Friday, October 31, 2008

You'll like this. Not a lot...

G stayed over on Wednesday night and for some reason we ended up having a conversation that went as follows:

G: You’re my Debbie McGee
Me: I’m not sure I like being Debbie McGee
G: Well that makes me Paul Daniels, so I think I got the short straw here.
Me: Oh yes, good point. I’ll be Debbie McGee.

Unfortunately this does not make G a multi-millionaire.

Then yesterday morning the radio came on and we were listening to Christian O’Connell and people could phone in and ask questions they wanted the answer to. One person phoned in to ask why biscuits crumble in a cup of tea when they don’t in a cup of coffee (apart from it obviously being punishment for dunking it in a perfect drink, of course). G said “I know the answer to that” and then went on to explain that tea is an infusion (tea bag in, tea bag out, but basically a cup of hot water) and therefore is hotter than a cup of coffee which is made with granules and they are at room temperature so they cool the coffee down. Dunking a biscuit dissolves the sugar in the biscuit, which breaks down its structure and makes it collapse and the hotter the liquid the more likely this is to happen. G knows everything.

One final thing, whilst I think it was very unpleasant for Andrew Sachs to have got those offensive phone calls from Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand, was it really worthy of 32,500 complaints. That is 32,500. If that many people put in the same effort protesting about poverty or working towards achieving world peace then it might actually have been something that could have had a significant impact. Instead it was about a radio show that overstepped the mark. Look what the readers of the Daily Mail can achieve when they join forces.

8 comments:

Let's Kill Saturday Night said...

And how many of those are only aware of it because of the media coverage ? It's Jerry Springer The Opera all over again.

Random Reflections said...

LKSN - I hadn't thought of that, very true. Two people who heard the broadcast complained, the other 32,498 just jumped on the bandwagon. Pah!

TOM FOOLERY said...

Just maybe, these 32,500 people were a tad peeved that Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand acted irresponsibly and to some degree were their remarks not a mild form of bullying ? I also suspect that people are pevved at the amount of salary these guys are (were) earning.

BTW - Well done for finishing War & Peace TFx

Random Reflections said...

TF - I'm not arguing for a moment that what they did was good/ funny/ commendable or that there shouldn't have been some action taken about it, but isn't there all sorts of bullying going on in the world and people don't complain about that.

Help the Aged are running a campaign at the moment about the million old people who live alone and are lonely, wouldn't people be better trying to do something about that? Or being outraged about oppressive regimes across the world? Or that people live in poverty. Or that children are forced to work in some countries. Or so many other things that surely are more fundamental to being decent people than a radio programme that very possibly 99.9% of those people didn't even hear, but the things they do actually hear and see on the news they do nothing about. I just think it was a totally disproportionate response.

But clearly people are allowed to hold an alternative view and if they felt strongly enough abotu thsi to write and complain then maybe they can harness that and use it to stand up for other things now.

TOM FOOLERY said...

Random, I do not wish to argue with you as I whole heartily agree with your valid views that we should be concentrating on trying to address the real issues in this world like poverty, loneliness etc. However, I strongly feel that somewhere along this road of “technology progress” we have lost/abandoned our morality and real sense of civic duty. This country for one seems to worship the “false gods of celebs” instead of the morality set out by the church. I just feel that "celebs" have a moral responsibility to behave in a responsible manner - maybe to even guide and encourage unselfishness. But maybe that's the job of the Church.

Random Reflections said...

TF - I don't think we are in disagreement, so therefore don't think we can be arguing. Have no fear!

I agree with what you say in that somehow being outrageous seems to make people feel that they don't have to take responsibility for their actions.

There is a part of me that thinks the BBC got what they paid for - I imagine they (in part) employed JR and RB because they are controvrsial and irreverent and then they did something that was absolutely those things and somehow the BBC was shocked by it. That doesn't mean I am defending what the BBC did, but they are a bit hypocritical to think that them doing something like this was unlikely given Brand's history... (see this for example http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7695722.stm).

Regardless of all that, what they did to Andrew Sachs was very unpleasant and they shouldn't have done it. But a further thought: if they had been 'minor' DJ's would it have been handled like this or would it have been handed over to the police to deal with, as I would imagine making such phone calls could have been a criminal offence. So did they actually get off more lightly by being 'big' celebrities?

TOM FOOLERY said...

Very interesting link. Hmmm, Did they actually get off more lightly by being 'big' celebrities. I guess, only time will tell.

BTW I've had a facelift. Methinks it's time for me to act my age and not my shoe size ;-) TFx

Word verification is WRY SIN :)

Random Reflections said...

TF - no posibly not lightly - it will be interesting to see how their future careers pan out (actually I see Jonathan Ross just published a new book called "Why do I say these things?" I wonder how that will sell now...)

A face lift! I am sure it wasn;t needed!

My word verification is personalised to every person who leaves a comment. That's all I'm saying...