Don't Shop For It...

... Argos it.

You know what it's like when you're not really concentrating on the TV, there's an ad break and you look up and think, I know that face. Where have I seen that face before.

Well it just happened. It was an Argos ad. I got so spooked I even picked up the remote control and rewound the television and paused it on the face in question. (It still freaks me out that you can do that)

I took a photo. Here it is:


Well I'll be damned. It's Anne Darwin. Wife of John Darwin the mysterious disappearing, back-from-the-dead canoe man.

Look, here she is:


Well, I knew she'd been ordered to pay the money back, but I didn't imagine a bit part in an Argos ad would pay that much.

The Smallest Radiator In The World

The Smallest Radiator In The World, originally uploaded by Dave Gorman.

Jingle-tastic

As I've mentioned previously, we asked listeners if they would like to send us a jingle for the Absolute Radio show I do on Sunday mornings... and we've had a great response.

I wasn't sure how to host audio here, so I've used a couple of still photos and turned them into videos instead... here's a lovely one from Andrew Pugsley...


A really, really short one from Tom White that we've used loads and still makes us giggle...


... and finally, a lovely short and silly one from MJ Hibbett


We're always looking for more so do feel free to do one in your own style and send it our way. I ought to say, we have played several that aren't as, um, professionally produced as these so don't let that put you off.

If you can record a jingle and send it in... you can do so, here.

Oh... and if you use iTunes, you can subscribe to the podcast here and if you don't, you can get it from the Absolute Radio website, here.

Blessed Are The Children

Rush Crush, originally uploaded by Dave Gorman.

I was sitting on the the tube the other day, reading a newspaper, minding my own business, when a woman got on the train accompanied by two impossibly cute daughters. I'd guess they were 7 and 8 years of age.

The woman sat down and instantly started reading a very well thumbed copy of the bible. Her two daughters tugged at her sleeves a couple of times and tried to engage "Mummy" in conversation but she didn't look up from her book. So the kids decided to entertain themselves. They achieved this by taking a pile of leaflets from their Mum and walking up and down the carriage handing them to the other passengers.

The leaflets were advertising a church and looked to be full of quotations from the bible. I really don't know how I feel about this sort of thing. Actually, that's not true. I do know. I don't like it. I don't really think a parent should sit back and tacitly encourage their kids to engage in that kind of activity.

Faith - like politics - is contentious. People are entitled to their opinions and those opinions are often strongly felt. A grown up handing out such leaflets is, presumably, prepared for either rejection or debate - in a way an eight year old girl simply isn't.

A few people accepted the leaflets while others rejected them politely but there was a real sense of discomfort in the carriage. I certainly felt compromised when they thrust a leaflet my way. You look down at two eager, smiling, cute kids and you naturally want to make them happy. But I didn't want to give my tacit approval for the leaflet. I also figured that if a parent is going to encourage their kids to hand out that kind of literature, they have to have prepared them for the idea that not everyone would want them. So I smiled, gestured to my newspaper, in a look-I'm-reading-something way and said, "No, thanks."

They smiled, walked off and continued trying to hand out the leaflets to other people. I reckon about a third of people declined politely. Of the two thirds who took the leaflets... the vast majority just glanced at them before shoving them in a jacket pocket or leaving them on the seats. I think I saw one person actually reading the whole of it.

When the girls had approached everyone in the carriage, the younger of the two suggested to the other that they should go back to the people who hadn't taken the leaflets. The older girl thought about it for a moment and wasn't sure what to do, but just then the train arrived at a station where a couple of people left and four or five people joined the train. Fresh quarry... the girls were off.

It didn't take long. Two people accepted the leaflets. Three didn't. And once again the girls had nothing to do. Once again they discussed the merits of whether or not to approach those of us who'd declined their literature but this time they decided not to on the grounds that those were "bad people."

Now, for the sake of clarity, I'll make it clear that I wasn't straining to listen in to their conversation. They were propping themselves up against the two seats directly opposite me and they were talking in loud, un-self-conscious voices so that anyone within five yards of them could hear every word. Including their mother... who was still reading her bible.

So now I'm sitting there, hearing two young girls tell each other that I - and a third of the other passengers on the train - are bad people. It got worse. They continued by deciding that we were all going to go to hell. Proper hell. With lots of flames and things because the devil was going to punish us because we weren't interested in the good message that God wanted them to share with the world.

Along with a few other people I was being loudly condemned to hell by a pair of sisters, a few years shy of their tenth birthday... and their mother was sat there hearing them say it and doing nothing about it.

Now, as I don't believe in hell I think it's an empty threat... but even so, I think it's a hateful way to behave and wildly inappropriate for a parent to sit there allowing their kids to do so. If you want to bring your kids up with faith that's one thing... but the minute you want them to go out into the world on a recruitment drive you have a duty to explain to them that there are other views in the world and that people who hold them don't necessarily take kindly to being called evil. But what do you do?

I certainly wasn't going to try and remonstrate with two kids. I have no idea how much of what they were saying they understood let alone really believed. More than anything, I felt sorry for those kids. With an upbringing like that, I don't know how they have a chance of growing up as reasonable, balanced adults. Of course they're going to believe strange, hateful things if that's how they're raised. No, the person I had a problem with was obviously the mother. Whether or not the kids understood how much hate was contained in their words I couldn't tell you... but their mother sure should have done and in saying nothing to counter it she was sending out a strong message of approval.

I know I probably should have done nothing. I know I should have just got off the train and gone about my business, dismissing it as just another bit of eccentricity in the world, but I figured I had as much right to hand out literature expressing my point of view as they did. So I did.

We were approaching my stop so I hastily scribbled a few words on a scrap of paper and then, trying to do so in a way that her kids wouldn't notice, I handed it to the mother. I know it will have achieved nothing. I know the chances of that woman seeing any fault in her behaviour or that of her offspring is zero... but it still made me feel better to have done something. At least I didn't sit by and give their behaviour my tacit approval.

The words on my note were: "I find being condemned to hell by your children upsetting. They are learning to hate."

Like I say, it won't have made a jot of difference to anything or anyone but me. The children? You have to forgive them, they know not what they do. But their Mum does. And it's horrible.

Don't Thank Me

A Complete Alphabet of Eine's Shopfront Shutter Graffiti Letters, originally uploaded by Dave Gorman.

Alpha, Bravo, Charlie, Delta, Echo, Foxtrot, Golf, Hotel, India, Juliet, Kilo, Lima, Mike, November, Oscar, Papa, Quebec, Romeo, Sierra, Tango, Uniform, Victor, Whiskey, X-Ray, Yankee, Zulu.

So goes the NATO phonetic alphabet. But ever since I started making plans with my friends Charlie, Juliet and her papa, Oscar to spend November in India where a company called Alpha Travel were offering us a great deal on a two week holiday learning to foxtrot and tango with some golf on the side and a free kilo of whiskey for everyone who books early it's been causing us no end of confusion. Especially when the crackly phone line between me in London and them in Quebec means I have to keep spelling things out to them.

So I've decided to come up with a new phonetic alphabet. I think there's much less room for confusion with mine. I expect it'll soon become the international standard.
A: Arse
B: Bee
C: Chalet
D: Derek
E: Eric
F: FBI
G: Gerrymander
H: Hmmm
I: Instead
J: Jerry
K: Knight
L: Llangollen
M: Mayor
N: Nightmare
O: Obviously
P: Phonetic
Q: Que?
R: Really
S: Spelling
T: Then
U: Underscore
V: Very
W: Why
X: Xena
Y: Yes
Z: Zing

Don't thank me.

Podcasting...

... seriously, originally uploaded by Dave Gorman.

I'm enjoying the Sunday morning radio show immensely. I think we clicked pretty quickly as a team on air and off but even over the space of three shows I think we've gelled more, which means that while we've increased the amount of content to each show they've also sounded increasingly relaxed.

To my mind the podcast is worth listening to just to hear Martin's musical contribution at the end. To have all your e-mails and texts summed up in song by the end of the show seems like a remarkable gift to me. I don't know how he does it. To really ram home how musical he is, he's performed the song on a different instrument each week so far. That's just silly.

I can never remember all the e-mails and texts we've received during the show so there's always a moment during his song where I suddenly think - "oh yeah... there was that one too!"

I'm pretty sure he's actually getting them all in.

In the last couple of shows I've done some (silly) found poetry (what's that?)... the first was constructed using the opening lines and subject headers from spam e-mails found in my junk folder and the second was made up of sentences found on the profiles of girls advertising on a couple of Russian Bride websites. I doubt we'll do Poetry Corner every week but it's been an enjoyable part of the show so I'm pretty sure we'll do more. If you have any suggestions for good, unwittingly funny, source material, let me know. (You can find out the sort of thing I mean by listening to the last couple of shows and hearing the previous examples.)

Of course that's only one of the ways you can get involved in the show. Some of the jingles we've been sent in have been superb. There seems to be a nice steady trickle of them now - but do keep them coming. Of course there are loads of other ways you can get involved in the show. For instance, there's always a talking point that we encourage you to contact us about. The story we heard this week - from a man who'd been going out with a girl for 5 years without knowing she wore false teeth was a classic.

Oh... and if you don't listen live but do get the podcast don't go assuming that you can't join in. If you're listening and thinking, "Oh... I would have told them about the time when I...." then send us an e-mail. We'd like the podcast listeners to feel involved too.

Here's the link to the podcast on AbsoluteRadio.co.uk And of course, it's also available on iTunes.

Jan Moir And All That...

There have been a record number of complaints about Jan Moir's frankly horrible article on the death of Stephen Gately.

It seems impossible to imagine anyone having access to the internet and not having read (and read about) the article already so I won't bother to go over the details again. There's nothing new to add really.

I suppose it's possible that someone somewhere has just come out of a 4 day coma and so knows nothing about it and while it's stretching credibility a little to imagine that my blog would be their first online port of call, I suppose it is possible. But rather than repeat things that have been put better elsewhere I'll simply direct you to Charlie Brooker's words instead. (If you can stomach it and want to check for yourself that things haven't been blown out of proportion you could also read the original article (and its sanitised headline).

In a statement responding to the shitstorm of criticism, Moir says, "In what is clearly a heavily orchestrated internet campaign I think it is mischievous in the extreme to suggest that my article has homophobic and bigoted undertones." I don't know where to start with that.

Highly-orchestrated-campaign or denial-of-homophobia? I'll toss a coin. Right. Denial-of-homophobia it is.

Y'know what? I reckon she really believes that she's not homophobic. People with prejudices are often unaware of them. You've probably heard a man say, "I'm not sexist, I love women. I just think they should be feminine... you know, pretty." (And at home.)

In her defence she points out the nice things she said about him... as if pointing out that someone was "sweet" and "charming" in some way makes it okay for you to speculate about the nature of their death and present your sleazy speculation as fact with no regard for how your words will wound those who are mourning.

"Another real sadness about Gately's death is that it strikes another blow to the happy-ever-after myth of civil partnerships." Really? Was there a myth about gay people living forever? I don't honestly see how someone dying a tragically early death from natural causes strikes a blow to any other kind of myth. Unless the suggestion is that his sexuality is connected to his death and that no married, straight person could ever suffer a similar fate. And seeing as that's factually inaccurate, it's, y'know, homophobic. No matter that you also thought he was sweet and charming, Jan. In summary, when I read Moir's article, I took it to mean, "Sweet, charming, gay man dies because he's a sleazy, sordid gayer!"

Now, on to this strange idea that she's a victim of some kind of orchestrated campaign. I take offence at the idea that my offence - which feels kind of real to me - somehow doesn't count because I heard about the article online. All those people complaining are just doing it because they want to join in. Yeah!

Yes. And Marks & Spencers pulled their advertising from your page of the website and Phillip Schofield hoped you went to bed feeling ashamed because, as we all know, they're as far removed from public opinion as anyone could ever be. It's not like the host of This Morning and the nation's favourite underwear supplier are any kind of barometer.

More pertinent still is that it seems to be kind of ridiculous for anyone from The Daily Mail to be complaining about any kind of "campaign" when running such campaigns is what they seem to do best.

They seem so very happy when they're the ones waving pitchforks, rallying the mob, gleefully gloating about the number of complaints the BBC has received over the Ross/Brand affair, say, or stoking the fires by making ridiculous claims about the number of swear words used in Jerry Springer: The Opera but when the mob is gathering outside their door, one of their writers stamps her feet and yells, "Not fair!"

It's not even as if there is a campaign. Certainly not a highly orchestrated one. I've a friend who's a vicar. He saw Jerry Springer: The Opera. He loved it. He was vaguely troubled by one line but found its merits far outweighed that one moment of glibness. He was concerned when a petition arrived at his church encouraging people to complain about it. He was the only person in his congregation to have actually seen the show. Ignorance of the show's content didn't stop people signing the petition. And that petition was being sent to hundreds - probably thousands - of churches. That's a highly orchestrated campaign. That's people complaining about something they haven't seen.

But that's not what I witnessed online on the day of Moir's article. What I saw was lots of people linking directly to the article, in much the same way that I've provided links to that - and other articles - in this blog post. It's pretty obvious what I think about it but it's also perfectly possible for you to read the article and form your own opinion. That's not a highly orchestrated campaign. That's just the internet being good at being the internet. Things take off. Words get spread. Word of mouse they call it. I'll bet that the vast majority of people who've complained about the article have read it and that their offence is real.

But here's the rub. While the Mail likes to complain about broadcasters, they're also subject to completely different rules. I thought about this a while ago when the Scottish Daily Express ran a truly despicable article about the now 18 year old survivors of the Dunblane massacre. It was during online discussions about this article that I discovered the Press Complaints Commission has no obligation to listen to complaints that come from anyone other than those directly affected by the article.

If that was true for broadcasters, the only people who would be able to complain about the Ross/Brand thing would be Andrew Sachs, his granddaughter and other members of their family. The thousands of complaints could have been brushed aside. The only people who could have complained about the broadcast of Jerry Springer, The Opera would have been God and Jesus. (But not actual God and actual Jesus, no, it'd have to be the God and Jesus imagined by the flawed human being - and imagined - Jerry Springer and I reckon they'd be unlikely to put pen to paper.)

If you think a broadcaster breaches taste or decency you can complain to Ofcom. That's an independent body. The broadcasters have to abide by a code of conduct. Ofcom can punish them if they breach it. If you think a newspaper breaches taste and decency you have nowhere to turn. Unless you or your family are the subject of the article in question. The Press Complaints Commission isn't an independent body. The chair of the PCC Code Committee is Paul Dacre. He's also the editor of The Daily Mail.

The idea that the man who has to take ultimate responsibility for the printing of Moir's article is also chairing the committee that decides what rules he has to abide by seems utterly ridiculous. Especially when an article as tasteless as this (in content and timing) has been printed.

As it happens, it looks as though the PCC will still act in this instance regardless of whether any of Gateley's family complain. I hope they do. But I can't help thinking that if they do it will have less to do with doing the right thing and more to do with protecting their privileged position of self-policing. While their rules don't oblige them to listen to 21,000 complaints, to ignore them would be ridiculous... so ridiculous that it might lead to renewed calls for an independent regulatory body for the press.

In the heat of the moment it would be nice to see Jan Moir made an example of but in the long term I'd rather our press were forced to play by the same rules as our broadcasters. If they were it might not have happened in the first place.




(My blog is automatically imported to my facebook page. I don't think it always carries all the links with it. So if you're reading it over there and want to see the links... you might want to visit http://gormano.blogspot.com/2009/10/jan-moir-and-all-that.html instead.)

***EDITED to add: I'd encourage you to sign the petition calling for the PCC to be made into an independent body here: (http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/makePCCPublic/)***