That is So Unfair!

See that person there? That's Kevin the Teenager. One of the most popular characters from the TV show "Harry Enfield & Chums" which took pride of place on the BBC's comedy line-up in the late 1990's.


He was a comedic depiction of the typical teenager as any parent of teenagers would testify and his trademark line "That is SO unfair!" is one of the most remembered phrases in modern TV.

And today it emerged that the Sun is now edited by Kevin the Teenager.

The television licence fee, the primary source of funding for the BBC, will increase by £3.95 to £135.45 per year for a colour television licence. The increases were actually less that the BBC's requested "above inflation" increase for what it claimed was needed to cover spiralling costs, the relocation of BBC Sport from London to Manchester and concerns over the cost of the digital switchover in 2012 whilst the National Union of Journalists supported the BBC's request over concerns of job losses.

But not everyone is happy. The BBC funding has always been a sore point for commercial media organisations who would love nothing more to be as respected and trusted as Auntie, but who are bound by commercial pressures and the whims of their advertisers.

The Sun today ranted on, with it's usual plethoric use of BOLD CAPITALS, that such increases in the TV licence fee have no place in their idealistic immigrant free, human rights devoid world.

Apparently the BBC wastes my cash on programmes that I don't want to watch, or so says an inaccurately written piece of garbage. You know that the "journalist" in question (term used very loosely) is talking rubbish when he claims that none of the BBC's rivals receive any TV licence funding - not a single penny, completely oblivious to the fact that Channel Four are currently benefiting from a £70m cheque from the very same fee.

The poor audience figures are cited as a primary reason why the TV licence should be cut. What isn't mentioned is that public broadcasting is not about attracting audience ratings, it's about meeting the diverse needs of the populace. Producing trash TV to appeal to the lowest common denominator is the realm of ITV, not the BBC whose remit is to produce quality entertainment, informative and educational programming.
Now your typical Sun reader would be pretty confused as he read 'quality', would understand to a degree the word 'entertainment' but then would be completely lost by the time he reached the words 'informative' and 'educational', so would your typical Sun columnist.

The other sore point is the BBC website. Rather than having a quality website with accurate journalism and outstanding feature writing which can be read across the world free from advertising, the Sun would prefer us to be bombarded with adverts for 'online casino' and 'big money bingo'.

But none of this is surprising. The owner of the aforementioned rag happens to be Rupert Murdoch, the very same individual who owns Britain's biggest multi-channel broadcaster, BSkyB.

Murdoch, who has made no secret of his dislike for the BBC and it's funding is essentially telling us that whilst we should be outraged at being asked to pay £135 a year to watch quality news, documentaries, sport, entertainment and of course, Kevin the Teenager, we should still be racing to the phone to pay even more to watch the proverbial TV wheelie bin containing "Cirque de Celebrite", "Sexcetera" and "Eurotrash".

But what Murdoch or the Sun won't be telling you is that tonight, the BBC will allow you to watch both sport and a movie for £10.96 per month. Mr Murdoch on the other hand, will charge you nearer £50 for the month for the same privilege.

Now, who was ripping off who again?

The War on Christmas

This morning that bastion of truth, honesty, straight thinking and well produced journalism, the Sun, set out on a crusade against what it claims is the 'War on Christmas'.






Every year we get stories in low-rent rags such as the Sun and Daily Mail about how anything remotely festive is banned because "it offends religious minorities." Heck, there's even a book about it.
Today's Sun has even printed a list of cases, even printing words in BOLD CAPITALS to make sure that I understand them and are equally outraged.
The argument falls down though when they list what has/hasn't been banned. Here's a snippet:

A COURT banned a millionaire from putting up his annual charity light display.

So, banned because of religious minorities, or "banned" because (presumably), he didn't get the planning permission that is required to erect commercial illuminated displays?

A SANTA was prevented from touring a town because his sleigh does not have a seatbelt.

In other words, A SANTA was prevented from using public roads in an un-roadworthy vehicle. Presumably the Sun would be happy for a drunken 16-year old to drive an un-taxed, un-MOT'd F-Reg Fiesta laden with presents through a village square on the proviso that he wore A SANTA costume.

There's more where that came from and I dare say that we've not heard the last of the Sun's campaign to allow people to break the law just because it's Christmas.


And the outrage hasn't stopped there. The right-wing press are creaming themselves over Channel 4's decision to allow a fully veiled Muslim to deliver their Christmas speech.

For you non-Brits, a bit of background knowledge is probably needed:
Every Christmas day, families used to gather around the TV as the Queen delivered her Christmas speech to the nation. It had to be done, usually because your Gran was a devout supporter of the monarchy. Today however it's different and support and interest in the Royal family has continued to wain. Buckingham Palace lost a lot of public support over their actions following Diana's death and a catalogue of gaffs have never seen them recover their image to what it once was.
Channel 4 spotted that and each year at the same time Her Majesty went on air, they broadcast their "alternate speech". Previous years have seen the Beckhams, the Simpsons, Ali G, Sharon Osbourne and Ali G address the British public and this year will see a woman known only as "Khadija" step in front of the camera.

Of course, we are all supposed to be outraged by this. I mean, how dare a national television network broadcast images of a veiled Muslim into the homes across of a multi-cultural and so-called 'racial tolerant' nation such as Britain and how dare they give a non-Christian an opportunity to give their views on the most 'Christian' day of the year (despite the fact that Christianity stole Christmas from the Pagans). Interestingly, nobody seemed to care when Sasha Baron-Cohen (as Ali G) appeared on our screens a few December 25th's back, despite the fact that he is Jewish.

So today people, as you go about your daily business, remember to be outraged.