February 2009 Archives

Now I know the Oscars are important to the film industry, even more so in the current financial meltdown. They increase profitability of nominated films, guarantee success for winners and make raising future finance that bit easier for those who can put a gold statuette on their CV.

But let us get it in proportion. Film stars, directors and so on are not minor deities, they are people very well paid for doing a rather pleasant job who hope their work will be recognised by their peers at the various industry trade awards of which the Oscars is the biggest.

A BBC interviewer flown out to Los Angeles along with, no doubt, a few planeloads of other staff enjoying a jolly, was gushing on excitedly about what a privilege it had been to interview Kate Winslet.

Perhaps someone could point out to her that the reason she was in California at the licence payers' expense in the first place was to actually interview people such as Ms Winslet. It's called her job and no disrespect to Ms Winslet, who thoroughly deserved her Oscar, but at the end of the day she is an actress and as such needs publicity and interviews like the rest of us need air so it does not exactly need a gut busting effort on the part of any interviewer to get her to speak to the BBC.

Who comes up with these arbitrary style rules for the new breed of drinking establishment?

We all know that in the proper world of real, grown-up hostelries, the places where lager is just a misspelling of big, that the sole arbiter of style, behaviour and indeed anything that moves or makes a noise, once you pass under the sign telling you the premises are licensed to sell beers, wines and spirits, is the gaffer. His word is law.

But in these supposedly trendy places - you can usually tell them by the fact fried potato peelings are on the menu - all tradition and culture goes out the window in favour of arbitrary rules which one can only suppose are in some vain hope that it will lift them above a mere pub. And of course it also gives the bouncers, usually from the Phil Mitchell end of the gene pool, something to do.

The reason I mention this is that I was with a group of friends and our offspring last weekend and we had been out for a meal in Mere Green to celebrate the impending wedding of one of our group's children. We, or to be more honest, the younger ones, had decided we should all round off the evening in one such place. Think after skiing without skiing as a sort of clue as to where.

It all seemed simple until we tried to get past the bouncers who announced that there is a ban on sports trainers after 9pm. You could understand a ban on drug dealers, or baseball bats, bike chains or whatever or even a sorry we are full if the place had been heaving - which it plainly was not. But sports trainers? And only after 9pm?

It hardly bothered me as I only go in the place once in a blue moon but because a couple of our number were wearing casual shoes, including one pair which were canvas and, apparently, quite fashionable - the two male and a female door staff, with that cheery demeanour that would make them instant hits in EastEnders, decided they were trainers and delighted in turning away a quick couple of hundred quid or so that would have gone over their bar. They even managed to single out their only regular customer in our group for special treatment - and he was the one getting married.

The bizarre thing is that all the men had been in there earlier - casual shoes and all - and had we all stayed or returned at 8.59pm we would have been welcomed with open tills but once the clock has chimed nine - even if all the customers inside are doing a passable imitation of a fun run fashion show at a Nike convention - if you arrive in footwear which the cordwaining experts on the door declare are sports trainers you are banned.

Now any sensible person putting on a show about Al Jolson would accept that at some point the lad is going to have to black up. Not the producers of Jolson & Co in Edinburgh though who took it upon themselves to sanitise history.

Jolson in black make up appears in just one scene described in the 1999 Curtain Up review of the original off-Broadway show thus: "The powerful Act One finale, when rejected by wife No 2, Ruby Keeler, Jolson slowly puts on his black minstrel makeup and then moves down centre stage to sing "My Mammy" gives us a deep-down glimpse into his soul -- and, not incidentally, introduces the only "black face" number without a trace of political incorrectness."

But this is Britain not New York and the producers decided the scene would offend a lot of people - as usual in the world of PC people actually being offended are somewhat thin on the ground but there are always those who will happily take offence on their behalf.

The producers justified their politically but not historically correct decision with the flimsy excuse that Jolson did not black up all the time, I suppose you could say, much in the same way, that Tommy Cooper did not wear a Fez all the time, Jack Benny did not always have a violin and George Formby did not play ukulele all the time.

We are not talking about a return of the Black and White Minstrels here, just one scene, in context, in a biog-musical about a performer who owed much of his fame to black make up. This barmy homage to PC begs the question that if you are that frightened of any suspicion you may have deviated from the party line, why would you pick a subject like Jolson in the first place?

So let me get this right then. The Government wants everyone to carry an ID card which will carry any information the Government might find of interest which, of course, will be held on a national identity database.

The database, with all its confidential and personal information will then be accessible by any official body which, in effect, means anyone from a spotty faced council clerk with an unhealthy interest in local residents to politicians looking for ammunition on critics or opponents despite fancy rhetoric and empty assurances from the Government.

And, of course, preferred partners from the private sector will also have access, these being firms who have come up with the asking price in cash and future directorships and consultancies for former ministers and senior civil servants

We also have a DNA database which covers anyone who has ever walked past a police station let alone committed a crime and the Government wants everyone's medical records to be on a central NHS database which, like everything else on any computer with even the most remote Government connection, is as secure as a paper bag in a thunderstorm. On past form insurance companies will also be able to access both treasure troves of information for a fee.

Freedom of speech is slowly evolving into freedom to say what does not upset the Government and just in case you think you are safe when you close your front door . . . some 800 agencies can demand to enter your home - it used to be your castle remember - without a warrant or an invite.

And don't complain to your mates by telephone or computer - the Government wants to record every phone call and email. The logistics might have escaped big brother but the intention behind the sinister plan is certainly pretty clear.

Then, just to keep an eye on you all out there, we have an estimated 4.5 million CCTV cameras screwed to just about every pole or flat surface, a number which conservative estimates reckon will double in 10 years and it now transpires that police want to demand everyone who enters a pub has to be filmed on CCTV which has to be handed over on demand as a condition of a licence.

Amid all this the former head of MI5, Dame Stella Rimington, declares Government is using fear of terrorism to erode civil liberties and we are being pushed further and further towards a police state.

So up pops Tony McNulty, the employment minister - it must have been his turn on the counter attack rota - to rubbish any criticism of the Government. He declares Dame Stella's view to be "abject nonsense" and claims the Government has got the right balance between security and civil liberties. Keen eyed citizens might have spotted he is a member of the very Government she was warning about.

Hands up anyone who doesn't believe him . . . and just make sure there is no camera watching.

It might not be a huge consolation as the world goes into financial meltdown but at least we might be able to go into a bank now without staff trying to flog us new mortgages, loans - all with payment protection of course - new improved accounts, better credit cards, gas and electricity supplies, telephone service, home, car, contents and travel insurance, medical plans, holidays, cars, electrical goods, savings plans, pensions and anything else they forced staff to flog like corporate Del Boys to hit targets and make an extra few bob for the brilliant bankers at the top.

Maybe now you will just be able to withdraw or pay in cash, ask for loans when you need them and so on, the sort of thing we used to call banking.

While we are at it, does anyone actually know anyone who ever managed to make a successful claim on one of these payment protection scams?

As a disciple of the wonderful Sky + I must admit I usually watch TV ads at 30 times their normal speed but today I was watching live footy so it was all in real time.

Now I know this is a daft question but does anyone actually know someone who has paid full price for a DFS sofa?

Anyone else becoming tired of television's obsession of using recorded laughter in almost every comedy programme these days?

If someone is under the impression that a mediocre script is somehow made hilarious by bunging raucous laughter from an audience obviously watching something else after every punchline then perhaps it could explain why so much television comedy these days is less than memorable.

Unless of course recordings are the only way some lines will ever get a laugh.

The most alarming thing about the Geert Wilders incident - and forget the Dutch MP whose only importance was the principle involved - is that our own MPs, the people we misguidedly thought were charged with defending and protecting our rights and liberties, have accepted the Government's shoddy appeasement of militant Islam with hardly a murmur.

While Jacqui Smith was hacking the freedom out of free speech and Foreign Secretary David Milliband was knowledgably condemning Wilders' film as illegal before being forced to admit he had not actually seen it, the majority of our representatives of the people kept their heads down and carried on filling in their expenses or whatever is important to them these days.

Give up freedoms without a fight and one day our MPs may well find they have lost even the basic freedom to put up any fight at all.

So let me get this right. Princy Harry's dad owns most of Cornwall, is worth £350 million or so and lives on a huge estate in Gloucestershire while his Grandmother is worth about the same with a castle and country estate to boot as well as royal palaces - oh, and she also has a Royal Collection worth about £12 billion.On top of that Harry is third in line to the throne.

Harry has now been sent on an equality course. This is going to have to be one of the longest equality courses in history.

Last week if you had asked in the pub, perhaps even in the weekly quiz, who Geert Wilders was, women would have shrugged, picked up their glass of pinot and carried on chatting about womanly things.

The men, meanwhile, would have done manly things and racked their brains for any glimmer of recognition of the name in one of the great Ajax, PSV or even Anderlecht teams of the past. Wasn't he the substitute left back in that team where Van Basten scored that wonder goal?

As for Wilders' film, Fitna, that was just about as big a hit as Sex Lives of the Potato Men dubbed into Inuit.

Move on a week and thanks to the clunking fist of Government he is now better known than all the current Ajax, PSV and Anderlecht players combined and, come to think of it, most of the cabinet as well.

Not only that but the principle of free speech has been redefined by the ban on the Dutch MP entering the country. You can say what you like as long as the Government agrees with it and it does not upset the PC gauleiters or militant Islamic groups. Effectively you are now free to say whatever you want as long as it has prior approval and, presumably, you have submitted the appropriate risk assessment form.

The decision is better than a recruiting poster for any right-wing, nationalist or racist groups and must be seen as a late Christmas present by the BNP who will be photocopying membership forms as we speak. Manna from heaven to them. As a bonus it has also upset civil liberty and freedom groups of all hues with the only people gaining anything from the whole debacle being the City slickers who will no doubt be relieved that is has produced a brief respite from the new sport of banker baiting.

To add to the row it has also created a major diplomatic incident with an EU citizen being denied entry to another EU state which will have them bristling with indignation in Brussels. Not only that but to really rattle cages he is not just an ordinary punter or even an ordinary MP but the leader of a legitimate political party in a democratic member state which has really endeared us to the Dutch, who were among our best allies in Europe. Imagine the furore if a British MP had accepted an official invitation and had been denied entry to some foreign gaffe?

And all this for someone whose views were largely unknown in this country and who had limited support in Holland. It is not as if he was even coming to a public meeting where there could have been a breach of the peace - i.e. a punch-up. He had been asked by a couple of Lords to show his film and answer questions in the Palace of Westminster. It was a case of a Dutch parliamentarian invited to address British parliamentarians.

With no interference he would have flown in, shown his film to a couple of dozen peers, answered a few questions, sunk and pie and a pint and gone home. End of story.

Instead we have made him a world celebrity, given fuel to right-wing campaigns, damaged the concept of free speech, ensured his film, easily found, will become a big hit on the internet and managed to upset most of the EU while at the same time attempting to stifle any discussion on his views of an Islamic terrorist threat.

Views which must be either so persuasive or so terrible we cannot even allow peers of the realm to hear them.

Behind all this it also appears the Government has bowed down to a reported threat by Muslim peer Lord Ahmed to mobilise 10,000 Muslims to blockade Parliament if Wilders appeared - that is real democracy at work. Brilliant.

But I suppose that's what comes of running the Home Office from the back bedroom of a terraced house in South London.

Incidentally, I understand the 17 minute film will still be shown, no doubt to what will now be a much larger audience who will be there to see what all the fuss is about, but Wilders will not be there to justify the claims it makes. Instead he will be back in Holland where his entry refusal will no doubt have brought him a few more supporters and his website will be getting more hits than ever before with even more people learning about his views.