Question Time sequence cut out of Yesterdays Broadcast

Episode Transcript - Edition 4,921 - 22/10/09

DD: Hello My name is David Dimbleby and welcome to question time. As always the panellists have not seen any of the lengths of rope which they will be given to hang themselves with. Let's have the first question from Mr Underdressed Student...

A: Thankyou David. Nick Griffin in relation to your parties attempt to hijack Winston Churchill's legacy I would like to ask - are you a tosser?

NG: There is no definite evidence that I have seen to suggest that I am a tosser. I realise the common view is that I am a massive penis but until recently I was unwilling to accept that I am indeed a tosser. However I cannot explain why but I have changed my mind. I did actually hear some radio intercepts from the Eastern front, the general gist of which was "Nick Griffin is an odious dicksplash who looks like the bride of chucky". This somewhat reinforced the general feeling for me and my party that I am indeed a tosser.

Jack Straw: You do not need radio intercepts to know that you are a tosser! I as justice secretary of this country personally assure you that the laws regarding Tosser Denial make it very easy for you to explain how you came to this view point

DD: Pipe down Jack. Bonnie Greer, why is it that so many people thought Nick Griffin's appearance on question time would be a triumphant one for the BNP?

BG: I have no clue David. Certainly aesthetically Mr Griffin will not appeal to floating voters. If I were and image consultant for the BNP my first move would be to remove the entirety of Mr Griffin's face and perhaps replace it with that of a horse. It would be more attractive, appear more studious and would give a a greater sense of assurance than Mr Griffins current face to this country that he is ready for the serious business of government

(loud applause)

DD: Lady Warsi what do you make of these proposals to replace Mr Griffin's face with that of a horse?

LW: I completely agree David, although I would be worried about the positive impact that this could have on the BNP's electoral fortunes. However, much though that I disagree with their policies I feel there should always be an outlet in a representative democracy for idiot minority parties. I believe that the democratic system has in this respect been let down by 12 years of wasteful Labour government - why haven't Labour ensured that Mr Griffin is walking around with an equine head? I think his current hideous visage and the lack of a Shergar-esque replacement highlights once again the terrible oversights of this Labour government.

JS: This is a totally ridiculous statement. We, as a government, mounted a review of minority party politics as far back as 2007 which recommended the drastic measures of taking Mr Griffin's face away entirely to help representative democracy for even the coarsest nutters amongst us. This fact in conjunction with the economic shit heap we've created and the expenses scandal mean that it is we the Labour party who have been looking out for the BNP from the very begining.

DD: Chris Huhne what is your view on the issue?

CH: Well David I would like to once again reiterate the support of myself and that of my party for the plans to end the ceaseless torment that is Nick Griffin's face. Churchill was mentioned earlier and I believe that that great man, who was first a Liberal, fought so that we had the freedom from oppression and fascism that would allow us to decide whether to replace a mans head with that of a horse. Churchill, who I hasten to add was first a Liberal, tirelessly stood against the forces of evil to secure the basic freedoms that we take granted for today.It was Winston, who I'm not sure if I mentioned was first a Liberal, who once said "we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving we would still have the sense to replace the head of any pug faced facist twats with one resembling Black Beauty"

(loud applause)

END OF SEQUENCE

Reality?

I am going to university. Naturally everyone that I know has assumed I will live the next three years in squalor whilst only eating gone off beans and the dead rats that infest my room. Family friends especially are keen to save me from this fate and as a result I have been plied with "student cook books".

As all teenagers know there is nothing worse than writers trying to be "down with the kids", especially when these writers themselves claim to be "one of the kids". This is sadly the case with my student cook book. It's called "SORTED!" which I assume is meant to reflect how young people only have the attention span for words of 2 syllables or less. It details recipes within of varying complexity all of which lean toward saving money. Now this is undoubtedly handy given that I am going to be in more debt than sub Saharan Africa within three years but the terms that these money saving tips are couched in rankles somewhat. In case I didn't realise that having money was good they continually remind me - the less money you spend on food the more you've got for beer! the more you've got for watching footie! the more you've got for buying condoms to shag fit birds with! ( It doesn't say exactly that but you get the drift)

By all accounts this book has been written "for students by students". I've never understood the whole idea of advice from a person similar to yourself. Sure it may be easier to relate to but I wouldn't want heart surgery from a medicine student who bounds into the operating theatre shouting "wicked!" and "quality!" , as the writers of "SORTED!" do on a regular basis. Rather than being "for students by students" it seems that "SORTED!" is "for students by idiots who think they know what students are like but in fact have just lived their whole lives as walking cliches". Not only do they not know their market but they also horrifically underestimate them. There are recipes which detail the difficult art of making fillings for sandwiches. Now I have always thought I knew how to make sandwiches but it seems that I missed out on a lot of the requisite culinary education. After deciding that students can't simply decide that they want cheese and ham in their sandwiches they provide a recipe which is so ridiculously complicated that it totally defies practicality. The intoduction states that making your own "delicious alternative" to Subway sandwiches saves money. They then go on to tell you to toast some pine nuts and take the flesh from an avacado have in your "sarnie". Maybe it's just easier to make a ham or buy one?

What I don't think the authors of "SORTED!" understand is that although I don't mind drinking alchohol the reason I will cook their recipe for beef and mint curry is so I can have dinner. It will not be to "absorb the alcohol after that 'quiet drink' down the union that became a marathon session! This is the perfect end to any night - a perfect Ruby Murray!". Really?

Important?

The Sun are now officially a conservative paper. It hasn't exactly been a secret what with John Gaunt and his other twat columnist stable mates refering to David Cameron as "our next PM " for the last six months, but at least it's official now.

Labour have imploded as a party ripping up copies of the Sun mid-conference and generally acting like a jilted lover screaming "We never loved you anyway!" whilst weeping as they stare into the void of free publicity and vote collecting that Britian's most bought daily guarantees. Is it really that important? Does the Sun hold the key to the election? You would think that it is the policies of the parties that command peoples votes, not the papers they read but perhaps this isn't the case.

A major turning point in the modernisation of the Labour party was gaining the Sun's support. It was Peter Mandelson and Alastair Campbell's primary concern in the spin war before the landmark 1997 election. For the first time they had the complete support of the most read British paper and most importantly the paper with the broadest cross section of readers. It was from there that they disseminated the spin and propaganda that helped attract the vital floating voters. It is listed as one of the turning points that brought them such a convincing win in 1997 and something that they have relied on heavily ever since. Where else can they turn? The Express and The Mail want nothing more than a Tory return to office (apart from maybe Diana's death to be proven as a MI5 conspiracy), The Telegraph has more chance of supporting the BNP than Labour, everyone knows that the Guardian are left leaning so it's pretty inevitable and know one gives a fuck what the Star, the Sport or the Mirror think.

So perhaps it is important, perhaps it signals a final nail in the coffin for New Labour and Gordon Brown. Or perhaps the people of Britain still prefer to make their own minds up, perhaps they rather making informed opinions based on their moral codes and values. Worryingly I suspect it could be the former.

In the Cast

I am pretty busy at the minute. I don't live a stressful life by any means but there are certain things that my current situation requires me to do. Prepare to move out, earn some money, watch as a many Bo Burnham videos on Youtube as is humanly possible during one earth day.

Another mammoth demand on my time are podcasts. Such is my addiction to the brilliant (and free) audio downloads I often find myself listening to my Ipod in bed thinking that I can't go sleep as I have such a backlog of quality to catch up on. My profound love of the Hamish and Andy podcast has been documented on this blog before and probably forms the bulk of my listening duties. They churn forty five minutes of gold everyday from down under giving me a considerable workload from the kick off.

Then factor in Mark Kermode's weekly film reviews (it's practically obligatory to listen if you ever fancy seeing a film again) and you are up to a running total of 3 hours a week. But the madness doesn't stop there (I'm beginning to scare myself totaling all this up). I have recently become addicted to the Times Online podcast "The Bugle" which is a self proclaimed "audio newspaper for a visual world" and is hosted by two of Britain's finest comedy talents Andy Salzman and John Oliver. The latter is currently making it big in America as a prominent writer and correspondent on the excellent "Daily Show with John Stewart", which garnered an Emmy last week for it's the continued high standard of it's writing. Another 50 minutes is thrown on to the bonfire of lost time in the shape of Adam and Joe's six music show. The 3 hour Saturday morning broadcast is honed down to a consistently funny highlight's package which captures the DIY ethos perpetuated by the pair. Search "Song Wars Quantum of Solace" on youtube to see the best of their home made offerings.

I haven't even begun to examine the "sports" facet of my podcasting addiction. Sport is the topic that perhaps most lends itself to podcasting as all you need is a couple of mics and some passion to debate in much the same way people do down the pub after watching a game.The Football Ramble is a podcast that does just that and is a podcast to which, after being directed to it a month a go, I have frequently been compelled to listen to before other more stalwart members of my ipod lineup. The four guys that do it managed to top the Itunes sports charts without any backing from sponsors and continue to create intelligent, hilarious editions week in week out. The Guardian's football weekly podcast manages to often crow bar two podcasts a week in with their somewhat superior resources. Just as enjoyable as the Ramble in a different way James Richardson and Co. are the place to go especially for informed analysis of the game on the continent and in South America, something that is hard to come by elsewhere.

The Jake and Tiarnan Podcast - Episode 12

This is the last goodbye. I hate to feel the Podcast between us die. These words of Jeff Buckley are all I have left to describe the Jake and Tiarnan Podcast, Episode 12 of which is the last one for the forseeable future. In it we compare ourselves to Mother Theresa and express our hate for Jeremy Paxman. It's not great but then has it ever been? Get it now here.

Class is Permanent

I have never liked Manchester United. Perhaps it was their perpetual success or the gum chewing smugness of Alex Ferguson that initially ignited my loathing. Either way it is fair to say that my distaste for all things red is tempered with a grudging respect.

It's a respect I'm sure that Manchester City's fans will find difficult to unearth given their unfortunate loss on Sunday afternoon in the Old Trafford leg of the derby. Admittedly Glazer Bros Incorporated were helped by the poor timekeeping abilities of the referee but, in the larger scheme of things, there was something at least partially worthy in their victory.

Although United are by no means the poor man of Manchester it has been a tough summer for the usually dominant force of the Northwest. As they watched their rivals buy up the cream of (wantaway) talent in British football they were left to contend with a hole in their team in the shape of a preening, but otherwise supremely talented, Portuguese tit by the name of Cristiano Ronaldo. In this sense their victory on Saturday is validation that they are still the big wolves on the Manchester campus, a sign that by sheer force of will (and the names that they managed to hold on too) they will reassert the dominance they have built throughout the decades over their now more monied rivals.

Sir Alex Ferguson jokingly declared in his pre- match press conference that Manchester City would never be better than his own team while he was alive. Although they are getting closer maybe he's right; are City fated to be forever in the shadows of their local rivals? Whilst they spend millions on a central defensive partnership that seems adverse to heading footballs Ferguson shrewdly invests in Michael Owen and nurtures Darren Fletcher into one of the finest midfielders in the world, quietly restoring the the natural order of things in the North West. How apt was it that Owen should score a late, poached winner? It was perhaps not what his team deserved but it underlined Ferguson's managerial acumen and showed that the tide has not quite turned for Mark Hughes and Manchester City. He has built an impressive team, one which has managed to gel and which gave an sterling (albeit defensively shaky) account of itself on Sunday but as yet for all the sense that they were beleaguered and weakened coming into this season it is United rather than City that are still on top in Manchester.

Traffic

It seems that there has been some unexpected traffic to this here blog over recent days. September 14th especially was off charts, I'm not entirely sure how the google servers coped. Unless it is just the same person visiting numerous times a day (which is likely) then it appears some people need to make themselves known with a comment or two. The Leader is watching.