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.

Book review and podcast

Hi folks

I haven't had the time to write a full blog this week, but here are a couple of things that I've been up to instead.

First up is a podcast I was a guest on called 'The Cock Inn'.  A mix between a topical comedy panel show and a pub quiz, we discussed 'that' dress, plucky woodpeckers and the pitfalls of being santa.  You can listen at:

https://www.mixcloud.com/TheCockInn/the-cock-inn-episode-6/

You can also find it on iTunes.

Also, I provided a review of 'Jebel Marra' by Michelle Green for the latest online edition of Now Then magazine, which is an arts and culture magazine for the Manchester area.  Don't worry if you don't live in Manchester though, because the book is collection of short stories set in Darfur during the civil.

And yes, it is a right laugh!

Ok... clearly not.  But I did like it.  You can read my review at:

http://nowthenmagazine.com/manchester/issue-17/books/

That's all from me for now, I'll have a new blog at the end of the week.  Thanks for reading.

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.

Saturday Night Live at 40 - A Brit tries to understand an American institution

Saturday Night Live to me is a lot like getting my car serviced.  I know that it's important, but I don't really understand it.

Saturday Night Live (SNL) is an American late night sketch and variety show which has just celebrated it's 40th year with an anniversary show.  The online hype leading up to it has been huge, with fans excitedly anticipating the return of past favourite cast members, their characters and recurring sketches.

Being British, SNL is not something I've grown up with.  To Americans it's as much a mainstay as Coronation Street is here - you would struggle to imagine it not being there, because it always has been.

Whilst I have not been brought up with SNL as a TV show I am aware of it's influence.  SNL characters have been put directly in to their own films, some wonderful examples being 'Wayne's World' and the utterly sublime 'Blues Brothers'.  Also, films made by former cast members with original characters, such as 'Anchorman' and 'Bridesmaids'.

To try and school myself then, I decided the watch the 40th anniversary special.  See if I could 'get' it.

It opens with Jimmy Fallon and Justin Timberlake doing a rap tribute to the various recurring characters that have appeared on the show.  To me, of course, this means nothing, as I don't know much of the history.

It soon becomes apparent that this is going to be a problem, as the anniversary special is all about the history.  This is a big nostalgia trip, but like looking through someone else's family photo albums, these memories may be treasured, but they are not meant for me.

Hey look, it's that guy who tried to destroy 'Community'

Following the rap opening we have the title sequence itself, with the cast listed in alphabetical order with the live band playing in the background.  As it's such a special show they have invited on a lot of people.  And I mean a lot!

The sequence goes on for so long its hilarious, but, it's not meant to be.  It's just giving everyone a doff of the cap, but it feels utterly surreal.  For those who have seen the viral spoof sitcom commercial "Too Many Cooks", it reminded me of that.

But where-as that is intentionally surreal, descending in to gory, murderous insanity, this has no point.  No punchline.  It's not a joke.  In the end you're just glad we get to 'Kristen Wiig' and the credits can end.

That is at the heart of the problem with this special.  It tries to fit everyone and everything in.  Instead of just doing a really good show including some old cast members, it descends in to a bit of a cluster fuck.

It reminds me of Comic Relief where, in a bid to garner an audience for the charity, they bring together a significant and diverse selection of celebrities and entertainers.  They are then mashed together, almost at random, in to different sketches and scenarios.  'Eastenders' meets 'Doctor Who', won't that be hilarious?

No.  It never is.

If anything, it's an insult.  If you want us to give money at least have the decency to actually try and produce something funny.  Instead it's just a mess.  Yes, lots of people may have given their time, but that means nothing.  It would be like having an entire breakfast menu all served on one plate.  An unappetising mess.

After the insane credit sequence we are greeted by the legendary Steve Martin.  He does something of an opening monologue that has a few good laughs in it.  He says about the different people who have hosted, then other former hosts comes on stage to ask why they are not being mentioned.

Again, this is quantity over quality.  What could be a funny bit is diluted to nothing as former host after former host enters the fray.  By the end of the bit, on stage with Steve Martin is Tom Hanks, Peyton Manning, Billy Chrystal, Chris Rock, Alec Baldwin, Miley Cyrus, Melissa McCarthy, Paul Simon and Paul McCartney.

One of the bits that is funny in that 'monologue' by Steve Martin is him remembering former cast members who have passed away, including Gilda Radnor, John Belushi and Jon Lovitz.  Cut to shot of Jon Lovitz sat in the audience gesturing 'what the hell?'

Very funny joke.  However, I wouldn't have known before watching that who Jon Lovitz is.  I recognise his face, because he has been in an awful lot of second rate comedy films.  It acted as a reminder of how many former cast members, instead of achieving greatness on a global scale, instead just produce mediocrity.  People like David Spade, Jim Belushi and, lest we forget... Rob fucking Schneider.

Martin Short with Maya Rudolph as Beyonce.  Genuinely hilarious.

But then, in terms of SNL history, many of those are still revered, even if their later work hasn't amounted to much.

During the special there was a passionate and heart felt piece from Chris Rock to introduce Eddie Murphy to the stage.  He explained how wonderful he was, how important he was, even saying that without Eddie Murphy SNL would probably have been cancelled.

With a introduction like that it isn't that surprising that Eddie Murphy walked out to receive a standing ovation.

After the crowd had settled he said some bland stuff about how good SNL was and how he enjoyed his time on the show, then there followed a delightfully cringe worthy bit where he says to the camera that he thought they were going to cut there.  He talks a bit more before it fades out.

Seriously, Chris Rock says you're the best and you can't even bust out one funny?

But then, why should it be surprising?  Eddie Murphy isn't funny, and hasn't been for well over 20 years.  Comedy is like a muscle, it needs to be exercised.  He was without doubt a great and influential act in his time, but he's spent too long just doing mediocre family movies.

Doug Stanhope, who is certainly a brilliant comedian, did a bit when he played in Manchester years ago about being compared to Bill Hicks.  He said of Hicks (as best as my memory serves):

"They say he was great because he never sold out, but who knows what would have happened if he had lived.  He might have sold out.  Just imagine all the great things we'd be saying about Eddie Murphy if he had died after doing Beverley Hills Cop 1."

Funny, sad and true, all at the same time.

One other annoying thing about the SNL 40th Special were the amount of montages they did.  The show was 3 and a half hours long!  If they had just done sketches and produced a proper show, they could easily have done it in 2 hours.

But then, these montages did serve a purpose.

They painted a broad picture about the effect this show must have had on generations of Americans.  Eddie Murphy may be very much a fallen star now, but without him on Prime time, would Chris Rock have considered comedy as an option?  Maybe not, and the same can be said of many comics over the years influenced by the SNL alumni.

As I said before, this show wasn't really for me.  This was someone else's family memories, not mine.

Did watching this 40th year anniversary special convert me in to a fan of the show?  No.

Did it get across how important SNL is for the development of comedy as an art form in America, and there-fore across the world?  Yes.

SNL picked up writers and performers from improv and sketch troupes such as Second City and beyond and gave them the best platform TV can give you.  This process developed them and on they went in to the wider world of TV and film.

Aside from the films already mentioned, former cast members have made 'Animal House', 'Austin Powers' and 'Trading Places'.  Many of the writers went on to write for 'The Simpsons'.  When it was good!

"It's right here Ray... It's looking at me..."

But, forget all that.  Without SNL would we have had 'Ghostbusters'?  If we are talking about treasured memories, there are few films more important to my childhood than that.

So, whilst the show has never directly been a part of my life, it's influence certainly has.  Happy 40th birthday Saturday Night Live!

(but maybe for the next anniversary special, turn it down a notch eh?)

January in Seville

The gardens of the Alcazar in Seville

January has always been a fairly pointless month for me.  Christmas and New Year celebrations out of the way, the next thing to look forward to is Spring.  Unfortunately, it's still winter, so you have to put up with crap weather and no festivals to look forward to.  That's what January has always been to me - a month to "put up with".

14 months ago I started a relationship and I put this theory to my, at the time, new girlfriend: that January was pointless.  As her and her sister's birthdays were in January, she didn't quite agree.  So now it was time to reassess.

One thing that changed for January is that it is now a time when I go on holiday because it's her birthday, which means there is something very much to look forward to.

Last year was Vienna.  Snow laden, it was extraordinarily beautiful.  Palaces, theatres, monuments, there is so much historical opulence to take in.  To the degree that frankly, it feels like they're taking the piss a bit.  It's like "yeah, we get it, you have nice buildings, just give it a rest already".

Well this year we went to Seville.  Frankly, it's also a bit silly.

From arriving and walking the streets from the bus stop looking for our hotel, there was a lot to take in.  Whilst yes, palace's are a feature, more impressing is the river, endless churches and ornate gardens.

The hotel we stayed at was the Boutique Hotel Moro.  Highly rated by travellers, this is a good budget hotel with uniquely decorated rooms with full facilities set around a pleasant, tranquil courtyard.  A bonus as well was that if you booked direct through their website you got extras included such as breakfast, use of bikes whenever you wanted, and use of their roof top jacuzzi.

The hotel was based in the Barrio Santa Cruz part of Seville.  The Moorish influence is certainly present in this maze of tiny, winding streets.  Somewhere you can get lost in, whether you want to or not.  Seriously, I don't think we ever made it back to the hotel the same way twice!

We were in very close proximity to one of the main landmarks of Seville, the Cathedral.  The third largest church in the world, this is a significant building.  If anything, it's too big.  When you see it from any angle there is so much going on.  It's impressive but also a bit of a mess at the same time.

Part of the Cathedral is the Giralda Tower.  This was originally a minaret built to be part of a Mosque.  Seville was the centre of a civilisation where Muslims, Christians and Jews lived in peace together for hundreds of years.  Don't worry though, some Christians fucked it up.  Cheers guys.

Cathedral and the Giralda Tower

We had arranged a guide to show us round the Cathedral and the Alcazar, the close by royal palace.

British colonialism has left behind a bloody history of barbarism and exploitation.  However, one good thing out of this is that if you are an English speaker you can expect to travel practically anywhere in the world and be able to speak in your own language.  Hurrah!

Seriously, we just learn how to say "hello" and "thank you" in the native tongue just out of sheer politeness rather than any necessity.  The tourist centres of Spain certainly fit in to that mould, but Seville is different.  In Seville they speak their own language, and that's it.  Of course plenty speak some English, but expect to do some work to be understood.  This is no bad thing of course.

Menu's are available in English, but you will usually struggle if you have any specific questions about any of the dishes if you don't speak Spanish.  I will go as far as to say that if you have any specific dietary requirements at all, perhaps it's best to avoid.  It's hard to get across the question "does this contain wheat" with just hand gestures! 

Our guide was a very pleasant chap, but to say we had paid for a service his English wasn't great.  That's fine, but it does mean I can't really explain intricate historical details about the city because I just don't know them.  Go on Wikipedia, that's what I'd do.

He also had the laugh of a psychopath.  He has killed before, I am sure, and will probably kill again.  However, the love he had for his home city was certainly infectious.

And understandable.  Taking the bikes out one day we went through the Maria Luisa Park.  A large and gorgeous park, this was the centrepiece of the 1929 American/Spanish exposition.  Celebrating their relationship with America, the exposition was designed to showcase Spain, and Seville, to the world.

As it was about the relationship with America, all the American countries were invited to build Pavilions as part of the exhibition.  The delicate pretty buildings do not feel out of place at all in the park, and give a sense of living history that can still be enjoyed today.

An alternative to this is the site of the 1992 Exposition, which lies to the North on the other side of the City.  It's an alternative, because it's a dump.

The exposition's theme was the "age of discovery".  Many countries contributed to the exposition with it's themes around Science and technology.  Today, however, it's a mess.  Some of the buildings are used by Universities and industry, but many just lie empty.

Expo '92 as it is now

Overgrown with weeds, this is a sorry looking, albeit fascinating, site.  Like gaining access to a ghost town, you almost expect to look through a window and see a table set with dinner that has been left uneaten for two decades.

Over 40 million visitors were attracted by the exposition that year, which means it was an extraordinary success.  It's just a shame it's legacy doesn't live up to that of the 1929 expo in terms of beauty.

January, as it turns out, is an odd time to visit Seville.  The city is at it's coldest and quietest.  We still got a few nice sunny days where it went up to 19 degrees, so that was certainly an improvement on England.

A constant theme was walking past so many tapas bars to see the only occupants being a bored member of bar staff on their phone.

Deciding on a special meal one night me and Sally, dressed up, went to a nice restaurant which was particularity known for it's paella.  Service was not a problem as we were literally the only people in there all night.

We had a waiter who was never more than a few feet away, apart from when you heard a huge cheer from the kitchen where he would nip off quickly.  We found out Seville were playing that night in the Copa del Rey.  He gave us a drink on the house each on the night because they were so glad we were there so they didn't get too bored!

On the last night I surprised Sally by moving us to a 5 star hotel.  This was quite the experience, much of which you might expect.  What I didn't expect was a free bar that you could help yourself too, which included Moet champagne, sherry, etc.

An indicator that we are not used to this level of service was that we both stock piled booze, so much so that I was pouring away a number of glasses of champagne the next morning.  I think we worried we would be found out as the working class scum that we are and booted out!

Just one week in Spain had this effect on Sally

That night we went out on a wander and found a Jazz club.  A theme of the trip to that point had been that most entertainment wasn't on as it was the quiet part of the year.  Here we found a great quartet playing and also, after time, discovered that we were sitting next to a guy who was originally from Devon.

The quartet also included a very good young clarinettist, and as that is my instrument, I was very happy.  He even spoke some English as well, so we had a very good geeky conversation about playing the clarinet afterwards.

Whilst many things are hard to translate, music is universal.  It left me feeling bad that I hadn't played my clarinet in ages.  Perhaps I should get it out of the case soon, and just play thinking about wandering through the streets of Seville with the woman I love, without a care in the world.

Charlie Hebdo - Free speech, racism and resistance

The attacks on the offices of Charlie Hebdo that left 12 people dead sent shock waves around the world.  Many people have felt uncomfortable with defending the magazine though, believing it's content to be offensive and bigoted.  This leaves many unsure on what is the right stance to take in the aftermath of the killings.

Whatever can be said about Charlie Hebdo as a publication, there can be no doubt what-so-ever that the killings were wrong.  No caveats of "but..." on the end of that, it was just wrong.  There is no cartoon imaginable that could deserve the drawer to be executed.

And lets face it, there is always the opportunity to offend.  I know this very well from comedy.  I've even done family friendly improv-comedy shows that have lead to complaints. 

What I have learnt from this is that whilst you can argue your corner to discuss issues around a potential misunderstanding, you cannot tell someone what they can are cannot be offended by.  It is entirely down to the point of view of the individual.

Charlie Hebdo offended many with various cartoons that can, and correctly in my view, be considered bigoted.  Perhaps there is more nuance to many of them than you would realise on first viewing, but there are certainly aspects that generalise about racial minorities.  This is racism.

The main cause of offence for Muslims of course are the cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammed.  Any image of Muhammed is considered harem, strictly forbidden.

It may seem extreme to non-Muslims, but consider the myriad images of Jesus that depict him as a white, western male, like a pensive Brad Pitt after a bout of the shits.  That should be offensive to Christians, but instead the image has stuck.

Whilst some would say Muslims shouldn't be offended by the cartoons, that to me is not the point.  They are offended by it.  Not just some perceived section of the religion that is deemed "fundamentalist" or "extreme", but potentially all of them.  What is the point of that?

In France there were Unity demonstrations attended by millions of people.  Many holding Je Suis Charlie banners, and some holding Je Suis Ahmed banners.  At the very head of the march was superb showing of sheer, brilliant, hypocrisy.

I wonder if the other few million are shouting "hold up!"

Leading political figures from around the world led the demonstration, linking arms in their own sign of unity.  Unity, that is, in getting a nice photo op, not unity with the rest of the demonstration as can be seen in the picture above.

Above all though is their hypocrisy in marching in defence of free speech.  They all have crimes against their names in this respect, but to name just a few:

• Sameh Shoukry, Egypt Foreign minister - Egypt currently has three Al-Jazeera journalists in prison on "Terrorism" charges.  In July 2013 1000 members of the Muslim Brotherhood were slaughtered when trying to demonstrate.  There are 40,000 political prisoners in jail
• Ahmet Davutoglu, Prime Minister of Turkey - The country that held the record for the most journalists in prison anywhere in the world in 2012 and 2013
• Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of Israel - 7 journalists murdered in attacks n Gaza in 2014.

As I said though, every leaders government has crimes in its name to some degree or other against freedom of speech.

It's not just world leaders who have a conflicting view on free speech, we all do.  Mehdi Hassan in an excellent article in the New Statesman talks about this conflict.  He points out that Charlie Hebdo fired one of it's cartoonists, Maurice Sinet, in 2008 for making anti-Semitic remarks.  So attacking Muslims is fine, commendable even, but attacking Jewish people means you loose your job.

In no way am I defending anti-Semitism, but again, it's certainly a hypocritical position to take.  He also pointed out that in a YouGov poll, 82% of the UK's voters said they would like to see jail sentences for those who burn poppies!

You can't vigorously defend free speech unless you defend the right for someone to say something that deeply offends you.  That's the point.

"All these political arguments are all good and fine," I hear you say, "but when are you going to mention Boyzone?"

Don't worry fans, that time is now.

The reason why, is that this debate reminds me of when Stephen Gately died in 2009, and the furore that followed after a piece was published in the Daily Mail by Jan Moir.  She blamed his death on his lifestyle, which was seen as her essentially blaming his death on him being Gay.

Unsurprisingly, the balloon went up over that.  The Press Complaints Commission received over 1000 complaints, possibly record breaking.  And understandably so, it was an appalling piece of gutter "journalism".

At the same time Nick Griffin, the leader of the British National Party, was appearing on Question Time.  As soon as it was announced he would be appearing there was an explosion of protests in response, saying he should not be allowed on the program.  Needless to say, free speech was a hot topic at the time.

When asked on Question Time whether the Daily Mail should have published the article by Jan Moir the entire panel said that they should be free to publish, and clearly said that there should be no pressure from Government to change any legal framework to stop such freedom of expression.

The only person to say they shouldn't have published was Nick Griffin.  It's fair to say that as a life long committed Nazi, he ain't exactly "Gay-friendly".  However, for the first time in his life, he was right.

The problem was the framing of the argument.  The right answer, to me, is pretty obvious.  Should the Daily Mail have published the article?  No.  Should they have been free to publish the article?  Yes.

You have to defend freedom of expression completely, but individuals and organisations still have the choice of how to express themselves.  If a columnist at the Daily Mail sent the editor an article detailing their view that Jimmy Saville was such a good entertainer he deserved to have a few under age girls as personal sex slaves, do you think they would publish it?  Of course not!

Should they be free to?  Yes.  But then people would stop buying the paper, which is our freedom. A freedom I use to my advantage every day.

Rewinding slightly though, were the protests right saying that Nick Griffin shouldn't be allowed on Question Time?  Yes, I think they were.  The reason is that he is a Nazi.  They hide what they truly believe in the hope of gaining respectability in order to grow their organisation.  Organisations that wish to gain power, and once they do, would impose a system with no freedom of speech what-so-ever.  No democracy, just Fascist rule.

You cannot have the right to free speech if you wish to smash it.

One worrying trend following the attacks in Paris has been the rise in Islamophobic attacks in France.  Largely unreported in the media, 26 Mosques have been attacked, with such things as pigs heads, grenades, and even someone shooting a gun through a window.  60 attacks have been reported, but there may be many more that have gone unreported.

Do you think that the two gunmen who carried out the killings at the offices of Charlie Hebdo did so because of some cartoons?  That is why they targeted the office, but is that really why you would be willing to fill?

They were willing to kill, and sacrifice themselves,because of the ongoing bloodshed of Muslims around the world.  Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, the list just goes on and on.  We are presented an image in the Britain of all these conflict zones being "over there".  Europe and America is "over here".

9 people shot in Paris shocks you.  Many more slaughtered anywhere in the Middle East and you don't care.  However, Muslims are taught to feel a connection with everyone of their faith.  Those countries aren't merely "over there" for them.

But also, they are angry for other reasons.  They face problems at home of racism of course, but also the effects of austerity, of job losses, of cuts in services and benefits.  Problems that effect us all.

There is the message from our Government that is like a parent, putting an arm around Muslims and saying "it's ok, you're welcome here.  But whilst you're under my roof, you must live by my rules."  The problem is, our government is an abusive parent.

So a number of Muslims are angry.  And they have absolutely every right to be.  Furious in fact.  You think white people don't have the same issues?  Why do you think people get involved with the EDL or other such extremist organisations?

People feel the need to fight, but they don't know in what direction to punch.  EDL fight Muslims and immigration and multi-culturalism in general.  The terrorists in Paris attacked cartoonists.  Charlie Hebdo attacks immigrants.

EDL and the terrorist are punching sideways, attacking people who are actually in the same shit as they are. Charlie Hebdo punches down, those people who are actually the most affected.  What we need to do is all unite together and punch up.

To do that we need to organise and unite where possible, be a pole to attract people to the real fight.

Join the demonstrations in London, Cardiff or Glasgow on 21st March to Stand up to Racism.  It's not the answer, but it's certainly asking the right question.

Football - racism, rape and the beautiful game

Rapist Ched Evans (former footballer)

Without wishing to start this blog with too controversial a tone I just want to make clear that I'm really not a fan of racism or rape.  I know, what a weirdo!  What can I say, I've just not ever been that much of an arsehole.

However, I bloomin' love football.  Now, you would expect that those two statements wouldn't have any need to go together and yet, they do.  Just like toast and Marmite.  Dreadful, awful Marmite.

Football has been a playground of inconsistencies for years, and something that I'm no stranger to myself as can be read HERE in my blog from April 2013.

For a start, just look at the global governing body. FIFA.  Prince Ali Bin Al Hussein has stepped forward to say he will stand as candidate in the leadership elections in a bid to remove Sepp Blatter form the post.  He is being supported by figures such as Uefa president Michel Platini and the English FA.

That's right, the state of democracy is so bad within FIFA that we are looking to elect a Prince.  It shows how backward FIFA is when a member of royalty is being seen as a great reformer.  Seriously, it's only just caught up in time with Feudalism!

The FIFA ruling body

Then of course you have the footballers.  Aside from accusations, there is quite a healthy list of criminal convictions within the game, including assault and death caused by dangerous driving.

One lovely chap is Marlon King.  Already with a list of criminal convictions more impressive than his list of clubs played for, he is currently in jail for dangerous driving.  I think the jewel in his crown though is his 2009 conviction for groping a woman then breaking her nose.  What a Champions League level dick!

But of course, we all know where this leading.  Ched Evans.  He used to be a footballer.  Now he is just a rapist.

However, he would like to no longer be a rapist and go back to being a footballer.  There are many crying out at the injustice of the public pressure against Ched Evans, saying that he should have the freedom to join a new club.  Unfortunately for Ched Evans he gave up that freedom when he raped that girl.  Soz Ched.

The most annoying aspect of the macho nature within football is the unrepentant sexism.  There are many who simply refuse to ever believe any accusation of rape against a footballer.  I have heard all kinds of unpleasant arguments, often revolving around the suggestion that the girls just do it to make money.

Well perhaps the girl in the Ched Evans rape case did wish that one day she could own 5 houses.  Well that wish has kind of come true now she has been forced to move home 5 times in 3 years to try and protect her identity.  Her life is in ruins.

There are arguments that say Ched Evans shouldn't be allowed to join a football club because he hadn't apologised.  Others say that a convicted rapist should never be allowed to be a footballer, with the role model aspect for children that goes with the job.

Protests against Ched Evans being re-signed

I personally believe that for any criminal system to work their has to be the chance for rehabilitation.  The chance for a perpetrator to accept the consequences of their actions, understand what they have done is wrong, and then change for the better.

With that in mind I believe that any footballer convicted of a crime should be able to be rehabilitated, and given the chance to return to the game.

This could cause arguments between me and friends.  Not in the case of Ched Evans however, as he has refused to accept responsibility for his crime nor any suggestion he did anything wrong.  Therefore, he has not been rehabilitated.

Yes, he's served his jail sentence and no, that is not enough.

Yes, he has now "apologised".  It says a lot about Ched Evans that even his apologies are forced.

Absolutely pathetic.  Like John Terry apologising for making racist remarks to Anton Ferdinand only after being found guilty by the FA, this apology means nothing.

It really is a sorry state of affairs.

But, despite all this, I still love football.  I can't help it, I really can't.

Sport to me is about drama.  Real drama.  I hate watching soap operas because of all the clichés, because I know what is going to happen.  Football is improvised, made up in the moment.  Yes, at times it can be dull, but at others it can blow your mind.

Manchester United winning the European cup with two late goals after being a goal down for almost 90 minutes.  Utterly amazing.  Never could a film, play or a book get as explosive a reaction from people as a moment like that can.  It cannot be scripted.

The corruption, bigotry and misogyny in football are starting to feel like clichés though.  For the art form that is truly lived in the moment, maybe it is time to change the script.

The beautiful game