Armando Ianucci.... J'accuse!

It's awful when people you admire, people you respect, do something that completely undermines that admiration. sadly, it happens all too frequently.

Today's major let down is Armando Ianucci.



I knew Armando at university. I was President of the Oxford Revue Company and he was the star and main writer for a show that we took on a national tour and, of ourse, sell-out run at the Edinburgh Fringe.

As a writer, Armando did a lot of growing up during that tour. His earliest scripts were rather dull and predictable parodies of Star Trek but, as the show evolved, Armando tackled less predictable targets and his scriptwriting became better.

He has lead a very successful career with shows baring his name, to being the brains behind The Mary Whitehouse Experience and Alan Partridge, through to The Thick of It and, most recently, Veep. He's also written a great column in The Guardian and even found time to write the libretto for an opera.

He is, arguably, known as a satirist, an anti-establishment figure and, in Malcolm Tucker, he has created one of the greatest anti-establishment characters in British comedy.

In my mind, Armando is up there with Peter Cook, as one of he great satirists of the past half century.

So how has Armando disappointed me?

Today it was made known that, as part of the "Queen's Birthday Honours", he has accepted an OBE.

An Order of the British Empire - it's impossible to imagine anything more establishment. A celebration of monarchy and, of course, the evil that was the British Empire with all the evil that was done in the name of of "Empire".

Why has Armando done it?

By accepting an OBE, Armando has become part of the establishment. He has joined the ranks of the brain dead brown-nosers and shown that his judgement is poor and his anti-establishment rants, well, meaningless. Accepting an OBE is giving approval to a system of privilege and patronage. It is saying that power should be handed down via birth canal. It is saying that democracy is wrong.

Today, by sidling up with the likes of Gary Barlow, Ken Branagh and the designer of the Royal Wedding dress, he has shown that he cares more about idiotic baubles given out by a ridiculous, unelected old woman than his credibility.

It could, perhaps, be argued that a New Year's Honour is less bad in that it's not used to pimp up the horrendous Windsor family in the same way that the Birthday Honours list does, but, no, Armando has leapt in with both feet to be at one with everything he stood against.

Deep down I hope it is an elaborate joke - Armando will turn up at the palace, all suited and booted, and Old Liz will be about to give him his OBE and he'll stop her in her tracks with some amazing one-liner that brings the honours system to a crashing end. Sadly, I know he's simply sold out.

Today, Armando, you have failed a large number of people by being a traitor to the cause. How can you ever poke fun at the establish,eat again, now that you're part of that same establishment?

Armando Ianucci... J'accuse!

Can the Royals get any more pathetic?

Today, for no reason whatsoever, other than to mark her non- birthday, Liz Windsor decided to make her eldest son a Field Marshall, a Marshall of the Royal Air Force and an Admiral of the Fleet!



Why? So he can wear more meaningless uniforms and ribbons? Did she feel that her family wearing military uniform for the recent Thames Pageant wasn't quite embarrassing enough? Doesn't it show that she and her nearest and dearest are more like the North Korean leadership than they like to admit?

Liz Windsor, who somehow seems above criticism from many quarters, is the head of a church that, supposedly, preaches peace and "turn the other cheek" but, because she isn't just the biggest benefits fraud in the country but also the nation's biggest two-faced hypocrite, she has lots of over paid and, clearly, under-employed service march up and down in a celebration of militarism, barbaric behaviour and, let's be honest, murder of civilians throughout the world.

Quite why this horrendous woman is above reproach is beyond me. She is little better than a mafia boss, making sure that she and her cronies maintain their life of luxury through a system of deference and patronage, even at times when some in the country she rules are having to rely on food banks to live.

I don't want a head of state that is such a hypocrite. I don't want a head of state that puts giving her son baubles ahead of the needs of the poor and hungry. I don't want this stnking, evil woman resenting me or the country in which I live.

And I don't understand why others want to bow and scrape to such an awful person and her inner circle.

It is time that Liz "Kim Il Jong" Windsor was put out to grass and all the wealth that she and her family have taken from the public returned to the state.

Vive la Republique!

COMMENT: Booing the National Anthem

There were a lot of tweets yesterday suggests that some of the crowd at the FA Cup Final at Wembley booed the National Anthem when it was played in the traditional pre-match build-up.



I was watching the match on television and hadn't noticed much in the way of booing. Certainly, though, the crowd didn't quieter down for the anthem.

There were suggestions that the booing came only from the Liverpool fans, but, unless you were in the stadium, I think that's impossible to judge.

There could be many reasons for booing the national anthem:

1) The later kick off time (5.15 rather than the traditional 3pm) probably gave fans more time to consume alcohol before they got to the ground.

2) Maybe football fans have had enough of the pointless traditions before the FA Cup Final which not only include someone (often a quasi- opera singer who they've never heard of) performing the National Anthem but also the old Christian hymn, Abide with Me.

3) It's possible that it wasn't made clear what was happening, and in the excitement of the event the fans continued chanting because they didn't realise it was anthem time.

4) The tide is turning and, in this Diamond Jubilee year, the public are starting to reject the notion of monarchy and privilege. Maybe they link the awful dirge-like French hymn tune with its requests to an imaginary superbeing to look after one person, and one person only, to be out of touch with the mood of a nation that has just electorally rejected the party of the privileged and wealthy.

5) Maybe the crowd were booing something (or someone) specific in the stadium - Suarez and Terry both seem to get increasingly hostile receptions from rival fans due to their unacceptable behaviour on and off the pitch.

I suspect it's beer talking, or booing. I 'd love it to be the rejection of monarchy. Whichever it is, it's worth keeping an ear out for future events.

Maybe it's time for a new National anthem - one that's inclusive, doesn't plead to an imaginary friend, and one that's genuinely about the nation?





~ ~ ~ ~ ~

This is the link from the comments below so it's easier to click on: CLICK HERE.

OPINION: Time to change the National Anthem

Today's ruling that councils cannot have prayers as part of their official business has seen a number of rabid dog loonies defending Christian's "right" to pray when and where they want and bleating on about the oppression of their "faith" (mental illness).

One particular Christian on BBC Radio Five said that if the ruling is applied it would mean that councils wouldn't be able to ever sing the national anthem. Hurrah! Oh wouldn't it be good to get rid of this deeply offensive, divisive dirge which, quite likely, isn't even of British origin (it's more than likely an adaptation of a French folk hymn!).

God save the Queen isn't suitable as the national anthem of a democracy in the 21st century - even if we do carry on paying £200+ million per year to allow the Windsors to be the biggest benefit scroungers in the country.

God save our gracious Quuen,
Long live our noble Queen,
God save the Queen.
Send her victorious,
Happy and Glorious,
Long to reign over us,
God save the Queen.

What a load of absolute bollocks!

This verse, if you're Scottish things get worse and much more offensive in later verses (it says that "rebellious Scots" should be crushed), isn't a national anthem at all - it's a paean to a fictional superbeing to look after one person. What has that got to do with national identity?

I have no problem with a national anthem - if we HAVE to have nationalities (something I've often questioned), then there's nothing wrong with a song but it should be inclusive, positive and be about the nation, not just the parasite with privileges at the top.

I disagree that our current monarch is "gracious" or "noble" = she is the head of a business which, in order to operate, restricts the freedoms and rights of the vast bulk of the rest of the people who live in the same country, and who is propped up through pointless, outdated titles and baubles and other bribery.

And why do we want her to be "victorious" - I'd rather we lived in a peaceful world, not one that had wars to be won and battles and victories.

And why, even if we wanted a song about the nation's figurehead, should we be praying to a "god" - which god? Why any god at all? The vast majority don't attend church regularly and aren't "religious" in any meaningful way. Although many still put "C of E' on the census or on forms in hospital they are cultural Christians, or social Christians, whose only links to the church are for weddings, funerals, attending the odd Christening and, of course, a carol service at Christmas.

It is time the "national anthem" was abandoned and replaced with something which has words that are inclusive, non-denominational, non-sectarian, positive and, come on, with a good rousing tune.

There are some fantastic national anthem melodies around the world - the French and American ones are particularly rousing, but our one is just snoresville. Maybe we look at other, existing melodies and songs and see if there is something that could be adopted as a new anthem, or maybe we hold a competition for a new anthem.

Whatever we do, we need a new national anthem - and soon!

OPINION: Michael Gove and a new royal yacht

Michael Gove gets a very bad press in education circles. This is, of course, nothing new. Teachers tend to mistrust and dislike most Secretaries of State for Education whether they are Labour, Tory or, potentially, while we have a coalition, Lib Dem.

Mchael Gove, however, doesn't help his case. He often takes things a step too far, or comes up with ideas which, quite frankly, are just plain dumb.

Yesterday evening a letter that he wrote was leaked to The Guardian. In it he argues the case for the nation giving a new royal yacht to the Queen to mark her diamond jubilee this year.

Gove is an enthusiastic monarchist. Like those who have religion, he has the same emptiness behind his eyes that all morons who support monarchy have.

Gove argues that a new royal yacht would be an appropriate gift to the monarch and would not only create much-needed work in our shipbuilding industry, but would give every man, woman and child a feel good feeling.

Really? Yep, he's that much of a moron.

Firstly, why should Liz Windsor get any "gift" from the nation. She's been taking millions and millions of pounds annually for oing little of merit or worth. Her year is pretty much non-stop holiday and yet this year she and hubby couldn't be arsed to attend the Royal Variety Performance, which is put on for her benefit, because it was in Salford. I don't see many fom the North West feeling they've had value ir money from the £200+ million spent on the monarchy every year.

Secondly, Gove argues that a new royal yacht would create jobs - well, it might have one had it been commissioned a couple of years ago. As it is, even the best, most efficient shipyards wouldn't be able to build a new royal yacht in the time between now and the Jubilee celebrations in the early summer. Additionally, by EU rules I suspect that such a process would have to be put out to render across Europe and, with the UK's run down, overpriced and increasingly inexperienced shipbuilding industry, the chances are that a non-UK shipyard would win the contract to build the new royal yacht.

Thirdly, Gove claims a new royal yacht would only cost about £60 million. Well, when the Royal Yacht Britannia was decommissioned in 1997, a decision made in equal parts by the dregs of John Major's government and the incoming, reforming government of Tony Blair, it was estimated a replacement would have cost between £60 - 70 million. The likelihood is that a new royal yacht, if the luxury ships owned by the likes of various wealthy Russian oligarchs is anything to go by, would be much nearer to £200 million.

Fourthly, Gove believes that, having had cutbacks, job losses, fuel price rises, inflation, wage freezes, pension turmoil, etc. we'll all feel a warm glow if happiness because our overpaid, underworked, privileged monarch had a new luxury toy for her holidays. Really? Is he really THAT demented? Apparently so.

Even Cameron, very often the Moron-in-Chief, thinks it's a bad idea - though he, it seems does think putting the idea out o public subscription might work and be a good idea. By the time the ship was ready, and all paid for, chances are we might have a new monarch who, I. It ice, has today said he supports the idea of a new royal yacht. Quelle Surprise! Charlie Windsor wants more from the public to support his worthless lifestyle.

The suggestion that the nation buys anything for Liz Windsor is, at best insulting to the public and, at worst, is an evil and deluded suggestion from someone who urgently needs to spend some time with his family - though I pity them if he does.

No to a royal yacht - and, while we're at it, time for a republic!

OPINION: How dare Liz Windsor not attend the Royal Variety Performance

Yesterday, the Queen refused to attend the Royal Variety Performance in Salford. She wasn't sick and she didn't have other state appointments to fulfill that were more important. She just said that she wasn't going to attend.

It turns out the reason was that her husband, Philip, had said that they had travelled to Liverpool last week and weren't going to travel to Salford this week.

Hang on a minute! The nation pays well in excess of £200 million a year for this woman and her family to do a few tasks. How dare she refuse to attend. If anyone else in the country refused to carry out their job they would be disciplined and, quite likely, sacked?

Now! I know she is getting on, she's a few months older than my mother, and her husband is older still, but if you're not up to the job you should, surely, retire?

Liz Windsor carries out somewhere between 300-400 official engagements each year - often they are lunches or dinners (so very taxing) and many work days will have 3 or 4 engagements on th same day because they aren't arduous or long. So, in reality, she only works for about a third of the year.

Even if her husband wasn't prepared to travel, even though he benefits from the millions spent on the monarchy each year and has lived a life of luxury at the taxpayers' expense for decades, old Liz should have turned up.

Sure, she sent along her daughter. So what? Clearly Anne is underemployed in the family firm if she can drop everything and pop to Salford a short notice. Or did Liz and Phil never intend to attend?

The Queen has, generally, attended every other year of the Royal Variety Performance, and attended her first while still Princess Elizabeth in the late 1940s. The Royal Command Performance, as it was originally called, started nearly a century ago, in 1912. The 2011 RVP was the first to be held at The Lowry, Salford - what message does this send to the North of England?

Surely an evening at the theatre, some bland comments to toadying celebs and some handshaking isn't a lot to ask in return for her salary?

If she's too old to do the job, or too frail, then she should retire (abdicate); if she's too ill then a regent should be appointed in her place; if the Windsors have decided they can't be bothered to carry out their duties then it is more proof that it is the time for a republic.

OPINION: What can the Irish do but not the UK?

Yesterday, while the Commonwealth were deciding whether future male or female members of one family should rule over them, there was an election in Ireland unlike anything we've ever seen in the UK. They were voting for their new Head of State - their President.

In Ireland, the Head of State is a largely ceremonial role. I know there are ill-informed monarchists who will say that Elizabeth Windsor, in her position as monarch, has a largely ceremonial role but they are ignoring the legal status and powers which the monarch really has.

The Irish President holds office for seven years and can only be re-elected once. Although political parties put forward candidates the role itself is non political.

Why can't we have such a system in the UK? If Liz Windsor, or any of her descendants, wishes to stand for election they can. And if they win then that's all well and good but why do the British public tolerate a system whereby the Head of State, and all the powers that includes, is selected by which birth canal a child passes through rather than their suitability for the job or being democratically elected?

It's time for a change. There are already parties planned for Liz's jubilee next year. Why not use them to celebrate her retirement and the introduction of an accountable Head of State?

It's time to learn from the Irish.