The recent ITV 3 parter "Des", about the killer Denis Nilsen drew complaints from viewers.

Some said they were genuinely frightened by it and couldn't sleep!


What on earth were you thinking?  That a dead gay fella was going to come to you in your sleep and chop you up, like some camp Freddy Krueger?

And if you don't like a TV show why persist with watching it?  Is that just so you complain to the makers about it? Just don't watch it!

And then there's the people who complained because of all the smoking in it!  Granted, there was a lot of smoking, it probably reflected true life at the time.  I don't think there'd be gratuitous smoking for the sake of it, if Dennis smoked as much he did then it's just reflecting real life.

Personally I thought the show was really good.  Sometimes ITV can come up with a real good drama.

One thing that did annoy me slightly though and it's happening quite a lot in TV shows these days is the use of modern words in shows set in the past.

I've mentioned it before on the Hunters review, it can sometimes spoil a show.  When Des is being interviewed by the police and they find out he's an ex copper they ask why he left.

His response, "Homophobia".

Bear in mind this is set in 1983, I find it hard to believe that would have been Des' answer to the question.  Granted, I know it's not a truly modern word, it has roots in the 60s BUT it only really entered everyday parlance in the last decade.  It didn't spoil the show of course but it does show that writers are applying woke terms to shows set in the past and it doesn't always feel right.

Overall a great 3 parter that I can recommend, especially if you're into true crime.

It was announced recently that the 80s satire puppet show "Spitting Image" was making a comeback.

Great news, no?  Back in the day it was brilliant.  The puppets were superb, the writing was excellent, even though I was too young to understand some of the politics or the satire it was still funny,.

But there's a few things nagging away at me re this new show.

I can't help think it's going to be absolute shit.

I mean, the puppets look excellent but I'm worried about the content.

We just don't do satire anymore.  When was the last time you saw true satire on your screen?  It's dead.

"Have I got news for you" used to be excellent satire, now it's unfunny, I just can't watch it.

"Mock the week" used to be fairly satirical at times, until Brexit.  Brexit and Trump, that's all they joke about - 4 bloody years!

"The Mash Report" with that nasal imbecile Nish Kumar?  Give me a break, it's horrendous, which is why the BBC still keep it on.


So, let's look at some of the characters and what I personally think they'll be like:

spitting boris

Boris Johnson, our PM.  Probably portrayted as a bit of a bumbling idiot.  Not far from the truth if I'm honest but you just know it'll be full of "Stay at home, but go to work, don't see your family but go to the pub, be alert, the country needs more lerts".

You know, the unfunny shit you've been reading on Facebook since April.


spitting cummings

Dominic Cummings; ghoulish looking, and the puppet is a good likeness too.

Probably portrayed as a master manipulator but I can't help but think his scenes will be full of references to Barnard Castle and Specsavers.

Yawn.  That was months ago, can we have something new?


spitting andrew

Ahh, Prince Andrew.  Something non political.

But will his scenes just be full of "I can't sweat, Oh I love Pizza Express" nonsense?

See, I'm just not convinced by it all.  There is of course Donald Trump as well.

Odd that they're only taking the piss out of those (supposedly) on the Right though?  


I hope I'm wrong, and I'll happily praise it and fully admit I was wrong if it turns out the writers really have pushed the envelope to make sure it's true satire.  The problem is that it's not on any mainstream channel, it's going to be on that Britbox thing, which is a streaming service setup by the BBC and ITV.

The BBC doesn't do satire (as I've outlined above) and the last time ITV attempted it was that 2DTV is the early noughties, and that didn't last too long.  And with the show set to debut in the autumn does that mean they're writing and filming now?  By the time autumn is here it'll all be out of date.  The great thing about the original Spitting Image is that it was written and filmed in the same week as the events were occurring.

Barnard Castle was unfunny after about 2 days, that was back in April or May.  Imagine how painful it will be to hear it all again come October or November.  You might as well thrown in the miners strike for good measure.

And Britbox?  Well, I guess unless people buy it especially for Spitting Image then most of us will have to resort to piracy to watch it.


As I said, I'll happily admit if it's really well done, I don't mind admitting I am wrong.  But I also have a concern about the show if it really IS good.  You see, part of the reason why we don't have satire anymore is because everyone gets offended by everything.

If you follow some of the great satire accounts on Twitter you'll see there's a whole world of idiots out there.  People actually believe the satire as reality and get offended by it.

I've seen the list of puppets they have made for the show and guess what, not a single person of colour.  They are ALL white men or women.

No Dianne Abbott for a sneaky episode of Countdown?  Nope.

Nothing of the sort.  Why is that?  Because it's racist to take the piss out of people of colour, don't you know?

I'm sure people will complain there's no diversity in the puppets too!

Adele is one of the puppets.  Will it be fat?  Will people complain of fat shaming?  The show will issue an apology and will quietly disappear from "Shitbox".

This is the world we live in now.  Nobody is ever happy.  Always looking for a reason to find fault, to point blame, to call something an "ism".

I truly wish Spitting Image all the luck in the world, it's going to need it - but I hope it knocks it out the park and ignores the woke wankers who have no sense of humour.  

Let's make Satire great again.

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.



 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?



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