Home

Advertisement

Christmas countdown

  • Nov. 24th, 2009 at 7:25 PM
meb&w
My Christmas tree is up. News of this has been met with mixtures of amazement, derision and gentle ribbing by my friends, but this is actually quite late by my standards: I once put the tree up on Hallowe'en. It looks great. Lots of red and gold and a bit of ribbon and new lights.

I am quietly looking forward to Christmas. I have no idea why: it'll be my poorest one since I was a student and, being a freelancer, any time off is not only a break from work but also a break from earning. My Christmas shopping plans have been scaled back to a level of extravagance that would have a battery chicken rolling its eyes and the train journey back to Yorkshire is costing me an arm or a leg. And yet... I can't wait.
Perhaps it's something to do with having a bit of a weird year.

I've surprised myself at how much I've been enthusiastic about the festive season. Usually I spend the preceding weeks pacing up and down shopping areas all over London, whingeing and cursing at the crowds of people and sneering shop assistants. I also be,oan the fact that my birthday is at Christmas, therefore stealing from me the feeling of having a birthday that people actually care about. But now, I think I'm finally over it.

This year, I actually went to watch the Christmas lights in the West End being turned on. And I made an 'ooh' noise when they were! I grinned like a fat bloke who's just bought a Mars bar when the seasonal red cups came out at Starbucks and have indulged in more dark cherry mochas than my purse strings would usually allow. What a capitalist pig I am!

Call it going soft in my old age, or desperately trying to find something positive, but I'm 'up for' Christmas in a way that I'm finding strange yet exciting.

This Christmas might just be the merriest yet.

Sunglasses season never ends

  • Nov. 21st, 2009 at 6:13 PM
meb&w
I have never wanted to be famous. I can't understand what the attraction is. Loads of people you don't know loving or hating you, or even worse being aware of you and totally indifferent to you. While I don't want to *be* famous, I quite like *feeling* famous. Now, short of going on Big Brother or murdering someone, I'm not likely to be catapulted into public consciousness, but there is a really easy way to get that 'celeb feeling': wear sunglasses when you don't need to.

Yeah, I know. You run the risk of people mocking you or thinking you love yourself but so what? At least they're noticing you, right? Lots of people think celebrities are up themselves for wearing shades whatever the weather, but there are actually three very good reasons for doing so. First of all, a picture is worth less if you can't see the eyes. Secondly, your eyes can let you down on a photo. If you blink or roll your eyes, you look drunk or stupid or both. Finally, it's practical: with all those flashbulbs going off in your face, your little peepers need all the protection they can.

Another extra little bonus is that it's a scientific fact that everybody looks around 45% hotter in sunglasses. If your eyes are a bit wonky or too small, just bang your shades on and voilà! You're a sex bomb.

Of course it's important to get it right. I don't care how fashionable they are, but wayfarers only work in summer. I also happen to think wayfarers are a load of shit and make the wearer look like an ugly fashion victim but hey, each to their own, right? Bright colours are also out unless you want to look like a fat American fresh off a flight from Florida. Keep it understated and effortlessly cool. Aviators are timeless and a celebrity favourite. They look good on almost everybody (if your face is too thin, avoid them or you'll look like a fly) and work in any weather system. For extra celebrity sparkle, a gold-rimmed pair are just the ticket. People will ask for your autograph.

As for the lenses, mirrored are not a good look. Think of it from the celebrity angle: flashbulbs would reflect in them and make your eyes look like torches. Not great. Your lenses need to be tinted just enough so that you can almost but not quite see the eyes. This allows you to check out the hotties without being discovered.

The only time the shades need to come off are:

- indoors
- at night
- when it's raining

Wearing them in a bar is OK during the day as long as there are big windows letting in light. At night, you just look like a twat. Or Stevie Wonder. Wearing them on the tube is OK. Why not? At least then you don't have to pretend not to make eye contact. Stare as much as you like! Sporting sunnies when it's raining is social death: you don't want to spend the entire day wiping off speckles of drizzle with a tissue like a nerd. Oh and don't wear them in the house. Even Victoria Beckham doesn't do that.

Let them laugh, let them stare. You look fantastic. Like a superstar.

Ribbed for my pleasure

  • Nov. 17th, 2009 at 11:18 PM
meb&w
Corduroy. A band. A material. Something I hadn't considered for years.

I've been getting a little sick of the monopoly jeans have over my lower half. Sure they come in different colours and go with pretty much anything, but as anyone caught in the pouring rain on Saturday will tell you, the feel of wet denim clinging to your nether regions is neither pleasurable nor practical.

Although I've avoided corduroy for quite a while now, being told that for a new job I couldn't wear blue jeans in the office posed a bit of a problem. Sure I could wear my aubergine or grey skinnies, but they're a little bit 'nightclub' and not so much 'I am a responsible person and you were right to give me this contract'. I went into central London yesterday with the idea of buying black jeans to solve my problem, but only encountered more difficulties.

Black jeans only seem to exist in two distinct types. First of all you have your superdark, never-washed black jeans. They're not unfashionable, but look ever so slightly like formal trousers hanging loose at the weekend. You know the type, the 'cool, up-for-it dad' who wears a suit at work all week but really likes to chill out in his immaculately ironed ebony denim. Then you've got your distressed/ faded side of the family. Unless you're buying them from quite an expensive retailer, they just never look right. Either they've been so distressed that they look like you accidentally spilled bleach on them or they are so ridiculously faded they appear to have been hanging in a shop window since Prince William's christening. What can look so good on blue jeans can look so bad on their darker cousins.

So the avenue of black jeans was a cul de sac. I wandered around the shops dolefully, bemoaning not only my lack of imagination when it comes to buying trousers but also the stupidity of clothing manufacturers unable to read my mind and run me up a little something that would be ready by the time I stepped off the tube. Just as I was about to admit defeat, I spotted out of the corner of my eye some cords. Cords to me always conjure up memories of a particularly unlovely pair I had when I was eight. They were aubergine-coloured and were made out of really jumbo corduroy material. I had a growth spurt soon after their purchase but was forced by my mother to wear them anyway: a look that now graces almost every street corner in London, yes, but half-mast trousers was social death when I was growing up.

I picked the cords up and looked at them. They were a very nice grey colour. A kind of mid-grey with a touch of silver. Could I? Should I? I resolved to try them on. I then spotted their neighbour, another pair of cords but this time blue. Navy blue. Slim fitting. Navy blue cords? Really? I picked them up and then picked the next size up as well, just in case I had put on weight thanks to that dark cherry mocha I'd had earlier.

I tried on the grey pair first. You have to be careful with cords at my age. Jeans, for most people, have an air of cool. They're the rebel's uniform, look better ripped and tugged and beaten. They're wild nights out in scuzzy bars, crumpled fivers and triple vodkas. Cords to me evoke buzzwords like 'geography teacher', 'reformed sex offender', 'just one more cup of Ovaltine' and 'comfy'. I looked at myself in the mirror. I looked good. Next came the navy pair. Also good. I turned round. Ass looked good. All seemed to be in order. Reader, I bought both pairs.

Today was my first day in corduroy for about seven years, when I finally threw away two pairs of bootcut monstrosities (one black, one brown) that I'd worn for work, an act which came two years after throwing out more brown and black pairs (skinny fit this time) for being too vile for words. Teaming them with a pair of desert boots and a polo shirt in a fetching shade of aubergine I made my way to work and I have to say, I kinda liked it. For the first time in a long time, maybe ever, I felt very much my age but, even if I do say so myself, still looked OK. Pretty good in fact. I'm fine with that.

The pipe and slippers, though, will have to wait.

Stars in their lives

  • Oct. 21st, 2009 at 10:54 AM
meb&w
TV presenters poking their noses into the lives of Joe Public is nothing new. From telling them what to wear to noseying through their worthless heirlooms via picking apart their home decor and repainting everything in terracotta, the fascination with telling the viewing public what to do has been a staple of mainstream TV for years.

Recently, however, this has taken a new turn. Now we see a worrying trend where the super-rich are being encouraged to have a prod and a poke at some of the country's most unfortunate citizens. A few years ago, politician Michael Portillo attempted to 'raise' a family on benefits for a TV experiment. He was followed by fellow MP Ann Widdecombe raking through the 'lifestyles' of prostitutes and other unfortunates of society.

These invasive shows have now moved up another gear, with Sarah Ferguson, the Duchess of York, slumming it on an estate in Hull and nodding and smiling in all the right places as decades of desperation and misery are laid out in front of her. Last week saw iconic soap bitch and notorious Concorde and Champagne devotee Joan Collins commissioning a Bentley and zooming down to Plymouth to inject a bit of glamour into the tired lives of three women. It was hard to tell whether Joan's facial expression was due to bemusement or the years of surgical assistance her line-free visage has enjoyed, but as she quizzed drunk locals about their tattoos, I got the distinct feeling Joanie was out of her depth. Joanie's prescription for glamour seemed to involve going to Primark and picking out outfits she wouldn't be seen dead in. La Collins freely admitted that she shopped in M&S occasionally, but when pressed by her charges into revealing her other favourite shops, she had to confess they'd be more likely to line Bond Street than be found in a gloomy shopping precinct.

Just a week after Joan's relatively harmless crusade to wring glamour out of a New Look cardigan, TV is at it again. '7 Days on the Breadline' takes four famous faces and uproots them from their various bases in LA or London and plonks them in the middle of some of the roughest areas of Leeds, a city I know quite well.

Spice Girl Mel B, fashion fascist Trinny Woodall, rugby player and Strictly Come Dancing twinkletoes Austin Healy and, er, bon viveur Keith Allen have all taken up residence in council estates across the city for a so-called social experiment. Mel has been left in charge of a family of five with just benefits to see her through. Trinny has been paired up with a remarkable elderly lady who sleeps on the sofa as she can't manage the stairs. Austin is with a smaller family who seem to be relatively well-off, but the elder son smokes dope. Finally, Keith Allen is head of the household with a slew of boisterous boys (and one girl) to look after.

We're only one episode in, and this opener was mainly taken up with the celebs meeting their new 'projects' and being shown round their modest abodes. Trinny's pensioner, fantastically, didn't have a clue who she was which knocked the wind out of the style guru's sails. Trinny's not doing too well at fitting in: she was a liability when taken to the local bingo hall and she gasped in horror at the 'all you can eat' Chinese buffet she was taken to afterwards. To her credit, she did unflinchingly empty a commode- albeit down the kitchen SINK rather than the toilet; my mother would have been HORRIFIED- and seemed to genuinely feel empathy for her buddy. Perhaps her 'journey' will be the most revealing.

Elsewhere, Mel B sported an array of lurid tracksuits so she could stand out even more, endured endless catcalls from passing cars and bizarrely seemed to think that free gym memberships for all the brood would help lift them out of their doldrums. That Mel has been in LA too long was clear to see. She asked the extremely reticent children for hugs and spouted forth about 'getting to know each other' and forced family meals upon her squirming, embarrassed charges. All very admirable, but totally alien to your average Leeds youth.

Keith walked around his new home in abject horror, fighting a losing battle to clean and tidy it. The teenagers in his family cause trouble at school so they get sent home. They say they want to join the army. Keith doesn't quite know what to say so re-arranges the kitchen. A shopping trip to Asda is excruciating as Keith peers at every food's origin or fat content before putting anything in the trolley, pushed by a resentful teen who'd rather be in bed.

Austin's faring a little better so far. His works has thus consisted of gruffly calling in the teens for dinner and then having big manly chats about 'cannabis' over the meal, the awkwardness of his words ringing off the walls like a pealing church bell.

But why do we need these programmes? Do we need famous people undergoing a culture shock to make serious social issues more appealing, more entertaining? Would a hard-hitting documentary be roundly ignored?

Are these shows really highlighting the plight of the 7 million people who live below the breadline in the UK and bringing it into the wider consciousness? Or are we enjoying a little bit of poverty tourism, where we can watch in horror at the celebrities picking their way through dirty washing, thanking our lucky stars that we can afford our little luxuries? Before switching off and thinking about something else entirely.

Did you see me coming?

  • Oct. 17th, 2009 at 12:38 PM
meb&w
I generally think of myself as someone as devoid of bad habits. If anyone asks me what my worst habit might be, I say something really boring like "Oh I can be really untidy" or similar.

Of course, I have thousands of bad habits, but I prefer to think of them as quirks. I mean, what does actually constitute a bad habit? It's something you do regularly that other people might think is, er, bad. Right? Whereas you think it's perfectly fine. While I no doubt share some of my habits with others- nose picking, bottom-scratching that kind of thing- one of my 'worst' habits is also one of my favourites and I know I can't be alone in doing it. Put very simply, I always- and I mean ALWAYS- pretend I haven't seen someone when I have, in fact, spotted them ages ago. In any occasion. Let me explain.

Scenario 1:
I have arranged to meet a friend at a pre-designated spot. If I arrive first, I will wait patiently. As I see them approach, I will stare into middle-distance. If they wave madly enough, I *may* break at this point and allow a flicker of recognition- if only to stop them making utter idiots of themselves- but usually I will wait until they are practically on top of me before I acknowledge their presence. If I am second to arrive, I will march ahead determinedly toward our meeting spot, even if they attempt all manner of waving, jumping up and down, calling out (which makes me cringe as I hate being hollered at in the street) or- God forbid- whistling. I do not flinch until I am relatively close and even then offer only a small smile of acknowledgement. I don't know why I behave like this. Sometimes I get a tiny wave of pleasure as I look impassively at their vain attempts at attracting my attention. It's not normal, is it?

Scenario 2: I am 'out and about' and see someone I know. If I am in the street, walking past them, I will usually let them go by (unless it's a good friend; I'm generally talking about acquaintances here). I will try my best to avoid eye contact and do my good old middle-distance peering at some non-existent point of interest way off beyond their shoulder. If they stop me, well, that's all well and good, but if they don't, I don't and we float on and get on with the rest of our lives. If I'm at a party and I arrive, I will pretend I've not seen the host- or indeed anyone else of interest- until they come right up to me. If someone arrives 'fashionably late', in other words shamelessly attention-seeking, I will simply look the other way or become particularly engrossed in whatever conversation I'm having until it becomes unavoidable, whereupon I will call on my best acting skills and act surprised to see them.

I suppose this quirk is now too ingrained in me now and I will never be free of it. I'm sure that everyone does it at some point or another, if not with my startling regularity. If you do happen to see me in the street, don't feel you have to say hello; I can hardly blame you. Just so long as you know that I have seen you. And I saw that you saw me too.

I got you Babestation

  • Oct. 3rd, 2009 at 11:25 AM
meb&w

Like loads of other people too tight or anti-Murdoch to get Sky, I had to retune my Freeview box the other day. It’s said that some viewers may have been confused as to how to do it or might forget, but I find that hard to believe, given that every time I turned the TV on or changed channel, a reminder would flash up. It still flashes up now, even though I’ve already done it. Match that with alarmist stories in the press about Freeview boxes blowing up and very patronising news reports where a journalist would stand in a Currys (I wanted to write Rumbelows there for creative effect, but it doesn’t exist any more does it? Sounded better though) giving a slow, step-by-step guide on how to press two buttons on your Freeview remote, and surely everyone was in the know.

Since retuning, I have noticed only two differences. A few channels have switched themselves around, moving down a few ‘doors’ in some kind of telly channel house swap. The other thing I’ve noticed, and it’s difficult *not* to notice, is that there are now FIVE channels in a row dedicated to a usually devastatingly-unattractive female rubbing her minge on a pillow. Yes, I now have Babestation!

I’ve seen Babestation before, many years ago. I used to share a flat with a guy for whom masturbation was the only sexual option he was ever likely to have. He had two boxes of Kleenex by his bed and his last girlfriend was such a distant memory, all his photos of their time together were sepia-tinted. He was the first person I’d ever known who had ‘Sky Digital’ as it was then called. I would come home from work or doing something much more interesting to find him watching Babestation. It then consisted of two women reading out texts from pathologically lonely bank tellers and deputy managers of leading supermarket chains. Occasionally they’d lick their lips or plump their (always blond) hair. And that was that really. Endless hours of waving to ‘Gary’ or ‘Steve’ in a tight top. I admired the girls in a way. It really was money for old rope.

Fast forward ten years later and Babestation is a different animal. In fact, animal is probably the best way to describe it. As I’m working late evenings at the moment, I’m getting in at around two-thirty in the morning, so perhaps it’s not quite so bad at other times, but at that time of the morning, Babestation has gone on to the next level. And it’s not an upward journey.

There’s a lady. Oh she’s got no top on. She’s got two or three tattoos. Her boobs are VERY round and look like they’ve been stuck on. Her hair extensions are a bit frazzled. Ooh look she’s on the phone, but I can’t hear her speaking. She’s lying on her back and humping the air in the sheerest, flimsiest of thongs ever. I can see bits of her that even she’s probably not investigated in any depth. Oh where’s she putting her hands? Oh no is she going to put them insi… hmm no she’s not she’s just putting them ‘tantalisingly’ close to the band of her ‘panties’. Now she’s turning over and is on all fours. Her boobs look like huge oranges. They look quite painful actually. The skin is stretched over them like a bad facelift. They’re straining to escape. Now she’s lying flat and, oh, she’s having sex with a pillow with mad, forceful thrusts. Now she’s stopped. Now she’s thrusting again. Now she’s stopped. A lick of the lips. She’s just put her boob in her mouth. It appears that she’s not some bored housewife entertaining herself while she’s holding the line to the British Gas call centre: there’s someone on the phone telling her what to do. As she replies to the mystery caller, her face contorts in what I imagine she thinks are sexy expressions but in fact she looks spiteful, as if she’s telling him what a small penis he has. I wonder what her voice is like. Strong, dominating, persuasive and sexy? Husky and sensual?

I soon find out. After a few calls, the gyrating lady will be tossed a microphone which allows her to speak to us, in order to entice more viewers to call her. She sounds like the woman who does the tannoy announcements in a Stockport Asda. “Yeah hi guys I’m Stacey and I’m really lookin for-wood to talkin to you. Call me now for some sexy chat.” If you get bored of the Stockport senorita, you can always ‘flick’ on to the next channel to watch a slightly thinner girl with huger breasts or a more curvy girl with extra tattoos. The last couple of babealicious channels are in fact Babestation imitators with what viewers might think are less attractive ladies- they don’t have hair extensions and their bodies aren’t like melons glued to a pencil.

At the moment, while the girls are topless and thrusting, nothing particularly sexual is happening. I’m already desensitised to the sight of Stacey rubbing her knock-off Janet Regers on velour cushions, so to her regular viewers it must be as sexy as watching Corrie. Eventually, perhaps with the promise of an extra fiver, the knickers will have to come off and then, perhaps a year or two down the line, God knows what will be going God knows where.

I’ll have to check back on them in 2019.

Windbag

  • Sep. 14th, 2009 at 6:37 PM
meb&w
 I have to admit: I haven't been particularly environmentally-friendly in my life. As a teenager I would look out of the window on endless car journeys through identical country landscapes and long for the glowing light of a Sainsbury's or McDonald's to break up the monotony. In my twenties I would gleefully throw everything away as soon as I was bored with it, even if it wasn't broken, and glass bottle after glass bottle would be chucked merrily straight into the bin without nary a thought.

In the last few years or so, though, things have changed. Along with the extra fine lines and the greying sides, I'm growing something I never thought I'd see. Yes, I think I'm getting a conscience. 

It started slowly. I started to stack bottles by the side of the sink to be taken to the recycling point. I would agonise about what kind of product to get based on whether it had too much packaging or not. And now my attentions have turned to bags. Plastic bags, the scourge of the supermarket. Being anti-bag is nothing new. Various newspapers have been campaigning against them for quite a while and checkout staff have long been trying to put off patrons from loading up their solitary onion in a thick, glossy shopper by a) charging for them and b) offering loyalty card points for bringing your own. I have quite a few of these 'bags for life' as they like to call themselves. When I forget to take them to the supermarket I mentally flagellate myself to a degree that would make an Opus Dei devotee wince. If I forget the bag whe I pop over to the 'local' supermarket- a three-aisle nightmare with queues that stretch to the Norfolk Broads and only one type of everything, all premium brands with sky-high prices- I refuse a plastic bag and play a dangerous game of avoiding A-road traffic while balancing 'ingredients' in my arms, biting my lip in concentration as they wriggle and jiggle like a coughing baby. It's like being on an 'extreme' version of Ready Steady Cook.

Not everyone shares my bag guilt. I went into a well-known supermarket the other day and bought a small, plastic bottle of water (plastic! Again! Why *do* I hate Mother Earth so?) and was offered a free bag for it. This is the same chain that, in other branches when I am buying an obscene amount of groceries for over-inflated prices, charges for bags even if you have no choice but to have one. This isn't just any old double standard, this is a 'world-famous brand' double standard.
 

Nobody's watching me

  • Aug. 28th, 2009 at 10:58 AM
meb&w
The demise of Big Brother has gained a large amount of coverage in the press. Channel 4's decision not to renew the show's run beyond its 11th series in 2010 seems to have been portrayed in various media outlets as a victory for quality programming and the death knell for the so-called reality TV genre.

In fact, Channel 4 haven't 'axed' Big Brother as such. They've just decided that when the current contract runs out, they won't be renewing. The lights in the Big Brother house won't be dimming for the final time until this time next year, so it's hardly the whipping off the airwaves that some would have you believe. The reality genre has mutated many times during its lifespan. From a gentle start filming families and workers going about their daily business, to the artificial environments created by shows like Big Brother and I'm A Celebrity... Get Me Out Of Here, the genre has made heroes and villains out of a cast of thousands, has been going strong for the last 40 years or so and shows no signs of stopping, despite Big Brother preparing for its swansong.

I never really saw Big Brother as a reality show. Despite its early insistences that it was a social experiment, it was essentially a gameshow, at best a personality contest. The first two series did have a factor of the unknown about them: in the first, nobody thought so many people would be watching; in the second, nobody truly thought anyone would bother to watch it again. As production teams, sponsors and TV executives got wise to the revenue-generating power and PR potential of the show, the format was tweaked, contestants manipulated and the editing process polished to sway the viewing public. The role of playing God moved after the fourth series from the viewers themselves to the producers.

Even people who don't watch Big Brother have something to say about. Remember John Humphrys's frankly embarrassing tirade against Big Brother and the reality genre in the McTaggart lecture at the Edinburgh TV Festival back in 2004? Denouncing the show as damaging, he was forced to admit a little later that he was not a regular viewer of the show. Most of the show's detractors don't actually watch it and the loudest calls for its removal from the airwaves are often from those who are already doing something better with their time when it's on. I stopped watching it three series' ago when the casting stopped being to my personal taste. I've seen three episodes of the current run and and am a little glad I haven't tuned into the whole thing, although I still found myself intrigued by the goings-on. It's quite an investment of time and energy and I don't think it's worth it to me any more.

That said, it does have an audience and is a massive hit with the 18-22 age group. As new generations grow up with Big Brother, there's still mileage in the brand and the potential cast is getting bigger and bigger. That Channel 4 has decided to have a creative rethink and focus on making dramas that the 18-22 year-olds currently glued to that slot will avoid is a brave move. Much braver than deciding not to renew a show that still generates revenue. Only time will tell if they've made the right decision. Five and Sky have so far denied that they have any interest in producing the show, but I doubt we've seen the last of Big Brother. Someone, somewhere is watching and waiting and when the time is right, he'll be back.

Lovely cuppa

  • Aug. 25th, 2009 at 7:18 PM
meb&w
I am usually late to any party, be it a mix and mingle at the neighbours' or the figurative kind. One particular party I'm rather glad I wasn't on time for was the viral video phenomenon that is 2 Girls 1 Cup. Friends have been banging on about it for years and I had always resisted watching it. Last night. however, I had something in a lull in my sanity and decided to premiere it in my very own living room. I won't 'spoil' it for anyone who's not seen it yet, but it does involve poo. I wouldn't recommend it to anyone, but go on YouTube and search for reaction videos: you'll get the general idea from the looks on the faces of the millions who've taped themselves watching it. The internet really *is* a load of shit, on this occasion at least.

I have always had a very weak stomach. As a child I would have to stand outside butchers' shops as the smell of dead animal sent to me into convulsions. Dog poo on the shoe- an all-too-frequent occurrence- would leave me speechless with fear and even the scent of a lemon meringue made me lose my breakfast all over the dining hall as 7-year-old. There was a boy who lived on my street for whom a weak stomach was simply not an issue. He, allegedly, had no sense of smell or taste; or if he did it was severely impaired. He had no fear, giving the bullies of the area ample fodder. All manner of dares would be batted his way and he would take part in them without flinching. This will of iron apparently extended to him putting faeces in his mouth, lending him the nickname of 'Shit Eater'. Being so young at the time, I can't remember if I ever saw him actually doing this, but the image has stayed with me. And every time I think of it, I heave. Watching 2 Girls 1 Cup brought it all flooding back. Ugh. Although I must admit a sadistic pleasure in watching my other half view it for the first time; I laughed for about a decade. And filmed it. What's wrong with me?!

And don't even get me *started* on 2 Girls 1 Finger. I don't think any amount of therapy will mindwipe that monstrosity
.

Furburger

  • Aug. 13th, 2009 at 10:50 PM

When you eat out, getting a little bit extra is always good. A bigger portion is always a nice surprise, but when your added bonus has dropped from the chef's head, the fun factor decreases significantly.

While in Edinburgh (I was in Edinburgh last week; did I mention it?), I stopped at a cafe for lunch with my other half and a friend. Unless you're laying out £££ for a spendy meal or in a half-decent restaurant, Edinburgh's not that great for food, especially lunches. When I lived there, hours would be spent counting off places to eat on our fingers as we dismissed every bar and cafe in the city because of some previous horrific experience. Either that or we would trudge around sulking at the lack of decent eateries and bemoaning the fact that we had had dreadful lunches from one end of town to the other. Things aren't much better in London, but at least we haven't exhausted every place just yet.

So we sat down and after waiting a while to be seen, we ask for menus. I liked up and down the menu with trepidation, picturing in my head as I read the words the limp-lettuced salads, greasy paninis and uninspiring burgers. Having plumped for a chicken burger, I was most surprised around three quarters of the way through it to find a coarse black hair poking out of the bun and waving at me. I closed my eyes and opened them again. Hair still there. More blinking ensued, but my burger refused to lose its burgeoning toupée. I started to feel a bit awkward. There was no way the burger was going anywhere near my mouth again, but I'd eaten quite a lot of it already. If I complained, would they think I was trying it on?

I bit the bullet and complained, as quietly as possible so as not to alert other diners of the possibility of finding something furry in their lunch. The waitress didn't seem to be that bothered. I said I'd like it taken off my bill. She went away and returned some minutes later saying they wouldn't take it off the bill but would make me another one. As we were with a friend, I didn't want to make a scene. I had something of a dilemma here. If I refused the new burger and demanded it be removed from the bill, it would embarrass my friend. If I refused the burger and paid for the hairy one, it was (to me) and admission that I had been trying it on and had put the hair in myself. If I took the new burger, I would have to eat it. I took the burger. I wish I'd complained now; the second one was even ranker than the first and just came on its own as they'd thrown my fries and salad away with its hairy predecessor.

I'm not a serial complainer but I do hate being ripped off. Was I unreasonable on asking for it to be removed from the bill? Should I just let it go and move on? Yes, I think I should.

Feminine side

  • Aug. 12th, 2009 at 2:26 PM
meb&w
When I was in Edinburgh, I read an interview with comedienne Laura Solon where she said that people-watching wasn't a good way to get the basis for a comic act, as people don't tend to do very much when out in public. I couldn't agree more: people-watching is fun for the very first few minutes, but beyond that, you're just watching people walk past you.

What struck me about the article wasn't Ms Solon's observations, but the fact that throughout the article, she was referred to as a 'comedian' or 'comic'; the word 'comedienne' didn't get a look in. It's becoming increasingly common to ignore the feminine variants of roles these days. Actresses prefer to be called actors and even waitress seems to be slipping from favour.

I seem to remember reading some years ago that these words have been dropped as they're seen as sexist and women prefer not to have the gender distinction made. I'm not a woman, so it's not for me to say what they should and shouldn't be called, but as someone who loves words, I have to say that I would hate to see the death of comedienne, actress and waitress and all their fellow feminine words. Not only do they look better written down, they also sound more interesting and exotic when you say them out loud. If you put the emphasis on the second syllable of actor, it sounds almost sneery, mocking. Say it. Act-or. Act-OR. Not particularly affectionate, is it? The word actress, however, doesn't take any shit. You just can't mock it.

I speak French and one of the things I love about the language is that it has masculine and feminine words. In English we say 'calculator', which, if you translated directly into French using the rule that 'or' = 'eur', would make 'calculateur'. This version of the word does exist but the French prefer to girlify the common old calculator and now she's a 'calculatrice' and thus, if you want to be all literal and turn it back into English, 'calculatress'. A calculator plods its way through your mathematical problems: it's dependable but functional and essentially a dullard. Your calculatress, however, tears her way through your logarithms, destroys your algebra and polishes off your myriad multipications without so much as breaking a nail. She's the Alexis Carrington of the mathematical world.

While I accept that roles which define men and women may be a barrier to gender equality, I dare say lexicographers nationwide are going to miss those lovely ladies.

Feeling festive

  • Aug. 10th, 2009 at 8:26 PM
meb&w

I have just got back from a short break in Scotland. I spent a few days in Carnoustie with my dad and his wife, but the rest of my break was taken up with the very serious business in doing as much of the Edinburgh Festival as possible. I have had a strange relationship with the festival over the years: I lived in Edinburgh for a few years from the late nineties and used to find the festival something of an inconvenience. Save for the odd show, the only goods I'd get out of the festival would be the extended opening hours of bars and clubs and, er, getting to know the strangers in town for the event. Edinburgh really is consumed by the festival throughout August: the population swells and the whole city is unrecognisable, transformed from a grey, proud capital into a fun, boisterous place. Dour grannies make way for enthusiastic performers and the place is all the better for it.

It is more or less a tradition for permanent residents of Edinburgh to hate the festival, at least outwardly. The influx of RP accents and bright young things prancing around in Victorian clothes or full theatrical make-up doesn't really endear the event to the Edinburghers. Many Edinburgh folk are turfed out of their flats by landlords who want to move in more-moneyed temporary residents for the month of August, prices seem to shoot up out of nowhere, taxis become scarcer than unicorns and the quantity of amateur bagpipers increases tenfold. Secretly, though, I think they love it. Venues spring up in the most unusual of places and the city seems surrounded by a warm aura that you don't get during the remaining dank months of the Edinburgh calendar.

This year, I managed to see 8 shows and missed around 10 more that I would have liked to have seen. Eight shows in 3 days may not seem like a lot, but going to see performances is extremely time-consuming. First of all, you have to pore over the umpteen festival guides to find shows you may be interested in. You have to then spend half an hour cursing that the show you really want to see has just finished 10 minutes ago. You'll then forget to see it the next day. Then it's time to queue for your ticket. For a full festival experience, your show should be sold out after you've queued for aeons. Once you do get your tickets, you need to get your drink to take in with you (the venues are notoriously hot *and* some shows are so bad they can be much improved by inebriation.) You think you're finally at the main event, but no: you have to queue up again, this time to get in the venue. Once you're in, you're in for at least an hour and then when you're out, there's the obligatory drink in the bar to dissect what you've just witnessed. And then the process starts again.

When I lived in Edinburgh I probably saw a maximum of 3 shows for the entire three weeks. I never bothered with the main International Festival, which was usually lots of opera, high-brow dance or Shakespeare. The Film Festival didn't really appeal, either, what with films being much longer than live shows and there being all that festival quaffing to do outside the darkened auditoria. So it was the Fringe that I would frequent, although my experience of it all was mainly confined to the various bars that pop up here, there and everywhere. Now that I'm an Edinburgh ex-pat, however, I try and fit in as much as I can in the few short days I have there. There's some great stuff to see, but, man, there's a lot of dross too. Going as we did this time in the first week meant that not many shows had been reviewed or seen by anybody else, so it was hard to get a feel for what was good and what was absolute bobbins. Last year, we went in the third week and got a much higher hit rate. You do pay less for tickets in the first weekend, though.

And now it is over, and here I am back, feeling a bit blah. I was quite proud of myself for managing to fly there and back (my heartfelt thanks to Diazepam for making this possible). I know that this makes my so-called carbon footprint considerably larger but, come on, I didn't fly for ten years until last year so I reckon I'm due a little bit of aviation experience. I have also come back hopelessly addicted to Kopparberg pear cider. I don't think I could have got through some of the shows without it. So all-in-all, a marvellous festival fuelled by tranquilisers (for the flight only, I assure you) and pear cider. See, you don't need 'Glasto' for rock and roll.

Up the junction

  • Jul. 28th, 2009 at 1:37 PM
meb&w

My unemployment rages on. The problem with not having a job is that you're exposed to far fewer humans than everybody else. Some may say this is ideal, as in many workplaces colleagues are dreadful bores who are forced upon you, much like lecherous relatives or rude checkout assistants. I am, however, starting to miss interaction that doesn't involved friends I've know for years and my other half. I miss the whimsy and dreaded 'watercooler' moments that you just don't get if you're not trooping into a workplace every day.

 

The highlight of my unemployment has undoubtedly been attempting to get state benefits. I have signed on twice before: once when I was 'on hiatus' from college and then again just after I graduated. I was on the dole for precisely one week, both times. I don't remember it being nearly as difficult or stressful as it was this time, but perhaps the mists of time have clouded my judgement. I was quite surprised, despite having worked solidly for the last 10 years, to be refused Jobseekers' Allowance. Apparently, there was mix up and they thought I hadn't made enough National Insurance contributions. It's taken two soul-destroying trips to the JobCentre with my P60 (they lost it the first time) to prove I had paid enough. The money, such as it is, is now starting to dribble through.

 

The most awful bit is signing on itself. The whole process is designed to upset and annoy. You have a fixed time you must go but, without exception, you'll be kept waiting a good 45 minutes. The heat and desperation go hand in hand and every time I'm in there, someone is shouting at a member of staff. Nobody says 'hello' to you: you are just told to sit down. Nobody even looks at you. It's strange. I can't understand why anyone would behave like that, but most of the people who work there do.

 

The scariest thing is that potential jobs are becoming scarcer. I see around 3 a week that I may just be suitable for. I always used to get an interview when I applied for jobs. Recently it's been a hit rate of 1 in 10. I shine and dazzle in interviews and the potential employers nearly always love me, but the gig goes to someone else at the last minute. Such is life.

 

I'll stop now before this turns into an employment-related version of those misery novels about harsh upbringings in Ireland. Perhaps I should write one myself called 'Please Recession, Don't Hurt Me' or similar. 

Baby one more mime

  • Jul. 1st, 2009 at 12:29 AM
meb&w
 I went to see Britney Spears in concert the other week. Well, I think I did. A blonde pranced about on a stage for a couple of hours as some of Britney’s CDs played in the background so I can only assume it was actually Miss Spears. I only went because I managed to get £5 tickets on the day so thought that anyone was worth seeing for a fiver and dragged along my other half to the O2 where the world’s most famous hick was holding court.

I’d heard that she was miming the entire set, which I find unacceptable in any live act. Had I paid full price for my ticket, I’d have lynched her and paraded her head on a stick past the endless chain restaurants that encircle the arena. I once paid- well, twice actually- a small fortune to see Madonna and was horrified at rumours she’d mimed some of it. When did that become OK? Anyway, we pitched up at the O2, arriving amid a flurry of bunny ears, tutus and cheap perfume, before taking our seats. I’d been misinformed at the  time Britney would be on stage and so had to sit through the support acts. First on was R&B also-ran Ciara, who had boundless energy but was a little swamped in the middle of the huge, round stage and, sadly, did a minimum of singing over a thudding backing vocal. The girl next to me asked if I was excited about seeing Britney. I had to admit I wasn’t that bothered and had only come along for the cheap tickets. I’d meant it to be a kind of joke, but the girl- I say girl, she was in her mid-twenties- took considerable offence and switched seats, which caused me no end of amusement.

When Britney finally appeared on stage, the crowd went wild and while the show had plenty of spectacle and the music sounded good, she mimed the whole thing, which no doubt wasn’t a problem if you were stageside but those of us up in the Gods had difficulty connecting with her, knowing that she was twirling around to a tape. She occasionally ‘spoke’ to the audience but knowing her she probably lip-synched that too. It was a bit like watching one of those dolls with a string hanging out of her back that you pull to make it talk. I wonder who does hold Britney’s strings these days. She did her fair share of dancing, despite performing the first three songs being dragged in a shopping trolley, but to me live should mean live, and I almost felt sorry for the Britney maniacs who come back night after night, spending all their wages watching her move her mouth.

As usual, I drank too much and managed to piss off the two girls at the end of my row with my constant trips to the bar. The actual highlight of the concert wasn’t related to Britney at all. Four girls who’d got £5 tickets and were sitting near us were approached by a member of the production team to see if they wanted to sit in a better seat. They naturally agreed, and were shown to luxury couches at the very edge of the stage, where they would be nose to nipple with their idol. Absolutely free. Watching them whooping it up, screaming and generally losing their shit at their good fortune totally made my night and was much more compelling than the dead-eyed pop princess strutting her stuff.

Jungle fever

  • Jun. 15th, 2009 at 9:33 PM
meb&w
 I am supposed to be preparing a presentation for a second interview that I’ve got in 2 days and, as inspiration is not forthcoming, I have been doing anything but what I should be doing.

 

I’ve managed to catch some of the new US version of I’m A Celebrity… Get Me Out Of Here! and have found it wonderfully bizarre. Firstly, you don’t really have to be that famous in America to get on it. Janice Dickinson, runner-up in the UK a couple of years ago, is back for more here. While she is relatively entertaining in her other million reality shows, she doesn’t really shine in this format, whingeing and looking increasingly like she’s been left under the grill too long. She’s supposed to be rough and tough but welches out of challenges at the drop of a hat. I can’t believe she’s agreed to do the show again; her pay packet must be huge. The main highlight has been my introduction to Heidi Montag and husband Spencer Pratt. I’ve never watched The Hills, the show that propelled them to fame, but from what I understand it is a ‘scripted reality’ show. I think that means its participants are pretending to be in a docusoap but are actually faking it, the kind of behaviour that would have you hauled over the calls on an anti-sleaze ticket in the UK, but is absolutely fine in the US. Imagine if Ken and Barbie found God and you’d be halfway there with the Montag-Pratts. They’re in turns bouncy and clinically depressed, facing every hardship with utterings of prayers. Heidi, a wannabe popstar, was asked to sing a song from her album for the jungle crew. The resulting tuneless warble was met with derision from Janice, who received a dressing down from hubby Spencer who urged a bemused Janice not to make him ‘spence out’. Sadly, the shiny-toothed pair have now left the jungle thanks to Heidi contracting a vomiting bug. As stick-thin Heidi only usually vomits after a meal, the bosses figured something was up and the world’s worst advert for evangelical Christians slipped off our screens, much to the relief of the other also-rans. I hear that Heidi’s sister Holly has taken her place, so I’ll be tuning in to see if she’s just as jelly-brained.

 

I’m just half-watching that Giles Coren and Sue Perkins show where they ‘live’ in a different decade and eat food particular to that period. In this edition, somewhat pointlessly, they’re tacking that bygone era that is, er, the 1980s. Watching them ooh and aah over foods like Stella Artois, potato waffles and the like feels like a very empty experience. Unless you’re about 15, the menus don’t have the ‘ick’ factor that previous series would have done, thus rendering the programme a waste of time as no teenager would want to sit and watch this middle-class drivel. One scene had Giles going into Pret A Manger, for fuck’s sake. Gosh, nobody does that these days, do they? How odd!

 

One more TV gripe before I pretend to get on with some work: Andie MacDowell. Aside from these endless L’Oréal adverts, where she plugs anti-ageing cream (I wonder if it dials the plastic surgeon for you), does she actually do any acting? How would she find the time? She must film a new one every day. 

Not so sweet charity

  • Jun. 2nd, 2009 at 11:12 PM
meb&w
Formidable retail ogress Mary Portas is back on our screens with her Mary Queen of Shops show, but instead of haranguing provincial boutique owners into ditching the leatherette jackets in favour of the latest trends, she's taking on the mild-mannered volunteers who staff the nation's charity shops.

Charity shops' heyday seems to have been and gone. Students are more likely to be clicking their way to a secondhand bargain online than rummaging through the flower power fabrics down at Oxfam. That eBay has usurped charity shops as a place for getting rid of unwanted possessions seems to have passed Mary by in her new show. I was practically shouting at the TV as she repeatedly expressed her bemusement that nobody was donating their best bits and bobs in the midst of a recession. "They're flogging everything online, Mary!" I wanted to yelp. "Log on and see for yourself." In the days where anything older than two seasons is 'vintage' and snapped up by ironic haircut-sporting trash enthusiasts with their own market stall, charity shops are being left with the sodden rugby boots, poo-stained knickers and crispy cardigans that would otherwise languish at the bottom of the dustbin.

Mary's steely approach usually works when she's lambasting a poodle-permed clothes shop owner in Cheadle, but when up against a silver-haired volunteer in Orpington, Mary looked less like the saviour of modern retail and more like a grimacing care worker, tweaking the cheeks of the obstinate grannies and giving them nicknames that for the first 89 years of their lives they managed to do without.

Mary's main hindrance was the hapless area manager of the Save the Children store that Mary was charged with rescuing. Clueless, grasping and powerless, Nick tried valiantly to persuade Mary that he was of some use, but la Portas was far from convinced. A stand-off in the shop over the state of the stock room left the area manager mourning the loss of his balls. A key part of Mary's masterplan was to turn the kindly volunteers into salespeople. One scene at a market stall, where Mary had charged the white hair brigade with flogging designer cupcakes made for slightly uncomfortable viewing as Brenda, a longstanding volunteer, thought of every excuse possible not to have to talk to customers or handle the goods. There was a positive outcome as Brenda turned into a market trader in a matter of minutes (in the edit at least), but it seemed that Mary, no doubt the very opposite of a wall flower most her life, didn't seem to want to accept that some people, especially little old ladies, prefer the shadows.

Even if Mary's retail rottweiler act seems a little at odds with the superannuated sales crew, it's fantastic to have her back on telly. I can't remember the last time I left a charity shop with anything other than paperback novel or maybe at a push a semi-interesting tie; can Mary's rag and bone revolution sweep the country? At the end of the first episode, there were a few tears from Mary, although she may have been peeling an onion under her desk; I couldn't quite see.
 

 

Are you being served?

  • Apr. 29th, 2009 at 6:17 PM
feet, tube
 I'm not beautiful. I'm never going to be stopped in the street and offered million dollar modelling contracts and passers-by do not salivate as their gaze falls upon my face. I am passable: I have good days and bad days and generally look OK. I have good haircuts and wear nice clothes and am clean and that helps. On the whole, I feel pretty good about the way I look. That is until I go shopping and enter the surrealist retail experience that is Abercrombie and Fitch. I first went in there with my other half as we killed time before a dinner reservation in the pop-up restaurant they had in the Royal Academy. I had heard of A&F before- tales of bare cocks and homo-erotic poses in catalogues had reached my ears- but I wasn't quite prepared for what I would find inside.

Clothes are somewhat secondary, indeed almost unnecessary, to the A&F experience. As you enter the store you'll be greeted by a man with no shirt on. Well, I say man, but you don't often see men who look like this in real life. They usually belong in comics or aftershave adverts. A tummy so flat you could iron on it, defined pecs and ripples in all the right places. Toned, tanned and what you would probably call handsome if you liked your men to look as if they were created in a scientific experiment, this man's job is to stand in the doorway in a pair of jeans. This is his job. Sometimes, he will have a female model next to him. She will have perky breasts, porcelain teeth and a healthy glowing tan. They really are there; this is not a mirage. Mostly, however, no-shirt man will be alone, save for hysterical German teenage girls hanging off them having their picture taken. No-shirt man carries a Polaroid camera for this purpose. Acting as doormen will be two shop assistants, the very definition of all-American teens.

Inside, pounding and tacky Europop thuds hypnotically as you try to make your way through the store. The lights are turned down to stop you noticing how boring the clothes are: Gap-style sweats and miserable polo shirts in every washed-out shade you can imagine. But nobody is looking at the clothes. It's the shop assistants who catch you eye. Every single one of them is perfect. Perfection doesn't necessarily mean that they are all blessed with model looks. Even those with quirky teeth and squished noses look perfect, as if they were meant to look that way.Whereas a big nose can look like a deformity on the 'outside world', within the confines of A&F, and when teamed with silky-smooth skin and an A&F polo shirt, it looks like a large hooter was God's plan all along.

I've been back a few times, which makes me feel unbelievably voyeuristic, but I can't help myself. There's something quite comforting about the kind of hotness on display at Abercrombie and Fitch: it's not threatening or derisory in any way. It makes me wistful, both for the youth that I did once have and the striking good looks that, sadly, I didn't. I can't bring myself to feel envious because, when all is said and done, they are working in a shop that sells shit, overpriced clothes to idiots and have to flirt and smile at ugly bastards all day when really all they want to be doing is... well, I don't know, but I imagine it's something else. They may be beautiful, but I never feel particularly attracted to any of them: they're oddly sexless in a way that very precisely perfect people often are.

If you ever find yourself at the end of Savile Row, why not pop in and see for yourself? You don't even have to pretend to be looking at the clothes; they know what you've come for.

NB: There are actually a few ugly ones, but even they have really good skin, nice hair and great 'bodies'.

Scot the difference

  • Apr. 16th, 2009 at 1:34 PM
feet, tube
 I’m on a train on my way back into England after spending a week in Carnoustie, Scotland with my dad and his wife. Being unemployed has given me a brand new luxury to enjoy: time. So with all this time to spare and very few jobs on the horizon able to fill it, it seemed like a perfect opportunity to head up north and do my duty as a good son and visit both of my parents. I’m on the way to Mum’s now.

I lived in Scotland for quite a few years so I don’t get any particular ‘culture shock’ when I go up there. My dad moved to Carnoustie about two years ago from Dundee (shudder) and he really loves it. It’s not hard to see why. There’s a great beach which I ran on every day (this may seem like I’m a healthy person but I had to do this to overcome the guilt of eating nothing but big, huge dinners every day), people are, on the whole, friendly (even the teenage binge drinkers on the street corners!) and everybody seems a bit more laidback. On my morning runs, I was most surprised to find everybody I encountered smiling and saying hello to me. Most of my runs took place quite early in the morning and not everybody had a dog with them so while I was deeply suspicious about what such people might be doing on the beach at that hour, I appreciated the sentiment.

Golf is the big thing in Carnoustie and it’s quite hard to get away from. Naturally, I am allergic to anything remotely sporty so I didn't play myself but it was quite nice to see both young and old having a round together. God, I must be getting old.

A visit to the shop with my dad was quite an experience. He was on TV recently and most of the town seemed to have seen his appearance. Greeted at the local Spar like Paris Hilton, the women behind the counter sat rapt as my dad very patiently went through the ins and outs of his brief brush with fame for what must have been the hundredth time. The fact you can’t deny is that in Carnoustie everybody knows everybody. I like visiting Scotland, but I couldn’t live there again. I like the anonymity and ‘glamma’ that only London can furnish.

I head now to Yorkshire where things are decidedly different. Where my mum lives, strangers do not say hello to each other and there is nary a strip of green to run on. I’d probably be mugged, anyway.

Shame shame shame

  • Mar. 25th, 2009 at 9:30 PM
meb&w
Channel 4 is halfway through showing the latest series of Shameless, it’s sixth I believe. I struggle hard to think of a show worse than this one. Like its C4 stablemate Skins, it is a wild fantasy about a certain demographic. Whereas Skins holds a microscope up to a wildly unrealistic group of teens, Shameless turns its gaze towards society’s other big, bad wolf: the working classes.

When Shameless first began, reviewers in the broadsheets fell over themselves to heap praise upon it, congratulating its creator, Paul Abbott, on his depictions of a working class family on a rough estate in Greater Manchester. This was no warts-and-all portrayal, like much of Abbott’s other work, this was a comedy drama, with petty crimes, drugs and violence interspersed with jokes and slapstick situations. Despite the fact I’d grown up on a council estate, I couldn’t identify with it at all. Earlier series may have had a certain charm, but six years down the line and the show has descended into a ridiculous parody of itself. It’s hard to believe that anyone who writes for the show even knows where their nearest council estate is, let alone visits it in the name of research. Just as Dynasty and Dallas told us that all there was to running an oil business was walking in and out of palatial rooms wearing shoulder pads, Shameless appears to be trying to say that all there is to living on a council estate is fucking someone, getting fucked on drugs or getting fucked over by someone.

Its depiction of large families pretends to give it heart, but in fact there’s something quite snide about the whole family dynamic. Women in the show are mainly scripted with contempt: they’re playthings for the men or bad mothers or loudmouthed harridans, while the majority of the men have a ball and do what they like. Perhaps this is a reaction to the prevalence of ‘strong women’ in British soap operas, maybe writers of northern working class drama feel it’s time for men to have the upper hand but when the women are as two-dimensional as this, it feels like a very empty evening up of the scores. The matriarch of the main family, the Gallaghers, was absent for the first couple of series having abandoned her brood to the care of her eldest daughter. So far, so normal. On her return, with her lesbian lover (of course!) she has wavered between a saintly Mother Earth and the whore of Babylon. One minute she is devoted to her husband (a drunk loser) the next she is using sexual favours in return for getting her car fixed. Her most recent exploit was to have sex with a social services inspector in an effort to prevent her family being broken up, on the misunderstanding that her husband had asked her to do this. His reaction on realising what she’d done was horror and disgust, despite him having been nuts-deep in a practical stranger in the pub toilets only a few scenes previously. Scriptwriters will probably argue that they’re complex characters; I reckon someone’s got ‘mother’ issues.

The show that claims to hold a mirror up to council estate dwellers was even reported by most newspapers to have been imitated by the real deal: Karen Matthews and her family were rumoured to have been inspired by a kidnap plot on Shameless when concocting their own futile plan involving young Shannon. Whether this turned out to be the case, I don’t know, but the reactions of newscasters reporting on the story from the sink estate in Dewsbury that the Matthews family called home betrayed what they were thinking: 'these people are scum'. Whither the hilarious antics of Frank Gallagher now, eh? Not so much fun once you get into the thick of it, I suppose. No cutaways to someone downing three pills and a bottle of Thunderbird to rescue you from the harsh realities of non-fiction.

Sex plays an important part in the way the programme is desperate to show us what a great time the working classes are having. In earlier series, there were the obligatory couple of bedroom scenes per episodes. Fast forward a while and Shameless is obsessed with it. Barely a scene goes by without someone disrobing. Cock seems to have taken the place of plot, satisfying all those chav and scally fantasies of the broadsheet readers under the guise of primetime drama. Well, everyone likes a bit of rough, don’t they? Don’t they?

Despite my misgivings, the show remains fairly popular across most demographics. Perhaps Jarvis Cocker was right when he sang about Common People that just “dance and drink and screw, because there’s nothing else to do”. There certainly isn’t much more to Shameless, that’s for sure.

Shop local

  • Mar. 13th, 2009 at 3:32 PM
feet, tube


You see some odd things on breakfast television. It’s news, but not as we know it. Whereas news or current affairs programmes shown later in the day seem to be serious and stern and hard on facts, breakfast TV news is heavy on gossip and light on evidence, coherent argument or, indeed, point. I understand that in the morning people don’t want to be bombarded with the full misery only a proper news bulletin can bring, but when you’re watching the televisual equivalent of a Daily Mail annual it can become quite disturbing.

I watched with interest the other morning as one of the programmes featured a story about parking spaces. The premise was that while we were being urged to ‘shop local’ to save the economy, councils were making this impossible thanks to the distinct lack of parking spaces or, for those spaces that were present, astronomical fees to use them. The article used Bournemouth as a case study. Having lived near enough in the past to Bournemouth to visit it, I couldn’t see why anybody would want to drive there at all. Surely you’d want to delay your arrival as much as possible? The reporter stood stony-faced in front of ‘local’ shops like, er, JD Sports and Topshop decrying the local council for not turning vast swathes of the town into parking spaces. Talking head after talking head said that the only way to stimulate the beleaguered economy was to slash parking prices. The ‘action’ then moved to a retail park some way out of Bournemouth, filled with gleeful shoppers parking their gas-guzzling planet-murdering wagons in a plethora of free parking spaces. Among the shops were the usual Boots, H&M, Next and Wallis that you see on the high street.

I found myself confused. I thought the big idea now, as well as shopping locally, was to take public transport. Congestion charges, fuel taxes and non-stop lobbying on programmes like this very breakfast news I was watching, have all indicated that driving is evil and is causing the downfall of Earth. Now, when the ability of some git to transport his Debenhams carrier bags home safely is at stake, the very councils who try to discourage cars coming into town centres -by making parking difficult, for example- become the demons.

Lugging shopping home can be a pain in the arse, yes, oh people of Bournemouth, but if you can’t get a parking space why not take the bus? Either that or shop really locally and buy everything from your corner shop.