Whack-A-Baby

This probably is not the blog someone who is a few days away from becoming a Godfather should be writing, but hey, here I am about to complain about babies.

They may look cute, but they hold the potential to clear a room within seconds. First the loud crying begins which pierces through the ears of everyone in a 500 yard radius like someone blowing a vuvuzela in your ear for about 7 minutes, stopping only for a quick breath. Then follows the next step: Why are they crying? Well, it could be for a number of reasons, but if it's due to a number two in a nappy, the smell will linger in the nose of everyone in whiffing distance for six to eight weeks after.

Britain's Got Pomposity

Another series has gone by with a Dog act finally winning, resulting in a slight smile from Simon Cowell and Twitter being swarmed with the same joke regarding the £500,000 prize money and Pedigree Chum. Ha ha ha! Think of all dog food it'll get to eat! Ha ha ha, you're all so funny and original!

Just like every year, it was apparently 'the hardest to call' with all the acts being 'brilliant' and 'worthy of winning the competition'. In fact, a number of acts this year were 'dark horses of the competition'.  Taking all of that into consideration, you wonder why they waste time showing the painfully crap acts, and why there are some people who sit on their high horse, refusing to watch it.

My Day With The Stars

I don't really enjoy doing blogs about events in my own life. I don't understand why anyone would be vaguely interested in anything I have ever done in my life, unless they were nosey, a stalker or in need of their own life. However, sometimes things happen that I want to share, and I take pictures that I think are occasionally worth sharing. In the past two years, I have taken over 6000 pictures and I only have 198 on my Flickr page: THAT is how self critical I am...

Anyway, this week, I spent a day with the stars in London (not as exciting or interesting as it sounds).

"Like Rats Fighting In A Ditch"

Last week I dragged the girlfriend along to go watch Stewart Lee’s ‘Carpet Remnant World’ at Canterbury's new Marlowe Theatre. We didn't have great tickets; we were in the Upper Circle, one row from the very back. However, thanks to great designing, we could still see the stage brilliantly due to the elevated seats. The one issue is that with comedy shows such as these, you lose the intimacy if you are further away. For example, previous to this performance, I have only ever seen comedians in very intimate venues with only a few hundred. Suddenly, you don't seem to connect as well with someone when in a theatre holding 1,200 people. For this reason, I do not get the appeal of seeing a comedian, or anything, in a huge venue holding thousands of people such as The London O2 or Wembley Arena; you end up just watching the comedian on the giant screens around the venue.

I believe for a comedian to be their most successful, you have to have a small, intimate venue. It is much easier to work a crowd of 200, than one larger: any comedian would probably tell you that. Stewart Lee is completely the same. If you watch his stand-up DVD's or television series, you can see that he excels in a small group. I think my enjoyment of the show was lessened because of how far away we were from the stage. Not to sound like I am being negative, but he was talking to the few hundred people in the stalls, and sometimes ignoring everyone higher. However, he is a genius when it comes to stand-up (I mean, you would be after 25 years), and he is fully aware of what he is doing. Of course, he is doing it intentionally, and in large venues like this, it feeds his routine with extra fun.

The question is did I enjoy it?

Of course I bloody well did!

Like all Stewart Lee material, you're never quite sure when he actually starts his routine, because it all just seems natural. It isn't a false conversation like a lot of other comedians do, it is ,in fact, just a well informed rant/lecture. Even though I use the word lecture to describe it, it is a fun lecture. If you wanted to get into stand-up, then it is essential to go see him perform I believe. You can learn a lot about the art of stand-up from him.

His jokes are nicely varied, with some being just simple one-line jokes, a number were 20 minutes rants about something, whether it be him watching Scooby-Doo, Twitter or discussing the process of finding his material, and others were satirical observations about the local area or politics. The rest of the time, he was just shouting at the audience, which is strangely endearing. I mean, I'm not sure Michael McIntyre would get away with yelling and swearing at the audience for two hours, but Stewart can.

When it comes to favourite comedians I have seen live, he is up there with Lee Mack, and it is purely down to audience interaction and the ability to adapt a routine for an audience and local things which they can relate to. Stewart Lee did this through bringing on stage the front cover of the local newspaper to mock its lead story, for the main local news was a Headteacher, wearing a red wig, pretending to kidnap the Janitor. It was very good.

Of course, I cannot convey how funny it was in a not-very-well-written blog without giving you all the jokes and ruining it for prospective audience members, so you will just have to believe me.

However, what makes him different from the other comedians that I have seen is how friendly he is, and willing to spend time with the people who paid to see him. I joined the back of a five minute queue to shake his hand, have him sign a book and have a picture taken with him (as well as making an unfunny joke about how to spell Stuart/Stewart). I thoroughly enjoyed my evening in the company of Mr Stewart Lee. He was humble and lovely when I met him afterwards, and during the show he was everything you expect him to be: Funny, sarcastic, full of hate and ‘alternative’. So much so, it felt like he had made my diaphragm enter my throat.

P.S. "…Dog; [In a high-pitched voice] Dooog?" You’ll get it when/if you see/saw it…

Valentine's Day; From A Loving Perspective

I have hated Valentine's Day for as long as I have been aware of its existence and also the expectations that are associated with it. I hated it back in Primary school when my peers were giving and receiving folded paper with hearts drawn on them, to each other as Valentine's cards. This was because I never saw the point of doing it, as well as the fact that I was not brave enough to give one to the girl I desired in my class, and also due to the fact I never received one.

At secondary school, it was very similar (just not as many crayon-drawn hearts on sheets of paper). Everybody had something, apart from me who had nothing. The only things I got were cards and gifts that were given by friends when they felt sorry for me: usually after an angry rant given on the 13th February. This has been the reason why there are so many posts on this blog that moan about the whole charade of Valentine's Day, or mocking it. For example, last year I made my increasingly popular 'Unrequited Love Album'. Those songs were ones that made me think of the girl I loved, but couldn't have. People keep saying that playlist was really good. And why was that? It’s because all the songs held a strong meaning with me.

This year, I didn't listen to that playlist. I, in fact, listened to Phil Collins. As you are probably aware, I have now got the girl that I wanted and desired. For the first time, instead of spending the days prior to Valentine's Day ranting at every person who would listen (and even people who wouldn't), I spent the time trapped in a consumer World filled with red hearts and Me To You bears where the prices of everything remotely romantic shoots up. It makes you wonder why Cupid is still wearing a nappy when he makes all that money every year.

However, part of the contract of being in a relationship means that I have to undertake in this expensive shambles. I spent a long time in card shops, walking up and down trying to decide: What was the right card to get? What wrapping paper was best? Should I buy Clichés? Is this all just a waste of money?

I ended up buying the girlfriend a giant card, which is so large it can't stand up by itself. I also got her two bouquets of roses, cupcakes, a Me to You bear and friendship bracelets, and it was all wrapped in Me to You paper. We didn't spend a great deal of the day together due to University commitments, but in the evening, we went out for a pizza.

Now, I'm not someone who would deprive couples with children to not go out and enjoy their relationship. However, their attempts to spend a 'romantic' meal together ruin it for everyone else. If they are so desperate to go out on Valentine's Day, then they should get someone to look after their rotten, dirty, screaming children. I wouldn't go so far as to say they ruined our meal, but I spent a lot of time wondering whether or not kicking the two children in the face would lead to jail time… I didn't do anything to them in the end, but surely I should be able to have a quiet conversation with my girlfriend over a meat feast pizza with stuffed cheese crust and garlic bread.

Mind you, we nearly didn't make it to the restaurant as the bus driver was being rather reckless: speeding over bumps, braking at the last moment and sliding around roundabouts. I think maybe he didn't get a Valentine's card or present, and was set out on killing us.

Anyway, as Valentine's Day's go; this was the best. This was despite the fact that because of errors by Clinton Cards and/or Royal Mail, I didn't get my Valentine's card from the other half until a week later. It was the best I have ever had; however most might say that is because it is the only one I have properly had. The only issue I have with the day was how expensive everything was. There were many occasions where I was on the Internet or in a shop, saw something that I liked, and then didn't once I saw the price. Valentine's Day is just an excuse for shops and their owners (Yes, I am talking about you Mr Clintons!) to make money out of people who have unwillingly signed up for this whole charade when they entered a relationship.

So, what are my final thoughts on Valentine's Day? I never realised there was so much Me to You branded stuff. And also, it is a brilliant day to experience when you are in love with someone, but not if you happen to love a full wallet more.  Oh, and Cupid: Get some clothes!

Let's Hack Into My 2011

Charlie Brooker said that '2011 has been like one big end-of-season finale; a climactic episode in which multiple story arcs come to a head.' This being because of numerous uprisings, a few deaths of bad people, a riot or two, another financial collapse and the death of a national paper after the revelation that it hacked over 5,000 phones. In comparison, my life has been normal for someone of a similar age to me, and has been uneventful. However, as an individual, it has been quite a year.

As year's go, for me, it has been a bag of mixed fortunes. I spent the first six months of 2011 in complete agony. Let me explain how bad this agony was: Most people sleep at night. I used to sleep at night, and thankfully, I do now. However, for those six months of my life, I think I only had an entire night of sleep once a week, and that would usually be because I was so knackered that my brain struggled to comprehend the concept of pain, or maybe just an overdose of extra strong pain killers, I don't remember.

I had toothache. In fact, no: toothache doesn't fully explain the agony I had. I call it 'Toothtorture'. I might as well have thumped a nine inch metal nail into my jaws every 30 seconds for the relief it would have brought me. I went to the Dentist, then the Dentist, then the Doctor, and then the Dentist a few more times before he finally discovered my tooth was dead. Six weeks, over two hours in the Dentist's chair, and a root canal later, I was relieved of the pain and allowed to sleep, every single night, without my synapses interrupting with pain signals.

Mind you, a few weeks later, I didn't get much sleep after I spent five days awake and watching BBC News and Sky News and watching the swarm of rioters smash their way through London. There were two reasons for this: 1. I was only a month away from moving there to spend the next three years of my life, and 2. I was going to London a few days later to be a tourist with my girlfriend. Oh, yeah, in case you were not yet aware (but I'm sure you are), I got a girlfriend in 2011.

To most, this doesn't seem like much of an achievement, but this is for me. People previously knew me as 'Stuart; that guy who is so cynical and angry about the World and people, who hardly ever has anyone to love'. Well, now, I'm not that guy. I have a girl whose hand I can hold, without the police being called and being arrested for attempted sexual assault. She is mine. Not officially, but I have claimed her as my property, and she has claimed me as hers.

A long-term relationship is new ground for me. I have had more Sea Monkies than I have girlfriends. In fact, I think I have had Sea Monkies which have survived longer than some of my past relationships. Mind you, that could be identified to the fact I spent my time growing Sea Monkies and becoming emotionally attached to the said Sea Monkies.

Anyway, with the change of our relationship going from 'friends' to 'being in a relationship with', happening in July, this year can surely be said to be a year of two halves for me: The first half being painful and lonely, and the second have not quite as much so, with added happiness and kissing…

This all means that I lose the bet I made in my blog about my 2010, when making assumptions for the upcoming year: "...I bet I'm still single though." I usually hate being wrong, but not this time. I'm just thankful I didn't put any money on it...

This year also saw me finish my A-level's and attend a University with a history dating back to the 19th Century: The University of East London. The change wasn't smooth, or even enjoyable, with my results being messed up resulting in me franticly trying to get hold of the University who declined me because of this cock up. I mean, how can an examiner forget to mark two years worth of Photography work? That eludes me. Anyway, all was resolved, and after a larger deposit of money exiting my bank accounts, and a large, expensive shop at Dunelm Mill, I went to University to study Journalism with Creative Writing.

So far, it is going quite well. I have only finished the first semester of the first year, but the first few grades I have gotten have been superb. I quite literally jumped for joy. Hopefully the end results are just as good. I'll have to get choreographing a celebration dance. Actually, why bother, just learn one of the dances on Just Dance 3 and perform that, but maybe a shortened, less sweaty version.

What else happened for me in 2011? I'm not sure. This year has had so many big events happen, that I forget all the silly, insignificant things I have done. Well, I saw a couple of comedians live (Milton Jones and Mark Watson) who were both very good. I nearly got to see Jimmy Carr live, but I thought I would rather get my car clamped and pay £120 fine. My laptop died while watching Stewart Lee on YouTube. I have seen my first musical: We Will Rock. I have been to a Guardian event for Journalists. I have joined the National Union of Journalist. I have stepped foot into a newsroom. I have spent many happy hours in London sightseeing. I have been up in a helicopter. I have been to The Doctor Who Experience in London, flown the TARDIS and been threatened by Daleks. I have read a few books. I have worked out how to use Skype. I have got a Teco Clubcard. I have done other things too...

Let me just elaborate on a few of the above: We Will Rock You is a fantastic bit of theatre, which I recommend to anyone who likes music and comedy. It was one of the most enjoyable evenings of my life. All of the journalism events of my year, such as attending the Guardian event and being in a newsroom, have concreted my aspiration to be a journalist. I loved the atmosphere! I also recommend The Doctor Who Experience to everyone who has watched the show (whether you're a virgin or not).  I recommend the book Sh*t My Dad Says if you have a week free and like a giggle. I recommend the Tesco Clubcard if you regularly shop from there. However, I do not recommend getting your car clamped; too much hassle and too much money for what is a rubbish service.

Right, so that about sums up my 2011. I hope you also had a great year, and I hope that 2012 is either as good, or better than the previous year’s you have had. I'm sure you are deserving of it.

My predictions for 2012 are quite simple really. I will still be a University next year, and I'll be in even more debt. I will hopefully be living in a London apartment with my girlfriend, with a nice view of the Thames. I expect to spend much more time in London, seeing shows and visiting places. Also, I am pretty sure that this year is going to be pretty baby orientated, what with the girlfriend’s sister about to pop one out, and friends in the last few months of baking theirs in the oven. Also, I bet this time next year, I won't be single! I'll bet a charity donation on that one.

P.S. Happy New Year

P.P.S. How late is too late to keep wishing people a 'Happy New Year'.

The Stuart Awards 2011

The biggest and least exciting annual awards ceremony is here. Welcome, to The Stuart Awards 2011. For the fourth year running now, I give out awards for the best and worse things to happen in the world for that year. The recipient of each award has been through lots of consultation, in which I had the one and only say in who gets the award. As you may be aware, the award is only imaginary, and generally the recipient of each award is completely ignorant to the fact that they have won it. So, let us commence with the first category:

Music

Most Annoying Song Of The Year: Most will probably disagree with this first winner, as most claim it to be a beautiful piece of music in which any person can 'emotionally connect' with. Horse Manure! Adele - Someone Like You, has won this award. In part, because it has been massively overplayed and overrated, but it is mostly because it is just drivel. The only way I would be likely to enjoy this piece of music, is if it were sung by a choir of dogs being castrated while having cats dangled in front of them.

Disappointing Song Of The Year: Maroon 5 - Moves Like Jagger is surprisingly awarded this. Now, let me just clarify: I love Maroon 5, and they are my favourite band. I really liked this song to start. However, now it has been over played, I feel has failed to stand the test time within just 6 months. To me, they have a lot of making up to do…

Song Of The Year: Again, rather surprisingly, Coldplay - Paradise win this award. It has just been caught on my mind since I first heard it. I'm not the greatest Coldplay fan, but it just seems a brilliant piece of music to me. I love the build-up to the song, and I love the burst of 'Para… Para… Paradise'. How great it is.

Song Of A Few Years Ago Which I Began To Like This Year: He is gay and was a competitor on American Idol: Adam Lambert - Fever. This was a song I found in a long twisted way which I will not divulge into, but all I say is find him singing it live on YouTube (so long as you're not homophobic). It's very good. Also, I would actually recommend his album too.

Album Of The Year: He's an Englishman living in France, and he had produced one of the happiest and cheerful albums I have possibly ever heard, with every song being catchier than the common cold: Julian Perretta - Stitch Me Up. Technically, it was released last year, but I can't help if I found it this year. It is a brilliant album which I actually do recommend to everyone. It has what I call a 'messy beat', but that adds to its charm, and I just love it.

Most Disappointing Album Of The Year: This honour goes to an album which I didn't buy or download, and I didn't even manage to force myself to listen to all the songs on YouTube. Arctic Monkeys - Suck It And See was liked by a lot of people, but to me it 'Sucked'. They are a band which have slipped into irrelevance and are sinking into a sea of rubbish 'cool' bands. I shall just stick to listening to Favourite Worst Nightmare. They will never top that one again…

Film & TV

Most Irritating And Largely Unnoticed Revival Of The Year: Big Brother on Channel 5. Last year, it won Best TV Moment Of The Year for the fact it had actually ended. This year, I have with no regret, taken the award away from them. It came back to life on another channel, and was on for almost the entire year. However, it seems that no-one really took any notice as I heard very little about it after the few weeks.

Worst Film Remake Of The Year: Wuthering Heights. Simple. I wrote a blog bemoaning how they forgot huge chunks and how it was filmed by art students trying to make some inadvertent point through soft focus and moths. It was just terrible, and the audience at the cinema seemed to agree.

Second Worst Film Remake Of The Year: The runner up to the previous award was almost as bad, and I felt deserving of the award too. The Witches Of Oz was made in the US and released over here on DVD. My girlfriend, being a fan of musicals, brought it, and we watched it; all 167 minutes of it. Basically, Dorothy, through some hurricane-time-travel crap, is living in modern day New York with no memory of the event, but with the help of rubbish acting and dated CGI technology, the worlds collide. Then through some terrible writing and awful acting, you'll regret ever watching it.

Drama Of The Year: Black Mirror. Sceptics might say this is because I am a Charlie Brooker obsessive, but it isn't. That may be why I originally watched it, but all three stories were heart-wrenching, at the same as being disturbing in this alternate, technology revolved universe. Amazing pieces of writing.

Film Of The Year: You may notice a pattern over the few years of these awards, but I am a very large kid. Johnny English: Reborn is very worthy of this tribute. It is just everything I want in a film: It's silly. It's funny. It's serious. It's fast. It's clever. It's a spoof. It has Rowan Atkinson.

US Import Of The Year: The Big Bang Theory, which won a similar award back in 2008. It has the potential to be the next Friends, and I just laugh at every episode with it being clever, original and silly all at the same time. Sure, it has the same formula as all American Sitcoms, but it is just so very funny. It even has a catchphrase: BAZINGA!

Comedy Of The Year: Up until a week or so ago, this award was going to Outnumbered, which would have been its third Stuart Award. However, The Bleak Old Shop Of Stuff, which was on BBC 2 in the build-up to Christmas, had so many perfect comedy performances, from the experienced to the young, that it had me constantly laughing for the entire hour. It was rather remarkable.

Comedy Disgrace Of The Year: Mrs Brown's Boys. If you tell me it's funny, I will personally bang you over the head with a tin serving plate until blood pours from your eyes and see if you are still pissing yourself at how funny it is, with it being done over and over and over and over and over again.

Series Of The Year: I cannot leave Doctor Who out of my awards, so I have made one especially for it to win. The whole series was gripping with its storyline, and it was jammed pack with mystery and intrigue, as well as the usual Doctor Who tomfoolery. As much as I have a chip on my shoulder about Steven Moffat, I have to admit he is great at writing a brilliant story.

Celebrity

Celebrity Death Of The Year: This goes to Amy Winehouse, purely just because I found it how remarkably unapologetic the whole of Twitter was when it was revealed that she did not die as a result of drink nor drugs, after the weeks of shameless judging they threw on her coffin instead of roses.

Original Band Publicity Of The Year: I am quite intrigued by how McFly have achieved this over the past few months, with two of them winning two separate Celebrity shows: I'm A Celebrity… and Strictly Come Dancing. They didn't need to do those shows, but they did, and they won. It's made them rather popular I believe.

'How The Hell Are The Famous' Of The Year: It is hard to choose just one winner for this award, so every single person who has appeared on a 'Fake Documentary' on E4, ITV 2 and MTV win this award. I fail to see how anyone can be a fan of someone who has appeared on The Only Way Is Essex.

Journalism

Scandal Of The Year: Yeah, need I even tell you? Yes, it's the News of the World Phone Hacking scandal. It could be widened to almost all newspapers now, but nothing seems to have quite topped the fact that within a week of the news being released, News of the World were publishing their last ever newspaper.

Phone Hacking Revelation Of The Year: Millie Dowler. The dreadful business of NotW listening to distraught messages of her friends and family trying to get into contact with her is just rather upsetting. But hey, take solace in the fact that they weren't the ones to actually delete the messages…

Revenge Of The Year: This goes to Hugh Grant, in which he 'hacked' a Journalist, Paul McMullan, who revealed all the journalism misdoings, in revenge for the same journalist 'hacking' a conversation they had. Read it, it is quite interesting.

Article Of The Year: Well, it has to go to The Daily Mail's Liz Jones for writing a disturbing article in which she talks about how she stole sperm from her husband in a desperate bid to have a baby: 'The craving for a baby that drives women to the ultimate deception: Liz Jones makes her most shocking confession yet'. Read it, it's just disturbing...

Politics

Political Death Of The Year: Well, I have no idea who to award this too. It could go to one of three 'political enemies': Osama Bin Laden, Gaddafi or Kim Jong-il. All have their reasons for being deserving of this award. In fact, they can share. Their dead anyway… And if I hear one more joke about Team America existing, I will kill that person who utters it.

Useless Currency Of The Year: The Euro. This year, it became more unpopular than Jedward, and just like Jedward, if you see the Euro currency arrive on your doorstep, you'll want to douse it in petrol and flick a lighted match at it.

Uprising Of The Year: The Arab Springs. It went pretty well; as such. The problem is that people got killed amongst it. Terrible business.

General

Over Reaction Of The Year: The uproar following Jeremy Clarkson appearing on The One Show was just disastrous, and utterly pointless with it just being an excuse for the public sector unions to complain that no-one cares about their pensions. Well, you know what: You're right. We pretty much don't.

Royal Wedding Of The Year: The one people cared about. You see there were two royal weddings this year, and basically, people only cared about the Kate/William wedding. Bless that posh lady who married a rugby player…

Pointless Use Of 24 Hours News Of The Year: The London Riots. Almost every news channel became too paranoid to set foot outside, so made general assumptions for over 100 hours about the whole event from their studios, based purely on people calling in and what was being said on Twitter.

Twitterer Of The Year: This goes to, for another year, a comedian and not someone who actually adds anything much positive to the World of Twitter. This year, the comedian being flattered is in a relationship with Sarah Millican. It's Gary Delaney (@GaryDelaney) and he spews outs lots of awful, one line jokes.

Girlfriend Of The Year: Mine! N’awwww, ain’t I adorable…

And there you have it; the end of the blogging award ceremony in which 30 awards were handed out in my mind, and then written down so you can also join me in imagining the event in your minds. Well, I hope you enjoyed it. Maybe by next year, for The Stuart Awards 2012, I would have struck a deal with Ricky Gervais to present the ceremony… Come on Gervais, I will offer you no money: None at all!

The Wily Mr Murdoch's

The end of 2011 is approaching, and this year's Formula 1 seasons has come to a close, after a great year of motor sporting action, with some brilliant races which will be remembered for years, and records which will take many years to eventually be broken. In the United Kingdom, we have been able to watch all this on the BBC, which has provided a great deal of in-depth analysis which has informed and, more importantly, entertained. I'm sure the next season will produce the same great quality sport. However, no longer will the BBC be showing the footage of sport in the same way they have for the past two years. And why? Sky!

Sky have come along and pounced on the healthy chicken, and dragging it back to their den with their teeth firmly gripping hold of the neck, just like a fox might. They are stealing the entire healthy crop that every other channel has. Another example of it happening this year is Glee.

Channel Four took the chance and aired the first two series. No-one knew whether or not it would transfer well to a British audience. Channel Four hand-reared this little foreign chick, until it became a hit, with a large fan base of people who listen to the terrible music. Then, just when it was at its healthiest, Sky came leaping in with their multi-millions, and ran off with the high-pitched chicken shrieking out a Britney hit.

That is what Sky does; they let other channels take the risk with a new show, and then when it becomes popular, they take it and add to their collection of hits. The sneaky bastards.

Now, I have no real issue with Sky taking Glee. In fact, they have done me a favour. My girlfriend watched it in the days when Channel 4 had it, but due to us not having Sky, and me never being likely to have it, she can no longer watch it, meaning I am saved from having to listen to crap actors sing crap songs with crap voices. However, I DO have an issue with them spearheading Formula 1 away from the BBC.

I have never really had a passion for a sport before, but I do have an enormous desire to wake up at 5:30am on a Sunday morning to sit in bed for four hours to watch the race, as well as all the coverage before and after the race. It is an experience which, in the two years the BBC has had it, has made it a real personable show. It is a show which you feel a part of. It is an experience which is better than actually being at the race. At the race, you can't go and listen to every race driver talk profoundly in a friendly manner about their emotions at winning a race.

The F1 Forum, which always followed the race on the Red Button, gave this us, the audience; the chance to see a sportsman express human emotion up close, which was something to have not been done before. The BBC also go and interview people at the races, such as mechanics who has take a break from rushing to get the car ready for the race, to talk to nosey film crew. The presenting team go and mingle with the public, especially at the British Grand Prix, and then you also get interviews with celebrities such as Sir Paul McCartney and Rowan Atkinson.

And now, because of Sky (although not entirely their fault; we can also blame the Government for not raising the TV License, meaning the BBC had no extra money to afford both BBC 4 and the F1. I mean, why could they not sacrifice BBC 3 instead?), that coverage has been sacrificed. The BBC still have coverage, but it is very limited. From 2012, they will only be showing half of the races live, with the others being limited to just two hours of highlights.  And Sky? They're creating a whole channel, because they have money to piss away on everything.

Sky has also stolen a considerable amount of the BBC presenting team. So, not only have Sky stolen another program which a channel has worked hard on to make a success, but they have also stolen their talent. Why? Because they're greedy, but they're also lazy. Essentially, they take the credit for the hard work done by other people.

In case you were not aware, News Corporation own part of Sky, with their bid to take complete control being blocked earlier this year after the News of the World scandal.

Not a great year for the Murdoch's overall. But then, hey, feel no sympathy for them. I mean, they APPARENTLY never read emails to them which informed them of the illegal methods that their journalists used to get stories. If that's true, they're incompetent idiots. If it's false, then they're bastard liars who will go to any mean who protect their sun-warped faces. Neither option is great, but I think we can all agree that the latter is probably the true option.

P.S. Think about it: Are Sky going to produce clips such as these?

Light-Hearted Offence

The world is filled with morons, and should have a thousand nuclear bombs dropped on it, whilst lions and enraged monkeys rip the faces and limbs from every person who has ever uttered 'erm' in a sentence. In fact, every member of planet Earth should be taken and shot in front of our God for being the stupid, brain-dead twerps that they are. Full stop.

Are you offended by those comments? You should be. I just wrote something offense about a group of people which is nasty, vindictive and inciting hatred. Come on, sue me. Take me to court. Issue a statement saying that I should have all freedom of speech removed from my soul because I use it in a way in which you disagree with.

That is, in fact, an exaggeration; I purely just think that 'the world is filled with morons'. The rest is optional really. So, do you want to know why I am 100% sure that almost every member of human kind is a brain-dead, moronic twerp? Well, let me show you the Oxford Dictionary's 2009 definition of the word 'Comedy':

1 a film, play, or other intended to make people laugh. 2: a light-hearted play in which the characters find happiness after experiencing difficult situations.Synonyms: humour, fun, hilarity, funny side, laughs, jokes.

I could go into many more dictionary definitions, such as humour, amusing, humorist, funny, etc. Either way, it is generally considered that comedy is not to be taken as truth; as the person's actual honest opinion, however offensive it may be.

There have been many comic moments which have had the context of humour removed to make something seem simply shockingly offensive. One example is the Ross/Brand Sachsgate fiasco, in which they phoned up Manuel from Fawlty Towers to inform him that his granddaughter was a bit of a slut. Although he didn't find the funny side, Manuel was not too offended and shrugged it off. However, the 27,000 other people who were in no way involved, were somehow offended, and complained to everyone.

Most stuff which Frankie Boyle says has the comedy element removed and is taken as a blind insult, either at the Queen's vagina, Katie Price's disabled son or Kerry Katona. Personally, I don't find much that he says funny; but that is my OPINION, and therefore NOT FACT. Due to that, I know that those comments, put into context, were meant to be, in some twisted sense, comedy. As I result, I brushed them off, and forget about it without an ounce of offence consuming me.

I do seem to be one of the few people that seems able to distinguish between what is MY OPINION and what is considered to be FACT. Jeremy Clarkson's latest comments have been juggled around the Internet, television, newspapers and radio, as part of journalism reporting the offense which has ensued. Jeremy Clarkson stated on The One Show (BBC 1), that striking public sector workers should be "executed in front of their families". Not the nicest of things to say, I grant you, but it is glaringly obvious that he was presenting a very exaggerated view, which was more than likely for the purposes of trying to be funny.

Yes, Jeremy Clarkson is in trouble again for telling another bad joke.

Where ever the news has been reported, the comments have had all context removed from it. You can view the transcript of his comments here, on The Guardian website, and judge for yourselves. In the first 24 hours, barely 5,000 people had heard the comments and complained, and a majority of that was purely because a 15 second video of him saying those comments, with everything said before and after removed, was passed around the Internet. The BBC removed that particular episode of The One Show from iPlayer, so people could not watch it, and therefore the morons had no way of understanding the context.

Three days after the comments were made, the number of complaints had risen to over 21,000; only 6000 short of the amount received for Sachsgate. Now, maybe I'm being blind sighted, but surely if you've been SO offended by a comment, it wouldn't take you three days to complain. Therefore, I suspect that, just like Sachsgate, a majority of the people 'offended' by the comments, never actually saw the show live, and have, in fact been offended by BBC News repeating, and Twitter spreading, the 15 second clip. Surely, that is just as meaningful as me complaining about the treatment of disabled children in the 19th Century; a hundred years before I was born. If you were not offended at the time, and only after you have been told that something IS offensive, then the complaint should be answered by a gurgling, snot-nosed 6 month old who is sat with the phone in his mouth, for that is the amount attention and respect their complain deserves.

Similarly, Life's Too Short is coming under similar scrutiny, with it apparently being offensive to dwarfs, and therefore people are convinced that Ricky Gervais hates people who have dwarfism just like all other disabilities (people forget that it was co-written with Stephen Merchant). In fact, there is a campaign under way to get Life's Too Short taken off the telly. There was a whole interview with the campaign leader a few weeks back in The Guardian's 'g2' pullout. She has a young son with the disorder. I felt sorry for her until I realised that she too, is a moron.

'Substitute the word "dwarf" with that of another minority or disability' Kirstina Gray says, 'and the BBC would probably find itself in court'.

Why is it that every individual of this planet seems put upon by the comments of another human being? I personally don't think the BBC would find itself in court as it is comedy, and if it is offending, then get over it; it's not intentional (unless the comedian is Frankie Boyle, then chances are, he was purposefully trying to offend). In the 'Mockumentary', Warwick Davies plays himself as being a selfish prick. It's acting. The comedy is in no way pointing fun at his size, just merely using it to enhance the humour. The story line is based around that, just like there are films based around 40-year-old virgins.

If people from minorities or with disabilities, want to be treated as equals to the rest of the populace, then they have to be able to be subject to comedy, because that is what happens in most walks of life when everyone is equal. People make fun of others, and vice versa. I'm sure there are a majority of people in these 'categories' that can have fun; be subject to 'banter', and not get offended, but there are is a small selection of people, who are either so highly strung they could bungee jump, or are not properly informed, and think they should be offended. Those people ruin comedy, and life, for the rest of us. I refuse to live a world where people believe in political correctness.

As for Ricky Gervais using the word 'mong', and using it in its traditional sense before it became an insult for people with disabilities; it's no different to me saying 'I'm gay because I've finished my Uni essays'… It doesn't mean I'm going to have sex with another man in celebration.

And as for Jeremy Clarkson's other comment about people who commit suicide in front of trains being selfish; well it just so happens I have long held that same opinion. They cause disruption to hundreds of people, and there is usually a team of people that have to clean that person up, as well as the sadness that person causes the people they leave behind. A sad, tortured soul or not, it's still a pretty selfish act to commit… IN MY OPINION.

Also, just to redistribute a quote from Stephen Fry back in 2005:

'It's now very common to hear people say, "I'm rather offended by that", as if that gives them certain rights. It's no more than a whine. It has no meaning, it has no purpose, it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. "I'm offended by that." Well, so fucking what?'

And if you're offended by what I've said, either participate in a healthy, educated, well-written debate with me, or complain.

Wuthering Heights: Filmed in a Shed

So, do you know the story of Wuthering Heights? Good. Now, imagine what that classic novel would like if it were actually filmed in a shed. Now, imagine it being acted by chavs who swear and have a common, English accent. Right, now imagine that some art students were filming and directing it, with lots of soft focus and irritatingly pointless shots and angles which are apparently symbolic. Imagined it? Looks awful doesn't it. It looks like the sort of film that Film4 and the British Film Industry might fund, doesn't it. Well, now you don't have to imagine that, you can go to your local cinema and pay to see it. Yes, PAY to see it.

There are lots of things wrong with this movie, but the one that has been most vocalised in the media is the fact that Heathcliff is black. Yes, Heathcliff is black. Maybe this is part of the modern view, which says that we are now 'colour-blind'. We no longer recognise skin colour. Maybe. And anyway, the skin colour of Heathcliff is never known. In defence of the movie, it does say in the first chapter of the novel that Heathcliff is 'a dark-skinned gypsy in aspect, in dress and manners a gentleman…' But, in defence of sensibility, people can be dark skinned Caucasians, AND why would women wearing petticoats, from the 19th century, lust after an Afro-Caribbean?

Inclusion of racist language in the movie, mainly from Hindley saying "He's not my brother, he's a nigger" just made me put my hands up to my face and want to cry. Emily Brontë. The story, just like all other adaptations of Wuthering Heights, was badly conveyed. Some parts were changed, other parts were added, some parts completely forgotten and even, most surprisingly, the odd part of the story was told similarly to the novel. As it is with every adaption of the novel, the character of Lockwood is written out and the role of Nelly is nothing but a supporting character, rather than taking the role of narrator that she has for a majority of the novel. The Linton's are not blonde. Wuthering Heights is nothing but an old, rotting shack in the middle of Yorkshire. The moors of the novel have been replaced with large hills which surround the landscape. No children, other than Hareton appear to have been born. We see Hareton get conceived in a wet field; an image we are saved from in the novel. The characters are all inappropriate aged. In fact, I could continue to ramble on.

The love affair between Heathcliff and Catherine has also been adapted. The rocky nature of the relationship is rather accurate, with her hating him at first, and then them being inseparable and protective. Then the appearance of Edgar comes between them. Heathcliff goes and comes back and finds Catherine married. The problem is that their relationship is depicted as being even weirder than before. The main example being that Catherine licks the bloodied wounds from Heathcliff's back. I have no idea why. The relationship between them does seem to resemble owner/faithful dog, rather than confused children who experience love. The whole time, you just spend laughing at the ridiculousness of this adaption, or wondering what the hell Arnold is trying to convey.

The directing is terrible. The camera work is dreadful. Someone is riding a horse, but instead of doing a panning shot that follows the horse, or a long-shot which allows you to follow the horse across the screen, they opted for a close up of the horses mane, or a close up of the person's hair. It is as if the camera operators discovered they could do Macro Photography, so just took advantage of it. Every few minutes, there was a close up of a moth in a window, or the intrinsic detail of a feather: all pointless to the telling of the story. I have always been told that 'less is more' and not to put stuff in 'just to fill time'. If you want to see how to fill time in an A-class style, watch this film. Five minutes of this film is watching birds fly.

I have a theory too, that the creators of this film are hell-bent of making people blind in the process of watching this film, which is a lovely way to treat people who have already paid £6 a ticket to watch this atrocity. Picture the scene: You're watching Heathcliff sitting in a dark, barely-lit room at night. You're struggling to see, so the pupils in your eyes are fully dilated to allow as much light in as possible. Then BOOM. It feels like someone has fired a shotgun into your eyes. The scene has cut to one with bright and intense white light, which illuminates the entire room. Too much light is entering your eyes and you feel as if you have turned stiff; you feel dead.

Talking of dead, there is an abundance of dead animals. You see Heathcliff slaughter a sheep with the blood pouring out; for which I had to cover my girlfriend’s eyes to protect her loveliness. Then, later on in the movie, we see Heathcliff standing over a trapped rabbit, who he then kills by breaking the neck; for which my girlfriend covered my eyes to protect me from shouting out “You bastard!” I don’t know why they kept showing these scenes, but I made sure to sit through to the end to make sure that no animals were hurt in the process. They hadn’t been thankfully.

I remember a few years ago, ITV made a two-part adaption of the novel. It wasn't great. I, my friends, my classmates and teacher all complained about how inaccurate it was. ‘Dreadful’ we said. We were all in awe at how they had ruined the classic we had spent a year studying. However, in comparison, the ITV adaption should have been heralded as a great piece of television. This is compared to the film however, which makes somewhat of a mockery out of the novel. The best thing about the ITV adaption was that it didn't cost me to see it, and the acting was far better. Arnold essentially raped the Emily Brontë novel.

This opinion doesn't come down to the fact that Heathcliff was black; that was one of the least problematic parts of the film. It is part of a wider problem which is the film, in which no character seemed to be vaguely accurate, and the story backetballed into a bin. The problem with all the adaptations so far, is that they remove the rather unique narrative to the story and forget Lockwood and Nelly. I think the most successful adaption will include them. I accept that an adaptation, unless it was going to be a ten-part TV series, will not include the entire story, but it should keep the style which every reader loves about Wuthering Heights. When someone makes that, I think that will be the day when a proper adaptation will have been made, and they will rake in the praise.

This film received no praise. I remember sitting through the last two Harry Potter films at the cinema, in which at the end of the film, the audience whooped and cheered in praise of a brilliantly made film. At the end of watching Wuthering Heights, all I heard was people saying how awful it was and how they did not enjoy it at all.

Mind you, I should have known how terrible the film was going to be when I saw the trailer on the Internet. The most pointless minute of film, in which absolutely nothing is shown. It should have been a clue that this film was being filmed by college art students…