Michael McIntyre is Overrated

I'd never seen any of Michael McIntyres stand up routines before the end of last week. I knew about him of course;- his meteoric rise to success in the last few years. Endless coverage on "Live at the Apollo", well perhaps not as much now. But perhaps most intriguing of all was his controversial status amongst other stand ups, from Frankie Boyle, to Vic and Bob, to Stewart Lee. Was it sour grapes on their behalf? Were they justified in saying that his act was bland and always playing it safe? Or was McIntyre a true popular comedy talent who was the victim of sneering snobbery? (nb, I don't think any of the detractors I have named are comedy snobs. Lee is perhaps my favourite stand up of all. I too follow the values of the Carphone Warehouse.) Well I watched some of his "Apollo" stuff, and his tour thingy, and he .. just .. isn't funny. I couldn't laugh at any of it. His line about a sin bin sounding like a Catholic skip was about his funniest, and that wasn't even funny really.

Now I'm not a comedy snob. I approached with an open mind. I saw how popular he seems to be with the comments he has. I got bollocked on facebook for saying he wasn't any good. But I just don't get why this guy is so popular. At first I thought is it the "Live at the Apollo" itself. LATA guarantees a friendly audience. Some of the best and most electric stand up can come from a comedian who is under pain of things going badly from the audience, they have to play to win, and even up their game. But his other tour was the same kind of stuff. His observation comedy is just that, observing and responding to everyday stuff, and being all jolly and skippy and jumpy about it. But apart from cheery observations about how the Scots name eggs and tape and stuff after them, or how everyone never judges where tube train doors will stop when preparing to board, where is the depth to his stuff. It aint there.

I know observation comedy is considered "lazy" comedy in some circles. I don't agree. Observational comedy can be more prone to being lazy comedy, but when it is done with a bit of panache, and if the comedian can run with the observation and dissect it to really get under the skin of why it is funny, you have the stuff of classics. Peter Kay may have flaws as a comedian, but he is good at highlighting the hilarious nature of a lot of Lancashire idioms (years of being boxed in from civilisation by the Pennines and Peak District!) and tells it with a genuinely witty verve. Some of his stuff looks pretty shit on paper, but he pulls it off with great flair and humour to make it rise above the script. McIntyres observations seem to be designed just to be taken entirely at face value. The sort of "have you ever noticed" stuff of crappy comedy. There is no depth to his stuff at all, no real analysis of why the observations are funny and in many cases the observations don't really seem to even hold true.

It seems to have worked though, people like this stuff. A bunch of face value stuff designed to get easy laughs (like Little Britain.) It may even be something else. I am completely in the dark as to how he became so successful.

So Much for Courageous Columnists.

I imagine columnists, Richard Littlejohn and Amanda Platell -like to think that they are "brave" and "hard hitting", "edgy" etc, when they write their stuff ragging on, often the most vulnerable people in society. People who don't have access to a high circulation newspaper to counter their claims, and the salary that comes with it either. Well I don't buy it, not one bit. I see little evidence of bravery in circulating saloon bar politics, and PC myths to an audience that has many who lap this stuff up anyway. Undercover reporting about crime barons, or foreign journalists uncovering the dictatorships crimes they live under -yes. Daft stories about people sent to prison for 60 years, for putting orange peel in the paper recycling bin, no. At the very least if you want to be edgy, bite the bullet and admit that you support something unpopular or dubious (Let me add the two are often mutually exclusive.) Don't try to lamely fence sit, cause that certainly isn't brave at all. Is it Richard Littlejohn? Who writes this about torture:

"Let them take their claims to the courts in Washington, or Islamabad, and see how It has been stressed repeatedly that no British agent has been involved directly in torture, but knew it was happening and acted on information obtained under duress.

" What are they supposed to do? If MI 5 are informed by Pakistani intelligence of a plot to blow up a shopping centre in Manchester, they would be irresponsible in the extreme if they didn't investigate and do everything in their power to prevent it."

Ooh the ticking time bomb dilemma. But then he adds.

"No, I'm not condoning torture"

You are a bit.

Then there's Amanda Platell, a women so bitchy I have to wear goggles to read her column, lest my eyes are dissolved by the acidy venom of her writing. Here she questions the competence of the women chief constable who headed the Moat standoff in Northumbria, for err... being a bit like an air hostess. But it's nothing to do with her being a women, as Amanda handily points out.

" I'm all for equality in the police force,

but is acting Chief Constable Sue Sim the right person to take charge in the Raoul Moat manhunt?

At a meeting on Thursday to quell local fears, she began the proceedings by performing a health and safety demonstration that pointed out the emergency exits.

To lighten the mood, she jokingly delivered it in the style of a trolley dolly.

I'm sure the residents of Northumbria slept more soundly in their beds that night knowing there may be an armed maniac in their midst, but at least their lady Chief Constable is a good laugh."

It won't stop pithy comparisons to "trolley dolly's" though.

These aren't perhaps the most glaring examples of the "I'm not a racist but..." comments that lead these kind of stories, they are just two in succession that stood out. I always think that kind of back peddling on supposedly condemning what your simultaneously trying to put across is a bit like a kid who says something a bit too tactless about another person and hurts their feelings, but tries to stem the damage done by passing it off as "I was only joking." Or when Bernard Manning used to claim that people shouldn't object to his racist jokes as they were only jokes, and he took the piss out of everyone anyway. Everyone - seemingly 90 percent of the time, meant Asians and Black people. It really is meaningless sentiment, and a lame attempt to distance yourself from opinion brought about by iffy reasoning. It's certainly not what I'd call brave.

No Room For Gays. That's a Real Desmond Editorial. No Really

The combination of the words Gay and Asylum Seekers, in regards to the outcome of the Supreme courts decision to allow the two gay men, from Iran and Cameroon to be granted asylum in the UK, is enough to make the tabloids go completely insane. Transferring them into foaming at the mouth loonies, running about like mad men. Well almost anyway. The editorials from the asylum bashers are what we would expect. They can't outright say that the two men should have been sent back, and that homosexuals should be left to their fate. That looks pretty shitty, even if spun well. Instead they change the subject (as tabloids are want to do with stuff like this) and invoke the slippery slope argument that if you let two gay men stay, then you open the floodgates (you have a feeling that the writer of the editorials would have wanted to use the term "back passage" instead?) I won't provide the quotes exactly it's standard "they'll all be coming here" fayre, purely speculative and impossible to substantiate. But hell, it hits all the right notes.

Depressing stuff. But as I said, the tabloids were hardly going to give it a "right on" where they? No, what did surprise me was the Stars editorial, headed "NO ROOM FOR GAYS" Homophobia and racism in one package. Desmond's papers are literally not even trying to mask their bigotry with weasel words and bad euphemisms, as the others do.


"OPENING the floodgates to gay asylum seekers is absolute madness.

The idea is bound to be abused. Every illegal desperate to get into Britain will try claiming they’re gay to ensure they stay here.
Some people will do whatever it takes if it means a cushy life in Britain.
This cannot be allowed to happen. The Supreme Court doesn’t want to send back anyone who fears they may suffer in their home country because they’re gay.
That’s admirable ideology. But it’s not practical in the real world.
Their ruling means millions more people will now be eligible to stay in Britain.
And the resulting flood of numbers could push our creaking infrastructure over the edge.
We simply cannot afford to keep taking the world’s outcasts.
Britain is struggling with record debt and millions out of work.
We must look after our own first.
This decision must be overturned.
We cannot solve the world’s problems on our own. "

I literally think the people who write this stuff, think that the readers will imagine that from now on all immigrants will enter Britain dressed as Daffyd of Little Britain, and will keep dropping the phrases "Oooh you are awful!" and "hello ducky!", whilst doing bad impressions of John Inman. The new ruling changes some of the criteria for dealing with those fleeing from homophobic regimes that imprison or execute gays. (which dents the Stars theory that every immigrant can play the "gay card" . Wouldn't work if you were; say Chinese.) It really isn't a case of showing up at your immigration center dressed as the Village People, and saying "I'm gay can I live here." to which they will reply "Of course you can, here's a million pounds in benefits". The tabloids have also seized on a quotation by one of the judges in the case saying that gays should be free to listen to "Kylie Minogue and drink cocktails". It was taken out of its original context, saying that if straight men can pursue stereotypical "guys stuff", then gay men should be able to do vice versa, NOT that the judge literally said they were given asylum on behalf of their human rights to have the freedom to listen to Kylie Minogue CD's. This was seized on to make the judges seem ludicrous and out of touch with all the rest of us, and to trivialise what was a very serious case.

The editorials always claim it's about pragmatic issues with asylum, such as living space and the resources that are required to "keep" these people. I wouldn't have a problem with these being brought up. They are valid concerns and should be addressed. There is always that "Of course genuine asylum seekers should stay" spiel too. But I see no evidence that these editorials care about either. They make claims about resources that are completely unsubstantiated for one thing. The other is that they never clarify what a genuine asylum seeker is to their minds. We are talking about people who "WILL BE MURDERED OR JAILED ON PAIN OF DISCLOSURE OF THEIR SEXUAL ORIENTATION". Let us not forget that the two men were both outed as well. I can't really see how the "genuineness" of that need for asylum can be topped. It's like that "better suited place" for an unpopular thing. It can't be placed, as it defeats the point. These pieces are there to fling shit, nothing more. It's pushing racism towards vulnerable people, and window dressing it as a genuine concern for the immigration question. Admittedly the windows in Desmonds empire have no glass in them. And it fucking stinks.

I Wonder Why This Made the Front Page

I came across this headline on the Express in Sainsburys this morning. Yes apparently a decision to put a bit of film on some ground level glass panels at a swimming baths in Walsall is the single most important thing to have happened in Britain this week, in Express land. I'm not surprised they went with this story, when I saw it. Firstly it's been doing the rounds from about Sunday. Secondly it's a PA story from the local papers, and since the Express long ago gave up trying to report real news, when you can just pinch it from wire agencies and stick your own take on it instead. And lastly, it can be used as a stick to beat the evil Muslims with, which gets a story a zillion star points in the Express. The paper now frequently prints headlines purely designed to stir up resentment towards Muslims, as it knows it works a treat on their more "extreme" readership.

The story is pretty boring in itself. A modern swimming baths had a fully glass fronted panel, allowing passers by, on the streets to see the bathers in the pool. Some bathers (never stated how many) objected to this, and some of the objectors were said to be Muslims. And this has brought it to prominence. The full spectrum of papers have run with it, and it has been turned into a "Muslims demand special treatment" story. The Sun even has a handy picture of a Muslim woman in a full veil (completely unrelated to the story) in case we forget what a Muslim is.... I suppose? Then they say the exterior glass panels have been replaced by opaque ones. Not true of the 250 panels, 58 have been coated with a film layer, as can be actually seen on the photos of the supposed blacked out swimming baths (sheesh.), on the bloody articles itself. Then we have all the rhetoric about outrage, and PC gone mad, and "its one rule for them." from furious pool users. The kind of soundbites that are a written substitute for "angry pose" photos, so beloved of the press. Hell even the Taxpayers Alliance got their (non taxpayer funded, I might add.) tuppenceworth in about it It was a perfect storm for this kind of shit. Editors know that the ones who get the hump about this, will allow their ire to override their ability to see it as an overblown storm in a teacup.

I don't know if the people responsible for covering the panels are overreacting. I don't really care either. It's faintly absurd for me to be blogging about the window arrangements on a provincial swimming pool in the West Midlands. But that is paradoxically the point. These non stories are being used to stir up hatred towards the Muslim population. There is no other purpose to this kind of thing, they aren't trying to say anything insightful on community relations, or integration. This story, and others like it are designed to portray all Muslims as ingrates who are privileged above everybody else, and catered to every whim they can think of by the councils / politicians. And that the press are doing this so blatantly - Lets piss off our readers off more; with the latest outrage. This kind of sentiment has been stirred up in the past to horrible ends, and it is discomforting to see it on display so much.

It might have worked a bit too well on the Express article. All the comments have been taken down. But a sample of the Suns comments, show how it went down.

" Why are we doing everything to please Muslims. if we go to their country we have to abide by their laws and yet they come here and we roll out the red carpet, give them nice big houses and pay them to live here. If they dont like our ways then don't come here. what is wrong with this bloody country. Im ashamed to be british.The english that use the pool should refuse to use the pool until it changes, that way the council wont be able to afford to stay open."

"Hate our way of life but love our benifit system!!!"

"If these women wish to swim in a public pool in privacy perhaps they would like to go back to a muslim country and do it."

These do seem to assume that all Muslims are both immigrants, and claiming benefits. No evidence that those who complained are either. But shows how blanket stereotypes take effect. Also most Muslims in the UK are British, so deporting them would be tricky.

" Why aren't hundreds of people from this borough complaining about this? If hundreds of people complain, then it will have to be put back to normal. Remember that local councillors have to be elected so if they won't fix it, vote for the opposition next time."

Because most people have better things to worry about.

6 Music Saved.

A few months back there was a plan to get rid of 6 Music. Well it seems the BBC Trust, looking at where to save a bit a dosh, have decided that 6 Music shouldn't be axed to do so. The cuts have been made to salaries, and top star casting. The Asian network however; seems to have pretty much had it's fate sealed. The report on the Trusts findings are; -like many things of this nature, more interesting for what is not said, or indeed implied, if you read between the lines, than is said out loud. Like I said in the previous article on this back in February, before the election, if we went with the tone of what was being put out about the story in the Murdoch press, that his editorials were gushing about scaling down the "monopolising BBC" (Rupert Murdoch lecturing other media organisations about "monopolising the market" Are you fucking kidding me!!) . The editorials were also "hinting" that our new PM should put pressure on the BBC to streamline as well. Well it must be that the fact he has had to seek coalition with the Lib Dems (who have less baggage in their BBC relations), which News International didn't factor back then, as well as the outpouring of anger from listeners of the station, and appeals from 6 DJ's like Jarvis Cocker and Lauren Laverne to keep the station on air, has actually bolstered the listening (I nearly wrote viewing then! Oops) figures by up to 50 percent, after the planned closure was announced. It is always good to see a bit of people power in action to save quality broadcasting with a loyal and dedicated following. I think Murdoch forgets that most people care more about this, than the desire to increase News Internationals sphere of influence. But both of these events seem to have given the trust a shot in the arm. The comments in the whole article seem to suggest that the Trust is willing to stand up to it's critics, and is self analysing it's role as a public broadcaster. This comment is especially promising:

"The BBC Trust also criticised aspects of the Corporation's flagship channel BBC1 today, saying it should be 'more ambitious and distinctive, in particular by increasing the variety of programming in pre-watershed peak time and showing greater creative and editorial ambition at 9pm.'

BBC2 needed to become 'a clearer alternative to BBC1, even at the risk of reaching fewer viewers', it said.

Both BBC1 and BBC2 in daytime are 'not meeting audience expectations' on the delivery of public purposes, it said."

A pretty robust assertion of public service values.

I wasn't there at the meetings that the Trust had, so I can only attempt to analyse my interpretation of events. But it seems the Trust has engaged in a PR exercise to fend off its critics, and engage with the public it broadcasts to. By cutting the top peoples salaries, and the budgets for A-list casting, the Beeb can show it is doing its bit in a period of economic doo doo. Not axing 6 Music shows the BBC cares about its passionate, licence paying public. The declaration of improving BBC 1&2's output for "audience expectations", likewise. A major problem with cutting an external and obvious source of BBC expenditure like "6", is that it can be argued you can cut some more, and then even some more chunks too.

The BBC, by its very nature will always face flack. But for now I think it has weathered it well. The comments by the Trust are promising, and show they have resolve. They'll need it, because the BBC's detractors will eventually find another stick to beat them with.

The Hitches Cancer Announcement

As we found out this morning, outspoken public intellectual and full time God hater, Christopher Hitchens has had to postpone a lot of his public schedules after being diagnosed with throat cancer. Hopefully the cancer has been diagnosed early and the chemotherapy will succeed in nipping it in the bud. The Hitch to my mind is quite simply one of the best and most articulate polemics of our generation. It is really too bad we lost him to the U.S (though he still holds British citizenship), but there we go. I know he upset a lot on the left with his support of the Neocon's (though I believe it was born more out of his opposition to the anti-Iraq war Left than a genuine affinity for Bush and Cheney), but if anyone has an opinion on anything, that is worth listening to, then it's the Hitch. No one quite has that knack of delivering that biting eloquent prose, and mellifluous one liner rebuttals you wish you'd thought of, in the face of dealing with someone afflicted with the symptoms of talking complete shit. Dealing with religious nutters like Jeremy Clarkson deals with caravans. An ermine coated AK47, metaphorically killing his victims in true style. In a mad mad world, we need someone like Hitch to dynamite the walls of bullshit. Let us hope we will have many more years of him firing on all cylinders. This just being a minor set back.

More Facebook Memes Completely Miss the Point.

If you are on Facebook you have probably seen the following statement doing the rounds as a "cut and paste" status comment.

"Two planes landed in England yesterday...One brought back a group of overpaid, underachieving footballers.The other brought back seven coffins, each with the Union Jack draped over them. Footballers play for our country, soldiers FIGHT for our country.Footballers give ninety minutes, soldiers give their lives....I know who I respect more. R.I.P. Our Boys. Copy & Paste this to your status, show your support!"

Strong stuff indeed. On the face of it, the sentiment of the message is not without foundation. Yeah footballers are (IMO) overpaid, and the England team did very poorly, considering all the dosh, high flying lifestyle and praise heaped on them. But this comparison doesn't make any sense. These are two separate groups of individuals. No member of the England team has compared the World Cup to fighting a war. These are two unrelated flights, the sentiment of the message is rather skewed. But I don't think that is the real root of the sentiment behind this message. I think it is down to something else.

The sight of England's ejection from the world cup, coincided with the bodies of seven British soldiers being flown to RAF Lyneham (four were killed in a Land Rover accident, unrelated to front line combat) a fact that cannot have missed most peoples attention. It can't have slipped peoples mind that on the greater scheme of things, the stakes on the outcome of a football game are pretty low. There are people out there who have (and have had) much more to lose, without a hundredth of the personal recognition. Something like this can bring home the true scale of what matters. Is it not too much of a stretch to say that this chain status note, is on some level an attempt by some to guiltily readdress their priorities (almost everyone who has posted it gave a blow by blow account of the match, their opinion on the ref ... etc.). I want to point out that this post is in no way a dig at the troops. From what little I know about serving soldiers, I think they find this "our boys" stuff; not their kind of thing. They do the best job under a bad situation. I just feel that some of the shouty sentiment (of course some is genuine feelings for the troops) has more to do with making the poster feel that they are demonstrating their support, without putting that support into more practice. There is much people can do. From donating to HfH, to raising money for those injured in war. Help the British Legion sell poppies and donate at remembrance day. That sort of thing is of more practical help than trying to look patriotic and good on Facebook.