SILK-LINED BBC.

I have loved the BBC drama series 'Silk' which has, in my view, been the best BBC drama for a while.

It does seem that my appreciation of this series is not shared by some reviewers and, in particular, a chappie by the name of Toby Dantzic wrote a rather sneering review in the 'Review' section of last Saturday's Daily Telegraph. He actually said that the series 'lacked real dramatic spark'; he referred disparagingly to the performances of both Maxine Peake and Rupert Penry-Jones, the two main characters, as well as that of Neil Stuke who provided solid support. He complaineds that none of the court cases 'have translated into ethical dilemmas worth chewing over'. He referred to Maxine Peake's 'sniffling' over a closing speech, which is simply not true; yes, she was emotional, but there were no sniffles and it was a good speech, to boot. The ending of the final episode was a little rushed and there was too much dramatic 'music' throughout, but that seems standard for today.

I actually wonder how much of the series he's watched; I also wonder how old this reviewer is. In my humble, and entirely inexpert opinion, this has been an extremely good series. It has built from the first episode to be a series of true drama and worth. The performances have been excellent and any deviation from real life has been for the same dramatic effect as occurs in any drama series of note, and has been far less than the ludicrous hyperbole of the soaps. The various cases have covered several thought-provoking issues that could well have been 'chewed over'.

I suspect Mr Dantzic's views are reflective of his age, though he's welcome to prove otherwise. To me, this was a series for more intelligent and selective viewers; it won't have appealed to the younger generation as it was simply too difficult for them to understand. I just hope that the views of people like Dantzic will not prevent there being a further series.

LUNATICS, ASYLUMS AND PUPIL POWER.

It seems that, in Britain, we have something called a 'Childrens' Commissioner'. The first question that springs to mind is 'Why ?', swiftly followed by others such as 'What do they do ?' and What ?!'

The post is filled by someone named Maggie Atkinson and she appears to be an idiot. It's reported today that she believes that schoolchildren should have a say in the appointment of teachers in their schools, this imbecilic notion being based on a survey of 2,000 children, aged 9 - 16, conducted by her organisation. Apparently, ⅔ of those surveyed said they would like a role in the recruiting process, but only 18% had actually been involved in choosing a teacher. Unsurprisingly, the NASUWT has been pretty quick off the mark in condemning this idea.

One has to wonder what is going on when someone in a position of considerable influence and, no doubt, receiving a big salary from the State, can come up with such a ridiculous proposal. Obviously, some schools have already adopted this idea but for heaven's sake WHY ? Of course lots of the children would 'like a say', but then that's the same as asking the turkey whether he wants to live with the family of vegetarians or the carnivores. You can't always have what you'd like.

Letting children have in say in the appointment of their teachers is akin to allowing criminals to appoint judges, prisoners to choose their warders, patients to appoint doctors and so on. It is lunacy. Children know nothing of the qualities needed to be a successful teacher, which include being able to deal with a bunch of rowdy and ill-disciplined brats. Allowing the brats to decide who will stand in front of them is a recipe for disaster; teachers will be chosen on the basis of their 'social acceptability' to the children. Are they young and trendy, or old and unfashionable ? Do they like the latest music, are they 'in to' Facebook, which football team do they support etc., etc. Children have to be taught to understand that they do not have power and authority over those around them, not the opposite. As they get older, by all means expose them to more of the adult world and the responsibilities that exist in it, but never endow them with the power to influence who is to teach them.

The whole rationale behind teaching is that the youngsters should be exposed to educational experiences that encourage them to develop an interest in the world atround them while gaining the skills and knowledge to live, unaided, in that world. Giving them a say in the appointment of their teachers flies in the face of this philosphy as it, effectively, allows them to create a world in which only like-minded individuals exist, and by 'like-minded' I mean those with the minds of children. If this is the type of approach already being adopted in some of our schools and which is being championed by Ms Atkinson, is it any wonder that our children are being so poorly educated ?

Teenagers of my acquaintance have so little knowledge of the world, or interest in it, that I despair for the future. Today's children appear to have no hobbies, they rarely read books, and they have no knowledge of history or geography. They cannot relate facts together as the methods of teaching are so insular, being directed very specifically at the next examination and nothing else. No doubt, many children can be trotted out to prove that I am wrong, but there's always good and bad; the powers-that-be will choose to parade the success stories, while, perhaps, I have only seen the other side. Maybe, but I'd bet the children of my generation, en masse, to beat the children of the current generation at just about any intellectual challenge anyone cares to name. What about a bit of mental arithmetic, or English grammar ? Who can name a few Kings and Queens and get them in the right order ? Can you find Spain on a map, or China, or Thailand ?

Whoever Ms Atkinson is, and whatever her qualifications for her job, she is an unnecessary person in a non-job. Get rid of her, her organisation and these lunatic ideas, or heaven help us; the lunatics really will have taken over the asylum.

A THOUGHT FOR A SUNDAY

As I sit here, after a fine Sunday dinner and bottle of wine, I wonder what I have to do to make the world stir. Should I decide to support Labour at the next election, something that would undoubtedly make my friends think I'd really flipped, or should I do something less extreme. The more I think about it, the more I worry. What truly worries me is that it doesn't matter what I think, or do, the world will carry on as before. Therefore, does it really matter what any of us think or do, or is everything, effectively, a 'fit accompli' ?

Our lives are governed by those in power who decide what is, and what is not, acceptable, decide what the punishments will be for transgressing THEIR rules, and also decide what rules we must follow in deciding who it is that decides all these things in the first place. These are, of course, the rich and powerful who, despite a few occasional incursions into their ranks, are generally the same 'rich and powerful' that have ruled the country since time immemorial or, at least, their direct descendants.

I despise the animals who rampaged around parts of London yesterday, and yet I could also have some sympathy with their apparent frustration if they weren't so obviously driven by extreme Political motives. These creatures were hell-bent on destruction, and destruction of our society not just the buildings they were vandalising; they have no place in any civilised gathering.

What I want is to be able to elect a representative who really will listen to me, reflect my views, and be honest; is that too much to ask ? Sadly, the answer seems to be an emphatic 'Yes', as our electoral system remains wedded to the idea of political parties. Instead of voting for a person, we are permitted to vote for a party; oh, yes, there is a person's name attached to the party, but how many ever worry what that name is ? It's the party that matters, pure and simple; grandad always voted Labour, dad always voted Labour, and I always vote Labour - what a sad reflection on our society when probably 80% of the population simply vote for what they see as 'their' party, rather than ever thinking about what they are really voting for. Before anyone gets upset, the same applies to the Conservatives though perhaps not to the Liberals who have been so peripheral of late that they've been more of a protest vote than anything else in most of the country.

I used to count myself as a Conservative but, having grown up, I see good and bad in all the parties, sadly mostly bad. None of them gives a damn about anything other than the next election and trying to maximise their chances of being in government. Our representatives are self-serving individuals who owe far more allegiance to their party than they do to us as the electorate, and act accordingly; forget what we want, it's what the Party says that matters. None of the ordinary people have any real say in anything.

This is, of course, what we call 'Democracy'; it's actually what Lord Hailsham, formerly Quintin Hogg, once referred to as an 'elective dictatorship' and that's exactly what it is. We, the people, are graciously allowed to elect our leaders from a carefully selected group of approved candidiates; what a privilege. The outcome of this system is increasing voter apathy, followed by increasing minority activism; in the end, we will have riots and scenes far more associated with third world nations. Revolution will follow and god help anyone still around then.

BBC NOT ALONE

Having slagged off the BBC for some of its recent productions, it's only fair that I comment on other channels too.

I watched the first episode of 'Monroe', ITV's new medical drama, with some trepidation as James Nesbitt has never been a great favourite of mine and I really couldn't see him as a consultant neuro-surgeon. Sadly, my worst fears were realized and the second episode was every bit as bad as the first; any attempt to suggest that this series is comparable with  the superb US series 'House' is misguided in the extreme.

Having worked in a senior level in the NHS for many years, and met many senior doctors, Nesbitt's portrayal is totally foreign. Yes, some surgeons are a little eccentric but Nesbitt is, frankly, laughable; a worse piece of casting is hard to imagine. Not only is Nesbitt horribly miscast but the rest are hardly realistic; they seem to be designed to order, more to manufacture possible future storylines than to be representative of any recognizable NHS.

Given the public's interest in medical dramas of whatever quality, as witnessed by the longevity of the execrable 'Casualty' and 'Holby City', one has to anticipate that 'Monroe' may well survive to future series. This is dreadful rubbish and should be consigned to the dustbin; whether or not it will be is in the hands of its audience, in whose judgement I have little faith.

SILK IS A WINNER

How is it that the BBC can produce so much utter rubbish and, at the same time, programmes that are in an entirely different league ?

So much that is on the radio (wireless, to older viewers), is anodyne drivel; much of the output hasn't really changed in decades but the audience is so dim, or even comatose, that they haven't noticed. Programmes continue, year after year, decade after decade, and, with very few exceptions, are truly dreadful. Occasionally, a decent programme comes along and all is forgiven; sadly, this happens rarely these days.

On television, things are even worse. The hours of broadcasting get ever longer and the content gets ever worse - with rare exceptions. Recently, the Beeb put out yet another dire offering with 'Outcasts', one to rank with 'The Deep' and the updated 'Survivors', as one for the dustbin, but has followed it with 'South Riding' and 'Silk'.

While 'South Riding' was enjoyable, well directed and well acted, it simply does not compare with the brilliant 'Silk'. So far, at least, the writers have managed to mesh the intrigues in chambers, the goings-on in court and the personal lives of the leading characters in such a way as to make this an utterly unmissable series. While some of the characters remain a little vague, the principals are well drawn and those on the periphery are gradually becoming more defined as the story lines develop. This is television drama at its best and the creators should be congratulated, as well as the cast who are delivering a truly high quality programme.

Here's hoping that I'm not alone in finding this series 'top drawer' and that this will not be a 'one series wonder'.

ADVERTISING KNOWS NO MORALITY.

Am I alone in being increasingly annoyed at the way washed-up ex-tv personalities appear in adverts ? We are infested with them.

Michael Parkinson, June Whitfield and Frank Windsor (anyone actually remember him ?) have all appeared with horrible regularity advertising insurance-type products none of them would touch with a bargepole. WHY ? For the money, of course, and demonstrating that they have absolutely no personal integrity whatsoever. These advertisements are aimed principally at elderly and vulnerable people and are utterly immoral in nature.

These three are far from being alone and are joined in this pantheon of deceit by many others, both well-known and long forgotten. Anyone unfortunate enough to forget to change channels when the adverts appear may well catch the likes of Martine McCutcheon advertising something or other, and then there's Lenny Henry, Bill Giles (the former weather reader, for god's sake !), John Cleese, Honor Blackman, Judith Chalmers and many, many more.

A tiny handful of adverts are, of course, of a different type and seem to be made like mini-fims or TV Soaps.

These probably started with 'Katie' and the OXO family a long time ago, but have also been successful more recently, firstly with the wonderful Nescafé couple, then Renault's 'Nicole and Papa' and now with BT's little family saga. These, at least call for a degree of acting from the particiapants and can be quite diverting. Along the same lines, but obviously very different, are the Meerkats, a brilliant piece of lateral thinking and far more worthy of an Oscar than most of the tripe that actually gets awarded the golden statuettes.

But we can't get away from the fact that most adverts are incredibly simplistic and play to the hopes and fears of the audience. They use underhand methods to 'con' viewers into believing that whatever's being promoted will somehow improve their lives and/or is a fantastic bargain, when the truth is almost certainly very different. Far too many 'personalities' happily lend themselves to this wholly dishonest practice; no doubt, counting their tainted earnings helps them forget how thoroughly ashamed of themselves they should be.

BBC BACK IN THE GROOVE ?

Following the appalling 'Outcasts', now consigned to a late-night Sunday slot, the BBC seems to have partially redeemed its reputation with 2 solid new dramas.

'South Riding' is a depression-era saga of a small Yorkshire town and the doings of a few of its residents. In particular, we see the new school headmistress, Miss Burton, striving to bring the best out of her charges, the local 'Squire' who is down on his fortunes, but falling for the school ma'am, and the local council and parish board, a bunch of rather smug characters with, it seems, a few issues of their own. The storylines are a bit over-complicated and the action a little jerky, but the performances keep the interest and no doubt the various strands will be drawn together in due course. Will the Squire and Miss Burton actually find romance ? What will become of the egregious Huggins ? Will young Lydia be able to resume her studies ? This is decent fare without being incredibly exciting, but is an enormous improvement on some recent efforts.

The other new screening is 'Silk', a tale of the nefarious goings-on in a barristers' chambers in London. Rupert Penry-Jones and Maxine Peake are apparently competing to gain the elusive 'Silk' and there's intrigue afoot behind the scenes with some of the barristers unhappy with the Chamber's manager, played by Neil Stuke. Courtroom dramas usually make for good television, and this is no exception, although I've yet to decide whether this is 'good' or 'very good' stuff. There is a danger that the storyline may wander away from the law towards more 'soapy' themes; barrister Clive Reader, played by Penry-Jones' has already bedded his new pupil and Martha Costello (Peake) is thinking of having her previously unmentioned pregnancy terminated. As long as they keep the personal lives secondary to the main issues, this could develop into a fine series, but otherwise ............................. .