Nigel Farage and Jeremy Clarkson - 'Common assault' not 'common sense'

Right wing populists are rarely out of the news in Britain, but this week has been dominated by them much more than usual.

On one hand you have UKIP party leader Nigel Farage getting in to trouble for essentially calling for equality legislation to be scrapped in an interview

Whilst at the same time Jeremy Clarkson has been suspended for allegedly punching his producer on Top Gear.  For both of them the same pattern has emerged - those who like them will defend them to the teeth, those that dislike them call for their heads.

I know that sounds obvious, but it's still irritating.  As a Socialist I'm far on the left, so you can guess my opinion on Farage and Clarkson - I'm not exactly a fan.

But you soon realise that when you espouse an opinion about either of them that mocks them you are only playing to the choir, you will only have people respond who completely agree with you already.  It seems impossible to actually effect, let alone change, anyone's opinion on these two.

Same thing the other way round.  Clarkson has been accused of punching a colleague at work.  As such he has been suspended following an investigation.  Because of the suspension the BBC are considering cancelling the rest of the current series of Top Gear as he wouldn't be available to film and, frankly, it would be weird to just go ahead without him.

So far, so clear.  I think we all know that if you're accused of assaulting a colleague at work you will be, at best, suspended as the allegation is investigated.

And yet there is a (currently) 600,000 signatures strong petition calling for Jeremy Clarkson to be immediately reinstated.  WHAT??

There are many arguments that can made to suggest that Jeremy Clarkson shouldn't be on TV.  He has a rich history of controversy already.  But all that to one side for now, as it stands at this time, he has been accused of punching a colleague at work and so has been suspended.

WHAT IS THERE TO ARGUE AGAINST?  Without making comment about his guilt or otherwise, how can anyone argue against him being suspended?

And yet, here we are, with a petition signed by over 600,000 people who have decided, with no need for any form of evidence whatsoever, that Jeremy Clarkson should just be reinstated.  The reason why?  Because they think it is all a conspiracy.

Right wing blogger Guido Fawkes started the petition, and wrote in The Sun on Thursday explaining why.  Now, someone like Guido Fawkes is very hard to satirise because his language is so absurdly reactionary that he himself appear to be an ironic joke.  But he's not, he's very real.  To give you an example, he said he loved Clarkson for all the reasons:

"...a bunch of Left-wing pinkos at the BBC have been out to get him for ages"

Seriously, "left-wing pinkos"?  What is this, 1950's America?  McCarthyism on the march once again?  What a bizarrely archaic term.  But then this comes from the same lexicon in which Tory Ministers also pluck the term "pleb" from (allegedly/probably), so maybe not that surprising.

The BBC Trust meet to discuss Clarkson, yesterday

The point is they think Clarkson is subject to a conspiracy where the liberal-lefties at the BBC are out to get him.

Top Gear, in it's current form after being revamped in 2002, has been a massive success for the BBC.  The programme is estimated to have around 350 million views per week in 170 different countries.  Do we really believe that the BBC would want to kill off this cash cow?

Of course not.  Yes, Clarkson can cause them all manor of headaches, but the figures speak for themselves.

I suppose the reason they might have suspended him, and I don't know if I've mentioned this, is because he is accused of punching a colleague whilst at work!!

Meanwhile on the other side of the green in this village made up entirely of idiots lives Nigel Farage.  A man who is pure Marmite, both because he divides opinion but also because he is the by-product left over from a process, in this case mainstream politicians stoking up racism and anti-immigrant sentiments.

In an interview that has just come out with Trevor Phillips, the former head of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, Farage was questioned on his views regarding the existing Equalities legislation.  His response:

"I would argue that the law does need changing, and that if an employer wishes to chose, or you can use the word 'discriminate' if you want to, but wishes to chose to employ a British-born person, they should be allowed to do so.  I think you should be able to chose on the basis of nationality, yes.  I do."

So he suggests that discrimination in employment should be allowed.  Unsurprisingly, there are many who didn't take well the suggestion of rolling back legislation that we have had in place in one form or another since 1965.

Sadique Khan, Labour's shadow justice secretary, said:

"when my parents moved to London they frequently saw signs saying 'no blacks, no dogs, no irish' and what UKIP is suggesting would take us back to those days"

The bizarre thing is, that since the contents of the interview became public causing Nigel Farage to do some backtracking, he and others in UKIP have presented data in interviews that are indeed sympathetic to those suffering from racism.

One UKIP candidate interviewed on the radio gave the statistics about how much harder it was for young black men to find employment than young white men, but still went on to say that the equalities legislation was unnecessary because "people can just use common sense instead".

In practice they're saying is "we know that racism exists, but we think the best thing to do is just get rid of the legislation designed to stop it".

Now, I tried to find the exact details of that radio interview I heard, but it's impossible to find.  Trying to goggle phrases like 'UKIP candidate defends Farage' throws up so many stories from soooooooooooooooooo many gaffes, it is impossible to wade through.

I might as well have goggled 'pieces of hay that look like needles'.

But again, there are so many that will jump to his defence even though the position seems indefensible, and they will say it's 'common sense' whilst they do it.  That's the most egotistical thing of the populist right.  I can argue my politics quite vigorously, but I still realise that I am putting across a certain political point of view.

They believe that they are not merely arguing a position, but that what they say is what 'everyone is thinking'... it's common sense.  How egotistical is that?

When asked about his views after that interview Nigel Farage said that UKIP as a party was 'colour blind'.  As they are still arguing that jobs shouldn't go to foreigners, can we call that 'blind prejudice'?

At least he doesn't wear jeans and a jacket...

As a caveat to this piece I suppose I should point out that Nigel Farage has not himself signed the petition to reinstate Jeremy Clarkson.  When asked about it he said:

"It seems to me that as boss of Ukip, if I punched one of our press office – it’s tempting at times, I have to say – but I’d be in very, very hot water indeed and I would without doubt be suspended for a period of time pending a disciplinary hearing.

So I think people signing up online saying Clarkson should be re-employed are doing so really without any knowledge of what went on or whether there’s any history there, so as far as I’m concerned the jury’s out, but I’m not going to worry too much for Jeremy Clarkson."

So to everyone who has signed the petition calling for Jeremy Clarkson to be reinstated, you are potentially being more reactionary then Nigel Farage.  That should be a sobering thought for you, but I don't suppose it is unfortunately.

Creativity and fear - running from the fireball

A number of years ago, I saw the comedian Mark Steel at an event.  Instead of stand up, he was presenting one of his lectures at an event called 'Marxism', organised by the Socialist Workers Party.  'The Mark Steel lectures' had been a popular series on both radio and TV, in which Mark discussed leading figures from history, fusing the concepts of a factual lecture and stand up comedy wonderfully.

This particular lecture was about Einstein.  At one point Mark describes spending time in a cafe in Soho, trying to get his head around a particular theory.  Suddenly it clicks, and he wants to jump up and demand why everyone is just going about their normal day as if this theory didn't exist.

It was very funny, and I laughed.  After I laughed though, I realised something - this is what Mark Steel does with his days.  Whilst I was inputting data sat at a desk 9-5, Monday to Friday, he is sat in cafes in Soho considering theories espoused by leading historical physicists.  And I thought... that sounds brilliant!

Ok, I'm not particularly bothered about spending time pondering the theoretical sciences, but the idea that you could have your day free just to create was life changing.  I realised this is what I wanted to be able to do with my days too.

Since then I have spent a number of years as a stand up comedian, and in that time have also turned my hand to improvised comedy and writing (perhaps you've read my blog...).

Last week I took an improv workshop by the wonderful Jill Bernard.  One of the finest improvisers I have seen, Jill's workshop was titled 'Fireball theory'.  The workshop:

"offers exercises to help you improvise faster and harder than you can judge yourself. You will learn to metaphorically hit the scene running and outrun the explosion of self-loathing and doubt like an action movie hero outruns a fireball thus defying the laws of physics."

 The exercises taught us as a group to play big, play confident, and just go for it.  It was a real buzz.

The idea of outrunning the fireball was really interesting.  To me, that doesn't just apply to improv, but to all creative arts.

To many, creative expression can be terrifying.  There are people who potentially face the risk of death every day, like fire fighters, who can face going in to burning buildings that could collapse at any point but would hate the idea of having to stand on stage and say anything in to a microphone.

Honestly, I've spoken to people like that at gigs, and they say that I'm brave!!

There is fear, initially, but the buzz you get from making a room full of people laugh is amazing.  Your work and effort in writing and working on performing a set is paid off when people laugh.

But that's the thing... it is work.

It takes effort and it takes time.  And this is where the fireball comes in.  Through out the process, on stage and off, you have so many self-doubts.  Fears that creep in.  You have these fears because you give of yourself emotionally.

If you're doing data entry you have a certain rate you are expected to do.  As long as you do that, you're fine, and you keep your job.  Your awful, boring job.  Yes, it can be alienating, but you don't have to worry that the computer doesn't like you, or anything like that.  You are not giving yourself emotionally to the job.

Producing something creatively can be really scary.  You are saying to the world "hey everyone, here is something I've made.  Please judge me".

This fear can effect people in different ways.  For me, the biggest block I have is my procrastination.  That urge to do something, anything, apart from what I need to be doing.  Even whilst writing this blog I have had to resist the urge several times to check on Facebook or the BBC website for news.

I know this blog has a readership from the stats I get through blogger, and I know from feedback that there are people that enjoy it.  But I still get that fear.  Because this is all my own work.  it's not done in collaboration, it's all me.  As such, the belief I have in myself depends on work such as this.

This is the fireball.  It's a burning mass of self doubt.

Fear exists for a reason, it's your minds way of keeping you out of harm.  It makes perfect sense that you are cautious when crossing the road because if not you would get splatted.  Same thing if something suddenly jumps out at you.  Sure, it might turn out to be your cat, but if it was a crazed sex ninja, you'll be glad of that adrenaline rush that makes you run faster and get away.

Relax though, 'crazed sex ninjas' are rare.  Mostly.

Of course that's fine in situations in which physical peril is at least a possibility, but a bit dumb if you're just trying to tell a joke on stage.  The brain struggles to tell the two apart though, so that fear is here to stay.

What you learn though, with experience, is ways to ensure that you stay ahead of the fireball.

Sheer experience is probably the best one.  I have been on stage many hundreds of times now doing stand up.  Sometimes the experience can be horrible, but mostly it is fine.  Sometimes even amazing.  This means that when I go on stage I don't pretend that there isn't a possibility of it going badly, I just know that it probably won't.  Because normally it does go well.

Aside from being on stage, I have experience in different processes that I know pay dividends... eventually.

Writing comedy can be a real chore, and can involve hours of coming up with nothing but crap.  However, I know from experience that if I put the time in, I can produce good material.  I have to have that faith that the effort is worth it.

All the time I'm writing though a voice in my head is going "why are you spending time doing this?  This isn't any good.  You'll look stupid when you present it to others, and you'll have wasted this time.  Hey, why don't you go on Facebook instead..."

And often I do.  I will go on Facebook, then realise I'm wasting my time and get upset at myself for it.  Facebook is a devil, because it's sole reason to exist is to waste your time, and get you clicking on link, after link, after link.

And it's hard not to.  Seriously, I was reading an article on there the other day and in the corner of the screen was another link demanding my mouse click with the headline "robot roller-derby disco dodgeball is as amazing as you'd expect."

Good God!  I mean, if they hinted at a confusing dress colour and Madonna falling over that would be the most successful thing on the internet ever!

If I've learnt one thing, it's that if I am working I cannot go on Facebook.  Of course, if the only reason you're reading this blog is because you clicked on a link on Facebook... that's fine.  If anything, it's commendable.  Well done.

It's not really the fault of Facebook if I don't get work done, it is mine.  At the root of all my procrastinating is self-doubt.  If I am procrastinating I am letting self doubt take control.

Like with anything that takes work you have to think 'is this worth it?'

My audience, yesterday

Mark Steel gets to sit in cafes thinking about theoretical science because he earns a living that allows him to do it.  He earns a living by working hard and creating things that people want to watch, hear and experience.

If you are in an office all day you give of yourself 8 hours of labour each day.  That's if you're lucky and not in a particularly shitty job.  If you work in the creative field you still have to sell your labour, but in smaller chunks.

An article for a magazine here, booking a comedy gig there, teaching an improv workshop over here... etc, etc.  Instead of giving all of me to one employer, I give bite size chunks to lots of people.  It's like my working day is being torrented.  Downloading tiny bits of me from different sources to make up who I am.

The fear tries to stop you working.  It is the fireball that wants to burn you up.  If you give up though, you give up everything.  No more laughter, no more fun, no more expressing yourself in a meaningful way.

That's why you keep running from the fireball, because you know it's worth it.  As for the fear, you realise that it's good thing.  It's the fear that makes you run just fast enough.

Keep running.

What exactly is militant Liberalism?

The militants lair

Comedian Andrew Lawrence caused something of a minor shit-storm in comedy circles last week by posting on Facebook criticism of comedians appearing on BBC programs such as Mock the Week.  The general gist was that there are a lot of comedians making cheap jokes about UKIP, and he blames a liberal elite within the corporation, and the laziness of comics.

What could have been a contribution to a debate, however incorrect, was somewhat mired with statements bemoaning

"...moronic, liberal back-slapping on panel shows like Mock The Week where aging, balding, fat men, ethnic comedians and women-posing-as-comedians, sit congratulating themselves on how enlightened they are about the fact that UKIP are ridiculous and pathetic."

I think the part that particularly annoyed many was the concept of "women-posing-as-comedians."  It feels almost like he is imagining a producer with a need to fill quotas desperately searching for any woman he can find.  Eventually the char lady has powder applied and, bewildered and blinking under the studio lights, is sat next to Hugh Dennis and told not to break anything.

Contained within the entire statement are a number of breath-taking examples of foetid nonsense.  However, I don't intend on writing specifically in response to Andrew Lawrence, as plenty have already taken up that challenge.

What I will do though is pick up on one particular gem from it all.  He accuses the BBC of "deeply ingrained militant Liberal politics."

What exactly are militant Liberal politics?

The campaign against library closures steps up a notch

For a start I can't imagine an armed struggle being waged by a political faction in the name of liberalism.

A sniper assassinating government advisers on drug policies in a bid to further the aim of de-criminalising marajuana; "Outrage" kidnapping The Queen and forcing her to marry a Lesbian; a "No to page 3" activist pretending to go in for a topless photo shoot only to reveal under her blouse a bomb vest, taking out half of Fleet St.

Doesn't seem too likely does it?

Complaints about the BBC being too Liberal are not uncommon.  We hear it all the time from the likes of the Sun and other right-wing newspapers.  But then, complaining about bias of the corporation against a political position is not just the reserve of the right.

At the height of the anti-war movement against the invasion of Iraq we were always amazed at how you could get so little coverage of demonstrations, despite 10,000's people taking to the streets.  Thousands marching on any subject should surely be newsworthy?

When Israel stepped up it's murderous campaign against Palestinians, activists were again complaining about a pro-Israel bias.  But at the same time Zionists and other supporters of Israel were complaining that it instead had a pro-Palestinian bias!

What that suggests is that while it may not be perfect, and will always make mistakes, maybe the BBC is pretty unbiased after all.

Anyway, the suggestion that UKIP could complain about bias against them from the BBC is ridiculous.  Can anyone remember an episode of Question Time that didn't feature one of their members on the panel?  Whenever immigration is mentioned in any capacity in the news, there always appears to be a UKIP spokesperson on hand.

There is every possibility you may be reading that last bit of criticism of UKIP thinking "but you would say that, you're a Liberal"  To which I would say "get stuffed, I'm not a Liberal!  I'm a Socialist!!"

You can't argue with facts

A liberal wants to gently tweak the already existing Status Quo, where-as I want to change the entire system because it's the system that's at fault.  Agree with me or not but you would have to admit, that's militant!

A few comedians on Mock the Week suggesting Nigel Farage looks like a muppet?  No, that's not militant.  I understand in that context why supporters of right wing parties might complain about their treatment.

I mean, thank God no-one ever mentions Ed Miliband's appearance... oh, wait...

Rotherham, and why we shouldn't listen to the racists.

So what next for this stand-up comedians lighted hearted blog posts?  A post about the Rotherham recent child abuse scandal?  Well, that is bound to be a wheeze.  Ho, ho, ho, strap in comedy lovers...

Well, maybe not.  Yes, I am covering that subject, but I must admit that a report uncovering the sexual exploitation and abuse of over 1400 children in Rotheram isn't exactly a giggle fest.  Still, as with any major news story, there are plenty of contradictions at play.

First was watching the BBC news two mornings ago which included an interview with the group "Parents Against Child Sexual Exploitation".  It twisted my mind as to why such a group existed.  After all, who would be against that group?

The other issue is the groups name.  Why "parents" against child sexual exploitation and not just "people"?  I don't have children myself, but does that mean they think I would be in some way neutral on the issue?  Would I be expected to complain to the BBC, demanding to know why they hadn't invited on a pro-paedophile spokesperson to provide balance?  No, I will be happily maintaining my license fee payments for the foreseeable future.

Of course a big issue with this case is the impact of race and racism, as the perpetrators here were mostly men from a Pakistani background.  With the ongoing rumblings of Investigation Yewtree turning up historical abuse cases involving mostly white male celebrities, you might be fooled in to thinking that overall race isn't really a factor.  But that's not going to hold the right wing press back.

Reading The Sun on Thursday, unsurprisingly, warmed my urine to a rolling boil.  A particular highlight being columnist Trevor Kavanagh's take on the issue, where he blames:

'mostly white, mostly Labour politicians and police... (who) represent a political class, backed by the BBC, who waved in millions of migrants during 13 years of Labour government under the discredited flag of multiculturalism.  Their avowed objective was to change the face of Britain which they deemed to be "too white"'

Of course!!  How stupid of me not to realise that the problem all along was caused by Labour, the BBC and multiculturalism!  Case solved, thanks Trev.

Aside from rantings by columnists such as Kavangh, the general argument is that the police in Rotherham, backed by Labour, didn't investigate the claims out of a fear of being seen as racist.  It would be easy to write off this argument as barking mad, because it is.  For a start, the police not wanting to be racist???  My, my, how times change.

Scarily though, you cannot just ignore this argument, because it is one that is seated well and truly in the mainstream.  The Sun are not alone in turning this horrific story about child abuse in to one for their own agenda attacking Labour and multiculturalism.

In reality, the real problem in this case is precisely the same problem as there was in the case against Jimmy Saville.  Victims and their families were blamed for the abuse, and ignored.

£60k salary v. honour.  Salary wins!

Police in Rotherham ignored the complaints because they saw the girls as complicit in their own abuse.  "If you hang around with that kind of crowd, what do you expect to happen", was their position.  In reality, where girls in any way "chose" to spend time with their abusers, that was as a result of grooming.  That's how it works, and that is why there is an age of consent.  They are children, not consenting adults, and they need protecting.

Perhaps there is some cultural aspect as to why a minority of Pakistani men thought it was acceptable to abuse young girls (and not exclusively white girls either, like the media often suggests).  But then, there is a cultural explanation as to why older white celebrities thought it was ok to do exactly the same.

As much as I mocked the name of "Parents Against Child Sexual Exploitation" before, one thing you can say is that they don't make any issue of race.  They, and anyone who is genuinely concerned with helping put a stop to child abuse in this way, say that the real issue is to put a stop to victim blaming, and for the police to take complaints seriously.