Dr Feelgood

I was awoken by my alarm-clock this morning, and it was the start of the 'Sportsweek' programme that Eamonn Holmes does. He doesn't do it alone, however, he has at least one co-presenter, a woman named Beverly (spelling?), who I have taken an immense dislike to.

What happened was this. When introducing the themes of the programme, and the subjects for the listeners to ring and text about, she said something along the lines of:

'Did you see Children In Need? What's the point of Kelly Osbourne? She's just had her parents by her a £1 million flat, threw a £100,000 party on her first night there, and she gave just £10,000 of her own money to Children In Need. I mean, seriously, what is the point of Kelly Osbourne?'

Where to start with this? It's so unutterably fatuous that I nearly choked when I heard it, and I've been getting angrier and angrier thinking about it as they day has gone on. Before I start, I should probably say that I didn't watch Children In Need, mostly because the prospect of being sat in front of a ninth-grade variety show that would be put to shame by a moderately well-organised local AmDram group was about as appealing as meeting Ainsley Harriot on a dark night on Clapham Common.

First of all, why does the value of her accommodation matter? Charity is just that, charity, it's not a tithe, and I don't see why anyone should have to pay anything. I didn't - so she paid £10,000 more than me, for just one. Further, I don't understand her rationale. The average house price, across the UK, is just under £200,000. By Beverly's rationale, then, in order to contribute a reasonable amount, the average householder should give considerably over two thousand pounds to Children In Need every year. Bollocks to that.

What's all this about her party, too? Who cares? If I had £100,001 pounds I'd fancy spendy a hundred monkey on a big bash. Why should I hold that against her? So she'd rather spend her cash on a good time than on charity - show me anyone, anyone at all, particularly hypocritical Beeb journalists, who would rather drop all their spare change in the collecting tin than enjoy themselves with it, and I'll show you someone who's either mentally sick or a compulsive liar.

Also worth considering is the amount she gave. £10,000 is a vast amount of money. If they can't do anything with that, then I don't see the point in giving them anything anyway. That was probably one of the single largest donations all night. If I were Kelly Osbourne, I would demand two grand of it back after a foul comment like that, and two grand more after every subsequent snarky snit that smug barely half-presenters indulge in, because if the Children In Need charity is so rich that it can afford to allow BBC presenters to piss all over a huge and generous donation like that, then frankly I think it's time people gave their money to a charity more deserving of it. Pathetic.


I've got a good idea - to teach them a lesson, instead of giving money to Children In Need, give it to Kelly Osbourne instead.



********************************************

Also upset with Children In Need, and also 'Little Britain', was my favourite curmudgeon of the moment, Mick Hume.

On Five Live's 'Fighting Talk' programme this morning, boxing pundit John Rawling accused 'Little Britain' of being 'offensive.' He's right to dislike it, but for the wrong reason. I couldn't care less whether or not it's offensive, the problem is it's not funny at all. I was talking to a friend of mine about this the other day, and I discovered he had the exact same experience as me - he watched the first programme, found it really funny, then tuned in again the next week and thought it was a repeat. All sketch shows where the characters have catchphrases repeat themselves, but only 'Little Britain' does so word for word.

Hume states:

'But Walliams topped that line with an explanation of the show’s focus on transvestites, gays and alternative lifestyles that could have come from the little book of Tessa Jowell: “We don’t stereotype,” he said. “We celebrate difference.”'

Must there be a political rationale for a sketch show? 'Little Britain' seems to me to be a very unfortunately political idea - every other day, a newspaper columnist or a government minister is agonising over 'what it means to be British.' 'Little Britain' seems to suggest that there's nothing more to Britain than jokes about fat women, grandmas, chavettes and incontinent people. How very witty.

One comment I remeber very well from the defunct 'Shot By Both Sides' blog was a commenter who stated that:

'Probably what it means to be British is not to be wondering what it means to be British all the time.'

That's exactly right, and it's why 'Little Britain' is so desperately unfunny. Something else, please.


I'm sorry, but it's rubbish.

Oh, and before I go, regarding my first moan again - Hume points out that:

'Meanwhile, listeners to the Today programme on Radio 4 could be forgiven for thinking that the big news of the week concerned egg-cups, given the endless plugs for breakfast egg holders featuring the smashing faces of Today presenters (only £12.50 each, with “at least £2” going to the charity. You can now officially get away with anything in a Good Cause.'

Perhaps Beverly might want to talk to her own collegaues about their clear miserliness in keeping almost all the money from this shitty paraphernalia before she starts bashing people who've actually done some good. Just a thought.