Gay Champion Matthew Mitcham

Is unimaginably hot.



Matthew Mitcham, the 20 year old, out gay Australian diver, won a last-minute gold medal with a near-perfect dive. He came back from burnout and depression two years ago to compete in the Beijing Olympics - the only male, out gay competitor. In the 10m platform final, Matthew had been trailing China's Zhou Luxin, but defeated the Chinese hot favourite with his final dive, graduating from gay icon to gay hero in the process.





He's pretty funny, and sweet with his boyfriend Lachlan too. Noone should be allowed to be this cute.

Ellen Marries Portia

I'm so pleased for them. California really had better reject Proposition 8 in November and let marriage equality stand. Only a really cold, soulless monster could look at this and find it threatening in any way. It's a real injustice that Australia still doesn't at least acknowledge foreign-held same-sex unions:

"Every time DeGeneres and de Rossi visit de Rossi's family in Australia, their rights, protections and status as a married couple will cease to exist," Mr Furness said.

"It is shameful that Portia de Rossi's solemn marriage vows are dishonoured in this way by the government of her home country."

Will Young at the V Festival 2008

A lovely little diversion for you. The divine Will Young, singing an acoustic version of his new single 'Changes' at this year's V Festival. It may be just my opinion, but I think the man is getting better and better. Not only is it one hell of a good song, but this is one hell of a delivery. Sam Sparro may be the new gay boy with the soulful voice on the block, but this is the standard he has to live up to.

'Changes' is released mid-September as a download and CD single. Don't miss it.

Bigfoot in the 21st Century

Oh I remember Bigfoot from my youth. I was born in the Pacific Northwest, so got caught up in monster frenzy of the 70's and got quite obsessed. I watched TV programmes, even got books about Bigfoot, not to mention all the other monsters like Nessie, the Yeti and others. Looking back as an adult it was just a bit of fun - the likelihood that there really are leftover dinosaurs or neanderthal men, who just happen to have a knack for getting into camera shots, but just not too closely is pretty slim after all. And yet...

Two men in the US state of Georgia say they have found the body of a Bigfoot, the legendary ape-like creature that has been subject of decades of hoaxes.

Great story, except the 'body' doesn't even look real, and wasn't brought to the press conference for independent verification, making the 'DNA evidence' impossible to corroborate. A rat can clearly be smelled, but hey, who says the days of childish wonder are dead?

Does Evolution Mean I'm Not Special?

"The Genius of Charles Darwin": 2

"I'm special. Made in the image of God, in the creative mind of God, creative as God is, who made me. That's the difference between the ape and me."

It's a great quote which Richard Dawkins teased out of Bonifes Adoyo, an evangelical minister in Kenya, when discussing the latter's apparent opposition to a museum displaying the oldest human skulls. But why oppose the display? Because it was to be done in acknowledgment of evolution. And that's where the 'special' comes in. I've had online arguments aplenty recently with similar evangelicals who are similarly convinced they're special because they believe it. Science and evolution however show the complete opposite - that it's staggeringly vain to believe we're special in any way. We're sophisticated, that's true, but that's because of Darwin's theory of evolution through natural selection; we're a lucky twist of fate.

"There is no goal it (evolution) just happens."

A wonderful riposte once again by the famed, militant atheist. It must be hellish for a theist to think that there's no point to any of this. We do what we do, we arrange our common existence for the most part to our best mutual advantage for our best individual gain, and then we die. We are sophisticated though, and we can theorise, question, philosophise and judge. It's our constantly questioning nature that's the most difficult aspect of our humanity to live with, whilst being our greatest asset.

Dawkins also makes an excellent point about Nazism, ethnic cleansing and other forms of genocide, which many have attributed to Darwinism. It's abundantly clear that there's no connection at all. For man to determine what and who is weak is to completely misrepresent Darwinism - we have no idea what nature considers in the larger picture as 'weak'. That Hitler lost WWII and failed to pass his genes on illustrates an ironic outcome, but the decisions about who is 'strongest' and 'best' remain entirely arrogant human guesses. Evolution works through long-term processes, which can't be looked at forwards, only backwards. Surely mutual cooperation is the most Darwinist notion of all - it gives my genes the greatest chance of making it through to the next generation as much as my neighbour's, and we then leave it up to nature to find out what happens next. I'm gay, so I'm unlikely to evolve my genetic lineage, but that's not true of my sister, nor of my neighbour. And so the human race goes the way it's meant to - plan-free, but not result free.

Trust, sympathy, gratitude, altruism - what a wonderful thought that these nuanced, complicated emotions might have an evolutionary basis - that there's a natural advantage in having them. I notice that Dawkins doesn't tie the logic of that realisation into religion, nor accept that his militant atheism is most useful only as a caricature, rather than a fair and balanced perspective on spirituality and good feeling for one another. Just to argue that religion is about the worship of an imaginary deity is to miss the point surely, which many religious people haven't - that the religion is about mutual solidarity, protection and support (his 'selfish gene'), and bowing down to unicorns ultimately is a side issue, albeit a complicated one. I wouldn't presume to ask Gene Robinson if he believed in a literal God, but when I heard him speak he did use 'God' in a very general, non-personal way. I like to think from this episode that strategies like meditation, wishing good will to others, and being kind really are the pinnacles of our capacity as humans, partly because as a thinking and feeling being it just feels good to know this, but also because the goodness is borne out as a scientific necessity - it's good for all of us and we can't help doing it.

So it's 'survival of the fittest', but in our unique, human society, 'fit' is far more (blissfully) complicated than violent, strong, smart or aggressive. That our 'selfish gene' can give rise to altruism as necessity is delightfully life affirming. Dawkins' analysis that the 'selfish gene''s altruistic outcomes might arise from it's being "stuck" in its ancient mode of bringing about positive outcomes for the transmission of genes in small groups, whereas today we live in large ones where *no* favour will likely be repaid, is a challenge. It suggests, as he concludes, that we really are the first species to be able to take ourselves out of natural selection altogether. What the implications are of that suggestion might be, is no doubt yet to be uncovered, whilst we continue doing everything we can to prevent the horrors of nature impacting on the way our society operates.

Darwinism and religion aren't really that divorced from one another, what a result.

Dark Knight: Too Violent?

Well I'm going to start out with my conclusion and work backwards. You can't question Dark Knight's violence without asking 'too violent for whom'? It may be true that some of the violence was excessive for a 12A rating in the UK - the scene where the Joker introduced himself to the mob was shocking to me as an adult, but even then the violence is in a very clear context. Camila Batmanghelidjh (surely too ironic a name to be real) disagrees:

Batman, as we know, tries to overcome evil. Sometimes he punches and fights, but his violence lacks the sadism of the Joker. The Joker takes delight in the torture of others. He violates because he has nothing to preserve; he's prepared to lose, and delights in the corruption of civil society. He's sarcastic about humanity. The tension lies in whether pain will eventually force otherwise good people, such as Batman, whose violence is in the service of good, to abandon decency and kindness.

You have to wonder whether she's even seen the film. The moral message which radiates from the film is that even in a state of anarchy and lawlessness, good wins. The third act scenes where the Joker tries to get two ferries of Gothamites to kill one another, shows prisoners less likely to kill innocent people than even the most rabid right winger. The Joker's shown quite conclusively not just to be morally wrong but a complete idiot. He thinks society will reflect his anarchistic, morally absent worldview if pushed just a little bit too far, but he's wrong. Bruce Wayne fights for that, Jim Gordon fights for that, and that Harvey Dent fails suggests more of a problem with our elected officials than our fellow citizens.

The day that I saw the film last week, another teenager was shot dead in south London. I have seen the Joker's sadistic, victimising smile – and his nihilism – in some of the young children I work with. It's always born of catastrophic familial abuse. The abused child watching this film will recognise the elation of the Joker at making the shift from victim to violator.

Wrong again. The Joker plays mindgames with the origin of his grin, hinting initially that it was caused by family abuse, but then contradicting that story many times. It would be an enormous shift from the book to make the Joker's madness (for that is what it is) a result of abuse, rather than being an inherent psychological disorder. That you can laugh at some of the scenes involving him is a reflection of black humour - what the Joker does is never funny and the laughter is a symptom of discomfort rather than fellow feeling. Batmanghelidjh is suggesting that The Dark Knight is some sort of abuser's charter and that's about as stupid as the Joker.

What worries me even more than the violence was the lack of human compassion surrounding it. Human life is presented as worthless. For me, the apathetic bystanders who facilitate violence are more disturbing than the Joker himself. His perversion, at least, has a sad logic to it. The indifference of the onlookers, though, is shocking.

Err this is even more stupid. The point of the Joker is that compassion is alien to him, as it doesn't sit with his worldview - it probably doesn't help either that he's insane. But no human compassion? Really? Batman throwing himself off his own roof to save the love of his life? Jim Gordon doing anything to protect his family? Bruce Wayne sacrificing his own happiness and chance of a future, to protect people he doesn't even know? He even sacrifices his alter ego's reputation in order to save Harvey Dent's so that people can still believe in the good of elected officials ahead of vigilantes like him.

I've seen articles about Batmanghelidjh before, and her work is quite remarkable. The levels of trust she's gained with inner city kids with no hope is inspirational, but this piece is deeply patronising. The point of a 12A rating for starters is to put the decision as to whether the film is suitable for younger people in the hands of adults. And secondly it presupposes that even damaged young people won't be able to read the messages in the film clearly, when all the evidence suggests that young people from all backgrounds are far more adept than people from her generation.

It's a metaphor of our time. The day that I saw the film last week, another teenager was shot dead in south London.

It isn't anything of the sort, and maybe it should be. Given that there's noone out there making any measurable difference to the lives of young people, who are murdering one another in ever greater numbers, maybe we do need a Batman, a Jim Gordon, even a Harvey Dent to cut through the crap. The root causes of teen violence has nothing to do with movies like The Dark Knight.

The Myopia of Milibandmania

You've seen me writing recently on this blog about Gordon Brown's failings. Well Michael Portillo, writing about Brown's recent misfortunes, has hit the nail on the head multiple times. David Miliband, current British Foreign Secretary, last week embarked on an extraordinary media adventure, setting out what looked to all intents and purposes like an alternate Prime Ministerial manifesto. Miliband has for some time been touted as the true heir to Tony Blair, and with Brown's now numerous failings of substance and style, it seemed as though a leadership campaign was effectively started through this intervention.

Part of his argument makes sense. The electorate is turned off by exaggerations of success. Labour's success in combating poverty has been eclipsed by their embracing of corporate business and extreme wealth, which has caused the gap between rich and poor to accelerate to a size greater than ever before. They may have accelerated markets for parental and customer 'choice' in education and within the health sector, but ignore the realities on the ground which make them fail. Their foreign policy is still a mess and grossly unethical (Miliband take note), their asylum policy grossly xenophobic and homophobic, and the Home Office is doing everything in its power to restrict even the most basic civil liberties, when it should be tackling the true causes of crime. And back we go to the beginning of the paragraph.

Portillo says:

A year ago Miliband famously predicted that we would soon be yearning for Blair again. That is certainly not what most of the Labour party feel. They supported Brown for the leadership, expecting a move away from new Labour. Tired of Blair’s adulation of wealth and of the United States, they looked for a fresh commitment to social justice.

And he's quite right. Miliband isn't offering anything of the sort. He talks of 'belonging', of 'modernising', whilst ignoring the diviseness of the policies which he offers no respite from.

Every member of the Labour party carries with them a simple guiding mission on the membership card: to put power, wealth and opportunity in the hands of the many, not the few. When debating public service reform, tax policies or constitutional changes, we apply those values to the latest challenges.

And yet New Labour does put power, wealth and opportunity into the hands of the few; this is a complete lie. Poverty isn't being combated in any meaningful way, and it's far from the only 'value' being ignored. 'Protection' policies allow the perception of crime to be hyped up far higher than it actually is. We're so afraid of the paedophiles lurking around every corner or every mouse click, that we fail to see abuse where it's really occuring and become paranoid about the wrong people. Asylum seekers are blamed for their own persecution, as New Labour reformulates the world around us into something it isn't, as worker protection offered by the EU continues to be rejected by a government timidly kow-towing to the corporate world. David Miliband, despite what he might say, offers no 'change' from this. Portillo continues:

Last week Bob Marshall-Andrews, the veteran Labour rebel, called on Brown to fire the foreign secretary. He is absolutely right, although if Miliband survives the weekend it may already be too late.

He is indeed right. Miliband's intervention was a thinly-veiled attack on Gordon Brown's authority (admittedly what little there is left of it). A Miliband leadership challenge, if successful, would ignore what Portillo rightly points out is an important lesson of modern history. The Conservative Party and electorate as a whole would much rather now have had the chance to have had Margaret Thatcher voted out, rather than evicted. Her authority had similarly dipped, through similarly falling completely out of step with the country, had clung to power for the sake of it, rather than continuing to offer substantial change, and had tried to legitimise the arrogance which is now (in many quarters) her legacy. Yet in flip-flopping to Major to Blair now Brown, none of them ultimately satisfying anyone, the country was denied a clear picture of the social and political alternatives before it. Blair paints himself the heir to Thatcher, as Cameron does to him, but New Labour has turned out to be a shallow sham, with politics not having truly moved on from the Thatcher era.

Brown might well be an awful Prime Minister, timidly appeasing the right wing whilst merely tinkering with left wing policies, but the electorate is already irritated that he didn't even triumph in an leadership election - that even the Labour Party didn't even truly decide they wanted him rather than a true alternative to Blair. To impose a second Blair clone on Britain, a smug one at that, would indeed be a catastrophe for the party. Under Brown they'll fall, but at least have the opportunity to debate what really should come next, and live to fight another day. Under Miliband, who hasn't even the groundswell of support Blair did in 1997, they would lose all trust and spend another quarter century tearing themselves apart. For all his numerous failings, Tony Blair must be spitting blood.

Restrict Religious Groups?

I don't think so. Take a look at this:

Four out of 10 Muslim students in Britain support the introduction of sharia into UK law for Muslims, according to a YouGov poll. Almost a third of them said that killing in the name of religion was justified; 40% said they felt it was unacceptable for Muslim men and women to associate freely; and nearly a quarter do not think that men and women are equal in the eyes of Allah.

A quarter of Muslim students said they had little or no respect for homosexuals. As for whether British Muslim servicemen should be allowed to opt out of hostilities with Muslim countries, 57% said they should and a further 25% said they were not sure.

More than half of the Muslim students were in favour of an Islamic political party to support their views in parliament. A third don’t think or don’t know whether Islam is compatible with the western notion of democracy, and a third said they were in favour of a worldwide Islamic caliphate based on sharia.

Alarmed? From the words, you're clearly supposed to be. An Islamic political party? What a terrible thing. Next thing you know we'll have a Calvinist as Prime Minister...and a quarter of Muslim students with little or no respect for gay people? Why not try canvassing Christian students and see if you get an even bigger number! And speaking of Christians, Muslim servicemen should 'opt out' of hostilities with Muslim countries? Gosh you'll get civil registrars and policemen trying to opt out of their secular duties next.

What follows inescapably from this is that religious people and their views should not be officially recognised in groups. Religion should not be allowed a public space or public representation. This is hard for those of us who used to love the muddled Anglican compromise; it means the disestablishment of our national church – if it doesn’t self-destruct first.

The challenge of other, fiercer and more divisive convictions has forced the issue; multiculturalism has been subversive. There must be no more religious schools – personally I would leave those that exist alone. There must be no public recognition of religious associations as representatives of anything or anybody: not on campuses, not in student unions, not in government consultations or in parliament.

Absolute hogwash, and I say that as an atheist. Whilst I agree that Church and state should indeed be separated, this argument is tantamount to advocating that all MPs should be atheists, which is ridiculous. But for religion to have no public space at all would be insane. In a recent talk I watched by Bishop Gene Robinson, he and Sir Ian McKellen jointly argued that we can only progress together in society - that means atheist lobbyists working alongside gay bishops, that mean civil rights and religious rites side by side, but not one excluding the other. Only by making the civil and religious spheres distinct can we see the deficiencies in both and how each can aid the other.

Sure it's past time for the sake of fairness in society (for Muslims and non-Muslims alike) that disestablishment should take place, but to then say that religion should as a result wither on the vine would be ignorant. And to exclude religion from places of learning is downright inane. I agree that it should not be the means of learning (you're right, I think faith schools should be stopped - by which I mean Anglican and Catholic ones too), but not to allow its free expression by those best able to articulate it would be the most dangerous act of extremism of all.

Yet how can young Muslims fit into a liberal western democracy if they believe things that are intolerant, illegal and, in plain English, unBritish?

There's that fear thing again - the writer blaming Muslims for attitudes widely held by Christians. Want Islamophobia? That's how it's transmitted. Try attacking the levels of domestic violence and rape perpetrated by chuchgoing Christians. Try attacking the Christian Institute for trying to change the law to allow religious opt-outs such as Lillian Ladele's disgraceful example in Islington. And for that matter if we really don't like dictators maybe we should try to oust all of them rather than just the Islamic ones.

Homosexuality and Heinz

Dear old Heinz. First they run a humorous ad featuring a New York deli chef kissing another man, implying pretty strongly in the script that the chef is actually their mother and it's Heinz's Deli Mayo product that makes her appear this way.



Then when about 200 viewers complain because it was 'offensive', 'inappropriate' and 'unsuitable to be seen by children', Heinz pulls it, just like that. Considering that the ad wasn't allowed to be screened during children's scheduling because of the product's extreme unhealthiness, surely that 'unsuitability' argument should have been immediately discounted. And Zoe Williams is right - what makes this so inappropriate when Bounty (the kitchen roll) is still running a series of ads with men dressed as women. So transvestism isn't 'inappropriate' or 'unsuitable to be seen by children'? But the bigger question is why Heinz pulled it at all. Spokesman Nigel Dickie said:

"Heinz is a global company and we respect all universal rights. The advertisement was intended to be humorous, not designed to cause offence to anyone. Clearly it failed in its intent to amuse and that is why we took the decision to withdraw it."

Says who that it failed to amuse? 200 complaints is hardly groundbreaking, and why do you think it makes more sense to offend gay and gay friendly consumers by bending to homophobic pressure? Stonewall Chief Executive Ben Summerskill advocates a consumer boycott of Heinz (and I agree with him), saying:

"We're shocked that an innocuous ad should have been withdrawn in this way. I can't imagine that Heinz would respond to protests about black people featuring in their adverts."

Brown is Gutless and Hypocritical

Gordon Brown indeed witters on again and again about 'Britishness', as did Blair's first Home Secretary David Blunkett. He discusses new ideas about 'British' bank holidays, citizenship ceremonies, flag flying, all sorts of petty nationalistic ideas which might buy him some extra time with the electorate, yet when challenged by David Davis to fight a by-election on civil liberties and their 'strangulation' he bottles it again. Surely Davis is right, that these values are quintessentially British, and to fight for them is the most British quality of all.

He added: "Mr Brown likes to talk about Britishness - fundamental to Britishness is being free. He should come out and argue the case."

Why not? Unless of course Brown feels that being free means to have a surveillance society, ID cards and the hugest period of allowable time for detention without charge anywhere in the Western world...

Britain Moots Internet Regulation

It's hardly surprising from a government that thinks it knows best about everything and tries to control the electorate accordingly, but it's now mooting applying televisual standards to the internet. Excuse me? Is it not bad enough that the corporatisation of the internet is already introducing massive unwanted, unnecessary controls? Are the freedoms which the internet allows, and the likes of which have never previously been known, to be sacrificed for the sake of inhibiting truly dangerous content? Isn't that backward? Then again, this is the government that is so clued up on technology that they think ID cards are a good idea.

Except of course they have a point. The genuinely good on the internet would hardly be touched, if at all, and it would take a brave or foolish person to say that the continuing explosion of objectively dangerous and wrong internet pornography shouldn't be somehow stopped, but there's also huge swathes of grey area, which would likely be trampled by such regulation. The internet has the levelled the playing field for diversity more than any previous technology. We can understand the full spectrum of people's cultures, sexual behaviours, private lives, most personal and uninhibited thoughts. Of course this has opened the same door wide open to child abuse, fundamentalist violence, neo-Nazism and bullying. Should all those things be allowed to occur freely when we aren't remotely comfortable yet at mediating our relationship with this technology?

Of course not, but the absence of regulation also gives us the ability to question whether our national laws and national ideas are sound, by being able to see everything about the way everyone else does things. That in my mind is a freedom we mustn't even accidentally give up, driven by moral panic or not. So do require ISPs to block child porn - it's been a mystery to me why that hasn't been done for a decade or more; it's not like some places don't do it. But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater - blocking Flickr in the Middle East has been a retrograde step, and forcing national filters on that site (which ostensibly doesn't harm anyone), for countries as close as Germany is completely wrong. For the rest we need better intelligence, better ISP, website and governmental intelligence, taking a close look at the individual cases which might cause damage to young people (for this is surely the point of regulation?) or others and deciding case-by-case what needs to be tackled and how. Big governmental decisions on this subject tend to lead to undesirable outcomes.

The Apprentice (UK) 4:12 (Spoilers)

Aaaargh. I got it wrong. I really thought Alex was going to win. He fit the description from what Alan Sugar has gone for so precisely, I'd been pretty sure it was cut and dried. Lee it was though - the cheeky chappy who lied on his CV wins the day.

Hmmph. Ah well. I'd have been happier if Claire had won out of the two of them.

A Lack of Principle

It may have started before Tony Blair took office in 1997, but New Labour sure has made the disengagement of the electorate from their elected representatives almost an art form. Sleazy financing, friendships with war criminals, launching illegal wars, privatising almost everything that moves, and of course trashing civil liberties. Gordon Brown came to power saying he'd listen, and that his would be a new government. Don't you believe it, it's more of the same bilge. Without any change in circumstances since his predecessor tried to raise the potential period of detention without charge to 90 days, Brown is now trying to raise it from 28 (already too high) to 42 days. What's deplorable is that out of what used to be a left-wing party there were only 'rebels', and now even many of them are being successfully bought off, ostensibly to shore up Brown's crumbled authority and to recast him as a strong, decisive Prime Minister, even though he's anything but.

Mohammad Sarwar, Labour MP for Glasgow Govan, has also decided to back the government after he was given an undertaking that anyone locked up for as long as 42 days and then released without charge would receive compensation on a day-by-day basis.

I'm sorry but this is dreadful. The very basis of doing this is wrong, as former Prime Minister Sir John Major quite rightly pointed out. But it also shows no understanding of why it's wrong. Financial compensation couldn't hope to repair the damage of the destruction of someone's life without definite proof. And it's naive beyond words to think that these powers wouldn't be used abusively - even local councils now regularly abuse the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA). And they're all like this - principle used to be the guide at least to most of the Labour Party, but no longer. They're more interested in voting tactically to shore the worst Prime Minister in generations up in the futile hope they'll keep their jobs in 2010. It's no wonder people aren't voting in general elections anymore

Jesus Christ, It's Iris Robinson!

As many of you already know, Democratic Unionist MP and MLP Iris Robinson, wife of Northern Ireland's new First Minister Peter Robinson, is a died-in-the-wool, fire-and-brimstone 'born again' Christian. Well when on a phone-in radio programme last week, she was asked for her response to the news that a gay man had been viciously beaten up and left for dead. She admittedly condemned the violence, but then qualified it by saying gay people were an 'abomination', who could always seek therapy with her pet psychiatrist, because he's good at turning gay people straight! You thought crap like this left with the Paisleys? Not a bit of it. I have a considered response here, but I wanted a freer word here too.



The woman is mad, bonkers mad. When challenged on TV she followed up her earlier slurs by likening us to murderers, and then complained about a 'witchhunt' against Christians speaking out! Of course she defended that by saying 'it's not me, it's God's word, and you can't disagree with Him'. How convenient - wanton bigotry by someone in a position of power, and an argument that can't be contradicted. Her husband needs to fire her as Chair of Stormont's health committee - that if nothing else is an abomination. This is not what someone in a position of a responsibility, in a devolved government statutorily committed to equality can be allowed to bleat about. Why? Because it's bonkers, does anyone really need that explaining?

Shut up, Iris (or at least laugh at your own madness in likening gay people to murderers in front of a TV camera again - that was priceless)! If only theists knew how hilarious their rants really were.

Leave Fern Britton Alone

I don't feel quite as strongly about this, as a famous individual did about Britney, but it's still wrong that Fern Britton should feel the need to take a break from This Morning because of nervous exhaustion. As I said in my last post her body isn't the property of the public and it's certainly not the property of TV executives:

Television executives have given Britton some time off, although they are
said to be privately angry that she was not open about the operation at an
earlier stage.

It's not a programme I watch, but I hope she's back soon and doesn't feel the need to address this non-issue continually. Fern you're fabulous and always have been. Her detractors need to get some perspective - this is an unhealthy public row to have, clearly particularly for Fern.

I Heart Fern Britton

I've loved Fern Britton as a TV presenter since I was a kid. At a time when all TV presenters (and certainly news presenters) were boring and old, she made a splash on 80's BBC-training-ground 'Spotlight South West' (followed soon after by Jill Dando) and it didn't take long for BBC London to notice her. In those days she was glamorous and thin, and her popularity was full deserved. Her personality shone through in the age of Kenneth Kendall, a permanently frowny Jan Leeming and Richard Baker.

Her run as co-presenter on ITV's 'This Morning' with Phillip Schofield unexpectedly eclipsed that of her predecessor Judy Finnigan, except this time she was significantly overweight. The suspicion was that she had become a national treasure in part because of her weight, which became borne out when she recently went for her dramatic weight loss. She didn't initially reveal that she'd had gastric banding surgery and much of the tabloid press decided she'd been dishonest in some manner with her audience. Excuse me, how exactly is it her audience's business, even if she'd only told part of the story? I think Fern is as fabulous now as she was when I was then, and Lowri Turner is dead right - her appearance is her business. If she wasn't being truthful about being happy being fat, it indeed shows just how difficult her body image as a TV presenter has been for her. And how she went about her weight loss is also irrelevant - might I remind the tabloid scum that her Rivita commercials were supposed to be ironic in the first place?

What's alarming remains the suggestion that part of her popularity came from her size, that being fat and seemingly happy with it made her the safe repository for a huge proportion of her audience's insecurities, and that going thin was thus some sort of betrayal. Barbara Ellen is right here - her popularity really should only be down to her disproportionate skill as a TV presenter. I wonder if Dawn French would suddenly get it in the neck if she revealed she hated her weight and actually did something about it. What a damning indictment that would be on us. The lesson of this storm in a teacup is that yes, it is ok to be fat, yes it's ok to be slim, and that judging people for their bodies whatever their size couldn't be more out of order. And good for Fern for sticking up for herself (below).

Fern Britton
by UnrealityTV

Virgin Attacks Internet Users

The corporate world is going for a nuclear strike against internet freedom, with Virgin Media (formerly NTHell) agreeing to ban illegal downloads. They will warn their users they could be prosecuted, and will institute a 'three strikes and you're out' policy, disconnecting repeat offenders. Filesharing is one thing and using the internet for clearly illegal purposes is another (why is this being discussed for music instead of pornography - oh yes this is all about money not about the principle), but this isn't theft. Whilst I stopped going anywhere near filesharing some time ago, preferring iTunes for its ease of use, relative value for money, and to support the Apple brand, I'm also aware that musicians make no money at all out of downloads, and almost nothing worth talking about from music sales full stop. So it's a complete con when Geoff Taylor, Chief Executive of the BPI says:

"Virgin Media is the first ISP to publicly address the problem. It is a socially responsible ISP and I think other ISPs will look at this and see progress. I am very encouraged they have engaged with us. They understand the rights of musicians," he said.

It's got nothing at all to do with musicians' rights. If it were a rights question there would be an attempt to generally police the internet by the ISP for all sorts of activity. Why not police porn for women's rights and children's rights, or movies for actors' rights or far right websites to protect gay and ethnic minority rights? Oh right because it's not about that, it's about a cheap and nasty money grab, and we'll just blame the users yet again rather than the technology which makes it possible. Of course the BPI could adapt its entire structure to be able to deal with the new technology, but is instead chooses to languish in the past and blame its own future customers for bypassing traditional delivery systems.

It's insidious, and the BPI should concentrate on producing more music which people actually want to buy. NTHell Virgin customers should leave now if they have any sense. The company isn't liable, and allowing interference like this in how it operates is an outrage.

The Business minister, Shriti Vadera, said: "This is a very welcome first step ... to educate consumers about unlawful file sharing, which damages our vibrant economy."

It does nothing of the sort. How stupid she is, but what do you expect from an investment banker who doubles as a politician?

John McCain is a Liar

Which shouldn't shock anyone. After all this is the man who on gay rights is far further to the right than even George W Bush, who wants in all but name to walk away from the UN and fight on for another 100 years in Iraq! But the worst Republican candidate ever has also decided not to support environmental legislation, just when on the campaign trail he says he does.

Who is advising this man? There's getting off on a maverick reputation, and there's just plain stupidity. Why did he go on the 'Ellen' show? Why did he try such a petty speech on Obama's victory night and not have any idea how to deliver it? He is a failure in every conceivable regard, and if he loses in November (remember the incumbent was also a failure before being appointed elected) I wonder if this will become important:

Other influential backers of the Senate climate change bill include 13 leading US energy companies and California's Republican governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Photography is not a Crime

Not a single terrorist has ever photographed their intended targets. This whole nonsense which the police in this country wilfully propagates is just that - a nonsense. Their reasons are more difficult to determine, if you assume there's much going on other than stupidity. But Bruce Schneier thinks much of the reason why it's taken hold so successfully is because it mirrors plotlines we see in the cinema. I wonder. It would take postmodernity beyond itself into almost living irony.

This Country is NUTS

Maybe one of you can explain this to me. A man wearing an Optimus Prime t-shirt was prevented from boarding a flight because the Transformers cartoon character was holding a gun. Said BAA (one of the most disreputable companies in the United Kingdom):

"If a T-shirt had a rude word or a bomb on it, for example, a passenger may be
asked to remove it," he said.
"We are investigating what happened to see if it came under this category.
"If it's offensive, we don't want other passengers upset."

I simply don't see how passengers could possibly get upset by a cartoon character, but we are entering the stage where the thought police are now trying to ban drawings of things they don't like rather than just photos. Maybe this is part of the first salvo. I'm truly dumbfounded.