TV REVIEW: OMG! with Peaches Geldof - Episode 2 (Because once is never enough) [10/03/11]

Life is all about second chances. Winston Churchill got at a second chance to be in the cabinet; the allies won World War II. Parlophone gave Radiohead a second chance after the relative flop that was Pablo Honey; they released The Bends. So in similar vein, I thought it was only fair to give Peaches Geldof a second chance after what was the most appalling piece of TV; OMG! With Peaches Geldof ‘on vampires’(bet you never thought you’d never hear Churchill, Radiohead and Peaches Geldof mentioned in the same breath. Well that’s what we do at Shouting at Cows; we venture into uncharted territories. Because we’re so cutting edge, innit).

What defined the first episode of OMG! was rampant homophobia and intolerance. Surely it couldn’t be as bad as that, right? This week the topic is celebrity culture, and they’ve roped in Dom Joly, who’s slowly becoming ubiquitous with downmarket TV. He’s like the Kevin Eldon of trash culture. Watching Joly and Peaches discuss why people crave fame is quite a perverse experience, considering that he is simply famous for going on ANY reality show going, and that she is only famous for being the offspring of one of the members of the Boomtown Rats. Dom claims that ‘you can only do reality TV shows once or then you become a whore.’ Considering Dom’s back catalogue includes Deadline, where he had to become a gutter press paparazzi, I’m a Celebrity! Get Me Out of Here, and Dom Joly’s Happy Hour; I suppose by his definition that would make him an utterly rampant slag. Dom states that ‘It’s wrong for people to simply WANT to be famous’. And ponders ‘Why do people lust after it so much?’. Fuck knows, Peaches and Dom. What would possess someone to go on Deadline or a sycophantic TV special with Fearne ‘Thick as mince’ Cotton? Guess we’ll never know.

Naturally, these two thespians of stage and screen can’t understand what would possess someone to lust for fame, so to get to the bottom of it they cart out Emma, who is essentially a professional reality TV show contestant. She has had a splatter-gun approach to TV gigs; appearing on Popstars, auditions for an English Glee, and also ‘Paris Hilton’s British Best Friend’; which was a TV show where Paris Hilton, erm, searched for a best friend. Sorry, So the top prize is to be mates with Paris Hilton? Jesus what’s the second prize? Do you have to marry her? This girl seems really desperate. She’d probably even go on Deadline. Well, maybe.

Second guest claims that she would do anything to become famous. After a shed-load of failed auditions for TV work, she came to the conclusion that she wanted to ‘do nothing and be worshipped’, and to achieve this, she was going to give birth live on camera. I mean, it’s different to most of the acts on Britain’s got Talent, but it certainly, you know, something. From the sound of things, she’s been having moderate success as it is. She claims to have been in every gossip magazine, is getting 30,000 hits to her blog each month and has been offered a book deal. 30,000 hits on her blog? A book deal? Wish I knew her secret. If only I could give birth live on camera, my financial worries would be behind me. Emma ‘the least tolerant woman in Britain’ Kenny weighs into the debate and – surprise surprise – she hates the idea. She says that childbirth is a ‘sacred time for you and baby’. I’m guessing she has never had children, because as far as I can tell it’s a rancid, painful experience. She continues this position of rampant disagreement in the following discussion on ‘Hybristophilia’; the sexual attraction to hardcore criminals. She says ‘I think, it’s not the best idea to get hooked up with a serial killer’. Jesus, what a fucking killjoy.

At this stage, the show runs out of material. That is all they have on celebrity culture. Maybe they thought ‘girl deemed unfit to be Paris Hilton’s best mate’ would have been more chatty, because 30 minutes in they appear to have used up all their material. So the rest of the show is some disturbing amalgamation of a Dom Joly interrogation and an interview with charity fundraisers. Aled, co-presenter in chief, has a whip round the audience for a few questions for Dom, which include;

• Most inappropriate thought?
• What was the last thing you stole?
• How many wanks did you have on I’m a Celebrity?
• Easy pink or difficult brown?

Sorry, what?

Still struggling, Aled is then forced to meander amongst people to ask them for their most OMG moment, which include some girl’s boyfriend farting in the cinema and some other guy, who’s most shocking moment was when his mate got a blowjob. Not really your moment is it. Aled, realising this show is sinking faster than a speedboat with a trap-door, asks esteemed celeb pundits Dom and some horrendously twattish ‘comedian’ (we know he’s hip and wacky though, because he wears leapord-skin skinny jeans) their most OMG – I should add, I haven’t got a fucking clue what an OMG moment is – moment. Dom’s was when he shoved his hand up a Bull’s arse, while the twat in the leopard print stated that his most OMG! moment was when he saw a horse have a wank. THIS COMMENT GOT A ROUND OF APPLAUSE FROM THE AUDIENCE! ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?!

Still with 20 minutes left Peaches rolls out furries; which are 5 slightly deranged people who dress up in furry costumes and wander round city centres and shopping malls giving people hugs. Lovely, but what has that got to do with celebrity culture?

Furry: Dressing up is like an extension of our personalities. That’s why I dress up as a wolf.

Peaches: Do you feel part wolf?

Furry: Kinda, but I’m also very creative.

……………..I mean, what the fuck is going on? Seriously? Have editing accidental mixed this with a different episode? Am I watching the televisual equivalent of a cut-n-shut?

Simply put, they’re those student twats that chase after you with a bucket for your change. I could question, again, how that fits with the précis of this farce of a TV show, but there’s 10 minutes left, and I neither want or care to know the reason. All I want to do is survive this unscathed, then go and lie down in a dark room and vow never to watch ITV ever again.

Peaches: Do you feel like the press misrepresent you?

Furry: Definitely. We’re not hurting anyone. We meet people, go around having a laugh, giving hugs, cheering people up.

Emma Kenny likes the Furrys: ‘nice to see a group of people who are all just nice and kind’. Well SHIT. THE. BED; She actually likes something. Dom however isn’t so keen, drawling parallels with plushies (aka Plushophilia; the sexual attraction to stuffed animals). They get all defensive, stating there’s nothing sexual involved. Most of the guys look like the closest they’ve got to a girl is brushing past one a packed tube. I think Dom can relax.

I keep thinking that maybe the show is too clever for me, like the whole furry shtick is a David Lynch inspired metaphorical joke on identify and trust within our common conceptions of mainstream culture. But then I remember that Peaches is presenting it. And that it’s on ITV. And realise that it is in fact total half-baked rubbish.

So after a second viewing of OMG! with Peaches Geldof, I think we can know say beyond doubt, that this series is the biggest load of shite that has ever been commissioned by a UK broadcaster. Though not as overtly offensive as the initial episode, this was just an utter mess, with no structure, no centralised plot, nothing. I would say it was badly scripted, but to say that this show had a script would be to give it too much credit. With 6 episodes left, I will now vow to never experience myself to this ritualistic torture again. I’ll write an article on ANYTHING else. Flog It, motorway service bathroom hygiene, which clothes pegs hurt the most when attached to your foreskin; anything! This is just too masochistic for me.

(visit www.shoutingatco.ws. we’re very friendly people, honest).

Single Review: Crystal Fighters - At Home (6.5)

Words what I did written for the Whiteboard Project.

Check the Whiteboard Project out; it’s like NME, but good and not written by utter tosspots. So nothing like NME then, I suppose…*sad face*

thewhiteboardproject:

Single: At Home

Label: Zirkulo

Release: 14th March 2011

Rating: 6.5

 

East London multicultural 5 piece (1 American, 2 English, 2 Spanish – all far prettier than you and me) Crystal Fighters are an ambient-electro/folk outfit who seem to pride themselves on innovation by any means possible. Amongst their repertoire are txalapartas (instruments made out of wood or stone) which blend seamlessly with their electronic inspiration to give their music a dreamscape rave feel. Like a pagan Daft Punk.

At Home resembles an odd mash up of Toto’s Africa, Broken Social Scene and Dario G. Regardless of the outcome, anyone that thought up the idea to merge those three together either needs to be hailed as an innovator, or sectioned in an asylum. It has big orchestral feel to it, with pounding bass drums and choir backing vocals. Call me odd, but all I imagine when hearing the song is a slightly more passive version of Dario G’s ‘sunchyme’ video, with people painted as animals meandering across African Plains. The whole song seems to trigger every image I had of Africa as a child. Lion King, misjudged (if impressive) World Cup music videos and shit hot dance-moves (I was a simple child, as you can probably tell). This is juxtaposed against a modern, lo-fi, urbanised feel of the rest of the rhythm section. Laure and Mimi’s vocals are of a similar ilk to Leslie Feist and Emily Haines, part of the contributing ensemble of the aforementioned Broken Social Scene. So in that sense the song has as interesting structure. You have these big musical compositions alongside simple riffs, as well as large choir backing-vocals and a stripped down lead.

Read More

DAILY MAIL: Don’t teach kids about sex and the dangers of sex; because then they’ll have sex. (09/03/2011)

The Daily Mail and The Christian Institute are about a likeable a combination as Bush-Cheney, Stalin-Hitler, Robson-Jerome, and punch in the face-swift kick to the groin. In the past they have got together with religious zealot Stephen Green, you know, the one who committed all that un-godly domestic abuse, and now on the subject of ‘sex education’ they have teamed up with the Christian Institute. That is the CHRISTIAN Institute. Well, this will be balanced won’t it… 

Explicit cartoons, films and books have been cleared for use to teach sex education to schoolchildren as young as five.

A disturbing dossier exposes a wide range of graphic resources recommended for primary school lessons.

The shocking material – promoted by local councils and even the BBC – teaches youngsters about adult language and sexual intercourse.

Corrr, explicit content. Let’s have a look at it;

That’s it? Not very explicit. No nipple, not even a hint of bush. Lame.

Anyway, this has put the Mail in a tailspin as this material is further proof that ‘lefties’ want their children to start banging in the street there and then. Because, well, I don’t know. There’s probably a reason.

Among the books singled out in the report is How Did I Begin? by Mick Manning and Brita Granstrom which has a cartoon image of a couple in bed in an intimate embrace.

So basically, they are speaking to children like adults. But naturally, the Daily Mail HATE it when you speak children like adults, because as has been documented, in their opinion children are brain-dead morons who’ll believe anything they’ve read. Probably wouldn’t believe the bullshit they read in the Mail though. Even children aren’t that thick.

Now with any threadbare Daily Mail story, they start to become slightly liberal with the truth. And by slightly liberal, what I mean is that they spout an incessant amount of utter bollocks.

Another, called The Primary School Sex And Relationships Education Pack by HIT UK, includes material to allow children aged five to 11 to learn about different sexual positions and prostitution. 

The way that final sentence is phrased implies that this is like the ‘how to get on the game’ manual. ‘Interested in prostitution? Read this’. They are also annoyed about a chapter in ‘Let’s talk about Sex’ called ‘Straight and Gay’, because reading that will turn kids homosexual, as that’s how it spread of course. It’s like the flu, being gay.

Campaigners against this material moan that it’s ‘too much, too young’ and warn it will ‘encourage sexualisation.’ And you know, she’s right, because there were no teenage pregnancies 100 years ago when we people were far more prudish about sex. Oh no, wait. I’m being sarcastic. Besides, The Christian Institute were always going to be furious about this because the books talk about sex and homosexuality. Because that is what corrupts children, of course. Not extremely religious parents that teach them that homosexuality and masturbation are evil and will lead them to burn in hell for all eternity. Nah, it’s little colourful books about anatomy that fucks kids up. Ah jesus, I’m being a sarcy twat again.

Norman Wells, of the Family Education Trust, said the use of explicit teaching tools was ‘deeply concerning’ and eroded ‘traditional moral standards’. 

He said: ‘It is vital that schools remain accountable to parents at the local level and, in line with the law, ensure that children are protected from inappropriate teaching and materials, having regard for their age and religious and cultural background.

Sorry, they aren’t showing children a copy of Razzle. These are carefulyl produced works about anatomy and sexuality for children. This isn’t going to corrupt children. These aren’t going to turn them into crack-addled hookers. What this will do is teach them about reproduction, so they can become culpable for future actions. Everything in society is overcome though education, and if children actually learnt about sex and the repercussions of sexual intercourse at a younger age, perhaps then they would be more inclined not to ‘have it off’ so early. Look at the Italian approach to alcohol. Italians are exposed to wine (or more specifically watered-wine) at a young age (to some as young as 4 and 5). They are taught that alcohol exists, and that it is something to be enjoyed, rather than abused, and conversely they have some of the lowest levels of alcoholism and Binge drinking in Europe and North America.

And that is the point of these books; education. Children grow up, and at some age they will have sex. Sorry, but it’s going to happen. So rather than them doing it without any fucking idea of what the ramifications are, possibly leading to the spreading of STIs and teenage pregnancy, wouldn’t it be in most people’s interest (including the Family Education Trust and The Christian Institute) to try and prevent these things through education and knowledge at a young age, rather than unsubstantiated scaremongering?

———————————————————————————————————————

BEST DAILY MAIL READER COMMENT

NO NO NO. They should NOT BE TAUGHT SEX AT THIS YOUNG AGE. WHO EXACTLY ARE THESE ‘EXPERTS’ WHO SAY THAT THEY SHOULD?? HOW ABOUT TEACHING THEM THEIR LETTERS, NUMBERS OR IS THAT NOT THE NORM THESE DAYS? THESE POOR LITTLE CHILDREN I REALLY DESPAIR AS TO WHAT THIS COUNTRY HAS BECOME. LEAVE THEM ALONE TO ENJOY THEIR CHILDHOOD. PARENTS NEED TO STAND UP TO THESE BULLIES. KEEP THE CHILDREN AWAY UNTIL THESE SOMEONE IN AUTHORYT COMES TO THEIR SENSES (DON’T HOLD YOUR BREATH THOUGH!!)***************************************************

- FED-UP WITH THIS STUPID GOVERNMENT, Barbican City of London, 9/3/2011 8:46

He’s either really angry, or he has broken the caps lock key on his computer. Oh an also, who calls their child ‘fed-up with this stupid government’? Bet he was bullied at school with that name. Probably explains why he’s so angry. Hmm…

Cut and Spin; A guide to Conservative policy making. Today’s topic: Smoking (09/03/2011)

The majority of Conservative policy making so far has been based around two principles;

1) Cost-cut

2) Spin

And that’s it. Introduce unpopular policy that no-one wants, then dress it up with such keywords as ‘difficult decision’ and ‘inherited deficit’ and ‘prevoius government’ etc. The latest sphere to be invaded by this this particular brand of decision making is tobacco.

Tobacco and smoking has long been the ‘cash cow’ of poor governments. It causes health problems, people don’t like it; tax it to high heaven. Despite the fact that 1/5 of the tax raised by tobacco products is spent on healthcare for smoking related illnesses (making it a prime earner for governments), the constant rhetoric by governments is to talk-up the problems of smoking, so to wring a few extra quid out of it, and gain a few popularity points. Sorry, I don’t mean to be divisive, but anytime an unpopular government goes after the tobacco industry, I get a bit suspicious of their real motives.

The Conservatives are using the public opinion against tobacco to further implement their ’cut and spin’ shenanigans. Their latest policy is to ban visual display of cigarettes, meaning they have to be concealed from view in a newsagents, and a further proposition to implement blank packaging;

Tobacco displays will have to be kept out of sight in shops in England from April 2012 for large stores and April 2015 for all other shops, the government has announced.

Ministers will also start a public consultation over whether the UK should become the first country in Europe to introduce plain packaging for cigarettes and other tobacco products while insisting they are keeping “an open mind” on the issue.

So the Conservative approach to stopping people smoking is not education on the side affects and consequences of smoking, but just to pretend that cigarettes don’t exist. Brilliant. So how has the response to this been? Are people happy about the Tory’s taking a hard stance on smoking? Well no, not really. Considering how fucking futile it is.

Diane Abbott, Labour’s public health shadow minister, said: “We welcome the fact that [David] Cameron and Lansley are building on Labour’s strategy, but there is widespread concern that the advances in smoking policy may be coming to a halt.

“The Tory-led government has imposed a freeze on mass media health campaigns including smoking, cut the smoking policy team at the Department of Health, and dithered over tobacco displays.”

So this policy is just a veil for the Cons to cut policy elsewhere. Policy teams and ad campaigns = Expensive. Telling some poor sap to stick his fags under the till = very cheap. Tell you what, I’m spotting a pattern here.

Further more, others have claimed that just making cigarettes disapper, isn’t going to stop people form smoking or from starting smoking. It’s like not teaching children about sex as a means of birth control i.e fucking retarded.

Association of Convenience Stores chief executive, James Lowman, said: “There simply isn’t the evidence to suggest that the measure will reduce smoking among young people.

Andrew Opie, food director at the British Retail Consortium, said: “There’s no evidence that forcing shops to put cigarettes out of sight will make any difference. It puts new costs on retailers who are being forced to refit their stores”.

So in summary, it’s a unsubstantiated token gesture to distract people from cuts made elsewhere to smoking helathcare policy. Terrific.

Impromptu Rant: Woman Builds Swimming Pool in Back Garden……in Yorkshire (04/03/11)

So there’s a RABBLE RABBLE style story in the Daily Mail today about a woman building a swimming pool in the her back garden. She was on benifts and didn’t get planning permission. So naturally the Fail went ape-shit:

Taking a Dip? The council house mum on benefits (with a husband in prison) who has got a swimming pool in her back garden.

It’s got it all; Benifits, the poor, prisoner. You throw a homosexual Muslim into the mix and you’ve got DM gold right there. Anyway, to get the DM perogative out the way, they bought the pool with savings. If you have saings less than £16,000 you can sign on. Husband was in jail, benefits were the only source of income. It’s a non-story. She didn’t get planning permission anyway so the thing will be ripped out regardless.

Anyway, the real issue for me was this: who the FUCK builds an outdoor swimming pool in South Yorkshire? You know, South Yorkshire; famous for Kes, those little savory puddings and shitty-fucking weather. Imagine pitching the idea to her husband in jail;

W: I wanna build an outdoor swimming pool.

M: Are you fucking simple? What the fuck for?

W: Well, I don’t think we really get the full benefit out of both sunny days we get a year in South Yorkshire. With a pool, we can enjoy these 48 hours in style.

M:……….I want a divorce……….

If you’re going to build a pool, fine. But stick a roof on it. If you’re gonna fork out £4,000 on a pool, stick a roof over it. They also spent money on ‘thick protective cover on a special roller to protect it from the weather’ and the owner also claimed ‘the pool does cost an absolute fortune to heat.’ So piss rain and freezing tempretures; two of the key reasons why you don’t see many outdoor pools in South Yorkshire. ‘You got the ice scraper, John? I just wanna go for a quick dip’. Unbelievable.

Just when you think the British population can’t get any stupider, along comes t’pool. Brilliant.

- Why didn’t she just fill that with water. It would have made as much sense.

‘Kicked and Humiliated’; how the newspapers covered the Lib Dems by-election performance. (04/03/11)

This week saw the town of Barnsley get the most attention the place has had since Barnsley Town FC’s shock promotion to the Premiership in 1997 (what a team it had though, eh. Eric Tinkler, Neil Redfern, Lars Leese, Clint Marcelle. True greats of the game). The big talking point was the Liberal Democrats getting an absolute hammering in the polls (similar to some comprehensive hammerings Barnsley FC received in that fateful season) finishing in lowly 6^th place (difference being that Barnsley FC would have sold their collective grandmothers for a 6^th place finish in ‘98).

Labour coasted to victory in the Barnsley Central by-election, in spite of the jailing of the party’s previous MP for expenses fraud, with the Lib Dems slumping to sixth place.

UKIP ended the night with a huge rise in its share of the vote and most to celebrate.

The result was particularly grim for the Liberal Democrats whose vote fell sharply despite the party fielding an experienced candidate in Dominic Carman, son of the celebrated barrister George Carman.

Yeah, even with Labour’s previous MP in the area being sent to jail for expenses fraud, it was still a cakewalk for them, which really makes you appreciate how much people hate the Lib Dems right now. Real burning hatred. Turnout was only 36.5%, and of the share of the vote;

Dan Jarvis (Lab) 14,724 (60.80%, +13.53%)

Jane Collins (Ukip) 2,953 (12.19%, +7.53%)

James Hockney (C) 1,999 (8.25%, -9.01%)

Ends Dalton (BNP) 1,463 (6.04%, -2.90%)

Tony Devoy (Ind) 1,266 (5.23%, +3.58%)

Dominic Carman (LD) 1,012 (4.18%, -13.10%)

The Conservatives were beaten to second place by UKIP, while the LD’s were worryingly beaten by the BNP. Bet the Tories are annoyed they didn’t get Darren Gough to run as a candidate now. He is used to being on a sticky wicket. He can cause big swings in unfriendly conditions. He always fends off tough opponents with a straight bat…….that’s it, that’s all the cricket puns…..

The papers were unified in the view that the Liberal Democrats took a heavy defeat, only disagreeing on the semantics and hyperbole.

The Daily Mail claimed that the Lib Dems ‘were HUMILIATED into sixth place’, with voters turning against them because of ‘U-turns on issues like University tuition fees’. The Guardian also went for‘Humiliated Lib Dems’, while in the Telegraph’sview the Lib Dems ‘got a kicking’. The Telegraph also printed Clegg’s response to the aforementioned kicking;

“The result in the by-election last night was obviously a bad result for the Liberal Democrats.”

“I have no doubt that people will try to use this single result to write off the Liberal Democrats. They have done it in the past and we have proved them wrong and we will prove them wrong again…The truth is that it was a no-contest for any non-Labour candidate.”

Which probably explains why he failed turn up and support LD representative Dominic Carman. You know, because it was a no contest. Which he failed to mention before the election. Of course.

The Daily Express described the event as a ‘Barnsley Kicking’, which I believe is a sexual position. Right? TheExpress added that Clegg ‘has insisted he would not be knocked off course’. Call me naïve, but wasn’t it this complete disregard of your electorate’s opinions that got you into this mess in the first place?

The Independent led with ‘humiliated’ also, but focussed their article on the nature of the candidates who beat Carman and the LDs.

The extent of the Lib Dems’ slide surpassed all predictions, with advance speculation suggesting that one or both of the BNP and Ukip might overhaul Mr Clegg’s party.

To be beaten also by an independent candidate with no party machine behind him – unemployed ex-miner Tony Devoy – is particularly embarrassing for the Lib Dems.

UKIP leader Nigel Farage claimed that his party ‘are now the voice of opposition in British politics. The Lib Dems have lost that mantle’. Which is fair enough. As the old fable goes, you take the Barnsley Central by-election, you take the country. Oh wait, no-one says that. In fact, if we’re gonna be reactionary and base the country’s opinion on one electoral seat, then I have as much right to claim that Greens are the real voice of opposition, considering, unlike Farage’s party, they actually managed to WIN a seat. What about that eh, Nige?

LD party president Tim Farren stated that “perhaps the biggest story is that 70% of people didn’t think it was worth bothering.” And you can’t blame the people, really. What are their options? You’ve either got Labour who were in power when we got into this current economic mess, you’ve got the Conservatives who are cutting taxes for the super-wealthy and cutting state provisions for the poor, or the Lib Dems who seem to have a morbid obsession with revoking on their promises. The electorate is hardly spoilt for choice.

There is always the Monster Raving Looney Party, I suppose.

OMG! With Peaches Geldof (aka Intolerance and Stereotypes in Trendy Clothing) (03/01/11)

(For more from us, go to shoutingatco.ws. We’ll make you laugh, cry, and punch a wall in anger. All within your lunch break!)

There is no end to Peaches Honeyblossom Geldof’s talents. Writer, fashionista, TV personality, icon, idol, visionary; she is like our generation’s Patti Smith. Not really, I’m being sarcastic. But then you probably already realised that.

I’m not going to bore you with my thoughts on Peaches’ journalistic qualities. They can all be found on a previous piece we did, here at Fort Shouting at Cows (for a pithy summary; she makes my brain hurt). After the outstanding success of her last foray into television, she has been brought back on our screen by those masochists over at ITV2. Her latest presenting role is on ‘OMG! With Peaches Geldof’. The show is essentially a group of TopShop mannequin conversing in a warehouse and talking about edgy shit, because, they’re so fucking edgy. I mean, it’s all there. She’s got a nose piercing. People in the crowd are wearing trilbies. If this lot were any more ahead of their time, us old fogies would be watching an empty aircraft hangar.

As far as I can tell, this is a stealth version of the FeMail column in the Daily Mail. It’s an unsightly collage of intolerance, homophobia, narcissism and shock value. I wouldn’t be surprised if Paul Dacre himself commissioned this. The Mail, due to its deplorably offensive content, has become a ‘get left-wing for free’ card for any brain dead-hipster. Phrases like “Yah, I hate the Daily Fail. And the f-ing Tories. They’re all such racists, yah know?” commonly occurs in the patois of myopic hipsters nationwide, usually before they sulk into TopShop and spend £50 on a boho-chic skirt, giving £50 to every socialist’s best mate, Phillip Green. You know; the guy that doesn’t pay tax and is on the payroll of ‘the f-ing Tories’. Anyway, this social group contains some of most vacuous and self-centred people on the planet, and you can market the most offensive, most discriminatory shit to them. As long as it’s packaged up properly, this lot will lap it up in spades.

The show is so artificially hip it’s painful. Peaches Geldof – the edgy one, dad swears, caught doing drugs once, got married in Vegas (got divorced once she realised no-one cared) – hosts, in a show which is sold as a sort of celebrity scandal/sociological study/Social Media Exploration set-up. I don’t really get what its remit is.

The main focus is on so called real life Vampires. They roll out Allison, who is a REAL LIFE VAMPIRE! She has teeth and everything! So what is it like living as a Vampire? Well Allison can’t tell you, all she does is put on a contrived dress and some artificial fangs. She’s essentially a goth. With false teeth. Allison – with her voice sounding like Joe Pasquale on helium – has SOMEHOW managed to be more annoying than Peaches. She’s interminable. Now, I don’t know if you know this, but Peaches is very edgy. So naturally all she wants to talk about is sex;

‘Do you have sex with the fangs on?’

‘It’s more of a foreplay thing.’

Brilliant. That’s the age old fang-in-bed-yes-or-no debate put to bed. Peaches and her co-hosts’ knowledge on Vampires extends to ‘goff gear’ and Twilight. That’s it. That’s the extent of her research. Peaches asks Alison if she likes Twilight. Alison says she likes Vampire Diaries; in a scene reminiscent of Frost/Nixon. So what is Allison going to do when her favourite Show becomes Madmen? Wear a suit everywhere and try and flog Lucky Strike cigarettes to people? Allison has some male chums who also claim to be vampires, despite the fact that these guys’ involvement in vampire culture extends to wearing ill-fitting suits and a cape. Peaches ask if they are into blood-drinking, but they say they find it a bit weird. They just do the dressing up. So in summary, you’re not fucking ‘vampires’ then! It’s the equivalent of me putting on a full Chelsea kit and claiming to be a professional footballer.

Friend: Like the outfit Nick, do you ever kick a ball about?

Me: Nah, I find that all a bit weird. I just like the clothes.

Friend: Oh right, cool. Wow, I’ve never met a professional footballer before.

I mean, the whole set-up is contrived and utterly pitiful. Never one to miss the opportunity to be centre of attention, Peaches and her chums go off to a gothic dress makers to ‘become vampires’.  This is merely an excuse for Peaches to play dress up. The whole skit is a collective wankathon over how zany and edgy Peaches and her chums are; ‘We’re dressing up as goffs! Isn’t this such a great laugh and not remotely patronising!’.  They have a competition to see who can have the best outfit. Co-presenter Aled Haydn-Jones wins with his outfit of – yes, you guessed it – an ill-fitting suit and a cape. Well stone me dead, what a fucking transformation. The only point of the skit is for Pearches to show off her latest non-descript, Morrissey-lite, male model boyfriend.  She bursts into his house, to which he shoots her a blasé, despondent stare, or as I call it; ‘The international sign for ‘Christ alive, I’m dating Peaches Geldof. How did it come to this?’’. AHJ tells Peaches that ‘You just can’t shock your boyfriend now!’ You know, because of how ‘outlandish’ her behaviour is. She does mental stuff, like drinks and smokes jazz cigarettes. Edgy doesn’t quite cut it. How about Peaches and him have a 5 minute conversation about a semi-important subject? I don’t know about him, but hearing her talk about politics or society would scare the life out of me.

Now one could go on for ages about how awful the content the show is. I know I could. There’s the mind numbing ‘we ended our relationship on Facebook’ section that I haven’t even touched on yet. But for me, there is a deeper darker problem at its heart. The show is rotten all the way to the core. What stuck out to me during the whole production was ‘Fuck me, marketing people have discovered a way to legitimize and promote discrimination’.

The first thing that sticks out is rank homophobia. Co-host number 1, Aled Haydn-Jones, is introduced as being on the show because ‘everyone needs a gay best friend’. Because all gays are the same, after all. As long as he likes boys, get him on. Imagine if she said ‘because everyone needs a black best friend’. It would have gone down like a fart at a funeral. The stall is set out straight away that gays are to be represented as nymphomaniacs. Peaches goads AHJ into confessing his deepest secret, that of him having a 3-some with a set of twins. His only involvement with the audience is to probe sexual questions to them about vampires and dreams, and the only other gay men shown in the audience are so overtly camp and talk with such forced sexual undertones that it feels like a pastiche. AHJ’s one feature piece is where he does an expose on Grindr. Grindr is essentially a mobile app version of a dating website for gay men. According to their website;

Whether you’re looking to chat, go on a date, or find a buddy to grab a drink with, Grindr makes it happen.

You know, like a dating website. However, the application is represented on OMG! like cottaging for the iPhone generation. Peaches and her co-host talk about the dangers of meeting random people through this service and sleeping with them. Because you know, gays can’t just meet up and have a drink like straight people. No, they have to start fucking each other in the street, don’t they. During the feature, the background song contains the lyric ‘Don’t want no short dicked man’, while AHJ claims that someone on Grindr told him he ‘wanted to fuck his dog’. Which must have been awful for him, I mean you never get any sexual deviants on lovely hetero websites like Facebook do you? It is so Daily Mail it’s painful.

The real kicker for this program comes in the form of Emma Kenny, who plays the role of ‘least tolerant woman in Britian’. A segment of the show is devoted to a genuine sanguine vampire (someone that bites and drinks blood). So finally, the show has an interesting person, who IS edgy and can convey a different culture. So what do the too cool for school presenters do? Well, they ridicule her incessantly, of course. She has some genuine interesting insights into the culture. She claims that she ‘Came on the show to readdress people’s conceptions of blood drinking’. Though Peaches and her cronies have no interest in this, instead they want to her ask her sexually charged questions and to do weird shit.

Peaches ‘Anyone in the audience that you’d like to suck on?’

Vamp Girl: ‘It’s personal.’

It becomes a farcical Victorian freak show-esq display. Peaches asks her about whether the culture replicates Twilight or The Vampire Diaries, she claims ‘I think you just read too much into films’. But it’s Emma Kenny that really excels here, displaying all the tact of the bastard love child between Melanie Phillips and Richard Littlejohn.

Kennedy: ‘I think it’s too much like self-harming’

Vamp girl: ‘Different from self-harming. Same risk as sex’.

Kenny: ‘But what about the dangers of diseases in the blood?’

Vamp girl: ‘Everyone I drink from is HIV tested, or it’s my own blood.’

She actually has smart stuff to say on the subject.  But instead it’s back to ‘OOH LETS GET THE WEIRDO TO DO ODD SHIT’. They get her to drink blood, which she drinks out of a red vile. Peaches has a fucking fit when this happened shouting ‘uurr, yuck’. Behave, Peaches, could be cherryade in there.

AHJ, who is now fully playing the role of ‘token deviant’, asks;

AHJ: Is it a sexual thing?

Vamp Girl: ‘No, it’s just like something you enjoy. Like alcohol or chocolate’.

But this isn’t enough for Kenny, who states that ‘It crosses a boundary and it’s not okay. I love how you dress, think that’s great. But not the blood drinking. It’s weird.’ in that horribly patronising way that a pushy parent would tell her 16 year old child that they should do maths instead of photography (‘I love your little photos, they’re very nice. But you should do proper subjects, yes?’). She also tells coprophagans (people who enjoy eating faeces) that they ‘need to seek help’. Now I’m not one to fly the flag for the scat-munching community, but so far on OMG! Kenny has claimed all gay men looking to meet others are sexually depraved, sanguine vampires are ‘not okay’ and coprophagans ‘need to seek help’. Sorry, I thought this was the forward thinking place where everyone can come clean about their secrets? You know, and not face ridicule? It’s like dinner round Nick Griffin’s house, this.

And that’s how the whole show comes across. It is stereotypes and intolerance in trendy clothing. You write out the TV show as an editorial under the header ‘unsettling hobbies and homosexual sex; the state of modern Britain’ and stick in the Daily Mail, and you’ve got the latest item to cause uproar in the blogging community. At least the Mail are honest with what prerogative they’re pushing. With this, you have the same deplorable discourse and themes, but under the veil of an attractive audience, rebellious looking hosts and lots of sex talk.

The show itself clearly has endemic problems from a content standpoint. Uninteresting people talking about uninteresting events. But the wider issue is that it conveys through its production that content no longer matters. It is constructed by people with no semblance of individual thought or self-reflection. They are totally reticent to what they say and present, and as long as they get to wear cool outfits and piss around with their mates to an audience of similarly thoughtless drones, they couldn’t care less. It sets the example that the important crux of a show is not discourse or content, but how your presenters look and who they’re dating.

Other than those issues, it was alright.

NEWS! Joanna Lumley uses lazy journalism to criticise “lazy children” (01/03/2011)

Tell you what, we haven’t had a cantankerous rant about unruly teenagers recently. Anyone want to take this one? Littlejohn? Nah, busy moaning about immigrants. Mel Phillips? Hands full with homosexuality and abortion. What about her off Absolutely Fabulous? You know, the blond one. Perfect!

Yeah everyone’s favourite mid-90s TV personality is back with some self-important dross about ‘dem youf!’. After her success with the Gurka’s case of 2008 (of which she should be commended), Joanna Lumley has now taken it upon herself to be the voice of middle England, with her latest piece in the Telegraph about how ‘we’re raising lazy children with no morals’.

Lumley, 64, said society had changed for the worse since she was a child.

“There was one ‘crime’ during the whole time I was at school, when a fountain pen went missing. Stealing just didn’t happen. I was taught not to shoplift, not to steal, not to behave badly. We weren’t even allowed to drop litter,” she said.

There was also widespread cane use and institutionalised racism, homophobia and bullying. But at least the fountain pens were safe.

“We are very slack with our moral codes for children these days. Nowadays, children find it laughably amusing to shoplift and steal. We smile when they download information from the internet and lazily present it as their own work. We allow them to bunk off school and bring in sick notes.”

Who does any of this? Who are these feral adults that piss themselves with laughter when kids go on the rob or plagiarise work? Where are these nutters? Cause I haven’t met any. Are they mates with the parents who have 30 children and receive £2m a week in benefits, and the illegal immigrants that given free mansions? You know, that lot….

“In Ethiopia, for example, you might find a seven-year-old expected to take 15 goats out into the fields for the whole day with only a chapati to eat and his whistle. Why are we so afraid to give our children responsibilities like this?”

Because that’s child labour, Joanna. The stuff you try to raise money for when you on your TV mates do a trite sketch for comic relief, or a charity fun-run.

“We have taken our foot off the education pedal, and I don’t think it makes anyone happy. We don’t respect education. Not at all. Not like in Africa or China, where it is hugely respected.”

I she really advocating the Chinese model in Britain? I mean really? Really? No I’m serious now, really?

“Until you can prove you can add up on your fingers or think independently in your head, you have learnt nothing.”

Fair point, basic numeracy and literacy should be the centre of every education program. So how do she suggest we accomplish this?

“I would like to see children involved in hearty-sounding pursuits, such as building a camp. Or getting an entire school to go and work in a farm, for a term, altogether.”

Right, so to improve children’s basic education we need to pull them out of school for an entire term to go milk cows? JUST STOP TALKING, JOANNA!

There’s nothing fresh in this article. It’s just more ‘kids don’t know they’re born’ nonsense.  Now Lumley has never worked down a pit, or on a farm. She was born into a privileged background, then dropped out of school to be a model. You know, part of the trifecta of production that built this country; Farming, Industrialisation, arseing around stately homes in a corset. So she’s really the ‘go-to’ person on this subject. (This is nothing against modelling as a profession, but I do think it’s very hypocritical that someone who had no interest in education herself should be considered sacrosanct on the issue of children’s schooling). The first thing that Lumley did that she herself would consider to be a good deed, was when in 1993 she became patron of Tree Aid,‘a charity which enables communities in Africa’s drylands to fight poverty and become self-reliant’. Highly commendable, but by my calculations, it means the she did nothing of any credit (to her rigorous standards) until the age of 47. Joanna wouldn’t be very impressed with that would she…erm….Joanna.

Lumley has done some admirable activism in the last 20 years. Unquestionably. But just because of this, it doesn’t give her licence to bemoan people 40-50 years her junior, after she had a sort of renaissance in thought towards the twilight years of her career. I find it very hypocritical of her to snipe at people’s behaviour while she sits on her piles of cash in her ivory tower.

The whole article is horribly misjudged and trite. ‘Out of touch woman derides demographic she has no grasp of to other out of touch people’, basically. It isn’t really worth commenting on. She makes outlandish claims about shit that never happens, then says life is better in China. Brilliant.

Perhaps, Telegraph, next time you want to do a piece about youth culture, you should get it written by someone with knowledge of the social group, rather than the star of Jam and Jerusalem. Just a thought…

Single Review: Patrick Wolf - The City (24/02) [rating: 3/10]

Love the new Patrick Wolf material? No, me neither. Here’s some words I wrote on his latest single.

thewhiteboardproject:

Title: The City

Label: Mercury

Release: 14th March 2011

Rating: 3.0/ 10

South-London singer songwriter Patrick Wolf has had the reputation of someone who can transcend genres and incorporate different styles into his accessible, popular, yet interesting sound. Despite coming from a musical background and having an impressive musical education at young age, it could be argued that Patrick ‘did it the hard way’; dropping out of his A-Levels to join a busking quartet, before being spotted and signed by Fat Cat records. 4 albums later and Patrick is back with the single The City; the second track off his 5^th studio album, 2011’s Lupercalia.

The thing with Patrick Wolf is that love or hate him, he did things in music. Wolf’s ‘modus operandi’ was to make respectable pop; light-hearted, whimsical ballads with a stylistic quality, which gave respectability to genre that had become synonymous with talent shows and mawkish covers songs. It was accessible music that came from someone with a highly developed musical background across a throng of instruments. Any genre can be good when it has invention, depth and listenability. Wolf had this, and the success he had within respectable music circles correlated with his talent. He may not have been your favourite act, but you could respect him as an artist.

Read More