2017
October 1 2017
WHEN ENTERTAINMENT ENTERTAINED
I don't believe you should criticise something without being able to experience it. Over the last years I have become increasingly depressed about what is called entertainment on our televisions at peak time.
Yesterday the BBC appeared to turn the clock back 40 years. They introduced a brand new, Saturday morning live show for kids. It's called Saturday Mash-up and there is no doubt that the format apes the programmes from a by-gone age.
The Multi-Coloured Swap Shop, Tiswas, Saturday Superstore were live, interactive shows which went out on a Saturday morning, starting with Swap Shop in 1976. They were not animations with computer generated figures. They were real people, and the occasional puppet, having fun and getting kids to become involved. I want to see the figures for this new show before making any comments but I am encouraged.
On Saturday prime time TV I am less encouraged but I wanted to check it out. Last night I watched the whole of Strictly. I wasn't horrified, I was appalled that anyone could call this entertainment. Just in case, like me till yesterday, you are unaware of this farce (Brian Rix where are you) let me fill you in. Last night the thing lasted 2 hours and 5 minutes. The idea is that a group of celebrities, I only knew one of them so I would need to know the new dictionary definition of a celebrity, are paired with professional dancers and perform a short dance in front of a panel of judges who, it appears, know nothing. I say this because one of the compères, dressed neatly as a sight-screen, would also announce if a judge criticised a couple “what do they know, we liked it didn't we” and turn to the lemmings seated around the stage who would erupt in a cacophony of screaming and shouting.
The “celebrities” would listen to the comments, smile or cry as appropriate, run up a flight of stairs to thunderous applause from their fellow competitors, be interviewed by the other compère who says how well they did and then be shown the scores and be delighted to get 5 out of 10.
Between announcing who would be dancing and the dancers then dancing, we were shown a clip of them rehearsing over the previous week and the “celebrities” taking the professional dancer to their kitchen, their boats or riding on a fairground rodeo bull. Crass at post-graduate level.
Everyone was good even when they were blatantly bad. This is what is wrong with our whole culture. Grades at exams are lowered to accommodate more pupils so no one feels a failure. Sports days become fun days so no one has to lose. Having got this far in life can I assure everybody that people, including me, fail and lose far more often than we succeed. Cope with it, get over it, and either try again or look for something else and try that.
I was brought up with Morecambe and Wise, The Two Ronnies, Mike Yarwood, Val Doonican and before that the Billy Cotton Band Show, the Vera Lynn Show and, dare I say it, the Black and White Minstrels. These people entertained. You may not have liked their music, their humour or whatever, but you could not deny they entertained and worked hard at it too. Neither did they need to be given the moniker, “celebrity”. They were entertainers.
I guess these new ones couldn't be called that as, in my view, they don't. Performers, possibly; they do perform. Stooges, maybe. Look stupid so people want to watch and criticise and that will put up the ratings. I can assure you that I will never subject myself to such a punishment again. I have watched so my criticism was not made without knowledge. I don't need to ever see so much collective embarrassment ever again. Oh, my dad danced the Charleston far better than I saw it yesterday and if a celebrity is, as it should be, someone who is celebrated, he was also a celebrity in the true sense.
October 8 2017
SEXISM IS NEVER CORRECT
Poor old Teresa May. Like you and me, sometimes, she had a cold and a bit of a cough. She went to work though, spreading her infection obviously, and then struggled through her day, just making it to the end. We've all done it. It isn't being determined, it isn't being resilient, it's just life. It doesn't make her anything special and nor is it a reason to believe she is unfit to govern,
Roll up Ruth Davidson, leader of the Scottish Conservative Party and, until now, not in my sights as being sexist. However, it would appear that she is. While giving her full support to Mrs May, Ms Davidson said "One of the irritants over the last couple of days, for me, particularly as a woman, is this idea that all of these men are supposed to be making decisions on Theresa May's behalf.
Sexist, by the way, means relating to or characterized by prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination on the basis of sex. Her statement was clearly that. It is neither here nor there if Mrs May's critics are male, female, animal, vegetable or mineral. The fact they may all be male should not be spoken of in such a sexist way. I suppose the next step would be to say people only criticise Teresa May because she is a woman.
The criticism directed at Teresa May is founded on her inability to win the increased majority in the election she called, the way she conducted that campaign, her lack of leadership over Brexit and, in many people's view (both male and female) her complete lack of personality. She does appear robotic. She may not be. I don't know I've never met her. I can only base my comments on what I see. That is why I say what I say.
I think, indeed I hope, I am not sexist, racist or any ist. But you cannot make the type of sexist comment Ruth Davidson did and it be deemed acceptable purely because it was directed at males. We are all human beings no matter what sex, colour, creed or indeed sexual persuasion. Unless any human being acts against the law of their country, they should not be judged by anything other than the qualities they have displayed as a human being.
October 15 2017
EQUALITY DOESN'T MEAN WHAT YOU THINK IT DOES
An Islamic faith school in Birmingham has been found to be guilty of sexual discrimination by having a policy of segregating boys and girls. The decision came from the appeal judges after a high court had cleared the school.
The case against the school was brought by Ofsted and after the hearing the head of Ofsted said that "The school is teaching boys and girls entirely separately, making them walk down separate corridors, and keeping them apart at all times. This is discrimination and is wrong. It places these boys and girls at a disadvantage for life beyond the classroom and the workplace, and fails to prepare them for life in modern Britain."
My problem is that, on that basis, every single-sex school does the same and should, therefore, be closed down or forced to change. My second problem is that I don't see that segregation of males and females, done with equal entitlements to each, is sexual discrimination. Otherwise, every public convenience supports sexual discrimination. The WTA (Women's Tennis Association) and many, many other sporting bodies also support sexual discrimination because, to my knowledge, there are no male players in the WTA.
It is all just another stupid example of trying to pretend boys and girls, males and females, are the same. They are not and treating them fairly, equally but in a different environment cannot possibly be sexual discrimination. In their findings the appeal judges ruled that the school was discriminating against its pupils contrary to the Equality Act. They then went on to say that they did not accept the argument the school's policy had disadvantaged girls more than boys. Well to my little brain if it didn't disadvantage girls more than boys, everyone was treated equally and I find it slightly beyond stupid that this should be in breech of the, or indeed any, equality act.. Answers on a postcard, or by email, but please I do need to have the same number of answers from males and females.
