Richard III

I watch spell bound with disbelief  as one of the nastiest rulers this country has had  is given a heroes burial in Leicester Cathedral.

The facts are simple, Richard Duke of York was entrusted by his brother with the care of his children. He totally abused this trust in spades. First he, together it must be said with a fair few of Edward's closet friends and allies, conspired to wrest control of Edward's sons from his wife, the Queen, and her family, the Woodvilles, who most of the Yorkist nobility hated and regarded regarded as upstarts.

This they achieved swiftly. Richard had Lord Rivers, the boy king's uncle, lord Richard Grey his half brother and Sir Thomas Vaughan his chamberlain arrested and sent North to grim Pontefract where later he had them executed. Now with the king in his possession he advanced on London but within a month he had, in a rage, had Lord Hastings, one of his principal allies in his coup d'etat hauled out of the council Chamber and executed there and then on a old log. Meanwhile he spread rumours about the legality of his brother's marriage and thus he moved towards declaring his brother's children bastards and locking them up in the Tower. All evidence points to him ordering the killing of his brother's children.Now this is the monster who is being lauded every where by the 'great and good ( or rather the completely fucking ignorant).

Within five months of Richard assuming supreme rule first as Lord Protector and then as king  the Yorkist nobility, who at first welcomed his coup against the hated Woodvilles  woke up to the monster within their midst and rose up in rebellion.  This, known as Buckingham's rebellion. failed but within two years Henry Tudor, a man with only the slightest claim to the throne, had landed at Milford Haven and marched unopposed, with men of all classes flocking to his standard - why? Because virtually the whole country knew Richard for the monster that  he was and so he died at Bosworth rightly reviled by Shakespear and historians down the century

I will be fascinated to see what historical morans turn up at his funeral service to pay respect to a child murderer and I will be- probably - violently sick as I read the eulogies these ignoramuses write and say about a king who while he may not have been bent in body as Shakespear represented him was most certainly bent in mind .  

  

Jeremy Clarkson

The thing which really puzzles me over the Jeremy Clarkson affair is that he is alleged to have punched a producer. Now if it had been a camera man/director or  the director himself I could have fully understood it - but a producer just doesn't make sense.   Let me explain why.

Doing TV work is actually very hard intense work for all concerned and tempers do get frayed not least because good directors will constantly want you to repeat everything umpteen times.  They do this because they are perfectionist which is fair enough but you, the talent, know that 99% of the footage shot everyday is going to end up on the cutting room floor and the chances of this scene doing the same are therefore virtually 100%. What's more it is now seven o'clock in the evening and you are -literally -dying for a pint. And then the director says; 'Oh Francis could you go round and drive over the bridge once more as the battery on the third camera went dead - or whatever- and you feel like screaming - NO I FUCKING WON'T -I'VE DONE IT FIVE FUCKING TIMES ALREADY -I'M GOING FOR A FUCKING PINT and them you remember that you are -actually -being rather well paid- so meekly -but with grinding teeth - you do it once again and again until he/she is satisfied.
Sometimes -as well - you and the director will just disagree .  He/she will want you to do something and you - for whatever reason won't -again tempers will become frayed, and high words will be exchanged but then -like a thunderstorm -it will be over -hands will be shaken and the incident forgotten.

So if the news item had been that Jeremy Clarkson had laid out his director I would have thought- fair enough. Producers though are different animals. They are responsible for the schedule and for ensuring that the right locations, hotels,flights, train tickets  etc. are booked. Now it is -I suppose -possible that the producer in this case fucked up but I just find it difficult to believe that Jeremy Clarkson would have lashed out at a producer for just a fuck up. The most puzzling thing about the whole incident though is that it has ballooned up into such a big deal. In my limited experience of working in TV you - the talent - and the crew- eat, drink, and travel together and bond into a team -us against them.  So that's the puzzle - who let the cat out the bag and why?    

Wolf Hall

Oh my God this is just so boring.  But not only is it tortuously slow and dull TV but it is bad history, added with a script which tries, pathetically, to be 'relevant' and to 'connect' with modern audiences by sprinkling modern idioms about and making the 'hero' Thomas Cromwell behave in a 'modern' way.

Perhaps I should not surprised at how awful this series is as I did try to read the book - yes I really tried - but it was just so badly written I gave up.  Now actually I am a bit of an expert on historical novels having been bought up in a house with no TV and by a father who considered that the only books worthy of being read by his children where those which contained masses of bloody thirsty scenes where plucky English lads whacked smelly foreigners.  This love of GOOD historical novels continues to this day - sadly though - with the odd exception like Robert Harris - really good historical novelists are very scarce

As with historical novels so with historical TV and films.  If you want to see what I mean get the box set of the superb Henry VIII and his Six Wives TV series of 1970 starring Keith Michell or the follow up, Elizabeth R, starring Glenda Jackson to see just how good historical drama can be with a decent script or give yourself a treat and settle down to watch the superb film Man of all Seasons  starring the incomparable Paul Schofield as Sir Thomas Moore.  Because it is by these yardsticks that Wolf Hall needs to be measured and - when it is - you see just how dreadful it is.

Still - I suppose I will keep watching it - if only because my wife enjoys it and I don't want to miss out in him getting his come uppance and having his head chopped off.

Paternity leave

What planet does Ed Miliband actually inhabit? I ask because if he actually thinks extending 'paternity leave' from a fortnight to a month is a vote winner he is barking.  Apparently he wants to do so to allow fathers to 'enjoy more of the first crucial days of their child's lives.'  Well speaking from experience (four children) there is not much to enjoy about those first 'crucial days' in fact the complete opposite.  I have vague memories of white slug like creatures who needed endless feeding and - of -course - nappy changing. Not -and I put my hand up here- that I got involved in much of the latter but, because we had twins I did do sterling work with the bottle once our brilliant monthly nurse-Ollie of blessed memory - had departed.

Anyway I'm looking forward to the Election Poster - I can just see it - a smiling dad with a smiling partner (But wait - a question - should the partner be same sex as the Dad or should the partner perhaps be obviously 'transgender' and - even better - from an ethnic minority? or why not make it  really EDGEY and make Dad a Lesbian?  I only ask)

The slogan could read -  VOTE LABOUR AND GET TO CHANGE NAPPIES - to which some unfair wag would probably add VOTE LABOUR AND GET COVERED IN SHIT -

Ofstead Inspectors -

In the Walker Gallery in Liverpool there is a brilliant picture by the Victorian historical painter Frederick Yeames, it is called ; 'When did you last see your father?'   In it a small young boy of about six or seven, clad in brilliant blue cavalier garb, is standing on a stool in front of a table, the other side of which sits his interrogator, a kindly looking Puritan. Gathered round the table are other, more severe looking, sombre clad roundheads, while behind the little boy his mother and sisters cower under the guard of pikemen.  It is a great picture.

What a pity there is no Fredrick Yeames alive today. If there was he might well be tempted to update the picture. Now surely the scene would be set inside a school. The Puritan interrogator would now be an Ofstead inspector, the cowering girls in the background, would now be teachers terrified of the consequences of how an innocent answer to a question by the little boy might be interpreted by the Inspector. And the title of the picture?  Well I think I better leave that to your imagination.      

This not far fetched. This is modern Britain. Durham Free School faces closure after being branded an 'educational failure' because some pupils displayed 'discriminatory views.'  Allegedly the inspectors quizzed children as young as ten on how they would react if someone 'gay or Muslim' came  to the school and one ten year old girl was apparently asked to define what a lesbian was, an eleven year old girl was asked 'whether she knew any lesbians and whether any of her family had gay friends?'

I am sorry such questioning is not just disgusting but the mindset of the people who ask such question of little children must be twisted beyond belief. But that is the trouble isn't it. These inspectors are as sure of the righteousness of their calling and of their questioning as that roundhead officer in the picture was or -say - of a Gestapo officer questioning a young Jewish boy - yes I'm afraid I don't see much difference between a modern Ofstead 'right on' Inspector determined to root out any 'discriminatory' thoughts and Gestapo or KGB operators equally determined to root out  'anti social elements.'

Andrew Caplen -President of the Law society and Human Rights

Yesterday the Telegraph published a self serving letter from the President of the Law Society a position that equates to that of a  trade union boss.  In it he burbled on about his fears over the Conservative proposal to replace the Human Rights Act with a Bill of Rights. He wrote '....the Law Society has consistently questioned the necessity of a Bill of Rights and has stressed the importance of the Human Rights Act and the need to promote it not replace it'

He ended his letter with this supremely arrogant sentence;

"Human Rights belong to us; they are not within the gift of the government" 

Yes that's what he wrote - showing a complete contempt for the democratic process.  I said earlier that the position of President of the Law Society equated with that of a trade union boss perhaps what I should have added was a trade union boss from the 1960's/70's i.e. one who had a contempt for the general public and for the will of the people.

The Human Rights Act is a disaster for everyone but the lawyers who are milking it via Legal Aid for hundreds of millions of pounds. No wonder the Solicitors leader is so worried about it's abolition. Virtually any day of the week you open a newspaper and read of a judgement which seems to be without a iota of common sense. So on the day his letter was published there was an item about a foreign doctor wanted in America for child rape. The court ruled that his 'right to liberty and security' under the Human Rights Act was at threat if he was extradited. Wow - what a surprise. Yes if you go round raping children and get caught your 'right to liberty' is -one would have thought - at risk and so it should be.

Today I open my newspaper and find yet another moronic judge, Mr Justice Gilbart- has ruled that Mr Pickles policy, bought in to stop gipsies repeating the Dale Farm fiasco,had breached the Equality Act and -you've got - the Human Rights Act.

This country is a Democracy - something the legal profession and the Judiciary seem to have forgotten. In their arrogance and in their desire to line their own pockets at our expense they feel they should be above the will of the people. Exactly like the trade union bosses of yesteryear.  In his  determination to abolish the Human Rights Act David Cameron should have every thinking persons support - and when lawyers like Andrew Caplen,President of the Law Society squeal - just remember who is profiting from the Human Rights Act - his members.

Public expenditure - Clare Barnfather Director (Grade 6) Stakeholder and Engagement team ...

The row over public expenditure is bound to dominate the coming General Election and I am indebted to a letter in the Telegraph from a Mr Andrew Given who drew attention to the following recipient of an MBE in the New Year's Honours List:

Ms Clare Barnfather, Director (Grade 6), Stakeholder and Engagement Team and No.10 Relationship Manager-Marketing Department for Business Innovation and Skills (London) .

That such a complete and utter waste of rations is awarded an MBE is bad enough but what is worse is that she is operating under the very nose of David Cameron.  If No. 10 is still providing employment for such a nonentity then the mind boggles at how many other such time and money wasters are employed in the public sectors.