The Obscurer

Red Devil's Advocate

Congratulations are due, after a fashion, to Manchester United for beating Chelsea yesterday in the premiership. I didn’t see much of the game, being engaged for most of the day at a naming ceremony for my mate’s daughter, but the consensus of opinion seems to be that Chelsea were the better side while United dug in to get a result and just about deserved it. Rumour has it that this match was one of those rare occasions where neutrals support United; if that is the case then include me out, although as a City fan perhaps I don’t count as a neutral in the first place. However, putting my objective hat on for a moment the result does fleetingly keep the title race open for a little while longer which must be a good thing; my one hope is that if United have kept the door ajar then it is only for Arsenal to charge through and take advantage of the result.

On 6-0-6 and the like Reds fans have been understandably crowing, and quite right too; but I wonder if, like me, you have noticed an inconsistency in many of their responses. How many United fans do you think have spent the past week defending Roy Keane’s censored outburst on MUTV where he is reported to have slagged off his team mates and named names? All the fans I know have sought to justify Keane’s antics, arguing that he was just saying what every supporter has been thinking. How many Reds fans have subsequently confirmed this view by joining in with Keane to criticise most of Alex Ferguson’s recent signings, then gone on to question his current tactics and even to wonder aloud just how long he can stay in his job? Again, the United supporters I’ve surveyed have argued these very points to a man.

So it will be interesting to see just how many United fans will now concur with the current popular opinion that with the Chelsea match the Reds have turned round and answered their critics in the best possible way, proving the doubters wrong. They will mean the evil media of course, and fans of other clubs, indicating that the recent pressures on the team has been unfair, undeserved and exerted from afar; wilfully ignoring the fact that in the past week much of the insurgency has been generated from a little closer to home.

Update 9/11/05: My thanks to Ken Owen for selecting this post for his brilliant new SportBlog Roundup feature. Most kind. If you have written a post about sport then why not send it in to Ken? It looks like it is going to be a fortnightly affair; next submissions to be in by 22nd November. Just cut ‘n’ paste your sporting post’s details and send to sportblog at googlemail dot com.

Get A Life

Let’s hear it for Westlife; something like seven years into their music career and yet still releasing records that jolt to Number 1 in the charts, as I learned when I watched Top Of The Pops yesterday for the first time in an age. In the fickle world of manufactured kiddie pop, their longevity is both remarkable and impressive.

They have broken all the rules and expectations of their musical genre. By now the typical boy band will have sacked their management and tried to run their own affairs (proving that as businessmen they make great pop idols); they will have experimented with different looks and sounds (with disastrous consequences); they will have tried to write their own songs (and will have failed, but still released them as singles); the interesting one in the band will have left for a solo career (an option not open to Westlife, who never actually had an interesting one); and then they will have split up (hurrah!).

But not Westlife; oh no, not they. Westlife have steadfastly and unquestioningly put into practice everything their management have instructed them to do. They are still wearing matching clothes as if dressed by their mothers, they still plonk themselves on stools while they intone their treacly ballads like some latter-day choreographed Val Doonicans (until they all stand up in unison for the “dramatic” final verse, like a troop of formation…oafs) and they are still happy to record insipid songs as chosen exclusively by their record company, be it cover versions unworthy of revival (eg. Mandy, Against All Odds) or “original” tracks that appear to have been written by committee (eg. Flying Without Wings, whose title even conjures up an image of a corporate brainstorming session, complete with flowchart, trying to combine the counterfeit emotion of Wind Beneath My Wings with the sheer blandness of I Believe I Can Fly).

Yes, congratulations Westlife, and many happy returns; now we know how Boyzone’s career would have turned out if they had been paying attention in class.

Bin Round

When people moan about their council tax, the usual complaint goes something like “£1000 a year for emptying my fucking bins”, as if that is the only function the local authorities perform. Expect more of these comments with the annual warning that council tax is expected to rise sharply next year.

But I feel sorry for councils (and incidentally, no, I don’t work for one). They have to take responsibility for doing numerous jobs that need to be done, even though some people would rather they were not done at all (and which they certainly don’t want to pay for). That is a fairly thankless task. Take social services; many resent paying council tax for a service that sticks its nannying nose into other peoples’ business, and which helps people who can’t be bothered to help themselves. Why should the state assist authors of their own destruction such as gym-slip mums and their many squealing offspring when we don’t receive (or need) such help? If social services must exist then let it be a shoestring, skeleton sort of organisation, receiving just the minimum funding from local authority revenue. But then we hear of a horror story, such as the case of Victoria Climbie, and we suddenly expect social services to do anything and everything, to have limitless resources and to spare no effort in saving an innocent and deserving life.

And it seems to be getting worse. Every bright idea that central government comes up with appears to involve the local council doing the actual running of the scheme, and all without any extra funding. While power and decision making get more centralised, the responsibility for enacting these decisions is dumped at the door of local government. And so it goes on. Are the police too busy to respond to calls regarding noise nuisance? Well, rather than increase police resources let’s just move responsibility for envirionmental health onto the council. These new licensing laws could mean a lot of extra work for the magistrates’ courts to deal with; why not shift the duty onto the town hall mandarins? The examples are so numerous that I can’t remember them all now; phrases like “new legislation means that responsibility for enforcement now lies with the local authority” are issued so often that I barely notice.

Our council tax is paying for a lot more than just our bins being emptied, and it is having to pay for still more with each new central government decree; ironic, then, that increasingly the local council itself is being used as the dustbin for the country, taking on all the roles that no one else can be bothered with anymore.

Gone Again

So, before we really got reacquainted, David Blunkett has had to resign again. I can’t say I have been following the to-ings and fro-ings of this one very closely, so I can’t offer an opinion on whether his going is justified; although it is probably common sense. The media had clearly scented blood and just weren’t going to let it lie, and I had the feeling that there would be a drip-drip of further stories being released, either real or imagined, until he finally went. Better to spare us all and just go early.

But why did I assume there would be further revelations in the press? Why didn’t I just think that what has been revealed so far would be the end of it, and that having ridden the storm Blunkett would be allowed to continue in his job?

Perhaps because whenever the media do scent blood it always seems that more and more stories do come out until the situation is resolved in the inevitable way. Has there ever been a case where the press have got themselves into a feeding frenzy over a politician, continually featured him or her on their front pages, detailed further twists and turns in the tale, only for the story itself to blow itself out without a sacking or resignation?

I can’t think of one. There always seems an endless stream of scandals once a politician’s credit has been used up and the press decide to bring someone down; which makes you wonder what the other politicians are up to, the ones the media choose not to write about…until perhaps they feel it is worth their while.

F Off

Now, I don’t like Gordon Ramsey at the best of times; not particularly. If he thinks that the best way to motivate his staff is to bully, intimidate and verbally abuse them then that is a matter for him; but I don’t personally find it entertaining, amusing or admirable. The thing is, on the occasions when I have watched Ramsey’s Kitchen Nightmares I have seen moments where he has shown a genuine skill for inspiring respect and building confidence in others; but I suppose such scenes don’t feature in the trailers for the show because they don’t make good telly. Certainly, that positive aspect of his personality doesn’t seem to get a mention when I hear his fans discuss him; it is the effing and jeffing side of Ramsey that people seem to like, which Ramsey himself seems proud of, and which I just don’t understand. I suppose Ramsey would say that his job is a very stressful one; but so is mine, and at my work we simply couldn’t get the job done if my colleagues and I showed such disrespect towards each other. Anyone can lose their temper in the heat of the moment, including me, but afterwards I would hope to apologise, rather than revel in my rudeness. I suppose it comes down to the paradox where some people reckon that you need to bollock people occasionally to get things done…but no one says they appreciate a good bollocking to get themselves going.

Anyway, there is another side to Ramsey that I am not keen on and that is his amazing hypocrisy. It centres on his disdain for “celebrity chefs” such as Anthony Worrall Thompson. Fair enough, you may think, but this is pretty rich coming from someone who has appeared in Ramsey’s Boiling Point, Kitchen Nightmares and Hell’s Kitchen, and has enjoyed numerous appearances on Jonathan Ross, The Friday Night Project, various “Top 100 whatever” programmes and who even had his own calendar out last year. His appearances on other people’s shows are especially weird, as away from the kitchen he shows himself to be a real dullard. On his first appearance on Jonathan Ross he revealed he had nothing remotely interesting to say; when he was a guest the following series he tried to be more engaging by playing to type and swearing a lot for no good reason, and to little effect.

Well the hypocrisy has really been cranked up with his new series The F Word (F for food), which I saw a repeat of yesterday on More4 (incidentally the best new TV channel we have seen for some time, and probably the best we will see for a while; I’m not placing much faith in Sky3 or ITV4). His new programme begins with credits showing him looking mean and moody, the theme tune bashing out a pounding and dramatic beat, the screen is filled with a close up of his scar ridden face; then we see him stripping off his “civvy clothes” as he strides purposefully down a corridor. A long shot reveals his topless frame before the camera is focussed close in again on his fixed, firm expression (did you forget how serious and mean he is?) and then we watch as he changes into his chef’s gear before storming through the doors at the end of the corridor. Cut to a swish restaurant full of eager diners, a long spiral staircase with Ramsey at the summit; the crowd goes wild, cheering and applauding the arrival of their hero. Ramsey skips down the stairs, basking in glory, milking the applause. And this is a man who hates celebrity chefs?

To be honest, that was enough for me and I had to switch over; and I’m glad I did. Over on BBC2 Bill Oddie’s Autumnwatch was in full swing and it featured the most amazing sight of starlings flocking in huge numbers; it really had to be seen to be believed. If it’s ever on again then watch it; a sky almost black with birds that swirl in unison, looking like a school of sardines that go squeezing and twirling into all manner of bizarre shapes in the sky before tumbling down like the steady flow of a waterfall onto a reed bed. Amazing.

But when that finished I flicked through the channels and there didn’t appear much else on so I gave The F Word another go, and it wasn’t too bad actually. Giles Coren’s look at how donner kebabs were made in a factory was quite interesting, and while it proved what a fatty and unhealthy product it is, at least the meat used looked to be of a decent quality, free of lips, lugs and spinal cord. It was also amusing when Ramsey challenged comedian Al Murray to see who could make the best bread and butter pudding. Ramsey was tedious, referring to Murray’s dish as a stale egg sandwich; not once but about 18 times as he clearly didn’t have the imagination to think of another insult. But then, when it came to a blind taste test, the judges’ unanimous verdict was that Murray’s pud was better than Ramsey’s soggy effort. Ha ha.

I don’t think I will bother watching The F Word again. Like Ramsey I don’t have an interest in celebrity, which is why I was puzzled when he was seen schmoozing with guests Martine McCutcheon and Sun columnist Jane Moore (Martine wasn’t too keen on the bread and butter pudding, she said, because she doesn’t like raisons; although when she later revealed that she doesn’t eat dairy or bread it became clear the dish was probably her idea of hell). His campaign to get women cooking again seemed a weak attempt to hang onto Jamie Oliver’s coat tails by being a cook with a cause, and there was a ludicrous part of the show where he picked the people for the blind tasting panel. Each guest was blindfolded and had to taste a variety of foods; those who correctly judged which food was which were considered the people with the finest palettes and joined the panel. The problem lay with the foods the guests were tested on; if you have never eaten salmon caviar before, or mozzarella with basil, then you are unlikely to be able to tell what they taste like; it doesn’t mean you can’t have an opinion or cannot tell good food from bad. This is another thing that gets on my tits about Ramsey, that he likes to portray himself as a no nonsense, down to earth man of the people; yet all the while he can be as snobbish and pretentious about food as anybody and charges prices at his restaurants that only a small sector of the population can routinely afford.

In all, though, for me The F Word suffers by comparison with Full On Food, of which it seems a poor imitation. Full On Food was a cracking programme which, like The F Word, was a cookery magazine show with a studio audience; it had some fascinating and informative items from the resident presenters (I particularly remember a moving film from a vegetarian food critic trying meat for the first time in ten years) and even featured a minor celebrity cooking a dish in the studio each week. If you haven’t heard of Full On Food then it may be because unlike The F Word it didn’t also feature a minor celebrity audience, minor celebrity presenter and minor celebrity chef; something you would think that Gordon Ramsey himself would approve of.