I Want To Be A Celebrity, Get Me A Career!

I don’t understand "hate TV", or the public’s morbid fascination for it. What’s worse is that my wife buys into it and is an avid viewer. If you don’t know what I’m talking about see programmes such as ‘Come Dine With Me’ or, ‘Four In a Bed’ and a multitude of more tedious "spite shows", filled  with episodes of dull people wanting their fifteen minutes of fame.

The premise of these programs is the same, invite someone into your house and then let them be very rude and arrogant about you and your hospitality.

I would have got a smack about the head from my parents when I was a child if I were to be so rude when a guest in someone’s house. If a person is kind enough to invite you into their inner sanctum then feed you, no matter how bad the food is, you should be gracious enough to thank them and be grateful.

But the worst thing about these programs is the people who appear on them! They seem to be talentless wannabe celebs. Having said this most of the entertainment industry seems to be staffed by these imbeciles.

Every program on prime time TV if it’s not "soap" seems to be some competition for cooking, singing, baking, sewing, or knitting! But rather than switch off and read or do something else more interesting, people watch in their millions, and even discuss them the next day! And then these people make a living on the back of being shown to be talentless!

The prize for the most tedious of these programmes goes to ’Big Brother’ where dull people do dull things to entertain dull people. I know I’m sounding more than a little like the world's greatest snob, but really?

I watched a programme last night just to appease my wife, who quite rightly said that I should watch these programmes before passing judgement. I watched `I’m a Celebrity Get Me out Of Here!’  I have watched it before, a few years ago, and it seems to be still the same episode! They had the so-called celebrities doing the same things, and they in turn behaved in the same way.

If you are not sure what this show is about, then you are lucky! But to save you having to watch an episode, what happens is the TV company gathers a load of needy celebrities together, then flies them out to Australia and puts them in a jungle. Which turns out to be a small clearing a few hundred yards from the hotel. Then  gives them a series of tasks to humiliate them. 

And while I’m on the subject, surely they contravene the trading standards rules on goods fit for purpose. They title says ‘I’m a celebrity’, but who the hell are these people? Of the current bunch, I knew Matthew Wright because I’ve seen his programme on TV and I know Steve Davis the snooker player and I once met Rebecca the swimmer (I can’t remember her surname and can’t be bothered to look it up) but I haven’t a clue who the rest of them are!

Besides having to eat the parts of animals that crows leave behind on the road, I can’t see why the teams are so worried. I’m good with spiders and snakes. I love obstacle courses and I would love to visit Australia, although I don’t think I could last a week stuck in a camp with these people.

I’m told that this programme can save people's careers, which came as a bit of a shock to me as I didn’t know they had careers in the first place.

Christopher Biggins, who I think only works at Christmas as ‘Widow Twanky’, was supposed to have made a fortune after appearing on it. I’m still not sure what he does for a living, though.

Katie Price, who is surely one of life’s great mysteries, has also made a bundle out of being on this programme. I think she marries people, then divorces them, then sells lurid stories about these hapless saps to the tabloids! Pure class.

I was told that she was a singer so I looked up her greatest hits and was amused at her attempts to start a pop career. When I sing, I sound like someone dragging a wardrobe - but I can still hold a tune better than her. Then I saw her name on the cover of a book, I was quite surprised that she would turn out to be a best selling author. But when I looked at the book, it soon became obvious that it had been ghost-written. But this woman has to be one of the best hype artists in the business, for that I’ll give her credit.

I have also found out that these people get between £75,000 to £120,000 for the two weeks they are there! So where do I go to sign up for next year? I’m perfect for the show. I have a miniscule amount of fame and I’m talentless, and no one has heard of me: what more do they want?

The only problem is that if they put me with this bunch of desperadoes the show would get a lot of publicity,  but for all the wrong reasons. But still, the money would come in handy.

So, ‘I’M NOT A CELEBRITY, GET ME IN THERE!’

Heroes or Villains?

History is littered with myths that we have come to believe as facts. This is because the truth belongs to the victor!

I have to be biased over which history to write about, because I was born and raised in Britain, so I tend to know more about British history than other histories. This of course comes from the British slant on what was taught to me when I was a child. I have had a life-long interest in history and why people lived the way they did.

The Battle of Hastings (which wasn’t at Hastings) could have, and should have, had a different ending. If you don’t know about this battle it’s something that all children of Britain are taught about. We might not know our pin numbers for the bank but we all know 1066, the year of the battle.

To cut a long story short, William ’The Bastard’ (honest, that was his name) was the Duke of Normandy who claimed that the throne of England was promised to him. But Harold, the current owner of the pointy head-piece, disagreed - and, as with all disagreements between boys, they decided to have a fight about it!

But Harold and his brother had also fallen out, so his brother had gone to the Danes to ask if he could borrow an army and attack Harold.

Harold marched his men to Stamford Bridge, near York, where the battle with his brother took place, and Harold won.

One fact about this battle I loved as a young boy was that one of the Viking invaders stood on the bridge armed with an axe and held the whole of Harold’s army at bay by himself.

When the battle was over Harold, marched his men back down to the south coast to fight off the Norman invasion - this in itself was a colossal feat.

Wave after wave of attack by the Norman cavalry could not break the Anglo-Saxon shield wall until the Normans feigned a retreat and Harold’s men broke rank and chased after them: this altered the whole course of British history.

Another myth that we relish here in Britain is the great Francis Drake and the defeat of the terrible Spanish Armada!

Francis Drake did not defeat the Spanish Armada; he had little to do with the battle, and actually sailed back in to dock with a Spanish ship to claim salvage on it while the rest of the British fleet was engaged in the battle. The British weather, a bit of luck, and a few fire-boats defeated the Armada.

Drake was a low-life pirate, who, for some unknown reason, has gone down in British history as a hero. This was a quality that he never ever demonstrated. He even left his cousin, the man that took him in and set him up with a life at sea, to die in battle. Can you imagine his surprise when Hawkins (his cousin) later sailed back into port alive and well?

The battle of Agincourt was another myth, though the battle did of course take place. But the overwhelming odds were rubbish. Both armies were more or less evenly matched. What won the battle was not the longbowmen, as we have been led to believe, but the choice of venue for the battle and the French retarded view of chivalry. The commanders led from the front on horseback into what can only be described as a swamp. With their heavy armour they were soon bogged down and were in many cases clubbed to death!

But of course all this doesn’t really matter to anyone except a few pedants like me. But what about history that’s in the making, what about now?

What will future generations think of our governments, that are still run by the ’old school tie’ brigade? What will they think about us as a nation, that have built up a welfare state in such a short space, then idly stood back and watched as it is dismembered before our eyes? What will they think about us accepting big business controlling our every move, where we give up more and more rights because of some deep seated fear of media-hyped terrorism, or xenophobia.

People are now marking the 50^th anniversary of the death of JFK. Much is now being made about his philandering and his drug dependency. Personally I don’t care who or what he slept with as long as he did his job. I would have had more concerns with his links to the Mafia than I would about his sex life. But none of this matters any more, as he has taken his place in history.

All men in power have secrets in their closets, in fact we all have secrets. You do not climb the greasy pole to get into a position of power without treading on a few heads along the way. And when in power, you find you have to talk to and deal with people you both loath and despise. But still you have to deal with them. As long as it’s in your country's interest, then it’s fine, but it seems more and more that only the politicians and their kind benefit from their deals.

You see the problem is that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. And what can be seen to the world as a great statesman can be seen as a corrupt despot to his/her people. It all depends on your social, religious economical and geographical background on who is a hero and who is a villain.

We are all part hero and part villain, but sometimes in history it seems the villains always win!  

Children in Need = Greed?

We have just had the annual fun-fest which is ‘Children in Need’. This is where ordinary, sane people do something completely mad, to raise money for children’s charities. These people are warm, caring individuals having fun along with children: who can criticise that?

Well it’s quite easy to be cynical about it all ,and I am very cynical when it comes to charity.

Firstly, charity is a way for governments to relinquish their responsibilities for the people who they were set up to serve. It is not the responsibility of Doris from Morecambe to bake buns in the shape of bottoms to raise money so that the children of this country can be safe!

Why, in the 21^st century do we have a charity that exists for the safeguarding of our children ( the NSPCC)? Surely, as a civilised society, it is our job to ensure that we have a government that is held responsible for this?

‘The Thatcher’ - I’m sure that was a Marvel comics super-villain? Whereas, here in Britain, she was a real life super-villain. She started this rubbish about turning back to Victorian family values. Are these the values where we sell our children, or our wives? The same values where children climb chimneys or work down mines? The same values that see 2% of the country having all the wealth? What a load of rubbish.

As citizens of this nation we should not have to go cap in hand for something that is by rights ours to demand. We pay the taxes; we vote in the governments so we have the right to a safe, free existence.

Now, Children in Need is becoming something more than just a fundraising event.

I have to hold my hand up here, and admit that I’m part of this cynical little deception.

Now it is really wonderful of celebrities to give up their precious expensive time to come along and raise money for a good cause. Forget that this event is held in the main buying time just before Christmas. Forget that they have a new album, book, film, or programme out. Forget that some of them are no longer in the soap and are out of work, they are just doing it for the children.

Also, what about those oversized comedy cheques that are shown on prime time TV, you know the ones where the woman dressed as a clown stands up and says, “Yes, Terry, we at Billy Buggins printers of Preston have raised £100 by selling badges with our new print range!”

The price of that advert on prime time TV at peak time would bankrupt ‘Billy Buggins’.

I was part of Children in Need yesterday; I do have a new book out (Diva Dave and Fat Sue).  I worked at a school in Elland in West Yorkshire.

I know the head teacher at the school and I have to say that it was a pleasure and a privilege to work with both the staff and the children (I have a new book out).

I not only worked with the children on the day but gave up the whole week to sort out and organise the event but I didn’t mind, because, after all, I have a new book out.

The children were tasked to write, publish and print a commercial book in a day.

On the day in question the children arrived in their bed clothes with teddies in hands all chattering and excited, the staff too were excited and I was excited, because I have a new book out.

We set off writing at nine AM: at ten, the whole text and art work was finished. We quickly e-mailed them over to my publishers (who have published my new book). The publishers then sent the laid out book over to the printers. I’m pleased to say that, after a long day with lots of twists and turns, we eventually claimed the world record for a commercially-produced book, 4 hours 24 minutes.

The kids were ecstatic, the teachers were tired but happy, and I was banjaxed, having driven around Yorkshire, with a phone glued to my head begging favours from good people that I know, and surviving a mugging attempt during the day.

But for me the day was slightly ruined by the BBC, who were told on many occasions that our event was taking place in Elland. The Beeb turned up to film a couple of women standing in a shop window in their underwear for ‘Children in Need’ - they were not promoting the shop of course. But we at the school had hundreds of little faces all waiting in anticipation for the cameras to turn up and film just for a few moments, so they could see themselves on TV. But no-one came, even though the school is no more than a few hundred yards from the near naked women promoting a shop.

Now, I hope that I have proven I do have something to sell and all the publicity will not do me or my new book any harm. But, having said all that, I do spend all my working life trying to get young people into the habit of reading and writing, as I have said many times in my blogs, 'education is a basic fundamental right for all people’. I worry about the amount of young people in our country that can neither read nor write.

Having said this, people like Howard Priestley, who is a very gifted and talented artist, also gave up some time for us on the day. This time I know could have been used for other things for him, on the day, which were very important, but he still gave his talent and time for free without any reward what so ever. Chantelle Davis who was, on the day, very ill, still managed to get to the school to film the event for me, again she has nothing to sell, or to gain from her actions.

I think what we can deduce from all this is that we are a nation of caring people, and cynics in business and government know this, and abuse it. Those that should serve, and we that sell, should hang our heads in shame for manipulating what is and should always be a day of celebration of innocence and fun. Where families can get together and laugh and act silly and raise some money, that should be used to give young people a chance in a life time. 

I think this day of celebration of youth and families is a wonderful event. I love to see the faces of the children when they are able to do something different from the ‘norm’. Not only are they able to act stupid for a day but also their parents and teachers joining in!

So to all you good honest people out there, thank you for all your support. And I do apologise for my cynicism; I did enjoy the day, even though I had a new book to sell.

Hooligans, Thugs, Vandals and Tories!

All of the people above, in the title of this post, were real people, who were famed as heartless murders and robbers, but three of the above reformed and stopped their evil ways many years ago, while one of the group carries on regardless.

The Hooligans or Houlihans were a notorious nineteenth-centaury Irish family living in London. So bad was their reputation for drunken violent behaviour that songs and stories were told of them in the music halls of the time. The most famous of the family was Patrick, who robbed and murdered at will but died soon after he was caught and goaled.

The Thugs or Thuggee were a bunch of professional Hindu assassins, whose lineage can be traced back to seven tribes. The word Thuggee or ‘Thag’ derives from Hindi, and means "thief". They were followers of the Goddess Kali, the Goddess of destruction, and were reputed to have murdered over a million people.

They were eventually tracked down and wiped out by another bunch of thugs at the time. known as the British.

The Vandals Were a Germanic tribe that sacked Rome in 455. It’s ironic that a tribe were so reviled for damaging a city that had itself ransacked half of the known world: methinks a little  bit of, pot, kettle, black is going on here. The name derives from the Germanic ’Wanal’ meaning wanderer.

The Tories Were Irish outlaws.  Have you noticed how many derogatory terms in use in the English language are associated with the Irish? The Tories were robbers and outlaws the word derives from the Irish "Tooruighe" meaning "plunderer". The British political party adopted the name the ’Yorkist Tories’ in 1680 but the term was superseded by "The Conservative Party" in 1830.

The word "Tory" has now come to mean "Bandit", "Plunderer" and "Robber", the only difference being that they are no longer outside the law as they do this.

There are lots of words which we use on a daily basis without ever knowing where they came from or what the original terms were. Often the terms that were used are not very "PC" and were used against people who were often themselves being persecuted. But some arrive through popular culture such as, "Zits", "Nerd", "Wedgies" and "Dude".

My favourite story of how a word came into use is the word, "Quiz".

The story goes that a Dublin theatre owner, James Daly, who was down on his luck and in need of some cash, made a bet that he could introduce a word into the language within twenty four hours.

He hired a group of street urchins to rush around Dublin painting the word "Quiz" on walls as they went. People were "puzzled" by the word and what it meant, and it soon became the talk of the town and the word was born.

But unfortunately, like a lot of these urban myths, with a little searching it’s quite easy to find that there was no evidence to back up this story: the word actually derives, like lots of our words, from Latin, but it’s still a good story.

I would like to introduce a word into the English language, "Gezzy" 

Doing a Gezzy:  to deceive others, pointlessly, for your own amusement, (see previous posts). 

What Is Love?

Since the dawn of civilisation it has been sung about, talked about, written about, practised and suffered, but just what is love?

Is it a definable entity? Is it an emotion, a state of mind or a physical affliction? All three can be applied. It can make you ecstatically happy, suicidally miserable and has even been known to render people physically incapable, so just what is it?

Many years ago I decided to tackle this question and write about it. I first decided to try the approach of one of my heroes, Socrates. No, not the Brazilian footballer, but the Greek philosopher. 

His approach to tackling conundrums was to stop people in the street and ask them the question; then he would mull over the many answers he received. He was probably the first market researcher.

Often, he would stand for hours talking over the subject with anyone and everyone, as he believed all opinions were valid, from the highest ranking official to the men who cleaned up the roads, (David Cameron, take note!). He would stop someone going about their business and ask the oddest of things, such as, “Why is the sky blue? Then he would cross-examine any responses. It’s the fact that blue light from the sun doesn’t penetrate the atmosphere and disperses, by the way, if you really want to know!

So I did just this. I asked everyone I knew the question, “what is love?” And guess what, I have never received a definite answer, only to say that it different for all of us.

While you are reading this, just think about your own situation. If you are in a long-term relationship, or if you are just starting out in a relationship (two different states) why did you choose that person? What is it about the person that you settled down with, that, for you, makes them stand out from the rest? This is of course presuming that you have had relationships with other people.

Other people could offer you all the things your partner does. Others might say that previous partners of yours were more attractive. So why have you settled with this person?

You often see people who, on the surface, seem to be total opposites, especially when it comes to physical attributes. The obvious ones are the seaside postcard types of the big dominating woman and the little skinny man. Or the supermodel type and the old millionaire… OK, we know about that attraction.

But think about how often you hear people say, “Have you seen her/his wife/husband, they weren’t what you thought they would settle with? This probably applies to my marriage. If you were to take a dating agency’s computer and type in all the information about both my wife and myself, it would melt in fear if our names were mentioned in the same sentence. Honest, we are total opposites. I would even go as far to say that when seeing the both of us together people would say, ”What the hell is she doing with him?” She is small, tolerant, gentle and very attractive. I’m none of these, though I do qualify for all their total opposites. But for whatever reason, for us, it works. We do drive each other mad, of that there’s no doubt, but it wouldn’t be love if we didn’t.

The very thing that you think is so cute about your partner when you first meet is the very thing that annoys you the most about them when you settle down. If you’re just starting out on a long-term relationship, trust me on this point!

The other thing about love is that it’s not one size fits all. I love my wife, I love my son, and I love my grand daughter, but none of them in the same way. I, of course, also love other members of my family, and I care deeply about my friends. But they are all different types of love and emotion.

For your family, it’s a love that starts with dependence, though often it ends in hatred for people. But it doesn’t ever really go away. Unfortunately, for lots of people, they don’t often realise just how much they love their parents and siblings until it’s much to late to tell them.

The love for your friends is another strange one, as I have written about it before; that even the most gregarious of people, no matter what they think ,will really only have four or five true friends, and if they have that many they are very lucky people. Most of your true life-long friendships start in childhood. But there is a limit to your love of friends, and they are easier to walk away from.

The love that you have for your partner is both the most rewarding and the most infuriating type of love. A true love affair, no matter how long it lasts, and releases in you a euphoria that is impossible to get elsewhere. It causes you to act and think in the most strangest of ways. It has given us the most beautiful poems and tales and music, it elevates you from the humdrum, and, when it ends, it leaves you with a sadness you think is incurable - as is often said, they take a little piece of you with them.

The love you have for your children is probably the truest of loves. It’s totally devotional, and unquestionable. When they are young, you suffer with them when they are ill, are happy when they laugh, you work for them, cry about them and would die for them. Often, you don’t receive anything back for all your emotional investment, but when they are young, a smile from them can spur you on; and when they are older, the unexpected, ‘Thank you’ can reduce you to tears; now that is love!

So whatever it is, whatever it does to us, I hope, from the bottom of my heart, that you all get a chance to feel love sometime. 

As the Beatles said, ’All You Need is Love!’

Sex in the City?

It is fair to say that I’ve been out of the dating game for more years than I care to remember.When I was dating, young people went to discos and the hardest date rape drug available was six pints of larger and lime! Most girls wanted a proposal of marriage before you were allowed anywhere near undergarments, and John Travolta was a sexy teen idol pin up!

But it seems that as you get older, the dating game becomes more difficult. Gone are the reckless days of young abandonment and in are families, property, and "bitter ex" relationships.

I had a conversation with a female friend of mine this week, she is single at the moment and wants a relationship without ties. I don’t think she meant the neck-covering type of tie! I told her that this is possibly a man's dream, a woman that just wants a good time without any commitment. But she said it’s quite difficult, because when men get to a certain age and are still single, they either have a drink problem, have always lived with Mummy, or have had a string of relationships which they have wrecked - or sometimes, they might have all three!

I told her that surely you can work out if they're suitable on the first date. She pointed out that people usually think I’m OK, when they first meet me! I’m not sure what she means by that. I told her that it would be far easier for her to find someone than it would be for me, but she disagreed.

My argument is this. If she wanted just to have a good night and sex with a man without any ties all she has to do is walk into the nearest local pub (bar) and make it known that she is up for a night of fun and sex. She would have no problem making her choice. Whereas if I were to walk into a pub, as cute as I am, and let it be known that I wanted sex, the police would be called.

Her defence is that going into a pub by yourself can be quite dangerous, even if you’re not looking for sex, and she certainly wouldn’t want sex with a stranger, or to take a stranger back to her house.

Is it me, or is this beginning to sound a lot less like sex without strings, and more like commitment?

A male friend of mine has been single for many years and is a good bloke (that’s his problem, he’s a bloke) He has old-fashioned ideas about romance, though he doesn’t fit any of the above categories. He’s financially secure and he says that he doesn’t want a full time relationship, as it gets in the way of his blokiness, riding and fixing motorbikes and fishing. 

But he would like a female friend to go out with sometimes, and go on holiday with. He said that he knows it’s impossible to find a woman like this so he’s decided to remain single.

I told my female friend about him, and she said he sounds selfish!

So as far as I can workout this is what she wants:

A man that has all his own hair and teeth, financially secure. He doesn’t fall in love with her after two weeks and doesn’t sleep at her house. She doesn’t want to see him during the week, only at weekends, and then she doesn’t want to be pestered for sex. He can have that when she is ready, and on her terms. No talk of ex-partners or problems with children that have gone off the rails.

She wants romantic nights out, with him picking up the bill, and also a few holidays away would be nice. She will not do any washing cleaning or cooking for anyone except herself. He must be clean and presentable and wash more than once a week: NO MUMMY'S BOYS! He must not have an ex that he hasn’t got over. or any strange fetishes that involve implements or unpleasant bending! He must not have a criminal record, or be very religious, believe in corn circles, aliens or vampires.

Any offers?