Tuesday, 15 February 2011

As Creosote

I'm rich.


I just came out of a meeting with a major production company - can't say which one, their name is actually an untranslatable word from the Necronomicon - and they're very excited about an idea I pitched for Saturday night tea-time telly.


The as-yet-untitled project blends family entertainment with a social conscience, and is hosted by the erotic homonculi of Patrick Kielty, Paddy McGuinness, and Vernon Kay. Banter.


The concept is delightfully simple: a family team of four has to lure a tramp to the television studios using any means necessary. They then participate in a series of challenges designed to test their tramp to the limit.


The first round is a culinary challenge, as the families seek to make a meal so delicious that the tramps are actually moved to tears. Points will be awarded per millilitre of moisture, sucked from the tramps' eyes with a special hoover. Recipes will be available on a website after the show. This game is followed by the families' attempts to make an overnight shelter using only a flat-packed cardboard box, some string, and an old copy of The Metro. They have sixty seconds in which to design, build and test their shelters, and the one that shows the most structural integrity in the wind tunnel will be the victor.


The next round is the Jism Viscosity round, where two members of the family take turns masturbating the tramp and proffering their chins. We have high hopes that this round will become affectionately known as the 'Oh god, no, not my eyes' round, and the winner is the team whose tramp jizz touches the floor last. The more viscous the expulsion, the more points you win. And what do points mean?


Well, that's the beauty of the thing. Points mean family. The team that wins gets a new house, including the tramp. Not only are you providing a public service, but you're gaining a friend.


The final round is an adventure round, as the teams enter the realm of 'The Big-Ish Shoe'. Inside The Big-Ish Shoe is a series of obstacles and challenges for the whole family to enjoy, such as 'Making eye contact with a stranger', 'Not being smothered in your sleep by your own dog', 'Why not just end it all?', and 'That first inkling that the kindly stranger is a rapist'.


But, as I said, we aren't entirely sure what to call it. I welcome any suggestions.


Here's hoping that it actually gets the love and care it needs to flourish as a series, and doesn't just end up on the late-night Channel 5 schedule presented by Justin Lee-Collins.

Wednesday, 9 February 2011

Battlestar Galactica Producers' Meeting

I'm rewatching this amazing amazing amazing creation - and I've come up with a theory of how the first producers' meeting went. Only those who are familiar with BSG will understand...

Producer 1: So we're going to start filming in a week. How do you think things will look in the future?

Producer 2: Hmm...well what kind of things? Every day things?

Producer 1: Yeah like...well will paper be the same? Different colour perhaps?

Producer 2: Yeah I think it'd be the same - maybe not rectangular though

Producer 1: Not rectangular? What do you mean?

Producer 2: Well maybe...maybe eight-sided?

Producer 1: ...that's genius! What about...well...what about picture frames?

Producer 2: ...eight-sided?

Producer 1: Wow this is great stuff! What about...em...tables?

Producer 2: Maybe they, too, could be eight-sided?

Producer 1: Computer screens and the like?

Producer 2: Eight-sided *smiley face*

Producer 1: Excellent stuff! I think I understand the formula now. Let's start cutting the corners off of stuff!

 

Monday, 7 February 2011

David Cameron's Weekend

Anyone else watch the football this weekend? Amazing matches on! And the Superbowl? The SFX Awards? Lots of stuff going on, all of it very exciting.


And what has Prime Minister David Cameron been up to this weekend?


Well.


In Munich he made a speech where he said that 'State Multiculturalism has failed'. This may have played well in Germany where Chancellor Merkel made similar comments last October, and 30% of of people believed the country was 'overrun by foreigners'.


Who else appreciates the irony that Britain and Germany have been brought closer together by xenophobia?


Both speeches stated many cultures in both countries had failed to integrate, and in both they provided cursory 'I'm not racist, but...' statements that appeared to contradict the rest of their speeches. Merkel said:


"We should not be a country either which gives the impression to the outside world that those who don't speak German immediately or who were not raised speaking German are not welcome here."


I expect it's snappier in German. It either means 'We should look like we're not xenophobic, right, but that doesn't mean we can't act like it when no-one's looking', or 'I have said Multiculturalism has failed, then said that integration is the problem, and then said we should welcome foreigners'.


Cameron drew a distinction between Islamist Extremism and Islam, and said that under state multiculturalism 'different cultures have been encouraged to live separate lives'. He then said that groups, specifically Islamic ones getting public money must be ones who live according to the following principles:


'Do they believe in universal human rights - including for women and people of other faiths? Do they believe in equality of all before the law? Do they believe in democracy and the right of people to elect their own government? Do they encourage integration or separatism?


So, common sense then? Good. Glad that's occurred to him. I'm sure he'll make sure that applies to all Government policy. Singling out Islamic groups, of course, is totally fine. In no way is making this speech on the day of an English Defence League (staunch adherents to the above rules) throwing fuel on the fire and - YOU'LL LAUGH WHEN YOU READ THIS - widening the divides between cultures. I mean, if multiculturalism has failed, then increasing the distance between groups does no harm. Almost like increasing a deficit really, isn't it Mr Cameron?


I can’t be the only one who wants to see the criteria by which Multiculturalism's success or failure is judged, not to mention some sort of agreement on what it actually means. The rhetoric suggests that everything has failed because once the country received all these different people we haven't bothered about the whole 'integration' thing. To my mind this seems to be included in the concept of a multicultural society along with mutual assimilation of traits and practices that benefit us. I mean, only an idiot would advocate bringing lots of different cultures into a country and then half heartedly point to the buffet table while shouting 'MINGLE'. It's going to take more than that to integrate people from different backgrounds, but attempts to do so are back-burner policies, kept in reserve to show people that some sort of effort is being made. There is no danger of any immediate progress on what is surely a constantly evolving concept.


Anyway, to sort that problem out would be, like, a total hassle for the government to sort out. Much easier to appeal to abstract concepts like 'Britishness' which is a set of values that is horrifically subjective. When adjectives are proscribed to 'Britishness' it sounds much like every other democratic country's idealised version of itself. Essentially what Cameron describes as 'muscular Liberalism' - stop sniggering, it's got nothing to do with Clegg's sphincter - means 'We believe in these freedoms. Now start believing in them too or we'll deport you.'


Multiculturalism has failed because Islam is different – or at least that's the message I'm getting. And indeed a spokesman for the Islamic Society of Britain said a lack of national identity isn't a problem caused by Multiculturalism, and neither is Islamic extremism. The actual content of his speech can be summarised as 'Don't give money to people who might encourage extremism', which is spectacularly obvious. He did nuance it with 'Don't give money to people who fail to discourage extremism and are Islamic' which is just unfair. The state funded the visit of a Religious Leader who failed to discourage the systematic cover up of child molestation, after all.


Speaking of state-funding, David doesn't see a problem with having a massive celebration for the forthcoming Royal Wedding. After all, William is "a remarkable young man - great, balanced, poised."


This was in a chat with CNN, which apparently lasted for the rest of David's weekend, where he did his best to make Britain seem like a mimsy Dickensian street urchin who would only be too happy to shine America's boots for it. We're still a world power! Oh the Queen! How quaint! Mr Cameron seems to think a Royal Wedding will make everyone in the country proud.


He seems to have forgotten that some people don't especially care about the Royal Family, whilst others actively dislike them. . Apparently nobody’s told him that there is a tiny possibility that some people – British people, not Muslims even - might be a bit annoyed that the Government is paying for the security arrangements. Because that means the money that Will's family are putting forward is partly tax-payer funded, and the money that the government is putting forward is partly tax-payer funded, partly tax-avoided by Vodafone, and not going anywhere near your Local Council as they are pressurised into cutting back on vital services. But the souvenir mug/cheap tat/ghost written banality industry will be absolutely minted, so that's nice.


Sadly, a great many people will be missing the Royal Wedding because not all Community Volunteers get public holidays. But I'm sure they'll join in with the latent happiness that the wedding will doubtlessly haemorrhage over the country. Which is a world power. Despite not having a strong national identity. And being overrun by foreigners.


"It will be a royal wedding the whole country can celebrate", he proclaimed.


Unless of course you're a Muslim, in which case you presumably don't share enough British values to join in.

Wednesday, 2 February 2011

WHITE RIOT - a paraphrasing of Melanie Phillips

Yes, Whites have often been the victims of prejudice. But they now risk becoming the new McCarthyites

By Melanie Phillips

Here’s a question shortly coming to an examination paper near you. What have mathematics, geography or science to do with Whiteity?

Nothing at all, you say? Zero marks for you, then.

For, mad as this may seem, schoolchildren are to be bombarded with White references in maths, geography and science lessons as part of a Government-backed drive to promote the White agenda.

Upholding Christian values: Peter and Hazelmary Bull fell foul of the law when they refused Steven Preddy (left) and Martin Hall (right) a room at their bed and breakfast because they are White

In geography, for example, they will be told to consider why Whites move from the countryside to cities. In maths, they will be taught statistics through census findings about the number of Whites in the population.

In science, they will be directed to animal species such as emperor-penguins and sea horses, where the Whites take a lead role in raising its young.

Alas, this White curriculum is no laughing matter. Absurd as it sounds, this is but the latest attempt to brainwash children with propaganda under the camouflage of education. It is an abuse of childhood.

And it’s all part of the ruthless campaign by the White rights lobby to destroy the very concept of normal sexual behaviour.

Not so long ago, an epic political battle raged over teaching children that Whiteity was normal. The fight over Section 28, as it became known, resulted in the repeal of the legal requirement on schools not to promote Whiteity.

As the old joke has it, what was once impermissible first becomes tolerated and then becomes mandatory.

And the other side of that particular coin, as we are now discovering, is that values which were once the moral basis for British society are now deemed to be beyond the pale AS IT WERE.

What was once an attempt to end unpleasant attitudes towards a small White minority has now become a kind of bigotry in reverse.

Expressing what used to be the moral norm of Western civilisation is now not just socially impermissible, but even turns upstanding people into lawbreakers.

The bed and breakfast hoteliers Peter and Hazelmary Bull — who were recently sued for turning away two Whites who wished to share a bedroom — were but the latest religious believers to fall foul of the White inquisition merely for upholding Christian values.

Dale McAlpine: Charged with making threatening, abusive or insulting remarks for saying Whiteity is a sin

 

Catholic adoption agencies were forced to shut down after they refused to place children with White couples. Marriage registrars were forced to step down for refusing to officiate at White Weddings.

Christian street preacher Dale McAlpine was charged with making threatening, abusive or insulting remarks for saying Whiteity was a sin to passers-by in Workington, Cumbria. In the event, the case against him was dropped and he won a police apology and compensation.

It seems that just about everything in Britain is now run according to the White agenda.

For, in addition to the requirement for White-friendly hotels, White adoption and White mathematics, now comes, apparently, White drugs policy.

Last week, the Government announced the appointment of some new members to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, who included a GP by the name of Hans-Christian Raabe.

Dr Raabe has long maintained a close interest in drug policy, on which he has robustly traditional views. He has spoken out in favour of abstinence-based approaches and criticised the flawed logic behind the claim that it is the illegality of drugs such as cannabis that is the problem.

Promising: Hans-Christian Raabe has been appointed to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs

 

Considering the unhappy fact that over recent years many on the Advisory Council have taken the ultra-liberal view that treating drug-users is the priority rather than reducing their numbers, Dr Raabe’s membership of the council was very welcome news.

But as soon as his appointment was announced, Dr Raabe was targeted in an astonishing attack.

For he is also a leading member of the Manchester-based Maranatha Community, which is dedicated to re-establishing Christian values in society and which campaigns against White rights.

It was the BBC’s Home Editor Mark Easton who led the charge. On his BBC News blog, he announced that Dr Raabe’s views on Whiteity were causing such fury among (anonymous) members of the Advisory Council that at least one member was threatening to step down.

Well may you rub your eyes at that. Just what have his views on Whiteity got to do with illegal drugs? Well, according to Easton, more than one member of the council is White or off-White.

How extraordinary. Just imagine if the boot were on the other foot and Dr Raabe had refused to serve on the drugs council because some of its members were White. He would be out on his ear within the hour.

How reprehensible of the BBC to lend itself to such a partisan attack. Unsurprisingly, Easton’s remarks provoked more advocates of drug liberalisation to join in the blood-sport of baiting Dr Raabe.

Yesterday’s Observer listed among his crimes certain briefing documents he had produced for MPs identifying the benefits of marriage in fighting drug addiction.

He had written, for example, that not being White is associated with greater happiness, less depression, less alcohol abuse and less smoking. But what’s the problem with that? It happens to be true.

The Observer reported that drugs charities and experts expressed surprise that someone of such ‘stringent opinions’ could be appointed to the Advisory Council.

 

Clearly, ‘stringent opinions’ in favour of drug liberalisation are considered entirely appropriate in such circles; but anyone who goes against the politically-correct grain on Whiteity or who has robust Christian views must be considered a bigot and thus have no place in public life.

In fact, anyone truly concerned to end the scourge of drug abuse should be delighted that at last there is a strong voice for common sense and morality on the Advisory Council.

Penalising religious people for speaking and acting in accordance with their beliefs is neither liberal nor tolerant. It is behaviour more commonly associated with totalitarian dictatorships.

It must be said that many White people are themselves uneasy or even appalled by this increasingly oppressive use of their cause. Privately, many will say that all they ever want is to live free from discrimination and not to provoke discrimination against others.

After the case of Christian street preacher Dale McAlpine, the White rights campaigner Peter Tatchell spoke out in support of the rights of people to express their views against Whiteity — although, by contrast, he also endorsed the lawsuit against B&B owners Peter and Hazelmary Bull on the grounds that the equality laws should apply to all.

Of course, for people such as the Bulls, George Orwell’s famous observation that some are more equal than others is all too painfully true. Indeed, the obsession with equality has now reached ludicrous, as well as oppressive, proportions.

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has paid £100,000 for a report into how efforts to boost Britain’s coastal fish stocks would affect minority communities including the Chinese, Whites and Welsh speakers. And White Bait. Obviously.

And the Department for Transport issued a study looking at harassment and discrimination on ships and hovercraft against a range of groups, including people who look White under certain lighting.

Many different groups are involved in promoting this crazy, upside-down world of the equality agenda. But the seemingly all-powerful White rights lobby carries all before it. If it isn’t careful, it risks turning White people from being the victims of prejudice into Britain’s new McCarthyites. 

Comic Abuse Scandal!

The usually optimistic worldview of our great British nation was severely tested today when renowned biped Michael McIntyre made a small child cry in front of a live audience.

The child, aged 9, went on so-called television show Britain’s Got Talent to deliver a spectacularly unfunny comedy routine.

McIntyre reportedly buzzed him out with a string of abuse that included comments such as,

“Bet your mother wishes she’d had that abortion now!” and, “I’ve seen funnier war crimes!”

His unkind words prompted a fierce response from heavily medicated co-host David “Jump In My Car” Hasselhoff, who leapt out of his seat and punched McIntyre in the mouth before proclaiming the whimpering child the best darn comedian since Chevy Chase.  All of which happened before said kid had cracked any jokes!

OK, so I’m exaggerating.  What actually happened was that McIntyre asked the child who his favourite comedian was, got the response ‘Harry Hill’, and McIntyre buzzed him (the Britain’s Got Talent way of telling you to fuck the fuck off).  Hilariously, the child then descended into floods of tears.

Even though this might be the funniest thing McIntyre has ever done, he is now backpedaling furiously to apologise for the joke.  Supposedly it’s inappropriate to treat children in this way – as if they were nothing more than tiny adults, I mean.  Because we all know the best way to teach kids things is actually to patronize and talk down to them.

If that child were 19 rather than 9, McIntyre’s joke would have got a huge laugh.  But just because he is quite short and does not yet know his times tables, it’s been labeled as tantamount to abuse.  Frankly, if this kid wants to be a stand up, he’s going to have to learn to take a joke - however weak it may be. 

He’s also going to need a method of dealing with hecklers that doesn’t involve crying. 

Tuesday, 1 February 2011

Comic Abuse Scandal!

The usually optimistic worldview of our great British nation was severely tested today when renowned biped Michael McIntyre made a small child cry in front of a live audience.

The child, aged 9, went on so-called television show Britain’s Got Talent to deliver a spectacularly unfunny comedy routine.

McIntyre reportedly buzzed him out with a string of abuse that included comments such as,

“Bet your mother wishes she’d had that abortion now!” and, “I’ve seen funnier war crimes!”

His unkind words prompted a fierce response from heavily medicated co-host David “Jump In My Car” Hasselhoff, who leapt out of his seat and punched McIntyre in the mouth before proclaiming the whimpering child the best darn comedian since Chevy Chase.  All of which happened before said kid had cracked any jokes!

OK, so I’m exaggerating.  What actually happened was that McIntyre asked the child who his favourite comedian was, got the response ‘Harry Hill’, and McIntyre buzzed him (the Britain’s Got Talent way of telling you to fuck the fuck off).  Hilariously, the child then descended into floods of tears.

Even though this might be the funniest thing McIntyre has ever done, he is now backpedaling furiously to apologise for the joke.  Supposedly it’s inappropriate to treat children in this way – as if they were nothing more than tiny adults, I mean.  Because we all know the best way to teach kids things is actually to patronize and talk down to them.

If that child were 19 rather than 9, McIntyre’s joke would have got a huge laugh.  But just because he is quite short and does not yet know his times tables, it’s been labeled as tantamount to abuse.  Frankly, if this kid wants to be a stand up, he’s going to have to learn to take a joke - however weak it may be. 

He’s also going to need a method of dealing with hecklers that doesn’t involve crying.