Thursday, 16 November 2017


Brexit. The gift that keeps on giving.

Almost a year and a half on from that cursed referendum, the issue is still as divisive as ever. Perhaps more so, given that the repercussions - though not entirely revealed (and won't be until the damned thing happens) are more widely known. As are the lies and invested interests that put us on this particular path. It's remarkable how the debate started out as Brexit being good for Britain, whereas now the debate is really only whether it will be marginally worse, or an all-out economic catastrophe.

What is for the reason for this enmity, if anything, increasing? In my opinion, exactly because to still support Brexit in light of all the lies... to still try and argue this whole thing has been good for Britain, just seems pig-headed to the extreme. And verging on the lunatic. Seriously, take a look around guys. Step out of the bubble. Look what this bullshit has sparked across our country, and the world.

But that's not the only reason Remainers (and the left in general) are tearing their hair out. The truth is, while the right-wing/tax-dodgers/nationalists and xenophobes all present a united front and rejoice in this new world they're creating, OUR team is divided.

No... we're too busy turning on one another, splintering and decimating our own ranks.

I know it only too well. I've written for two of the leading left-wing blogs in the UK in the past eighteen months, and fell foul of both of them for standing by my beliefs. And only last week I had a bust-up within my own extended family, because I'd inadvertently criticised someone's friend on a forum... it's just ridiculous. We really are expected to all pretend the turd is chocolate mousse.

The Burden of Empathy

Here's the general thing about people on the left and centre, and Remainers typically: we carry the burden of empathy. We actively try to imagine how others feel, and to see their point of view. We attempt to be logical, and look at actual facts as opposed to populism and spin. We try to put decency above profits, and modern notions of feudalism.

The ironic and somewhat cruel flip-side to that, is in a situation like we see today, eg: where there is so much widespread support for unpleasant stuff, some on our left-veering team inevitably try to empathise with the very same people who've supported these horrid, horrid things. And thereby sometimes legitimise them.

In the case of Brexit, the result is many Remainers now lambaste other Remainers for simply not 'bending over'. For not accepting a manipulated result that will impoverish our country and diminish our security, with smiles on our faces and a spring in our step! Now, ridiculously, many deem us to be the hostile ones. Black is white, up is down. Whereas the right-wing have no such concerns. Their closed fist is far FAR stronger than our limp hand, fingers spread. Our empathy makes us weak. We end up questioning ourselves or apologising, simply for opposing those who'd subjugate us.

Remain 'supporter', Noel Gallagher

The result is things like this. I saw a post shared suggesting that the Brexit saga is a bit like a Shakespearean tragedy, a battle between good and evil where the good guys will probably lose - a sentiment I'd loosely agree with, albeit a very rudimentary assessment:

However, the response from a popular and supposed left-leaning/Remain supporting blog was as follows:

It continues:

You can tell the writer is a Remain supporter and probably left-leaning, because firstly, they actually take the time to self-analyse and accept a portion of blame, and secondly, they talk a lot of sense! I'm being slightly facetious of course. But the point is, I wouldn't disagree with the second portion of what is written, and would probably also have to concur that I too carry a degree of vanity, simply for wanting people to read what I have to say. However, I would strongly disagree with the writer's assessment of those motives for wanting to speak out. You can in fact want to do the right thing for noble reasons AND possess a degree of 'ego' or 'vanity.' They are not mutually exclusive. 

Of course there are many many different shades of grey, and of course 'good or bad' is far too rudimentary a term to adequately describe the complexity of a huge populace. No human being is entirely good or bad. But in a situation like Nazi Germany in the mid twentieth century, those shades of grey meant nothing. You either supported the Nazis, or you didn't. By the time the danger was recognised, opposing them meant risking your life.

What's happened here, is the blogger's empathy for those who've supported this disaster, and their understandable desire for things to just 'go back to normal' with their friends and family who supported it, has totally undermined the very principles of why so many opposed it in the first place.

Frankly, I see it as a cop-out.

Not all Brexiteers Are 'Stupid'

Indeed. They are not. But intelligent Brexit voters are the most worrying of all. Intelligent Brexit voters would have known they were told a pack of lies, that it was being led by tax-dodging fat-cats, and virtual comic books like The Daily Mail and The Sun. They knew it would impoverish our country, and that it would enable nationalism and xenophobia. And they voted that way regardless.

Which pretty much means one of two things. Either they too were motivated by veiled xenophobia/nationalism (like a majority), OR they stand to benefit from Tory decimation of workers rights, and/or Britain remaining the tax-dodging/loop-hole capital of the western world. (Which it is, make no mistake.) Continuing inequality works for these people. And that in essence is why the Leave campaign was so successful: it allied grumbling xenophobes and nationalists with the rich and financially invested... a truly killer combination.

It was somewhat painful for me to see my former colleague from Evolve Politics, Matt Turner, on Newsnight last night, discussing the alleged influence of Russian propaganda in Brexit. Most of his points I agreed with. As ever, Matt came across as decent, sensible, well reasoned and pragmatic (not qualities evident in the rest of Evolve's editorial team sadly). That is, until he started waving his 'Leaver flag'. And specifically, made an almost glib comment that Hillary Clinton's campaign and the Remain campaign lost "because they were so dire in the first place".

No Matt. Remain lost because actual truth and Realpolitik are far less exciting and stimulating than wild notions of nationalist pride and 'reasserting ourselves'. One appeals to the head, the other to the heart. Ideology won out over pragmatism. People chose The Beano over boring legal documentation. And like many U.S voters a few months later, Brexit supporters were itching to pull a trigger, whatever explosion it caused. That's about it.

Crush The Saboteurs

Can we really not see what is happening here?? 'Traitors'. 'Saboteurs'. And yesterday for God's sake, The Telegraph launched a witch-hunt against Remainer Tory MPs labelled as 'mutineers', while The Daily Mail's political editor insidiously referred to them as 'collaborators': the exact same term notorious far-right killer Thomas Muir used to describe MP Jo Cox, whom he murdered:

If you think of all the words in the English language, use of that word was mere coincidence, it's time to wake up. That is the language of fascism, and anyone who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves.

Right and Wrong

Many Remainers shared a tolerant attitude back before the referendum, and perhaps even afterwards, myself for one (I tried to any way). But since then, we have truly seen Leavers and their figureheads for what they really are. Not all, but a lion's share. And the fad today, is we're unable to call out actual patterns and statistics across demographics of people for fear we'll be deemed as 'stereotyping' or 'showing prejudice'; conveniently ignoring that stereotypes often become stereotypes for a bloody reason.

There IS a right and wrong in all this, however uncomfortable it is to admit. As for the defence there are many 'sound' and decent leave voters, being honest, again I'd have to quibble that. Just because I'm a nice person 90% of the time and help old ladies with their shopping, doesn't mean the fact I 'mug the odd person here and there' is OK. It is not.

Another (admittedly very extreme) example, but presenting a similarly salient point: Hitler was said to be a very nice man, and very kind to those around him - does that mean we forget about other things he advocated for? No. Sometimes in life you need to choose the good or the bad: what's best for you and your team, or what's fair for the common good. And that choice rightly defines you.

So if you make that choice based on ignorance, lies and populism despite evidence being shown to you; if you make a choice that actively takes rights away from other people, potentially destroying lives/families/livelihoods, that will make average people poorer; a choice that will reduce the opportunities and prospects of future generations of this country, please PLEASE don't then moan 'how hard done-by leave voters are'. The hypocrisy of it honestly turns my stomach.

I don't honestly care if some Leave voters insist they're not racists/nationalists: they enabled racism and nationalism, and made us all poorer - period. Don't like that detail? Tough titty. Anyone who voted for this godawful mess should either now put their hands up and admit their mistake (something many of us would respect enormously), or carry on down their path of blissful nationalistic ignorance and fantasy.

But if you go with that, please don't expect any sympathy from those of us who truly see what this evil has done to our country, the lives and livelihoods it threatens, and the path it's put us on geopolitically. We all wish things could go back to the way they were before, when politics hadn't divided our nation, but that was your choice - not ours. Having moral principles means not abandoning them dependent on whose company you're in.

You chose the Dark Side, now you're gonna have to live with it.

Friday, 27 October 2017


"Dear Daily Mail,

Although the idea of wanting to educate yourself AND support Brexit are in many ways mutually exclusive, I am indeed a Brexit voter, and currently attend Dingleberry University - on site at Watford Gap services.

I'm enrolled on a three year honours degree in Philosophy and Economics - which is quite a fucking stretch considering I get confused by modern hairdryers.

My professor, who's taught for decades, who's both respected and accredited with several ACTUAL qualifications, whose brain is a hive of information and facts (details we refer to as 'fake news'), is clearly wrong. We may have respected what he had to say before now, deeming him worthy to teach, but now he's teaching 'facts' that suggest we're complete fucktards, his opinion and learning are clearly worth nothing. Professor Remoans-a-lot needs to get with the programme. We won! Get over it snowflake!

I'm far better informed, so it's only reasonable that everyone acknowledge what I have to say. I read The Daily Mail every day, and have a far better understanding of world history and economics than a twat with a PhD, who makes a point of using fancy words I can't understand. (He's probably a paedophile too.)

The students are just as bad. For some reason, the lefty-scumbags want to hear from 'the professor', not me?? The hypocrisy is intolerable. They call themselves 'liberal' and 'inclusive', but then won't agree to making bibs mandatory, or covering all the sharp edges in bubble wrap - when they know I tend to drool a lot, and often bump into things.

Nor will they unilaterally accept Jesus hates people from Europe; I shouldn't have to put up with it.

It's very clear: we must all pretend the turd is chocolate mousse.

Speaking of 'eating shit': if you guys at The Daily Mail are insistent on smearing a particular group for causing this mess and corrupting the sentience of our nation, please can whomever is reading this, eg: the employee and human-being apparently fine with intimidating academics and enabling agenda and media-driven fascism, now stand up, squat over his/her desk, and take a big steamy dump on it. Then scoop it up, pop it in a box, and send to:

The Daily Mail,
Northcliffe House,
2 Derry Street,
London W8 5TT.

Thank you kindly, and good luck with the witch-hunt. I can't wait for everyone to be as gullible and retarded as me.

God save the Queen! (Even if she's German.)

Yours faithfully,

Mr F. Uckyou"

Tuesday, 24 October 2017


Friends and live music fans may remember that back in 2012, Aussie Floyd's drum technician Scott Johnson was tragically killed in Canada, when an outdoor stage collapsed. He'd been on tour with Radiohead. Scott was truly one of the kindest and most decent people I met during those years; it was an unbelievably cruel twist of fate.

Five years on, and no justice has been done; the organisations and individuals responsible have totally evaded accountability. His family have been denied closure; they live in an endless cycle of fighting powerful organisations seemingly to no avail. And now? Now the case has been thrown out of court because it's supposedly 'taken too long' - even though the delays were entirely caused by the courts and defendants themselves, and the agonisingly slow legal process. A process that unequivocally plays to the super-rich, and those who'd deliberately hide behind faceless corporations and brands.

I encountered the same thing to a lesser degree when I took on a large chain of Nursing Homes in 2014, whose negligence caused the untimely death of my mum. It was like swimming against a very large and unassailable tide. The whole thing was just a farce; I was doomed to fail, and it deeply affected me. But my mum was ill and in her seventies; she wasn't a young man with his whole life ahead of him, her life cut short by the questionable negligence of a multinational corporation worth billions. It's injustice off the scale.

Some of the most callous and immoral people in this world always argue it's 'just business'. It's something we see all the time, in every walk of life. From employers and multinational companies and institutions, to politicians, public figures and governments. People at the top don't think the 'little people' matter. They truly believe they can do what they like without reprisal, that the system and our very lives are theirs to play. I am so very sick of it: it's endemic, and it's why I rant at the heavens like a madman. It's the enduring legacy of capitalism, the veiled successor of feudalism and 'divine right', and I know I for one shall never be able to accept it.

This recent industry magazine article by Laura Barnes about the failure to achieve justice for Scott, again brought home to me the corruption and selfish careerism typically lurking behind such injustice. Like the trials and trauma faced by Grenfell Tower survivors battling a council and government that protects its own. Like the situation with Harvey-fucking-Weinstein, people all across the music industry are scared/unwilling to stand up for what's right, because the behemoth that is Live Nation holds too much sway over their lives and careers:

"The feelings of frustration and anger are echoed throughout the production fraternity, with more being shared in private than in public, perhaps due to the grip that Live Nation have on touring and festivals and the fact that people need to earn a living." 

"The UK based BECTU union has not replied to my request for comment, neither have the editors of two notable trade magazines dedicated to the live event industry. I have also contacted a number of large UK audio hire companies, none of whom are prepared to talk about the issue on the record while a few colleagues in senior production roles have spoken out but have asked not to be named- which is not a great deal of practical use, grateful though I am that they have responded."

Cowards, the lot of them.

I'm just so appalled by the way this tragedy has been brushed under the carpet. I cannot begin to imagine the trauma and frustration endured by Scott's parents. I'm still in touch with his father, Ken, who rightly so will never give up fighting, and fortunately Radiohead are firmly on side too - so it's not over yet.

But neither can it be denied, Radiohead are only able to speak out against the might of Live Nation because they're a huge global band, who can't simply be 'shut down'. Everyone else further down the food chain seems to be hushing up and closing ranks.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
- Edmund Burke

Whatever your cause, if you believe wrong-doing and injustice have occurred: fight it. Fight it all the way, even if it's to your detriment. However much others harangue and insult you, ostracise you and mock are the spark of human decency and ethics that dragged humankind from the abyss of ignorance and violence. That spark is why we're free, and why they're free not to care. (Until it affects them, any way.)

RIP Scott. Gone but never forgotten. Good people are still fighting for you mate.

Thursday, 19 October 2017


The Weinstein scandal: the gift that keeps on giving.

I've seen quite a few folks sharing this hideous video today, of Howard Stern interviewing Emma Bunton back in 2005:

I admit, watching it makes me feel sick to my stomach. Creepy to the max, and very uncomfortable viewing. All-the-more uncomfortable for me, as in the past I've enjoyed a lot of Howard Stern's work; the guy's been an iconic pioneer for rock music, as well as freedom of speech for decades now.

As usual though, I shall endeavour to offer a side to the argument that most will be unwilling or too uncomfortable to explore, or even entertain.

One - and perhaps most importantly - Howard Stern is not Harvey Weinstein. He is not an alleged rapist, there are no reports of him sexually bullying women etc, and he has no criminal record. He is a comedian. (Whether he's any good or not, is not the point.)

Two - Howard Stern's entire act has been based on shock, and pure unbridled/unhinged filth and smut his entire career. He made his whole name for himself by saying seemingly unthinkable things, and challenging censorship at a time when we were pretty much all expected to be good Christian folk, and TV/radio entertainment was like living with the Mormons. A great deal of freedom of expression in the U.S is owed to Howard Stern, to this very day. He's also been a significant advocate of human rights, gay rights, and sexual equality.

If you know anything about the background of Howard Stern, or have seen the documentary-comedy about his life, Private Parts, you'll know the guy is a goofball who simply says anything that comes into his head, however depraved. The guy literally has no filter. He makes jokes that would turn the average person's stomach, that make those who do laugh feel guilty for laughing. He says equally creepy things to men or women, and the less prepared they are for it, the more he relishes it. He unquestionably goes too far sometimes. But on the same hand, that's exactly what put him on the map. This is a guy who had a female caller orgasm live on radio, who was banned by God knows how many radio stations.

Though I'd agree this interview is creepy and slimy in ways I hadn't honestly yet experienced, come on guys... anyone who agrees to get interviewed by Howard Stern must know what they're getting into?!? He's not David Dimbleby for God's sake. You wouldn't go on Celebrity Juice with Keith Lemon and expect not to be presented with filthy outrageous stuff, deliberately designed to make your jaw hit the deck. And if Bunton didn't know who Stern was, or what he was about, I hope she sacked her management team afterwards! The fact Stern said all of that live on-air to Emma Bunton as part of his show is hardly the same as a sexual predator saying those things to a woman in private, genuinely trying to cajole her. The exact and definitive thing about 'predators' is they keep their intentions and carnal desires hushed and/or disguised - they don't generally blurt them out over the airwaves. Hardly a great alibi if so, and I don't for a second think Bunton was under any threat.

The point is, yes... Howard Stern has said some gross stuff, and offended pretty much everyone in his time. And yes, these sorts of interviews are grossly inappropriate by today's standards, and no they're not acceptable any more. They send out the wrong message, and there needs to be a line somewhere. But Stern is not a sexual predator, he's a comedian. A very bad taste and smutty comedian, who's woken up today to find he's an outcast and villain for something he said twelve years ago.

Who's next for the chopping block? Keith Lemon? Mickey Flannagan? Frankie Boyle? Jim Jefferies? The latter two of which, apart from often making quite misogynistic jokes, are both highly principled men actively militant for equality and human rights - as much so as anyone you'd meet.

But that doesn't matter, a minor detail right?

Glutton For Punishment

I don't know why I always feel indebted to look at the flip-side of any argument, but I do. Even and especially in situations where individuals/groups are suddenly 'public enemy number one', or if they're uncomfortable topics: when it's generally far easier to simply grab yourself a pitchfork and start chanting with everyone else. Possibly because I've been on the other end of the pitchforks at various points. 

In truth, a few chaps I've spoken to are beginning to get a smidgen worried about where this Weinstein scandal could potentially veer though. On one hand, it genuinely seems like it could be an amazing thing that will genuinely change the world around us - especially for women - for the better. In fact you can almost feel the changes taking place right now. Certain things are just not gonna wash any more, and rightly so. Misogynists beware! It's a real cause for celebration, save for the poor women who were affected and intimidated by the creep.

Here's the thing many of us are scared to say though... any decent man in this world will unequivocally stand for the safety, happiness and equality of women; but neither can we help the fact we were born with a schlong either. And sorry, there is already a slight atmosphere of 'all men are responsible, and/or did nothing to stop it', and that's just not fair.

For example, on Twitter recently I saw British actor Robert Lindsay (of 'My Family') came forward to say he'd spoken up about Weinstein's abuse of his colleague at the time, Molly Ringwald. The result was that Lindsay's film career never quite got off the ground; he became blacklisted:

And I believe him too. I'd actually wondered before now why he hadn't appeared in more films over the years. Lindsay is a fantastic actor: to be honest I was surprised he didn't pop up in the Harry Potter franchise. The truth tends to make sense when you hear it.

Subtle Digs

Moving swiftly past the huge number of slurs I've seen on social media, mostly coming from furious women lambasting any male who dares to even politely dispute them on any aspect of any issue as 'vile sexist pigs' etc, I've also noted a few more subtle digs too. For example, a mostly marvellous article in The Guardian recently by actor Arabella Weir:

I read the piece, and was in passionate agreement with every damned word Arabella said... until the very last paragraph. When she rather flippantly commented: "No man was ever going to expose Harvey Weinstein."

That is simply not true. I know it for a fact, because I would have tried, and I'm sure many other inadvertent penis-owners out there would have too. My first piece on this Weinstein scandal, I specifically wrote of an instance where I spoke up regarding what I considered sexual abuse occurring at my university, even though positively no-one else around me had the guts to at the time. I took on my own course leader, and got a shitty degree grade as a result. Had it been more serious, eg: an instance where young women (or men) were being genuinely violated, I would have spoken up even quicker.

Robert Lindsay tried too; and he was not alone. 

If you analyse and pull words apart, certainly like I do, you cannot help but wonder exactly what Arabella is insinuating by that remark in The Guardian. It seemed a pretty broad (and pretty demeaning) brushstroke at best. Hopefully she simply intended to imply that women should empower themselves and not be afraid to speak up - a sentiment I'd agree with and support - but in which case, I'd argue her phrasing was rather poor. 

And certainly, quite needlessly hostile to and dismissive of men who in most cases, agree with everything women are saying entirely, and only want to help.


Let's just not turn this into a witch-hunt, eh? (Or warlock-hunt is perhaps better.) 

Because I tell you one thing dear reader, puritanism doesn't work. Prohibition of things that humans like to do/watch/listen to/consume etc, doesn't work. It forces them underground into the hands of genuinely unscrupulous people. 

In the new world some folks out there would seemingly like us to soon live in (the Sylvester Stallone and Sandra Bullock movie Demolition Man springs to mind), where comedy is censored, anything objectionable or that could be construed to incite a negative 'copycat' reaction is not allowed, where strip clubs and porn are outlawed, computer games and films are all about fluffy kittens, and a man is too scared to say a woman is attractive or even reflect on the fact she is a female for fear he'll be dragged in front of a tribunal... well, I tell you what ladies... there will be a helluva lot far more repressed and angry men out there. That ain't gonna end well. At the same time, any woman who doesn't fit in this neatly prescribed little box, or want to adhere to these new puritan rules, will simply end up levelled with even more stigma...more supposed 'slut-shaming'. It'll be like we're all back at Catholic school.

Have we learned nothing?

It's definitely not coincidence that the era of sexual freedom and enlightenment, traditionally thought of as the 1960s, was also the time people started talking about perhaps not endlessly killing each other and seeking world peace. 

Worth a mention perhaps.

Tuesday, 17 October 2017


It's funny. I was a bit naughty with the last piece I wrote, about Harvey Weinstein. I deliberately put a 'red herring' headline, suggesting the piece was defending him - when really it was facetious, condemned him entirely (labelling someone a 'disease' you'd think pretty definitive), and it simply looked at other 'layers of the onion'.

I was interested to see how many people would pounce and start labelling me a sexist, a misogynist, a mansplainer etc without even digesting the point of the piece. (Eg: that silence in the face of evil is the enemy.)

The results were telling. I'm pleased to say the number of people who attacked the post were relatively small: less than I'd predicted. But there were still a few, and they were all females who basically lambasted me for not knowing what I'm talking about, or having no right to even speak on the matter, because I'm male.

Also quite telling, is I monitor how many peruse my blog (a vanity, I know), and that piece, with a headline that potentially 'enraged' - rather than stating clearly what it was about on the tin - was read considerably more than some of my material.

Hmm. And we wonder how The Daily Mail and The Sun garnered such power.

Real Equality

I'm pleased this has all come to light, and think exposure of Weinstein's abuses - perhaps for the first time - genuinely has a realistic chance of changing things. But at the same time, neither can it be ignored there are a growing minority of ladies out there, especially on social media, who seem to hold any and every man responsible: somehow arguing everything we say is seeped in misogyny. And if you dare to dispute so much as one aspect of their argument, it only heightens their resolve, making them more insistent you're a 'male bully'. (To be frank, it's highly reminiscent of arguing with Brexiteers - you're wrong, simply because 'you are'.)

That is not 'equality'. That's simply going too far in the other direction. The whole bloody point of equality is you judge people on the basis and content of what they say, regardless of religion/sex/race/wealth, or any other potentially stereotyped variable. Being born with a penis and/or being sexually attracted to women does not somehow mean you unequivocally harbour an inherent and genetically predisposed disrespect for women, it's ludicrous! I for one am the son of a single working mother, who brought me up by herself, who was smarter than most men will ever be. And today, I am father to a highly confident and assertive four year old girl who one day I want to rule the world. My entire life, I've categorically never ever thought of women as anything other than the equals of men. I'm the furthest thing from a 'macho man'. But some ladies manage to make even me, the 'enemy'.

I Put My Hands Up... I'm Guilty

Yes, I may in passing acknowledge occasionally the fact a friend I'm talking to is a female ('hi babe', 'hello gorgeous', 'yes my dear'). I might even crack a joke - God forbid - about a cultural stereotype ('bloody women drivers/shoppers' etc), but if you genuinely think that implies I really honestly believe women are somehow less capable, or have a 'secondary status' on account of their sex, you really are off your bloody rocker. That's absolutism to ridiculous extreme.

Appreciating men and women are often different, they often like different things and are often good at different things, is a beautiful mystery that keeps the world spinning. Anyone with a brain knows they're not 'rules', not exclusively the case, and that 'equality' means allowing someone to choose their own path without restriction. But neither does acknowledging those preferences exist, somehow make you a crusader for male bigotry.

Recently, a couple of female friends posted things on Facebook that were, to my puerile mind any way, wide open for jokes. One was a friend named Adele who casually commented that "upon returning from her honeymoon, she turned vegan". I couldn't resist making a crack, though I did it somewhat timidly by asking "is NO-ONE else gonna make a joke here??" The other, another lovely lass named Lauren commented "she wished they did delivery roasts." Again, my inner childish smut-peddler came out, and I commented that depending on what sort of roast she was after, I'm sure there'd be plenty of volunteers. Only a minute later, I added a follow-up post apologising profusely to anyone who might find that offensive. Something I wouldn't normally have done. (Some might see that as a resulting victory from this Weinstein scandal.) I don't generally like to tiptoe around my female friends though, just because they're female.

I knew the friends in question would not take offence at these quips, they're both intelligent and confident women who did in fact laugh, and if they had a problem with me or anything I'd said, I'd like to think they'd tell me. But I did later wonder how many others might think me a 'shameless misogynist' for those comments, and/or were somehow judging me. And really, that's not cool either.

No, I'm just an infantile dickhead with a silly sense of humour, eternally wanting to make people laugh. Not everyone will, but I don't particularly like the idea of living in a society where humour is policed and censored.

Shit Gags

Anyone is of course free to think they were shit gags, horrifically immature and unworthy of the slightest smirk, even that they were totally inappropriate. But to think that stands as ironclad evidence I'm clearly someone who disrespects women? No. That is a grotesque assumption. No more than if I hear a female comedian making a joke about beating her husband or 'cutting his todger off' (key word being 'joke') or making silly generalisations about men, I don't assume she actually condones violence, hates men, and/or mutilates her unfortunate spouse.

I once fell foul of an editor, a lady I liked and respected a great deal, because I commented 'woof' on a picture of Charlotte Church in the newsroom, looking particularly ravishing. Really. I still just don't get it. Okay, as my better half told me, it probably wasn't incredibly smart, but on the scale of things that's pretty darn tame, and hey - I don't hide who I am or what I find interesting/funny. Plus, if any woman I knew in the world commented on a picture of Brad Pitt (or male equivalent) and commented 'what a hot piece of ass', 'come to mama' etc, I can honestly say I wouldn't, and really don't give two hoots! Go for it ladies, eat all you can eat.

Again, that is equality.

Simply saying 'woof'?? Really?? Maybe not classy I grant, but hardly a slur or imposition on the state of womanhood. And I'd also argue, anyone who thinks that is grossly offensive, clearly hasn't actually ventured out to talk to actual 3D people much in the real world. Try touring with a rock band, or working at a car dealership.

No, of course it's not the sort of thing I'd say to a stranger, or directly to and about a woman in a professional capacity, and it's certainly nothing like shouting or 'wolf-whistling' women you don't know in the street etc - that is intimidating and sexually aggressive. But commenting to a friend that you think a man or woman is 'hot', however you phrase it (within reason) is hardly the same thing at all.

When and if women are genuinely expected to behave like the comedian Mickey Flanagan portrays them, then there's genuine reason to worry. But until then, let him make his jokes. (I don't actually find his whole misogynistic routine funny by the way.)


In the last few days, I've seen finger pointing in all directions. Video games, films, TV, music, the adult entertainment industry, education, cultural values, James Cordon, you name it. Some of the criticisms contain elements of truth. But not universally, and not to a degree I believe women should now start demanding everything cater to sensibilities of the most sensitive and/or at risk among them. Not everyone who watches a violent TV programme goes out to commit violence. Not everyone who plays Grand Theft Auto on their X-box goes out murdering prostitutes and running people over. Not every guy who visits a strip club thinks of women as objects to be used and abused. Not every film director/producer who put a 'sexy chick' in a movie where she took her clothes off, is a vile sexist pig, or cajoled her into doing so. Not every guy who likes boobs is a potential rapist-in-waiting, or a man like Harvey Weinstein. These are too wide assumptions to make, however serious and tangible the issue.

Nobody should ever be bullied or pressured into doing something they don't want to do. Ever. But neither is it for those puritans among us, male or female, to decide what others do or don't like either; what they do or don't find acceptable. If nobody is hurt or violated in any way, live and let live I say.

There are so many issues and examples within our society of genuine institutional misogyny, and rife casual prejudice against women, there's no disputing that. And I wouldn't try to. Tampon tax? Get tae fuck. Wage inequality? Fucking preposterous. Sexual predators and bullies? Despicable wankers. It is disgusting, and all of it has to change. But please... please ladies, a minority few of you do need to appreciate not everyone with a penis is somehow responsible for this state of affairs.

As I kinda tried to point out in my last piece, 'evil is evil' - regardless of whether it's white or black, Muslim or Christian, rich or poor. And certainly, whether it has a penis or vagina.

What matters, is that we call it out wherever and whenever we see it.

Sunday, 15 October 2017


Okay, I'll say straight away that was a deliberately controversial and antagonistic headline.

To many, the idea that someone... anyone could, or would, attempt to defend the Hollywood producer's now notorious (alleged) actions will be so abhorrent, so unthinkable, I'm hoping a good few will click out of curiosity, perhaps purposely seeking something to get angry about. That seems to be the fashion nowadays.

Here's the thing. I'm not defending Harvey Weinstein's conduct. If the reports are true - as would now seem inevitable, judging from the sheer quantity of affected women speaking out against him, as well as taped recordings of his predatory mannerism - he is an utterly deplorable and depraved human being. One who certainly deserves to be stripped of every accolade ever awarded to him. It's appalling that any individual was able to thrive for so long, virtually unimpeachable for his bullying and sexually aggressive behaviour.

But again, here's the thing: evil IS what it is.

Evil exists, and it's all around us. To pretend otherwise is sheer folly. And in a sense, you can hardly blame an evil human being - particularly one that's been enabled by everyone around them for years - for being 'evil'. Any more than you can blame a hungry grizzly bear for eating your neighbour.

One particular sentiment on Twitter caught my eye, for good reason:

One of the most farcical aspects of this whole scandal is that we're apparently all so 'shocked' this sort of thing goes on in Hollywood. Or in politics. Or in the music business. Or in big business. Or the in media in general. When in fact, anybody even remotely connected to these industries know full well that sort of behaviour is just 'a given'. Something Emma Thompson voiced rather well on Newsnight recently.

Pyramid Scheme

Certainly in my experience, those at the top of any pyramid generally think they can do what they like. And often, the bigger and more powerful the company or institution, the more shameless and irresponsible their conduct. Again speaking of my own experience, my own seeming inability to 'keep quiet' in the face of such ethics has been my undoing on many occasions: many more than I'd care to admit.

One of the earliest examples I can think of, and not an altogether unrelated subject: the head of my course at university used to throw highly questionable parties for his students, encouraging them to do and perform lurid things on camera for his entertainment, often for financial incentive. And most of them seemed OK with it. I wasn't. And my fairly obvious disgust at his behaviour eventually resulted in a degree classification in no way befitting the work I'd done, or my level of competence.

I attempted to fight his 'assessment' afterwards, but it was too late. It was all 'hearsay'. And by taking him on, all I achieved really was to alienate myself from the countless students and friends who'd been only too happy to befriend him, turning a blind eye and/or engaging with activities at his parties. Because believe me... everybody knew.

And that's the point. Those who do speak up, are demonised. By even daring to have a voice that challenges the people in charge, or those committing the offences, you make yourself a target. Instantly, you're the 'moaner', the one who won't 'get with the programme'. You risk being sidelined by friends and colleagues who want an easy life, and on the whole, opt to take the easier path of silence.

Where did I go wrong? I only spoke up forcefully when it affected me personally: when MY degree result was adversely affected. If I'd planted my foot in the sand immediately and challenged the lecturer's behaviour, if I hadn't been motivated by self-preservation alone, I might have been able to enact change before it affected me and my future. Maybe not, but I'll never know.

In almost every walk of life - certainly those I can think of - the most awful malpractices, crimes, and even violations against other human beings occur, and continue to occur, exactly because those committing them are buoyed by the huge swathes of people who 'just accept it'. It's a 'perk' of being in charge: the 'status quo'. The perpetrators specifically rely their victims don't (and won't) speak up. Onlookers' conception of power, and its threat to adversely affect their entire life and career is just too great a cost for most, whatever industry they're in. It's understandable. Life's hard enough as it is.

The Uncomfortable Truth

Yes, self-preservation is understandable.

But the uncomfortable flip-side to that, is those vast swathes of people who keep their mouths shut are symbiotically as responsible for those vices as those who commit them. They are quite literally enabling the crimes.

What's really at stake, is whether one's sense of self-preservation is more or less effectual than inherent desire to see decency and fairness win out.

I'd argue such people - those who have that inner desire for things to be fair and right - are in the minority, and declining. No matter how much Western culture has (at least until recently) propagated the idea we're the 'guardians of decency', who always like to see the good guys emerge victorious. It's being bred out of us. And the reason that fantasy no longer flies, simply put, is that genuine ethics of fairness fundamentally contradict the guiding ethos of capitalism.

In light of that, it's almost like our societies have now given up pretending: or are at least headed that way. No one with a sense of perspective could possibly dispute the odious hypocrisy, or the huge problems faced by a western world where two highly successful, powerful and effectual household names of America are both accused of similar crimes, but one of them is currently disgraced: the other is President of the United States.

When horrible, nasty and downright immoral things occur routinely without challenge; when nobody seems to raise an eyebrow or dare stand up to them, you can hardly blame the perpetrators for being lulled into a sense their conduct is somehow 'acceptable'. That's the brutal truth.

Again, that goes for all walks of life, from the most humble to the most extreme. World War II didn't happen because of Adolf Hitler, because of one man: it happened because of all the people who followed him, who'd have argued they were simply being patriotic, and/or 'doing their job'.

Lessons from Drama School

Back at drama school, one of the kindest, most ethical and inspiring teachers I ever had - a gentleman named Amir Korangy taught me what I would like to believe an invaluable lesson in acting. Namely that no villain thinks they're a villain. Unless you're appearing in an Austin Powers movie or a pantomime, bad guys don't generally make a categorical decision to become evil, or to adopt manic cackling laughs to forecast their inherent malice.

No, however warped and twisted the villain has become, even the most vicious and malicious individuals and groups believe they are justified in their attitudes: that they are the good guys. It's an important switch of mindset if you're looking to play an 'evil' character with realism, rather than hammy stereotypes.

It also goes a long way to explaining how, and why, we're now seeing the resurgence of attitudes and politics that quite frankly, I never thought I'd see resurgent in my lifetime. Not in my country any way. Nor the 'Land of the Free'. And I try to bear it in mind when conversing with people of opposing opinions (with varying levels of success, admittedly).

In Defence of Harvey Weinstein

Weinstein's abuses are obviously seeped in the pertinent issues of institutionalised sexism and misogyny, which in some ways, are separate issues to what I'm discussing here. Plus as a male, I am perhaps not best qualified to speak or testify on account of them.

But in defence of Harvey Weinstein, the seemingly callous rapist and sexual predator, I will mention the aspect few others would dare to. Namely that Weinstein is like an entitled child that's been allowed to kick/punch and abuse his/her classmates without redress. He probably genuinely thought there was nothing wrong with it; that it was permitted for a man in his position. An unwritten rule. Therefore, a portion of the responsibility does lie with those who allowed him to form that opinion, and for so long. That sadly includes every single person who, for whatever reason, lacked the courage or conviction to speak up: to put decency ahead of careerism.

That's not to say Weinstein shouldn't be held squarely to account. Only that you rarely cure a disease by treating the symptoms alone.

Wednesday, 4 October 2017


The current political discourse in Britain is just nuts.

The level of hypocrisy and flippant political rhetoric thrown around on social media has reached fever pitch, truly. Not only among the masses, but among political pundits and politicians, journalists and activists etc - those we once upon a time relied upon to be subjective. Every day we're confronted with new confirmations that this country - and more generally, the world as a whole - is going down the toilet, yet most of seem to be obsessed with using these events to score points off their 'chosen adversary'. Regardless of how tenuous the link.

We've got natural disasters arguably linked to climate change ravaging millions of people, with some scientists saying by 2050, we're screwed. We have open physical abuse and violation of citizens in Spain. Britain about to dive face-first off an economic cliff, under an incalculably incompetent government. Towers of poor people bursting into flames, with no money to house them, but ample to bribe folks in Northern Ireland, fix a giant clock, and redecorate Buckingham Palace. Airlines closing, and businesses fleeing the country like rats from a sinking ship. Beyond Britain, though the Western media have mostly abandoned the subject, the migrant crisis continues in the Mediterranean - and has according to reports, intensified. Genocide in Yemen - a conflict in the Middle East that gets ignored due to lack of vested Western interest. Then the worst and most horrific mass shooting in in American history, under a US government now saying it's OK to murder gay people, nigh on the verge of going full-on 'Third Reich'. (But the American version... the 'best version, it's gonna be great.')

Yet somehow, bizarrely, a good portion of political debate in Britain seems to have swung back round to whether the Labour Party is antisemitic or not.

'The pressing issue of our time'.

The Labour Conference

The minute the subject was raised at the Labour Party conference, seemingly out of nowhere, some of us sighed and said 'uh-oh, here we go.' It was pretty inevitable. Now the momentum seems to be with Corbyn (that pun seems to be unavoidable, apologies), I wondered how long it would be before we were all 'Jew-bashing Holocaust deniers' once again. Not long, as it turns out.

Then an American-Israeli author named Miko Peled made a comment at the conference regarding free-speech, and where you should draw the line: in essence saying (I'm paraphrasing):

'Yes, you should be free to criticise everything from the Holocaust to the actions of Palestine, but Israel's testament as to how it treats Palestine is about as reliable as Nazis defending their actions, or supporters of apartheid in South Africa'. 

That is a fairly brutal way of putting it, I grant. And liable to incite an emotional reaction; but perhaps that's the point? In truth, I cannot fault the sentiment. Peled didn't mention Holocaust denial, but that's somehow been made the focus. It's completely missing his intended point. Which is exactly yes, we should be free to discuss and debate ideas, however distasteful and uncomfortable - or even ludicrous, such as Holocaust denial - but not for the perpetrators of arguably heinous offences to legitimise their crimes. Their particular 'testament' is too biased.

That message has been obscured entirely.

But even if you disagree, or find even that position offensive, how are the comments of one party member representative of all? If that was the case, surely the odd balls of Conservative and UKIP should have sunk their parties long ago?


I just find it mind-boggling. The minute you say anything that dares grant even the slightest concession to the Palestinian side of the argument, even if you're Jewish yourself, you are instantly slurred an 'antisemite'. And it goes further. That same day of the conference, when I was perhaps stupidly sucked into political debate on Twitter, I ended up being slurred an antisemite simply for saying there are powerful Jewish elites in Washington, Wall Street and Hollywood. Which to me, honestly is just a given! Apparently, describing them as Jewish is what makes me 'a racist' though - a detail I'd refute til I'm blue in the face.

But these were not typical buffoons spouting such nonsense; these were political correspondents from The Irish Times and The Guardian, one of whose sentiments got retweeted by J.K bloody Rowling of all people! It was upsetting and ridiculous in equal measure. The fact that - like Miko Peled - I'm half Jewish myself, and am also ironically the son of an Austrian Jewish holocaust survivor? Or that anything and everything I've ever argued for is fairness and equality - to look at both sides of any argument? Well, apparently such details are neither here nor there in Britain's political discourse of today. 'You disagree with me? Or state a detail I find uncomfortable? That's prejudice.'

A Routine Witch Hunt

It's not a flash in the pan. This theme has been an undercurrent of discussions surrounding the Labour Party since Corbyn first became leader. The reason, simply put, is Corbyn's adamant criticism of Israel's aggression. He insists that both sides of the Israel/Palestine conflict have legitimate grievances, and he sticks to it. That's really the nub of it. Yet somehow that equates as anyone who supports Corbyn's Labour being an 'antisemite.'

It's a damnable witch hunt. I for one can certainly say I've never spoken to anyone on the left of politics who's 'antisemitic', or in fact prejudiced against anyone for their ethnicity or religion. That's kinda the point of being on the left! Written on the tin. Or being 'liberal' at any rate. True antisemitism? That's all the far-right's turf, and deep down everyone knows that.

Which leads me neatly to a post I saw this morning, concerning Jewish citizens harassed in the U.S. A Jewish bakery in Brooklyn received an openly racist and Nazi-supporting threat in the mail. Nasty stuff. The threat of fascism being legitimised in America is very, very real - again, anyone should be able to see that.

Yet bizarrely, the first and only comment on my friend's post about this horrific abuse in the U.S? Well... it was a pop at at the UK Labour Party:

Yep... when I see a Swastika, the very first thing I associate and think to talk about is Jeremy Corbyn and/or Labour. Honestly, how ridiculous. Right or wrong, I bit back at this silly person. I'm sick of hearing it to be frank, and such smears deserve to be held accountable. But I remained polite. The lady's response? Cries of implied 'abuse', labelling me a 'troll'. 'Here we go, another Corbynista'. Orders to 'cease and desist'. Somewhat pitiful appeals that flippant slurs are OK if you're a 'good person who opposes racism'. Or if unbelievably, you also happen to be 'a member of the Labour Party'. (Perhaps therein lies a big part of the problem.)

Then she tries to 'shame me' for detracting from the original issue of Jews being persecuted in Brooklyn - conveniently ignoring she was the one who detracted from it in the first place!

NO. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. If you're gonna post bullsh*t, have the guts to back it up. Provide some evidence, or at least a coherent justification - don't scarper like a coward, attempt to close down the discussion where YOU want to leave it, protesting that anyone who calls you out is 'abusive'. It's beyond pathetic.

Sadly, the person whose post it was joined in deeming me inappropriate for saying their friend was wrong. I'm apparently 'narrow-minded' for calling out someone who's being narrow-minded. I hear it and see it all the time in political discourse... you're a 'bully' if you attempt to push back against a bully. You're a 'racist' if you dare criticise a nation that suffers racism. You're 'prejudiced' if you call out prejudice. You're condemned as 'offensive' for using an expletive, by someone arguing for the real-life persecution of actual human beings. Where does it end? It's like anti-logic, and it's driving me potty.

A Fashionable Ruse

This fashionable ruse is now aped by politicians and journalists, who do exactly the same thing. It started with Angela Eagle, when she didn't like being contradicted and held accountable for her smears of 'antisemitism' and the alleged 'targeted hate campaign' within Labour, back in 2016.

That legacy is now we've got the likes of Jacob Rees-Mogg, Daniel Hannan, Nigel Farage, Julia Hartley-Brewer, Boris Johnson, and countless other Tory toads frequently postulating that any who oppose their views are simply 'abusive'. As if the criticisms and hostility they face are somehow born of prejudice for them as individuals, rather than the noxious stuff coming out their own gobs.

My greatest fear however, is this 'abuse' is currently being primed as justification for the removal of free speech on the internet. Eg: the one and only thing that stands in the way of their propagated 'legends'.

Very much like the legend of 'Antisemitic Labour and the Socialist Grail'. Coming to a crap cinema near you.

Sunday, 1 October 2017


Many months ago, prior to the general election, I wrote something for Evolve asking the seemingly facetious question, "is Theresa May actually TRYING to lose this election?" Simply put, May and the Tory government seemed so reckless, so inanely incompetent, it was almost like they wanted to hand over the 'poison chalice' of Brexit, knowing full well it will be an unmitigated disaster. It was also the most popular theory in a poll of 7.5K people.

It seemed that theory was truly out the window, as obviously the Tories won. Kind of, any way. May clung to power like an angry toddler to a dummy, at any rate.

Many months have passed since then, and the difference in attitude towards the likelihood of Corbyn's potential premiership could not be more different. Almost ridiculously so. There are different angles to be found, but even the most ardent Tory mouthpieces are hinting it's likely JC will, or at least could, be our next Prime Minister.

Then, that went a step further. In the past 48 hours, I've heard 'announcements' on MSM morning TV programmes etc that some bookies predict he will be Prime Minister "before the end of the year". That Labour are "preparing for government" etc. Erm... even ignoring that's exceedingly unlikely unless the government somehow abdicates, it's almost like the powers-that-be are now trying to feed a different 'reality' into our collective subconscious. And again I find myself asking questions. I can't help it. Whenever I am 'fed' ideas, my brain forces me to look at the reasons 'why' I'm possibly being fed them. It's like chess. You don't just look at the piece moved by your opponent, but also what manoeuvres they're enabling for the others. You step back, looking at the entire situation.

Harsh Reality

Face it... Brexit is a catastrophe. It's already lashed our nation economically and socially on untold scale, and hasn't even happened yet. It's damaged our reputation globally (with anyone other than Trump's America that is), and anyone with a brain can see it makes no sense for us to tumble off a cliff like this. It seems utterly doomed. But that doesn't mean I don't think it's going to happen. On the contrary, the rich and powerful tax-dodgers who've engineered it all, I think, will see it through at any and all costs now. It seems unavoidable. 'Will of the people' and all that.

If the Tories were exceedingly clever and manipulative (and make no mistake, they are), they might theoretically recognise whichever government is at the helm for this sh*t-storm WILL go down with the ship. And possibly in perpetuity. After all, the British people will undoubtedly regret this 'decision', those of modest means will any way - when and if supplies from Europe are stopped and/or slapped with tariffs. When the little Englanders start to appreciate we produce little of our own, save for dodgy financial services the EU precisely wanted to restrict.

So a wise chess player might sacrifice the pawns, to save key pieces on the back line. What might that look like? That may just mean more daggers in the Conservative Party - that Theresa May will be made the 'fall guy', and a new monstrosity will gush forth from the Tory ether of hideousness. But, if Brexit is in fact ultimately doomed to be a disaster, it might also conceivably make sense for the Tories to allow responsibility for this grisly transition to fall into the hands of their beleaguered opponents. The equivalent of 'passing a turn' in a board game or quiz.

When a new government steps in, the status quo doesn't change overnight, and certain 'chess pieces' have already been moved. There's a knock-on effect. If Corbyn stepped in tomorrow, the DUP have already got their cool £1bn bribe, the small matter of Tory election fraud has already been swept under the table, and promises David Cameron made - such as enacting Part 2 of the Leveson Enquiry have been long forgotten. Countless matters decided under a near decade of Tory rule would simply be small-fry compared to the juggernauts Corbyn would have to tackle. Many would slip through the cracks. And when they did, his opponents would say: "look... he's failing."

In fact, it fits quite beautifully. If Labour don't prevent Brexit, and the whole country falls to ruin... and Corbyn has nothing left to work with other than an isolated bankrupt island at war with itself, economically crippled and globally despised? When the businesses have all fled elsewhere, but the British elites have adequately protected their interests, shielding their assets from accountability to the British tax-payer? Who will then be blamed? Who will then be the scapegoat? Many among the British people have already shown themselves to be inanely gullible, to swallow whatever nonsense they are told by their papers and TV sets. If those forces again set their sights on the new 'socialist experiment' in Britain under Corbyn as being to blame for the Brexit fallout, as opposed to the vicious capitalist protectionism that drove it, the British people WILL buy it hook line and sinker. The Tories would be back in power in a heartbeat, and the experiment would be over - a mere 'bump in the road'. Capitalist forces would again seize the reins, with even more gusto,

It's alarmingly neat.

Best Case Scenario

That's not to say I think it would somehow be preferable for the Tories to remain in power. The sooner they're out the better. But Corbyn needs to be aware they will unequivocally be planning for that turn of events, and what their next move will be. Now the obvious momentum is with Corbyn (pardon the pun), tactics will undoubtedly have changed - and someone, somewhere in the Conservative Party will now be thinking about the 'long game'.

Of course, if Corbyn does get into power, he could hypothetically pull the rug out from beneath them - by reversing Brexit. (If that's even possible now.) By allowing himself a chance to remedy the ills of this nation from a position of Britain having kept its economic integrity and security intact, he might ACTUALLY repair this country.

For me personally, I have always hoped - and will continue to hope - this is Corbyn's 'ace in the hole'. That even if he is Eurosceptic, he would not plummet this nation into potential financial and social catastrophe if he genuinely thought it imminent. That he's a man of enough modesty, he would put our actual interests ahead of populism and 'nationalistic pride'.

I'll keep hoping.

Featured image: 'Checkmate Satan' by Ry-Spirit.

Friday, 29 September 2017

BREAKING NEWS: UKIP's new leader named as KFC Colonel

BREAKING NEWS: UKIP's new leader named as KFC Colonel.

Other contenders for the role, which included Ronald McDonald, the zombie corpse of Enoch Powell, and the guy from the Go Compare commercials, are all said to be "not too bothered".

Releasing a statement, the Colonel said:
"I very much look forward to leading a party that's about as relevant as scurvy."
"Clearly there's no point in us even existing, as the Tories basically stole every one of our policies. WE made xenophobia cool again, but they get all the credit. It's not fair. So I'm now arguing for the UK to gain its independence of Planet Earth."
"I'd also like to mention, my new limited edition Tennessee Jack Burger is available until October 8th."

Sunday, 27 August 2017


The problem with listening to the value and content of what people say, rather than focusing on personal feelings towards them, is that just occasionally even monsters make a good point.

In a sense, it must be far simpler to simply 'pick a team' and run with whatever they say, absent of the requirement to think for oneself - what I'd argue most of the country does in regard to supporting the Conservative Party. 'I don't care if Jacob-Rees Mogg wants Britain to adopt workplace rights akin to that of India or for people in full-time work to starve: he hates Jeremy Corbyn and supports Brexit, so he's the guy for me.'

Of course, the other name for that mentality, is 'tribalism'.

Bring On The Branson

I for one have felt, and for some time, that introduction of a 'Universal Basic Income' for all citizens is quite literally the only way our society can survive and endure in harmony. Therefore it's an issue I'm exceedingly happy won't go away, and that actually, people of note are now starting to speak out about it too.

Richard Branson, of all people, has apparently come out in favour of Universal Basic Income. Along with other multi-billionaires like Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk.

I do think it's quite telling that the billionaires speaking out about this are not 'establishment cronies' or people born to wealth and privilege, but the 'self-made' ones. The billionaires who've arguably made their fortunes, at least initially, through an intent to improve and advance humankind.

This provides them quite a unique perspective. Not only are they literally sitting at the very top of the tree, with global resources and insider knowledge most people could never even conceive of, but on some level, they also have empathy or fleeting memory of what it was like to not have those things.

As much as I'm sure the likes of Branson, Musk and Zuckerberg have each behaved like absolute hound-dogs in their respective careers, each lusted after money/power/influence etc and stepped on people to get there, it is still fundamentally possible to want to rise to the top and, in general terms, want the best for average people too.

The best example I can think of is Tony Blair and Brexit. I, like many, despise the man for his role in creating the world we live in today. For destroying ethics of socialism in the UK, for his war crimes and his pandering to George Bush, for his unashamed profiteering since leaving office, and his sabotage of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. But when Blair spoke out about Brexit, I agreed with every damned word he said. And I do genuinely believe it was motivated by him not wanting to see his country go down the toilet, not personal interest. That's a difficult concept to make peace with, I know. (As much so as being a Corbyn supporter, but not wanting the UK to belly-flop out of EU membership.)

I have my issues with Branson. Particularly the way his company Virgin are quietly privatising and taking over the NHS behind closed doors. The way he's established himself as a kingpin over our transport and entertainment, and now our health too. I certainly do not approve of some of the circles he travels in. He is undoubtedly a hypocrite in countless ways, and responsible for many problems. But nor will I deny when the man is talking sense, or smear his motivations for doing so.

In fact, he may be better placed to know what's really coming down the line than most of us.

Time To Face Facts

To spell it out, society could be headed for disaster. Automation, and the gradual erosion of countless industries in favour of mechanised and internet based commerce, is a ticking time bomb. There will simply be nowhere near enough jobs to sustain our bloated populations very soon - fact.

Doing things in a more efficient and technologically advanced way is a worthy pursuit - but not if it takes jobs away from millions of people, forcing them into poverty and irrelevancy. There will be no 'commerce' when no-one has anything. So that technological progress must benefit all of humankind, not just the select few, who then wouldn't need to give anything back to society at all.

It stands to reason, if humankind has advanced to a stage where much of the demanding work can be done effortlessly and by automation, that stage has been reached through a communal effort. The people calling the shots may not want to acknowledge it, but they enjoy the fruits of hundreds of years of labour and scientific progress: our shared advance as a species.

If that 'progress' now effectively produces money (eg: commerce/industry) on tap, it needs to be shared out. That is fair. Every citizen needs to be given enough to survive, and enjoy a basic quality of life - a chance to taste and enjoy the few pleasures this world has to offer. Regardless of what they have done or haven't done, of what job they've got or where/how they were educated, where they happened to be born etc. Everyone gets to live - at least a little.

Britain's 'Culture of Benefits'

How the right-wing, and those who supposedly oppose Britain's 'benefit culture' would cry out!!! I can hear their disapproval screaming through the ether...

But Universal Basic Income is not a 'hand-out' in the traditional sense. It might simply ensure our UK society is a vaguely half-way decent and ethical place to live. Surely even hideously rich people must get to a point where they want to live among a population that's vaguely happy?? Truly imagine a British society where far FAR more people are unemployed than employed: absent of either purpose, or income - with no way to survive or provide for themselves.

The mind boggles at the thought, but that's what's coming for western society unless something is done. An economy does not work if only a tiny few have all the money. A multi-millionaire might have the resources of 10,000 people, but he/she doesn't buy 10,000 pairs of trousers/shoes, take 10,000 trips to the cinema, have 10,000 weddings etc.

Also, the notion of UBI is undeniably fair. Even those in work and well-off would receive exactly the same. Nobody could complain! It would simply take account of the fact we're moving into a world where jobs are not as widely available, and that commerce is now realistically in the hands of an unacceptable few. Universal Income could quite literally make people's lives better, reduce the stigmatisation of being unemployed, and ease tensions between communities/classes.

Seems to me, we should stop demonising the idea as being some kind of 'free-loader's dream', and start examining Universal Basic Income as a very pragmatic and potential solution to a problem that isn't going to go away.

More to the point, forward thinking nations like Finland are already doing it. And proving it works.


I can't see anyone else saying it, so as usual, I will.

We apparently live in a world where two men can do an hour's work - in this instance beating the shIt out of one another - and earn in the region of $100 million each.

Far from being merely 'OK with that', most people seem to be applauding it. We should be up-in-arms, but supposed 'love of sport' distracts from something that otherwise is deeply abhorrent.

Try explaining to a parent whose child may die because they can't afford the medical bills, that one guy who hits things for a living deserves to have every luxury this world can afford many times over - enough to provide free schools and hospitals if he so wanted - while their child suffers, left to die.

Try explaining to the family thrown out on the street because they can't afford rent, that a frickin' boxer deserves more riches than most people will ever see if they lived ten lifetimes, and that his right to that wealth takes priority over theirs simply to have a roof above them. Try telling those wittering their lives away on minimum wage and using food-banks etc that ANY man or woman on this planet should have so much, while they and their families deserve so little.

In a nutshell, this is why I believe in socialism. Market capitalism has become obscene, an ugly and bloated beast.

If you look down the road... really look, it seems obvious to me that 'little people' will only tolerate this so far. Revolution always comes when those at the top are too greedy. Whether they're monarchs, generals, aristocracy, clergy, presidents, landowners, tycoons or corporations - they are all variants of the same. 'Feudal overlords'.

There's only two ways this can end. Either 'little people' will somehow reclaim democratic society and restore a sense of propriety and balance, or those at the top who control the purse-strings will, at some stage, go to obscene lengths to control the masses and preserve their monopoly. It's like a mathematical equation that simply has to eventually balance out.

However that takes shape, it won't be pretty.

But hey, I do hope everyone enjoyed the guys smacking one another. 😁


Friday, 18 August 2017


The majority of the 9/11 attackers (allegedly) came from Saudi Arabia.

Saudia Arabia are not an 'enemy', but an ALLY of the west. And despite outcry, both the US and UK categorically refuse to give up that alliance. That in itself raises questions. Big ones. But whatever you do or don't believe about the tragic events of that day, the simple fact is, there's simply never been any attack in history shrouded in so much confusion and controversy, with so many 'official' details that don't add up - ever.

After fifteen plus years of ongoing pain and anger for the victims' friends and families, fifteen years of 'conspiracy theories' and explanations that simply refuse to go away, finally a UK government report was demanded into the potential involvement of our 'ally', Saudi Arabia. Finally, some of the speculation could perhaps have been put to bed. But after years and yeeeears of compilation, Theresa May has categorically refused to allow the British public to know the contents of that report. Not once, but twice now.

Rationalise that how you will, but to my sensibilities, that means there's something in it she doesn't want Joe Public to know. That sounds obvious perhaps, but WHY would May not want us to know? I'll tell you. Because if the Saudi government were involved, that means one of two things - there are literally no other alternatives. Either 1) our 'ally' betrayed us and were involved with the most horrific crime on western soil in history, but we bizarrely/suspiciously remain allied to them any way, or 2) they acted as a faithful ally, working in coordination.

Let's face it, neither option is great.

What if the Saudis weren't involved, I hear you cry. Fair question. Then why on earth would May suppress that? Surely anything to make her distasteful alliance more palatable for the public would be a positive thing; a boon to be wheeled out in her favour? Again, it just doesn't add up.

Yes, many might argue I'm ignoring countless variables here, that the report may contain sensitive information not relating to the issue, which can't be revealed. All manner of explanations are 'possible', that is true. But generally, if an animal has four legs, a tail, and barks, the likelihood is it's a dog. It's not somehow more rational to assume it's a sabre-tooth tiger.

Until some actual explanations are forthcoming, the suspicion and controversy will continue. Bottom line? Whatever is contained in that report, and whatever is or isn't true (I've given up trying to make sense of it all), this shady behaviour by our government only gives weight to the supposed 'conspiracies'. Quite literally the very furthest thing from disbanding them.

Thursday, 17 August 2017


'Mummy, why is there war in the Middle East?'

'Well darling, at the end of Word War I, the Western Allies broke up the Ottoman Empire, which had existed for hundreds of years and included most of the Islamic world - claiming ownership of various territories. Then at the end of World War II, they created a new country in the middle of one of those territories, right or wrong, and called it Israel. Then they spent 70+ years arming that country to the teeth, whilst simultaneously making sure the fragmented Muslim states around it stayed poor - who naturally allied with their enemies. It's a pressure cooker. They've been fighting ever since.'

'And Saudi Arabia? They're one of those surrounding nations, aren't they? Why aren't they poor too? How do they wage war and assert control?'

'With weapons and bombs supplied to them by Britain. They, like Israel, are supported with Western finance.'

'I see. What about Pakistan? I hear there's problems over there. What's that all about?'

'Well, before those World Wars, Britain conquered and ruled India. Pakistan was another Muslim nation forced out and brought to heel. When Britain finally gave it all back because it could no longer sustain its empire, it decided which bits Pakistan got and which India got. They've never been happy about that. They've been fighting ever since.'

'Oh dear. And North Korea? Why do they hate America so much?'

'Well, at the end of World War II, America and the Soviet Union - today known as Russia - split the country in two, taking half of it each. One prospered, and one didn't. And America punished the North for 70+ years for its enduring ties to Russia. Like in the Middle East, it's a proxy war between sabre-rattling super-powers. They've been fighting ever since.'

'Why all the problems in Africa?'

'Well, the British Empire and several other European nations - later America too - conquered the continent, divvying it up, selling off all its resources, and trading its people as slaves. Bit by bit, the continent was plundered, and when those powers gave up control, it was deliberately handed over to various competing tribes and left in turmoil, so the continent could never become strong, and illicit trade & supply deals could continue behind closed doors benefiting Western interests. They've been fighting ever since.'

'Wow. OK, what about closer to home? When you were growing up, there were problems in Ireland, weren't there? I've read about bombings and all sorts. I can't imagine it. Why were Irish people so angry?'

'Well... before it was called Britain, England spent centuries inflicting war and hardships on Ireland. Scotland and Wales too. Separated by sea, many people wanted Ireland to be its own independent country, and they spent centuries fighting back, until the English - now calling themselves British - were forced to retreat to all but a scrap of land, that is now called Northern Ireland. But Britain refused to let go of it, as a point of principle. And they've been fighting over it ever since.'

'Why are people talking about it now?'

'Because the dispute didn't really matter when we all became part of the EU, we all became Europeans - one people.'

'Is that why there haven't been any wars in Europe since World War II?'

'A big, big contributing factor - yes. Also, while we were united as one continent, Europe was a match economically and militarily for any of the emerging super-powers like Russia, China, and The USA. Britain was one of the most important nations at the table too. Now The EU is splintering, Britain and America are wobbling, and Russia is starting to lick its lips greedily.'

'So being part of the EU kept Britain safe - and Europe safe, and helped Britain to become secure and wealthy again in the carnage following the World Wars?'

'Yep, that's about it.'

'Why on earth would Britain give that up, or behave so ungraciously now?'

'Good question son, good question.'

'Have the EU started any wars, or pillaged anywhere?'

'No... no they haven't. They mostly just create laws to protect average citizens in every European country.'

'Hmm. All seems very strange to me Mum.'

'What's that dear?'

'If you look at everything we just talked about, all the  wars occurring today - or a good deal of them any way - there seems to be one inescapable common denominator.'

'What's that?'

'Britain. Us.'

Monday, 14 August 2017


It's probably late in the day enough for me to have a moan about the latest episode of Game of Thrones, season seven/episode five - 'Eastwatch'. If it's not, sorry. But I do need to get this off my chest - the show I thought could never disappoint, finally disappointed. Not a great episode at all. One of the worst yet to be honest. Several details bugged the hell out of me, and the nerd in me needs to talk about them. Please bear with.

1) Apparently Jaime and Ser Bron are part man/part seal, both able to swim miles under water. In armour. We'll just ignore the whole 'beach with a straight-drop into a bottomless lake' thing too.

2) Having spent several seasons following these characters closely on their long journeys, they're now all hopping around Westeros in the blink of an eye. Journeys of hundreds of miles on foot/horseback/boat, journeys that would take months - all just glazed over. Apparently nothing of note ever happens during those periods...

3) The long enduring relationship and history between Daenerys and Jorah Mormont - the man who's just returned to her having cured himself of an incurable disease - all that is surmised with one paltry hug, before she sends him off again. Probably to die. With barely a line of dialogue. "Cheers, dragon queen."

4) Yes. I'm sure it would be blissfully easy to 'smuggle' Tyrion Lannister, the 'most famous dwarf in the world', right into the heart of King's Landing. And then have him waltz on out again like it 'ain't no thang'. It wasn't at all probable and/or likely that Jaime would take the Hand of the opposing Queen hostage, albeit his brother, considering in the last episode he was willing to die to end the war. Or that Cersei, as she apparently knew about it all in advance, would have had her imp brother seized. That would have been daft after all. She's only hated his guts for seven seasons.

5) This REALLY bugged me. One of the Lannister guards who catches Tyrion on the beach, was the very same actor who portrayed one of the touring 'pantomime' actors Arya Stark travelled with in an earlier season - the one who played Ned Stark as a befuddled idiot (Kevin Eldon). There are SOOO many actors who'd kill for a part in this show. So it's either grotesque laziness on the part of the casting directors, or blatant unbridled favouritism, compromising continuity either way. And they already did it once before, when the actor playing the murdered Martyn Lannister (Dean Charles Chapman) returned as the young King Tommen Baratheon.

6) Seriously, I know these White Walkers are slow, but how the bloody hell can everyone else fly round Westeros back and forth like Superman, while these chumps stumble about a relatively small block of land eternally 'on their way' to attack the Wall?? What the frick are they doing? Surely they've killed everyone north of The Wall by now? For God's sake, just get Daenerys to fly north (will take about 20 seconds of show time) and toast the whole damn lot of them. The White Walkers haven't got a giant cross bow after all.

7) After mining all that dragon glass, the purpose of his trip, Jon Snow seems to be returning to the north with barely a boat load. Good one Jon. Real clever.

8) In an episode where the screen-writers obviously attempted to cram in just about every character we'd forgotten about in the interim (Gendry, The Brotherhood Without Banners, The Hound, Ser Jorah, and the damnably annoying Samwell Tarly), the characters we actually WANT to see what's happened to, are strangely absent. What about the Sands? Are they rotting? Is the daughter dead yet? What about the bell-ringing 'Shame' Nun from last season... is she alive, what happened to her?? What's going on in Dorne? What about the Greyjoys? Apparently they had an episode off. All a bit jarring I fear.

9) Considering Bran 'piss on my chips' Stark knows absolutely everything, and is able to get messages to Jon Snow by raven while he's at Dragonstone, you'd think the bloody dimwit might also inform Jon that Daenerys is his Aunt. Especially considering it could possibly unite them, end the bickering, establish a dynasty everyone really likes, and you know, Jon's also on the verge of giving her one.

10) The rate at which the Stark girls are going 'dark side' is getting a bit gun-ho if you ask me. Considering they thought their whole families had been wiped out, you'd think they'd be a bit more trusting and nice to one another. Sansa is going very 'Little-finger', very quickly. Speaking of whom, for all her 'Faceless Man training', Arya didn't spot the guy hiding in a stairwell, or even think to look after she'd cat-burgled his quarters. Sloppy. Very sloppy. And again, you'd think Brandon Stark would step in and expose the subterfuge threatening to turn his sisters against one another. Nope, He's too busy flying about as 'crow-bro'.

I feel they're rushing it now, at the expense of continuity, sense, and/or maintaining a similar pace to the previous six seasons. Throwing in dodgy guest appearances, and relying on fairly daft one-liner jokes. It hurts. It hurts I tell you. I thought this show was infallible.

Plus if Cersei kills Bron, I'm gonna be majorly pissed off.

And breathe.