How Does One Say 'Fracas'?

Over the past few weeks, this has been one of the main questions that everyone is asking: How do you pronounce 'Fracas'? Essentially, is the 's' silent or not? Well, I've looked into this, and like normal, it depends on whether you speak properly (English), or if you're one of those people (American) from the country which regularly bastardizes the English language. In English, it's silent, and in American, it's said completely wrong.

While we're discussing 'fracas', let's look into what brought this issue to the nation's attention. There was an incident in a workplace, which involved one member of staff verbally and physically attacking another, leading to the suspension of an employee. Only, it wasn't that simple because it involved Jeremy Clarkson; like most incidents seem to these days.

We heard a few weeks back that he had a verbal and physical disagreement with a producer, when he noticed a lack of food after a day filming. Clarkson was suspended, and a lot of news outlets spent too much of their time being obsessed with this. A local Kent newspaper found a local angle for this new story, due to part of the last aired episode being filmed in the county. It then went on to refer to an incident where someone working in a pub was glassed in the face, as a 'fracas'.

Anyway, this then led to over a million people signing a petition to reinstate him; showing that people care a lot more about an over-paid, over-zealous individual, than they do about having a functioning health system. And now, he's sacked.

The news that he was sacked came yesterday afternoon, not long before the news that someone had left One Direction. I was out, and by the time I got home and read the news, all the good jokes had already been used on Twitter. I was distraught.

@haveigotnews 

But were they right to sack him? That's the question a lot of people have been asking since. Firstly, everyone can see that the BBC were never going to come out of this well. They either sacked him, and lost their biggest star (and biggest money maker), and risk losing their most globally-popular franchise. OR, they allow someone, regardless of status, to get away with bullying in the workplace, and allow another celebrity to get away with what they want.

Whether it was the right choice will never be agreed, but one has to admire the BBC for the decision they took. It shows that they have a conscience, and didn't allow commercial interests to blur that. The Tweet Rupert Murdoch made after this news, shows that he would have made the other choice, and therefore is probably agreed to be the wrong one too.

How stupid can BBC be in firing Jeremy Clarkson? Funny man with great expertise and huge following.

— Rupert Murdoch (@rupertmurdoch) March 24, 2015

I think, or at least I hope, that no-one is condoning bullying or violence of any kind. Yet, Clarkson was on a final warning, when he then hit someone, and now he is sacked. That sequence of events makes complete sense; he committed a sackable offence. However, a lot of people find this unreasonable. I really like him and the show, but I still agree with this decision; even if I am completely surprised that they actually made this decision.

Twitter is full of people blindly supporting Clarkson, and saying dreadful things about the producer, Oisin Tymon. But remember, Clarkson reported the offence himself. It has been found that Clarkson verbally abused the producer for over 20 minutes, before beginning a 30 second round of physical abuse on him, which only ended after one of the other presenters broke it up. This happened in a hotel, in front of guests, and led to Tymon having to take himself to A&E. And now, he is the latest victim of Twitter trolling.

@m_maclennan Read more on V.Point here.

So what does the future hold? Well, if looking back at the Jonathan Ross fiasco a few years back proves anything, Clarkson will already be receiving offers from ITV, Channel 4, Sky, and probably even Netflix, to go over to them and help produce a car program which will rival Top Gear. After all, look at all the cooking and baking shows that exist of TV... Yet, I can only think of two other motoring programs. I think Top Gear are due some real competition as, after all, a lot of people watch Top Gear for the characters, and not really for the cars.

And what will become of Top Gear? It existed before Clarkson, and it will exist after. They say they will keep Hammond and May, but I think that will be a mistake. They need to completely start from scratch, and distance themselves from the reign of Jeremy. We all know that one of the new presenters will be female, because that is how the BBC fix most things these days. But Chris Evans is the favourite so far. However, my money is on Guy Martin, and I think he would be the best man for the job. From what I've watched of him, his personality and interests are a perfect match; especially if they do keep the other two presenters.

So overall, the decision has been made, and there is no need to dwell on it any longer. Perhaps the BBC could/should have gone about this very differently, and perhaps tried to resolve this internally? Let's just move on and see where the future of motoring programs go. But please, can we stop comparing this to the BBC's handling of Jimmy Saville? It's an ignorant comparison, which trivialises what was atrocious and incomparable situation. Also, can we just let Oisin Tymon try to carry on his life and career in peace? And finally, can we just let Jeremy Clarkson have some warm food next time he asks?

BBC 3 Set to Disappear into Cyberspace

Tony Hall's axe has swiftly fallen on its youth-orientated TV channel, BBC 3, as the BBC tries to save £100 million.

The channel, which launched in 2003, is now set to be moved online, to the corporation's iPlayer service in Autumn 2015. The latest cost-cutting measure by the BBC Director General, is an attempt to save popular BBC 1 dramas, such as Sherlock and Doctor Who.

The Doctor at 50

I chose to stay at home to watch Saturday's episode of Doctor Who; I'll choose pizza over popcorn any day. But many others elected to sit in a cinema full of other fans, and pay to watch something they could have watched at home for free. I imagine there were moments when cinemas across the country erupted in cheers as they saw their old favourites grace the big screen.

Over 10 million UK people tuned in to watch the 50th Doctor Who episode, Day of the Doctor. However, you would be forgiven for not bothering to watching it, after the overkill lead up that we have been exposed to over the past few weeks. I enjoy Doctor Who, but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't glad that the hype is finally over; at least until they want to celebrate the 75th anniversary.

We have spent six months waiting, after being teased at the end of series 7 with the words 'Introducing John Hurt as The Doctor'. As a result, Doctor Who fans have been suffering from a half-year-long headache, as we all tried to figure out what Stephen Moffat was up to. However, it has certainly been worth the wait.

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?

Ashamed To Be Human

I have concluded I don't suit the human race. I think I would be much more comfortable at being part of another species on planet Earth, such as a rabbit or a tortoise. They always seem quite happy and contented and unbothered by what is happening in the news. A rabbit’s hutch will be lined with newspaper, but being a rabbit I wouldn't be able to read the text nor really be able to understand the context of the pictures. And even if I could understand it, I'd either eat or poo on the offending article. It's easy as a rabbit. I can even wiggle my nose and ears like a rabbit. Maybe I was meant to be a rabbit? Or if you believe in reincarnation, maybe I was once a rabbit. I wish I had a simple life like a rabbit, where I couldn't get offended.

Why am I considering the rabbit’s life? Well, the news the past two days has completely depressed, revolted and ashamed me. I am part of a species that murders. I know it's hardly a news flash: “Human Race Murder”. I'm thinking more about a specific murder carried out yesterday; a murder of a bad man. A terrible man. A man most would agree didn't deserve to live in the first place. However, what has bothered me more is not the murder itself, but the aftermath. His death has been glorified, and that is what I have a problem with.

Almost every newspaper carried a picture, on the front page, of Colonel Gadaffi. His lifeless face, covered with blood and a bullet hole in his head, is a picture which can be seen everywhere today. The Mirror had the worst, most disgusting picture and The Sun had a headline, which seemed to be full of pride at his death: "That's For Lockerbie", with the sub-heading "And for Yvonne Fletcher. And IRA Semtex Bomb victims." That headline is typical of The Sun, and its approach to anything done by, or as a result of, our Army. They are often blinded by a sense of pride. Morality doesn't come into their field of approach to news stories like this.

I hate myself for having to put his picture in my blog, but I just wanted to share the front cover. You can hate me and call me hypocritical if you like...

It comes to something when the human race uses technology to spread footage of a man being tortured and killed, all done within minutes of the event happening. Within an hour of hearing about the capture and possible death of Gadaffi, I was seeing pictures on the BBC Website, and video footage on their news channel, of his dead, bloodied and beaten body. The BBC defended it, by stating that they used the video to convey the scale of the "dramatic and gruesome" events. This is the same for every international news outlet in the country. To me, that is just seems wrong. It seems inhuman to put the face of a dead man everywhere; we wouldn't even treat an animal in that way.

Of course, we have to appreciate that as a nation, we are cynical enough to take the opinion that we won't believe something until we have seen it, and studied it for ourselves. Seeing as we can't all fly to Libya and poke the body ourselves; video footage is the next best thing. Saying to news outlets that they cannot show the pictures in their papers, and websites and news channels would be censorship, and I am against censorship. I just believe that we don't need to see these pictures over and over and over and over again. He isn't a very attractive man in the first place, let alone dead, bruised and bloodied. Why couldn't it just be confined to the Internet and after the watershed on TV? It seems wrong to have this man, who has essentially been 'happy slapped', in this state, as a picture to symbolise Thursday 20th October 2011.

To take an extreme view; we wouldn't do this to a victim. If Gadaffi had captured, then beaten and killed an innocent person in public and filmed it and uploaded the video to the Internet, the media would handle the whole event with moral decency. The same was done with Osama Bin Laden in May. We had a blurry, inconspicuous picture of a body said to be him, which was plastered everywhere. It seems revolting to do this, time after time. WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

It seems the newspapers have become the medieval equivalent to putting heads of bad people, on spikes for others to treat as they will. It dehumanised them. Now, the papers print the picture of a lifeless head on the front page instead.

There is also the argument of whether he should have been killed in the first place, and even the circumstances of the death are hazy. We have a video of Gadaffi in a bad way, being dragged through the streets of his home town, after been beaten up and having blood pouring off of his face. Then the next video we have is of him lying dead with a small bullet hole. Apparently it was cross fire. However, chances are, it was an emotional person, who probably knew some victims of Gadaffi's regime, and then, consumed with hate, put a gun to his head and blew his brains out (metaphorically).

However, now he is dead, people will never know the truth. People will never know his darkest secrets (which is possibly a relief for Western countries, who were heavily affiliated with him). He can never be tried in court, and can never be punished in the humanly correct way. Many questions will remain unanswered. How can a 'new Libya' claim to be any better than Gadaffi, when they begin like this? But then again, his trial was expected to have taken 10 year. It could be said to have been a waste of money and time. I know I will still disagree with his death, and especially how our media have dealt with it.

If God existed, and I was him, I would be putting the human race on the naughty step. No, don't argue and sulk, you done a bad thing, now sit there quietly until I say so; especially you media bastards!

The Other Way Is Sussex

Television isn't in a great place at the moment. There are moments when brilliance peers through, like the sun shining through occasional holes in the dark, rain-filled clouds of idiocy, but overall, only taboo language can successfully describe the light emitted from everyone's televisions. Dramas are, for the most part, relatively predictable and usually pretty boring these days. Comedy's are, for the most part, aimed at the stereotypically stupid and mentally disabled. Talent shows are, for the most part, fixed to give Simon Cowell media coverage and money. And documentaries; they seem to be choreographed to show the 'real lives' of the stereotypically stupid and horny, shown on ITV 2 and E4.

With television being mostly repeats, it's not so much a bother that the output is mainly crap, than it would have been 15 years ago before we had a huge selection of TV to choose from, but it is. With there being very little output of new shows, we need those shows to be brilliant, fantastic, sensational, inspiring and many other buzz words. Let's take comedies as an example. It's all a matter of opinion, I know, but comedy isn't funny.

I can think of three sitcoms in recent years, that have come from British television, which are reliably funny; Outnumbered (BBC 1), The IT Crowd (C4) and Not Going Out (BBC 1). The former is a great, part improvised, comedy with child actors to be jealous of and wish were your own children. It is the younger, funnier brother of My Family, in that most people can relate to it in one way or another. The IT Crowd is just written by one of our greatest comedy writers in current times; Graham Lineham, who created characters people emphasis with whilst laughing at, and has storylines that take the strangest of turns and can have a house of people cackling madly. The latter, Not Going Out, has those brilliant one lines that resonate and make you laugh louder the more you think about it and stay with you for a long time. The acting may not be anything special, but those lines make up for it. The BBC made a good choice when they decided to 'uncancel' it. Also, take Horrible Histories (CBBC), highly amusing and possibly one of the greatest current comedies, with it mixing intellect with witty sketches. The kids have it so good these days. I had an idea that they should create an adult version for a prime-time BBC 2 slot, but you know what, I think if they showed the CBBC episodes in the evening, it would be just as successful. Plus, people might actually learn something about the Romans, The Tudors and more importantly, The Stuarts! I loved those books when I was child, and turning it into a television show, albeit 10 years late, was a great idea.

The other sitcoms that keep spewing out are not reliably funny and can sometimes make you cringe and want to eat your own eyes and ears so you don't have to withstand another second of it. Anything on BBC 3 usually ticks that box. Lee Nelson's Well Good Show, which I hope is ironically named, is awful, disgusting and utterly vile. Coming of Age seems to think it has cleverly exaggerated the teenage stereotype with humorous consequences, but has instead created glaringly wretched characters with storylines so weak an Ant could beat it in a fight. We Are Klang, from 2009, with Greg Davies had some great ideas, but they were tearfully mistreated, and in the true style of BBC 3, unfunny and utterly cringe worthy.

My Family (BBC 1) should have been cancelled years ago. I used to really enjoy it when I was younger, but now I'm older, the show is older and the family are older, it just doesn't work anymore. Most people will agree that it went downhill when Nick (you know, the man from the BT Ads. He recently became a father and got married. We're all happy for the BT couple…) left the show. Now the children aren't children, it has failed to continue to be a family sitcom, which is were Outnumbered steps in and takes the reins. Everyone wave goodbye to the Harper family. Go on, wave! It's the final series. Toodles!

I come from the era of Ben Elton and Richard Curtis. Back in the days when they wrote comedy and when comedy was great. How can I watch comedy from 30 years ago and laugh harder than what I do at current sitcoms? Blackadder: Sarcastic brilliance. Fawlty Towers: Unbelievably angry humour. Monty Python: Mind-blowingly, erratically random, superbness. Not The Nine O'clock News: Fantastically satirical sketch show. One Foot In The Grave: Belly laughter with a dash of sentimentality. Anything with Ronnie Barker: Well he was just a linguistic genius. There are so, so, so many more. Why can't we make shows like them anymore? Who the bloody hell thought Mrs Brown's Boys (BBC 1) was funny? The audience laughed at the word 'Willy'. That is how bad comedy is; people found that show so funny, it's been commissioned a second series. The BBC 1 controller is robbing ME and YOU of brilliant, clever, witty, laugh out loud humour. How dare him! I will soon be paying my TV license to fund television atrocity such as that.

The God of our dear English language!

Soaps used to represent the real lives of real people. Sure, they exaggerated it a bit to make it more entertaining than mundane, but it still had the ingredients of real life. Now, they seem to have lost the recipe and are now just experimenting to try and give it a bit of a kick; and they ruined it. Coronation Street is the main culprit. A tram crash. Numerous explosions within the past year. Dead bodies buried and hidden everywhere. The placentas of illegitimate children cover the cobbles. Murderer's hide everywhere. What kind of street is this? The crime statistics of Coronation Street must be awful. Its surprising people move there. The writers need to be strung up and shot. The story lines are awful. Then, they're about to destroy the Rovers Return in a huge riot. These aren't stories to entertain, infuse and grab the viewers’ attentions while helping them forget their problems. It's not that anymore. Coronation Street used to be funny. Now, they're trying to turn the soap into a huge production; like they're The Bourne Ultimatum or something. It's ridiculous I tells ya!

Talent shows are now so unbearable to watch. Sure, they were not exactly the most entertaining or morally right shows on the box a few years ago, but now they're just ridiculous. I think Simon Cowell should now just go and live with his metaphorical mistress (America) and leave us (Britain) to move on and carry on life without him. He's either with us, or with those slutty Yanks. The same goes for Piers Morgan while we're on that topic. Keep them, we don't want them back. They're your problems now! Anyway, talent shows are on the way out, and they should just leave respectfully instead of kicking up an undignified fuss. Britain's Got Talent (ITV) is over, you don't need to import David Hasslehoff for us to realise that. Britain has very little talent, and dancing dogs are not part of it. The X Factor too has gone. It can never recover now the peoples' princess, Cheryl Cole, has had her public image tarnished in such a disrespectful way. A show with Gary Barlow, Kelly Rowland and Tulisa? Please, that sounds worse than an American chat show hosted by scared-ferret-in-a-suit, Piers Morgan.

Yet, for some reason, they won't let Big Brother die. Last year, it finished. This year, Channel 5 and that bastard Richard Desmond, have brought it back. Now, I also think reality television is, even if very slowly, dying. We all know that comebacks usually don't work. Take the band Blue; they came back and we still hate them. Take Michael Schumacher; he was World F1 champion, but since he returned last year, he hasn't even won a podium. There should be a general rule, which means should you chuck in the towel, you can never come back. That's the one positive thing about Jade Goody; she isn’t coming back! We don't seriously need Big Brother do we? It's always the same every year; a few gay, very bitchy men, in a house with a few idiotic slutty blonde men and women, a hip black man, a middle aged man trying to impress their child and a few people who resemble house plants and vacuums with gormless faces drawn on. Exactly, we don't need Big Brother!

Now, reality television shows are being replaced by ‘reality documentaries’. Big Fat Gypsy Weddings (C4) seemed to be the first to kick it off with its huge popularity. You know those novelty toilet brush covers from the 90's? The women in the show look just like them. It's just a way of making people who work hard all their life think 'How the hell can they do nothing with their lives and afford that wedding, when I work 5 days a week and think buying a pizza on a Friday is pushing the boat out!' It made you resent Gypsies even more; but not as much as the Gypsies you see in town forcing heather in tinfoil down people’s throats for £1.

The popular reality documentaries now, are The Only Way is Essex (ITV 2) and Made In Chelsea (E4), with a new show Geordie Shore (MTV) slowly gaining popularity. These three shows are the tackiest shows on British television, possibly ever.  I haven't watched them, but from the adverts and from what I've heard, these are the stupidest, sluttish, glamed-up freaks that we have ever seen. Big breasts, hair extensions and more make-up than the Avon catalogue; it's like Katie Price has been cloned, and then, they’ve spread them across the country and sent TV crews to film their integration into society. THEN, The Only Way Is Essex won a bloody BAFTA! This is the evidence that television is going down the drain. Society is going down with it, and we're drowning in that dirty bath water, urine, excrement and the stubble from the legs of females, and it'll get in your throat and, it just doesn’t bare thinking about.

So, a conclusion. There is very little comedy that is actually funny. Documentaries are not very informative. Dramas are very little in way of dramatic, apart from occasional glimpses of greatness on BBC 1. Reality hasn't shown the real lives of anyone recently. Soaps are competing with Hollywood films. Talent shows are just a way of showcases Simon Cowell's new facelift. And Gypsies; since when did they become popular?

Watching Doctor Who From Behind A Brick Wall

The word 'Epic' is chucked about far too much in these modern times, and so often describing the most modern, least 'epical' of objects. Rihanna's new song is not epic. A cheese sandwich with Worcestershire sauce is not epic. A well trimmed lawn is not epic. A leap-year is not epic. Noticing the time is 11:11 am is not epic. KitKat sharing packs are not epic. Payday is not epic. However, an 8 minute prog-rock classic from the 80's which contains an entire orchestra of instrument with deep, meaningful lyrics, is epic. A long classic poem which is celebratory of a beautiful orchid by one of the vintage romantic poets, is an epic. Climbing Mount Everest using just your fingernails, is epic. The mid-series finale of the Sixth series of Doctor Who, was epic.

We're now half way through the sixth series of Doctor Who since its return to this millennium, and we're half way through Matt Smith's second series as the famous, heroic Doctor. Critics have hailed this series as being too scary and too complicated. I disagree. Yes, it's scary and very dark at frequent moments. Sometime hiding behind the sofa just isn't enough and you have to run outside and hide behind the brick wall, but that's the charm of Doctor Who. Yes, it's complicated, but only is you're multitasking. If you sit down and watch without playing about on your phone or updating your status on Facebook, you will understand it without a problem. Television seems to no longer be a form of escapism for the common person, but instead a colourful and noisy background to peoples' Tweeting activities, with them able to occasionally glance up and still understand the entire plot of Coronation Street. Doctor Who is still very much in the escapism category. It forces you to sit down and enjoy it, and if you don’t, you won't get it. Simples.

Anyway, enough about the opinions of idiotic critics, and now my opinion; which is still critical and at times, very idiotic. I have been completely disappointed by this current series of Doctor Who, but still at the same time completely gripped and loving every second of it (I did say I was still very idiotic). I think I'm disappointed because of the series being split into two. Just as you've got into it, you're chucked back outside in the pouring rain and told to wait until the autumn before you can come back. I know why Moffat has chosen to do it, and I totally agree with his thinking, the epic cliff hanger, but that's the reason for my disappointment. Last year it took about 5 episodes for me to be completely engrossed. You can't have one KitKat finger without wanting the other immediately; and I have the same opinion on the Doctor Who scheduling.

The episodes have been completely and utterly brilliant so far, and the second half promises to be just as good. The first episode back is called 'Let's Kill Hitler' for Christ's sake. How can that not be a totally brilliant, mind-boggling episode?  Anyway, let's do a quick flick through the episodes thus far:

'The Impossible Astronaut' & 'The Day of the Moon'

The Silence: Classic Alien appearance but wearing suits.  What a great foe! Now children are scared of everything they cannot remember. Now every child is scared of every noise they ever hear. The power of Doctor Who is amazing. And The Doctor; from the future; he gets shot; and he dies; PERMANTELY! Given a Viking burial. What? Mind boggled within ten minutes. We still don't know what that's all about, but I think we can make a relatively safe assumption that it's a young River Song in the astronaut outfit who shoots him. It's hard to describe the entire plot quickly, what with so much happening, but it ends with River and The Doctor sharing a kiss, just after she's killed The Silence in a really showy-off way. Other way's we're gripped into the series is that we know Amy might or might not be pregnant and we're intrigued by who the mysterious 'Eye-Patched Lady' is. Oh, and who is River Song already? Both of these episodes were written by Moffat, Doctor Who Supremo. More about him later… (Yeah, I can do cliff hangers too!)

'The Curse of the Black Spot'

This was an episode written by Stephen Thompson. This is the man who wrote the Sherlock episode which I considered to be the weakest. Unfortunately, I carry the same opinion for this episode. It seemed very anti-climax, and just a bit ridiculous I felt. I liked the idea of the 'TARDIS trio' being on a pirate ship, and seeing Amy swing from the rope as a heroine, was very pleasing to me, but it was essentially just the personal discoveries of a ruthless pirate who becomes a good Dad; too happy for me. Not dark enough. It was brilliantly performed by all involved and cleverly put together.  However, a 17th century pirate having a space ship as the ending? No, I disliked that ending.

'The Doctor's Wife'

This is my favourite episode of the series so far, just for how fantastically brilliant the idea was. This was written by Neil Gaiman, a well known writer of Sci-fi, and you can tell he is a fan of Doctor Who just by all the references to the old series, within the episode. I like episodes that use Doctor Who history. Anyway, essentially the soul of the TARDIS is put into the body of an excited woman named Idris, played by Suranne Jones. This worried me as I have somehow gained an indescribable resentment against her, which puts me off watching anything she does. However, she was perfect and demonstrated a beautiful version of what the TARDIS would be like, if it possessed a body, being true to the personality we believe her to have. The scene between the TARDIS and The Doctor in the junkyard was a great piece of television I felt too when they were arguing. I loved the darkness between Rory and Amy while running through the TARDIS corridors too; worryingly scary, but still fantastic, especially with the return of the previous TARDIS 'Desktop'. There are just so many positives about this episode. You can tell that I was very enthused by this one.

'The Rebel Flesh' & 'The Almost People'

These two episodes failed to completely grip me, and I admit to not fully understanding the entirety of both episodes due to fumbling about with the phone I brought hours before the second of these episodes, but I think that due to the fact I was just a bit bored by how drawn out it was. It was written by Matthew Graham, writer of 'Fear Her', the episode with the 2012 Olympics, back in the days of Tennant. That was quiet a thought provoking episode, and so were these episodes, essentially addressing the issue of whether man-made life would have the same rights us, a debate which can bring about fierce thoughts, which were perfectly demonstrated by this episode however. A great idea, but I feel it was a bit stretched out for two episodes, but in the same sense, if the same story was told in one episode, I'd probably complain about it being squashed. I do like it when Doctor Who reveals the greatest monsters to be a threat to humans, is in fact us.

'A Good Man Goes To War'

This being the mid-series finale, which was written by Moffat. The title of this episode was kept a secret for as long as possible, to keep the finale as much a secret as possible, and I love how enthusiastic Moffat is about keeping as much a secret for the sake of the fans, but more on that a little later. This episode had it all really; fantastically huge twists, the resolution of storylines started earlier, the creation of new captive story lines, and a huge, epic cliff hanger. The biggest of them all being that Rory and Amy now have a child, which is part Time Lord due to the child being conceived on the TARDIS in a time vortex, and it is revealed at the brutal end of the episode that River Song is Melody; the child of Rory and Amy. How do they react? We'll wait and see. It was quite a clever way of including lots of different aliens in a story without having The Doctor defeat them again, and instead having them on his side; as an army. It was the Sci-fi version of David Cameron's Big Society.

Look they're shocked! But what happens next?

It was announced last week that the Daleks were taking a holiday from Doctor Who, because they are the 'most reliably defeated enemies in the Universe' according to Moffat, and indeed he is right. He knows what he's on about. However, I do ask the question: Why bother giving the Daleks a new paint job if you're not going to take them out for a ride and show them off for a bit? I just think they should have had one big finale, before they went away for a few years, like they do in the soaps. They'll make a character have an affair and then have a miscarriage before they disappear to Spain for seven years. Where was the Doctor Who equivalent to that? Anyway, I'm not complaining too much, because that finale was pretty damn epic.

Mind you, maybe that's in comparison to what was on the TV the week before? A week when ITV had the same schedule for the entire week: Two hours of what was apparently 'British talent', intercut with half hour of the blandest and most predictable storyline within Coronation Street. What happened to soaps representing real life? Maybe they made the finale seem even better? That was perfect scheduling on behalf of the BBC.

Now, for the paragraphs you've all been waiting for: Steven Moffat. I still firmly stick to my guns about him not being the greatest writer, which I had last year. However, that hasn't been so obvious this series because he seems to have uncovered the Holy Grail of writing a fantastic, gripping Doctor Who series. He has real enthusiasm for the show, which shines through whenever he gives interviews and even when you watch his episodes. You can tell how passionate he is about Doctor Who, in how he wants to keep everything a secret. The plot for the first two episodes was leaked by some 'fans' on the Internet, and this seemed to genuinely upset him, which I find so refreshing and rather endearing. He's just a normal guy living his dream.

The cliff hanger has now been brought back to both Doctor Who, and television in general. Coronation Street do cliff hangers, but you only have to wait half hour. The American's are able to create cliff hangers that last between one series and another. Us Brit's cannot do that. Well, excluding Moffat. Every episode this series has had a cliff hanger of some kind. Some cliff hangers from this series have been 'unhung' now, but some still continue, and more created. With each episode, you gained more subtle information to allow the audience to create their own, different opinions of what the cliff hanger will result in. This makes you tune in every Saturday without fail. Now we have cliff hangers which will remain 'hanging' until the September return. Steven Moffat is fast becoming one of the greatest things to happen to British Television.

Now, I just want to cover the characters; mainly Rory. I think he is possibly the greatest companion The Doctor has ever had. This is a man who has been killed several times, been erased from existence after saving The Doctor's life, turned into plastic (Autons) and guarded the Pandorica for 2000 years as a Roman. As a character, he is pretty damn brilliant. All this while being in the shadow of Amy. A much better duo than Rose and Micky, that's for sure.

He always has the same facial expression though...

And as for Matt Smith, yesterday it was announced that he would be returning for another series, so long may the 'TARDIS trio' remain intact. Mind you, I wonder what will happen now Amy and Rory have a baby. The Universe is not a safe place for a baby, even if she is half Time Lord. We will have to just wait for September for the final six episodes of this series. Three months. It's a long old wait...

The BBC Is Value For Money. True Or False?

Everyone has their own opinion, but my answer would be 'True'. Final answer. Think back to your favourite program which is made in Britain. Think what your current, British favourite is. Now, think to what corporation made them. A few of you may answer 'Channel 4'. A fewer amount may say 'ITV'. An even fewer (and stupider) amount of people may even say 'Sky'. However, I bet the vast majority of people would actually answer with 'Yes Stuart, the corporation I am thinking of is The BBC', or something along those lines - depending on how eloquently you like to put things.

The instantly recognisable logo for The BBC

The BBC has infuriated me just the same amount of times as is has to the next man; what with the handling of 'SachsGate' (as it is now referred to as) being one of the BBC's worst mistakes. We all remember when the Media metaphorically bullied the BBC, Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross by kicking them repeatedly from their occasional moral higher-ground, just because of a series of out-of-taste answer phone messages left on the phone of Manuel from Fawlty Towers about his Granddaughter. A comedy back-fire, which instead of the BBC just shrugging it off as a mistake, decided to sack or reprimand numerous people, including Brand and Ross. All this because the stupid public believe they have a say in a huge, world-wide corporation, just because they currently have to play £145 a year, by law, to watch colour TV.

That is a lot of money, but as an 18 year old who currently lives at home with his parents, I do not have to pay that, yet. I've had 18 years of watching colour television for free. What right to I have to possess an opinion then? None really, but that has never stopped me.

The other day, I tried to think of a popular comedy sitcoms made in previous decades that have stood the test of time and remained popular for generations, that were shown and created by the BBC. I thought of lots. Only Fools And Horses, Fawlty Towers, One Foot In The Grave, Open All Hours, Blackadder, Porridge, Dad's Army, Last Of The Summer Wine, Red Dwarf, 'Allo 'Allo!, Steptoe And Son, The Royle Family, The Vicar Of Dibley, Men Behaving Badly and more, I know. Then I thought about popular sitcoms made in previous decades that have stood the test of time and remained popular for generations, which were not shown nor created by the BBC. Father Ted is the only one that really stuck out for me. ITV had George And Mildred and Rising Damp, but who watches them these days?

That story may not be as relevant in recent years, with Channel 4 now making Sitcoms as notably good as the BBC, during the 00's. Channel Four have brought us Peep Show, The IT Crowd, Phoenix Nights, Black Books, Spaced and The Inbetweeners. ITV have done nothing worth cheering about. In fact, should you think about it too much, you will soon start crying. The BBC recently have had Outnumbered, The Mighty Boosh, The Office, Gavin And Stacy, My Family, Not Going Out and The Thick Of It, to name the most popular.

The BBC does lots more. Whether you like them or not, they constantly bring us brand new dramas which are just as gripping. They capture the audience whether they are a small child or a person knocking on the gates of heaven. I will just say two words: 'Doctor' and 'Who'. A program which is basically set around an alien, who looks exactly like a human man, moving around the Universe in a blue box with a light on it, and defeats other, nastier aliens with help of people who represent British culture of the time.

Vintage Doctor Who Logo

You can say whatever you like about the BBC, but just remember who still continues to create the longest serving, most popular drama which has the power to grip people across the globe, and still keep it fresh. Doctor Who is a significant part of British popular culture, and has inspired and gripped countless numbers of people and is the big must-see television favourite, and has lasted 769 episodes, with lots more upcoming. Name another British Television Corporation that has done that. Exactly, you can't, can you? Would any other channel even attempt to do something to that scale? Do you still want to argue that the BBC isn't value for money?

Fine. I will name two more television shows which are on the BBC. Have I Got News For You and Qi. Just between those two shows, the BBC achieves its three main goals to: Entertain, Inform and Educate. The Government says it has to do those three things for it to receive its public funding; and it does that easily. Also, to Inform and Educate people while Entertaining the audience and making them laugh, is quite challenge. No other British channel really has shows which can do that. Well, apart from Dave, but that’s only because they’re showing BBC shows. Think about it - without the BBC, the channel Dave would not be able to exist. Without the existence of Top Gear alone, the schedules on Dave would be empty.

Still not convinced? CBBC and Cbeebies. Without those two channels, Children would be stuck with Disney, Boomerang and Nickelodeon, and our children would grow up being stupid and stuck with American values. Trust me - we do NOT want that. I know the BBC show American Children's shows like Arthur and Scooby Doo, but they vary their range. There are those programs which are just really fun with no hidden motive to educate, then you have the ones which do. My prime example is Horrible Histories; a program which teaches children about history in a very funny way. I watch it. I consider it be of a better quality to many comedy shows on TV now. As a BBC 2 Sketch show, it would work well.

Vintage logo for what is now 'CBBC'

CBBC shaped me to be the person I am today. Some may say an angry, cynical teenage boy isn't a good thing to be, but that is beside the point. Watching Arthur everyday made me who I am. Enjoying Postman Pat made me who I am. Fireman Sam made me the person I am today. Even Pingu has made me the person I am. Blue Peter has made me the person I am today. Thanks to that show and their constant appeals, I have learned that if I don't do anything, other people will and charity still wins. It made the lazy man I have become.

Still not convinced aye? Radio. The BBC spurts out 12 different radio stations, all transmitting different genres of music, interesting facts, amusing shows and high-brow debates amongst the middle classes, through the airways of both the analogue and digital type. You cannot get that type of varied entertainment anywhere else. I can switch between Chris Moyles or Chris Evans in the car of a morning and I can listen to these high-brow debates amongst the middle classes on Radio 2 during my travels in the day. I can then come home and listen to the laugh-out-loud 'I'm Sorry I Haven't Got A Clue’ on Radio 4's iPlayer. You cannot tell me all that variety, plus all their TV channels and excellent shows, their news coverage, website and iPlayer systems are not worth the money we pay them. Well, you can try, but I will brand you an ignorant, naive liar!

Just a side note on the business of Chris Moyles having a rant about his pay on his breakfast show: I believe he is more than entitled to do so. That is partly because I believe people should rant more in the mornings as it is a way of engaging and stimulating the brain, but that isn't the main reason. He hadn't been paid for a few months due to a technical error. Now, it doesn't matter how much you earn, you still deserve to be paid for the job you do. I don't think there are many people who would wake up early in the morning and go to work - every single day still, despite not receiving a wage for months. I think he should be praised for his loyalty, and if it takes a rant to sort it out, then let him. Anyway, back on topic.

Not on my side yet? Fine - two words. 'Monty Python'. Maybe it requires a slightly acquired taste of humour, but one of the greatest comedy sketch shows to come out. Their jokes have remained popular and overly quoted for some 40 years. This isn't the only great comedy sketch show to come out of the BBC. The Two Ronnies is another great example. Yet again their sketches remain popular and relevant today. Other comedy acts like Eric And Ernie or Vic And Bob have come from the BBC, all popular and well liked and watched during their popularity hype. You cannot say that the BBC are of no worth, when they are pretty much the only producers of decent comedy on the television, for our nation.

Still not agreeing with me? The charity work they do - the BBC use hours upon hours of their scheduling for charity-related shows. Sport Relief, Red Nose Day and Children In Need are all things you will see on television annually. Without questioning, they have top celebrities helping out. They will always have the number in the corner of the screen, urging people to donate money. They raise absolutely millions of pounds of charity - in just the one evening. Granted, that money comes from us the general public, but I doubt us idiots would even contemplate it without any of that charade sometimes. Remember all the charity events you have watched on the BBC. Now, if that doesn't sway you - then God will hate you. And if you don't believe in God - Cheryl Cole won't believe in you; and if she doesn't believe in you - you know you're in trouble...

The slightly older logo for Children In Need

You can live with God hating and Cheryl Cole not believing in you, can you? You still don't believe the BBC is worth the money? I'll pull out my top trump then. Adverts. Everyone complains about adverts. Just as a show gets to a good bit; they cut to an advert. The adverts are full complete rubbish, all advertising their cosmetic lies and poisonous chemicals that only kill 99.9% of bacteria. The BBC, have none; apart from a minute between shows, to advertise their own shows. They have no adverts. What would Chris Tarrant do if Who Wants To Be A Millionaire was a BBC show? He would never be able to say the words everyone hates 'We'll find out in a minute'. Well, he could I suppose, but he'd have to get up and dance to fill the time - and if he done that every week, we'd hate him. A lot.

You see, by paying the BBC this £145 a year, we have no adverts. We have top quality programming. We have a range of formats from Radio, to Internet, to TV. We have a range in shows from Classical music to the ridiculous BBC 3 documentaries of the absurd. It doesn't matter about your opinions of one particular show, because with this huge range they have on all of their media formats, everyone is bound to find shows they love on the BBC. I mean - Doctor Who. It’s a top quality show with some truly awe-inspiring special effects and some mostly great writing. That can be said for so many of their shows.

All the other channels in the UK only exist by paying top talents like Ant and Dec millions of pounds annually to front their shows or by showing American shows. They don't really create anything that can stand the test of time and that can set a person’s imagination running wild. The BBC do. Sure, they do show American shows, but they level it out with their ability to create this top class, popular, well created shows which do inspire people everywhere, and indeed inspire me.

So, next time you want to complain about the BBC and the money they receive, and the next time you read in a tabloid newspaper that the BBC are a waste of tax-payers money, remember all the things they have given you; either present of many years ago in the golden age of comedy. Think for yourselves you idiots! You don't have to have the same opinion that the Newspapers tell you to have - or in fact what I tell you to say. You don’t have to listen (read) to a word I have said (typed). However, I do fell I stated a very strong case for the BBC and how they are worth every penny, and don't deserve to have millions of pounds cut from their budget by the Conservative Party.

Also, remember to pay your license fee!

P.S. If you wanted to listen to a catchy musical version of this blog, listing reasons to be proud of the BBC, then you should probably listen to this if you haven't done so already: Mitch Benn - Proud Of The BBC.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3q2iZuU5WM

The Reincarnation Of Sherlock Holmes

A few weeks ago, 'Sherlock' appeared on our television screens for three weeks on BBC 1. Now, I have not actually had any real previous exposure to Sherlock Holmes stories, television or film adaptations for me to compare this recent reincarnation of the detective to. In comparison, it may be complete rubbish, but without a comparison I thought it to be absolutely brilliant.

I had a few doubts about it though. The adverts made it look really cool and interesting, which was great, but it was written by Steven Moffat (Doctor Who writer) and Mark Gattis (Actor/Writer for Doctor Who and of other stuff). Those of you, who have read my numerous, recent Doctor Who blogs, will be aware that I am not exactly keen on Moffat's writing. The other doubt being that it had been modernised. 'An old classic that been modernised and bastardised' was my initial thought of what it would be. Writer's have a habit of doing that of late; Old books and movies, being updated to appeal to the modern audience.

These doubts disappeared after the first 20 minutes of the first episode. If you look closely, there is that element of Doctor Who within the character of Sherlock Holmes, and the general writing. Benedict Cumberbatch plays the role of an odd, brilliant man very well, and Martin Freeman is rather good at playing the 'sidekick' Dr. John Watson; a part Matt Smith originally went for before becoming the Doctor. Anyway, Benedict and Martin seemed to work quiet well with each other, and although being massively updated, still managed to keep true to the original stories.

Just little things like Dr Watson being injured in Afghanistan in the original Conan Doyle's stories, fits in perfectly with our current state of affairs, and of course Freeman's adaptation had been injured in service in Afghanistan. Also, the fact they live at the same address on Bakers Street, London and Sherlock Holmes's brother Mycroft, played by Mark Gatiss, return in the adaptation.

Cumberbatch and Freeman, in the guise of Sherlock and Watson, at the famous address

As for the episodes, it is a similar tale to Doctor Who. I only really enjoyed two of the three episodes. However, would you believe it, the episode that I preferred was actually the one written by Steven Moffat, which was the first episode. The other episode I liked was mainly written by Mark Gatiss, which was the finale. The episode I didn't like was the second, written by guest writer Stephen Thompson. So, from the fact I much prefer Moffat’s writing for Sherlock than in Doctor Who, we can conclude that Moffat should give up on Doctor Who and concentrate more on writing for Sherlock.

If he did that, I am sure he could improve on it massively. Only three episodes in the series? You wouldn't expect that treatment in America. I want the series to go on for weeks and week and weeks. Also, shorten the length of the episodes. Produce more, shorter episodes. 90 minute long episodes work, but by the end you tend to tire of it. Produce 13, 60 minute episodes. Moffat is a fantastic writer, when doing the right stuff. He should give Doctor Who to someone else and go for Sherlock, just like I said at the end of the previous paragraph; just to emphasis the point.

The first episode, which was written by the Moffat and entitled 'A Study In Pink', I actually really enjoyed. Even someone like me with no previous experience with Sherlock Holmes could tell you that we were introduced to someone who everyone could identify as Holmes. The only bad thing about the episode, but classic of Moffat's writing, is that I worked out the killer half hour before Sherlock Holmes. I wasn't the only one, I'm aware of lots of people who worked out that the murderer would be a Taxi Driver. However, at the end of the 90 minutes, you felt as if you had really gotten to know the characters, like you would after a few episodes, which certainly is a credit to Moffat.

The second episode, written by a little known man called 'Stephen Thompson which was called 'The Blind Banker', was the weakest of the three stories. Again, everyone had an idea of who the killer was before Sherlock. The problem with them having different writer’s, is that the characters seemed a bit different in the second story and is taking a different angel, a weakness of numerous writers and the episode didn't seem to fit.

The third episode, written by Mark Gatiss was called 'The Great Game'. Now, between this episode and the first, there were numerous links and they fitted with each other better; which just emphasis's the point that Gatiss and Moffat should work together on writing Sherlock, and not get in other writers. This episode however, was fantastic in allowing the audience to fully understand the character of Sherlock Holmes and fully appreciate his mind power. It is an episode in which Sherlock has to solve numerous puzzles in order to save people’s lives, and with it being much more fast paced, it just came across as a great episode.

Sherlock Holmes has been updated a lot, with Laptop's, iPhone's and Blackberry's being used throughout the stories and also includes a lot of travel by taxi, in which he seems to think and work things out. Of course, he still has the old resource of books, but it has been modernised with care. You almost begin to believe that if Conan Doyle was alive today and writing the Sherlock Holmes books, it is how he would have written them, with new technologies aiding him. I have read rather a lot of reviews, because I am very intrigued as to what other people thought, and there seems to be a general thumbs up.

Hardly any reviews I have read, comment on how the modernisation has ruined the classic stories. Most people agree that it is in keeping with the original stories. There does seem to be rather a lot of love for it, which is fantastic. I honestly think that if the BBC approaches the new series right, they could have another hit, just like Doctor Who, on their hands. The new series does need to have shorter, but more episodes in my opinion for it to work. Only three episodes? By the time I got my teeth gripped into it, it just ends. The BBC also need to make sure they don't have guest writers, and they make Moffat and Gatiss write the entire lot; just to emphasis and repeat the same point yet once more.

Dramatic walking through the streets of London

So, essentially my conclusion is that Moffat should stop writing Doctor Who and give that to someone else, and just focus on Sherlock. He clearly produces better work for that project. I am so very pleased the BBC has commissioned another series. Makes a change from the usual crap they commission.

Now, I feel I should make an attempt at starting to read the original books and stories. I feel I have missed out, and if I am enjoying this new version, imagine the fun I could have if I actually read the original written by one of our most famous writers. Sherlock Holmes in my opinion is next to James Bond in the list of characters from English literature that have become quintessential characters of our every day-to-day life. Very important and should be remembered in both their original and new forms, forever, and for many generations to come.