COMMENT: Top Totty

Kate Green, the Labour MP for Stretford and Urmston and shadow Equalities spokesperson, has kicked up a fuss in the Palace of Westminster about a beer being served in the Strangers' Bar (the bar where MPs can take guests).

Green's issue with the beer is that its name and logo (pictured below) are inappropriate in parliament. Apparently she was "disturbed" by the image - I do hope she never goes to the beach - she'd go apoplectic!

She might have had a point. Certainly the name of this prize-winning beer, a true British business success, is a little dodgy and one could claim that the logo of a woman in a bikini top is a bit sexist. It's certainly not the worst beer name or logo I've ever seen but, for a moment, let's give Kate Green the benefit of the doubt.

So she notices the beer on sale, and its logo, and makes a complaint. Fair enough.

But no! NOT fair enough! The Strangers' Bar has been selling Top Totty, with the same logo on the pump, FOR FIVE YEARS!

This raises several questions:

1. Has Kate Green not been in the Strangers' Bar for the past 5 years? Does she NEVER have guests in parliament? If she does, has she NEVER taken them for a drink?

2. Perhaps Kate Green HAS been in the Strangers' Bar but has never gone up to the bar to order or pay for drinks?

3. Maybe Kate Green fails to notice anything around her? In that case, maybe she's not safe to drive? Maybe all her faculties aren't working?

4. She must be aware that her little hissy fit has given Top Totty, and Slater's, the Stafford-based company who brew it, the best publicity they could ever have wanted - in ALL the newspapers, on news bulletins everywhere and without costing them a penny. I do hope it doesn't turn our she has shares in the company!

5. Or maybe there's something else, perhaps more sinister, behind a carefully timed complaint, saved for a special occasion?

Who knows what Kate Green's motivation is. I wonder if it's the start of trouble for Miliband from Harriet Harman's covern - the "female only alternative shadow cabinet"?

Her little tantrum has, of course, worked. The beer has been banned from the Strangers' Bar - the end of five years of sales during which Kate Green was in disturbed until yesterday.

Maybe Kate Green should be offended by Famous Grouse whiskey (on animal rights grounds) or Tia Maria (because it sounds foreign) or India Pale Ale (because she somehow finds it racist) or .... the list could go on.

There is one thing Kate Green could object to... the nearly £10,000 per annum that MPs each get in subsidised food and drink in the bars and restaurants in the Pakace of Westminster. But, oh no, the image of a woman in a bikini top is far more "disturbing" than the financial corruption that MPs still benefit from at tax payers' expense.

I suggest an MP who has failed to notice something for five years is less than competent as a human being and hope the electorate in Stretford and Urmston seriously consider other options at the next election.

OPINION: Time to merge Best actor/Best actress

I really like the whole award ceremony season that runs from mid-January to the end of February: the Golden Globes; BAFTAs; Brit Awards; etc. and, of course, the OSCARS. I know some see it all as meaningless baubles but I enjoy it and enjoy comparing my opinions with those of the judges.

What I find odd, anachronistic, is the fact that all the ceremonies have awards that divide the shortlisted by their gender.

Increasingly actresses call themselves actors, and this is right. Actors and actresses are all people who act. In the modern world there is no justification to give a separate award to men and women, unless you're saying there's no way that one group could win over the other - it's a consolation prize. That is a sexism which has no place in the 21st century.

No one would dare suggest having separate awards based on skin colour or sexuality would they? It's nearly 50 years since Sidney Poitier became the first black actor to win the OSCAR for best actor. At the time it was revolutionary, but today, particularly in the music world, awards are won by people of all skin colours.

Why aren't women offended that they are being patronised by all these awards ceremonies? Or don't they realise the negativity in having separate awards based, for no good reason, on the genitalia of the recipient?

Surely Jodie Foster or Olivia Coleman or Hlenn Close or whoever would like to be the best actor, judged against all her peers? It's not as if there are separate awards for male and female director, or male and female record producer. It is only when it comes to the frontline talent.

I'd love a female who wins best actress to reject it publicly, highlight the nonsense. Maybe it will happen at this year's OSCARS?

I can dream.

It's time to stop this nonsense and eliminate the blatant sexism that is inherent in the current system.

COMMENT: Sports Personality of the Year? No, SportsMAN of the Year

Yesterday, the shortlist for the BBC Sports Personality of the Year was announced. It's always a talking point between sports fans (as the Americans might say, a "water cooler" topic) and there's always some surprises about who has been included on the list. The 2011 shortlist, however, is more likely to be the topic of heated debate because of who it excludes.

There isn't a single woman on the 10-man shortlist despite the UK having a couple, at least, of noteworthy world champions and other successes.

What has gone on?

Now, I'm. Or one for insisting that there HAS to be a woman otherwise it's sexist (that sort of nonsense should be left with bigots like Harriet Harman) but there are very strong arguments for a couple of women to have been included on the shortlist and very weak arguments to support the inclusion of some of those who made the cut.

The shortlist, which the public can then vote on during the live show in December, includes 2 cricketers, 3 golfers, 2 athletes, a boxer and a tennis player.

There's two questions that list screams to me:

1. Does any sport REALLY justify more than one entry?

2. Why the boxer and tennis player? After all, Amir Khan and Andy Murray have had, what I think it's fair to describe as, journeyman years - achieving little that stands out or deserve major credit.

So, which women should or could have been included?

Well, there's the gymnast Beth Tweddle who won a third consecutive European gold at the bars; there's Sarah Stevenson the taekwondo world champion; and there's Rebecca Adlington returning to winning form during 2011; and I'm sure there are others who've achieved as much in their field as the names on the published shortlist.

The BBC insist the list isn't THEIR list. It's drawn up by consulting the editors of 30 publications, national press, regional press and magazines. Maybe it shouldn't just be editors of publications but organising bodies of sports? Or maybe it needs a wider pool of ideas - 30 is, after all, fairly limited.

In its defence, I guess it avoided having any footballers or rugby players in a year of disappointments. And I, personally, am pleased that no jockeys are listed - animal abuse has no place in sport.

Here is the shortlist (in alphabetical order). I think nobody should vote in protest at the nonsense that this list demonstrates.

*Mark Cavendish (Cycling)
*Darren Clarke (Golf)
*Alastair Cook (Cricket)
*Luke Donald (Golf)
*Mo Farah (Athletics)
*Dai Greene (Athletics)
*Amir Khan (Boxing)
*Rory McIlroy (Golf)
*Andy Murray (Tennis)
*Andrew Strauss (Cricket)