'SKY AT NIGHT' TO BE AXED ?

True to it's modernist values, the BBC is apparently on the point of doing away with one of the longest running and best television programmes in the world - 'The Sky at Night'. It would seem that while the programme's creator and star, Sir Patrick Moore, was alive, it was untouchable but now he's gone it's fair game.

 

The Beeb will probably claim that audiences have dropped since Sir Patrick's departure from this earthly realm, but that may be as much to do with its scheduling - viewers now have to scour the schedules to find it at midnight or midday, plus its only regular slot on the minority channel, BBC4.

 

'The Sky at Night' is not only an institution, it is an inspiration; it has been an inspiration to generations of potential young scientists for decades and has been lauded by many, including the Astronomer Royal, Sir Martin Rees. While they produce dumbed-down audience-grabbing tripe such as 'Eastenders', 'Strictly Come Dancing', and assorted other programmes for the illiterate masses, 'The Sky at Night' is an oasis of brilliance in this sea of mediocrity; sadly, the Beeb has no interest in brilliance, only in celebrity.

 

Perhaps if Professor Brian Cox volunteered to take over the presentation of the programme, it would have a better chance of survival; he is, after all, a celebrity scientist which neither of the current presenters are. Chris Lintott and Lucie Green are both experts and fine presenters but they are not, yet, celebrities and don't pretend to be such; nonetheless, the programme remains every bit as good as it ever was under their care and it would be a shocking act of vandalism if the BBC were to carry through its plan.

 

The ghost of Sir Patrick Moore must be screaming with anguish. Anyone who feels the need to scream with him may do well to sign the 'Sky at Night' petition set up by 'Change.org'.

BEGGING GETS ME DOWN.

I am fed up with beggars.

 

I don't mean dirty, smelly old men sitting in doorways or even youngsters asking for the price of a cup of tea in the street, I mean the people who now infest our supermarket entrances, particularly at weekends.

 

My local 'Morrison's' and now my local 'Tesco' both suffer from this disease and I find it utterly hateful. The constant waving of tins under one's nose, children offering to pack one's shopping while being accompanied by a collection bucket or, as happened today, being met by an avenue of 'food bank collectors' which was impossible to avoid, is a shocking intrusion and something that needs to be curtailed. It is becoming increasingly difficult to navigate passed such people without appearing, or even being, rude and I don't like it. Can I do anything about it other than shopping elsewhere or on other days ? It seems not.

 

Why the supermarkets are so willing to allow their customers to be assailed in these ways is a mystery. Perhaps I'm unusual in finding it offensive but surely I'm not alone. Today's experience in 'Tesco' will almost certainly be my last at that store - I shall shop elsewhere in future and I hope others do likewise.

 

Begging is not nice to see at the best of times but when it's done in an organised way by people and companies that should know better, it's grotesque. For God's sake, let's call a halt to it.

STUART WHEELER : SEXIST OR REALIST ?

The Ukip treasurer, Stuart Wheeler, has been accused of being 'sexist' for having made certain remarks during a debate about the European Union's proposals to impose gender quotas in company boardrooms.

 

Mr Wheeler has been reported to have said that women are no where as good as men at games like chess, bridge and poker, while explaining his objections to the proposals. Another participant in the debate, Dr Claire Gerada, of the Royal College of General Practitioners promptly took exception and called Mr Wheeler a 'sexist'.

 

Dr Gerada is a typical high profile and political woman who sees any suggestion that women are not equal to men as objectionable. Given that she is a doctor, one would have thought that she'd fully appreciate that women are actually quite different from men, both physically and emotionally; sadly she does not. Mr Wheeler is perfectly correct in his statement as is proven by the fact that very few women are able to compete effectively with men in the games mentioned; one assumes that he used these as an indicator that women are not generally as effective as men in other areas, such as business management and politics. Why making a statement of "the bleedin' obvious" should be met with accusations of 'sexism' is a question that has yet to be answered. It is, perhaps, a simple case of repeating a mantra until it just becomes accepted as truth, regardless of its actual veracity.

 

Women such as Dr Gerada tend to be so blinkered and bigoted that arguing with them is worse than useless. They simply refuse to accept that men and women are, on average, different and have different interests and abilities. This is not to say that some women are not able to perform at the very highest levels in politics or business, but it is to say that far fewer women than men have the desire or skills necessary to do so. The imposition of quotas for the number of women in boardrooms would fly in the face of this simple truth. 

 

Mr Wheeler is not a sexist, he is a realist but is being pilloried for disagreeing with the ludicrous left wing policies that some wish to foist upon us. If the lunatic proposals of the EU are adopted, it will spell the beginning of the end for European industry; they must be made to see the light.

 

TELEVISION SEX, NOT "LADS' MAGS", IS THE PROBLEM.

We are confronted, on an almost daily basis, by various pressure groups complaining about pornography. They whine about pictures on the covers of so-called "lads' mags", and whinge about "Page 3" girls in the tabloid press. Even our political masters, led by the Prime Minister, have joined in on the campaign to rid us of this supposed evil.

 

Looking at 'dirty pictures' is something that has probably been practiced since there were humans on the earth. Indeed, many of the murals from ancient civilisations depict what at least some of today's anti-pornography brigade would consider disgusting, degrading, humiliating, exploitative, ya-di-ya-di-ya. That many of today's children, who are considered to be most at risk from this shocking trade, have probably seen the same things 'up close and personal' by the age of 13 or 14 seems to pass the would-be censors by. Instead, they just shout louder and louder, demanding an end to the public displays of naked bodies, though it's only female bodies that seem to bother them.

 

While all of this yatter goes on, no one appears to be concerned about the regular displays of overt nudity and sexual performance that are broadcast on our televisions, almost nightly. Films, dramas and even 'soaps' are choc-a-bloc with gratuitous shots of naked people climbing in and out of bed and wandering around, something which used to be a genuine 'no-no'. We have plenty of ugly kissing and groping and more than enough of sweaty, naked bodies rolling around in scenes of simulated sex acts. The grunts, groans, and climaxes are vividly portrayed by actors, both men and women, who seem to have no shame and no sense of common decency. Why is there no outcry against all of this ?

 

Our children are not at risk from newsagents' racks of 'dirty mags', but they may well be at risk from the ways in which relationships are portrayed on television and in films. The way in which characters speak, and the language they use, as well as the ease and frequency with which they leap in and out of bed and change partners, inevitably leads impressionable young people to mimic this way of life. For programme and film makers to claim, as they do, that their products imitate 'real life' and do not lead it, is risible; they regularly go to the very edge of what is considered acceptable in order to attract audiences through the extreme nature of their output.

 

While the portrayal of semi-naked bodies in magazines and newspapers may be a little tacky, it's the far worse images which appear on our screens that are the real danger. When will politicians, and others, start to tackle this far more insidious business ?

NASSER HUSSAIN'S BIG CONK IS FAIR GAME.

When John Inverdale made a rather uncalled for remark about tennis player Marion Bartoli, people were up in arms. The feminists complained about Inverdale's sexism and a Government minister has asked the BBC to explain itself. Inverdale has been obliged to make a cowering apology and will, no doubt, next appear presenting something with an audience in the tens rather than the tens of millions.

 

Today, while watching coverage of the second Ashes test match, I was rather taken aback when Ian Botham made an entirely and very personal comment about Nasser Hussain's 'huge conk', referring to his nose, and also made a remark about his receding hairline. Botham followed this up with a further remark aimed at former England captain, Michael Vaughan. During the same period of coverage I also noticed, not for the first time, that the camera regularly pans around the ground seeking out people whose appearance may be different from the usual. Some of those focused upon are clearly desirous of such attention but others seem to be selected more for the amusement of the commentators and viewers. People, almost always men, with unusual attire or unusual appearance, rather than those with deliberately silly costumes, seem to be the butt of the commentators jokes and sometimes rather offensive remarks. No one seems to care or even think there is anything wrong with this.

 

In wondering why there seems to be a different attitude between these 2 situations, the answer appears obvious. Marion Bartoli is a woman and it's forbidden to make personal remarks about women; this is sexist, chauvinist and probably a dozen other adjectives favoured by the vociferous feminist and equality brigades. Nasser Hussain and the group who are targeted at cricket matches are male; they deserve whatever they get because they've been so nasty to women for so long. They also have no one to protect them in the way that women have.

 

Bartoli isn't a 'looker' and Hussain does have a big conk; both statements are true but only one is considered unsayable. That this is hypocrisy is obvious, as is the fact that it's time the men fought back, stopped being expected to bite their tongues and stopped apologising for being men.

MARION BARTOLI IS NO LOOKER !

Shock, Horror !! A BBC presenter has been a little injudicious in his use of language regarding the Wimbledon Ladies' champion, Marion Bartoli; he had the nerve to say, on air, what most of the male population, and probably a good proportion of the female population, were thinking while watching in their living rooms, pubs or clubs.

Sadly for John Inverdale, the truth or otherwise of his words is not considered relevant; all that matters is that he's offended the 'Equality Mafia', the 'Anti-Sexism Brigade' and the other assorted fascists who rule our lives. Now, the BBC feels obliged to issue public apologies and the 'Culture Secretary', Maria Miller, herself a female politician who has risen from the depths of obscurity to her current lofty position without showing any signs of ability, though certainly not because she's a 'looker', has expressed concern about Inverdale's words and asked the Beeb to let her know what it's doing about things. One has to suspect that poor Inverdale will soon find himself relegated to presenting 'Cruft's, the 'Chelsea Flower Show' or some other event at which the beauty or otherwise of the participants is unlikely to be a matter of interest.

What Inverdale said was, actually, irrelevant and stupid, but it was not sexist and does not deserve to be treated as a major public scandal. Marion Bartoli is a most determined tennis player and was a deserved winner of the Wimbledon title, but she certainly is no beauty. What she is, is an ordinary girl what done good; she will never be seen trotting along a catwalk, à la Maria Sharapova or Anna Kournikova. Personally, I find her far less intimidating than these two superstar models and she's probably a much nicer person when all is boiled down.

As for the BBC, this organisation never ceases to amaze me with its hypocrisy. It has gone out of its way to fête 'beautiful people', to employ only good looking women to front its major programmes and to remove those whose years make them less attractive to the viewing audience. Ask Moira Stewart, Michael Aspel, Anna Ford, Miriam O'Reilly, Arlene Phillips, Hugh Porter and all the rest who've been dumped because they no longer fitted the required stereotype; how long will it be before the ageing Sue Barker finds herself replaced as presenter of 'A Question of Sport', probably by some thirtyish dollybird with the brains of a turnip and personality of a damp rag ?

At the same time, it continued to employ Jimmy Savile, Stuart Hall and, no doubt, others, for many decades while they freely molested and abused children of both sexes in the full knowledge of their colleagues. For the BBC now to feign horror at Inverdale's harmless comments really is a joke. For the 'Culture Secretary' to try to milk the situation for political ends is pathetic.

T-MOBILE HELP LINE - HA, HA !

I am one of the unfortunate people who use T-Mobile. That said, many may be quite happy with their service - I am not.

 

Having been with T-Mobile for several years with no problems, ever since their conversion to the esoteric-sounding 'EE' I've had nothing but problems. My signal strength is now low to non-existent and, today, it has disappeared altogether. The only message I get when trying to use my 'phone is 'No Service'.

 

I've tried contacting T-Mobile though their website has to be one of the most useless available anywhere. There is a huge mess of confusion between T-Mobile, Orange and 'EE' services and exactly how one is supposed to find who to contact is a mystery. Yes, I can contact them by dialling '150' on my 'phone, but it isn't working, so that's a non-starter. There's no e-mail contact address and the only alternative is a chargeable 0845 number which I refuse to use simply because I see no reason why I should pay to report their problem to them.

 

Fortunately, I have a landline, though that is another story. The wonderful 'SAYNOTO0870' website provided me with an alternative number - 0808 1219999 - which responded with the expected computerised system. After hitting several numbers - 2,1,4,4,1,2 - or whatever the sequence was, I was given a peremptory, 'sorry you have a problem, try again later'. What use is that if I want to make a call now ?

 

This is a company which provides no customer support whatsoever, unless it is for new 'phones, new contracts or upgrades. Reporting problems appears to be something they want no one to do, so they make it impossible. This episode means that they have lost my custom for ever; for me, 'EE' now stands for 'Evade for Ever'. If it costs me to terminate my contract, so be it; £100 well spent as far as I'm concerned. They are useless, hopeless, a waste of space. What more can I add ? Answers please on an e-mail - thank God I don't use T-Mobile for that !