Royles Cleaned Up for US TV

The hit British comedy, The Royles, is to be cleaned up when it is re-made for US TV later this year. The new American version of the show will be a toned-down version of the uncouth comedy that features a northern family sitting around the television, eating junk food, smoking and swearing.

In fact The Kennedys, as it will be called, will feature no swearing and only minimum smoking.

The head writer of the pilot show for the CBS network, Maya Forbes, stated that the network would like the family to be very much like the British one, but that they have a few restrictions.

"You can't even say 'Jesus Christ!' on American network TV," she added. "There's smoking only if one of the characters makes a responsible comment about how bad it is, so we'll have to rely on junk food."

Ms Forbes has also not yet thought of a replacement for the lead character Jim's "my arse" catchphrase. "It's difficult to find something with bite that you can actually say".

It's An Outrage!!

How can US TV justify sanitising a programme like The Royles and purging all the stuff that makes it so funny, yet at the same time can produce and broadcast such brilliance as The Sopranos?

This Mob-family drama has bucketloads of sex, violence and bad language all in glorious, explicit detail. Yet a layabout slob can't say "my arse"??!

And who are they trying to protect by expunging the swearing and smoking? The gun-toting, crack-smoking, gang-running youth of their country? The same ones that run around shooting up their own schools?

Perhaps US TV should take a wider look at it's responsibilities and the positive part it could play in educating America's young minds.

A good start would be to try broadcasting something worth watching, instead of ripping the heart, soul and guts out of every sitcom they touch. The Royles without cussing and tabs?? I think I'd rather be out popping a cap in someone's ass...probably a Fox Network Executive's!!

The Sopranos Sued by Italian Group

An Italian-American organisation is suing the makers of drama series The Sopranos, claiming the show wrongly portrays the community as mobsters.

The Chicago-based American Italian Defense (sic) Association wants a jury to declare that the mob series offends the dignity of Italian-Americans.

The group is suing Time Warner Entertainment under the "individual dignity" clause of the Illinois constitution.

Broadcaster HBO said the company was "very proud" of the series. "We're hardly alone in our assessment that the show is an extraordinary artistic achievement," a spokesperson said.

But the group's attorney Enrico Mirabelli said: "This is like no family I know. I don't know Italian mothers, ever, who try to have their son killed. That's not realistic."

The association claims the series "suggests criminality is in the blood or in the genes of Italian Americans and that Italians as early immigrants to this country had little opportunity other than to turn to crime".

Last year, producers cancelled plans to film at a university in New Jersey after complaints from staff and students over its portrayal of Italian-Americans.

However, the programme continues to be a huge success, and last year was nominated for 18 Emmy Awards. The first episode of the third series drew 11 million viewers when it was shown on HBO. The series is shown in the UK on Channel 4.

I'm a huge fan of The Sopranos, and love every episode, but 'mannagge'! This is crazy!! IT'S A TV SHOW!!!!!!

It's An Outrage!!

By this group's reckoning, does that make all Seattle psychiatrist's crap at relationships? Or that all Boston lawyers are thin and neurotic? I don't think so.

The Sopranos simply depicts one set of American-Italians who are mobsters, and includes many others who are not (e.g., a restauranteur, two psychiatrists, a doctor, a painting contractor, a priest, a retirement community manager, a couple of teachers, three FBI agents, and so on...).

The reason we watch it is because it gives us a glimpse into the sexy, dangerous and yes glamorous lives of extraordinary people. If it was just about dreary, fatuous, two dimensional characters leading tedious, tiresome existences, it would be called EastEnders, and 20 million people would watch it.

And therein lies the biggest injustice of all...

192.com Promotes Illegal Book

Having once used the 192.com service to try and locate somebody, I seem to be forever on their emailing list.
One morning this week I got the following email from them;

ORDER THE BIG BREACH NOW FROM 192.COM

192.com has over 50% of the total printed copies of The Big Breach and will be flying the books into the UK on Tuesday. It will be the first company in the UK, online or otherwise, to stock the controversial MI6 book which will be available to it's 650,000 registered users as well as the public at large.

The inner workings of Britain's intelligence services are revealed in the book. The Foreign Office has warned that publishing the information could put National Security at risk.

The Court of Appeal ruled on Thursday that the Sunday Times could serialise the book once it was in the public domain. The book's official launch is on Tuesday in Moscow after which it will be widely available across Russia, Europe and the US.

192.com champion the cause for Freedom of Information, and firmly believe that details on National Security widely accessible in other countries should be available to UK citizens.

It's An Outrage!!

It's called National Security for a fecking reason!! I don't believe anyone, anywhere should be able to read this sort of thing. Just because a disgruntled ex-low level MI6 operative wants to make a quick, easy pile of money, does not mean he should be allowed to put lives at risk.

If Government documents were used in a poker game, The Freedom Of Information would not beat The Official Secrets Act. So why should it be this way when money is involved?

Every police or military or security service action now seems to be open to the lottery of public scrutiny. Do you think we'd have won WWII if Churchill had to answer to the media every time he made a decision? Or do you think we'd all be speaking German now?

As the general public, we do not have the appropriate moral or intellectual capacity to pass judgement on how these things are carried out. Neither do we have the bigger picture, or the balls.

The man who wrote this should be paid a 3am visit by his ex-colleagues.

It's Another Outrage!!

192.com claim to be championing the cause of the public, and as such you'd think they themsleves would be beyond reproach.

Funny then that their own operating practices have been called severely into question by the Office Of Fair Trading.

They do not make it clear that they have no affiliation to BT's Directory Enquiries service (who are 192 on the phone).

They contact businesses and 'advise' them that their business name has been deleted from the 192 CD-ROM, and ask for a payment to ensure it goes back on. Except that they've never actually produced one copy of this CD so far.

Perhaps they're also in line for a 3am visit...?

Wilkinson Sword's Razor Con

I bought some new blades this week for my disposable Wilkinson Sword razor, and chose their newly launched ones.

Supposedly they have a diamond coating bonded to the cutting edge to give a better shave.

They're in the same packaging as the old ones, but were 50 pence more expensive. Well, I thought, for a closer, smoother shave, that's a price I'm willing to pay.

So I bought them, took them home, and the following morning opened the packet to use them.

To my horror, there was one razor missing. Or, to be more precise, instead of there being two lots of five blades, there were two lots of four blades. The picture above shows what I mean.

On the right is the old design, on the left is the new one. Wilkinson haven't even bothered taking the effort to disguise this with new packaging - they've just left one out.

It's An Outrage!!

Packaged exactly like the old style ones, you'd expect to get the same number, but you don't!! That's just downright out of order!!

Alright, it does say on the bottom left of the packet 8, and not 10, but men are just too busy thinking of higher level, more important stuff to notice that....

Safeway Brand Gingerbread Men 'Non-PC'

Safeway supermarket in Grantham, Lincolnshire, is to rebrand Gingerbread Men as Gingerbread Persons.

They claim this is because they are due to introduce a Gingerbread family complete with children (and perhaps a cat, though personally I can't see those selling very well - but I could be biased!!) and consequently labelling their shelves with the individual gender descriptions will become too cumbersome.

However, the more cynical amonst us, including the store manager Tom Lax, assume it is yet another assault by the Political Correctness brigade.

It's An Outrage!!

Gingerbread Men are clearly different from Gingerbread Women (or Ladies), as they don't have skirts or long, flicked hair.

And how many Gingerbread 'persons' have actually complained about their gended specific labelling to warrant this move?

Are we to see them lobbying Parliament in the near future with angry slogans neatly iced onto those big, flat, round lollypops you only see in comics and at funfairs?

I'd have though that the prospect of having their limbs bitten off one by one before having their heads munched (or worse, in the case of younger children, simply being gnawed into a soggy mess) would be their first concern. But as I'm not a thing of sugar, oats and ginger I guess I'll never know.

Anyway, Safeway should stick to the traditional, descriptive names given to these pieces of confectionary several hundred years ago, lest they fall foul of the famous Gingerman's fate.

For those of you who don't remember the fable, the Gingerbread Man ran all round town causing mischief, thinking he was cleverer than anyone else. Until he ran into a VERY clever fox who tricked him and gobbled him up.

Okay, it's a tenuous link, but try and make the leap with me...

Mobile Phones in the Gym

I go to a gym a couple of times a week, and I'm becoming increasingly bewildered by the number of people that come straight out of the showers, open their lockers and stand there buck naked whilst they check their mobile phones.

Most of them even answer or make calls before they get a stitch of clothing on them and I have to wonder - just HOW important is that phonecall??

I am not a mobile phone hater, as I have one for work and one for personal use; I think they're an invaluable asset.

But, not so valuable as to knock getting dried and dressed down a place on the list of 'Things To Do After A Shower'.

Even if, God forbid, it was a call to say something dreadful had happened to one of their nearest and/or dearest, they'd still have to towel off and put some pants on wouldn't they??

It's An Outrage!!

Even worse are the one or two very, VERY strange people who actually take their phones INTO the gym with them.

Perhaps it's a cutting edge personal trainer, who works from home, manages twenty or more clients, and just rings each of them up now and again to say "Go on my son - one more set!", or "No pain, no gain!", or "Push it to the max, big fella!".

Then again, it's probably the other-half, reminding them to bring some milk home... just like every one else.

Crack Addict Sues Suppliers

A California crack addict is suing his suppliers for $1 million, on the basis that they got him hooked and ruined his life.

Hmmmm - pinned him down and force fed him it did they? Put a knife to his throat and compelled him to sell all his worldly goods did they? Coerced him at gun-point to rob and steal and prostitute his girlfriend to feed his habit, is that how it was?

Or was it more a case of them asking him if he wanted some, and him saying Yes Please?

Now whilst I have no feelings of compassion towards drug dealers - I tend more towards scorching them from the face of the Earth - I grudgingly admit to being on their side on this one.

It's An Outrage!!

If this moron hadn't tried the stuff in the first place he wouldn't be in the situation he is now. And let's face it, the dangers of crack are hardly a well-kept secret are they? It's not like suppliers have promoted a positive image of the drug for forty years and subdued all the medical evidence to the contrary, unlike another well know, widely available, addictive and life endangering narcotic.

You never saw glamorous, sexy movie starlets or handsome, rugged cowboys indulging (Welcome to Crack Country...). I don't recall sports champions lifting a huge silver cup sponsored by Crack, or Formula One cars emblazoned with it's logo tearing round Monte Carlo.

It hooks everyone, and will kill you bit by bit. Even grannies and school kids know this.

So I can't really see what his case will be based on. "Please your Honour, I was a weak willed, feeble minded, easily lead, gullible, arrogant, no-hope loser, and then Big Boys came and took advantage of me. . ."

I say, "Excellent, well done, shame he didn't overdose". The more of these stupid washouts we can be rid of the better. Over here in Britain, we're even experimenting with releasing poisoned drugs onto the streets, cutting demand, crime and temptation in one easy step. Click here to see what I mean.