(This is a piece which unfortunately was not deemed newsworthy enough to make The Daily Hubbub, however another piece of mine was. Check it out!)
Blair's Self Doubt On War Eve Revealed
One of former British Prime Minister Tony Blair's closest aides has revealed that on what turned out to be the eve of the invasion of Iraq, the former Premier had suffered from serious doubts over his bedroom performance with 'wife' Cherie.
Foreign Office official and noted sex therapy author Sir William Ehrman has revealed to the inquiry being held to investigate Blair's bedroom shenanigans that the then PM used to feel terrible fear and inadequacy before he crossed the threshold.
“Oh yeah, the guy used to have some serious hang ups about his performance,” said Sir William after the inquiry chairperson bought him his third pint.
“He used to worry that this big Scottish idiot was trying to push him down flights of stairs, that his special friend George was bigger and better than him and, well, have you seen what he had to go upstairs to?”
“So I asked him what had changed since he was able to fertilise his 'wife' with alarming regularity.”
Mr Blair, who was little more than an unemployed musician before being adopted by the Labour Party, revealed that he had always thrived on the confidence that only street urchin musicians held.
“So I said to him, what is better for building up your self confidence than picking on a smaller person who doesn't really deserve it? I thought he was just going to try to gag Ian Hislop, but it turns out he took it a bit far,” added Sir William.
“I mean, I'm sure invading Iraq was one hell of an aphrodisiac intelligence shows that egging the Lib Dem headquarters would have had the same effect.”
“Now,” finished Sir William after swapping from pints to shorts, “for a golden egg and large black pudding, I'll show you what really happened that weekend at Balmoral.”
Thursday, 26 November 2009
Wednesday, 25 November 2009
Defending The Diva
In a very backwards way, I think I'm about to try to start defending diva-ish behaviour. I know, I know...
Some diva behaviour is a tad extreme. Assuming that The Sun tells absolutely no lies whatsoever in any way, shape or form then when Mariah Carey went on This Morning the other day, it was bedlam. Amongst the highlights of her appearance were the fact that she had an entourage larger than the crew that made the show and had someone walk backwards in front of her with their arms outstretched to catch her in case she tripped. You really do have to be a special blend of bat shit crazy to achieve that.
Oh, and while we are on the subject of Mariah, I heard a rumour about her. As it was a rumour that I can't even remember the source, of must be true as well. This rumour goes that during the inauguration of President Barak Obama, Carey through a huge strop when she found out that she would only be sat with the other VIPs at the event. Turns out, when she was invited as a special guest she thought that she would be sat up on the stage practically holding Obama's hand as he made his pledge.
Anyway, that sort of diva behaviour is simply ridiculous. No matter how big, famous and important you are there is never a justification to have the air temperature in a venue altered to be exactly what you demand it to be. There is no clause that says you cannot go on stage unless all of the lime Wine Gum's are taken out back and shot. Basically, there is no excuse for demanding a service before you perform which is either the metaphorical or literal interpenetration of getting the person in charge to clean your behind for you.
However, with all the over the top tomfoolery of stereotypical requests like a bowl of M'n'Ms with all the blue ones removed or a hooker without an STD aside, there is some merit in wanting this stuff.
At the end of the day, the sole purpose of anyone working in a creative performance job, where the product you put out there is purely there for the enjoyment of the audience, is to stick out a piece of work that the paying punters enjoy. And to do that, you have to have a happy little performer who is pleased as punch to be there. Having a grouchy little bee-hatch is just not good for business.
I will admit that for the last few days, I have not written a single solitary word. This has annoyed a few editors no end, but I don't care. I just haven't been in the mood. I won't bore you with the details, but I've spent most of the last few days in the foetal position feeling a little sorry for myself. Today I woke up and the sun seemed a little brighter. So, I'm writing.
I suppose the point of all of this rambling goes thusly – Although a lot of the demands that some celebrities and certain 'divas' put in are highly unnecessary, there is a point to it all. It is whatever they need to perform at their best. Like it or lump it, I'm sure anyone who is parting with their hard earned cash to see them would rather know that the performer had all of their needs pampered and would put on a belting show than not be fed their duck egg omelette and have the right hump.
That is my case, your honour. It may not be the best, and is definitely very one sided, but it's all I got. The defence rests.
Some diva behaviour is a tad extreme. Assuming that The Sun tells absolutely no lies whatsoever in any way, shape or form then when Mariah Carey went on This Morning the other day, it was bedlam. Amongst the highlights of her appearance were the fact that she had an entourage larger than the crew that made the show and had someone walk backwards in front of her with their arms outstretched to catch her in case she tripped. You really do have to be a special blend of bat shit crazy to achieve that.
Oh, and while we are on the subject of Mariah, I heard a rumour about her. As it was a rumour that I can't even remember the source, of must be true as well. This rumour goes that during the inauguration of President Barak Obama, Carey through a huge strop when she found out that she would only be sat with the other VIPs at the event. Turns out, when she was invited as a special guest she thought that she would be sat up on the stage practically holding Obama's hand as he made his pledge.
Anyway, that sort of diva behaviour is simply ridiculous. No matter how big, famous and important you are there is never a justification to have the air temperature in a venue altered to be exactly what you demand it to be. There is no clause that says you cannot go on stage unless all of the lime Wine Gum's are taken out back and shot. Basically, there is no excuse for demanding a service before you perform which is either the metaphorical or literal interpenetration of getting the person in charge to clean your behind for you.
However, with all the over the top tomfoolery of stereotypical requests like a bowl of M'n'Ms with all the blue ones removed or a hooker without an STD aside, there is some merit in wanting this stuff.
At the end of the day, the sole purpose of anyone working in a creative performance job, where the product you put out there is purely there for the enjoyment of the audience, is to stick out a piece of work that the paying punters enjoy. And to do that, you have to have a happy little performer who is pleased as punch to be there. Having a grouchy little bee-hatch is just not good for business.
I will admit that for the last few days, I have not written a single solitary word. This has annoyed a few editors no end, but I don't care. I just haven't been in the mood. I won't bore you with the details, but I've spent most of the last few days in the foetal position feeling a little sorry for myself. Today I woke up and the sun seemed a little brighter. So, I'm writing.
I suppose the point of all of this rambling goes thusly – Although a lot of the demands that some celebrities and certain 'divas' put in are highly unnecessary, there is a point to it all. It is whatever they need to perform at their best. Like it or lump it, I'm sure anyone who is parting with their hard earned cash to see them would rather know that the performer had all of their needs pampered and would put on a belting show than not be fed their duck egg omelette and have the right hump.
That is my case, your honour. It may not be the best, and is definitely very one sided, but it's all I got. The defence rests.
Sunday, 22 November 2009
Handball Havoc
In a very backwards way, I think that Thierry Henry's hand ball against Ireland might be good for the sport. I know, I know... hear me out.
When it first happened, I was one of the millions who were baying for the French teams blood, screaming that it should be replayed and that Henry deserved to be hung, drawn and quartered. I crossed my fingers and hoped that FIFA would grant it, but no. They stuck by the actual laws of the game, didn't give in to pressure and France are off to South Africa while Irishmen around the globe cheer whoever are playing them.
After giving it a few days and allowing the knee jerk reaction to lull, I suppose that the decision was correct. It wasn't a full technical error, such as in the match with Uzbekistan and Bahrain where the ref gave a free kick instead of allowing a penalty to be retaken. It was human error. You cannot replay games based on human error, now matter how blazingly obvious and catastrophic it may be.
Although football fans around the world like to vilify refs as sub-human robots, they are normal people. They make mistakes. We have all made a big old cock up at some point or another. Last year I changed the radio station and in the two seconds I looked away from the road, drove up the back of a really nice BMW. That was a catastrophic cock up.
But you know what isn't human? Video replay technology. These days in football, you just can't rely on humans to make these massive decisions. You cannot. There is too much at stake financially. Plus, the refs take a massive bashing these days. It would be good to take some heat off of them.
The neigh sayers always bleat on about how it would disrupt the game, about how playing the ref is a part of it and how it would be too radical. But, of course, I know how it can be done
Do it like the NHL. They don't have a replay system like in Rugby or Cricket where it is all in house as, like it would in football, it would be used too rarely to justify such expense. They have a 'War Room' at NHL headquarters. A ref phones it in, confirms the play to be reviewed, they look at it and give the response. In football, unless you want to start a clock-stopping type protocol, you could just give the referees 90 seconds to overturn a decision, adding 90 seconds on extra time.
At least that is how I'd do it. Then a lot of the human errors in football would hopefully disappear.
When it first happened, I was one of the millions who were baying for the French teams blood, screaming that it should be replayed and that Henry deserved to be hung, drawn and quartered. I crossed my fingers and hoped that FIFA would grant it, but no. They stuck by the actual laws of the game, didn't give in to pressure and France are off to South Africa while Irishmen around the globe cheer whoever are playing them.
After giving it a few days and allowing the knee jerk reaction to lull, I suppose that the decision was correct. It wasn't a full technical error, such as in the match with Uzbekistan and Bahrain where the ref gave a free kick instead of allowing a penalty to be retaken. It was human error. You cannot replay games based on human error, now matter how blazingly obvious and catastrophic it may be.
Although football fans around the world like to vilify refs as sub-human robots, they are normal people. They make mistakes. We have all made a big old cock up at some point or another. Last year I changed the radio station and in the two seconds I looked away from the road, drove up the back of a really nice BMW. That was a catastrophic cock up.
But you know what isn't human? Video replay technology. These days in football, you just can't rely on humans to make these massive decisions. You cannot. There is too much at stake financially. Plus, the refs take a massive bashing these days. It would be good to take some heat off of them.
The neigh sayers always bleat on about how it would disrupt the game, about how playing the ref is a part of it and how it would be too radical. But, of course, I know how it can be done
Do it like the NHL. They don't have a replay system like in Rugby or Cricket where it is all in house as, like it would in football, it would be used too rarely to justify such expense. They have a 'War Room' at NHL headquarters. A ref phones it in, confirms the play to be reviewed, they look at it and give the response. In football, unless you want to start a clock-stopping type protocol, you could just give the referees 90 seconds to overturn a decision, adding 90 seconds on extra time.
At least that is how I'd do it. Then a lot of the human errors in football would hopefully disappear.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
