't invented till after the death star blew up. No, this is a (70 and 90 minute respectively for the first two prequels) creative critique of where Plinkett / Stoklasa feels that Lucas sacrificed both story and characterisation, for special effects and shameless promotional merchandising, available in all good retailers. It is particularly telling when his friends can rattle off single word descriptions of the original trilogy characters, but can't describe the prequel characters at all. And when we see the reaction by the creators of "Phantom Menace" after the first rough cut screening at Lucases private cinema. Or when he shows us the contrasts between the cruder effects and choreography of the originals, in comparison to the flawless overkill to boringness we get in the prequels, and how less turned out out be more. I could almost hear Han Solo saying "Hokey FX, and a crappy script, are no match fort a good story at your side kid!" The critiquing of the (many) plot oversights is kept to the major ones, and not bogged down in pedantry. (unless used for comic effect.) This is a game for the fans of the genre, and the Confused Matthew reviews are tailored for a more fan friendly review.

My only criticism about the review is the interludes in Plinketts dingy flat, where we see he has prostitutes tied up in the basement. They seem like filler (I'm not sure what they are really for. Harry is self evidently a dirty old man.), and the (fake) misanthropy clashes with the reviews themselves. We sympathise with Harrys anger toward the way the films came out, with being repelled by graphically seeing what sort of man he is. So they can feel uneven at times.

Mike is obviously well read in the art of film making (he is after all, one himself.), and this is the key to the quality of his work. Besides the fact that he is full of the insider knowledge of a business most people know zip about, - his genuine anger about how three great movies have been harmed by three ill founded ventures; is contagious. With all the resources that these films had thrown at them, we can say along with Harry. "This is the Result???"

And that is the key to the success of the reviews. That is why we don't think that Mike has nothing better to do than bitch about some movie for over an hour. The prequels were; - on one level, a form of vandalism on a cultural icon. This review articulates precisely how personally some fans felt disappointed by these films, in a way that outsiders may think is strange. We saw how (I'll give George credit. HUGE) anticipation, and opportunity to build upon a well loved trilogy - was squandered by a bad script, and FX being used as the end, not the means to the end. Again as Harry once said in a review; "Gee! How uplifting."

Red Letter Medias site is here. http://www.blancscreencinema.com/redlettermedia/index.html

Questions on the latest front in the Drugs war.

As we know, the home Alan Johnson has ordered the dance drug Methedrone (meow meow) to be reclassified from a legal substance up to a Class B drug, which is to be implemented as soon as possible (or if you're a resident of the Isle of Man, it has already been done.) presumably on the basis of a few post hoc anecdotes implicating (that doesn't mean the same thing as CAUSE, Sun and Mail editors BTW) it being involved in the death of some young people. This has caused some ructions amongst Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) advisers against the governments apparent spur of the moment ban on the substance. The latest advisor to have resigned in protest on the banning of a substance so quickly, and with so little evidence that the drug actually is a great enough hazard to health to warrant a ban is ACMD government advisor Eric Carlin. He is pretty damning in what he sees as a bit of gesture politics before an election:

"The decision to criminalise mephedrone, was 'unduly based on media and political pressure"

"A 'lack of interest' in prevention and early intervention with young people."

"We had little or no discussion about how our recommendation to classify this drug would be likely to impact on young people's behaviour. 'Our decision was unduly based on media and political pressure."

"As well as being extremely unhappy with how the ACMD operates, I am not prepared to continue to be part of a body which, as its main activity, works to facilitate the potential criminalisation of increasing numbers of young people."

"I believed the decision to rush through the ban had been politically motivated in order for the Government to look tough prior to the election."

"We've not properly considered it, not assessed how young people use it."

Call me Mr Pedantic, but isn't this what an advisory council on drugs use should be chewing the fat about?

This is I'll admit only the opinions of one man, but when we hear that others associated with this kind of thing have been airing similar sentiments, we must question if the government is actually taking into account what these people say, or are other factors motivating their reaction to drug control? We have this equally terse testimony by Dr. Polly Taylor, who was also a member of ACMD before she quit prior to the ban being announced, and in part due to Professor Nutts sacking late last year:

"In the months following the professor's departure, the Government had failed to give its advisers the independence they deserve. I feel there is little more we can do to describe the importance of ensuring that advice is not subjected to a desire to please ministers or the mood of the day's Press."

This hardly allays my fears that drugs policy is being directed by rational evidence based empirical research on the actual harm to users, and not to placate the editorials of newspapers that, ironically just hate a Labour government no matter what they do.

It has been argued that these people are just throwing their toys out the pram. A bunch of unelected bigwigs who think that they should be calling the shots to an elected government, and having a petulant strop when they are knocked back. It may well be true for some individuals. But the common narrative here seems to be that advisers the government has brought in, have either simply offered advice that no one had any intention of paying heed to, or have simply not even had the chance to advise at all. We seem to have a situation where the press respond to whatever is "the killer drug of the week" on the basis of anecdotal evidence, which leads to lurid headlines, then to the calls to ban substance x, then the ban itself from a government. That isn't joined up thinking on a very serious issue. It sure as hell isn't a sound evidence based methodology on drug prevention, and I can well see why the ACMD are banging their heads on a very large brick wall.

I don't think Alan Johnson is a bad man for banning Methedrone, and I don't sanction drug taking (like anything with risk, it is up to the individual to weigh up the risks, and go from there without pressure.) I also think that prohibition of drugs, while superficially may be seen as the right way to protect people, ends up causing more harm than good. Methedrone has now been taken from legitimate sources to the drug dealers. We now don't know if that meow meow tablet has been cut with god knows what, and that hugely inflated costs should fill the drugs trades coffers nicely. It would be a sad irony if methods brought in to "protect" people from this stuff, just ended up putting them at greater risk.

Littlejohns Magnum Opus

Littlejohns House of Fun. 13 years of [Labour] Madness is probably the most epic paradigmatic revolution of modern literature since Chris Moyles anecdote about comedy Dave inserting pound coins in a pub urinal, in his autobiography (Oh look I'm nicking lines of Stewert Lees Comedy Vehicle.) From what I've seen from the excerpts printed in the Mail in an attempt to flog a few books, it's pretty much par for course from "Britain's most biting Satirist" )
:<