This is Halloween.

It’s Halloween ladies and gentlemen, the best holiday ever. Or not. There’s about as much point to Halloween as there is to a scented candle in a cesspit. If you haven’t noticed it’s Halloween, where have you been? You’ve clearly been indoors all week, and you definitely haven’t been on Facebook where you will find several photos of people dressed as zombies and Beetlejuice again for your viewing pleasure.

Okay, so I don’t like Halloween but it is naturally more appealing to kids. The very same kids you’ll find knocking on your doors later asking you for some food or something. Now, I don’t mind trick or treaters, in fact I think it’s great. For kids to do. Not spotty teenagers with their broken voices and a gormless laughs. Having young kids dress up as scary beasts and monsters go round with their parents is cool. It’s not cool for a group of chavs, with one can of Stella between seven, to come knocking on your door asking for sweets. Get a job!

Speaking of Chavs, this week I’ve been unable to walk into the local convenience store or visit a cash machine without falling over some scally sat cross-legged on the floor with some dummy made out of a broken stick and an old reebok jumper. Penny for the guy? It’s a broken ironing board wearing a sweater you little moron! Shouldn’t he be in school anyway? The kid not the ironing board but I suppose by today’s standards you might as well send an ironing board to school.

So yes to escape the Halloween shenanigans I decided to head out on Saturday night, but that wasn’t as successful a night as it should have been as I’ve never seen so many sixteen year olds wandering the streets dressed as Scooby Doo acting drunk in all my life. Naturally you’d think that upon arriving home everything would be fine again. But I was stupid enough to turn on the television, and someone had left it on Living.

Living. You don’t get a more lacklustre channel than that. And to be honest, I don’t see why it’s even called Living. It should be called Dead, because every single show on the sodding thing has got something to do with death in one form or another. Their flagship shows: Ghost Whisperer, Medium and Drop Dead Diva. Those psychic shows like Psychic Sally, 6ixth Sense with Colin Fry and Crossing Over with John Edward (which is about crossing over into the spirit world, not a show where John Edward helps old ladies across busy streets). But the show that put Living on the map really was Most Haunted.

The basic concept of Most Haunted was basically to just to send a frightened woman into a dark eerie house, turn the lights of and scare the living hell out of her. This woman went by the name of Yvette Fielding and she was at times genuinely entrancing to watch. Whether she was acting or not the way she jumps seven feet in the air after mistakenly touching a crew member’s arm is hilarious. Okay, the show did look pretty fake, especially when Derek Acorah was on the show, but it was still entertaining to watch.

Derek is a self-proclaimed medium but an everyone else-proclaimed actor. Every time I caught him on the show he was being possessed by some evil being. The guy cant go down the road for a loaf of bread without getting possessed by a passing bakery ghoul. I was on a plane with the guy once, luckily there were no spirits in transit else it would have been a very long flight.

So when I turned on the TV and found Living I thought I’d found Most Haunted. But instead I found Paranormal Investigation Live. The difference? Nothing really apart from a few more bells and whistles thrown onto it.

The show consists of two teams: Team Impact and Team GPS. These teams search the insides of a selected haunted house for anything out of the ordinary. The house in question isn’t so much a house but a Castle. Castle Menzies in the Scottish highlands, home to plenty of spirits, ghosts and of course Sir Ming Campbell. Not really but that would be pretty frightening, I’m sure you’d agree.

We’re introduced to the two teams with the usual juddering camera angles and eerie slow-playing piano in the background. Impact introduce themselves first as Paul, Anthony, Ola and Chloe. They search haunted venues across the UK in their spare time. GPS (named after a sat-nav presumably) are the same in every way, except their names are Barri, Phil, Laura and Matt and they use all this fashionable equipment.

The major difference to this show though is that there’s no Yvette. Instead we have Naga Munchetti presenting the show, and she doesn’t go in the house with the investigators. Instead she stays outside in a random sports centre erected just for the purpose of watching the two teams wander aimlessly around the interior of the castle.

Watching with her are two ‘experts’ which I mean in the loosest sense of the word. Expert number one is Ashley Cowie, a historian. We’re introduced to him in a short video where he introduces himself while we get to watch him caress a stone wall and read a small archaic book in slow-motion. Why in slow-motion? I don’t know probably to make it more spooky I suppose but there’s only so much you can do with an upper-class male, a book and a library. Expert number two and probably the most pointless of them both is Dr Rebecca Knibb of Derby University. She plays the role of psychologist, commenting on the reactions of the individual team members and all that malarkey. Again we get an introductory video showing her sat at a desk writing as if she were a GP, which she isn’t, she’s a doctor in something completely different. Of course there’s the background piano making it all seem a bit suspenseful. Maybe.

Anyway, the two teams show up in their overly large vans. Impact emerge dressed as some sort of army marines while GPS look like they’ve come as Sam Fisher from the Splinter Cell series. After that we head back to the sports centre to hear the experts talk about myths and legends, including a dragon and such. I got bored and went in search of refreshments.

After making a brew and returning, I found the two teams are in the house. Impact are the first team to get the limelight as they ramble round the kitchen trying to get spirits to come out. And of course, they do all this in night-vision cameras. Thank God. Now I feel like I’m watching Most Haunted again. The pointless dark rooms and the whites of their eyes glaring at you through the screen. Maybe we’ll finally get to see some action.

Actually this has got me thinking. Why do ghosts only come out in the dark? Are they scared of light or something? I don’t get why they have to do this in the dark. But I digress. Impact finally identify that their in a kitchen and one girl says that the fire is warm. Gripping stuff.

GPS aren’t much better mind you. They get to wander around the great hall in pitch black. One team member calls it a little foreboding. Foreboding?! I’m scared to death when I’m left in the darkness of my own house, put me in there and I’d be climbing the walls looking desperately for a box of matches! As for doing something, they don’t. They just get cut off by the sports centre and we’re treated to an ad-break. Great, 20 minutes into this thing and the scariest thing I’ve seen so far is Jennifer Ellison’s acting in that Daz advert.

Turns out I missed nothing during the break, what a surprise. And instead of going back into the house, they keep us with the sports centre again. Argh! What’s the point. I love the way they have Ashley and Dr Knibb sat at desks looking at monitors and typing stuff into their keyboards as if they’re doing something. As far as you know Ashley’s playing solitaire and Dr Knibb is updating her Facebook status: ‘Can’t believe it’s come to this. Happy Halloween lol’

Finally we’re back in the house with team Impact, who are now playing bagpipes as apparently spirits come out when they hear music they used to listen to. So we get to listen to two minutes of that until the track ends and one of the blokes calls out to the ghosts. “If there are any spirits here, please make yourself known, we mean you no harm.” What the? Why do they always say that? “We mean you no harm” what are you going to do to them? Why the heck would they be scared of you? They’re dead. What, have they seen Ghostbusters the night before and now they’re too scared to come out incase Bill Murray appears and zaps them into a tiny Tupperware container?

Anyway they get nothing. So we get to see if GPS are having more luck. They’re not but at least they have cool devises including an ovilus, which is a machine that can pick up spirits. Clever. Unfortunately though they don’t use it, they get out their CD player. Oh no, not the bagpipes again! Crap it is. They try the bagpipes trick. So after another two minutes of nothing they whip out the ovilus. Hurray! But all that does is blurt out random words. How is that helping? Oh the spirits are talking through it. It says worry, smell, fell, eye. Yes! We’re getting somewhere finally. An ad break?! Not cool. Oh well my brew went cold anyway.

We finally get back to the show and it’s the sports centre with Ashley talking about a story where someone fell down the stairs. How interesting, thanks Ashley. Anyway back to the house where the ovilus calls Barri a dick. Easily the best part of the show. The ovilus literally says “you dick.” Simply brilliant! But the team think it says “you check” what a bunch of idiots. Only Laura thinks it said the obvious but she doesn’t want to repeat the foul mouth ghoul’s rhetoric.

To be fair I bet these ghosts get so bored of crap like this. Every year at Halloween they have to put up with a bunch of people and a camera crew loitering around their home. Maybe they’ll come round your house on a random non-holiday. Valentine’s Day could be fun next year.

The show pretty much goes along like this for the rest of the night. The teams throw herbs into fire, put their hands in water, point metal prods at each other, all in the name of science. Well not science. All in the name of TV ratings I suppose. Of course it all happens at about 2cm an hour, to add to the suspense probably, but the constant back and forth between the sports centre and the two teams gets so annoying I’m going out looking for that historian with a black cloak and a big scythe. My goodness he talks so much rubbish it is untrue. Literally. I mean… dragons: seriously?

So that’s it, I sat through about an hour and a half of it and couldn’t take much more. So I went to bed. This was actually the scariest part of the night as upon entering the bedroom the neighbours’ security light etched a shadow of what appeared to be one of hell’s own demons onto my wall leaving me swinging from the lampshade for forty five minutes. Turns out it was only a crisp packet and a silly straw. Such is life. Happy Halloween. I guess.

Could be interesting.

Well I did it, I went back to the cinema. The film? The Social Network, the story about the founding of Facebook. I didn’t really think much to this movie back when I saw the trailer a while ago, it didn’t seem too interesting. But I can confirm that I was so wrong. So painfully wrong. There… I said it.

It’s a good movie, mainly because the story is interesting more than anything else. Now, I went to see this movie because recently I read the book The Accidental Millionaires by Ben Mezrich, and I found it to be an amazing insight into some of their lives.

The story focuses on Facebook creator Mark Zuckerberg and those around him, namely his best friend Eduardo Saverin, Napster creator Sean Parker, and twins Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss. From what I can gather, Mezrich compiled the story using interviews he did with several sources, with his closest source being Eduardo Saverin. He states early on that he never spoke to Zuckerberg once, even though he persistently attempted to contact him.

So with that in mind you may have figured that this story may well end up slightly biased. But Mezrich does well to portray the facts in his own little way. It’s hard to tell how accurate he is being seeing as he produces a disclaimer before you even get to page one admitting that this story has mashed together some dialogue, moved locations and all sorts. He tries to sell the book as non-fiction, but as the reader you have to read this as if it were fiction. Because it is.

It’s just an interpretation of what happened. Some of the events are real, some are just fantasized. In his writing Mezrich delves into the thoughts and feelings of the characters. Something he obviously wouldn’t know about, with the exception of maybe Eduardo. He’s had no contact with his main character, Zuckerberg, so how does he feel he can accurately write a non-fictitious piece on him, delving into his character, things that he did and why he did them?

Likewise the movie, which is based on Mezrich’s book, is largely the same, with some subtle differences here and there to add some drama, and some changes which are done for unknown reasons. Things such as Zuckerberg’s business card reading ‘I’m CEO - Bitch’, according to the movie Sean Parker blurts out this handy tagline, according to Mezrich that was part of Zuckerberg’s sense of humour. Who’s right? Who knows? Could be neither really.

Oh yeah. Spoilers.

Some other changes in the movie include Eduardo not yet being in the prestigious Phoenix club when Facebook goes live. In the book he’s already in, and the film makes out that Mark takes advantage of Eduardo’s social stature. When in the book Eduardo offers to e-mail the website link to his Phoenix friends. The movie also makes out Mark could have set-up Eduardo in the student paper, telling them he fed fried chicken to a chicken. When the book, although it mentions the furore towards the beginning, doesn’t make a big deal of it at all. Zuckerberg did this apparently because he was obsessed with clubs and was jealous of Eduardo’s Phoenix membership, this ‘obsession’ isn’t in the book at all really. If anyone was obsessed it would’ve been Eduardo.

Mark Zuckerberg talks a heck of a lot in this movie. In the book he is a man of very few words. His catch-phrase “could be interesting” isn’t even said once in the whole movie, which I find completely bizarre. He is still awkward in the movie, but to a lesser extent, probably because it would have been a tough watch considering the movie is focussed on him.

So the movie does credit Zuckerberg with the creation of Facebook, even if it does try its utmost to make it look like he stole the idea from the Winklevoss twins (something the book doesn’t play up as much), and it credits Eduardo with the business side of the site. The company is split 70/30 at the beginning with Zuckerberg taking the bigger cut. All well and good but according to the book Eduardo does have some input towards the site’s features. The wall, for example, is credited to Eduardo in the book, yet Mark creates it in the film. I’m not really sure why it does this as surely it would have made the betrayal more hard-hitting knowing Eduardo did have input into the site.

Another moment in the movie that contradicts the book is the fact that Zuckerberg creates facemash.com because he was dumped by his girlfriend Erica. From what I remember he doesn’t necessarily get dumped but just rejected by some girl. The movie sets out this whole scheme that Facebook only exists because he was trying to get even with Erica. Even Sean Parker gets in on the act, talking about a girl he wanted at school, so he created Napster. Like you do. I don’t remember that in the book.

The book basically says Facebook ends up being invented because two guys wanted to get laid. The film on the other hand, makes out it’s all for revenge. Fair enough but they’re quite happy to keep the mild sex-scene part-way through, I wonder why.

Anyway, the general premise is based on the book. Which, in turn, is based on real events. So take the book with a pinch of salt and the movie with a small handful. The movie starts off with Zuckerberg getting himself dumped for being ‘an asshole’ so he runs off on his revenge mission to hack into all the schools’ face books, pasting female students photos up onto a comparative site called facemash.com, which becomes a huge four hour long hit. During all this we are introduced to Eduardo, and we just have to assume they are friends. Even though there is no explanation as to how they ended up as friends. Do they take the same class? Did they go to high school together? Did they take a trip to the moon with each other? No one knows. Unless you read the book of course which helpfully starts off with Eduardo at his first ‘punch’ evening at the Phoenix and later goes on to show how these two people of different backgrounds and social abilities end up as best friends.

This might seem a minor niggle, but it’s actually quite big in the grand scheme of things. The book shows their first meeting and builds up their relationship from scratch and shows how they develop and how ultimately they fall out. This is used to great effect. The film on the other hand loses that effect, firstly by not showing you how they met, and secondly by revealing fairly early on, with the use of non-linear storytelling, that Eduardo ends up suing Mark.

Obviously the movie is presuming you already know the story, or at least that Eduardo and the Winkelwoss twins sued Mark. To be fair it has been in the news, especially when the twins were in the boat race down in London a couple of years back. But I think it kind of ruins it a little. When reading the book I was wondering how it was all going to end up with Eduardo, as it was linear, and it was genuinely surprising reading what happened and how it happened. Incidentally the movie goes way over the top with the scene where Eduardo cruelly loses his shares in the company. Showing Eduardo smashing up Mark’s laptop and having a right old shout before Sean Parker, played by Justin Timberlake by the way, presents himself as a total pretentious arse rubbing it in Eduardo’s face and calling security. The book is a little more subtle, but subtlety doesn’t sell cinema tickets. At least not any more.

Speaking of Timberlake, I actually think he’s been cast quite well in this movie. He’s set out to portray a parasite. Latching on to Zuckerburg’s coat tails and riding along for a big cash-in. And he does it quite well. I think he played the character absolutely perfectly. His character is a bit more loathsome than he is in the book but, again, that’s to add to the movie’s drama. So even though I saw Timberlake’s inclusion in this movie and rolled my eyes, as really he’s in it to give ‘star’ factor to the otherwise no-stars movie, I do actually think he’s good in it. And no he doesn’t ‘like’ himself.

Other actors include Andrew Garfield (Eduardo), the next Spiderman in the upcoming reboots. He puts on a good performance, as does Jesse Eisenberg who captures Zuckerberg’s awkwardness brilliantly. There are some other familiar faces thrown in, Brenda Song has finally been cast in a movie that isn’t for kids, she’s the rich girl from The Suite Life of Zack and Cody and other shows sprinkled with canned laughter by Disney. She’s good, the movie didn’t really delve into her character too much though.

The director? David Fincher, of Se7en and Fight Club fame. He does a decent job directing this movie, I just wish he delved into the characters a little more. Zuckerberg, for example, is the main character in this movie, but do we learn a thing about his background? Only that he got perfect SAT scores and he made an app for mp3 players. A bit of a fail, and naturally this is the downfall for most the other characters too. Eduardo’s character is barely explored at all, it isn’t documented how he gets into the Phoenix, and we know barely anything of his past. Same for the Winklewoss twins, and Mark’s room-mates. Because of this it just takes the edge off the events that happen in the film. As you don’t really end up caring too much.

A lot of people are saying Zuckerberg comes out looking pretty awful in this movie. But I don’t really think that’s totally the case. Yes he screws over his best friend, but to be honest it looked more like Sean Parker was doing it, not him. The movie ends quite fittingly with Zuckerberg adding his ex Erica as a friend on Facebook. Which feels like a bit of a kop out. I’m not sure if they created the idea of the girlfriend at the start and said ‘let’s end it with them reconciling’ or they said ‘hey, I don’t have an ending to this, how’s about we just have him learn a lesson and make friends with a girlfriend that isn’t in the book, but that’s cool we can just add her to the start’. It just feels a bit tacked-on rather than integral.

Overall though this film is a good, dramatic watch. But it isn’t as powerful as the book. In this book vs. movie battle, the book wins. It’s more dramatic, more powerful, more in depth, and more exiting. The movie does a good job of portraying this interesting story, be it true, false, or a mixture of both. Also the book has a better title. The movie should keep the ‘The’ but drop the ‘Social Network’ and replace it with ‘Accidental Millionaires’. It’s just a better title and captures what the book is about, the accidental millionaires. That’s what they are: millionaires by mistake. The title ‘The Social Network’ suggests the film is about Facebook, when it isn’t, its about a couple of guys creating a website that ends up taking over the planet. I know why they’ve changed the title, to give it a broader appeal. But it doesn’t make it a change for the better.

I’d recommend this film to anyone. Especially a Facebooker. It’s interesting to know how one of the world’s most popular websites was born. Obviously I’d recommend the book over the film, but that doesn’t mean it’s not worth a watch. It’s a solid three star movie and do you know what? I’m going to give it three and a half stars, because I think it deserves it. If you don't want to be bothered reading the book, go see the movie instead, it's a worthy alternative.

***

And if you’re wondering who the famous movie star the lawyer refers to is, it’s most likely Natalie Portman, Harvard graduate 2003.

The boy done good.

“I was dumbfounded. Only months before he was saying he was at the greatest club in the world. He wanted to stay for life.”

If you’re looking for bombshell of the week, look no further than the one dropped by Sir Alex Ferguson on Tuesday afternoon. After weeks of speculation over Wayne Rooney’s form, marriage, and ankle, Sir Alex finally revealed that “the boy” would not extend his contract at Manchester United further than 2012.

But that bombshell was topped only three days later on Friday with a quote from Wayne Rooney that was like music to United fan’s ears:

“I'm delighted to sign another deal at United. I've spoken to the manager and the owners and they've convinced me this is where I belong.”

A massive U-turn from the player who on Wednesday night, just before his team-mates were about to go out to face Turkish side Bursaspor in the Champions league released a statement claiming Chief Executive David Gill “did not give me any of the assurances I was seeking about the future squad.”

So what happened? What made him change his mind and sign a new five year deal a mere 48 hours after releasing such a statement? Was it ever about the future ambitions of the club or were there other reasons persuading Rooney to leave?

Rumours have been circling like vultures over the star striker’s relationship with Sir Alex, yet both parties have denied that strenuously. Greed has been another excuse thrown into the mix, but even that seems implausible seeing he could pocket a huge sum of money by just sitting out his contract until 2012.

Perhaps Rooney had grown fed up of the over-zealous British media constantly hounding him over his private life. This would be a plausible reason, Rooney’s reputation has taken a massive hit after allegations about his infidelities were revealed back in August, and of course his form has been in question ever since South Africa. Rooney isn’t just a football player, he’s a brand. And one thing brands don’t like is bad publicity. Just after his affairs were revealed Rooney was dropped from an ad by Coca Cola, one of Rooney’s big sponsors, in response to the allegations. And with Rooney having many, many sponsorship deals (Nike, Coke Zero, and Powerade, to name a few) this could prove a problem for him.

Ultimately, Rooney could end up loosing money because of his misdemeanours. But not just Rooney, his agent Paul Stretford would also lose out. It makes business sense to get Wayne Rooney out of the country and away from the relentless media coverage. Maybe that is what has been going on. Stretford, a major influence on Rooney, has whispered in his ear and told him this could cause major repercussions to the Rooney brand, and hence the Rooney pockets.

Stretford will know how much wage Rooney can demand at other clubs around Europe. He’ll know it’s more than United can offer right now. He’ll have no doubt been in touch with a few elite clubs, sounding out their intentions should Wayne Rooney become available. In a sense it’s tapping up, but this is the twenty-first century game, it happens. You’d be incredibly naïve to believe it doesn’t, especially where agents are involved.

Ferguson’s press conference on Tuesday was a stroke of genius. Everything he does is for an intricate reason. He looked so dejected, rather than being his sarcastic, witty or angry self, he came out with an almost deplored attitude, talking candidly to the media about the issue, something he very rarely does. He genuinely believed it, Rooney was leaving the club.

Ferguson has spoken about the modern game, many a time. About how it has changed over the years. No one knows better than him. Perhaps that is why he was looking so morose. He knows the players of old, Ryan Giggs, Paul Scholes, Gary Neville are a thing of the past. Now he must deal with agents, instead of players, and he doesn’t like it. Not one bit.

Parasitical agents pick up their clients now at the youngest age possible. Creating a rapport with them, filling their ears with convoluted dreams, what they could become with their help, how much money they could be on. Let’s face it, anyone would fall for the allure of it. Loyalty no longer matters in the game, not like it did. It’s slowly dying off. Players are more loyal to their agents than the clubs that nurture them.

As Liverpool know all too well, football is business. 100% business. And it’s those business reasons that could cripple United just as Liverpool have been. Perhaps Rooney had looked at what United are capable of in the transfer market, which was once dominated by them, and didn’t like what he saw. Especially with the blue half of Manchester burning through hundreds of millions without breaking a sweat.

Rooney’s concerns would be just the same as the fans’. Ever since the Glazer family has buried the club in massive debt United have not been able to match their rivals in the transfer market. I’ve never understood this deal. The Glazers borrowed money they did not have and used the club they were buying as collateral. Based on that I could go and buy, let’s say, Bolton Wanderers, I don’t know why it seems as good an option as any. Now let’s say to purchase the club I’ll be needing 300 million pounds, which is a bit of a problem as I don’t have any money. So I go to the bank and ask for a loan of 300 million pounds, now surely the bank would want some collateral right? Well I’m going to effectively put that onto Bolton Wanderers Football Club and if it doesn’t work out I can just leave them with the burden. It’s all good. Any bank would laugh at me if I made that request, so how did the Glazers do it? It smells horribly of corruption, I have no idea how or why the FA or the British government allowed it to go through.

But it did go through. And that’s where they are. Sir Alex claimed Manchester United were prepared to offer Rooney a contract with “the best terms possible for any player in the country.” But I don’t think that was possible. Realistically, if United offered Rooney £250,000 a week, City could just offer £250,001, they easily outmuscle United financially.

Whether he meant it or not, I do think Rooney is a little off the mark in saying United had no ambition. I’m presuming he felt that way because United didn’t buy a superstar in the summer. But that has never really been United’s way of doing things. They have always focussed on youth, and nurturing that youth into a world-class player. Look at the current United side. Just some of the players who joined or started at Manchester United as nobodies: Vidic, Evra, Fletcher, Giggs, Scholes, Neville, Hernadez, Nani, Anderson, Fabio, Rafael. Even the players no longer at the club: Ronaldo, Heinze, van Nistelrooy, Beckham; all unproven, all became great players. In five years time Hernandez could be scoring 30 goals a season, he might not, but with Sir Alex at the helm you just wouldn’t put it past him.

Of course Fergie has invested in more established players when he has deemed it necessary: players like Berbatov, Carrick, Ferdinand, Hargreaves, and Van der Sar. But his focus as a manager has always been bringing in young unestablished talent, and creating a world-beater. I wonder if Cristiano Ronaldo would be the player he is today without joining Sir Alex at United.

Ferguson said on Wednesday night after the Bursaspor game that he “didn’t want it to be a saga.” And it certainly wasn’t a long one. What’s interesting for me is that Rooney has signed on the dotted line already. It was previously said that there was no offer on the table yet he has just signed one. These contracts take weeks to compile together so it could be assumed there was an offer on the table, Rooney just hadn’t signed it.

Because of this I don’t believe its about the money. If it was he’d have left. I think Rooney was genuinely concerned about where the squad was moving; forwards or backwards. He’ll have been concerned ever since Ronaldo left the club, just as many of the other players would have been.

The crucial part in Rooney’s statement on Friday was when he said: “I've spoken to the manager and the owners and they've convinced me this is where I belong,” The fact he’s spoken to the manager would be key, but so is the owners. They’re the ones who are ultimately in the driving seat at United. They’re the ones who will dictate whether or not the club will compete or not. Without the owners, the board, the manager, and the players all on song, United will fail just as Liverpool did.

Regardless of whether or not Rooney stayed, United will need to rebuild and restructure soon. Players like Paul Scholes, Ryan Giggs, and even Rio Ferdinand will need replacing soon. And with the clubs current situation financially, that could prove difficult. Take the goalkeeping situation for example, Van der Sar will need to be replaced as early as next year. Ben Foster didn’t work out, and Kuschak doesn’t look to be a starting option. Hugo Lloris would be a great buy, but could United afford to pay Lyon the fee? Probably not. Instead other options will need pursuing. Stekelenburg over at Ajax could be a good option but he too could cost a pretty penny. Balancing the books and keeping the team winning could well be Sir Alex’s biggest challenge yet.

Key to future success will be Ferguson. But on the field, no one will be more important than Wayne Rooney and Nemanja Vidic. Vidic in particular, after signing a new contract and becoming captain in the summer, it is now his job to keep the players together, keep them motivated, and demand the best from them. He was spot on after the Bursaspor game saying to the media how he and the players just want to get on with things, train and win football matches.

The big problem for Rooney will be getting the players and the fans back on his side. Some of the players seemed to be upset at his accusations, reading into them that they were not deemed good enough by him. Patrice Evra came out after the Bursaspor match and told Sky: “If one player in the team does not trust the others, he should not play in the team. I trust everyone, I know we can win.” He will need convincing Rooney trusts in his and his team-mates ability to win games.

According to Ferguson, Rooney has apologised to him and the players over his actions in the past couple of days. It won’t be easy for him, but I think over time Rooney will win back the player’s confidence. If he can get the confidence of the senior players such as Giggs, Scholes, Ferdinand, and Vidic in particular, the other players should be attainable too.

You have to admire Rooney a little for completing this U-turn knowing the backlash he would receive from the players and the fans. He’s already witnessed a bunch of idiots outside his house on Thursday night throwing abuse and death threats at him and his family. I can only hope the club comes out condemning that rubbish and banning them from Old Trafford. They’re not fans. They’re just morons. Even if he did leave, he’s just a footballer, get a grip. I prefer players who want to play for the club, not those who play with a gun pointed to their head.

It’s been a crazy few days, that ultimately was resolved in probably the best possible way. I doubt the saga is really over but for now Rooney is a Manchester United player and more importantly their ambitions are still as big as they ever were.

No ambition? There’s always ambition when Sir Alex Ferguson is your manager. Always.

Knock-off Nigel.

Remember the summertime? The warm weather, the bright nights, the pollen, the lack of rain. Well there’s a certain theme in the 2010/11 football season that seems to have followed on from the summertime. No, I’m not talking about the vuvuzelas. Thank Christ. I am of course talking about evil footballers and their murderous vengeance seeking tackles.

Yes, it’s been the talk of the town. Pundits moaning, managers whining, journalists clapping with glee. And just over a week ago Fulham captain Danny Murphy, who looks like a burly used carpet salesman when he wears a suit, thought he’d let people know what he thought.

I can imagine the journalists sat at that conference. Bored to death, traipsing into the press conference, boggle eyed, cursing their editors for sending them to Stamford Bridge, usually a good job, but not today. Today it‘s the Leaders in Football conference, about as inspiring as a ripped binliner floating down the River Severn. Out comes the carpet fitter and everyone groans. Not him again, anyone but him; Jody Morris, anyone. They reluctantly get out their pens and writing pads already starting to jot down the usual drivel he comes out with. “We deserved to win the Europa league.” “Bobby Zamora is a good player.” “I miss Roy.” And then all of a sudden, from nowhere, Murphy gives them a bite. After all these years they finally got a bite!

“Managers are sending out their players so pumped up there are inevitably going to be problems. Your manager dictates what your players do and how you behave. Every ship has a captain and that's the manager who is in charge. You get managers who are sending their teams out to stop other teams playing, which is happening more and more - the Stokes, Blackburns, Wolves”

Singling out football clubs Danny, well done. Producing no evidence at all, no facts, nothing, just drawing from his imagination and pointing the finger at Tony Pulis, Sam Allardyce and Mick McCarthy. And they had a finger to point back at him too.

Sam Allardyce came out first with his reading glasses and a power point presentation. Pointing out that his Blackburn side have received no more than 11 yellow cards this season and no red card. Now, Big Sam has had this power point out a few times. He has it on his windows 7 taskbar (it was his idea). Everytime he plays Arsenal he gets it loaded up before he arrives at a press conference to save time. I’m sure Arsene gets so bored on the coach up to the dreaded North he just decides to phone random journalists and slag off Blackburn some more. Even when he’s not playing them.

Mick McCarthy, when interviewed by the Beeb, just laughed it off, but Tony Pulis called it right when he said they were “easy targets.” And they are, they don’t play poetic football like your Arsenals, Man Uniteds or Chelseas. What do you expect them to do, go all out attack against them and take a 7-0 drubbing and be happy with it? No, they’re going to try and get something from the game. Stoke, Blackburn, and even Wolves are more than capable of getting a result against any Premier League side. It’s why it’s the  best and most competitive league in the world. I think it’s incredibly disrespectful to round them up and throw slander in their face, just because they play a different style to your own.

What annoys me about Murphy’s comments is not just the fact that it’s not thought out, and it feels like he just read a tabloid newspaper’s sports pullout. It’s the fact he’s a hypocrite. This is a bloke who just last year against Shakhtar Donetsk in the Europa League decided it would be okay to kick out at fellow professional Darijo Srna. People in glass houses, Danny, they shouldn’t be throwing stones.

Strangely though Murphy declined to mention the team harbouring the most evil man in football. A man so wicked he wanders the night killing first-borns as part of some sort of ritualistic pre-match warm up. A man whose name reverberates around dojos everywhere striking fear into the heart of the most hardened of fighters, even Chuck Norris. This man, if he is a man at all, is Nigel De Jong.

De Jong has been tearing apart player after player ever since he joined Manchester City back in 2009. If you believe the papers that is. But he only really had mediocre reputation as a footballing bad-boy until his big moment in the spotlight, on the biggest stage. Back in March he tried to get into the evil scene when he took out Stuart Holden’s fibia in an international friendly. But the world didn’t seem to notice. He knew this though was his moment. His time to shine. The world thought they could ignore his evil capabilities. Well they could do so no longer.

Twenty eight minutes in and he saw his opportunity. Xabi Alonso, a mere mortal, only a few yards away was foolish enough to jump for a header with De Jong in the vicinity. The result was a merciless kung fu kick to the chest. De Jong’s card may have been bemusingly yellow but his evilometer was red, blood red. When he walked onto the pitch in Johannesburg he was a mere droplet on the radar, when he left it looked like coffee had been spilt all over it. Alonso was lucky: he left with his life.

After that spectacular moment De Jong became synonymous with pure dastardly evil. Since then he’s kept his bad-boy reputation by breaking Hatem Ben Arfa’s fibia AND tibia. Everybody knows Nigel now. He’s become the number one hate figure in football, even El Hadji Diouf looks like a wilting schoolgirl compared to De Jong.

Needless to say the media have slated him. Everyone’s getting in on the act, Marseille even want to sue him! Even Dutch coach, Bert Van Marwijk, has slammed him, dropping him from their most recent international games stating he has a problem with the way he “needlessly looks to push the limit.” But where is that limit? De Jong won’t be satisfied until he’s broken every bone in every player’s body. Then and only then he’ll be happy.

Not everyone has been hammering the Dutchman though. His international team-mate, Mark van Bommel, a man who if he stands still for longer than two minutes a mischievous teenager will run up to him and inscribe ’I wish my wife was this dirty’ onto him, has jumped to his defence saying the following:

“I know Nigel as a sweet guy. He doesn't want to injure anyone but wants to win every match. That is his strength… Thanks to Nigel we reached the final of the World Cup. And now I hear people calling him a criminal. What a nonsense.”

I’m sure De Jong is pleased someone out there, especially in the Dutch camp, is on his side. But there again Mark Van Bommel sticking up for Nigel De Jong is a bit like Myra Hindley calling Harold Shipman ‘a sweet guy’.

His club boss Roberto Mancini has come out defending him as well, calling the Ben Arfa challenge “a normal tackle,” which in fairness it was really, “people do look at things negatively but every week, in every game, here, in Spain, in Italy, there are unbelievable fouls, worse than Nigel's.” And he’s right, Karl Henry has produced his fair share of horrendous tackles way worse than anything De Jong has come up with. But he doesn’t get the fame, mostly because he’s rubbish, but also because he didn’t kung fu kick a Spaniard. Then there’s Paul Scholes, a man who doesn’t so much tackle as fall feet first into passers by. And how could we forget the one and only Roy Keane, he’d eat De Jong for breakfast and still go back to the buffet table for more!

De Jong is nothing more than a wannabe. He’s got a long way to go before he can sit amongst the alumni of hard-man tech with the likes of Big Duncan Ferguson and Terry Butcher. A man can dream though, a man can dream.

A pledge too far.

Well it’s been a fair few months now of the coalition government in Britain, and I’m not so sure it’s a coalition anymore at all. This week saw Vince Cable, a Liberal Democrat MP and Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, who before the election promised, along with all other Lib Dem MPs, that he would not vote in favour of a rise in student tuition fees, backing just that. A rise in tuition fees.

This is a party who have always opposed student tuition fees full stop. Yet now they’re speaking out in favour of Conservative legislation attempting to raise the tuition fees cap from £3290 to unlimited. Yes, that’s right, unlimited.

You have to feel for British working families who have been smacked in the face with a cricket bat yet again. It’s just relentless at the moment for them. The change in housing benefit, with some people having to fork out hundreds of extra pounds a month just to stay in the house they own. The change in the child benefit system which seemed to have good intentions but instead decimates certain families across Britain. And now this.

Think about it, under the proposed scheme, a seventeen year old thinking of going to university will now have to pay around £7000 a year for the privilege. Now, if that seventeen year old is in the upper class bracket of Britain then that’s fine, the parents can simply open up their wallet or money sack and hand out the sum that is required. So what if the seventeen year old is of a much poorer background, one where neither parent works, and hence cant afford to send them off to university. Well there will be financial help for them. Which is a good thing.

Now imagine the same seventeen year old, who is from what is known as middle Britain where both parents are working (hard I might add). Financial support probably won’t be there for them, at least not as much, so a loan will be in order. Realistically you’re looking at around £30,000 of debt before you’ve even worked a day. And that will have to be paid back, with a higher rate of interest than was previously given.

Now imagine that same hardworking family has a fourteen year old child as well. The family will do its utmost to give the education to their eldest, possibly stretching themselves to breaking point in the process. So child number one manages to get through uni, all be it with massive debt, but they make it nonetheless. What about child number two? Can they afford to do it again for them? I think you’re asking a little much.

Okay, so universities will need to find the money from somewhere as the government is slashing the subs they used to give them. But what about the likes of Oxford and Cambridge? Surely they can just charge whatever they want right? They’ll still have demand for places no matter what they charge. Is that right?

The same goes for other universities who may have an outstanding course running at their institution, let’s say music, and if little Jonny wants to learn how to play the clarinet there really well then they’ll have to fork out a heck of a lot more than let’s say a geography student on a less prestigious course at the very same university. Is that right?

The problem with this is, the already huge gulf between the classes is about to become ginormous. Only the rich will end up going to the best universities and will therefore land the top jobs. Leaving the lower classes and anyone North of Milton Keynes to fight over the scraps. This is all well and good but Britain is already haemorrhaging talent, we cant afford to lose much more. Now it will all be about financial clout rather than your actual ability. The talentless amongst the rich will take jobs that talented poorer individuals could have filled, and done a much better job. Which means we’ll need to immigrate more people, because in a few years time we are going to have a very low number of skilled people in this joint.

The other classes aren’t getting off scot-free however, these cuts can be seen as painful for everyone. Though they are necessary, perhaps not to the drastic length they’re going for but still necessary. I don’t think Labour would be doing much different, perhaps they wouldn’t be as severe. I doubt they’d raise the student fees to unlimited status, and their child tax credits policy would most likely be a lot fairer. But we’ll never know, maybe they’d have gone even further, who knows.

What is increasingly worrying though is the way the middle class is having to get hit the hardest, as if they are just the collateral damage necessary in getting us out of this mess. It’s now more beneficial to rent, rather than own your own home. Jobs are disappearing and university education is slowly becoming nothing more than a pipe dream for the working families of the country. It just doesn't feel fair.

Take a quick look at the new reformed child tax credits. Any family with a member earning £44,000 and over can not get any child benefits. It sounds reasonably fair but upon closer inspection you’ll see that it is harrowingly unfair. A family with two working parents, let’s say the husband is earning £42,000 a year, and the wife also £42,000 (because I‘m not sexist). Combined, this family earns £84,000 plus child benefit. Now let’s take another family where husband earns £44,000 and wife does not work (I flipped a coin). Their total earning is £44,000 with no child benefit. Hitting these people ‘because they can take it on the chin’ is bluntly unfair and simply taking advantage of them.

Soon there will be no incentive to earn at all. The UK is heavily reliant on some people’s work ethic. People who work because it’s what they’ve been brought up to do. People who will never turn down work or overtime. People like carers who work tirelessly saving the NHS millions upon millions of pounds every year, and all for little to no reward. And that’s the problem. Britain, instead of rewarding hard work, rewards laziness. People who wont work, because it can’t match what they receive in state benefits. And who can blame them? Why do something for nothing when you can do nothing for something?

But all this doesn’t answer my question. Why are the Liberal Democrats doing this? Their manifesto at the election earlier this year stated the following:

“Britain, for all its many strengths, is still too unequal and unfair, a country where the circumstances of your birth and the income of your parents still profoundly affect your chances in life….
…We will scrap unfair university tuition fees so everyone has the chance to get a degree, regardless of their parents’ income.”

So how do these statements do complete U-turns in five short months? Jumping into bed with a binary opposite political party is one thing. Turning your back on all your core values is totally unbelievable. I don’t understand what they are getting out of this deal any more (apart from unlimited power of course). They were supposed to be there to provide a leash, to hold back the Tories from going totally wild inside the chicken coop. But that leash is starting to look like a pretty yellow bow around the neck, and feathers are flying.

Are they literally doing all this just to repay the Conservative party for letting them sit at the captain’s table? Or do they genuinely feel that the Tories’ policies are right for Britain? Who knows? Not me. Maybe they’re just political chameleons turning bluer by the day. It would be interesting to hear what the late Sir Cyril Smith would have to think about it all.

Dear Britain: Get a grip!

What a week it has been. Ed Miliband chose his front benchers set to fight to the death with their Tory-Liberal counterparts; Nato troops were deprived of fuel supplies as Pakistani Taliban fighters destroyed tankers headed for Afghanistan; the Commonwealth games kicked off in Delhi; and the Chilean miners look close to being released from their underground prison.

Of course nobody cares. Because they’re far too busy protesting radically about the goings on at their football club. I am of course talking about the sale, or non-sale, depending on how you look at it, of Liverpool football club. They’ve been bought by another American firm, NESV, owners of the Boston Red Sox. And of course current owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett like the idea of making money, so they’re attempting to block the sale.

Now, it’s fair to say Liverpool fans don’t quite like them two. So I wasn’t really surprised to find a video on YouTube of Liverpool fans addressing Tom Hicks, telling him and his mate George to get out. Of course the video is given a bit more clout and publicity by having a few celebs pop in to give their two cents on the matter. I say celebs, there’s Ricky Tomlinson, Sue Johnston and John Bishop. There are others, you can tell who the celebs are as they act like they’re important, but I don’t know who they are from Adam.

This is all well and good but they manage to go way, way over the top. One bloke (maybe a celeb) says: “The only way you‘d understand it, how much we feel about this club, is if someone came to your house and burnt it down.” Really? You bloody idiot, so you’re telling me what they’ve done to a business is the equivalent of someone burning your house down?

Then Ricky T comes along half way through to say that they’ve not just stolen their club, but they’ve stolen the game from them. Now, I love Ricky Tomlinson, but that’s just stupid. How can you steal the game of football from someone? Apparently the football fields in Liverpool are deserted, you won’t find kids running around the streets kicking a football about, and Sky Sports is only available to Everton fans. Thanks Hicks I hope you’re happy.

But the one thing that really annoyed me after watching this video is the inconsiderate moron who stands there with his hood up, wearing sunglasses indoors, and spouting: “Imagine if your family, which is what Liverpool Football Club is to most people, especially the real fans who go home and away, it‘s like you‘re raping all of them at once.”

This needs to end now. People need to stop the use of the word rape to mean ‘casually attacked’. It’s one of my big hates, when someone substitutes words like attack, tackle, beat et al, with rape. I mean, how offensive is that? To even imply that rape is just a casual act of violence or offence is just down-right wrong. Yes Hicks has run Liverpool into the ground, but you can’t come out and say he’s a rapist. It’s ridiculous. Rape actually happens, and I’d hardly think those women would liken what they went through with Liverpool Football Club losing money and being unsuccessful. Such an idiot. Anyone wearing sunglasses indoors is, but this guy is something else.

And what was all that about the “real fans who go home and away”? Some real fans would give their left arm to get to watch their football club at home, never mind home AND away! See, the ‘real fans’ are priced out of watching their own team they once supported from the stands, just as their parents did, and their grandparents and their great-grandparents. All because football, since it’s a business, got greedy. Now your average supporter drives a Merc and drinks fine wines as he watches on. Football clubs don’t care who supports them, as long as they have money. Who cares if Liverpool aren’t successful on the pitch? The real fans, once the lifeblood of the team, don’t get to see that pitch anyway.

So yes, I’d like it very much if these melodramatic fools would stop moaning about Liverpool's situation. I think John Bishop put it best when he said “jog on.”

However, these protests have been dwarfed by the backlash that was found after the weekend’s reality TV show evictions. Sigh. This week it's the plight of Gamu, yet another girl shot into a week’s worth of fame by the juggernaut of light-hearted entertainment that is the X-Factor. Now, I first caught wind of this on Monday morning when someone told me how ‘insane’ it was for Cheryl to reject Gamu and choose two other generic cyborgs instead. Of course I brushed off this ‘news’ story and went about my day.

But it didn’t go away. A couple of days passed and Gamu’s face is up on ITV News with the shocking headline ‘Gamu to be deported’. Wow is this what it’s come to? Sorry, you’re not worthy of half-arsed fame brought by the X-factor, please get out of this country and don’t come back (unless you bring money). But no, it turns out the reasoning behind it is the fact that Gamu’s mother’s visa application was turned down. Seriously that’s why it was on ITV News.

Now the country is up in arms! There are people stood outside her house in Scotland, presumably to protest, although they’re not so much protesting but trying to get themselves on TV which is why this whole story even exists in the first place. Then we have a reporter, who must be dismayed that she went to university for this, waving a microphone at the closed door of Gamu’s house interviewing the mother about paper-work.

Okay, first of all, people need to stop complaining about Gamu’s rejection. The show is called X-Factor, it is not a talent show for crying out loud! I mean, Cheryl Cole is one of the judges! She couldn’t find a haystack if you placed one on top of a needle, so why do you think she’ll be able to pick someone talented from a bunch of clowns? Obviously I’ve heard Gamu sing in the last week as I haven’t been living underneath a rock for seven days, and yes, she can sing. But so what? A lot of people can sing. She hasn’t exactly made Cheryl’s water turn to wine has she? Will.I.Am did that. Annoyed.I.Am

Secondly, just because you have a Facebook group it doesn’t mean you can change the law in the UK to allow her to stay here. This must happen to hundreds of people every week. But do people care about them? No. But Gamu was on X-Factor, she’s a national treasure just like Joe McElderry and Kerry McGregor (yes, I just did a Google search). It actually got to the point where new Labour leader Ed Miliband was actually asked his opinion on the matter. Of course he stated the bleeding obvious saying that they can’t make exceptions for X-Factor contestants. I’m sure he wasn’t expecting that question when he was elected.

Scotland's Culture Minister Fiona Hyslop has actually written to the Home Secretary regarding Gamu’s situation stating the following:

“As you will also no doubt be aware, Ms Ngazana's daughter, Gamu Nhengu, has been participating in the X Factor television show. Gamu has demonstrated that she is a hugely talented singer, and potentially a great asset to Scotland's cultural community… I would strongly urge you to take a personal interest in the family's circumstances, to ensure that all relevant factors are properly and fully considered, so that any options which would allow them to stay in Scotland are fully explored.”

You hear that immigrants? Want to stay in the UK? Get yourself on the X-Factor. You want to know the real winner in all this? Simon Cowell, who “really feels for Gamu's situation.”

People need to stop for a minute to look at what they’re bothered about. Aid worker Linda Norgrove, who was taken hostage by terrorists in Afghanistan, was killed this week in a rescue attempt. She had dedicated her life trying to help others who desperately needed aid. If you interviewed the population of Britain and asked them if they knew who Linda Norgrove was, very few would know. But ask the same people who Gamu Nhengu is and a heck of a lot more would be able to tell you. I certainly didn’t see a massively publicised Facebook group campaigning for the release of Linda Norgrove.

***

The full video of the whining Liverpool supporters is below. See how far you can get through it before stopping it.

Switch it off standby.

One hundred and forty five pounds and fifty pence. That’s how much a television licence will set you back for one year of flickering light from your idiot box. So for that amount of cash you would probably expect at least something for it wouldn’t you. I mean, when you walk up to an ice cream van you pay a pound and you expect a 99 right? You don’t expect the ice cream man to take your quid, scarper to the driving seat and speed off towards the border do you? So why is it okay for the BBC to take £145.50 from you and do exactly that?

Now, recently the BBC Trust decided to put a freeze on the licence fee, so you will pay £145.50 for the next two years until it goes up again in 2012 where you should probably expect a bit of a hike thanks to the Olympics and of course the end of the world. So for now you can count yourselves lucky.

So where does all the money go? Well, according to the BBC Trust’s figures for 2009/10, 66% of it goes towards television, 17% on radio and just 6% online. The remaining money goes towards such things as investments in new technology and general running costs, not to mention the whole digital TV switchover malarkey.

As you can see then, the bulk of the money goes towards financing the television channels. These channels are: BBC One, Two, Three, and Four, BBC HD, CBBC, Cbeebies, BBC News 24, and BBC Parliament. Oh and BBC Alba for the Scottish, something else Scotland can have from the rest of the UK, I’m hoping we get a good Christmas present from them this year.

So obviously there’s a lot to pay for, hence the charging of extortionate amounts of money via the licence fee. Now I don’t mind the BBC too much, I just feel that they are ripping us off really. I just don’t feel we get very much back from it. Unfortunately the Beeb can’t please everyone. For example, I hate Radio One so therefore I don’t listen to it, but some thirteen year old girl might love Radio One so she will listen to it (and probably text in as well while she’s at it telling Jo Wiley how much fun she had at the weekend). I’ve been known to watch Match of the Day, but that very same thirteen year old girl probably doesn’t because she doesn’t understand what’s so enthralling about 22 blokes kicking a ball about a field. It’s okay she’ll learn.

But even taking that fact into consideration I still feel we’re being ripped off! Over the last few years all the BBC has really produced is Doctor Who and Sherlock which are decent enough shows, but they don’t really warrant the fee and Sherlock was only three episodes long and it was basically a Doctor Who spin off! Speaking of which they refuse to be original, all you’ll find on their channels are continuing shows such as Top Gear and repeats of BBC shows from yesteryear. Now this is all very nice but I can find these two things on Dave and UK Gold so for crying out loud do something else!

When they do finally find something else to do, they go and flog it to death. Take Mock the Week for example, which I managed to catch the other night in it’s new graveyard slot. Honestly this show should stop now, it used to be really funny and topical. But now it’s a platform for some of the worst new comedians to yell out some of the most pointless drivel you’ll ever hear. Dara O’Briain doesn’t do anything anymore, Frankie Boyle has gone now and it seems Russell Howard has too. Meaning Hugh Dennis is forced to carry it single-handedly. If I was him I’d be out of there by now, he is far too good for what that show’s become. I mean, what’s the point? You get the same thing on Radio 4 and that costs much less to produce. It needs putting down, it doesn’t know when to quit.

Speaking of not knowing when to quit. Harry and Paul was back on our screens last week. Cheap television: take one idea that’s kind of funny and run with it, and run with it, and run with it, and keep on running with it. Yes, unfortunately it wasn’t the best watch. The past two series were very funny and they were a good social commentary on modern Britain. However, the sketches they do are now redundant, they’ve done all they can with them. The ‘Seen you coming’ sketch, in which Harry Enfield plays a man running a shop in an upper class area selling tat to dim witted women, has now lost its appeal. It’s all been done now, so stop doing it. Instead they have created a rival for him across the road, played by, yes you’ve guessed it, Harry Enfield. There was a prolonged sketch about the Beatles that was terrible, it was literally a filler, they had 5 minutes to fill and did so with this. Lazy and just plain awful. And don’t even get me started on the weird bloke asking a woman if she’s a model sketch. Honestly, what was that about?

It wasn’t all bad, the Dragon’s Den sketches are still funny, but even that was dragged out too much. And Lenny Henry was in it briefly, along with Simon Greenall (Alan Partridge’s Geordie mate). This was the first episode of the series so it may get better. But I doubt it will. It’s the new Little Britain, only with less of the annoying catch phrases.

To be fair to the BBC, it’s not just them who are doing this. Look what ITV have on offer: X-factor, a show so tired Simon Cowell now wears dark glasses to cover up his mid-show snoozes; Family Fortunes, a show so ridiculous they might as well get that 'Rev' Terry Jones’ moustache to host it; and Emmerdale. Then there’s Channel 4: The Inbetweeners, which is what happens when you give E4 writers an 18 certificate, Deal or no Deal, so cheap to make the phone bill is the biggest expenditure, and everyone’s favourite time waste: Big Brother. They all do it. So, comparing them to all the other channels, BBCs television is far superior. But is it really worth £145.50? No, it’s not.

But what are the options? Abolish it completely and have them raise money through advertisements and such is one avenue but that will just create even worse tele than we’re watching right now. We could also have a subscription like service in which you only pay for the programme types you want to watch. Drama or sport for example. That might work. The problem you have really is that the BBC runs programmes and services for a whole range of demographics. It has to supply many things, such as news, sport, kids shows, drama,  educational shows and parliament broadcasts for example. It’s not as easy as being say The Disney Channel where all you have to do is make shows to keep teenagers entertained for 20 minutes at a time.

What I would do is simply lower the fee and get rid of the dead wood. It’s not hard to see what they’re wasting money on. Remember the World Cup coverage? So much waste there. They had Chris Moyles and ‘Comedy’ Dave do commentary on a random group match. That was fun. More pundits and reporters than you can wave a red card at went to the tournament, as well as a massive studio for them all. But the worst was paying Emmanuel Adebayor money to be an analyst. Why? Why do this? He knows very little, he’s annoying, he brings nothing to the team and he cant even turn his phone off! Why was he there!?

What else can we bin? Well the whole of BBC Three for a start, Casualty, there’s one, do we really need Holby AND Casualty? How about Eastender’s budget, get that down, the same people would watch it if its budget were 50 pence a year anyway. Sack a few pointless people: Bruce Forsythe, Scott Mills, whoever writes Miranda. Before you know it we’ll have cut expenditure by half and hence we can cut the fee by half and we might even have better quality tele in the process.

It is highly unlikely that we wont have to pay a licence fee in the future though. It’s an effective way of generating cash, and Britain doesn’t have a society that would actually do anything about it anyway. If you look at the big European picture we don’t pay that much for the privilege of TV. Iceland for example have to fork out 32460 króna (£183) a year for it. And our mates over in Germany have to pay 204 euros (£178) a year. Yes, some pay a lot less than us (Ireland, France and Croatia for example) and some don’t even pay anything (Spain, Portugal, Hungary to name but a few) but that’s how their countries are run and they don’t share the same extensive service the Beeb provides. And hey, we could be like the Italians where they show adverts as well as charging for a licence. Well done Italy.

So looking at that it’s not a lot of money really considering what you get for it. But I think my main problem with it is the fact that a wealthy family with seven flat screen LED televisions pays the same amount for it as a much poorer family with only one basic television to all huddle around. Yet so many people of all social classes are always complaining about their money troubles in these hard times, surely it's harder to be poor right? You know some morning radio DJs only get paid £40,000 a month. Keep it in perspective people. Now, where’s my 99?