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 ............................. .

'OUTCASTS' IN A WORLD OF ITS OWN.

After writing-off the BBC's new drama series 'Outcasts', I thought I should give it a second chance, just to see if there was any possibility that my initial reaction had been wrong.

What a mistake. Episodes 3 and 4 were every bit as rubbishy as the first 2. Dramatic music galore, glowering looks everywhere and a script so lacking in anything meaningful as to be pointless. What the storyline is, is anyone's guess, the horribly miscast characters could just as well be played by the 'Woodentops' (remember them ? Their show made sense) and, all in all, this programme is utter drivel.

Last year, the 'Beeb' wasted heaven knows how much on another over-hyped drama, 'The Deep', which sank without trace; not long before that, we were subjected to 'Survivors', another disastrous load of ridiculous nonsense. One would have thought they'd have learned their lesson from these miserable failures but it seems not. Suffice it to say that I won't be watching any more of this tripe.

AWARDS FOR MEDIOCRITY.

The season of blubbering film makers and 'stars' is upon us again, whether we like it or not.

There was a time when awards went to films of great merit and to stars of great ability, but today's nonsense is of an altogether different type. Today's films are dominated by gloss and dramatic effects, often computer generated; the stars rarely speak more than a handful of words at any one time and don't even have to go on a proper set. The films and performances are rarely of any lasting quality but are simply designed to appeal to the moment. Very few of the films will last the test of time, and yet these seem to be the films that, more often than not, win the major awards.

The more glitzy the awards' ceremonies become and the less meritorious the films and performances, the more effusive become the acceptance speeches; minutes of blubbering and tearful thanks to all and sundry. What a load of tosh.

'OUTCASTS' A WRITE-OFF.

With the current dearth of anything of merit on television, I've watched the first couple of episodes of the BBC's new drama series 'Outcasts'. What a mistake.

This drivel is simply 'Survivors' in space, and 'Survivors' was a ridiculous load of nonsense, apparently dropped due to lack of interest from the viewing public; there's no reason for the story to be set on another planet, it could equally well be in the Australian outback or Gobi desert. It has nothing of any originality, the sets look to be cast-offs from 'Mad Max', the acting is wooden and the script rubbish. Loads of portentous musical backing can't make up for the total lack of a decent storyline.

What has happened at the Beeb ? Where is the genius that produced 'Life on Mars', 'Spooks' and 'Hustle', as well as dozens of other great programmes ? The sooner 'Outcasts' is cast out, the better.

LARKRISE A WINNER.

Having had a few drinks with Sunday dinner, I may be accused of being over-sentimental or some such. However, watching 'Larkrise to Candleford', I'm utterly entranced.

This is a series of true nonsense and yet it has elements of veracity in it. It is obviously set in an imagined world with such well groomed peasants and beautiful surroundings that it is a tale of pure romance; and yet it is also so wonderfully set that it's impossible not to like it.

The series has a cast that does enormous credit to its makers. Being too old to be in love with the character of Laura, I am besotted with her boss, Dorcas Lane, though I suspect it's really Julia Sawalha that I truly adore; I've held a secret passion for her for at least 20 years ! That aside, the series is a jewel in an otherwise barren desert of television on a Sunday night. What wonderful performances there are from the supporting cast, especially from the girl who plays silly Minnie, Ruby Bentall; to my mind she is sensational and really should be in line for an award, BAFTA or whatever.

Call me old-fashioned, but this is my kind of entertainment.

THE MYTH OF THE USA.

Am I the only person to be wholly fed up with, and frightened by, the jingoistic crap that comes out of the USA ? While professing every virtue under the sun, this 'Country of the Free' still tolerates appalling treatment of its ethnic minorities and denies even basic human rights to a large part of its population.

The USA is founded on violence and exploitation. Immigrants from Europe wiped out most of the indigenous population and Hollywood subsequently invented the calumny that it was the 'Red Indians' who terrified the newcomers with their barbarity; in truth, actions such as scalping were at least as common from the white men as from the Indians and it was the indigenous population that was almost exterminated. If this wasn't genocide one has to wonder what it was.

The USA is a young country with very little history of its own. It is desperate to prove that it is more than a modern invention and will go to any lengths to prove it. It happily buries the less acceptable elements of its past and is more than happy to distort history, and even steal the history of others, in its attempts to bolster its own ego. It rewrites history daily and, through the universal media of films, television and the internet, plus the miserable compliance of Governments such as our own which give the teaching of history no priority in our schools, it spreads a message that everything of value came from them and that they have been the perennial providers of freedom and justice. The USA has continued to use Hollywood as a means of spreading false historical messages around the world with examples such as their hijacking of the invention of the 'Enigma' machine not very long ago. 

The US is dominated by money and powerful 'interest groups'. It's government is wholly subservient to its Jewish lobby and daren't criticise the government of Israel, regardless of what they do. However, the USA supported the Shah of Iran until he became unsupportable and has supported Hosny Mubarak for many years in similar fashion. It supports any dictator, however repulsive, if that dictator serves the political interests of the USA and it withdraws its support as soon as that situation changes.

Essentially, the USA is an amoral state totally dominated by its own political self-interest. The most worrying part of this analysis is that the USA is soon to be seriously challenged by China in its position as the world's number 1 economy. The Chinese already own a huge part of the US economy through their purchase of vast amounts of US government debt and this is simply a first salvo in the inevitable economic war that is to come. The real problem is that the US may well see this as an attack on their national pride and will turn an economic war into a real one; it wouldn't be the first time in history that trade has led to outright military conflict. The problem today is that both the US and China have nuclear weapons by the score and, while the Chinese have more long-term sense, the US government just might hit the button at some time in the not to distant future.

I don't claim that this is an authoritative analysis but it is one I will stand by; only time will tell what, if any, of it turns out to be true. I trust I will be long gone by the then.