Notes from a small cavy

The Cavy is Even Deader

2011-05-08T00:29:00.000+02:00

The Cavy is Dead.

2008-09-14T15:58:00.000+02:00

You mean Sherlock Holmes wasn't real??

2008-02-05T19:42:00.000+01:00

Stunning proof of ignorance of Brits?

Surveys are great aren't they? Especially when filling up otherwise empty gaps in newspapers with news that "13% of Brummies think that the Return of the Jedi is a better film that Empire Strikes Back". Michael Moore's tv show TV Nation once parodied this by conducting nonsensical surveys such as "10% of people who would go into a jacuzzi with Dan Rather have no health insurance" and "25% of those in possession of a firearm believe that the Second Amendment protects their right to buy explosive fertilizer."

Before shaking your head at the stupidity of people in general after reading the latest survey, it is always useful to ask a few questions about the methodology. I'm not a trained pollster or statistician but I think the following points are pretty valid

1) Who is doing the asking and who is being asked? "99% of Britons own a Tibetan nose flute" is less impressive when you discover the poll was carried out by the editors of You And Your Tibetan Nose Flute magazine among their readers
2) What size is the sample? "50% of Britons think Culfy is the sexiest man in the known universe" was the result of a poll of two people, Julia Roberts & Wislon
3) What question is being asked? "Do you think that evil murders should be hanged for the good of society to prevent them from taking more innocent lives" and "Are you willing the take chance of innocence people being hanged if capital punishment is brought back" ask substantially the same question, but would probably produce totally different results. And what do you think the answer would be to the question "Do you not think that capital shouldn't be brought back providing no evidence isn't found which wouldn't not prove the guilt of the accused?"
4) How honest are the answers? I leave to your own imagination the problem of doing a survey of the size of men's penises.

So let's take a look at the recent survey which has caused shock horror as 23% of Britons identify Winston Churchill as a mythical character. First of all it is carried out by UK Gold of 3000 of its viewers, in other words 3,000 viewers of a minority television channel. But more worryingly is that the survey itself is, to use a technical term, a complete pile of bollocks.

The survey results give a list of 10 historical characters the British public think are myths and 10 'fictional' characters the British public think are real. The trouble is that the character claimed to be mistaken for fact (by 65% of the population) is King Arthur. Now I'm pretty sure that King Arthur didn't literally live at Camelot, have a round table and a faithful knight called Sir Launcelot etc. But there is certainly enough evidence to suggest that someone called King Arthur existed and there is some basis to the legends about him. Certainly there is no basis for simply dismissing him as fictional. Moving down we have a similar problem with Robin Hood who may well have existed (although many legends have built up around him). More shockingly, the survey shows that 35% of people identified the 'fictional' Mona Lisa as real. But surely, the Mona Lisa (or the model for the painting) was a real woman, unless someone is now trying to claim that old Leo painted her from his own imagination. Moving down, the survey says that 34% of people identified Dick Turpin as a real person. Trouble is that Dick Turpin was a real person. The article states the reason for his being included in the list of 'fictional people' is that he didn't make the legendary ride from London to York. But hang on a minute, the survey also expresses surprise that people thought that Richard The Lionheart was a fictional character, even though there are as many myths about Richard the Lionheart as there are about Dick Turpin (for example, Richard didn't have his favourite minstrel search for him by singing a song at every prison in the Middle East). Why not put Richard and Dick Turpin in the fictional list, or both in the historical list? And of the 12% who identified the three Musketeers as real characters, where they perhaps aware that Dumas did base much of his work on real events and real people?

Given this apparently arbitary division between fictional and real characters, is it any surprise that people may have put Winston Churchill down as 'mythical'? Given that there appears to be a confused distinction between fictional (created by one or more authors but not necessarily believed as real), mythical (something fictional believed as real) and legendary (something real but exaggerated), is it any wonder people may have been confused? If someone had asked me "Is the Robin Hood who lived in Sherwood Green and robbed from the rich to give to the poor a myth" but had also asked me "Is the Winston Churchill who was a poor latin scholar and whose father died of syphilis a myth" I would have given the same answer to both questions.

But of course "23% of people who responded to a confusingly worded survey for a minority tv channel think that Churchill was a myth in a arbitary classification system that also classes well known historical characters such as Lady Godiva and Dick Turpin as myths" doesn't quite have that same ring.

Shock Horror as motormouth Jeremy Clarkson says something Cavy agrees with

2008-02-03T12:50:00.001+01:00

Apologies to linking to the Sun

Evil! Evil! Evil!

2008-01-26T17:40:00.000+01:00

No other words for it, but this must be the most nakedly racist headline the Daily Express have yet produced. I believe that even if the Daily Express had printed a headline which said "Britons beware, the wogs are coming for your wives and daughters" it couldn't be more racist (after all that would be a bit of obvious editorialising).

Because the headline "1.3 million Poles arrived in Britain" is wrong. Quite simply wrong. Not inaccurate, not biased but factually wrong. 1.3 million Poles DID NOT arrive in Britain last year. There were 1.3 million VISITORS from Poland last year. This includes business visitors, tourists and people visiting relatives etc. The population last year did not swell by 1.3 million genuine beatroot soup eaters. Many of these people are business travellers who make more than visit to the UK. I visited Oxford twice last year, there are not two of me walking round Oxford, using up its resources and refusing to merge with its culture. And the figures only measure visits of last than one year so not a single one of these 1.3 million visitors is settling in the UK.

This is quite clearly wrong. And evil.

This headline will be in your local newsagent. It will be imprinted on your mind. You will walk out of your newsagent and hear a foreign voice or two. You will immediately connect it with the headline (not realising it is lies). And its work will be done

Review Moving Wallpaper/Echo Beach

2008-01-12T15:48:00.000+01:00

Kudos television, with their productions of Life on Mars and Spooks, have managed to produce some of the most compelling and kinetically exciting drama, and with their duo of Moving Wallpaper/Echo Beach, they may have come up with one of their best concepts yet; Echo Beach being a Hollyoaks/O.C. style soap set in Cornwall and Moving Wallpaper being a 'fly on the wall documentary" set around the making of the same soap. Some people have criticised the idea for being an example of 'television eating itself', however I looked forward to the potential satirising of the tv industry and the idea of getting a priviliged insider glimpse into the making of tv (I'm fascinated by the minutae of tv and film making, one of my favourite films being Tim Burton's Ed Wood).

Unfortunately, on the basis of the first two episdoes; the potential of the set up is totally wasted. Take, for example Echo Beach. What is it meant to be? Pastiche, parody or actual genuine soap? If the former, then it is quite simply just not broad enough to show; there are no 'Acorn Antiques' style wobbly cameras or continuity fluffs to make its parody nature clear. If it is, god forbid, meant to be a real soap then this has some of the worst acting ever since the infamous El Dorado with Martine McCutcheon and Jason Donovan particularly shocking specimens of the 'smell the fart' school of acting. And the idea of young beautiful people having australian style beach parties on a Cornish beach seems ludicrous (and looks ludicrous on screen). Unless this is part of the joke.

Moving Wallpaper does nothing to clarify the spoof/real soap dilemma, partly because the whole programme is so clunking itself. Ben Miller as producer Jonathan Pope overracts terribly, partly because a) everyone else in the programme is so relentlessly dull and b) if you're giving the part of a tv producer who gives out parts to actresses in return for sexual favours and spends all the show budget on a chauffeur limousine then there's very little point of giving a subtle performance in the first place. The show attempts to build up Pope as a David Brent style villain, complete with self-incriminating bluster and border-line racism, but the whole set up is so forced that the genuine embarrasment factor that characterises Ricky Gervaise's work at its best is lost and becomes merely tedious. A lame blowjob/snow job joke is deconstructed here but for me, the far more embarrasing 'joke' was in the second episode when the production team managed to all get hold of copies of the payroll and were able to compare their wages. For god's sake, why not use a source of tension rising naturally from the production instead of relying on the far-fetched idea that even the dimmest PA would somehow photocopy the payroll and give it out to the crew.

In the end, Moving Wallpaper fails from a lack of nerve, what could have been a genuinely interesting and funny send up of the making of tv programmes (why are there no scenes of the shooting of the soap itself; imagine the jokes that could result from trying to film steamy love scenes between two actors who hate each other) falls short because the producers did not seem to think we could cope without broad comedy and instead falls for a sort of poor photocopy of Extras.

I take back everything I said about Ricky Gervais.

Quiz: What do all the following have in common?

2008-01-02T19:41:00.000+01:00

1. Watching all of the box set of the complete Jeremy Brett Sherlock Holmes
2. Spending time with my beloved
3. Walking through town and staring intently at the back of bald headed people, in the hope they will freak out.
4. Reviewing every single Bond film in precise, meticulous and painful detail.
5. Eating too much
6. Drinking too much
7. Wishing Andrew Rilstone would hurry up and review The Golden Compass
8. Writing a novel
9. Recording an album
10. Making a film
11. Watching the dust play in the early morning sunlight
12. Watching Ricky Gervais vanish up his own fundament and wonder if he'll manage to escape and produce decent entertainment again
13. Skimming rocks
14. Going through all the various games, quizes and comparisons that my friends have invited me to do on Facebook.
15. Writing angry letters to the Daily Mail.

Answer; All thing's I'd much rather be doing than going back to work this week.

Review: The Golden Compass

2007-12-31T16:16:00.000+01:00

As an aside, I've often wondered how people who haven't read the book managed to cope with Peter Jackson's film trilogy of Lord of the Rings? Never mind following the plot, how did they manage without the joys of seeing Bilbo's petrified trolls in the Fellowship, of recognising Gimli's speech on Dwarf women from the appendix, of shouting "Oi! What the bloody hell are elves doing at Helm's Deep"

I was put into this situation myself with The Golden Compass, having not read the Philip Pullman novels, so I was unable to complain about how like they totally got Lyra's character wrong; how the speech said by Lee Scorsby in the film was originally said by a minor character cut out from the screenpla or how Iorek Byrnison was orignally an aardvark and not a polar bear or whatever. Which is a pity because without this potential pleasure, the Golden Compass managed to be one of the most tedious cinematic experiences this year.

Part of the problem is the casting of the child actress Dakota Blue Richards as Lyra - the archetypal Girl On Whom The Fate of the World Rests. Instead of bringing this across; Dakota seems more burdened by a much greater problem; that of trying to keep up her Oliver style cockernee street kid accent. Which unforunately left a gaping hole at the centre of the movie; at no point did I ever feel like any grave consequences ever rested on any of the actions of Lyra.

But the fault does not lie entirely with Dakota. Allegedly, the makers of the film removed much of the atheistic content of the novel; in doing so they seem to have removed most of the characterisation and the plot from the novel as well. Nicole Kidman goes round Acting for a bit but never reaches the chilling intensity of her roles in the Others and To Die For. Daniel Craig goes round Acting for a bit before realising that Bond 22 is likely to be a better bet for an Oscar and so buggers off for most of the film. At one point Nicole Kidman reveals that she is really Lyra's mother and Daniel Craig's character is really her father; a revelation which I'm sure meant a lot more in the book.

I'm certainly sure that the titular Golden Compass was a lot better used in the novel than the Deus Ex Machina it becomes in the film. A device which the Evil Magisterium wants to capture for their own ends allows Lyra to discover the answer to every question instantly (after a bit of 'follow your heart' type advice) which provides a convenient way of solving any difficulties along the way.

This perfunctory approach to plotting is at its worst at the end of the film with the Epic End Battle. Lyra leads a band of children away from the evil Magisterium only to be stopped by the baddies. Fortunately the giant polar bear turns up and helps them. Unfortunately the giant polar is tied up. Fortunately he is saved by a group of witches. Unfortunately the flying witches are shot at by the baddies. Fortunately a flying cowboy comes and rescues everyone. And it all ends happily ever after in about ten minutes. Come on, I know the Heroic Sacrifice is a bit cliche but I think we needed at least goodie to bite the dust to give some sense of jepardy to proceedings.

On the plus side, the film at least looked good; the demons being particularly well realised. And Ian McKellan once again, after the Da Vinci Code, shows his ability to the steal the scene. But New Line Cinema are showing that the return of Peter Jackson to direct their fantasy films could not be soon enough.

Review: Extras (BBC)

2007-12-29T18:46:00.000+01:00

About twenty minutes into the Christmas special of extras, Andy Milman (Ricky Gervaise) encounters George Michael (himself) on a park bench, taking a break from service to cruise the heath. After a few minutes, George leaves and Andy is accosted by a paparazo looking for George. This incident takes approximately five minutes and is not referred to at all in the rest of the hour and a half episode. So what was the point of the scene? Take your pick

1) To show that George Michael is gay and likes cruising Hampstead Heath (which we all knew)
2) To show that celebrities sometimes behave a little badly (which is hardly news after watching the last two series of Extras).
3) To show that Ricky Gervaise and George Michael are really great mates and don't mind sending each other up.

Obviously the answer is not 3, because that would totally contradict the supposed message of this programme; that we all too obsessed with the lives of celebrities.

Later on, Clive Owen (himself) insults Maggie (Ashley Jensen) in a scene where she is supposed to be a prostitute and Clive Owen does not think she is quite up to the standard of prostitute that a butch fella like himself would chose. Just a suggestion, but wouldn't it have been a whole lot funnier to swapped around the Clive Owen and George Michael parts; have the alpha male Clive Owen secretely cruising while have George Michael deluding himself as to his perceived heterosexuality. Or are our friendly celebrities not that much up for having a laugh.

Extras has always struck me as a strange beast. The Office is, of course a work of sublime genius as everyone but the willfully deluded would agree. Extras, on the other hand, seemed to rely on two jokes, 1) Big name celebrities are willing to send themselves up and 2) Andy & Maggie sometimes say and do embarrasing things. This lack of focus meant that the series veered from stylistic extremes, from broad farce to painful honesty but did at least produce some occasional moments of sublime comedy (However, in the first series, it is noticeable that the celeb giving the most self-immolating performance was the B-list Les Dennis while the biggest Celeb, Samuel L Jackson was treated with kid gloves by the clear besotted Gervaise). Extras - the finale, seemed to highlight all the contradictions about the series

We are, for example, treated to some clips of Millman's painfully dumbed-down sitcom When The Whistle Blows. But is the scene where Andy attempts to impress a journalist by pretending to have Ridley Scott ring them really any less contrived than anything in that sitcom? And would Maggie, ill-educated as she is, really call the director Wrigley Scott? (After all those years as an extra?).

Much has been made of the end speech, where Andy breaks down on Big Brother and launches into a diatribe against Big Brother and an obsession with celebrirty culture. But, and this is the big problem with Extras, most of the jokes depend entirely this knowledge of celebrity culture; Andy Millman threatening to punch a chef only works if we know that this chef is the celeb Gordon Ramsay.

And there is a sense in which Gervaise and co-writer Stephen Marchant have spent too long emersed in this celebrity culture. The Office was, after all, at its best informed by the knowledge of the life of the ordinary working person and never invited us once to mock this life. However, in Extras; the downfall of Maggie is shown by the fact that she has, horror of horror, to live in a flat with a fold down bed (she is shown as most distressed by the fact that she'd have to move her table about).

Which is not to say that there were no moments of hilarity in Extras; for example the idea of a Carphone Warehouse staffed entirely by former Eastenders cast members and Andy's agent having to put binders in the window to avoid a stream of highly inventive insults being thrown at him. But this scenes seemed almost to belong in a different programme.

Perhaps Gervaise and Merchant need to abandon both their munch vaunted 'comic integrity' and celebrity friends, stop trying so damned hard to 'make a point' and get back to the comedy.

Now the Nativity Story is Banned! (to avoid offending Muslims!)

2007-12-22T13:30:00.000+01:00

Bishop debunks Christmas Story

The Nativity Story has been REMOVED from a new book on the life of Jesus. Called "The New Testament", this book sturdiously avoids all mention of the Nativity story in order to avoid offending those of other faiths, according to some nutter.

Said MP Ivor Chiponmesholder "For the co-writers of the so-called "New Testament" to ignore our christian heritage and not mention the Nativity Story is Political Correctness gone mad."

Of the co-writers of the New Testament, both St Mark and St John make no mention whatsoever of the nativity story at all. And while St Matthew does mention something about 'wise man' he does not say how many there were or make any mention of them being Kings. And St Luke refuses to use the traditional 'midwinter' setting for the Nativity, instead changing the location of the birth of Jesus to the Middle East.

St Matthew, St Mark and St Luke where unavailable for comment, however St John spake thusly "Let no man add or subtract from these stories. And if you work for the Daily Mail, you're buggered mate".

Birmingham City Council renamed Christmas 'Winterval' five years ago.

Best. Ebay item. Ever!

2007-12-19T21:59:00.000+01:00

Drive someone mad with postcards

Where was Jesus born? 3 in 3 academics don't know.

2007-12-08T14:24:00.000+01:00

Daily Mail

A shock report has shown alarming levels of ignorance about the birthplace of Jesus in academics and theologian. According to one leading bible scholar "While both the gospels of Matthew and Luke do indeed portray the birth of Jesus; there are such wide contradictions between the stories and implausibilities that neither of them can be fully relied on to give factual biographical data as to the birthplace of Jesus; therefore on the available evidence, we have to say that we cannot say, with any accuracy, where Jesus was born"

Top Tory, Mark Pritchard, has blamed this on "Political Correctness" or something.

In further Christmas news, Birmingham City Council is under fire for renaming Christmas "Winterval" nine years ago. Said Top Tory Mark Pritchard "For Birmingham City Council to do something nine years ago is a shocking example of the way things are now.". Meanwhile Jack Straw commented "I think that Birmingham City Council should seriously reconsider this thing they did nine years ago and never repeated". Muslim & Jewish groups have also united to condemn the thing done nine years ago and never repeated as absurd. Said Rabbi Lionel Blue "Jews are not offended by the celebration of Christmas and therefore this decision, taken about nine years ago and not repeated, should not taken. Which it hasn't. But if it has then it shouldn't be. Which it isn't. Anyway, this reminds of an amusing story"

Speaking exclusively to the Cavy, a clearly very bored spokesman for Birmingham City Council said "Yeah! Yeah! We've banned the world Christmas and you can only say Winterval. And there's ten years of hard labour in a reeducation camp in Siberia if you wear a silly paper hat out of a cracker. Now fuck off!"

"Gasps as hacks manfully avoid temptation to use "Bigmouth Strikes Again" in Headlines!|

2007-12-02T17:03:00.000+01:00

However times change, there are some events that are guaranteed to happen every decade. For example, "Jeffrey Archer in new Scandal", "Unchained Melodies becomes No 1" and now "Morrisey says/does something vaguely controversial in respects to race"

Whether the Mozza (as us hip young trendy folk know him) was being racist when he said ""England's been thrown away" and "These days you won't hear a British accent in Knightsbridge" " is a different topic of discussion (I'll only comment on how bizarre it is from the son of Irish immigrants who has spent the last seven years of his life in Italy & Los Angeles); what I find most interesting and bizarre is the wave of outrage, not at Morrisey's comments, but at the fact that someone is actually daring to criticise Morrisey for his comments.

People talk a lot about PC (which, if it hadn't have existed would have had to have been invented, else Richard Littlejohn would have been out of a job long ago) but we seem to have a particularly insidious form of PC, perhaps Post Political Correctness (PPC?) in which one is quite free to say "Gor blimey, this place is a bit full of Darkies" and indeed be hailed a hero of free speaking and common sense for doing so, but criticising anyone who says "Gor blimey, this place is a bit full of Darkies" will have you tagged as a humourless oppressive PC bigot who should realise that we all have the right to Free Speech and damn well shut up.

Over at the Guardian talk board there are a number of comments to the effect of "what's wrong with Morrisey, he's only saying what we all think, give the poor pop star a break guv". But, as far as I can see, no-one has attempted to imprison Morrisey, censor him or threaten him with 500 lashes for calling his china doll "Buddha" or whatever. On the contrary, it is the heroically outspoken, fearless proponent of Voltaire's "Sir, I may not agree with you etc.", who is suing the NME for, er, reporting his words accurately.

Compare this with the famous David Irving V Deborah Lipstadt "holocaust denial" trial where certain commentators worried about the implications for free speech if David Irving was not allowed to present his views. Journalist Peter Millar said "It would be sad if we allowed Political Correctness to condemn Irving for thinking (or even saying) the unsayable" whist other commentators praised David Irving for 'defying taboos'. Yet it was David Irving himself who was trying to suppress free speech by suing Deborah Lipstadt

In his book "Bad Thoughts" Jamie Whyte demolishes the idea that one "has a right to one's opinion". Not that one does not have the right to speak a particular thought but that speaking that opinion means that 1) One is right or 2) One cannot be challenged.

If I say I think the war in Iraq is right, and someone argues about the loss of life in Iraq, I cannot retreat huffily and say "I've got the right to my opinion" since this is essentially meaning. If I have the right to my opinion, so does my opponent.

No I never.........

2007-11-28T22:58:00.000+01:00

No look, I was never near Providence on 6th September 2007 at all officer, so this is definitely not me. .

(Typical, perhaps the one other person in the world who shares my name and he goes and does something like that.)

I'm Scared!

2007-11-13T21:43:00.000+01:00

"Nearly 150 years ago, the Austrian abassador in London complained to Sir George Grey, the Home Secretary, that Karl Marx and other members of the Communist League were discussing 'the murder of princes'. By way of reply, Grey treated the ambassador to a rather lofty lecture on the nature of liberal democracy: 'Under our laws, mere discussion of regicide, so long as it does not concern the Queen of England, and so long there is no definite plan, does not constitute sufficient grounds for the arrest of the conspirators"

Francis Wheen, Hoo-Hahs and Passing Frenzies

I'm very scared at the moment.
Britain has just had its first woman convicted under new anti-terrorist laws and the first to be tried is 23 year old Sarmina Malik found guilty of "possessing material likely to be of use to terrorism". What worries me is that the material doesn't consists of guns, semtex, ricin or large bombs with visible fizzing fuses and "bomb" written on in white stenciling, but books. Yes, books. One of which, 'The Al Qaeda Manual" I have, as a service to bloggers, sourced to an extremist web-site operating in America which also sells vile anti-semitic propaganda, racist films praising the Ku Klux Klan and and music which has been described as 'the wailing of heretics as they are tortured in the pit of hell" . It's not likely it's particularly difficult to get hold of this material for any aspiring suicide bomber with a credit card, so I can't particularly see how Sarmina was aiding any terrorist groups in possessing this material. There is no indication that she was a member of any terrorist group, or planning any terrorist activities; instead the evidence just points to her being a damaged unhappy young girl who took refuge in materials depicting violence; no difference from your average teenager who plays Final Fantasy or Dungeon & Dragons.

But the trial is suggesting that possession of the materials itself is a crime. Of course, the Mujhadeen Poisoner's handbook isn't a book I'd particular want my wife or servants reading, nevertheless I believe it is intensely worrying that we have started prosecuting people on what reading materials they posess.

As far as I can see, the materials haven't incited Sarmina to do anything she wasn't already thinking about doing already. Nor does it appear (unlike the case with child pornography and snuff films) that any actual crime has been committed in the production of this material. Quite simply, it appears that it is the mere possession of material that people find offensive is enough.

We have seen this week, Ken Livingstone calling for the extension of race laws to cover sexual orientation. . We have already had proposals to outlaw attacking religions. Last year, we saw threats to make flag burning illegal. . And we have had the proposal to criminalise violent pornography, even if it is only a computer simulation of violence and no animals were harmed. .

We seem to have travelled a long way from the days of Karl Marx when mere thoughts could not be criminalised

Lest We Forget

2007-11-12T21:08:00.000+01:00

Dulce Et Decorum Est

By Wilfred Owen

Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,
Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,
Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs
And towards our distant rest began to trudge.
Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots
But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind;
Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots
Of disappointed shells that dropped behind.

GAS! Gas! Quick, boys!-- An ecstasy of fumbling,
Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time;
But someone still was yelling out and stumbling
And floundering like a man in fire or lime.--
Dim, through the misty panes and thick green light
As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.

In all my dreams, before my helpless sight,
He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.

If in some smothering dreams you too could pace
Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil's sick of sin;
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,--
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori.

Top Ten Reasons Why Call Centre Workers Would Want To Shove The Phone Up The Customer's Arse

2007-11-06T20:49:00.000+01:00

Taken from the Facebook site of the same name

Thanks everyone

10. "I was working at NTL. I had a call from a gentleman who said NTL was racist. I asked why and he said because his email address was different from everyone elses. I asked how and he said it had his name before the @ but no one else did. He was very angry.

Explained I could arrange for him to have everyone elses' mail if he chose, but I thought it could be better to have email that was meant for him. I'm still not sure he was entirely convinced."

9. “Me: welcome to powergen can i take your acount number please
customer: 012345765
me: i am sorry i cant find you on the system
customer: Oh I know im supplied by British Gas but their number isnt free like yours is!!!!”

8. "That would have to be when I was working for a finance company and we sent out leaflets in the shape of cheques encouraging ppl to take out loans with us.
One guy rang up and got through to me saying "You sent me this cheque for £500 in the post but the bank won't cash it"

7. . Mr X - Im F**king sick of your company my f**king phone isnt working, the screen is lit up but with nothing on it.

Me - Is it switched on???

Mr X - Of course its f**king switched on im not a f**king idiot

Me - do you have it plugged into your charger?

Mr X - Yes

Me - Unplug it from the charger

Mr X - Ok, there is nothing on the screen now

Me - Switch the ON button at the top

Mr X - Oh its working now!!!

6. "Me - How can i help

Customer - Well i've just switch on my computer and its come to this blue screen that say "Administrator" and "Katie"

Me - Okay and what seems to be the problem there?

Customer - Well..... they're not my name...

Me - That's fine, could you just try clicking on Administrator.

Customer - Oh yay its working now."

5. "Until you work in a call centre you cannot appreciate how stupid people actually are, I worked at a well known credit card company and recently a woman rang up.....

Woman : Can I ask you a question?
Me : Of course you can madam
Woman : At the moment I owe you £3000 and am paying it back at £50 per month, if I pay £100 per month will I pay it off any quicker?
Me : Yes in half the time
Woman : Thats great thanks for your help........"

4. Me: thank you for calling ** can I take the number you need help with?
Caller: gives name & address
Me: Please may I take the number
Caller: gives number
Me: thankyou, how may I help today?
Caller: I am going on holiday, if I take my phone and plug it in at my neighbours house, will they get my calls?
Me: Speechless, nuff said!

3. I work for a Holiday Company....
The Classic:

Customer"I want to book Car parking."

Me "what dates are you travelling, sir?"

Customer" Im not telling you that."

Me"Err, sorry - I need that infomation to book it for you."

Customer "Well im not going to tell you when I am away, you will know my house is empty."

2. Ok, heres a good one, 'which day of the month would you like your direct debit to leave your account' ? customer: on a tuesday

And my all time favourite

1. Me: 'Me: 'Madam, do you have a pen handy so you can take a note of this number?'
Customer: 'I've only got a red one, does it matter?'adam, do you have a pen handy so you can take a note of this number?'
Customer: 'I've only got a red one, does it matter?'

Only 50 days till the unspecified demonational/secular festival of your choice

2007-11-04T13:29:00.000+01:00

Don't stories about the cancelling of Christmas get earlier this year. Last year, we had the hurricane-in-an-espresso-mug over the fact that a school somewhere had thought about (but didn't go ahead with) serving Halal meat at a school. This year, we have the Shock Horror story in the Daily Mail that Christmas is to be down-graded in favour of other religious festivals.

Of course, being the Daily Mail, the story is a load of complete bollocks from start to finish. For a start, it is based on a leaked copy of a draft report rather than being based on government. And for a finish, nowhere in the text of the article is the headline supported. The actual quote from the article is "If we are going to continue as a nation to mark Christmas - and it would be very hard to expunge it from our national life even if we wanted to - then public organisations should mark other religious festivals too.". The report instead seems to be suggesting, rather half-heartedly, that as the United Kingdom is no longer a particularly Christian nation, the nation should no longer be organised around solely Christian lines and there should be an end to such anachronisms as Church of England Bishops being given seats in the House of Lords. But not once in the report quoted by the Daily Mail is there even the slightest smidgen of the tiniest hint of the notion of down-grading even mentioned, in fact the total opposite is said.

Which is not to say that the notion that other religious festivals should be given equal precedence with Christianity is not utter balls. For Christmas, by tradition, has become so divorced from its Christian origins, that it is the perfect secular festival. The Christian origins are still there of course for those who want them, but for the vast secular or non-christian majority of the population, Christmas is a richly deserved excuse for over-indulgence, with the fact that it is based on the birth of a particular religious figure simply one of those interesting bits of historical trivia (as interesting and as irrelevant as the fact that the word Salary derives from Salt Money). Christmas is, unlike Diwali, Hannukah or Ramadan, whatever you want it to be.

Happy Winterval.

Review - Control

2007-10-21T14:23:00.000+02:00

Control

On May 18, 1980, Ian Kevin Curtis, lead singer of the band Joy Divison, took his own life.

I have to confess that, despite often being compared to Ian Curtis myself (in looks that is, not aristic talent), I'm not incredibly familiar with his life story and therefore have no way of judging the veracity of this film. Nevertheless, judging from the bare facts the film portrays, the motive for Curtis's suicide remains a mystery. Certainly, he seems to have had no particular family traumas and for most of his life, he had the support of his wife. A brilliant scene early in the film shows a desolate Ian Curtis with hate embroidered on his jacket, slouching towards the job centre, only for our assumption to be overturned in the very next scene which shows Ian attempting to find employment for a young down's syndrome boy. Joy Divison are shown to have signed one of the most advantageous contracts in show business history (the famous Tony Wilson/Factory contract with 50/50 profit splits, all rights to the work being owned by the artists and the artists being able to leave when they like) and although Ian Curtis is shown as being unfaithful leading to marriage difficulties; quite frankly if sexual incontinence was to lead to suicide, the rock world would be left with just Cliff Richard. All of this makes Ian Curtis seem similar to that other famed doomed youth of the 70s music scene, Nick Drake.

But it is the triumph of Anton Corbijn film that this question only occured to me after leaving the cinema; for the film brilliantly placed me in the centre of Ian Curtis's mind for two hours. Unlike Michael Winterbottom's thematically similar 24 Hour Party People (which came across as a film about how clever a director Michael Winterbottom is, and only incidentally about the Manchester music scene), Control manages to convey a real taste for what it was like to live in Macclesfield in the 70s and why music was such an important escape for the young Ian Curtis (you can actually taste the chip butties). But the best aspect of the film is how it suggests that Ian Curtis's tragedy was to spend most of his time inside his head, which, for an epileptic, is not the best place to spend a lifetime.

For much of the film, Ian barely communicates with anyone. The first shots are of him alone in his bedroom, absorbed in a Bowie recording (tellingly, not the triumph glam of Ziggy Stardust, but the far more fractured schizophrenic glam of Aladdin Sane) and by not resorting to any artificially cinematic ageing (and keeping the same lighting scheme throughout the film), Corbijn is able to suggest that Curtis never really grew out of the sullen adolescent phase. His relationship with Deborah is suggested by a series of one liners from Curtis ("let's get married", "let's have a baby"), after which he barely says another line to her; which makes the moment when he finally snaps and yell at her "get out of the house" more chilling than any of the domestic violence scenes in What's Love Got To Do With It? But when Ian is forced into chosing between Deborah and Annike, the sheer distress in his life at being unable to deal with a situation of his own making is as palpable as his sheer distress as being unable to cope with his epileptic fits..

Sam Riley gives a compelling central performance and perhaps a fault of the structure of the film is that, other than Deborah, the other characters (through no fault of the actors) come across as mere background. The exception to this is Toby Kebell's surprisingly rounded portrayal of Joy Divison manager Rob Gretton who, despite a constant hail of expletives ("Where's my £20?" "In my fuck off pocket!") comes across as being genuinely protective of Ian, particularly in a scene where Ian is unable to even venture onto the stage.

Essential viewing if you want to watch Love tearing us apart again.

I'm back (and to prove it I'm here).

2007-10-20T17:09:00.000+02:00

Okay, I know this site isn't quite in the league of the Drudge Report, but I do have a few readers, well one or two, okay one, who seem to be interested in what I have to say, so I am pleased to say that after threatening British Telecom upon pain of pain; I have finally managed to get them to deliver good on their promise to hook me up to Broadband. So once against governments will quake as I slay the mighty with my wit (and don't think you can stop me by trying to redirect the van with my router in, didn't have the flat number my arse).

And as to what I've been doing in the last few months?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALd6pkOXg8k

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gcj38pWjAqg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inF-NlyR9is

Thank you for your interest in Notes from a Small Cavy

2007-09-15T12:50:00.001+02:00

Unfortunately, this blog is down at the moment. However, your click is important to us and we will get back to you as soon as possible. For more information, please refer to Nicholas James Mazonowicz on Facebook.

Government faces more protests from Muslim group

2007-06-22T18:07:00.000+02:00

The government was today accused of inciting muslim groups by not doing anything to incite muslim groups yesterday.

Said the head of the National Council for Finding Things To Be Outraged By "Yesterday's decision by the government not to invade anywhere, publish anything or award any honour to any writer who may have said something a bit naughty in the past, or do anything else that might incite Muslims to riot was a calculated slap in the face to the Muslim community, especially those bits of it who've already forked out on effigys, wood and petrol."

Government condemned in new Salman Rushdie 'Satanic Verses' Storm

2007-06-20T18:14:00.000+02:00

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6769671.stm

The government has been roundly condemned by Muslim groups and the Pakistan government, following the decision by Mr Derek McDerekson of 3 the Reddings, Droitwich to read a copy of the Satanic Verses he's had lying around for ages but never got round to looking at until now.

Said the Pakistan religious affairs minister "For Mr McDerekson to commit such an act is a calculated insult to Muslims around the world and quite frankly being blown up by a suicide bomber is too good for him"

Meanwhile the chairmam of the all-party group on Finding New Things To Be Insulted By, Stewart Jackson MP, said that "while we all freedom of speech, it should not extend so far as what people are allowed to read. I feel that Mr McDerekson should have exercised some restraint in chosing his reading matter before making such a move which may graituously offend our allies in the war against terror who may now end up blowing us up. I hear that Dan Brown's quite good."

Yesterday Derek McDerekson defended his actions. "My son got me it as a present five years ago. I've only read the first page, it's about two geezers falling out of an airplane innit?"

Earlier this weeks, Muslim groups gathered to protest against the recent knighthood of Salman Rushdie. Bearing banners saying "Midnight's Children was overrated", "Isabel Allende does the whole magic realism bit better frankly" and "Wot no award for Julian Barnes?", they burnt effigies of Margaret Drabble for no apparent reason.

Pie & Ham's Off I'm Afraid

2007-06-18T18:00:00.000+02:00

Okay, it's not like there's not a lot going on that is worthy of blogging but

1) I've recently (well in the last six weeks) moved and so don't have internet access at home anymore.
2) I've also bought a new computer, a shiny IMAC, and so have been messing around with garageband, imovie and all the other new shiny features. Which makes it a pity that I don't have internet access, else I could wow you with my production skills which would make Spector & Spielberg slice their hearts out in fustration.
3) However, I recognise that I once had a loyal audience (all two of you) that I should try and recover. I also notice that the equivalent of the flyposters on an empty building have moved in. So I shall try and resume at least partial service until full internet access is restored and then you'll all be sorry.

Thanks for your patience.

I will be back soon

2007-05-23T18:05:00.000+02:00

Promise

Absolutely Everything in the Entire World is Cure For/Cause Of Cancer

2007-04-10T20:41:00.000+02:00

And don't get me started on the diets either http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=447651&in_page_id=1770&ct=5

So, wouldn't it be funny if everyone was to suddenly turn round sue the Daily Mail for their promotion of their weekly New Miracle Diet

The Truth Must Be Told!

2007-04-04T19:30:00.000+02:00

http://www.debunking911.com/questions.htm

The God Delusion - A Review.

2007-03-31T13:31:00.000+02:00

Let me state from the first that I agree totally with Dawkins’ conclusion that there is no God. But I would also agree totally with the conclusion of a man who said that “All cats bark, an Alsatian is a cat, therefore an Alsatian barks” while simultaneously agreeing that the man is a raving nutcase. Such is the feeling I get from reading The God Delusion.

The God Delusion follows the following argument.

1) God doesn’t exist and all arguments to prove otherwise are wrong, as I’ve been clever enough to notice.
2) Theists say that God must exist because if he didn’t, who created the universe? However, if we follow this argument, then we need to ask who created God? There, betcha never thought of that one before.
3) Anyone, God almost certainly doesn’t exist, because he’s improbable.
4) Have I mentioned yet that I was a good friend of Douglas Adams?
5) So, if God doesn’t exist (as he obviously doesn’t, see points 1,2 & 3); why do people believe in God. Because of memes, stupid (no I can’t prove memes exist or explain what they are).
6) Oh, but come on Richard, you may say, what about all those nice little old ladies who go to church on a Sunday, give money to charity, and look after their dear grandchildren? You can’t be having a go at them surely? Yes I am, cos they’re being very silly believing in God who doesn’t exist (see points 1,2,3 & 4 above) and if people go round believing in God who doesn’t exist, then they’re making the world safe for people who go round blowing things above and believe in silly things like the resurrection and not nice things like Memes and other things I write about.
7) And don’t start bringing your children up religious neither cos that’s like child abuse and worse than buggery even.
8) Can I just mention again that I was a good friend of Douglas Adams.

Of course the above is ridiculously biased, ad hominem abuse that severely misrepresents what the book is about; but in my defence, Mr Dawkins started it.

The main trouble with The God Delusion is that Richard Dawkins is so determined to show that religion is not only a) wrong but b) actively harmful that he abandons all the qualities of rigorous analysis, rational thinking and even good writing that first got him attention. The main thesis of his book is summed up by two statements “God...would have to be highly improbable in the very same statistical sense as the entities he is supposed to explain” and “Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you’d have good people doing good things and evil people doing things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion”. Both of these statements are fundamental to Richard Dawkins; but both of these statements are made as bold assertions with absolutely no factual basis.

To take the first statement, what does it actually mean for something to be “improbable”? It is highly improbable for any one individual to win the lottery, yet someone wins the lottery every week. My own birth is particularly improbable, necessitating that certain political events took place in Ireland, Poland and Germany in exactly one way and culminating in one woman sitting behind another at a certain nightclub in Liverpool on a certain night. I don’t quite know what the chances of all these events occurring are; but the fact is, here I am to annoy you all. So maybe God is improbable, this doesn’t necessarily mean that he doesn’t exist. Given that elsewhere in his book, and in The Blind Watchmaker, Dawkins answer the problem of the improbability of life spontaneously evolving by saying
“It has been estimated that there are between 1 billion and 30 billion planets in our galaxy and about 100 billion galaxies in the universe..... Suppose the origin of life, the spontaneous arising of something equivalent to DNA, really was a quite staggeringly improbable event. Suppose it was so improbable as to occur on only one in a billion planets....even with such absurdly long odds, life will still have arisen on a billion planets.”
So yes, there are an almost infinite number of planets to give more of a chance for life to spontaneously appear. But why not use the same reasoning to give an infinite time for God to spontaneously appear? Because “it is a dreadful exhibition of self-indulgent, thought-denying sky-hookery?” Why? Why is it so Richard? Please tell me. Yes, it’s silly to say that we need to God to explain where the universe came from because that leaves us having to explain where God came from. But why is it wrong to stop at God, rather than stop just at the spontaneous creation of the universe? Dawkins give us no clear answer other than God is somehow too complex to exist. “a God who is capable of sending intelligible signals to millions of people simultaneously, and of receiving messages from them all simultaneously, cannot be...simple. Such bandwith!” But again, why couldn’t he be? Surely, the point about God if he exists is that he is different from physical matter and of another substance, therefore not bound by physical rules? As Terry Eagleton has pointed out; it’s like asking if Tony Blair is an octopus, why doesn’t he have eight arms?

But in fact, Dawkins devotes just under half his book to the epistemological problem. The rest of it is taken up with trying to prove that religion is mad, bad and dangerous to know. This is important for him to prove; after all, without it why be so hostile to religion? And certainly from the crusades, through the inquisitions to the killing of abortionists, a lot of evil has been practised in religion’s name. But is religion uniquely privileged in this sense? After all, neither of the two world wars of the last century could be in any sense said to be inspired by religion. The destructive Vietnam and Korean wars were based on competing economic systems. Germany, despite having large established Catholic and Protestant communities has managed to be politically stable, whilst the almost uniformly Catholic Belgium has nearly split over linguistic differences. The uniformly Catholic Spain faces constant terrorist threats from the Basque separatists who consider themselves separate through racial differences. So why is religion worse? Because, according to Dawkins, religion leads to labelling of children (“children are described as Catholic or Protestant”), segregated schools and taboos against marrying out. The idea that these are features unique to religion will be greeted with hollow laughs by anyone familiar with Apartheid South Africa and Alabama of the 1950s, so sorry Richard we’re still no closer to an answer. And if religion is such an evil, how is it that some of the worst atrocities in the last century were committed by atheists such as Stalin and Pol Pot (to be fair, the jury is out on Hitler’s beliefs). Dawkins tries to answer that question in the case of Stalin by saying that “Individual atheists may do evil things but they don’t do evil things in the name of atheism.”. But this is missing the point, which is not that Stalin’s atheism caused him to do evil things; but rather that having a country ruled over by an atheist and where religion was not encouraged but actively suppressed did not lead to any increase in the sum of human happiness.

Dawkin’s real beef with religion is that is based on faith and “faith is an evil precisely because it requires no justification, and brooks no argument”. This leads to people unquestioningly following leaders and committing evil acts. But wait a minute, doesn’t Dawkins spend the first part of his book dealing with arguments put forward for the existence of God? If faith requires no justification, what precisely were St Anselm, Thomas Aquinas & Blaise Pascal doing when they tried to prove their belief in God with mathematical proofs. What indeed are the modern day scientists that Dawkins argues with over the existence of God trying to do but argue about and justify their faith? And in any case; the idea that blind faith exists solely within religion was proved nonsense by Stanley Milgram in his famous experiment. The experiment, in which ordinary people were prepared to administer lethal voltages of electricity to their fellows because a scientist said it was okay, shows clearly how much we will obey authority figures under certain circumstances. Does the fact that it was a supposed scientist giving the orders undermine science? What about the Social Darwinism undermining Hitler, which Dawkins himself shows is not an aberration but a natural development from the writings of T H Huxley and H G Wells on ‘inferior races’? Does this show that Darwinism is evil? No of course not, the Nazi ideology was “an insane and unscientific eugenics theory” according to Dawkins. So that’s all right, evil may have been done in the name of science; but it was bad science or unscientific or by people who misunderstood science. Yet this is exactly the sort of reasoning that Dawkin’s criticises when people say that the bad things done in the name of religion were based on misunderstandings of religion. So it turns out that the earlier statement “Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you’d have good people doing good things and evil people doing things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion” is just that, a statement.

If the book was well written or well researched I could accept the faults. But it is neither, and at times, it is downright sloppy. When Dawkins is discussing the above mentioned writings of H G Wells on eugenics, he says that “modern readers..literally gasp with horror when they see the words”. Do they really Richard? Have you done experiments with what noises modern readers make when they read H G Wells. Or is it that neither Richard nor his publisher literally do not understand what ‘literally’ literally means. Writing about the New Testament, Dawkins says that “much of what the four canonical gospels share is derived from a common source, either Mark’s gospel or a lost work of which Mark is the earliest extant descendent” which suggests that for his research, Dawkin’s merely flicked through a RE text book once. (Just for the record, orthodox scriptural research suggests that only Matthew, Mark and Luke share a common source; John is based on separate material.). Later on, writing about the new testament, Dawkins writes that “Christians seldom realise that much of the moral consideration for others which is apparently promoted by both the Old and the New Testament was originally intended to apply only to a narrowly defined in-group. ‘Love your neighbour’, didn’t mean what we now think it means. It meant only ‘Love another Jew.’ The point is devastatingly made by the American physician and evolutionary anthropologist John Hartnung.”. This suggests that when Dawkins skimmed the RE text book, he flicked past the bit about the Good Samaritan or Jesus healing the roman soldier’s manservant and passing a remark about faith being stronger in the gentiles. (And what is Dawkin’s doing asking a physician about the New Testament anyway; would he be prepared to take biology lessons from a theologian). Sloppy, Richard, sloppy.
I suppose I can see what is going on. Daily we hear people saying that religion should be treated with respect and we should not criticise people’s deeply held beliefs while the people with these deeply held beliefs blow up another tower block or underground station. I would agree that religious fanaticism needs to be fought against. The trouble is, if atheists are going to fight religious fanaticism, they need to do so with all the virtues they supposedly hold dear; rationalism, research, logic and close reasoning. In the God Delusion, Dawkin’s has abandoned all of these virtues.

Dave Keeley is a git

2007-03-26T19:34:00.000+02:00

"So did you enjoy it?" "Did it turn out like you expected?" "Are you pleased?" All questions, I've been asked over the past few days about my production of Closer.

Some people have compared directing to laying an egg; it's not actually fun until it's finished. I'd like to compare it instead to your first born's first day at school; no matter how much you clean his face, make his lunch, tie his shoelaces and tell him to be a good boy; once you send him through the school gates there's not a damn thing you can do.

I sat through the first night, fortified by a few swiftly downed whiskeys. I watched and the cast managed to get their lines in the right order and move roughly were we had decided. The stage crew managed to move the props and set with the minimum of noise. The lighting designer switched the lights own.l Beyond that I could no longer tell how good it was. Why, I screamed to myself, did I ask the cast to move there? Why did I ask them to say the line like that? Why did I cast Dave Keeley? Why is that bastard in the front row coughing? What's that woman whispering to her friend about? Why can't the ground swallow me up?

Well, I think people liked it. But then people are always nice about your first born. To your face at least. And the school reports were good. But other than that, I just don't know.

So that's amateur directing for you? Three months of stress followed by four days of agony. Am I doing it again? You bet

PS For those interested, Dave Keeley is a member of the cast who expressed his surprise that I hadn't put anything on the blog saying what a git he was. Dave, if you're watching, I hope you're satisfied.

Grim but absorbing - that's me!

2007-03-24T13:04:00.000+01:00

"Tough love doesn't come much tougher than in Patrick Marber's Closer....The bare simplicity of the format brings the best of the cast in the Deep End Theatre Company production of the play....It's not for those easily offended by the near-knuckle lanmguage but the dialogue is wholly appropriate to the subject matter and tone of a work that does not flinch in the face of its honesty. It might seem a bit grim but it is never less than absorbing"

From the Gloucestershire Echo

Closer is still on tonight if you want to catch it.

For those of you who arrived here via the IMDB Transformers board

2007-03-20T14:32:00.000+01:00

Yes, I am being totally serious. I am a thirty three year old unemployed virgin who sincerely believes that the original transformers was a work of high art and who spends all his days sending e-mails to Michael Bay.

The rest of you, just carry on as normal, I'll be back soon I promise.

If there's anyone still there.....

2007-03-06T01:35:00.000+01:00

1. Work has been, like, totally postal lately. I mean, like totally.
2. My play, Closer is going on in just under two weeks.
3. The combination of the above two facts means that when not frantically trying to process the rush of oncomming mortgages or get actors to do what I want, I am tending to collapse in a heap.
4. So, sorry for abandoning you all.
5. But anyway, once Closer is out of the way, I will be back, I promise you, with lots of new treats.
6. Honestly.
7. Take care loves.

Sevens Days That Shock the World

2007-01-22T21:03:00.000+01:00

Well that was close. Nuclear war with India narrowly avoided by the sterling efforts of those who rang in to a 'reality' show. Well done folks.

A lot of guff has been talked this week about whether or not Jade was racist. No of course not, Shilpa Poppadum was only used with the greatest of respect.

A lot more guff has been talked about how criticising Jade amounted to a kind of 'classism' and middle class distate for the proles. Note, Jade earned approximately £1m last year.

But what no-one seems to have talked about is the final debasement of celebrity. It's reached as low as you could possibly go when a celebrity is now defined not only just as someone who was once on Big Brother; but the relative of someone who was once on big brother. Guys, quite frankly we need to take stock. I know there are fifty gazillion channels that need filling, but as any economist will tell you, you don't make money by printing more notes.

So, in order to help, the Cavy has produced an eight step guide for all tv producers to adhere to.

1) A celebrity will, from now on be defined as someone who a) can either do something better than 90% of the population or b) have the idea of doing something in a new and surprising way.
2) The something in the above should be something that is either of benefit to humanity or at least not actively harmful to humanity (thus, while Harold Shipman was better at killing than a lot of people, he is disbarred from celebrity. Ditto for Neil Hamilton).
3) If in doubt, a producer should be expected to explain in one simple sentence the basis for someone's celebrity. If the producer uses a noun to describe the basis; (e.g actor, singer, guitarist, writer, model, footballer) than that person is a bona fide celebrity. If the producer has to use a gerundial phrase to describe it (e.g being on big brother, ripping of tax payers, receiving dodgy payments, going to prison) - that person is not a celebrity.
4) More programmes should be made showing celebrities doing that thing which forms the basis for their celebrity (e.g. David Beckham playing football, Jack Dee telling jokes, Bernie Clifton riding round 0n a fake ostrich). If, for some reason, it proves difficult or impossible to make a programme in which a person does the thing which forms the basis of their celebrity, this should be taken as a clue by the producer that maybe that person was not really deserving of the label celebrity.
5) Producers shall not, as a matter of course, commission two versions of a programme differed merely by the one title being prefixed with the word 'celebrity'.
6) 'Charity' is not in of itself a legitimate excuse for a programme.
7) It shall not be assumed that a situation is only made relevant once experienced by celebrities.
Celebrity "Andes Crash Where They Had to Resort To Cannibalism" or whatever that programme was, was not a good idea.
8) And finally a note to the Daily Mail; if you have made the front page of your paper, along with five pages inside a lament about how much attention is being paid to big brother, you better be being ironic.

Shock! Horror! Outrage!

2007-01-08T19:33:00.000+01:00

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=427114&in_page_id=1770&ico=Homepage&icl=TabModule&icc=NEWS&ct=5
In other news

Library to charge fines for 'overdue' books.

God Bothering

2007-01-06T14:36:00.000+01:00

I was planning to start the new year off by writing an in-depth and intelligent (stop giggling at the back) critique of Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion. One of my criticisms would be the oft mentioned opinion that his form of aggressive fundamentalist atheism does the secularist cause no good at all.
Unfortunately, I may have to revise my opinion after reading the below piece of tripe from the mentally deranged Tobias Jones1
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1984003,00.html

In it Tobias Jones attacks Richard Dawkins for his nasty comment on Nadia Eweida (of BA cross wearing scandal fame) "she had one of the most stupid faces I've ever seen". Yes, not a particularly nice, illuminating or even compelling argument but since Mr Jones himself calls atheists "unpleasant people" and "would-be tictators" who "want the eradication of religion, and all believers, from the face of the earth", I'm not sure he's the best person to start throwing stones.

Where is the evidence of the nastiest of these evil atheistic sorts? Me old mucker Toby can come up with only two examples; the afore-mentioned Dawkins quote and the following "Witness for example, Mary Riddell's astonishing sentence in the Observer last month (try replacing "religion" with "homosexuality" to get the point). "secularists do not wish to harm religion or deny its great cultural influence. They simply want it to know its place". I'm never sure that replacing one word with another word in an article proves anything; after all replace the word 'bracket' with 'jew' and the word 'attach' to 'put in a concentration camp' and the instructions for putting up a bookshelf become vile anti-semitic propaganda which proves nothing. However, let's follow Jonesies instructions "Secularists do not wish to harm homosexuality or deny its great cultural influence. They simply want it to know its place". Hardly Norman Tebbit and if homosexuals were constantly picketing funerals of straights with signs saying "God hates breeders", insisting that all court-rooms had pictures of Freddie Mercury, forcing all schools to attend morning showings of The Sound of Music and The Rocky Horror Show and denying straight couples the right to marriage, then the sentence would actually be reasonable and justified.

Tobias Jones goes on to say that "Christians feel particularly aggrieved because we believe that Jesus invented secularism...the secular was Christianity's gift to the world, denoting a public space in which authorities should be respected, but could be legitimately challenged". I hear hollow laughs here from Thomas More, Latimer and Ridley and various other martyrs exectued by a centralised religious authority.

Defenders of religion often criticise atheists for confusing Fundamentalism with the more tolerant followers of religion. Tobias Jones, in this article seems to make a similar mistake when he decides that all atheists are also postmodernists and cultural relativists.

So what is Tobias Jones beef? In the end, it seems to be that militant atheists are speaking out, being abusive, making a loud noise and generally putting forward their views in a strident manner. Well tough titty to you; it's what atheists have had to put up with for the last thousand years2

1 Ad Hominem? Yes but religion started it. (The Fool has said in his heart that there is no God).
2 Although even Richard Dawkins has not yet proposed pulling certain limbs of The Archbishop of Canterbury,

Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of the party

2007-01-04T18:56:00.000+01:00

How often have you been stopped in the street by the cry of "sign this petition"? How often have people knocked on your door to get you to sign a petition? Never? Well read on.

The problem with petitions is of course they are utterly bloody useless. How many people are really going to change their minds, policy etc just because a few people have scribbled their names on a piece of paper. Even worse, what happens when, on the same day, the same person gets both the league against sport's anti-fox hunting petition and the Countryside Alliance's pro-fox hunting petition on the same day.

Which is, Notes From A Small Cavy is proud to present the first petition that is guaranteed not to have any effect. No need to worry about whether or not it will make any difference, the not making any difference is written in to the petition. So, go ahead and sign my petition, knowing full well that by signing this petition, you have done your best to ensure that things remain exactly as they are.

Sign my petition.

Happy New Year!

2007-01-02T21:39:00.000+01:00

And welcome to Mystic Nick's predictions for the future.

January - Humanitarian groups warn of danger of 'poetry'.

Humanitarian groups working in Iraq have warned that the worsening situation in Iraq has led to an increased risk of awful poetry from Harold Pinter. Said aid worker Martha Pindish "The Gulf War of 1990 had many deadly and lingering effects, none more so than the terror of Harold Pinter's 'American Football'. Even today, many coffee shops are uninhabitable because of it." Also speaking today, Eric Daniel Voniken of the Red Cross said today "war has many casualties; none more tragic than the transformation of an intelligent and ground breaking playwright into a ranting poet". Speaking to reporters, Harold Pinter himself said "They fucking did it, they fucking blew the shit up our arses and out again" before looking suitably embarrased.

February - Chris Morris gives up.

Satirist and Media Terrorist, Chris Morris has announced that there's no point in continuing. "I thought that my Brass Eye Paedophile Special was the ultimate in bad taste, but when a tv company broadcasts a rape trial with a 'celebrity' jury including Jeffrey Archer and is apparently serious, I don't think there's anywhere else for me to go." Chris Morris has announced that his next project will be about mismatched buddy flat sharing comedy.

March - Media build up and knock down celebrity in same day.

On March 16th the early editions of all of the papers feature exclusive interviews with the winner of Celebrity Big Brother, the model Celeste. "With her no-nonsense talk and refreshing down-to-earth persona; Celeste is a real personality in an age of fake celebs." By the afternoon, late editions of the same papers accuse her of being overhyped.

April - George W Bush defends 'reimagining of Iraq"

George W Bush has attacked critics of his remake of Iraq. "There is no point in redoing a classic country like Iraq", he announces "unless you add something different to the mix. Although my version of Iraq features many features of the classic Iraq (including theocracies, repression and the daily risk of death), my version adds a new spin in the lack of a central authority to prevent the break down into total civil war."

May - Peter Jackson releases wedding video.

Peter Jackson has announced he will be releasing videos of his wedding to Fran Walsh in two versions. One version will consist solely of the wedding while the extended edition will feature a director's commentary, extended footage of the honeymoon, the 'consumation scene' (cut from the theatrical release) and an interview with the chief Bridesmaid (Andy Serkis).

June - Media accidently knock down celebrity before building them up.

In an embarrasing misfire; the media attack pop singer Kerry Decourtney as talentless and overexposed before she actually records or releases an a record (or even does any interviews, press releases or photo shoots).

Only two days of 2006 and we already have a potential nominee for worst film of 2007

2006-12-30T17:25:00.000+01:00

Is there any chance that in any way, shape or form that this film will not suck more than a thing has ever sucked before?

Yes - it's The Eagerly Awaited Notes From A Small Cavy Awards - 2006

2006-12-21T17:22:00.000+01:00

The most eagerly awaited event in the Awards calender as we celebrate the best, worst and most average of 2006. But before the Random Female Celeb In the Black Strapless Dress steps forward to open the envelope, a quick word from our sponsors.

Thank you sponsors. And now, with trembling hand, the girl in the strapless dress opens our envelope (no, stop giggling at the back, that wasn't an innuendo).

Best Film of 2006 (worthy category): Munich
Best Film of 2006 (that we actually enjoyed): Casino Royale.
Best Film of 2006 featuring two of the three following elements; Snakes, Planes, Rhubarb: Snakes on A Plane! (Yeah!)
Worst of Film 2006: A close call between The Da Vinci Code and The Wicker Man, but after carefully considering the fact that Da Vinci Code was fairly enjoyably naff and based on a book that wasn't all that worthwhile to begin with while The Wicker Man took a massive dump on its source material AND featured Nic Cage beating up a twelve year old girl; the award goes to Neil La Bute's remake of The Wicker Man.
All-Rightest Film of 2006: The film which most demonstrated what could be done with a workmanlike script; competent directing and fair-to-middling acting (from Bruce Willis and Mos Def) was 16 Blocks.
Most Fatuous Piece of Film Criticism of 2006: This year, the award goes to The Bloke In The Toilets At Cineworld who said of the Da Vinci Code "I'm glad they didn't Americanise it too much" (Bearing in mind, this was a comment made about a film based on a book by an american writer, and was written by an american, directed by an american, featured an american lead played by an american actor and largely consisted of 2-d characterisation with massive amounts of gratuitous chase scenes and action which is generally what supercilious Brits mean by 'Americanise').
Gayest Film of 2006: Brokeback Mountain which was as a gay as a film about two Cowboys having sex.
Best TV Programme: A good year for television this year with House, That Webb & Mitchell Look ("Numberwang!"), some of Dr Who and half of Extras and Prime Suspect both jostling for attention, but the winner has to be (sound the trumpets) Life on Mars! Well done mon braves!
Worst TV Programme: The BBC's remake of Robin Hood had a lot of support from our judges; but in the end, our vote goes to That Episode Of Mastermind with The Git Who Thinks He Knows Everything About Inspector Morse on.
Best Album of 2006: The Guillemots - Through The Window Pane (and it won on merit; not because my friend goes out with the saxophone player).
Worst Album of 2006: Sandi Thom for Smile - It Confuses Them (which the judges didn't actually listen to but having been traumatised by 'I wish I was a Punk Rocker with Flowers In My Hair', who can blame them.
The 'Tasmin Archer - Sleeping Satellite' Award for 'Yeah alright, nice song but lets face it, getting straight in at number 1 with your first single means a life time of obscurity following this remembered only in the Top Ten One Hit Wonders Lists and Obscure Music Triva Questions"-est single of 2006 goes to: Lilly Allen for Smile (with honourable mentions to Gnarls Barkley for Crazy)
Most Overexposed Celebrity of 2006: Russell Brand (he went out with Osama Bin Laden and interviewed Kylie while dressed as Kate Moss. Or something).
Celebrity Who Most Typified the Way the Concept of Celebrity Is Now Vanishing Up Its Own Arsehole: Chantelle - now famous for being the only member of the Celebrity Big Brother house not to be famous. (Rumours that if she appears on the next edition of Celebrity Big Brother, the universe will actually collapse upon itself have not, as yet been confirmed).
Best Stage Performance of 2006: Nick Mazonowicz - The Agitator in Son of Man ("I liked Nick Mazonowicz's agitator, all shouting and arms waving")
Worst Stage Performance of 2006: Nick Mazonowicz - Marmion in Comic Potential ("His high pitched voice did nothing for me")
Best Blog of 2006: The always fascinating Andrew Rilstone
Worst Blog of 2006: The never fascinating or completed Cultured Cavy.

Congratulations and a golden handshake to the winners, commiserations and a golden shower to the losers. See you again next year.

A Christmas Story....Part II

2006-12-18T19:38:00.000+01:00

When suddenly Derek noticed the big Brown Gordon Pixie standing on a box. "Listen to me everybody", he was shouting "I believe in the rights of pixies to be pixies. I think it's very silly to ban the word pixie." (Note, although the big Brown Gordon Pixie wanted to be king of all the Pixies, obviously he wasn't trying to pretend to be the pixies friend so people would vote for him. No-one would be that naughty, would they boys and girls).
"But no-one's banning the word pixie", said Derek. "Who told you they were?"
"Er, the Peterhill pixie did! And he's my friend, he wouldn't lie to me" said the big Brown Gordon Pixie
"But how can the Peterhill pixie be your friend when he goes round telling everybody that if you become King, you'll take everybody's pixie gold away from them?" said Derek. "Why are you listening to him now?"
"Mind you, he's right" said an old grizzled Pixie next to Derek "I hate the way all these goblins, gnomes and elves come over here and tell us Pixies what we can do. We don't go over to the land of the goblins and expect them to conform to us do we?"
"Yes but Nigel" said Derek "Wasn't it you who was complaining that when you went on holiday to the land of the Goblins, not a single goblin spoke Pixie. And wasn't it you I saw last night in the goblin restaurant"
"And another thing, you can't even wear your Pixie hat anymore without some gnome complaining. But it's alright for them to wear their gnome boots" said another pixie
"Yeah ban Gnome Boots Now!" said the Peterhill fairy.
"And we've got to say Little Folks Festival instead of Pixie Party" said yet another Pixie who was wearing a big badge saying "Have a merry Pixie Party"
"Oh, you stupid sodding yellow rubbery buggering idiot" said Derek, finally losing his temper. He grabbed the pixie by his neck and started banging his head against the Pixie Tree "You see what I'm baning your head against. It's a sodding great pixie tree with the words Pixie Tree in big glowing magic letters and it's got ribbons on saying 'Have a merry Pixie Party' on it. And all the shops have got huge big signs saying "Have a happy pixie party' on them. And they're all playing Pixie Tunes. And every single bleedin' tv is announcing its Special Pixie Day Broadcasting. And in the face of all of this overwhelming evidence right in front of your eyes, you still say there's a war against 'Pixie Day' JUST BECAUSE THE SODDING PETERHILL pxiie SAYS SO! If the Peterhill pixie said it the big Brown Gordon Pixie was banning jumping in the fire, would you jump in the fire". Well Derek the Pixie ranted and raved and it took five of the strongest gnomes, pixies and goblins to restrain him. What a kerfufle.

Next day, all the pixies, gnomes and goblins were summoned to Father Christmas who was very cross with them. But he listened to every one and came up with a solution.

The Peterhill Pixie was allowed to say that they were banning the Pixie Party, and everyone was allowed to say it was a shame that they were banning the Pixie Party providing no-one really believed it.

And they all lived happily ever after.

The End.

A Christmas Story

2006-12-16T12:51:00.000+01:00

It was the week before Christmas and Derek the Pixie was visiting the factory where all the pixies, fairies, gnomes and goblins worked very hard at making toys for all the good little boys and girls. He was feeling very tired because he had been working so hard in the factory, but he was feeling very happy because he knew that all the good little children would be happy on Christmas day and also because the annual Pixie Party was only two days away.
However, all was not well in the factory. Tinkerbell the Pixie was wearing a big hat which kept flopping into the toys she was making and stopped her working so hard.
"Now, now Tinkerbell" said Derek. "You know you're not allowed to wear hats in Santa's Workshop"
"But it's my special Pixie hat" said Tinkerbell. "and I have the right to wear it"
"It keeps flopping on the toys though" said Derek "and you can see the signs saying no hats to be worn."
"But it's my special Pixie hat" said Tinkerbell again. "I wear it so everyone will know I'm a Pixie. You don't tell the gnomes to take their Gnome boots off"
"That's because the Gnome boots don't get caught in the toys" replied Derek
"Oh 'snot fair" said Tinkerbell in a huff. "I'm going to sulk".

Next day was walking through the town when he saw the Peterhill Pixie. (The Peterhill pixie was a very grumpy pixie who liked to stand in the Pixie town centre and moan about how the gnomes and goblins were stealing jobs off the pixies and how Titania, Queen of the Fairies, had been murdered by Puck because she was going to have Bottom's children). The Peterhill Pixie was shouting "Extra! Extra! Read all about it! Pixie Party banned"

"Oh No" said Derek the Pixie. "That's a shame". He went to talk to the Peterhill Pixie. "Is it true that they've banned the Pixie Party"
"Er!" said the Peterhill pixie stuttering. "Well it's still going ahead. But they've got to call it the Little Folks Festival to avoid offending any gnomes, goblins and fairies.
"Well that sounds a bit silly, but at least the party's going ahead. You worried me a little for a minute". And so saying, Derek went to the Town Hall to find who had renamed the pixie party.
"Oh god no!" said the big chief Pixie at the town hall. "Not this ridiculous Little Folks nonsense again! Look, eight years ago we had a lot of different parties for the gnomes, goblins, fairies and pixies and so we called them all Little Folks parties. But we had our Pixie Party, put up our Pixie decorations and sent everyone cards saying Have a Happy Pixie Party. But now everyone keeps saying we banned the word Pixie. It's all very silly."
"Well that sounds alright" said Derek the Pixie. "I should have known better than to listen to the silly old Peterhill fairy. Derek walked out into the town square when suddenly..........

(To be continued).

What You Won't Read In the Daily Mail, Daily Express, Sun etc.

2006-12-05T18:41:00.000+01:00

Christmas Not Cancelled Non-Shock!

Luton

Birmingham (Note big sign saying Christmas on front page).

And for last year's fun.

Hell Hath No Fury Like A Daily Mail Reader Scorned

2006-12-02T17:59:00.000+01:00

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=418819&in_page_id=1770&in_page_id=1770&expand=true#StartComments

"I think this so called Christian should be ashamed of herself...she has had her fifteen minutes of fame.Finally she has realised she doesn't want the continuing farce to threaten her workmates jobs...that's very Christian of her!"

Why oh why oh why?

2006-11-27T21:13:00.000+01:00

do I do it?

Is it just masochism; because I was ignored as a child or because I am, at heart, a strutting luvvie never happy unless he's poncing about like a tit. (Or more likely, all three).

Back in November of last year, I attended the formation of the new amateur theatre group Deep End Theatre Company. At the meeting, the launch production was announced as Dennis Potter's "Son of Man" and the director, Sean Mayo, said he was looking for a Production Secretary. I foolishly volunteered. Foolishly, as it turned, as the director was renowned for his incredibly detailed and painsticking approach to directing; even if you were just a minor jewish peasant you still had to know your name, family background and motivation. On the plus side; I got to grow a beard and rant at the beginning of the play before being killed. I have to say that the director's approach to the play was, in the end, incredibly succesful and resulted in us winning two GDA awards.

Following this, I went on to appear in Our Country's Good; a much easier play to do in that 1) I was not involved in the production side and 2) The only 'acting' I had to do for my character Robert Sideway was to pounce about like a tit. (I did worry about playing a real life character, however, I always worried about one of his australian descendents coming over and smashing me in the face with a bomerang shouting "You calling my great-great-great-great-grandfather a pooftah"1). After this, I went straight on to Alan Ayckbourn's Comic Potential; a play in which I was required merely to deliver my lines as dispasionately as possible (I was playing the 'voice' of another character who was too lazy to speak and so hired someone else to speak for him). I still attempted to steal the scene by having a very silly haircut.

So, three plays in a row spanning a year. You'd think, at this point, I'd give myself a break. But no, I am now directing Closer by Patrick Marber for March. So more work. But at least I don't have any lines to learn.

But after March, I'm stopping.

Honestly.

1 The australian shouting it that is, not the boomerang. But I'm sure a boomerang shouting it would be just as bad.

Gladly My Cross Eyed-Bear

2006-11-25T14:54:00.000+01:00

When I were but a wee nipper of 15 at school, we were gathered into assembly hall and given a rundown of the strict uniform code. "Now you are approaching adolescence" we were told "you'll be trying to test the system, see how far you can go". We were told in no uncertain terms about wearing a tie always, skirt lengths and seize of ear-rings for girls, length of hair for boys. We were informed that the uniform code was there for our good and woe betide anyone who didn't follow it.

Fast forward about fifteen years and I imagine about half of us are working in jobs where some sort of uniform code is in place. Fortunately, we have all grown out of our youthful rebelliousness and are quite happy to accord with whatever our employers have decided is fit. (In my case, since the uniform code for us back office staff is merely trousers and shirts, this is no particular problem).

Well most of us, except for young miss Nadia Eweida (aged 55) who, having been told off for wearing jewelry, has stamped her foot, yelled "snot fair. You're PICKING ON ME! You're not the king of me" and gone home in a huff with dark threats to tell mummy, daddy and Archbishop Rowan Williams".

To be fair, British Airways is the worlds biggest rip-off merchant, overpriced and overhyped and clearly inferior to Virgin whom they tried an extensive dirty tricks campaign against and quite frankly, the sooner they go bust the better. Allegedly.

However, their uniform policy is unambigious. No jewelry, other than rings, for front line staff. Simple. Clear. No jewelry. No crosses, stars of David, crescents or bleeding goat's heads.

So why, oh why, oh why does Archidiot Rowan Williams feel the need to weigh into the current fracas over the wearing of jewelry. He is quoted as saying "if the airline felt the cross was a source of offence, then he himself would find that 'deeply offensive'". Note, BA has never said the wearing of a cross is offensive; merely against uniform codes. Williams has also displayed his total cluelessness with his comment that "It is just perhaps worth noting with some irony that amongst the duty-free jewellery items for sale are some crosses". (I've also seen some alcoholic items for sale; that doesn't mean BA is hypocritical for not allowing its staff to come to work pissed).

The story has also been covered by the Daily Express who contrasted the case of a Christian being threatened with the sack for wearing a religious symbol with the case of Aishah Azmi who, er, was sacked for wearing a religious symbol and suggesting that somewhere in this can be discerned an anti-christian bias.

But my question is; would the great and the good leap to my defence if, in defiance of work regulations, I turned up to work in a short sleeved shirt and massive visible crucifix tatoo. Or maybe a slaughtered goat demonstrated my adherence to my faith of satanism (after all Rowan Willuiams said "People of any faith should have the right to display the signs of their faiths in public).

And perhaps Ms Eweida may want to read up St Pauls letter to the Corinthians "Though I speak with the tongues of men, and of angels; if I have not love I am but a sounding brass or tinkling cymbal"

Not guilty?

2006-11-10T18:38:00.000+01:00

But still a twat

Best. Letter. Ever.

2006-11-09T18:05:00.001+01:00

From the Local Rag.

"Dear Madam,
Mike Stephenson (Letters, November 2) asks readers to check their car lights are working as it is now dark in the evenings.
As another useful tip, may I advise readers to put their underwear on before their trousers when dressing.

Gary Hyett,
Cheltenham"

This man is now my god.

Amazing thing that just occured to me the other day!

2006-11-06T18:34:00.000+01:00

Kate Bush and George Bush have the same surname.

Yes, I know I knew it in a technical sense, but it was only the other day that the full realisation of this hit me. After all, one person is a particularly deranged menace to the planet who pretends to be a dumb-hick in order to disguise the fact that he really is a deranged menace to the planet, whilst the other is one of the most original and talented artists to exist in the pop milleu (even if her last album was a tiny bit naff).

Accepting the fact that two such disparate indiviuals share the surname surely requires the same conceptual leap that it took for Eddie Izzard to accept that bees make honey ("Honey is nice lovely food, bees are horrible buzzy things. It's like earwigs making chutney or spiders making gravy). It's rather like the Beatles being lead by John Hitler and Paul McPol Pot, or discovering that the dictator about to be educated in Iraq is really Saddam R R Tolkien.

Please don't tell me what George Orwell's real name is right now, I wouldn't cope.

2006-10-31T21:10:00.001+01:00

Official - The World's Greatest Newspaper has finally lost the plot.
Well not so much lost the plot as set out for a two hundred mile car journey, got half way before it realised that it had left the plot on the shelf at home; had a blazing row with Mrs Daily Express about whose responsibility it was to pack the plot and then decided that sod it, it didn't need the plot after all.

Charles and Camilla are visiting Pakistan. While in Pakistan, Camilla discovered that the scarf worn as part of the traditional Pakistan dress she was wearing got in the way of her poppy so, not wishing to offend her hosts, she took her poppy off, figuring (quite rightly) that as it was 12 days before Remembrance Sunday, it wasn't a big deal.

Which it isn't to most people except to the Daily Express who decided to call it "an insult to the estimated 400,000 muslim soldiers who fought in the second world war" and decided that the decision "sparked outrage amongst war veterans"

As ever, "outrage" in these sorts of stories translates to "after ringing round, we found one looney who agreed with us" - that looney being Mr John "looney" Clarke MBE who wittered on for most of the article, including a few speculations about what the gin-soaked old Queen Mother might hypothetically have done in this situation. Tellingly, no other old soldiers were quoted.

Even more tellingly however, the Royal British Legion said "While we are extremely grateful for the support shown to us by all those in the public eye who wear a poppy in the two weeks leading up to Rem-embrance Sunday, we see this as a voluntary gesture of support. We would never prescribe when and how any member of the public wears one." In other words, no it's not a scandal and an insult.

(BTW good to see the good old Daily Express mentioning the thousands of Muslims who died for Britain in the second world war. Hope they'll bear this in mind next time they rant about Muslims in Britain)

In other random offence taking news; director of random offence taking outfit Media Watch John Beyer has, this week, been mostly taking offence at an episode of South Park featuring dead Aussie naturalist Steve Irwin. Watching an episode of South Park and being offended seems rather like renting a porn film and then complaing about the smut so what John Beyer has basically done is brought to the attention of Steve Irwin's family a potentially offensive joke that they would otherwise have missed.

And aren't the random offense seeking Daily Express and John Beyer the first to complain about "Political Correctness"?

2006-10-31T21:10:00.000+01:00

News - Controversial New Richard Dawkins book is Best-Seller

2006-10-23T18:13:00.000+02:00

The controversial new book "The Richard Dawkins Delusion" has topped the charts for an impressive 40 days and 40 nights running.
The author, God, whose other works include Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus and the whole of creation said "I felt it was time to expose the myth of Richard Dawkins. Believing in a kindly gray haired bespectacled man on Channel 4 is all very well, but it is merely a myth with no backing."
"Besides", continued God, "the myth of Richard Dawkins is riven with inconsistencies. In one moment he's portrayed as being a kindly old scientist, in another he is an angry wrathful deity pouring down destruction on creationists and Stephen Jay Gould".

However, God's new bestseller has been strongly criticised by Dawkinists all over. Said Danny Dennett, "There may be no proof of Richard Dawkins, but that is exactly why we need to have faith. And The Selfish Gene is a Good Book which has given joy and solace to millions all round the world."

Breaking News - Newspaper Columnists Unite to Attack Madonna.

2006-10-19T20:55:00.000+02:00

Writers have united in their comdemnation of Madonna's adoption of an African orphan. "Adopting orphans is clearly no way to contribute to the betternment of mankind. The best way to contribute to the betterment of mankind is to write snide articles about celebs for national newspapers"

Review: The New Series of Robin Hood (BBC 1 - Saturdays)

2006-10-19T20:36:00.000+02:00

I have two theories about the current series of Robin Hood.
One is that the writers and producers spent so much of their meetings talking about what they didn't want ("Well no mystical stuff like in Robin of Sherwood, definitely no Americans like in Prince of Thieves, no green tights like in Men in Tights" etc.) that they actually forgot to define what actually would be in the series.
The other is that, contrary to rumours, the tapes that were stolen were never returned, so in fact what we are watching is tapes of the dress rehearsal.
I have come up with these two theories in order not to have to face the fact that the company which recently gave us Extras, Life on Mars and Dr Who apparently saw fit to put this undercooked pile of nothingness on our screens on a Saturday Evening.

There's nothing actually in any way bad or offensive about this series you understand. It merely looks half-hearted. I can't tell any of the not-particularly Merry men apart. Even Little John is only average height for chrissake ("Perhaps they're being ironic? Nah, it would only be ironic if he was really tall? He's just average height")1 . The characters amble about Sherwood without much conviction, and spend their time talking about nothing in particular. (And not even 'nothing in particular' in the Quentin Tarantino style where the banality of the dialogue is deliberately contrasted against the violence of the situation.)2 . The sheriff threatens to cut out villagers tongues and no-one can summon up much energy to complain about it. There is a five minute debate between the Sherrif and Robin on the ethics of killing conducted which came across like the two nerdiest members of a bored english class being asked to debate Capital Punishment by the trendy supply teacher on a rainy monday morning. And the arrow twang captions are just silly.

Michael Praed come back.

Or even Jason Connery.

1 Sorry but I like the big screen remake of Starsky and Hutch
2 Which might have improved this programme. "Hey Much, do you know what they call a Venison Burger in the Holy Lands?

News Flash - Government Attacks Veils

2006-10-17T00:12:00.000+02:00

In a strongly worded speech, Prime Minister Tony Blair launched an attack on the wearing of veils. "Thousands are dying daily in Iraq in what amounts to civil war; the military is badly underfunded and we have no idea of our exit strategy. Clearly, what is needed is a debate on whether a few women look a bit silly in all-in-one body coverings."

Defending him was Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt who said that "With the NHS in disarray, funding being slashed, hospitals closing everywhere and MSRA on the rampage through our hospitals, it is obviously time to have a talk about women who dress a bit different from other women."

Unexpected support came from Conservative Leader David Cameron. "Quite clearly, now is not the time for me to announce any actual detailed policies. Now is the time for me to talk about women who look like they could be a bit hot come summer."

Meanwhile, the world of literature has not been slow to react to the controversy. Said Salman Rushdie "Hi, I'm a muslim with a book out, please listen to me" while Germaine Greer responded "Hi, I haven't got a book out, but I've got a controversial opinion, please listen to me"

What I Did on My Holidays part 2.

2006-10-10T19:23:00.000+02:00

But they say it's better to travel grumpily than to have a bloody miserable time when you actually arrive, and if they don't then they should. And, boy did we have a wonderful time.
Our room was absolutely amazing; luxiorious, comfortable and with a wonderful old world charm. Breakfast was absolutely delicious, setting us off nicely for the day. Thanks to Anne-Marie at the Whins for her hospitality; she is wonderful.
The Hornhead peninsula in Donnegal has to be one of the most spectacular pieces of scenery anywhere; it has a kind of stark beauty to it which seems typical of Donnegal. And the beaches, long stretches of golden sand with nary a crisp wrapper to be seen; have to be experienced to be believed. Much of the time we were alone; we could well believe that we had 'discovered' this part of Ireland to quote that seemingly cheesy advert.
I do intend to provide pictures soon.

What I Did On My Holidays, by Nicky (aged 31 and three quarters)

2006-10-09T19:55:00.000+02:00

Monday 2nd October

5:30 am - Awake from terrifying nightmare involving missed train and passport syndrome.
6:00 am - Stagger out of bed bedraggled and hung over, but at least relived that it was a dream.
8:30 am - Leave house in pleasant market town of Ashby-De-La-Zouche, driven by friend who assures us that we'll get to station in plenty of time for our train.
8:45 am - stuck behind large lorry
8:50 am - still stuck behind large lorry
9:00 am - still stuck behind large lorry. Friend says "bugger this for a game of soldiers" and takes detour
9:05 am - stuck behind lorry five miles off course. Am having small heart attack.
9:10 am - finally get on to motorway
9:15 am - stuck behind large lorry. Move out into middle lane.
9:20 am - miss turning onto station. Have to travel on. Friend going through Rogers Profanisarus. Partner frantically trying to think of next station along the line. Myself - large coronary.
9:25 am - finally get back onto road and head into town in opposite direction; blessing in disguise as all roads fouled up due to inconsiderate bastards having accidents. Manage to get train and plane
1:30 pm - arrive at Knock airport accompanied by partner and partner's luggage. My own luggage decides not to make a show for the occasion.
4:30 pm - After taking taxi out to Charlestown; await bus for Dunfanaghy/
4:35 pm - still awaiting bus
4:50 pm - still awaiting bus. It's now raining.
5:00 pm - Bus arrives. Jubilation.
5:01 pm - Jubilation ceases when realise that bus is not bus to Dunfanghy but is bus taking Sligo Women's football on celebratory tour.
5:20 pm - bus finally shows. We are drenched.
9:30 pm - Bus arrives in Dunfanghy disgorging two very bedraggled; soaked and grumpy English feckers into tiny Irish village with extremely bad pavements.

On the soapbox again!

2006-09-27T18:51:00.000+02:00

From today's Gloucestershire Echo

To which I reply

"Dear Madam,
I am sure that if a gang of joyriders were to put on a show at the town hall in which they discussed their crimes, the Echo would be the first to condemn it.
Why then, in the Echo on Wednesday September 27th, does the Echo give an uncritical plug to the former members of the Kray gang visting the Cheltenham Town Hall?
The media continues to tar all young people as mindless thugs and holigans, and yet continues to adulate these gangsters whose crimes were much worse than any teen joyrider.
Yours Sincerely"

While I've been away.

2006-09-21T20:00:00.000+02:00

Well, I'm back to something approaching normality; although I'm going straight from one play into another. Why? I'm a fool I guess.

Meanwhile, I see even the presence of old Vic Mackey wasn't enough to stop the presence of the metaphorical spray painting of my walls with luminous green grafitti. Let me quote in full

"You're a fucking idiot who will never amount to anything. Go fuck your mother"

This was left by an anonymous poster (To paraphrase Dilbert 'Anonymous? You're mighty brave in Cyberspace flameboy!"). But what confuses me is that while "fucking idiot" and "go fuck your mother" are pretty common flames; "will never amount to anything" sounds like the sort of thing said in old Mr Chips films "Boy, you will never amount to anything if you don't do your prep". Have I, in fact, been flamed by a retired public school headmaster with Tourettes?

Yes, it's Celebritry Master Chef with Vic Mackey

2006-09-13T12:41:00.000+02:00

Hi there, it's Detective Vic Mackey here. Yes, once again Culfy is off to ponce about like a tart on stage while some of us are working all hours God sends to keep the streets of LA safe, while having to deal with a federal investigation into potential police corruption. Honestly, and he still expects me to fill in for him on his blog. Well, alright, as you helped me out on that bribery charge; I'll do this favour for you but this really is the last time. Okay?

Anyway, as Celebrity Master Chef is restarting on the BBC, I thought I'd share with you my own favourite Recipe.

Grilled Suspect

Ingredients; 1 suspect, 1 clove garlic (optional)

1. Preheat the grill to about 250 c. (Either a gas or electric grill is fine; this recipe isn't really suitable f0r microwave)
2. Take your suspect (I prefer to use a drug dealer, but either rapists or child molesters will do at a pinch) and hold him over the grill for up to 10 mins or until he squeals; whichever is sooner.
3. Garnish with the garlic and imprison for life.

See y'all.

The Wicker Man (2006)- A Longer Review with Spoilers

2006-09-04T23:35:00.000+02:00

Okay; if you don't want to know how the film ends (the new version or the old version); look away now.

Right, let's start with the good news. Neil Labute's The Wicker Man is actually fairly well directed in parts with enough quite nice shots of the island to suggest that LaBute is actually a fustrated travelogue director. (Damning with faint praise? You bet!) What it seemed to suffer from, in parts, is a conflict between the director's desire to make a Japenese influenced horror movie and the movie's insistence on trying to make sure that a film called 'The Wicker Man' had some relationship to the original film called ' The Wicker Man'. Certainly some scenes, especially the actual Wicker Man burning scene seemed to be cut directly out of the original and stuck in the new version regardless of whether they made any sense and seem to included only because the director was forced to (All right, I'll film your silly old burning Wicker Man scene but don't expect me to make it look any good).

And talking of sense; okay I'm quite prepared for the fact that these days, someone staying a virgin for forty years is laughable rather than laudable. I'm also prepared for the assumption that a policeman investigating a crime has to be A Rogue Cop With Issues Out On A Limb Making It Personal and not, heaven forbid, someone just doing his job. But having gone to all the trouble to make these changes; couldn't the writer have taking the opportunity to try and change the rest of the plot so it bore some resemblence to the earth emotion we call sense?

For the plot (if there was one) to have worked we have to imagine that

1) The Islanders managed to start their plot to get an appropriate sacrifice to ensure the survival of their crop FOUR YEARS before their crop failed
2) They were able; despite having no apparent knowledge of technology; to rig an accident involving a woman, a child and an oil tanker in which no-one was even hurt
3) And they knew exactly when Nicolas Cage would be patroling a certain section of road
4) And they also knew that he would stop to pick up a doll on road, while still managing to keep control of his bike.
5) The Islanders were quite happy to kill their only source of transport off the island.
6) But were still able; six months later to get off the island with no problems.
7) And would you want to trust a four year old girl with the intricate details of your plot which has taken four years to come up with.

Even the iconography of the film makes little sense. An island based around the worship of bees? Or is it the feminine? If so, why do all the children dress up as farm yard animals? And bears? And I particularly love the way Neil Labute shot a fight between Cage and a twelve year old school girl as if you could actually be in doubt of the outcome. What next? Nicolas Cage takes on the awesome might of the local geriatrics ward?

Whatever criticisms you could make of the original Wicker Man Antony Shaffer's script actually made sense (BTW, having watched Sleuth over the weekend, with its brilliantly twisty plot expertly married to sly pokes at ingrained English attitudes to race and class, I'm coming round to the idea that Antony Shaffer was one of our most underrated writers). The plot developments followed logically from one another and time was taken to present the fascinating duel between the differing belief systems of Sergeant Howie and Lord Summerisle; both belief systems being presented with sympathy and clarity. The remake, by contrast, seems to want to shove any old rubbish together in the hope that it looks arty and edgy.

The Wicker Man. The Gets On My Wick - erman more like.

The Wicker Man - A Short Review with No Spoilers (But Some Mild Profanity)

2006-09-04T23:33:00.000+02:00

What the fuck?

I've had it up to here with mutherfucking SOAP jokes on a motherfucking blog!

2006-08-31T00:14:00.000+02:00

Following the massive success of Snakes on a Plane; here are some of the films to look forward to in 2007.

Rakes on a Plane

When a load of gardening implements threaten to cause a series of Sideshow Bob style slapstick incidents on board the flight to Miami, only Samuel L Jackson can save the day.

(Not to be confused with) Rakes on a Plane

When a load of eighteenth century cads threaten to cause dismay by their gambling, carousing and despoiling of fair maidens on board the flight to Miami, only Samuel L Jackson can save the day.

Blakes on a Plane

When Dynasty's Blake Carrington, Blake from Blake's Seven and eighteenth century poet William Blake cause chaos with their ill-match buddy routines, only Samuel L Jackson can save the day.

Snakes on a Plane

When a carpenter is prevented from smoothing down the edges of a block of wood by the presence of reptiles on his tools, only Samuel L Jackson can save the day.

Ducks on a Bed

When a Sleeprite Four Poster is infested by mallards, only four people can understand the in-joke.

And for those of you who wanted to see a review of Snakes on a Plane.

2006-08-21T20:48:00.000+02:00

www.indcjournal.com/archives/002704.php

New Plane Horror Comedy Reviewed

2006-08-21T20:14:00.000+02:00

When Supt Ali Dizaei announced his worry about the creation of a new offence of "Travelling while being Asian" he was roundly criticised in the press. Doesn't the silly man realise he's merely fanning the flame of racism himself? Obviously it's going to better to profile asians rather than elderly white women; it's not racism, it's common sense. PC gone mad don't you know. I don't know; aren't the coloured folks getting a bit uppity nowadays? (I made that last comment up; but I suspect I'm close to the mark).

Well, it seems that the offence of "travelling while Asian" actually exists, judging by the experience of the two men recently; who were removed from a plane recently for the crime of being Asian (well actually for the crime of not being dressed in shorts and sandals, and talking 'all foreign')

So, it's official. It's now actually all right to be racist. Providing you express your racism as being "concerned for your own well-being" you will be taken seriously. Put aside the fact that presumably these passengers had gone through all the same security checks as everyone else; put aside the fact that if I were Osama Bin Laden; I'm pretty sure that my first tactic would be to make all suicide bombers try and not look suspicious; put aside all of this and the incident is deeply worrying.

I don't want to live in the same universe as the people who forced the asian travellers off the plane. I thought that since the 1960s we had passed the time when people were judged by the colour of their skin and I don't want to live in a world where people are judged by the colour of their skin "but it's not been racist; we just want to be secure and I'd rather be Politically Incorrect than blown up".

I don't want to live in a world where the aims of militant Islamic terrorists to provoke a war with the West are helped by treating all muslims so badly that they decide they're better off joining the militant Islamic terrorists.

I don't want to live in a world where the shouting of "muslim [expletive deleted]" at children is actually encouraged by the tabloids.

I don't want to live in a world where Muslims are prevented from flying to Britain (as I'd quite like to see my brother and sister-in-law in this country).

I do however want to live in a world where movies like Snakes On A Plane are released as it was actually quite good.

Britons Unite! And Keep Moaning!

2006-08-19T12:05:00.000+02:00

Today, the Small Cavy issues a warning to terrorists everywhere; do you what you like but you will never destroy the great British tradition of moaning.

Yes I know how much you hate our traditional way of carping, grouching, complaining and groaning but it is something you will never understand and something you will never destroy.

So, try and attack our airports? You will only succeed in making us grumble and groan about long delays and cancelled flights at check-ins and how badly the government is handling it.

Send us videos exhorting the young to rise up and overthrow the west? You'll only get us to complain about how the coverage is preventing us from watching Big Brother.

And all races are united in this. Already, asians are prepared to join in the traditional Great British Moan by preparing to scream about police harrasment if they get searched at an airport.

Yes, we will be ready with our letters to the Daily Mail and BBC Have Your Say. We will fight them in the Post Office Queues (which always move faster than the one you're in); we will fight them on the busses (which you always wait ages for then three come at once); we will fight them on the beaches (which some idiot has covered in chip papers and why do they have to let their children run away misbehaving like that?)

Britons never never never shall be content.

Spot the difference

2006-08-11T14:32:00.000+02:00

"the whole middlebrow mythology [is] dull and overrated"

Peter Bradshaw on Tolkien in his review of The Two Towers

"a new generation of cinema-goers is being introduced to the complex and confident inventions of Tolkien"

Peter Bradshaw in his review of the Lady in the Water

Latest Shock Horror Statistics Revealed!

2006-08-05T18:13:00.000+02:00

http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?threadID=3031&&&edition=1&ttl=20060805170748

139 hours a year travelling to and from work. A rough guestimate works this out as approximately 36 minutes a day. So what's the problem again?

Great Movie Scenes Revisted - A Cut Out and Keep Guide

2006-08-05T17:32:00.000+02:00

Part 1 - Braveheart

Scene - A vast battlefield. Many Scots warriors stand there in their traditional woad; they look pensive and nervous but resolute. Braveheart rides in, visibly the worse for wear and falls of his horse. He then begins a stirring speech which will stir his people to victory and resound through history.

Braveheart. Edward Longshanksh? Edward Longshankshstein more likely! Hic! The Jewsh, they've got the English crown shewn up. And they shtartsh all the warsh ash well! Hic! William the Conqueror? William the Conqueror? Hymie the Conqueror more likely! Hic! And take your handsh off me, I fuckin' own Shcotland me! (to Isabella) Whatsh you looking at Haggish titsh? Oh fuck, there goesh my collaboration with Shteven Shpielberg.

In Which The Cavy Expresses Views Which Some Might Controversial

2006-08-02T20:54:00.000+02:00

There was once a Monty Python sketch revolving around a private who wanted to leave the army when he discovered there was a chance of him being sent to war and being called. I always think of this sketch when I see headlines such as this.

Now I am broadly of an anti-war, anti-blair basis. But even so, I can never quite understand headlines of this nature. We do not currently have conscription so therefore the soldier in question is a professional who signed up fully in the knowledge of what might happen. Presumably his wife was also aware of this. So why is it important that he was "a father of two"? There is a similar argument displayed in Michael Moore's otherwise quite good Fahrenheit 911 in which we meet a woman violently opposed to the war in Iraq because her son was killed in it. As this article points out, the woman was proud of her son when he joined the army; would the war have been right if he had survived?

And while I'm sure that the writer of this particular Daily Mail story actually faxed in his story from Lebanon where he wrote it in between helping refugees from the shelling and is therefore immune from any criticism of hypocrisy; however what in the blazes is the story in Blair being in LA? Last time I looked, he was the Prime Minister rather than a serving soldier; should he be in Lebanon personally shielding British soldiers from shells with his mighty wings of steel? Doubtless; when Blair goes for his holiday we will have the Daily Hell raving about "Blair suns himself while our boys are killed." And this will be written by the deputy sub editor as the sub editor is away in the Carribean.

It's Your Letters

2006-07-29T18:11:00.000+02:00

Letters and e-mails sent to Notes From A Small Cavy (In an alternate universe)

Dear Madam

Imagine my surprise when I was walking down the road and saw a group of teenagers lounging around. Why can't something be done about this, or is it not politically correct to say this?

Edna Wellthorpe

Dear Faceache

Imagine my surprise when I was walking down the road and I didn't see a group of teenagers lounging around. No doubt they were in their rooms playing on their playstations or injecting crack cannabis. Or is it not politically correct to say this?

Edna Wellthorpe

Dear Mr Blobby,

Imagine my surprise when I was walking down the street and my ears turned into arseholes.

James Scott (Mrs)

Dear Mr Littlejohn

David Cameron is the leader of the Labour Party, or is it not politically correct to say this?

A. Nutter

Dear Judge Judy Sheinlan

Why, oh why, oh why must I be continually harrassed and persecuted because of my name? Do people not recognise a good old fashioned Anglo-Saxon name when they see it? What do people find so amusing?

Ivor Huge-Penis

Dear Ms Rantzen

When I was a lad, we didn't have these fancy Consoles and I-Playstations. We had to make do with a black and white television.

Dr Dan Watt (Mrs)

Dear Mr Blair

In response to the previous letter, when I was a lad, we couldn't even afford a black and white television. We had to make do with just a black one.

Richard Branson

Dear Cavy

I wish to complain about the next letter.

Ivor Madeupname

Dear Hamster

Am I the only one to have noticed that the so-called 'adverts' on television are merely publicity stunts for commercial gain?

Anthony Wedgewood Benn (Mrs)

Reading, writhing and fainting in coils

2006-07-26T20:03:00.001+02:00

Shock Horror - children would rather watch television than read Ulysees!

Okay, not the Telegraph's exact words, but you have to wonder when an article headed "Reading is a closed book to children" and containing the phrase "children have so little regard for reading", actually contains the news that two thirds of children read more than five books a year and are actively encouraged to read by their parents.

So what's the big panicky headline in the telegraph about?

Well, the article makes a few good points about how lip service is being paid to national literacy hour and how the demands of the national curriculum is pushing aside time for actual reading. But much of the article is of the typical "fings aint wot they used to be" sort of rant common to the Telegraph.

Consider the findings that 85% of children did not list reading as their favourite activity. To which one can only reply, in the immortal words of the classic writer Arthur Conan Doyle "No Shit Sherlock!". One would have thought that at a young age; socialising and developing social skills is incredibly important; sitting in a room locked up with just your books turns you into a sad embittered individual fit only for being a serial killer or a blogger writing about articles in the Telegraph.

Or consider the Telegraph's maiden aunt style shrieks on discovering that children nowadays tend to read J K Rowling and Jacqueline Wilson rather than Enid Blyton and Lewis Carroll. Well, duh! Obviously children are going to read works which are contemporary and speak to contemporary audiences.

I don't want to go down the route of cultural relativism here. Quite obviously Charles Dickens is better than Dan Brown and Charlotte Bronte better than Stephen King. But what the Telegraph fails to take into account is that there is no point in slamming a copy of Bleak House in front of your average 11 year old and saying "This is CLASSIC LITERATURE MATE BLOODY WELL READ IT OR GO TO BED WITHOUT ANY PLAYSTATION.". If children are still reading, surely that is the main thing.

Reading, writhing and fainting in coils

2006-07-26T20:03:00.000+02:00

Superman Returns - A Short Review with No Spoilers

2006-07-23T20:55:00.000+02:00

It didn't suck as badly as the Da Vinci Code.

It's A Bird! It's A Plane! No It's Culfy's Review Of Superman Returns!!!!

2006-07-19T00:11:00.000+02:00

Heading your way soon. In the mean time, check this website out which reveals the real Superman.

More gratuitous plugs......

2006-07-17T18:31:00.000+02:00

A publisher especially designed for those books which would not normally get published anywhere else. Please check out in particular the play adaption of The King in Yellow.

http://inkermenpress.tripod.com/

If you don't want to know the result, look away now!

2006-07-05T00:07:00.000+02:00

Last week's episode of House (the final episode of Season 2) was, even by the high standards of the series, superb. Extremely well written, well acted and well-produced by all concerned and the twist was absolutely superb, taking me totally by surprise.

Or at least it would have done had not some bastard totally ruined the ending by giving it away in the subject line of an IMDB debate.

(Some people are in favour of filters on the internet which filter out all references to sex and violence. I'd be much happier with a filter which filters out all spoilers. In the rest of this article, I'll show what such a filter would look like).

It's my own fault I suppose. Some git is bound to put in a topic saying So House was [*Spoiler Deleted*] in the episode???? and perhaps I shouldn't have been looking at the website for a TV programme where the Americans are six months ahead of us. But I do wish people on the net, and people in general could take a bit more care. Only the other day, while standing by the printer, I overheard two girls talking about SAW 2 and saying "Well it turns out that the Killer is in league with [*Spoiler Deleted*] ", so in revenge I turned to them and said "Well, in The Sixth Sense, Bruce Willis is [*Spoiler Deleted*] ". I once expressed an interest to a relative in going to see Agatha Christie's The Mousetrap. Said relative replied that she had just read an article that said how ridiculous it was that The Mousetrap was still running when everybody knew that the murderer was [*Spoiler Deleted*] . Actually, I didn't, and neither, I wager, did a few people who were reading the article.

Agatha Christie seems to be particularly ill-favoured by this bizarre obsession with spoiling surprises. The Oxford Companion to Literature's entry on her praises her ability to come up twist endings, and beautifully misses the point by saying how clever it is that the murderer in Murder on the Orient Express is [*Spoiler Deleted*] and the murderer in The Murder of Roger Ackroyd is [*Spoiler Deleted*] . (Not that the late great Dame herself is entirely immune for criticism; her novel Cards on the Table neatly gives away the ending of Murder of the Orient Express).

The satirist Craig Brown wrote how blurb writers seemed to have a compulsion to spill the beans; revealing for example that in The Wings of the Dove, Milly Theale is [*Spoiler Deleted*] and in The Golden Bowl, the [*Spoiler Deleted*] gets [*Spoiler Deleted*] . I had a similar experience with G K Chesterton's Club of Queer Trades where the blurb writer decided that the best way to introduce a series of detective stories is to give away the ending of each story.

Well, I'm fed up of it. And the next person to give away the twist of a book or movie can look forward to a [*Spoiler Deleted*] being shoved up their [*Spoiler Deleted*] .

Oh and before I decide to finally shut up about the Da Vinci Code once and for all.......

2006-06-27T21:19:00.000+02:00

http://www.dallasnews.com/s/dws/nwsltr/religion/stories/060106dnrelnewsletter.447c1b76.html

The Right to be Right about Rights

2006-06-27T20:28:00.000+02:00

Warning. This is a subject on which the Cavy feels strongly and therefore the language may tend towards the intemperate. If easily offended, please pretend this is actually an article about fluffy bunnies

In 1938, people believed that America was being invaded by martians, following a famous radio programme by Orson Welles.

Now imagine, for a few seconds an alternative reality where the same broadcast was made in England last week. Let's also imagine that David Cameron is now asking questions about the Martian invasion of Britain and the government's failure to prevent. What can Tony Blair do to answer the criticisms.

He could say that he will immediately set up a government commission to investigate the apparent failure of the security services to prevent the martian invasion. He could say that he will be immediately bringing in new laws enabling him to place people of green skinned appearance under surveilance. He could even blame the invasion on the failures of previous Conservative governments.

Or, he could say "Oh for chrissakes, there wasn't any bleeding Martian invasion, it was a flaming radio programme so just shut the fuck up Chamelon boy!"

I feel much the same way about the current debate on the Human Rights act.

Currently Dave Poshboy Cameron is proposing abandoning the Human Rights Act and introducing a US style Bill of Rights. The good folk at the BBC are discussing this with such well thought out comments as "Scrap it, scrap all EU. Directives/laws go back 35 years to whatever laws and regulations were of the day and re-instate them!" and "We don't need the EU to tell us what to do. We are birthplace of democracy. They should learn things from us, not nice versa!"

Unfortunately, the Human Rights Act has sod all to do with the EU. It is incorporated into British Law under a British Act based on the European Convention of Human Rights which was written by British Lawyers and previously administered by a body called the Council of Europe which was a totally separate body from the EU.

Certainly there needs to be a debate about the notion of rights (as there always needs to be a debate about any aspect of government). The problem is, we're not likely to get much of a debate if the debate is anything like the conversation I had at work a few days ago.

Woman: That bloke up on the roof got a KFC because it would have been a breach of his human rights if he didn't.
Cavy: No that's absolute incorrect.
Woman: Then why did the police give him a KFC?
Cavy: Because he was up on the roof chucking tiles at people. The police thought that it would be too difficult to go up and tackle him and so decided that the best course was to keep him as calm as possible so they could talk him down. Human Rights had nothing to do with it.
Woman: Why didn't they just chuck the tiles back at him?
Cavy: Because they would have just gone over the roof and hit passersby on the other side.
Woman: Why didn't they just get someone to shoot him down?
Cavy: Because the body would have injured passers-by when it fell.
Woman: Well, couldn't they have moved the passers by on?/
Cavy: They tried their best, but the people wouldn't budge. In fact they had to arrest some people.
Woman: So what happened to him in the end?
Cavy: They arrested him. He's going on trial.
Woman (to friend, having apparently not taken a blind bit of notice of anything I've said): Well, it's stupid to pay attention to his human rights. What about the human rights of everyone else?

And yeah, what are you going to do about the martians, Tony?

Okay I surrender.....!

2006-06-21T00:27:00.000+02:00

So, that's it. I'm finally on the road to middle age. Yes, I've started thinking about pensions.

For the past few months, I've been temping at Lloyds TSB Bank (the bank that likes to say "Sorry, we don't have a catchy slogan). That is until a few weeks ago when my boss took me aside and asked me if I wanted to apply for a permanent position. Well fast forward and I am now about to sign up for what is, amazingly enough, the first full time permanent job I've ever had in my long and moderately ignoble career.

I received my information pack in a bulky folder; most of which was devoted to the staff pension scheme. Apart from giving my beloved an added incentive to bump me off by naming her as my beneficiary form; I now have to decide which particular pension scheme I want; the schemes ranging from the ABSOLUTELY RISK FREE PLAN (Every pound you pay in goes into the Fund Directors' piggy bank) to the BLOODY STUPID RISK PLAN (Every pound you pay is used by the Fund Directors to buy lottery tickets). Too much choice.

And I think I've discovered a bald patch.

Next week's headlines.,

2006-06-11T20:49:00.000+02:00

Next week stories; as predicted by Mystic Nick

BARMY BAN ON FLYING THE FLAG

Loony PC councillors have FORCED a van driver to take down his St George Flag. Said white van driver Ivor Madeup "It's PC gone mad. I just want to express my support for this great country." A councillor defended this ridiculous ban saying "While we are all for displays of patriotism, we must point out that the flag in question was in fact 15 feet long and pointing out of the side of the van, seriously endangering passers by."

ROONEY STILL NOT FIT TO PLAY

Wayne Rooney, despite his ankle healing, is still not able to play in the World Cup. Sources say that Rooney turned up in Germany with a note saying "Dear Mr Erickson. Wayne is still feeling a bit sniffly and therefore should be excused games for the next few weeks. Yours Sincerely, Mrs Ferguson er Rooney"

DOG ANNOUNCES TOUGH NEW MEASURES

An alsatian called a press conference today to announce tough new measures. Said Rex today "The situation of people walking past my gate has now become untennable. To date, I have received no assurance from people that their actions will cease". The dog has therefore announced that anyone walking past the gate will be met with loud barks, snarls and growling.

BLOGGER FOUND MURDERED

Nick Mazonowicz, aka Culfy and the Small Cavy, has been found murdered. Witnesses report hearing sounds of a struggle at his house and shrieks of "Don't you f*****ing dare write anything more about the Da Vinci Code."

More Da Vinci Code

2006-05-30T20:12:00.000+02:00

For the first time, Notes from a Small Cavy welcomes a guest writer; Tom McClellan whose own acerbic review of The Da Vinci Code I enjoyed;

"Code Anesthetic

"Symbolism is," says Professor Robert Langford and pauses to survey an auditorium full of presumed idiots, "a language." Thus begins Tom Hanks tight-lipped portrayal of a Harvard intellectual growing increasingly aware with every turn and twist of plot that he is trapped in a very, very bad script.

Some reviewers found the film, like Hanks' hanks of unkempt hair, overly long. I didn't, but then I took a cigarette break when Ian McKellan as Sir Leigh Teabing began his GEE (Grand Explanation of Everything) lecture, and still got back in time for the last two paragraphs.

The film has all the elements of a thriller - car chases, narrow escapes, unraveling of a mystery clue by clue, plot reversals - yet somehow manages to stay flatter than a 70-mile drive across the King Ranch. Tom Hanks' final monologue, his personal struggle to resolve the mystery of a Jesus human enough to beget children yet divine enough to inspire prayers from a drowning child, might have soared - but it limps its lame way toward the million-dollar pay window.

With schlock ideas voiced by kitsch characters caught in a best-seller-dumb plot, the movie anesthetizes. And that's a good thing. In the closing scene, Jesus' last living descendent, Sophie (Audrey Tautou, who has spent the last two hours acting puzzled and cute) dips her foot in a pond to show that she is not going to walk on water any time soon - and the audience is too numb even to groan. "

Tom McClellan
...

Thanks. Incidently, I do have more Da Vinci stuff planned; but for those about groan, consider this; I could have devoted this blog to Snakes on a Plane.

Da Vinci Code III - DIY Dan Brown

2006-05-27T12:22:00.000+02:00

Create your own Dan Brown novel within minutes

Da Vinci Code Movie - A longer review with Spoilers (see below for short review with no spoilers)

2006-05-23T20:47:00.000+02:00

Occasionally, there comes along a movie which falls frustratingly short of what it could have been. “If only”, you think while watching it, “just a few more ingredients had been right, this could have been a classic”. Such a movie is The Da Vinci Code; a film where all the ingredients are present but frustratingly do not gell enough together to create the necessary chemistry. Had the cast, writer and director gone that extra mile and worked that little bit harder, perhaps the Da Vinci Code would have achieved the goal of being one of the all time classic turkeys; worthy to stand with Can’t Stop the Music and Plan 9 From Outer Space.

In fact, while there is a fair proportion of TDVC that is laugh out loud awful; sadly much of it rises to the level of competence which prevents it from being as enjoyably bad as it could have been. Not without trying, it has to be said; certainly Akira Goldsman’s script gives good value for money with some excellent lines straight out of Basil Fawlty’s suggested specialist subject for Sybil of “Stating The Bleeding Obvious”

Such as

Sophie on seeing her Grandfather after 20 years: “He’s older than I remember”
On discovering a clue pointing to the Mona Lisa “But that’s just near here” (The Mona Lisa? In the Louvre? Whatever next?”).

Goldsman also proves a master of plotting; making sure that such idiocies as every single police car surrounding the Louvre deciding to leave to chase a tracking device in a bar of soap. This, by the way, is Robert Langdon’s preferred device for escaping a murder charge rather than relying on the alibi that at the time of the murder he was giving a lecture in front of approximately 500 people before going on to do a book signing. Goldsman also manages to keep most of the lunacies of the original source material intact. (So, the Holy Grail was the body of Mary Magdalene, kept intact by the Priory anticipating the day when DNA testing would be able to suggest a vague kinship between her and Sophie).

Praise to actors Paul Bettany and Ian MacKellan. Paul Bettany manages to portray a psychotic albino assassin with a pechant for self-flagation with all the subtlety and nuance that that description entails, resulting in one of the most memorable comic villains since Richard Kiel’s turn as Jaws in Moonraker. Ian MacKellan, meanwhile, practises for his next performance as Widow Twankey with such a portrayal of pantomine villainy that, as he is carried away in the cart, I expected a cry of “And I would have got away with it as well if it hadn’t been for you pesky symbologists).

Sadly, not deciding to play the game are Tom Hanks and Audrey Tatou who, rather than attempting to out-ham everyone else, decide that their job is to turn up, say the lines clearly so that everyone can understand them and go home. It probably didn’t help their cause that the script (and original source material) gives absolutely no depth to their relationship other than Sophie asking a lot of questions with Robert replying. A sort of revival of the classic Dr Who and Leggy Assistant role without the entertaining camp factor and haze of nostalgia.

Perhaps one day, a replacement will be found for the definitive Bad Movie. Until then, please try harder next time Ron.

The Da Vinci Code Movie - Short Review (No spoilers)

2006-05-23T20:45:00.000+02:00

It sucked

Da Vinci Code I - It's JUST FICTION

2006-05-14T18:02:00.000+02:00

I spend a lot of time on the IMDB Da Vinci Code boards at the moment. For anyone who has not yet discovered the delights of this board; there is one key phrase that you must utter whenever you post on this board - "IT'S JUST FICTION!!" (Capitals are obligatory - exclamation marks are optional). Thus "Why are the church complaining about this? Don't they realise it's JUST FICTION!" or "To anyone trying to disprove it ITS JUST FICTION", or "I saw this book in the FICTION section of my bookstore, that mean's it's JUST FICTION!!! Not Real!"

Which largely misunderstands the entire nature of fiction.

Last time I looked in the fiction section of a bookshop; the books available ranged from Schindler's Ark, through the Day of the Jackal through to Moonraker. Of these, Schindler's Ark is a largely factual novel with only a few reconstructed conversations that put it into the fiction category. The Day of the Jackal contains a fictional plot based on real events (someone did actually try to assasinate Charles De Gaulle, they just weren't Edward Fox) with much factual detail. Moonraker is an unabashed escapist novel with no pretensions to factual status at all. Three very different approaches to 'fiction'. If someone were to question whether James Bond really did manage to stop a nuclear war head hitting London; they would be told off for being silly and quite frankly. Someone however who questioned how central Oskar Schindler's role was in saving the Jews in his factory or who asks how close assasins actually came to killing Charles De Gaulle would be asking legitimate questions raised by the book.

Commercial Break

After reading this blog post, why not try reading Truth and Fiction in the Da Vinci Code by Bart D Ehrman, available in all good stores (and maybe a few naff ones, who knows?)

We now return you to your scheduled blog post.

So, finding a book in the fiction section of a bookstore does not automatically invalid its contents as untruth. (People maybe surprised to know, for example, that the Three Musketeers were actually real historical characters, not the imaginative reinventions of Alexandre Dumas).

Moreover, even total works of the imagination are not necessarily divorced from the real world. There never was a farm called Manor Farm where the animals overthrew the farmer and began ruling themselves before the pigs took over. However, I am sure there are very few people today who are not aware that George Orwell's Animal Farm is a parable of the Soviet Union (as is 1984). Professor Tolkien got cross with people who thought the One Ring represented nuclear weapons, however Lord of the Rings certainly expresses very real fears about the effect of technology on humanity. I can imagine meeting an apologist of Stalin's Soviet mass-murdering government who dislikes George Orwell (Julie Burchill, for example) and arguing with her, er them about the merits or the concept of the book. However, it would be pretty silly to turn to them and say "It's Just Fiction, you don't really believe that pigs can walk and talk" when the whole point of the works is to raise these questions.

The best sort of fiction actually connects with the real world and raises questions about the real world. Famously, Oliver Twist lead to reforms in child care and orphanages while Cathy Come Home highlighted the plight of the homeless. In both cases, the stories were JUST FICTION, but the concerns were very real.

Sometimes, the JUST FICTION defence is used by creators themselves rather disingenously. The film Stardust Memories, for example, portrays an actor and director of formerly comic films who is suffering a critical backlash after making a serious film, and the film attacks the critics who want him to keep on making comedies. Of course, the director of this film, Woody Allen, an actor and director of formerly comic films who is suffering a critical backlash after making a serious film, denied that the film was autobiographical in anyway. Dennis Potter, a writer from the Forest of Dean who was crippled by psioriasis has always claimed that The Singing Detective, a TV play about a writer from the Forest of Dean who was crippled by psioriasis was an autobiographical play. However, there is a sense of both writers wanting to have their cake and eat it; as the author Julian Fox has said of Stardust Memories "If [Allen] had no wish to be identified with the on-screen Sandy [the film director], why, in the first place, did he chose to tell this particular story". Here, there is a definite sense of mining real life for inspiration, only to deny this as a defence. Rather in the manner of kids at school teasing a class mate saying "Nick is a tosser" only to turn round and say "we didn't mean you, we meant a different Nick".

And on the subject of tossers, let's return to The Da Vinci Code. Here, strangely, is a book which explicitly places itself in the Schindler's List/Day of the Jackal category. In the prologue Dan Brown claims that all the societies, artwork and documents referred to in the book are factual and this is a claim he has frequently repeated in interviews. So therefore, surely his claims are worth examining, especially if they are of the magnitude that the Christian Church is basically founded on a lie? Apparently not, since (on the IMDB board), any attempt to criticise the claims is met with the old saying of "It's JUST FICTION.". Again, there is a sense of having one's cake and eating it; people are quite happy to use the book as a stick to beat the Catholic church with (gosh I never knew that the Church burnt all the books which said that Jesus was married and then burnt all the women on top of the books) but when said Church attempts a rebuttal, responds with "IT's JUST FICTION."

And by the way, please do not attempt to criticise this blog post in anyway, because (altogether now boys and girls) IT'S JUST FICTION!

Don't miss this space

2006-05-09T20:45:00.000+02:00

I'm getting broadband soon. So stay tuned for a few long essays on the Da Vinci Code.

To anyone who has come here via the IMDB Da Vinci Code Board.

2006-05-09T00:23:00.000+02:00

I'm right!

(To everyone else, ignore this.)

To rattle or to spill?

2006-05-06T18:09:00.000+02:00

"Mr Mazonowicz rattles through his questions, but seems to spill more than he saves. He must be doing something right, as he finishes on 18"
http://www.ukgameshows.com/index.php/Weaver's_Week_2006-04-16

You read it here first....

2006-05-02T20:50:00.000+02:00

It's been a bad week for Tony Blair, and it's going to get worse. Here is a complete list of the scandals that will break over the next week for Blair's cabinet.

Jack Straw - Foreign Secretary: Found to have accidently lost three of Britain's Trident submarines to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in a game of poker.
Gordon Brown - Chancellor of the Exchequer: Has given over £3bm of Britain's budget to a 'nice gentleman in Nigeria who wanted to use my bank account."
Margaret Beckett - Secretary for the Environment: Wears a coat made from the fur of the last Siberian Tiger.
Alistair Darling - Secretary of State for Transport: Discovered to have praised the Oasis album "Be Here Now" as the best Oasis album in contradiction to the offical government line that "What's the Story Morning Glory" was their best album.
Geoff Hoon - Leader of the House: Placed whoopee cushions underneath David Cameron's seat.
Minister with Portfolio Ian McCartney: Embarassed by man in Gimp Suit turning up at Parliament saying "you left your Portfolio round at my place last night"
Hilary Armstrong - Chief Whip: Said to be responsible for Labour's controversial election poster "Michael Howard & Oliver Letwin - Drinking the blood of Christian children"
Peter Hain - Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Superstar: Walks like a woman and he wears a bra.
Lord Chancellor - Lord Falconer: Has got fleas.

It's Coming Home (sadly)

2006-04-29T13:17:00.000+02:00

"Well, it's a game of two halves really. I mean I was sick as a parrot after the first half thinking 'Do I not like that' but in the end the lads come good and it's not a matter of life and death, it's more important than that."

Last night I saw the play "An Evening With Gary Linnekar" 1 . What I found most interesting was its use of an old Greek dramatical device the Deus Ex Machina. Literally meaning "God in the Machine" , the phrase refers to the device of old Greek dramas whereby a God figure would appear to solve all the problems in the play (typically lowered in the machine). In this play, the God figure who appears at the end to solve all the problems was the titular Gary Linnekar. Throughout the play Gary Linnekar is constantly referred to as the Queen Mother of football. All of which adds up to one of the themes of the player being the way footballers have now replaced the monarchy and religion as the central figures in British society. A common place observation admittedly, but one which is particularly relevant at the moment.

Luiz Felipe Scolari has turned down the England manager's job. He cites his reason for this as being "I don't want anything more to do with England because in the space of two days my life has been invaded and my privacy has been disrupted. As I speak, there are still 20 reporters outside my home. If that's part of another culture, ti's not a culture I'm used to.". Of course, what did he expect? Consider the scrutiny that Sven Goran Erickson was placed under, inlcuding the minute attention paid to every aspect of his life, considering the furore over a minor distorted comment. Consider the scrutiny that a young woman who has the misfortune to be the consort of someone who's quite good at football.

The position of England Manager is basically an unacknowledged Cabinet Position (with the difference that people actually care about it). Because of course, it is our National Sport (despite the fact that we're actually no good at it).

Glossary for Foreigners:

Foorball: 'Soccer'. Nothing like American 'football' in that our players don't insist on wearing full body armour.
Gary Linnekar: Cried at the world cup and now sells crisps.
Queen Mother: Former mother of the Queen. Loved by the public despite being a Nazi-loving Apartheid Supporter with a gambling addiction.

1 Which was hiliarous by the way.
2 Roooney!

Local Journalism As It Should Bbe

2006-04-24T20:59:00.000+02:00

From the Trumpton Echo

Man Hits Back At Criminals

Local Man, Martin Martins has attacked thugs who ransacked his house.

The yobbos broke his house and stole a DVD player Martins had got as a present for his son. Said Martins "I don't earn much and I'd been saving all year to buy my son a top of the range DVD for his birthday. Thanks to this senseless act, my son will have to go without."
"These idiots have ruined my son's day with their mindless act. I hope they're proud of themselves, whoever these cowards are".

To the Editor of the Trumpton Echo

Sir

I am writing in reply to your story "Man Hits Back At Criminals" in order to correct a few misapprehensions which your article may have caused.

As the buglar who raided Martins house; can I first of all point out that I opperate as a sole trader; therefore there was no gang of thugs and all references should be in the singular. I believe that my reputation amongst the underworld would suffer should it be mistakenly believed that I require assistance in my endavours.

Mr Martins asks if I am proud of myself. In this case, I have to say not, as I felt this burglary fell well below my usual standards. It was a rushed job which I fear may have left several forensic indications and certainly does not live up to some of my triumphs such as the No 85 Accacia Drive job where I manage to filch the contents of a safe without leaving any damage and while the owner was still present.

However, I must protest at the description of myself as 'mindless' and an 'idiot'. Although lacking the advantage of a formal education (I would relate my upbringing, drunken mother, abusive stepfather etc., however I believe it would be all too familiar to your readership), I enjoy the novels of Milan Kundera, the films of Werzog Herner and during my last stay at Her Majesty's Pleasure, completed an Open University degreee in comparative Theology with my thesis on late tenth century Catharism coming in for particular praise.

I must also take issue with Mr Martins' description of the DVD player as 'Top of the Range'. The DVD player was merely a standard region 2 model wihout recordable facilities. In addition there was a large scratch on the body work. Sadly, in my searches through Mr Martins' house I failed to find a receipt for said item and am thus stuck with a less than perfect model.

Mr Martins claims he is on a low income. In which case may I advise that he be more discerning in the DVDs he purchases. While I yield to no-one in my admiration for Tim Burton as a director, I must question whether his oeuvre is best represented by Planet of the Apes which was vastly inferiror to the 1969 original. Is Scary Movie 2 really the best cinematic satire there is? And can Mr Martins, hand on heart, really claim that Keeping Up Appearances is the acme of British comedy? Not a single item there worth lifting. Over Mr Martins' CD collection I will draw a discrete veil (pausing only to note that if one really must own any ELO albums, one single Greatest Hits album would suffice).

To conclude, I trust Mr Martins will understand that it is not cowardice which prevents me for concealing my true identity. It is in the nature of my profession that I should remain anonymous; after all one would not expect SAS operatives to reveal themselves to the general public.

Ever Yours

A Burglar.

Happy Birthday Ma'am

2006-04-20T20:16:00.000+02:00

The Cavy would like to take this opportunity to wish congratulations to Her Majesty and the long years of service to this country.

From the moment she first gained the position through her sheer talent of being daughter of the last person to be on the throne; through the many long years of waving at people and looking good on stamps and managing to stay fit and healthy with only the best available health care to help her; no one can deny that Queen Elizabeth II has done exactly what is expected of the unelected Head of State supported by the tax payer.

Here's to you continuing to rule us (not that we have any fucking choice in the matter).

New Advert Unveiled by Kettle Party

2006-04-18T20:38:00.000+02:00

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4918868.stm

The Kettle Party has unveiled a new advertising campaign portraying its rival "Pot Party" as black.

Said the rather dark Kettle Party "the Pot party will do almost anything to get into power. Yet they are still an incredibly darkened kitchen utensil".

The Kettle Party; based in the Glass House, Milbank; plans to follow up this campaign by throwing stones.

Mystic Nick Predicts...

2006-04-10T20:26:00.000+02:00

This week's stories in the British press.

Avian Flu Somehow Tony Blair's Fault.

"We haven't yet sorted out the details" says Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre, "but somehow, we think that Bird Flu is Tony Blair's fault. We'll have to see whether it's for overreacting (if there aren't any deaths) or not being prepared enough (if there are any deaths). We vaguely hoping that asylum seekers are also involved". Guardian writer Gary Younge has also announced that he plans to somehow link bird flu with the war in Iraq.

Daily Express Attacks Plans to rename Easter.

In a scathing editorial, the Daily Express has announced that plans to rename Easter Eggs "Spring Solstice Eggs" are "Political Correctness Gone Mad". It also attacks plans to rename Hot Cross Buns Hot Crescent Buns to avoid offending muslims. "Although nothing like this has, in actual fact, happened, if it did happen it would be really silly."

New plagarism case hits the high courts.

2006-04-08T15:03:00.000+02:00

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4882420.stm
In a shock announcement; jewish writers Matt, Mark, Luke and John are to take Judas to court, following the publication of his "Gospel". Speaking unto the Cavy today, Luke verily said the following "The 'Gospel of Judas' " clearly uses ideas, themes and plots already featured in our own 'gospels'. The main character is the same, the supporting characters are all the same and even the basic plot is the same. He even uses the same twist, that the main character isn't really dead at the end."

The writers have accused Judas of attempting to cash in on the massive success of their own books which have been world wide publishing successes; netting billions in profits from royalties and film rights.

Wallace and Grommit - It's a documentary not a cartoon apparently.

2006-04-08T14:29:00.000+02:00

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tyne/4886272.stm

Watch out for sheep menaced by a Terminator like sheep dog in future.

Did you miss me???

2006-04-02T17:50:00.000+02:00

Phew, stinks a bit here. I don't know; you'd think you could trust a policeman to look after a blog for a few weeks; instead Vic seems to have left the blog stinking of cigars, heroin, dead drug dealers etc.
Anyway, the final curtain of Son of Man has come down; it was really quite an amazing production which had a very good critical response to it. I'll post some photos if you all promise to be good.
The Cavy has returned

Detective Vic Mackey writes....

2006-03-10T15:52:00.000+01:00

Oh, er hi there everyone, Vic Mackey here. Nick 'Culfy' Mazonowicz can't actually make it to his blog; he's rather tied up at the moment with a new job and his play happening at the end of this month, so he asked if I could possibly look after his blog while he's away. I said to him "Nick, me old mucker, when you're a corrupt Los Angeles detective running an illegal drug smuggling operation, having to deal with a crumbling marriage and an autistic son, as well as trying to outmaneouvre your boss and conduct a clandestine affair with a colleague, you know all about being busy. I'm only too pleased to help out." So here I am.

So, in the absence of Nick, I'll try and keep this blog going and answer any questions you may have. In the meantime, if ever you find life is getting you down, here's a piece of advice I once gave to me old oppo 'Dutch" Waggonbach

"If at first you don't succeed, slap the suspect with a telephone directory"

Works every time.

And Bud D Hannay's having troubles as well.......

2006-03-02T00:03:00.000+01:00

From today's Private Eye:

Apparently, Yahoo has tried to avoid offending Muslims by banning Allah as a username; a policy that had to be rethought as Ms Linda Callahan had difficulty with her own user name. Private Eye points out that this is similar to the troubles that the residents of Scunthorpe had with AOL's bad language filter. Which all reminds me of the time I worked for an on-line job agency which had an inbuilt bad language filter; a feature which prevented me from adding Receptitionist and Assistant.

Revolving Doris.

2006-02-23T00:58:00.000+01:00

"Revolving what?" I hear you all ask.

Let Mr Ian Fairholm explain;

"As some of you may know my darling wife Rebsie is now one half of an alt. folk (for want of a better term) duo called Revolving Doris (yes, the name was my idea; my one small claim to fame).Well Revolving Doris signed with an American independent record label (The Lost Records) earlier this year and their debut CD EP has just been released. It's a 5-song CD EP entitled “Imber” and it's currently available for sale at http://www.thelostrecords.com/tlrstore.html For more news, sound samples, blogs and information, see the Revolving Doris website: http://homepage.mac.com/william_shaw/revolvingdoris.html Please check it out and, if you're so inclined, buy a copy, or eight, or as many as you like, it's your money. Also, please spread the word if you know of anyone else who might be interested. Best wishes, Ian, proud wife of Rebsie. "

I'm ever anxious to do my bit for friends so please do visit the site, buy records etc. etc.

PS. I think Ian means 'proud husband' but I don't want to make assumptions, things may well have changed since I last saw them.