If you tune in to BBC Radio, you would certainly recognise these names. Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand are two of the most popular radio show personalities in the UK today. They can give you a really great show, which can help you chase the blues away on any given day.
It seems that this time, though, they took things a little too far and offended some people. As a result, they have been suspended by BBC, pending further action. The Guardian published this story earlier today:
The BBC today suspended Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand until an investigation into their prank calls to actor Andrew Sachs has been completed, in an attempt to quell the mounting furore over the “Sachsgate” affair.
Today’s suspensions almost certainly mean that BBC1’s Friday Night with Jonathan Ross, the presenter’s Saturday morning Radio 2 show, and Brand’s Saturday night show on the same station will not be broadcast this week.
The BBC director general, Mark Thompson – who is understood to currently be on holiday in Sicily – said he would return to London to review the situation, saying it was clear from the public’s reaction that Ross and Brand’s Radio 2 broadcast had caused “severe offence” – a view he shared.
Thompson described the calls to Sachs – in which Brand and Ross made lewd suggestions about the Fawlty Towers actor’s granddaughter, which were pre-recorded on Thursday October 16 and
broadcast on Brand’s Radio 2 show on Saturday October 18 – as “completely unacceptable”.
A public apology was given by Thompson but no official statement has been released by the duo. The question that is circulating now is this: Is the suspension a good enough penalty? Looking at the other side of the coin, though, is the suspension too harsh? What do you think?
Ever since Prime Minister Gordon Brown took office, he was hell bent on raising the consciousness of the British people on what it means to be British. I suppose that this is quite an understandable effort, especially if you look at other countries who have a distinct sense of nationalism. The Thai people, for example, are known for their openness, calmness, and always ready smile. The American people are known to be warriors of democracy. I know some would disagree with my descriptions but you know what I mean. National identity is something that is valued by some people. And I think Gordon Brown is one of them.
Personally, I do not see anything inherently wrong with his efforts. He merely wants to strengthen nationalism in Britain. The problem, as many experts have stressed over and over again, is that there is no clear answer as to what it means to be British! More so, in the midst of the recent hullabaloo about Britishness Day, many critics have railed that “public display of nationalism” goes against what it means to be British! What a quandary they are in…
So now, Prime Minister Gordon Brown has another idea shot down to the ground. Britishness Day is to be celebrated no more. What do other people in the government think? Shadow Justice Secretary Nick Herbert says: “Labour still hasn’t worked out that British identity is bound up in our institutions, culture and history. It can’t be re-manufactured by their spin doctors.”
So tell me, what do you think marks you as British? What makes you British?
I have this friend who spent a couple of years in London when she was at the university. A little less than 10 years later, she still reminisces about her years there. According to her, it was the best time of her life. Given a chance, I am sure she would gladly hop on a plane and go back for good. She has her London dreams – as many other people do, I am sure.
And speaking of London dreams, there is actually a movie titled the same. London Dreams is directed by renowned director Vipul Shah. Movie enthusiasts – especially those who have a particular affinity for Bollywood creations – would recognise this name as being behind the big hit Singh is Kinng. This movie is making history as it also launches a treaty between Bollywood and the British movie industry. The treaty will allow Indian film makers easy access to British resources if they wish to collaborate with British film makers. Though it may be an arguable point, many consider Bollywood and the British film industry to be only second to Hollywood.
More on the treaty from NDTVMovies:
The British government’s department of culture said that without the treaty, co-productions would have to pass a “UK cultural test” to qualify for tax relief, adding: “Most would be unlikely to, particularly if they were in a non-Council of Europe language like Hindi or Tamil.”
“The treaty allows co-produced films to bypass this test. This means they are granted national status in both countries. And this means they can gain access to the new Britain tax relief – one of the most generous and competitive tax reliefs in the world,” a department spokesman said.
The treaty is also expected to support a range of spin-off businesses, including British-Indian suppliers, which support filmmakers with anything from costumes to caterers, British-Indian owned cinemas which are likely to show the films and the British tourist industry.
Follet pointed to the economic value of the treaty as Britain faces a recession, saying: “The wider your base, in an economically difficult time, the more resilient you’ll be.”
This will certainly revolutionise the Indian film industry and help them reach a broader audience than they have now. It is something to look forward to in the coming years, isn’t it?
Yes, there is such a thing as English Art, although not too many people may be aware of it. Wikipedia actually defines English Art as “body of visual arts originating from the nation of England, in the form of a continuous tradition.” This kind of art was actually only defined in 1956 by Nikolaus Pevsner, in his book The Englishness of English Art. Many decades later, great men were still trying to give a clear definition to English Art. In 2000, Sir Roy Strong wrote The Spirit of Britain: A narrative history of the arts and in 2002, Peter Ackroyd wrote The Origins of the English Imagination.
So what is English Art, really? The general consensus is that traditional English Art involves paintings of landscapes. English Art is not limited to this, however. Wikipedia further expounds on the themes of English Art:
Its earliest known developed form, one that continues to the present-day, is arguably the decorative surface pattern work exemplified by the Lindisfarne Gospels and the exterior carving of Anglo-Saxon churches and monuments. Ackroyd argues that the concern for a light and delicate outline, for surface pattern for its own sake, and for patterns and borders that threaten to overwhelm the portrayal of figures, have all been long-standing characteristics of a continuous English art. Other elements Ackroyd sees as inherited from the early Celtic church are a concern to portray the essence of animals, a tendency to understatement, and a concern for repeating structures that extends from Celtic knotwork to church organ music to Staffordshire ceramic-ware to stained glass windows and to the wallpapers of William Morris.
Indeed, a visit to England will prove to be a feast for the eyes and soul as one gazes upon various art forms, some of which have been around for millennia.
It has been observed, one time too many, that people from the West seem to have a more liberal attitude than the rest of the world. Though this includes more countries than the United Kingdom, a recent incident in a beach in Dubai has brought negative attention to the UK once again.
Last week Michelle Palmer, 36, from Rutland, and Vince Acors, 34, of Bromley, southeast London, were sentenced to three months in prison in Dubai for having sex outside marriage on a public beach and offending public decency. They were also fined about £200 and will be deported when they have served their sentences. They were lucky: their punishment could have been much worse.
This incident is evoking a lot of varying opinions. On the one hand, these are adults who are supposed to be free to do whatever they want to. On the other hand, some people think that their behaviour is offensive and insensitive to others. The Times feature actually leans towards the second point and I tend to agree. Indeed, we live in modern times where the attitude towards sex and sexuality has changed a lot. However, these two people were NOT in the UK. They were in a country which has a different culture, a different religion. Come to think of it, if this happened in the UK, sensibilities would probably still have been offended. The point, I think, is that our freedom should end where other people’s toes begin. Freedom is only as good as not stepping on other people’s toes. Whatever happens in your own house is your business. What you do at the beach becomes everyone else’s business.
How do you feel about this?
Festivals are always fun and people come from far and near to join in the festivities. In Britain, though, one of the most popular kinds of festivals is the literary festival. This is the time when people from all walks of life can come together and steep themselves in books and ideas. Literary festivals have long been part of the academic culture of the British. In the past, these festivals tended to be small and scattered all over. Today, there are huge festivals that enjoy a wider audience.
One of these literary festivals is the Times Cheltenham Literature Festival, which is currently being held. It stared on the 10th of October and will end on the 19th. There are so many events that are part of this literary festival and even the “biggest” people in Britain took part – and are taking part – in them.
The Times Online reports today:
Last Friday, Gordon Brown and Ian Dawes both came to The Times Cheltenham Literature Festival. The Prime Minister arrived in a bulletproof car with outriders; Mr Dawes, a middle-aged man from York, brought his caravan; Mr Brown stayed for one hour and attended one event; Mr Dawes plans to stay for a week and has tickets for 17 events. But otherwise their intentions were identical: to plunge into books and the ferment of ideas surrounding them.
You and I may be nobodies as compared to Gordon Brown and Ian Dawes but at a literary festival, we can all be equals as we seek to immerse ourselves in the wonderful world of literature. See you there!
It’s not that they are not doing their jobs. It’s just that, according to the Police Federation, late night drinking puts undue strain on their resources. The Press Association just published a report on the point of view of the Police Federation, which is set to voice their concerns formally to the government. Here is part of that report:
The Police Federation will say that super pubs “are very difficult to secure and police effectively without a significant drain on police resources”.
The committee will also be told that one of the reasons why the Act has not succeeded in creating more responsible attitudes towards drinking is because of the cultural importance the British attach to alcohol.
The Police Federation will say: “The consumption of alcohol remains a fundamental part of most cultural aspects of British life and drinking to excess remains to be seen as laudable and to be encouraged by a significant proportion of the population.”
The federation will also call for an end to cheap alcohol on sale in pubs, clubs and supermarkets, which they say “encourages binge drinking and contributes to the persistence of alcohol abuse among the young and under age population”.
The statement that alcohol consumption really struck me – before, it was mostly foreigners who stated such things. If you remember, other prominent British personalities have said some similar things recently. If people from the same culture are taking note of the turn of events, I suppose that a change in mindset is really due. What do you think? Is this something that really needs to be addressed or are we acting too drastically?
What is the bonus culture anyway? Take a quick glance at the financial or business section of newspapers – whether online or offline – and you will quickly understand what it is. Big wigs in the commercial and banking industry normally receive huge remuneration packages in exchange for their services.
So what is wrong with this? Why shouldn’t people who work hard get what they deserve? I suppose the key words here are “work hard” and “deserve.” Now I have no doubt in my mind that many executives have worked their bums off to get where they are right now. They also probably work hard to maintain the position they are in – same thing applies to their company. However, does this kind of work warrant bonuses that reach millions and millions?
Bonus packages are normally associated with the American business culture but the UK is not exempt from this. In fact, Prime Minister Gordon Brown recently issued a statement against these kinds of bonuses. According to him, “the days of big bonuses are over.”
The Institute of Leadership & Management reports:
In an interview with GMTV, Gordon Brown stated that one of the conditions of government help for banks is reaching an agreement on remuneration packages for executives.
Although the majority of problems have been with the US system, there have also been “abuses” in the UK, Mr Brown claimed.
“Our economy is built around people who work hard, who show effort, who take responsible decisions, and [where] there is excessive and irresponsible risk-taking, that has got to be punished,” he said.
Mr Brown added that he is “angry” at what he dubbed “irresponsible behaviour”.
Recently, Lord Adair Turner, chairman of the Financial Authority Services (FSA), announced the body will also be looking at bonus payments made by banks.
Indeed, if things go the way Mr. Brown is planning, ordinary people just might benefit from this.
Not everyone knows who Guy Watson is but for those who are into organic food, he is considered a guru. Guy Watson is the founder of Riverford Organic Vegetables, which is based in South Devon. He began his activities way back in 1985, when organic food was not that much of a hit yet. What he did was put his produce in boxes and delivered them to shops and homes. From those humble beginnings, Guy Watson has gone a long way.
So what is his philosophy with regard to food? In an interview with the Times Online, he shares:
Eat good quality food, prepared with love and grown not too far away.
People have got so far removed from their food and how it is grown. They have lost confidence in their own judgment and are easy prey to advertising promoting processed, sugar, salt and fat laden crap. Add to this the progressive loss of kitchen skills over the last two generations and we are in trouble.
And his views on traditional British cuisine?
I regret the obsession with the exotic and abandonment of culinary traditions that dominated the 40 years following food rationing. Things are getting better now.
Behind closed doors we have a growing army of fantastic home cooks. We have some of the world’s best, most knowledgeable and cosmopolitan cooks feeding their families wonderful meals day in day out. I suspect most of them seldom watch a cookery programme because they are too busy cooking.
Indeed, if we want to preserve and promote our traditions, we should follow Guy Watson’s example.
I am not sure if today’s kids know that much about Kate Moss. I do remember clearly, however, her being in the news all the time many years ago. What with her waiflike looks and her highly publicised personal struggles, her career was on a constant roller coaster ride.
Today, she has been once again brought to the limelight. This time, however, it is not her in person but a golden version – literally. LA Times Blogs has this feature on the “new Kate Moss:”
Sculptor Marc Quinn has unveiled a 50-kilogram (110-pound) gold statue of supermodel Kate Moss at the British Museum in London as part of its “Statuephilia” exhibition. The 18-carat sculpture, titled “Siren,” is worth an estimated 1.5 million British pounds, or $2.6 million. The artwork portrays the runway goddess in a bizarre yoga-like pose, her torso sticking through her lotus-shaped legs.
I have not had the chance to gaze upon the statue in person but pictures abound on the Internet and I have to say, the piece does catch one’s eye. I do not claim to be an art expert – far from it – but despite (or maybe because of it) the bizarre appearance of the figure, I cannot help but look at the statue again and again. I do not understand it, I cannot explain it, but I think I like the statue. That is not to say that I admire the model for the statue, though.
Your thoughts on this?
Powered by WordPress | Custom theme by Randa Clay | Copyright © English Blog | Top
Posted on Oct 29, 2008 by