Following the mass protests, disturbances and let's face it, riots at the weekend people have started attacking statues and monuments, simply because they don't like them.

Many of these are young people, under 21 and not really in a position to understand what they're doing or why.

It started off with the attack on the Robert Colston statue in Bristol. Who was Colston? Well, he was a slave trader in the 17th century.

Why did he have a statue? Because when he died he left an awful lot of money to Bristol. The statue is not there to celebrate slavery, nor it it there to glorify it. It was there to say thank you to a benefactor.

Does this statue mean anything to me? Not at all. I've never seen it, I don't think I've ever even been to Bristol. If I did it wouldn't be on my list of things to visit. But there's a correct way to remove things like that which may have outstayed their welcome.

It is not for me, you or anyone else to decide that a statue has to be forcibly removed simply because YOU don't like it. You put a case forward for it, you campaign.

I had a discussion (until I was subconciously called a racist) with someone over the weekend about this very thing. She told me she had campaigned for a while to  have it removed. I also remember some debate about it in 2017 or 2018. But that campaign was limited to Bristol itself.

Now, clearly not enough people campaigned to make the council aware of it, after all aren't we supposed to live in a democracy where majority rules?

if 2% of Bristol for example put forward a good enough and strong enough case to have it removed I can see why it wasn't. If 98% of Bristol did you could bet it would have come down. If the campaign was made national same again, we shouldn't give in to a few whiny people, it's all about the majority.

Now the left have moved on to other statues. Who the fuck attacks statues for gods sake? Mind you, the left are good at attcking things that can't fight back.

Now we're hearing Ghandi was racist. Winston Churchill. Lord Baden-Powell. The list goes on.

They're seeking out things people said 70 to 80 years ago and inspecting it with a 2020 lens.  Eighty years ago people's opinions, views and mannerisms were massively different, all over the world, as they are now.

There isn't a single person out there that hasn't said something racist at some point.  I once called an indian lad a "paki" at school.  I was 6.  Are you going to cancel my life due to something I said 40 years ago as a very young child?

These statues form part of history, good and bad.  It should never be the case that we celebrate only the good things, it's not all beer and skittles. Sometimes we have to see the bad side too like Liverpool winning the league and Gemma Fucking Collins.

We can't simply go around like stroppy teenagers getting things removed because we don't like them.

So why is this in the TV section you ask?  Well, you see it's not just statues that are being targetted because they've now moved on to TV shows.

It started with Bo Selecta's Leigh Francis having to make a "tearful apology" over the use of "blackface".  Except it wasn't really blackface was it?  It was mostly masks.  Not only that, they were taking the piss out of Craig David, Michael Jackson and Mel B from the Spice Girls.

None of the piss taking was racist, it was a parody of the people themselves.  None of who complained about at any time.  I'm certain both Craiiiiiig Daaaavid and Mel "Fishpaste, oooh!" B both appeared on the show as themselves.

This is a show that is 18 years old.  Nobody complained about it then, nobody has complained about it since.  Craig David is actually friends with Leigh Francis.

If the target, if Ican use that word, of the mirth is OK with it why isn't everyone else?

But it didn't stop there, because they moved on to Little Britain, a 17 year old show.  And then they had the gall to move on to The League of Gentlemen, a 21 year old show.

Clearly the idiots feel that Papa Lazarou is no longer acceptable because it's blackface.  Yet it's not.  They haven't bothered to read the interview with Reece Shearsmith and Steve Pemberton.

Nor were there ANY complaints about it when it came back for a special in 2017.  How does it get from no complaints to having it banned in 3 years?

Lefties, that's what.

Step forward Mighty Boosh, you're next.  A 13 year old show that featured characters, not poking fun at real people or a race, characters.

There's 1 thing that is common between these shows.  They're a very small bunch of people running them.  League of Gentlemen (like the De La Soul posse) consists of 3 people.  They don't have that many extras as part of the show.  The live shows have none at all.  So if they had a character who was say, black then the argument is they'd need to employ someone else just to play that character.

Mighty Boosh consists of Noel Fielding, Julian Barrett and Noel Fielding's brother.  One or 2 extras, that's it.

But who is deciding these shows are now racist?  White people, that's who.

Have they actually stopped to ask a person of colour if they find it offensive?  No, they're deciding in their little bubble what they perceive to be racist.

Except today it's taken another turn because The Inbetweeners has been taken off.  Now, there is no blackface or racist scene in that show at all.  It's been removed because one person didn't like it.

Who are these joyless wankers and why are they spoiling it for everyone else?  Are these people sat at home at night scrolling through shows on Netflix or BBC iPlayer looking to see what they dislike and making a case for nobody else to be able to watch it.  What a set of sad bastards.

Earlier today I saw the argument, "Who's watching Little Braitain in 2020 anyway?"

The answer is, somebody.  People ARE watching it. Even if you want to go down the "It's not really suitable for TV these days" angle, meaning it's not suitable for live or linear TV, you're actually stopping people from going back to an archive.  The point of streaming services is that people watch what they want on demand.  Do you never go back to watch old TV shows?  I do it all the time!

iPlayer is supposed to be an archive so you don't need to buy and keep DVD's, so you can go back and watch shows whenever you want.

We're paying a licence fee to the BBC to tell us what we can and can't watch, we are been censored by the very people we pay to watch TV.

Well, not anymore, my licence is getting cancelled.  Fuck the BBC, they're a bunch of paedophile harbouring cunts.

 

amazon hunters I've so far watched the first 2 episodes of Hunters by Amazon and I have to say I'm pretty impressed with it.

 Not only is it a great premise for a TV show, it's actually a new genre in itself which is good to see.

 However, it does fall into some of the modern pitfalls of TV and film.

 

 Modernisms

 The show is set in 1977, yet it uses phrases like "Reaching out".

 This phrase is relatively new, I think.  It's only been in common parlance for a couple of years and is very much one of those business "Bullshit Bingo" phrases like "Think outside  the box" and "Touch base".

 If the phrase was in use in the late 70's then how come it's never come up in any episode of Starsky and Hutch et al?  The reason, it simply was not used.

 No spoilers here so don't worry about reading on, but in episode 2 there's a kid with a nut allergy.

 On an airplane the stewardess is handing out seemingly free packets of peanuts and a mother of an annoying child says the child can't have any because he has an allergy.

 Again, nut allergies are certainly a modern thing.  I'm not saying people weren't allergic to nuts in the 70's but it does seem to have only been a common thing in the last 20 years.   When you were growing up did you know ANY kid with such an allergy?  I certainly didn't.

Those kind of conditions, like lactose and gluten intolerancy are very new - when did you ever see a Bond villain or 70s/80s baddie use nuts or wheat to kill someone?

 

Lesbians

In the 2nd episode (again no spoiler) the female cop turns out to be a lesbian.  Why?  It's just not needed.

I mean, I'm not against ladies being gay, far from it, but why does she need to be gay in this show?  Her relationship seems to have been shoehorned (pardon the expression, no pun intended) in for the sheer sake of it.

If she was straight and was with a guy her sexual relationship still bears no relevance to the story at all.  The fact she's with another woman just seems to be an excuse to create such a scene.

 

These kind of things have a habit of spoiling shows, just like the obligatory mixed race relationships I've mentioned a few times of late, although so far Hunters hasn't gone down that route, yet.

 

All in all, 2 episodes in I really like it and I hope the rest of the series continues to keep me entertained as it has so far, but I really wish TV producers wouldn't go for the token wins and think about what language would really have been used back then.  You dig?

 

Remember the 80s cartoon Vicky the Viking?

I could never tell whether it was supposed to be a boy or a girl.  I know, I know, I shouldn't assume a gender and all that. (Piss off, Ed)

But seriously, could you tell?

vicky the viking

Has a girls name - Vicky

Has long girly hair. (Not a Man-Bun or Top Knot in sight)

Has a girls face.

(Has a womans hand, my Lord)

It's a girl, right?

Wrong.  Turns out Vicky was a boy.

I guess Vicky is a shitty alliterative approach to naming the character but why not go with Victor the Viking for example?

So, that leads me to think, was Vicky the original trans nightmare?

Just think if later in life someone addressed Vicky as "Ma'am", and he has to get all medieval whilst shouting ,"It's Sir!", whilst people are doing that "nutter" hand gesture that Jason Manford does so well.

vicky the vikingVicky after touching your mum

 

 

So, we've just had Christmas and I have to say the TV was absolute rubbish.

The thing is, it's not a new thing, it seems to have been consistently bad over the last few years.  And why?

Part of it, I think, is that there's just far too many channels now.   There's channels that have Christmas specials on in July because they're just showing the same shows over and over again.

The Christmas Specials they do make are either not really Christmas shows, they're just a one-off special of a show that happens to be shown at Christmas.

Scrolling through the EPG on Cable over Christmas it was just the same old guff, the same stuff you could watch at any point in the year.  And this is on Christmas Eve, Christmas Day, Boxing Day - the BIG days of the holidays.

At the risk of sounding like a dinosaur, it WAS better when there were only 4 channels back in the 80s.  There was always something to watch.

The family sat around and watched TV together, a bit like Gogglebox but without the false outrage, virtue signalling and Tory bashing.  If there wasn't anything worth watching on BBC 1 you were almost guaranteed something decent on ITV.

BBC 2 was reserved for the Snooker and Monkey, and maybe the odd film.

ITV didn't show the same films every week like they do now.  There was no such thing as Reality TV.

Come Dancing was on when everyone was in bed, rather than being a prime time show.

Yes, the world has moved on and I certainly think having more channels is a good thing.  Looking back to when Sky (Or BSB) first appeared, there was a small number of channels and that felt like it was manageable.

You had Sky 1 and UK Gold.  There were a couple of sports channels in Eurosport and Screensport.

The Movie Channel was the one and only channel for, well, movies.

Even moving forward to when On Digital made an appearance, there were more channels but it seemed like there was always something to watch.

There were probably 20 or 30 channels tops, it felt OK.

Now there are hundreds and I can regularly scroll through the EPG and not want to watch a single show.  Do you settle for any old channel instead of, to quote "Why don't you?" - Switch off and go and do something less boring instead?

Chances are you settle for something.  I know I am guilty of this.

Things like this is also why I think people settle for pirating TV shows from other countries.  I rarely watch live TV.  

A good chunk of what I watch comes from the US, sometimes the shows make their way over here but it's months later in some cases.

By the time Killing Eve started on BBC1 I'd already seen the entire series, and the worst part of that is that it's a BBC production!

When you look at the ITV channels for example, they're just a huge waste of time.  ITV2 shows crap, ITV3 should be known as "ITV Back to the Future" as that seems to be on every week.

It's the same films on rotate week in, week out.  

To go back to Christmas, where were the shows about 80s toys for example?  Or looking back at old Christmas shows?  A bit of nostalgia goes down well at that time of year.

Why not scrap a huge chunk of the channels and get more original programming in?

The days of linear TV and the traditional platform have a limited lifespan if they continue to just repeat the same episodes constantly.

Look at Amazon, their original programming is such a high quality.  Netflix make loads of brilliant original shows.

These shows are being pirated and watched by people who don't or possibly can't subscribe to them all because what's shown on the traditional channels is garbage.

Let's change TV!

I've been a big fan of Gogglebox since it started.  Or should I say, when I became aware of it half way though series 1.

Back then it was genuinely funny, had some really funny people on and it was one of the few programmes I watched live.

These days though, it's absolute drivel.

The people they have on it are all coached in what to say.  It's funny that they only seem to have a go at Boris or the Tories.

You're honestly telling me that none of the people on it vote Tory or any other party?  Not even the posh ones?

Fuck off!

And what's worse, certain individuals seem to get away with making fairly slanderous comments.  Take for example an episode I watched on Friday night.  I'm about 3 weeks behind but it featured that woman who Boris is supposed to have been bonking (to quote The Sun) and whom he gave a contract to.

Now, I don't know if that's true or not and frankly I don't really give a shit as it goes on everywhere not just in politics, however, one comment in particular struck me.

I think it was from one of those vacuous bints from Leeds who said, "Boris has got women all over".

Really?  That is quite slanderous really.

Again, I don't really know if Boris is what's known in the trade as an "Absolute boy" but if he's not shagging around with Ali and Sandy (see what I did there?) then there's a possible case there.

I wonder how much Channel 4 put aside for potential court cases, and with it being publicly funded are they really allowed to behave like that?

Up until a couple of years ago there was an old fella on it called Leon.  Proper staunch Labour supporter, would often refer to any Tory as a "dickhead".  Which is fine, calling someone names is alright in my book.  But when they're making more inflammatory remarks or suggesting corruption etc then that pushes the boundaries.

It's clearly in the name of humour, and the people on it are told what to watch so they have no choice in the matter but it's gone from being a witty show to Channel 4 pushing an anti-Brexit, anti-Tory propaganda which I think is wrong.

That is NOT entertainment, it's boring, dull and been done to death by Mock the Week for the last 3 years.

 

Page 1 of 5

Copyright © 2000-2020 Monkey on Toast. All rights Reserved.