Revenge of the Cavy

Paul Thomas Satirised

2009-03-11T09:51:00.000-07:00

Lunatic blogger breaks Internet silence to slag off Ryanair and their cheap flights to Ireland

2009-02-27T07:55:00.000-08:00

Cheap flights to Ireland via Ryanair? My arse. It's well known that cattle complain about being herded 'like Ryanair passengers'.

Is Steve Coogan past it?

2009-02-09T09:10:00.000-08:00

Look, I liked Alan Partridge as much as the next man, but I really think that Steve Coogan's latest series is really milking a dead goat. Who'd now think his latest impersonation of a self-righteous former DJ (seen here) would bear any relationship to reality?

A Completely Serious And Totally Unsarcastic Blog Post

2009-01-18T10:17:00.001-08:00

I have recently been accused of being an alien lifeform, a child, a troll, a twat, a bit of a creep and even worse a BBC TV Producer (The last probably came about because I claimed to be a BBC TV Producer). So I suppose I better take the opportunity to defend myself to the associated members of the facebook group 'People, who Already think that Matt Smith IS gonna suck as the 11th Dr' who I seem to have inadvertently insulted. So here it goes

Q. Why did I join and post on a group which I disagreed with?

Because I disagreed with it. The group was openly advertised and was available for anyone to join. I found it when I did a search on Facebook for 'Matt Smith, Doctor'. The Facebook group said "

This is an open group. Anyone can join and invite others to join.". So I did

Q. No, but seriously, why did you join?

A. Because I seriously disagreed with it. I read in the opening description 'wow it's gonna be a dark time to be a Dr. Who Fan, cause this guy is a gimp'. Now, I have a question here, what is a gimp? According to Google Answers a gimp is "A narrow flat braid or rounded cord of fabric used for trimming' which would be a pretty damning reason for someone not to play the Doctor. But quite clearly, Matt Smith isn't a type of fabric. I have also seen that Matt Smith " looks like a hermaphrodite experiment gone terribly wrong" and "he looks simian.like he should be in a small cage having washing up liquid drip fed into his eyes'. From what I can gather, this group cannot actually articulate exactly why they don't like Matt Smith, and have instead resorted to a series of meaningless insults (much the same as a letter in the Daily Mail once complained the Fellowship of the Ring was a bad film because 'the bad guys looked like the Taliban'). I thought this was too good an opportunity to waste, so I decided that what this group needed was some good old fashioned satire.

Q. But Matt Smith is like young and not experienced and stuff like that.

A. Good. Casting an unknown might restore some much needed mystery to the show. My trouble with the recent series was that I knew Christopher Ecclestone and David Tennant too well and it seemed like all the major plot points (arrival of the Master, Davros etc.) were given out long before the actual shows. The show badly needs to restore at least some mystery - casting an unknown seems at least one way to go about.

Q. But can a 19 year old really have the authority of the Doctor?

A. Well he's not 19 but I see what you mean. If he doesn't, then that might be an interesting twist. A 900 year old who looks 26 trying to get himself taken seriously might make for some interesting plot developments. But trying to suggest that a 26 year old can't play an ancient timelord is, in some respects, like arguing that an ancient blue Police Box can't possibly be a time travelling device - it misses the point.

Q. Why should I care what an unemployed ex-TV Producer who still lives with his mum thinks?

A. I'm not a TV producer who lives with his mum. I lied about that. I don't work for the BBC (but I do work) and I live with my partner in a very nice top floor flat in Cheltenham. So there.

Blogger denies superiority complex

2009-01-17T07:34:00.000-08:00

Not content with my own blog, I've now only gone and formed my own bleedin' country, would you believe it? Visit the Democratic Republic of Cavyland.

Be Seeing You.

2009-01-15T08:56:00.001-08:00

Patrick McGoohan 1929-2009.

You could not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. Your life was your own.

Apparently there's a credit crunch on...

2009-01-14T10:22:00.001-08:00

News of which has not filtered through to Mr Barclays who insists on sending me letters telling me that I'm guaranteed a loan of £12,000.

Paul Thomas Daily Express Cartoons Explained (23)

2009-01-14T10:09:00.000-08:00

Everyday and in everyway Paul Thomas continues to reach new levels of suckitude. To break this alleged 'cartoon' down

1) It's an adaption of a Tory Campaign Poster. In otherwords, he's completely given up all pretence of a) originality and b) impartiality

2) The actual slogan makes no sense. The public debt may work out to £17,000 per person. That does not mean that babies are literally liable for £17,000.

3) The baby is holding an IOU for £17,ooo. That means that someone owes the baby £17,000. In other words the cartoon is directly contradicting its own bleedin' message.

How does Paul Thomas manage to look himself in the mirror?

Ah, I hear you're a racist now, your majesty.

2009-01-13T10:11:00.001-08:00

Does this mean we all have to be racists now? My job takes up most of my time and at night I just want a cup of coffee, so I don't think I'll have enough time to devote to the auld racism.

Richard Littlejohn - Pwned!!!!!

2009-01-09T09:00:00.000-08:00

From the World's Worst Columnists Tuesday Column.

"The first You Couldn't Make It Up of 2009 comes courtesy of the supermarket chain Somerfield, which has taken to electronically tagging meat to deter shoplifters during the credit crunch.

Be honest, how many times have you been approached by a shady-looking man in a pub asking if you want to buy a packet of pork chops, no questions asked?"

From the World's Worst Columnist's Friday Column

"After it was revealed that Somerfield had started electronically tagging meat to deter shoplifters, I wondered if anyone had ever been approached in a pub by a bloke offering to sell them a packet of pork chops.

All I did was display my ignorance. By all accounts, some pubs shift more meat than Dewhurst."

Also in today's outpourings, Littlejohn rants about how ridiculous it was for 'elf n'safety' to stop an amateur theatre group from letting Jack climb more than 4 feet up a beanstalk in their pantomine. To illustrate the ridiculousness of this he gives us a story about Wee Jimmy Krankie, er injuring himself1 by falling of a beanstalk.

1 Yes I did mean to type himself. Don't try to tell me otherwise about Wee Jimmy Krankie, it would be too horrible to contemplate

And a Happy New Year

2009-01-05T09:06:00.000-08:00

Not much news to tell you, so here's a video of some ducks.

A Merry Christmas

2008-12-24T04:17:00.000-08:00

Paul Thomas Daily Express Cartoons Explained (22)

2008-12-23T01:15:00.000-08:00

Evil psycho skull collecting Doctor causes elderly patient to have heart attack.

The Daily Mail and its readers really are the biggest collection of yellow rubbery prurient hypocrticial arsewits ever

2008-12-20T05:06:00.000-08:00

Re: This Story

1. Georgina Baillie's fling with Russell Brand did not lead to a furore. Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross's ill-advised prank phone call lead to the furore. Georgina Baillie had a consensual and adult relationship with another adult.

2. I always wondered quite what a 'demeaning, tawdry, exploitative business' looked like, so thanks very much to the Daily Mail for showing us a photograph to illustrate just how tawdry it is.

3 One of the stories on the sidebar to this story is headlined 'Woman behaving badly' on a story about how Leslie Ash behaved badly in, er going out for a drink a wearing a slightly low-cut top. Women, know your limits!

Paul Thomas Daily Express Cartoons Explained (21)

2008-12-16T08:48:00.000-08:00

See yesterday's cartoon comment. I spoke too soon.

Depressing news really.

2008-12-15T11:26:00.000-08:00

Last night after I finished watching Wallender with Kenneth Branagh (which was very good). I watched the BBC news. There were four headlines on the news. Two of them related to actual news (one revolving an assault on the departing President of the US and one relating to a girl being released from her family and a forced marriage). The other two items related to things which had just been on the BBC. Apparently, some people are unhappy because they wasted 15p ringing into a TV voting programme while in other news, the BBC were reporting on someone winning a competition on the BBC. If there'd been a further story saying 'and in other news, the murder on Wallender turned out to be [Spoiler Deleted]!, I wouldn't have been surprised'

Strictly Come Dancing is a programme in which someone who wasn't good at dancing kept being voted by the public ahead of other people who were better at dancing, and then this someone left. The latest 'news' is that people were allowed to vote for someone who wouldn't have won anyway, but in order to solve this, they let everyone win. If you're going to waste 15p of your own money on this, it's your lookout. But it was still in the papers as a 'major scandal'. Most of this year has been devoted to major scandals at the BBC. All the major scandals have merged into each other, leaving me with the vague impression that somehow Jonathan Ross was involved in the death of Baby P.

Have we finally amused ourselves to death?

Paul Thomas Daily Express Cartoons Explained (20)

2008-12-15T08:43:00.001-08:00

The Nation stands back in shock as Paul Thomas resists the urge to do a piss-poor Strictly Come Dancing/X-Factor reference, instead settling for generic Mr & Mrs Couple walking past a billboard and making supposedly witty comment type reference. Has Mr Couple been drinking by the way?

Random facts about me.

2008-12-05T09:43:00.001-08:00

1. I was born in a poor violent neighbourhood and after one day of a particular nasty bullying incident, I was sent away by my mother to live with my uncle who had transcended a number of boundaries to achieve pre-eminence in his career. Although my life with him was comfortable, the difference between my upbringing and that of my new family would cause conflict.

2. I have a tendency to confuse my life with that of the plot of The Fresh Prince of Bel Air.

3. My fiancee has just walked into the room to show me her new tights. I have suggested that if she rubs them together she could create static electricity and we could save a fortune on fuel bills.

4. I have appeared on Mastermind, Fifteen To One, Question Time (not on the panel but in the audience, but you did get to see me ask a question) and a show which is like Question Time but is on Sunday afternoons and is on ITV, which I've forgotten the name of. I nearly appeared on The Weakest Link, but didn't get the instructions on how to get to the audition in time.

5. I used to work for Lloyds TSB. I left before they took over HBOS and therefore missed the anxiety of wondering whether I was going to lose my job when they amalgamated the two brands and cut jobs. I'd love to claim this as a piece of sheer brilliant foresight on my part, but it's just a coincidence.

6. I have never visited the continents of Africa or South America. I have also never visited anywhere in Oceania. I have visited North America. I have also visited the Asian part of Turkey, but not sure if it actually counts as Asia for the purpose of this argument. If Turkey joins the EU, then I will definitely not have visited Asia, in which case I will have to make holiday plans.

7. I have met Angela Pleasance - the daughter of the late great Donald Pleasance. She thought I was foreign and asked me where I was born. I said 'Liverpool'. She asked me where my Dad was born. I said 'Stoke On Trent'. I managed to resist the urge to say "You hear this? 'Let me go with you. I can see. I can see' That's your Dad, that is"

8. I can say 'Where is the giant insect?' in Polish. I lived in Poland for seven months. I never had any recourse to ask anyone where the giant insect was. I do, however, know the Polish for 'Three beers please". That phrase proved a lot more useful.

9. I have directed four plays for amateur theater. For three of them, the local critic turned up, saw the show and gave a good review. With the other one, the critic couldn't be bothered to turn up and instead just copied the blurb off the back of his copy of the script.

10. I once swallowed a moth.

Churnalism at its finest.

2008-12-04T09:40:00.001-08:00

When Richmond Desmond, owner of the Daily Express, was told that they needed a replacement for their departing Health Editor, he is reported to have said 'Can't we just get all that stuff off the internet?'. And a recent cull of journalist shows that Desmond certainly doesn't seem to believe that journalists are a necessity. But what would a newspaper without journalists actually look like?

Here's a good indication with this story. On the face of it, this seems to be a fairly typical Express/Mail rant about declining British standards but a closer look reveals that the story

The survey of 2,000 adults was carried out as Tango claims it is under threat from political correctness and marks the launch of the website Savetango.co.uk

Tango maintains it is under threat because of a backlash against fizzy drinks from “nanny state” health campaigners.

Yes it does claim Tango is under threat. But, (and I apologise for the bad language) as a FUCKING JOKE. Yes a joke. A bit of frivolity. A laugh. Look, go the Tango website.

Check it out. Watch the video. It's very amusing. But unless you seriously believe that Tango are suggesting Car Jacking as a good means of fundraising, it is quite obviously a joke aimed at those who use phrases like 'nanny state' and 'PC brigade' without irony. What the Daily Express have done is essentially reprint a jovial press release as the actually bleeding truth. So next week's headline's will be

Monday - Daz - It Actually Does Wash Whiter

Tuesday - New Fruitbars are revealed to be 'Frutilicious'

Wednesday - Ban This Sick Filth Now - In Association with Vauxhall.

and other such stories from the World's Greatest Newspaper

Paul Thomas Daily Express Cartoons Explained (19)

2008-12-03T08:44:00.001-08:00

Even the Queen has realised the level of shite prevalent in Paul Thomas's cartoons.

Man Gets His Willy Out Where No-One Can See It.

2008-12-02T09:47:00.000-08:00

On a radio show no less

In other news

Famous peoples' daughters take clothes off. (With pictures to demonstrate what this looks like).

Close up of someone's crotch.

Woman wears naughty underwear.

Alleged celebrity once appeared in sex manual (with illustrations to show what said sex manual looked like).

Won't someone think of the children?

And on the subject of the Daily Express....

2008-12-01T09:59:00.000-08:00

Can anyone explain to me the reason why the Express's bi-monthly "Britain Has Weather" story has used lions to illustrate cold weather. You know, the animals traditionally associated with, like, warm climates. Or is this some obscure reference to Narnia and C S Lewis?

Paul Thomas Daily Express Cartoons Explained (18)

2008-12-01T09:52:00.001-08:00

A man explains to his friend how he got arrested for saying Britain was becoming a police state.

Best of British.

2008-11-29T04:38:00.003-08:00

"A history of Woolworths: The tired but well-loved British institution"

From The Telegraph

"Big news for that venerable but ailing British institution Woolworths: Sir Alan has bought a 4% stake..."

From the Management Today Website

"The fight for Woolies may move to the courts but it will be too late to save this British institution."

From the Daily Express

"He [a man the author met in a guest house] was delighted to find that I was American. 'I've always wanted to see America,' he said. "Tell me, do you have Woolworth's there?'
'Well actually, Woolworth's is American."

From Bill Bryson's 'Notes from a Small Island"

"The F. W. Woolworth Company (often referred to as Woolworth's) was a retail company that was one of the original American five-and-dime stores. The first Woolworth's store was founded, with a loan of $300, in 1878 by Frank Winfield Woolworth"

From Wikipedia.

Paul Thomas Daily Express Cartoons Explained (17)

2008-11-26T09:36:00.001-08:00

Paul Thomas has confused the general meaning of the word 'gamble' (to take a chance) with the literal meaning of the word gamble (to bet money on a game of chance) for comic effect.

And failed miserably.

Utterly Random Video Day

2008-11-23T10:53:00.000-08:00

The Cavy Presents - Top Ten Facebook Groups

2008-11-22T03:44:00.000-08:00

1. Get Jonathan Ross Of Our Telly Now (1,000,000 members)

2. Get Jonathan Ross On Our Telly Now (1,000,000 members)

3. Get John Sergeant Back On Strictly Come Dancing Now (1,000,000 members)

4. Stop Andrew Sachs Being Thrown Off Strictly Come Dancing Now (1,000,000 members)

5. Justice For Baby P, Andrew Sachs & Jonathan Ross Now! (1,000,000 members)

6 "I Don't Know Anything About Politics But I Know What I Like" (1,000,000 members)

7. The Real Justice For Baby P Campaign (1,000,000 members)

8. The Official Justice For Baby P Campaign (1,000,000 members)

9 Justice For Baby P And Death To All Chav Scum From Single Parent Families (1,000,000 members)

10. Bring Back Hanging For The Tormentors Of Andrew Sachs Now! (1,000,000 members)

Ooops sorry

2008-11-20T09:45:00.000-08:00

Suddenly realised that the alleged joke is that John Sergeant has two left feet. My apologies for any distress I may have caused him.

Paul Thomas Daily Express Cartoons Explained (16)

2008-11-20T09:41:00.001-08:00

John Sergeant has quite Strictly Come Dancing and is at home putting his feet up; whilst explaining to someone on the phone that he has quit and is putting his feet up. Meanwhile Paul Thomas has apparently quit even attempting to put jokes into his cartoons and is at home putting his feet up and cackling about the fact that the World's Greatest Newspaper automatically prints whatever cack he sends in.

Let's Dance

2008-11-19T09:25:00.000-08:00

My dearly beloved has a wonderful name for all these supposed 'reality shows' - "Celebrities doing something someone else really ought to be doing".

So it's a bit ironic that a storm has grown up over a celebrity doing something someone else ought to be doing and not only that but not doing it as well as other celebrities doing that same thing, even though they ought to be doing something else and still getting more public votes for doing that thing.

And that this has attracted over 400 comments on the Daily Mail site.

Paul Thomas Daily Express Cartoons Explained (15)

2008-11-18T09:45:00.001-08:00

Okay, I get the joke, but who the bloody hell is John meant to be dancing with? Prince Edward in a tutu? John Redwood? John Malcovitch? Whoever it is, their tights are too tight.

Paul Thomas Daily Express Cartoons Explained (14)

2008-11-14T08:35:00.000-08:00

Major Arthur Moe, of the Royal Bastard Legion, is annoyed that the name of his regiment has been censored and questions if this was really worth the sacrifice of his men. The reaction of Captain Ivor Biggun of the Royal C***** Brigade is not mentioned.

Note: For anyone who really wants to know what this cartoon is about, it is a reaction to a story in the Daily Express which is basically 'Now the word British is banned". Of course it isn't, merely that a handbook says for information (but doesn't enforce any ruling whatsoever) that some Welsh people prefer the term 'Welsh' rather than British. Once again, a ludicrous overreaction by the World's Greatest Newspaper.

Sarah Palin celebrates 'real' win.

2008-11-06T07:37:00.000-08:00

Sarah Palin was today celebrating her 'real' victory as VP to John McCain

Said Palin in an interview today "Whilst most of the 'so-called' American states may have voted for Obama, I am pleased that 'real' America has voted 100% for myself"

Sarah Palin, after her 'real' victory is due to take up her position as Vice President in the 'I can't Believe It's Not The White House' next week.

Paul Thomas Daily Express Cartoons Explained (13)

2008-11-06T07:33:00.000-08:00

Paul Thomas Daily Express Cartoons - May contain humour and/or a point.

Paul Thomas Daily Express Cartoons Explained (12)

2008-11-05T09:38:00.001-08:00

Apparently Sarah Palin shags moose.

And the outrage continued

2008-11-04T09:41:00.000-08:00

The Daily Mail, riding on the waves of what one blogger is already calling "OhchristdowereallyneedtocalleverythinggatenowadaysletsfaceittheoriginalGateWatergatewasagenuine scandalwhichbroughdownagovernmentwhileour'gates'tendtobestufflikeprincecharlessayinghewants tobeatamponbutokifyouinsistrossandbrandgate', has discovered the latest outrage to the British public as Jeremy Clarkson is accused of making sick references to the murder of prostitutes. According to the Daily Mail, Clarkson said, on an edition of Top Gear

"We do not share in the responsibility for either their grubby little existences or their murders. Society isn't to blame. It might not be fashionable or even acceptable in some quarters to say so, but in their chosen field of work, death by strangulation is an occupational hazard. That doesn't make it justifiable homicide but in the scheme of things the deaths of these five women is no great loss. They weren't going to discover a cure for cancer or embark on missionary work in Darfur. The only kind of missionary position they undertook was in the back of a car."

Oh, no, sorry about that. Jeremy Clarkson didn't say that at all. The above was actually said by Richard Littlejohn in his column in, er, The Daily Mail. So that's alright then.

Paul Thomas Daily Express Cartoons Explained (11)

2008-11-03T05:26:00.001-08:00

What looks like an anthropomorphic space hopper asks to be taken to someone's leader. The someone asks the space hopper to return on Wednesday. Paul Thomas has once again failed to include a joke with the editorial cartoon.

Paul Thomas Daily Express Cartoons Explained (10)

2008-10-31T09:11:00.000-07:00

Two hoodies point out that Jonathan Ross (or Peter Mandelson in a wig) just sits there and counts the licence payers' money - an action made more difficult by the fact that his right arm appears to have shrunk.

Twelve days or whatever that shook the world.

2008-10-30T10:19:00.000-07:00

(Note, this is going to be cross-posted onto a forum, therefore I have asterisked out some of the naughty words.)

There's been a lot of guff floating about what some people (namely idiots) are already referring to as Manuelgate. Loonier views have ranged from 'Would they have broadcast it if Andrew Sachs had been a muslim' (No, because he probably then wouldn't have become an actor and found fame as a Spanish Waiter), through to 'We shouldn't criticise Brand and Ross while American is invading Syria' (a train of mind which leads eventually to no one being able to criticise anything whilst anything else is happening) and ending at "Brand is a successful commedian, Ross hosts a chat show, what has Andrew Sachs" (a totally and utterly marvelously irrelevant comment). But I thought I'd explore a few fallacies and misconceptions that have floated around in order to arrive at the conclusion that I've already formulated, namely Russell Brand is a complete tosser.

1) "Only 2 people complained at the time, 8000 people complained after." or "You shouldn't criticise something you haven't read/watched/listened to"

Someone tells me about a tv sketch they've seen in which one character calls another "A f*ck*ng n*gg*r" . I start to rant and fume. Then I actually see the sketch and realise that it's actually a well-written, hard-hitting and hilarious satire on racism. Ooops, I should have watched it before complaining. Fair enough.

Some tells me about about a tv sketch in which a commedian goes onto the street and calls a random member of the public (a real member of the public, not an actor pretending to be a member of the public) a "F*ck*ng n*gg*r". I get angry and start to rant. Someone tells me because I haven't seen the sketch I have no right to complain. I answer that of course I have the right to complain, an actor racially abused a member of the public and no possible context can possibly justify this. This, as far as I can work out, is what I'm being asked to judge here. I am not being asked to comment on a situation where Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross did a sketch about leaving an obscene and abusive message on someone's answerphone, I'm being asked to comment on a situation wher RB and JR actually did, in actual real life, leave an abusive and obscene message on someone's answerphone. Besides, the argument that 'you can't comment until you've heard/seen/read it" only ever seems to go one way. I was as up-in-arms as anyone when swivel eyed loon Stephen Green tried to prosecute the Beeb for showing 'Jerry Springer - the Musical" but perhaps thinking about I shouldn't have been. After all, having not seen the show, perhaps I am wrong to defend it and perhaps swivel eyed loon Stephen Green is right in saying that the show is a total waste of licence-payers money and the most disgusting depraved piece of rubbish which only a depraved mind could possibly defend. Perhaps when I hear about Mr Writer in Elbonia being imprisoned for his latest work, I have no right to attack the Elbonian govenment until I've read Mr Writer's work (which might be so filthy and vile that the Elbonian government were totally right to imprison him). Perhaps I shouldn't be so judgemental about child pornography until I've actually watched some. Perhaps the 7,998 people who complained after the offended programme were people who had only just heard about JR & RB making obscene phone calls to an innocent person and were rightly disgusted by this action.

2) "I agree with the Daily Mail - God I feel so dirty!" (Or the Genetic Fallacy). The forum Mailwatch

exists for the purpose of extracting the urine from the Daily Mail and its readers. Good for it. One constant theme is the way that Daily Mail readers always assume that Gordon Brown = Bad, therefore anything proposed by Gordon Brown cannot be good. This is rightly mocked. It would be a shame for us to go in the opposite direction and say that "Daily Mail=Bad" therefore "Anything attacked by Daily Mail=Good". I certainly like to think I'm more sophisticated than that. Which brings us neatly onto
3) Tu Quoque (the fallacy of 'You too'). The Daily Mail says RB was wrong to make an abusive call to Andrew Sachs. RB says that the Daily Mail, over seventy years ago, supported Hitler. Therefore, the Daily Mail is wrong to attack RB. Which is absolute and utter garbage. For a start none of the people responsible for the 'Hurrah for the Blackshirts" headlines are still responsible for the content of the Mail (which makes this point as ridiculous as saying that because Sigmund Freud took cocaine, Four Weddings And A Funeral must be no good because it was script-edited by his great-granddaughter). Secondly, this fallacy allows us to neatly ignore the substance of the argument. If it okay for a man to make obscene phone calls about someone's granddaughter, it's alright even if the accuser spends all his time doing marvellous unpublicised works for charity. If it's wrong, it's wrong regardless of the accuser being Genghis Khan.

In conclusion, was the Daily Mail wrong to use two headlines and god knows how many inner pages to comment on this issue? Yes. Is it hypocritical for the Mail to do this when earlier last year, commenting on the Celebrity Big Brother scandal with Jade, the Mail basically said if you don't like it, don't watch it? Yes. Is 'Manuel Girl' the most ridiculous tabloid coinage in the whole history of tabloid nomenclature? Yes. Was the stunt in which RB and JR made obscene calls to someone about his granddaughter inappropriate and probably even illegal? Yes. Is there a nasty whiff of misogyny about the fact that the women in question (Manuel Girl?) performs in a burlesque revue in lingerie and is therefore seen as "up for anything". Yes. Should JR and RB be sacked? Yes.

Thanks for your time.

Paul Thomas Daily Express Cartoons Explained (9)

2008-10-24T09:24:00.000-07:00

Swindonian Town Councillors have rather missed the point of 'Twinning' and have chosen to twin their town with a person rather than with another town in another country, thereby missing out on the cross-cultural benefits which would have ensued. Not sure if it supposed to be Lewis Hamilton driving the car in the illustration but it appears to be floating.

(N.B. For anyone reading this post in another Country, it is customary to be rude about Swindon, but as someone very close to me hails from that fair town, it is a custom of which I shall not partake.)

Why do I have Google Ads?

2008-10-24T09:15:00.000-07:00

Not because of the money I earn (as I speak approximately 5 dollars over the last three years) but for the utterly bizarre adverts that appear in my sidebar. At the moment there is an advert for a site that explains 'What the Bible says about masturbation within marriage'. I haven't clicked the link so I don't know if they provide diagrams or not, but it might be worth you clicking on the link if that's the sort of thing that worries you.

What words I used in any of my posts to produce this advert, I know not.

Paul Thomas Daily Express Cartoons Explained (8)

2008-10-20T09:30:00.001-07:00

Mrs Woman is pleased by the news that bread has fallen in price and looks forward to a time when electricity faces a similar drop in order that she can experience the sheer joy of toast again. Mr Man expression suggests that he is worried that Mrs Woman's pleasure may lead to more demands for marital duties.

Paul Thomas Daily Express Cartoons Explained (7)

2008-10-17T06:42:00.000-07:00

A miscellaneous servant is of the opinion that it was a mistake to allow Her Majesty to continue in her role represented the dignified part of the constitution directly after meeting the Olympic Fencing Team, probably due to his fears that Her Majesty's behaviour has been influenced by said Olympic team in a way which could cause potential danger. From this, humour is somehow derived.

Paul Thomas Daily Express Cartoons Explained (6)

2008-10-14T09:34:00.001-07:00

Even more bereft of inspiration than usual, Paul Thomas resorts to copying a 1970s Satchi & Satchi Conservative campaign poster, hoping to be absolved of the charge of plagarism by adding a vibrating man with a dog.

Immodest proposals (warning, contains naughty words).

2008-10-12T07:47:00.000-07:00

When Jonathan Swift published his 'Modest Proposal' in 1729 (in which he suggested that the problems of Irish poverty could be solved if only the poor were willing to sell their babies as luxury food to the rich English), what precisely was he trying to say? Let's look at the options (I do have a point here so please bear with me).

1) He was being absolutely serious and really did believe that this was the best and only logical solution to the famine crisis in Ireland. If he were made Prime Minister in 1729, he would have immediately brought in laws to nationalise Irish babies after making appropriate recompense to the parents and repealed any laws against cannibalism.

2) He was just having a laff', anyone who took him seriously or was offended was just being 'Politically Correct' and should have just have chilled out and got a life.

3) He was taking events that were already happening and exaggerated them (whilst still following the logic of what was happening until) until they became horrific and/or absurd, thus making a point about the events that are happening. Or in other words 'Satire'

Right children, put down your pens and swap your papers with your partners. Anyone with the right answer?

'Satire' must be one of the most abused words in the English language. Originally meaning "1) A literary work in which human vice or folly is attacked through irony, derision or wit. 2) Ir0ny, sarcasm or caustic wit used to attack or expose folly, vice or stupidity.", it has now come to mean "1) Jokes about things that have happened in the news 2) Jokes about people that have happened in the news" (Bill Oddie once described the satire boom of the 1960s as going from "I say, I say My Mother In Law" to "I say I say Harold MacMillan" but with exactly the same jokes). In fact the idea that satire has to be funny is a modern idea; after all 1984 is a satirical work but is hardly a barrel of laughs. In fact 1984 is probably the most successful satire of the the modern age; the spectre of Orwell hangs over every debate on state surveillance whereas I doubt anyones views on the success of Gordon Brown's premiership is informed by the fact that Rory Bremner once did a funny impression of him. But the point is that satire, as it should be, is an attack on folly, vice or stupidity, in other words it has a definite aim beyond that of making people laugh. There is some debate about exactly what Jonathan Swift was satirising in A Modest Proposal but the very basic aim is clear; we are already exploiting the Irish so what not just keep going with this exploitation. We can see from this that answer 2) in the above quiz was precisely the wrong answer; people were meant to be offended by the article so that Swift could reply "You are offended? Good, you should be. I'm only exaggerated events that are already happened so transfer this sense of offense to these events". When Chris Morris made the Brass Eye Paedophile episode, a lot of people missed the point, none more so than the people who tried to argue that it wasn't offensive or disturbing. It was both offensive and disturbing and was meant to be. If satire is not offensive or disturbing it does not work, 'A Modest Proposal' would have been useless as satire if Jonathan Swift had merely suggested raising the income tax on Irish Peasants by a few pennies.

But if satire is offensive and disturbing, it does not necessarily follow that being offensive and disturbing is satire. When Jerry Sadowitz bounded on the stage of the Comedy Store in the puritanically and ideological rigid eighties and yelled 'Nelson Mandella - what a cunt!", he was not in any real sense attacking Nelson Mandella. The unspoken subtext was probably "You're offended by me saying that? Good. Comedy should be about being offended and taken out of your comfort zone and not just being told about things you already agree with". When, twenty years later, Harry Enfield portrays Nelson Mandella as selling crack cocaine, it is offensive and shocking (and maybe even funny) but almost certainly not satirical. What is the message of the sketch after all except wouldn't it be funny if Nelson Mandella sold hard core drugs. There is no exaggeration of already occurring events (Nelson Mandella is not known for either his drug-dealing or for his commercial sponsorship) and while the reversal of Nelson Mandella's humanitarian efforts may be considered satirical, it would be hard to see what point Harry Enfield is trying to make (Nelson Mandella shouldn't be a humanitarian)? If anything, the only satirical point the sketch could be making is the same one that Gerry Sadowitz already made...but then reiterating that some targets are considered beyond attack by attacking a target that's already been attacking is totally redundant.

Why am I wittering on about satire? Because, it's been used as the latest excuse by Peter Mullen who recently defended his remarks ("that homosexuals should have health warnings tatooed on their bottoms") by saying that "I wrote some satirical things on my blog and anybody with an ounce of sense of humour or any understanding of the tradition of English satire would immediately assume that they're light-hearted jokes.". The first thing to note is that Peter Mullen has already fallen into the trap of satire=merely comedy about things that are happening. Satire, by it's very nature, cannot be light-hearted, it has to be offensive etc. But I'll do Mr Mullen the courtesy of taking him seriously on the point of his satire and finding out exactly what he is being satirical about. (The blog post has been removed from his online line but can be seen here).

The first thing to note is that the controversial post itself is in response to a comment from Matthew Parris on gay weddings in the church namely "When it comes to church, synagogue or or mosque, if you think the whole thing ridiculous, its hard to get excited about the ridicuolousness of a subset of it. I should feel the same if morris dancers or the British Astrological Society tried to exclude gays." What Parris is saying here is quite obvious; if you are an atheist and therefore thing the whole point of the church is ridiculous, it is a bit silly to then say that excluding homosexuals is a ridiculous thing to do when you believe the very nature of the church is ridiculous. In other words, militant atheists shouldn't concern themselves so much with campaigning against women or gays not being allowed to become priests when they don't really believe in the very idea of priests themselves and Parris's words are aimed at these atheists rather than at believers. I don't actually agree with this point of view myself; I think religion's discrimination against gays is a fundamental point against it (how can a system that discriminates against a portion of the population be held to be good for humanity) but I do see where Matthew Parris is coming from.

Which is more than Peter Mullen does because after quoting Parris's remarks he goes on to say "So for Parris, the views of billions of Christians, Jews and Muslims worldwide are of no more consequence than a couple of obscure sectional interests" which misses the point entirely. Mullen choses to take a comment aimed at militant atheists and treat it as a personal slur against himself and his co-religionists - in other words, his 'light-hearted' comments were prompted by anger at someone else's presumably 'light-hearted' comments. He choses to devote an entire post to attacking someone on the basis of a few comments they made. Good start Peter.

Peter goes on to say 'We disapprove of homosexuality because it is clearly unnatural, a peversion and corruption of natural instincts and affections, and because it is a cause of fatal disease'. Perhaps this is where the satire/light-hearted comments begin and maybe Peter doesn't believe in this. Perhaps he is satirising people who describe things as 'unnatural' (when homosexuality quite clearly occurs in nature) whilst using electricty, computer technology and the internet (none of which occur in nature) and is therefore actually agreeing with Matthew Parris. But wait a minute, didn't Mullen earlier call Parris 'an ignorant upstart'? Perhaps the satire started there and this article is all a carefully composed article in praise of Matthew Parris. I'm all confused.

The real meat of the article comes when Mullen says "It is time that religious believers began to recommend specific utilitarian discouragement of homosexual practices after the style of warnings on cigarette packets: Let us make it obligatory for homsexuals to have their backsides tattooed with the slogan Sodomy Can Seriously Damage Your Health and their chins with Fellation Kills". Is this satire? It must be because Peter Mullen has said "I certainly have nothing against homosexuals. Many of my dear friends have been and are of that persuasion". So he doesn't really believe that gays should be tatooed. So what is the point of this satire? Perhaps the clue is in the comparison with smoking and what he is really satirising is the warning labels on smoking by saying "You're offended by branding people with warning labels about the potential dangers of an activity which is perfectly legal. Good, that's exactly what we're doing with smoking". If so, then the whole article is actually a defense of smoking apart from the bits about Matthew Parris which are an irrelevance. Talking about Nelson Mandella, isn't Starbucks a bit crap?

The article concludes with a joke about Doris Day which I don't get; in fact the whole article is a bit pointless if the author is being satirical since I can't work out what is being satirised. Mullen tries to give us a clue when he says "What I have got against [homosexuals] is the militant preaching of homosexuality". But nowhere in the blog post is there any notion that this is being satirised. If he was trying to satirise this, surely he would have constructed a post (off the top of my head) with a preacher making some joke about 'Adam & Steve, not Adam of Eve' or 'thou shall covet thy neighbours ass' or a government leaflet making homosexuality mandatory or at least some reference to preaching in it. Perhaps the full satirical genius of Peter Mullen eludes me and someone can enlighten me, until then I will continue to believe that Peter Mullen is just the latest right-wing opinionated evil bigot without even the courage of his own convictions1

1 These comments are just a light-hearted satirical comment which I don't mean, some of my best friends are Peter Mullen. If you disagree with this comment, you are just being 'Political Correct' and should get a life.

By way of a change - Matt Explained.

2008-10-09T11:52:00.001-07:00

Daily Telegraph cartoonist 'Matt' captures the desperation of the government faced with an unprecedented financial crisis in a way which 1) using a few simple lines with no extraneous detail and 2) does not insult the intelligence of the reader. If there was a political cartoonist's prison, Steve Bell would be Mr Big, Matt would be the warder and Paul Thomas would be everybody's bitch.

Paul Thomas's Daily Express Cartoons Explained (5)

2008-10-08T09:30:00.001-07:00

Paul Thomas believes that Innuits inhabit Iceland (or affects to do so for the sake of a very strained pun).

Paul Thomas's Daily Express Cartoons Explained (4)

2008-10-02T07:51:00.001-07:00

The 1960s have rang Paul Thomas to ask for their stereotypes back. (With apologies to Chris of Mailwatch).

Paul Thomas's Daily Express Cartoons Explained (3)

2008-09-22T10:49:00.000-07:00

The (labour) is united in the desire for Gordon Brown to go. That's it. Somewhere, the spirit of Giles weeps.

Naked Apes

2008-09-20T05:34:00.000-07:00

So farewell then Michael Reiss, forced to resign from his post after his comments appearing to endorse the teaching of creationism. At this point one has to ask what scientists are so afraid of . Are scientists really afraid that any discussion of creationism will only reveal the shaky foundations on which evolution rest that they ban all discussion of it?

To which one can only answer 'No, don't be so bloody silly, of course they don't"

Your average scientist is after all human. They have spent most of their being asked the same stupid questions over and over again. Someone who has done a PhD in Punctuated Equilibrium and the roles of spandrels in the evolutionary process is not going to react to the question 'Okay if we evolved from monkeys, 'ow come there's still monkeys then?' with a patient explanation of how wrong the question is on so many levels but probably 'Yes well done, you've got me out there, I'll go and convert immediately now just piss off". Similarly your average archaeologist will not be particularly willing to discuss exactly why the pyramids were not built by ancient astronauts and there's no probably no greater way of getting a biblical scholar to clear out of a cocktail party than mentioning Dan Brown. So, no they're not afraid of discussing evolution and creationism, just probably bored by the prospect of discussing the same old fallacies.

But of course, the story has been presented in the media as OMG NOW THEY WANT TO TEACH CREATIONISM IN SCHOOLS. Which is, not to put too fine a point on it, bollocks!. If you take the radical step of reading what Michael Reiss actually said, rather than what the bloke down the pub reckons his mate heard him say, you will find he said 'There is a real difference between teaching [creationism] and teaching about [creationism]". He goes on to say "So when teaching evolution, there is much to be said for allowing students to raise any doubts they have (hardly a revolutionary idea in science teaching) and doing one's best to have a genuine discussion. The word 'genuine' does not mean that creationism or intelligent design equal time". In other words, instead of just going 'boring' when a student asks if the world was created in 4004 BC or whatever, Reiss is suggesting that creationism is treated seriously and discussed seriously with a debate on exactly why creationism cannot be considered as a serious scientific theory while evolution can. (Along with discussion of what exactly the word 'theory' means in a scientific context).

None of which is revolutionary or even out of the ordinary in scientific lessons. I can certainly remember being taught about the theory of 'phlogiston' in physics with experiments proving exactly why the theory is discredited. Similarly the Aether is often taught along with the Michelson-Morley experiment as a text book example of testing a theory and disproving it. There is surely a basis for doing exactly the same with creationism; teaching it and demonstrating exactly why evolutionary theory explains exactly what creationism strives to explain. This is after all exactly what Richard Dawkins does with his best-known (and best) work The Blind Watchmaker.

But as ever, it harder to discuss what someone actually thinks in an adult manner rather than hurl insults at whatever strawman you have decided to erect.

Brief Autobiographical Pause

2008-09-20T05:21:00.000-07:00

1. There was an Englishman, and Irishmen and a Scotsman in a bar in Poland. That's not the start of a joke, it really did happen to me.

2. I once had a blog 'Notes From A Small Cavy'. Quite a few people seemed to like it. Some of them were not even relatives.

3. I used to write mainly in Internet Cafes and on my mother's very creaky old PC with a dial up connection. So naturally, once I had a shiny new Imac and broadband connection, the posts slowed up and stopped almost completely.

4. My friend's boyfriend has played saxophone for the group, The Guillemots, whose lead singer, Fyfe Dangerfield, once appeared on Never Mind the Buzzcocks with Anne Charleston aka Madge from Neighbours. That puts my degrees of separation from Kylie Minogue at 4.

5. The blog Notes From A Small Cavy sat unattended for a number of months look lost and forelorn. Rather than add to it, I decided to preserve it as a museum piece and start up a new look blog over here.

6. So there.

Paul Thomas's Daily Express Cartoons Explained (2)

2008-09-16T08:44:00.001-07:00

American executives who have already suffered from both the collapse of their business and (judging from their vibrating) bad attacks of Parkinsons have been pushed over the edge by a message of sympathy from Gordon Brown. Why this should affect them or why Gordon Brown is writing to American executives is not explained.

We'll see you on the dark side of the moon.

2008-09-16T08:37:00.000-07:00

Gone to the great gig in the sky.

Paul Thomas's Daily Express Cartoons Explained (1)

2008-09-14T06:38:00.000-07:00

Part of an occasional series inspired by this and this in which the Cavy tries to explain what is going in the pictures of The Political Cartoonist of the Year.

The ageing Bullseye commentator, Jim Bowen, is being instructed by his wife (???) to throw a government leaflet onto the fire. Judging by its facially expression, their white cat is either potentially alarmed at this move or has a wooden spoon shoved up its anus. Relatives of the Bowens have had their faces purged in a Stalinist purge (either that or Paul Thomas's ran out of time at this point). The Political Cartoonist of the Year cannot draw fire.

Afghan Hounded??????

2008-09-14T06:05:00.001-07:00

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4725532.ece

Spike Milligan, a man who suffered shell shock and injury in the Second World War would constantly parody Adolf Hitler. As far as I know, the Jewish Peter Sellers never objected to this. Mel Brooks (real name Melvyn Kaminsky) would never let one of his films go by without some mocking reference to either Hitler or the Nazis. (Most famously of course in The Producers but he somehow manages to work Nazis into even the late eighties Western setting of Blazing Saddles). But then, mocking Hitler is hardly new, the well-known laugh a minute Bertholt Brecht was onto the act back in the 1930s with Arturo Uri.

Neo-nazism has never proved particularly popular in Britain (apart from in its vanilla 'I can't believe it's not a far-right racist party' variant of the BNP). I'm not claiming this is the direct result of Milligan et al, but it is certainly difficult to hold a man as your divinely-inspired leader when he is the choice of impression for just about every comedian in the country. So when a police offer impersonates Bin Laden, I find it hard to work out exactly who was offended.

When presented with an unimaginably frightening and amorphous enemy, personifying it and mocking it is often the best release for tension. I'm not claiming that all those soap cakes with the face of Osama Bin Laden that were sold in the wake of 9/11 were particularly sophisticated political discourse, but it was certainly a much more healthy outlet than the scapegoating of minority groups. The execution of Saddam Hussein created a martyr, had he been kept alive and the butt of every end of the pier hamster devouring club comedian, perhaps one focal point of discontent in Iraq could have been neutered.

I'm not going down the route of blaming that nebulous beast known as Political Correctness which too often translates as 'something I don't happen to like but I can't quite think of a name for it". Indeed just about every shade of political opinion can at some point be accused of this; those who are perfectly happy for racist material to be given to school children on the grounds that it was written a long time ago are often the first to complain a post-watershed show aimed at adults mocking the hype around the reporting of paedophiles. But I do think it would help if certain sectors of this country would forget their sensitivities and rediscover the gallows humour that has kept tyrants at bay.