Kay Burley. The Complete Ginger Tosspot.

Kay Burley. What a complete ginger tosspot.

Obviously I’m all for opinions, it’s why I do this after all. The thing is, there’s having opinions and then there’s writing contentious bollocks merely to provoke debate. Kay Burley, the complete ginger tosspot, only does the latter.

I’m referring of course, to her comments regarding Wayne Bridge, John Terry and the handshake that never was, where she chastised Bridges failure to accept Terry’s handshake, and accused him of losing the moral high ground.

That’s right, according to Kay Burley, the complete ginger tosspot, it is now possible to lose the moral high ground by not shaking the hand of the odious, self obsessed, serial cheating twunt who was once your captain and the more recently was giving one to your missus.

I think not Kay Burley, you complete ginger tosspot.

Let’s get this straight; if Wayne Bridge had put John Terry rear end first onto the Stamford Bridge turf, he’d still have occupied the moral high ground. If he’d have found the chance to launch a two footed lunge somewhere around crotch height at his tormentor, he’d have still retained the moral high ground, despite the obvious risk of brain damage to JT.

It’s not just me that thinks that thank God. A quick flick through the comments page on Kay Burley, the complete ginger tosspot’s blog, showed a unanimous panning of her post. Which therefore begs the question; why say it? Could it be possible that Kay Burley, the complete ginger tosspot, has as much common sense as JT has morals? Or is there another explanation?

Could it be that the bosses at Sky have handed their writers the mandate to promote debate and discussion on their site via the have your say option, thanks to the outlandish nature of the original article? Possibly, but anyone familiar with the usual servings from the contributors to these sections of the Sky News site, will know that there only ever exists a tenuous link between the original article, and the half baked response furiously written by some salivating fool, eager to shoe horn in their dislike for Gordon Brown, Muslims, and homosexuals. In fact all Burley, the complete ginger tosspot, did, was create Sky News’s first ever thread where the over-riding feeling wasn’t one of scary, misguided, right wing views.

What this was then was a massive swing and a miss by someone who was too foolish to see the ridicule she would receive, and to tactless not to make them in the first place. For further reading on that last point, see Kay Burley, the complete ginger tosspot, interviewing Peter Andre, and becoming the second woman inside of twelve months to make him look sympathetic to the viewing audience.

With credentials like that, perhaps John Terry should organise a threesome with Jordan, and Kay Burley. The complete ginger tosspot.

Britain; a nation sick with democracy.

This week, as we celebrate the lives of the brave men and women who have died in the name of this country, who have protected you, me, our ancestors, and who will continue to protect our offspring, we waived our interest in that most important of rights; democracy.

I am of course talking about the X-Factor and the furore concerning Simon Cowell’s decisions on Sunday night.

I’m not a big X-Factor fan, however, I live with people who are, and as such get the chance to see the show on occasions, and find it nigh on impossible to avoid the week long discussions that it produces, and whilst the content might not be my thing, I have nothing but respect for a concept that has completely taken over the weekends broadcasting schedules, and has become the most talked about show this year.

Even those of us you who detest the show will be aware of the twins “Jedward,” a pair of Irish lads full of enthusiasm, lacking in talent, and in need of a couple of doses of Ritalin. They’re probably the most hated act to ever appear on the show, and whilst other novelty acts such as Chico shared their shortcomings in the vocal department, they were carried by charisma, something Jedward must have left on the Ryanair flight over. The problem for the viewing public, was that despite their shortcomings, someone somewhere was voting to keep Jedward in the show, and with Robbie Williams ‘fessing up to voting for them this week, it’s a good indicator of the sort of people who are.

The frustration was evident as protest groups sprang up the length and breadth of Facebook, as cyber warriors vowed never to watch the show again till they were gone, before tuning in in record numbers just to see if this was the week that they went. And this week, it so nearly was...
When the rigmarole of the Sunday public vote was over Jedward sat in the bottom two with Lucie, a young singer with a big voice, and now it was up to the judges to send home the worse act. Louis of course wanted to keep the boys in, they are after all, his act, and they’re also Irish. And boys. And twins.

Tweedy-dee and Tweedy-dum voted them out and all that was left was for Simon Cowell to wield the axe and let the British public savour the moment of watching two Irish hearts shattering live on TV. He didn’t however. What he did was put the show into “deadlock,” by voting for Lucie, and thus putting the decision in the hands of the British public, who in turn, booted out Lucie and kept the twins.

And this is where things went a little silly.

The papers and the public spent much of Monday lambasting Cowell for “saving” Jedward, and voting out Lucie, but, hold on a moment.I thought the British public did that? Let me just check...

No, I was right, Lucie was removed by the public vote, not by Cowell’s. Not that seems to have registered with everyone, especially the 3000 people who complained to ITV, and the 750 people so incensed by it all, that they went to OFCOM. But what exactly where they incensed about? After all, the notion that the contest is fixed is preposterous. For me, a fix is when the result that was supposed to happen, is overruled or cancelled out, and that didn’t happen here. The correct result when taken over a cross section of the country, was for Lucie to go and the terrible twins to stay. It might not be the result some wanted, it might not be the result a lot of people wanted, but in the voting system employed by the show, it was the correct result.

Let’s put this in a way that even those at the bottom of the class could understand. I hope.

If we had an election, and the Tories came to power, and David Cameron wandered up to Buckingham Palace to ask the Queen’s permission to form a government, but the Queen decided that the British public had dropped a bollock on it, she could of course decide to appoint her own Prime Minister. And what do you think would happen then? Other than, pure chaos?
And yet with this current situation, the British people have admitted their own failure to act responsibly. In blaming Cowell for this, they’re actually blaming themselves. They’re questioning the very concept of democracy, of allowing people the vote, simply because they don’t agree with the choice they make.

Personally, I don’t agree with anyone who votes for the BNP, and there appears to be a growing number who are happy to do so. But would I be happy to see the Queen dissolve a government should they ever reach power? No. I wouldn’t want their government, but what would scare me even more would be the abolition of democracy. In life it’s important to accept that decisions are made that you don’t agree with, and some that are downright wrong, but as long as these decisions are made in the right and proper way, they have to stand. The thing is, the X-Factor thing isn’t downright wrong, it’s insignificant and inconsequential to everything, bar the Christmas number one.

It reeks therefore, of the selfishness that people can display at times. That spoilt attitude that exists whereby they feel they have the right to complain, just because someone dare express a view that doesn’t agree with theirs. Those people who have took the time out to make official complaints will probably not understand the implied meaning of the actions, but when you break down what they’re saying, then it’s a complaint about democracy, and the freedoms that our society allows. And whilst people didn’t die on the beaches of Normandy for their right to vote on the X-Factor, a vote is still a powerful tool, and to complain about people’s use of their vote is an affront to society, and an affront to those who’ve died in wars gone by.

In this case however, it’s also very, very funny to see people’s need to get so bent out of shape over something that ultimately won’t mean anything to them in a couple of months. Jedward won’t win the X-Factor, and if they do, then it’ll be because people voted for them to win. Lucie wasn’t going to either, the voting this week clearly shows that, so why cry foul? In fact why blame Cowell. True he’s created this pantomime villain persona throughout the shows history, but in this occasion is he really the villain?

For my money, no. The real panto villain is the voting public. And for the moment Jedward, they’re still behind you.

ITV - TV for idiots, by idiots.

It's time for the government to take a stand and declare that all sport, no matter how trivial or frivolous must only be broadcast on the BBC, because it's painfully obvious to any sport lover, that the cretins at ITV aren't capable of putting together a good broadcast.

To prove my case, let us focus on the debacle that was tonights Champions League fixture between Manchester United and Porto. It's still on now, but such is the incredulous ignimony of the show, I've switched off and have decided to vent.

It'd probably be crass of me to catalogue the error strewn show. I like crass.

The first half was standard fare for Tyldesley and Pleat who lapped up the obvious comparison between the poor Man Utd first half, and the last ten minutes of their game at the weekend. There was no mention of the first 80 minutes of dross that had accompanied that performance, nor the fact that this was United's second game in two days, they merely wanted to revel in the teams ordinariness.

Of course, the pair of them couldn't help but note the Porto centre-forward's nickname of Hulk. Like a pair of giggling schoolboys comic book references flowed, as clever Clive called him "incredible," before launching into a back story about Lou Ferrigno, and Gamma Ray's from sun spots. Clearly someone had done his wiki research. The pair of them questioned the validity of having nicknames for footballers, and how long it would be before the idea caught on over here. I wonder what Pele and Socrates et al might have made of it all?

Comparisons were drawn between Ferguson and his opposite number Jesualdo Ferreira, which launched the two of them into a commentary on the age of the managers still left in the competition. Pleat remarked that there were no "caretakers in there," but I suppose that could be a valid point depending on how you view Hiddink's temporary appointment at Chelsea.

The half time analysis was an exercise in stating the obvious, before Steve Ryder invited the question of how United could change things. Rather than allow Sheringham or Townsend the chance to answer, and possibly make fools of themselves, they cut to an ad break during which the ginger chap from Game On, now starring in an Enterprise Rent-a-car ad urged his Mother to the radio on. Perhaps I should have done the same.

The second half started with news from Gabriel Clarke that the Porto manager had pointed at his keeper in the tunnel. Que in depth psychoanalytical skills all round with Clarke joining in suggesting that this clearly meant that he had no faith in his keeper following a series of blunders. Much back slapping abounded when said keeper made two smart stops, as Pleat and Tyldesley basked in the knowledge that they had imparted the reason why he was making those saves.

Pleat as ever was tripping over names as Tevez flicked a ball on to Tevez, and the hitherto unheard of Leandro took to the field in the place of Lisandro. Even when he got the name right, he got the stat wrong. Hulk had, he claimed proudly, got a record of a goal every other game in Europe this year. In truth his record is more none at all.

"This has been one of the best games in the Champions League" Pleat enthused. Quite what Liverpool fans would make of that following their thumping of Real I don't know. Or Bayern fans after their comprehensive last round tie. Or those who witnessed United's 4 - 3 thriller with Real a few years back.

He wasn't stopped with the gems there. When United took the lead he proclaimed that they'd "faced a tough test and risen to the occasion," just a mere minute before Porto equalised. Chances are that he won't be winning tomorrow's double roll over lottery draw.

As the clock ticked down a Porto player went off with a bloodied nose. "Porto have used all three subs," remarked Tyldesley, before Pleat added: "He'll need to hurry back on then." A minute later Porto replaced the injured player with their third substitute, but who needs maths in football anyway?

I didn't stick around for the post match analysis. If there was a choice of providers, ITV would never get my choice. They're the thin end of the wedge, and not just when it comes to the Champions League. Their FA Cup package has been nothing but patronising to everyone outside of the top 4, with the exception of their online content, for which I give them massive kudos.

The BBC's triumphant return to broadcasting the Formula One has been greeted in the way it should have been, with open arms. And ask yourself this, could you imagine the Olympics on ITV? Or the National? Or Wimbledon? Nothing would scare me more.

For this reason alone I get angry when I see people complaining about having to pay the licence fee. I'd happily pay more to keep sport of this channel.

Goody madness might make Parky a Pariah

Let's make sure that throughout this blog, if we're reading it, we managed to keep our brains in gear. If you're going to get all knee jerk on me, then I don't really want, nor need your type in here, so perhaps it's best you stop here and go back to your tabloid as there's probably something in there that will incite the necessary anger you need to make it through your day.

Those of you who's IQ isn't measured in just tens, please feel free to carry on as I celebrate the first piece of common sense that has been unleashed on the nation since the news of Jade Goody's illness was broken.

I am of course going to have to qualify this whole article, as is the need these days, by saying that yes it was a tragic shame that someone my age should lose their life so early. God knows, I'd hate to find myself in her shoes. And I also stand up and applaud the way she went and made her illness public knowledge; there is no doubting that through that she has saved lives, but that is the one and only good thing she has ever done for anyone bar herself and her own.

Parkinson was shrewd in what he said. He both praised and slighted Jade in what he said, but he never once laid the blame at her feet. It wouldn't be possible too in fairness. Jade was a puppet of the media, as a large part of the British public also seem to be. Jade was everyone's favourite panto villain. "Kebab" brandishing thicko racist pig faced chav one minute, princess of Essex the next. The switch in her character as portrayed by the red tops was nothing short of Jekyll and Hyde-esque in it's schizophrenia.

The problem Parky will face, is that he is the first to have the minerals to say it, and it appears that being one of the most respected and well love broadcasters in British television history is scant defence when talking about someone who's best claim to fame was not winning a talent contest, before trying again and being a little bit racist. And being hated by everyone.

The backlash has begun. Those with memories shorter than their sleeves are chastising Parkinson for his "emotionally unintelligent" comments. And yes, I still don't quite know what that means. He has fallen in the estimation of others, which is even more worrying when you consider the high point of their estimation seems to be someone who publically racially bullied someone on national television. It's no wonder then, that the BNP seems to gain more and more popularity if people like Goody are held in high esteem.

There are even those who have said that at least "Goody went out at the top, unlike Parky." If being on Indian Big Brother was the top, as opposed to a forty year career in broadcasting, followed by a dignified retiremtnt, then God help anyone in the public eye. It once again shows that these people simply don't know what they're passing comment on, and that their knee jerk fiery reactions only serve to stoke the smiles of the faceless hacks who seek to build and destroy people at the tap of a keyboard.

There are of course voices of support for Parky which perhaps should restore some faith in the way people view the media, but it's clear to someone like me, who went into this area with wide eyed expectation that everyone was savvy enough to form their own opinions, that this isn't the case. A lot of people simply aren't smart enough to read between the lines, to form their own opinions. Forgive me for being a tad melodramatic, but it's all beginning to feel a little bit like Big Brother and newspeak controlling the Proles.

What we really need to remember however, is that never before has their been such a strong example of the way in which the British public are puppets for the media as Jade Goody. It should send shivers down the spines of all free thinking and intelligent people in this nation, it should also send us scampering for the exits.

Name and shame the nine

If you have something to say, then you should say it. I believe that wholeheartedly. I'm a proponent of free speech, and hold particular sway with the words of Voltaire, in that "I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write."

There are of course opinions I disagree with. I don't need however to stamp down on peoples access to voice these opinions. I am capable of holding my own in discourse, and getting my point across, and also compromising where there is a compromise to be found. I know sometimes as well, that I will be the one who expresses an opinion that others disagree with, that might not be popular, but I'll stand by it. I won't hide behind pseudonyms like some childish cyber warrior, I'll say what I have to and be damned for it if needs be. Which brings me to the crux of this particular rant.

Last month, the BBC appointed Cerrie Burnell to host 'Do and Discover' on the CBeebies channel. Cerrie is an actress who's enjoyed success both on TV and the stage prior to her appointment, so her credentials cannot be called ino question. What has been called into question however, is if she is suitable to be on children's TV.

Cerrie's problem it seems, is that she was born with just one arm. Obviously this has not hampered her drive, ambition or talent, as she has strived to forge a career, but what it has hampered is peoples conceptions.

On the BBC forum there have been posts suggesting that Cerrie might scare children, even one who worried that it would cause their child to have nightmares and could have "possibly caused sleep problems," for the kid. There has also been the cynical suggestion that appointment was only borne from political correctness, and done to show the Beeb in a good light.

Not content with airing their concerns there however, there have been nine official complaints made to the BBC. That's nine people who found themselves so incensed that they had to actively get in touch with the channel, presumably with the end aim of removing Ms. Burnell from her job, after all, if that wasn't their intent, what was?

I've always believed that as viewers, as consumers of the media we have a choice what we watch, which is why for the large part, I disagree with people complaining about things on the telly that don't appeal to their individual tastes. In this case then, the parents should simply have stopped their children watching the programme. It would of course then become their responsibility to explain why, and I've no doubt them telling their children "You can't watch it, she's only got one arm," would have been out of the question as it would have highlighted the foolishness of their stance.

This to me is beyond appalling. Society today is supposed to be understanding of affliction, of disability, and of so many other things that go into making the human race a varied and intriguing bunch. How can people declared fit to bring up children, think it's fit to hold such prejudicial views. What is it that has scared their children, and more importantly, what is it that has scared them?

In this case, I don't believe there will have been many children who have been that affected by this, if at all any. We often forget that children are a hell of a lot more resilient than we'd like to give them credit for. Even if they were scared, then we should remember kids get scared of a lot of things. A sensible parent will explain to their child the irrationality of their fear. They will attempt to ease it, to confront it, rather than remove it and let it lie dormant. This is what these parents have so gloriously failed to do. They have failed in their repsonsibility to their children, in their duties as parents.

What should happen now however, is that these parents should take credit for their complaints. The BBC should be given the power to list the names of every complainant that gets in touch, starting with these nine half wits. If they have the gumption to try and get a woman sacked for nothing more than being disabled, then they should be willing to stand up and take the flack for their shortsightedness and their militant discrimination.

Either that, or they should be forced to watch the Paralympics. That should cause enough fear in them to enduce a good sized heart attack.

Please be quiet, you're having too much fun.

Now, I hate the PC brigade as much as the next guy. I’m of that stereotypical view that there are people out there who want nothing more than for everyone to conform to a Victorian manner of thinking, and by that I mean scowl at any one who smiles, pray to a vengeful merciless and terrible God, and secretly sodomise the maid/kids.

That may of course be fun to some, and I’m also of the opinion that you should be considerate in your actions. However a little piece of modern Britain caught my eye this week, and to me it summed up the terrible state of affairs we find ourselves in.

A letter has surfaced on the internet that purports to be from Sue Watson. Sue is the Chief Safety Officer at Middlesbrough FC, a title she no doubt earned by being a diligent, studious sort, and paying close attention to all the many things that can hurt and harm you. She was probably bombarded on multiple courses with all kinds of things that some people may find offensive, and like a form of Chinese water torture, this has clearly left her dazed and confused.

Need clarification? Read the letter I’ve linked to here. The shockingly patronising piece of bilge that has apparently been sent to supporters of Middlesbro’, in which she asks for them to keep the noise down.

Perhaps Sue’s last job was as a chief safety officer of a library, were keeping the noise down would have been a high priority, alongside paper-cuts, and nasty coffee stains. You would think however, that now working in a football stadium, noise control would be the last of her problems. In fact, it wouldn’t be a problem.

I have never in my life known a football club discourage noise in a stadium. I have also never known supporters discourage noise, other than air horns, which are the play things of the sort of people who need to command the attention, but have neither the wit nor charm to do it themselves. So for her to suggest that the “constant noise is driving some fans mad,” beggars belief, and even if such complaints did exist, then it’s tantamount to someone going to a dog show and complaining about the barking.

I’ve been to The Riverside Stadium. I went there when my beloved Nuneaton Boro took them to a replay in the FA Cup, and despite getting beat, we made a hell of a lot of noise that day, and I thoroughly enjoyed my trip. I also really enjoyed and appreciated the welcome from the Middlesbro’ fans. I even saved a number of comments made by them praising us on their website, and to this day it still makes me beam with pride when I read them back, so they do have a fond place in my heart. For their fans to be treated so shoddily by their club appals me.

I hope Middlesbro’ reprimand Sue Watson for her clearly ill thought out letter. In fact, I hope they remove her from her job. She clearly has little to no understanding about what it is to be a football fan. I also hope every Middlesbro’ fan who receives this letter from her, returns it to the sender, with a rather blunt suggestion of where she should file it.

America - I take it back.

Hold the front pages. America, I have a confession. For a very long time now, probably around about eight years to be fair, I have been a staunch critic of most things American.

It's not that I dislike Americans. Far from it. Pretty much all the Americans I've ever met have been genuine, friendly people. It's that it has been the popular option for anyone outside of America to hate America. After all, every evil perpetrated on the world became their fault once they elected that monkey to office. To be fair, for that act of stupidity they deserved scorn.

Now however, Bush is gone, and we live in the age of Obama, a man whose reputation has him built up like some kind of marauding Jedi Knight here to save us. His name kinda sounds Jedi too.

So therefore the cool thing to do, is no longer slag off the Yanks. That in mind then, this last Sunday night I settled down with a couple of cold ones for my first ever Superbowl, and oh boy, did I enjoy it!

The whole thing is a massive spectacle. This is not just about the game itself, like the FA Cup final over here is, but more a celebration of the American ideals and way of life. It's a true display of pagentary, in a country often derided for its lack of history. The thing is, knock them all you want for having very little of it, what they do have they're damn proud of.

The presentation of hero of the hour Chelsey "Sully" Sullenberger and his flight crew, who had only last week saved the lives of 155 passengers and countless others on the ground by landing their plane on the Hudson River, should be a reminder to any nation that's shy to praise it's heroes. Over here we chastise our celebrities, look for any reason to detest and despise them. Over there, they champion people. Would we have seen a presentation of a similar hero at any English sporting event? No. Should we? Probably yes. Sullenberger is, without question, a hero. People like that deserve our adulation and praise, and America gets that. Over here, we'd be moaning about people's luggage being ruined, and the possibility he might have swore a little on the descent.

There was also the appearance of Jennifer Hudson, who's family had befallen such terrible tragedy at the back end of '08, and she was met with the sort of dignified and rousing respect she deserved. Again, America's conscience came through trumps.

There was of course a lot mention for America's troops abroad. America, like Britain is a country full of people who questioned the right to invade both Iraq and Afghanistan. America however, is a country that supports its troops without question. A country that understands that it's boys have a job to do, for right or wrong, and again hails them as heroes, be they dead or alive. We're only interested in doing that if they come home in a body bag. It's that sick, mournful nature we've adopted post Diana, that only the dead are worthy of our compassion.

But the main draw for me, was the game. I had no grasp of American football. I've never watched it. I'm not of the opinion that it's a game for poofs and pansies, padded to the hilt. I've seen the injuries if inflicts from my Uni days, when a number of very good friends were part of the American Football Team, and each week a different lad would come hobbling in on crutches to the bar with some sort of spiral fracture up the leg.

The game however, I had no idea about. I knew it was a bit like Rugby, but was daunted to be honest that it might go over me. It didn't. It's relatively simple. You have a certain amount of attempts to reach a certain distance, and ultimately the end zone. If you don't, posession swaps hands. You can of course steal the ball to win posession, but in essence that's it. Easy.

It's compelling viewing as well. Wonderfully tactical, but at the same time brutal in the upmost, it's the closest any sport could have come to full on warfare. And as for drama! Any game where the last two minutes can last for fifteen really builds the suspense. Fantastic. I won't lie, my heart was racing at the end of the three hours, and for a game with so many breaks in play, that's no mean feat. In the end, the Cardinals lost out to a Touchdown in the last minute to the Pittsburgh Steelers. We also saw the longest ever return touchdown in Super Bowl history. Brilliant.

The problem being however, that since my taste, I've been hooked. And to be a real fan of NFL, I need a team. Now, I'm not from the US. I've never been. I have no persuasion for my choice of team, but I know I want one. So how to pick one.

The fairest way I've come up with is to email every NFL team, and ask them to convince me as to why I should pick their team, and become a loyal fan. I've already had a number of personal responses, my favourite perhaps being the Seattle Seahawks response which was simply; "Pick the Seahawks. We have the best quarterback." Nice.

What I'm really looking for is freebies, and to that end I attached my home address so a clever PR person might send me a fan pack or something. Maybe even a shirt. Maybe even a flight over, accomodation, and tickets for their opening game next season.

I'm not saying that would guarantee me as a fan, but I'm sure it wouldn't hurt.