An apology

Friends,

Last night I made a couple of jokes, that on reflection, I wish I had not made.

The point of these comments was to raise, what I believe to be, a serious issue regarding the way we are treating our Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen serving overseas. I accept that my method was ill considered and unnecessarily crass and hurtful. For that I am sincerely sorry.

I do not wish to attempt to justify myself, so I will not. However, I will try to explain my thinking and leave you to your own judgement.

I have extensive experience of dealing with members of the armed forces and have found within their ranks men and women of all types, classes, religions and attitudes.

They have not all been 'good' or 'heroic'. In fact most have been ordinary people doing a job of work. A job, they enjoy some of the time and loath almost as much. It has been a career option choosen for almost as many reasons as there are people who choose it. Few, if any, have picked the military for the glory and the honour. None have enlisted to protect 'my' way of life. Most have described poor prospects, unhappy family life or the need to make a fresh start away from various difficulties. These reasons, in no way, lessen the respect that we as a nation should have for these service people.

The servicemen I have met, and know, have included drunks, gamblers, womanisers and petty criminals, they have not been 'role models' but then that is not what they are there for.

The point I am slowly getting to, is that the hagiofying of average men and women into 'heroes' will make a readjustment into ordinary post-operational, life much more difficult for these guys and girls. Raising our expectations of them to such absurdly high levels will mean that they are no longer able to make mistakes. The 'Afghan War hero caught....' headlines are being prepared as you read this. and this is not right or fair.

A postman or milkman is 'allowed' to beat his wife without bringing the national press into the equation, nobody will vilify him for bringing 'dishonour' or 'shame' to his colleagues. Yet this is exactly the kind of reaction our forces will be subject to when they do return. Constantly watched, constantly compared and constantly critisized for being human, when we have created saints.

The TNT Show is funny AND offensive

Below are copies of emails I sent to Channel 4 regarding the 'Gilbert's special report' segment.


To whom it may concern, (although I doubt anyone will be very concerned)

Last night I watched a program broadcast on your channel called 'TNT Show'.

Firstly, I would like to say that I found some segments funny and some not..It's a sketch show after-all not everything will appeal to everyone.

Secondly, Many would think for ME to complain about offensive material would be a bit rich. I am prone to the odd 'off the cuff' and 'off colour' remark myself from time to time.

Thirdly, As a little bit of explanation of where I am coming from. I am the father of two boys on the Autistic Spectrum.

So, to the nub of my email to you today. I was confused by the section called 'Gilberts Special Report' (I have deliberately not put an apostrophe in 'Gilberts' as I can't remember if the segment titles have one).

Question 1) Is it a Special Report by someone called Gilbert or a Report by someone called Gilbert who is Special?.

Question 2) Could you not find any incompetent crew from amongst the able-bodied community or any competent crew from amongst the disabled?

Question 3) Was I supposed to be laughing at the rather pleasant young man being interviewed? Who, I think, took the offensive questioning by Gilbert in fine style and acquitted himself admirably, despite being struck by the boom mike and being confused by the interviewer as a member of 'Take That'.

Question 4) Was the interviewee confused when two crews turned up for the filming of his interview?

Question 5) Do you really think that in todays media savvy environment that you are going to get anyone to react badly whilst being filmed for this show? Sacha Baron Cohen killed that particular golden goose years ago.

Question 6) Has anyone on your legal team actually read the Disability Discrimination Act?

Question 7) Perhaps next week we could have a crew made up entirely of Homosexuals or Ethnic minorities or Old people?...Surely that wouldn't be seen as offensive would it?

Question 8) I notice that the actors hired to be members of 'Gilberts' crew are not given any writing credits, Is this because disabled people are only funny to watch and not funny to listen too?

Question 9) I am sure you will say that the actors are 'in on the joke' and 'happy to play along' but is that because they genuinely believe the sketches are making valid social commentary or because, as disabled actors, they are glad of any work they can get?

Question 10) Wouldn't a deaf sound man have been funnier? and also perhaps the Interviewer could have Tourettes..what do you think?

Anyway enough questions, I think you get my point. I have no problem with offensive comedy as long as it is funny, but if you want to be this offensive you need to be much much funnier than your writers seem to be able to manage.

Yours sincerely,


John Shanley



This was the reply I received

Dear Mr Shanley,

Thank you for contacting Channel 4 Viewer Enquiries regarding Gilbert's Special Report on THE TNT SHOW.

The sketch is not intended to use disability or disabled people as the butt of the joke. The laughs are from the celebrity's reactions to being interviewed by someone who appears to be 'different'.

In the tradition of Ali G, the persona adopted by the interviewer gives them licence to ask questions that celebrities wouldn't expect or normally tolerate being asked.

The disabled production team ( played by disabled actors ) are completely in on the joke, as well as being up for participating in a bit of slapstick to add to the general entertainment.

We are sorry to hear that you found it offensive, please be assured your complaint has been logged and noted for the information of those responsible for our programming.

Thank you again for taking the time to contact us. We appreciate all feedback from our viewers; complimentary or otherwise.

Regards,

Sally Smith
Channel 4 Viewer Enquiries

As you can see not really a response at all more a waste of bandwidth, So I replied to the reply,

Dear Ms Smith

Thank you for your reply. Which I am sure you have pre-written and ready to send. The reason I believe this is twofold 1) You didn't actually bother to read the complaint or answer any of the points contained therein and 2) I have seen the exact same email on various forums. You see, I did a little research before I wrote to you.

Bearing in mind the amount of complaints that you must have received, perhaps it is now time to look beyond what the 'intent' is and respond to the 'effect'. I often make comments that are not intended to offend but when told about the effect of my comments, I apologise and stop making them. What I don't do is try to justify my offensive behaviour or hide behind an excuse.

The way to test for the appropriateness of this item would be to imagine how it would be for able bodied persons to play the roles? and frankly as these are 'roles' there is no reason why not.

I am reminded of the self-serving justifications of the producers of shows like 'The Black and White Minstrels'. They would often point out that they did in fact have black cast members...one of whom has spoken at length of his feelings of fear and disgust. You may have heard of him. His name is Lenny Henry.
It is not good enough to claim that the participants are in on the joke. In a far more serious case, for example sexual contact with a vulnerable person, consent is not a defense. Those in authority have a duty to see beyond the initial consent and to examine if there are circumstances that might remove a certain element of choice. For example the dearth of roles for people with disability in the mainstream might make these actors more likely to hide their true feelings in order to obtain work.

If the 'joke' is to obtain a response from the interviewee or to push the boundaries of acceptable standards surely you are more likely to achieve this using more mainstream 'crew' and adding the 'shock' questions as part of a conventional interview. As it is, the best you can hope for is that the interviewee sits patiently whilst the crew behave in an even more inappropriate manner. And as someone with extensive experience in working with and living with those with special needs, anything is possible and thus NOT inappropriate. So in effect all you are doing is re-enforcing the stereotype that makes it harder for the disabled to find work and value in society.

John Shanley

New Tricks is an Old Dog

Firstly let us deal with the premise of the series. A team of retired detectives are brought back on the payroll to help Amanda Redmond solve Unsolved and Open cases. They are stuck in a basement and just allowed to get on with things, except for when the notional commander decides to play at bossman. Ludicrous would be a kind description of the idea but it keeps getting commissioned and is shown on the BBC's flagship channel at prime viewing time, so what the hell do I know about television.

Secondly, the cast of 'respected' character actors is without doubt second only to the cast of 'Last of the Summer wine' in the collective psyche and affections of the British public. Dennis Waterman plays Dennis Waterman, James Bolam is grumpy guts and Alun Armstrong, in what appears to be a clumsy attempt to take advantage of the mans ability to act his way out of a paperbag is given the 'psychologically damaged' role...with a spot of OCD thrown in for light relief. The crew is led by the talented and rather beautiful Amanda Redmond, who as a WOMAN has had to fight for the respect of these curmudgeonly and prehistoric old coppers (And if that isn't a direct quote from the pitch, I'm a Dutchman)...Of course there is also the politically motivated young boss, who is constantly pushing for 'results' and 'efficiency' but who in the end comes to realise that maybe these old dogs can be useful.

Thursday's episode featured Brian (Armstrong) entering a clinic for the treatment of his alchoholism and discovering a nine year old murder (as you do). By the way, the set-up and pay-off for this discovery was as clunky bit of writing as I have ever had to watch...To see Richard Wilson 'let something slip' and try to cover it up again was almost embarrassing. After discovering that the victim was the father of the female sex therapists child, whom she had named after her lovers brother (mmmm...credibility stretched and broken with this little bit of exposition)blah blah blah..bad guy caught, led away in handcuffs etc etc.

Frankly this show is unforgivable. The plots are obvious and ridden with coincidence. The direction is straight from the 1970's, and none of the actors look as though they really care very much and who can blame them when you listen to the dialogue they are asked to deliver.

#TheHashtagShow

Not so much a rant as a talking space today, Please leave comments.

30 minte weekly show

Best of MusicMonday, charityTuesday and Followfriday,
Maybe get @bobbyllew to show Carpool
Best of hashtag games as sketches...Most RT'd would qualify I suppose..#3wordsaftersex would be brilliant...I can see it in my mind.

Could also do interactive tv clips...with tweets rolling in realtime across the screen.

It wasn't me!!!

I am sure that many of us have at one time or another been confused by official paperwork. Completing tax returns or claiming benefits or even applying for a simple tax disc for the car can be a minefield of jargon and doubletalk. However when faced with these problems, we as members of the public are responsible for finding out what it is we are supposed to do. We phone help lines, we read explanatory books, we ask around so when we send these papers back to the relevant people, they are correct. We understand the comment at the bottom of the form that says that WE are responsible for the information we provide and that WE are the ones that will be held accountable. What we are not allowed to do is blame someone else. For example, If one night I decide to stop for a couple of drinks on my way home and later I am stopped and breathalysed I don't turn to the Policeman and say "I asked the barman, if I was over the limit, he thought I was OK so I drove home" I know right from wrong. Driving drunk is wrong. Getting the blessing of the barman doesn't make it right.
Unless of course I'm a member of parliament. In which case I just find the nearest civil servant and blame them and that is what is happening regarding the current furore over MP's expenses. The poor darlings had no idea what they could or couldn't do so they asked the Fee's Office or more correctly the Department for Administration and apparently were all told that they could carry on claiming. So despite being responsible for the writing and understanding of Acts of Parliament these guys and girls are completely incapable of working out what constitutes an allowable expense without getting it checked by someone else first.
The question that comes to my mind is "Are these people stupid or criminal?" It is either or there is no third option. If you cannot understand a 66 page explanatory document, you are far too stupid to be sending the country to war or working out how much tax I should be paying and if you understood the document and still made the claim, you're a crook. Plain and simple. Stupid or bent, which is it?
What I would like to see are the notes regarding these conversations with the fee's office, let's see what is actually said and see if it really is just a rubber stamp because "We're all in this together" nudge, nudge, wink, wink.
We have reached a point of such moral relativism that even those whom we rely upon to make the right decision are happy to hide behind the words NOT the intent. Gordon Brown made a big fuss over major corporations paying little or no tax and vowed to close these loopholes, his moral indignation burning like a firework in the sky. The chairman of RBS gets a huge pension payout, perfectly legal and as per the contract, but no, our moral guardians are up in arms telling him to pay it back sayng that they will change the law to make sure these things don't happen again. But when they are found to be as venal but meticulous in their own dealings then it was because they were told it was OK and perfectly within the rules, no talk of retrogressive actions then.
Surely it is now time that they were all thrown out on to the compost heap where they belong and a new set of politcians sworn in, with a driver for each and a room in an especially built facility for the duration of their term in parliament. If I go away on business my company puts me up in the very cheapest hotel it can find afterall I'm there to work, if the hotel has a bar, a good restaurant, a gym and a snooker table thats a bonus but it's not a necessity.

Jade Goody, Princess Di and Stephen Fry

Stephen Fry is an intelligent man. So when he writes something stupid you're probably advised not to react immediately but to think about it, and then comment.

This morning we awoke to the news that Jade Goody had finally surrendered to her cancer. I suppose it was inevitable, that the woman who had sold her life and death for the benefit of her children should pass on Mothers Day.

But when Stephen Fry compared Jade Goody to Princess Diana, my gut reaction was "no way", I even tweeted the great man to tell him this. But on reflection, maybe he is right. The congruities are quite surprising and the similarities staggering.

Mothers of two boys, Daughters of broken homes, children fathered by men from previous relationships, televised weddings, darlings of the popular press, the list of comparisons is telling. So was Jade Goody a Princess Di from the wrong side of the tracks?

Both had intimate relationships with the press. The constant, ever-seeing eye of Big Brother was a metaphor for the young Diana Spencer but a reality for Jade. They both felt the double-edged sword of the red-tops with Jade's ignorant racism and Diana's "pity me!" interviews causing a flurry of non flattering headlines. Ironically it was in the deaths of each of them that they reclaimed the place lost to them in the publics heart. It is easy to forget, that prior to the accident that caused her death, Diana was not the universally loved figure that she became after. A string of "poor" choices had labeled her as some kind of neurotic upper-class good-time girl, that spent more time with her jet set boyfriends than she did with her children and the constant string of stories complaining of her terrible life above stairs with the Royal family was beginning to sound self-serving and boring. Compare this to the Jade Goody story, The Celeb Big Brother racism row, the boyfriend in jail, The near daily tabloid stories detailing each and every indiscretion and a kind of out of focus blending of D and J seems to take place.

It would also be interesting to wonder how the two women would have taken to each other, because for all the apparent differences I feel sure that they would have instinctively understood each other. Both seemed more at home in the low-brow and popular end of the cultural spectrum I'm fairly certain each would have been able to name the Westlife CD's and been able to inform you of the latest changes to the cast of Eastenders.

So when Stephen Fry compares Jade and Diana, both born on estates, one council, one royal, perhaps he is not quite so wide of the mark after all. Stephen, I apologise.

Premier rant

Ok..I reckon it is high time I lived up to my billing and engaged in my first rant. With an entire multiverse to choose from, selecting my primary target must be carefully and fully considered. Some options are too easy...politics, sport.."relationships", some are a tad esoteric, the DH in Baseball, the IHT thresholds for couples in the UK. So rather like Goldilocks my target must be "Just right"
So I have finally selected....recycling!
Don't get me wrong, I have no wish to live on a garbage dump (Btw..largest man made structure on the planet is a tip in New York/New Jersey). BUT for god's sake it must be possible to make it easier for the average household to recycle their rubbish. For example, we have a small kitchen in a small house, but we have a "large" family. My local council tells me I must recycle the following...but not mix them up..Paper, but only certain types of paper, Glass, but this must be washed and sorted by colour, Tins but again these have to be washed out and the labels removed (not sure if I should put the labels in with the paper), Plastic and again only some plastics and again could I please wash them out. My point is this "where do I put all this rubbish?" and as a side issue surely the energy wasted in washing these items with HOT water makes the whole process counter-productive?
Wouldn't it just be easier to ensure that manufacturers and retailers use the absolute minimum of packaging instead of the half-dozen layers of trash that make you think you are playing some kind of pass-the-parcel game? for example why do cereal boxes have two layers?....get rid of the boxes!..or if you insist on the cardboard, allow customers to de-box at the checkout and leave the retailer with the excess cartons. I won't even go into the amount of "official" junk mail that is delivered through my letter box. Two or three copies of the same letter informing us of a 47p increase in the child benefit...printed on one-side!