>At the back of the current issue of Select, there is an interview with Lemmy from Motorhead, where he reveals that 'they take 2 hours rehearsing the ad-libs for that show'.

Having said that, they do make them look 'off the cuff' though sometime it is obvious that they are given all the answers in advance. Remembering them is the problem.

Yeah, I was surprised that Matthew Marsden knew the tune to 'Fool's Gold'.

They may spend two hours rehearsing the ad-libs, but that doesn't actually make them funny.

>>At the back of the current issue of Select, there is an interview with Lemmy from Motorhead, where he reveals that 'they take 2 hours rehearsing the ad-libs for that show'.
>
>Having said that, they do make them look 'off the cuff'

Not so sure about that, myself - usually there is one point in each show where the fat one goes "off on one" and Lamaaaarrr joins in for a while and it all goes just crazy, man - it is pretty much obviously scripted or at least planned in advance. It certainly feels about as spontaneous as a bag of chips.

>It certainly feels about as spontaneous as a bag of chips.

Considerably less enjoyable, though.

I believe that the ad-libs are the only rehearsed part of the show. This has never been a secret and everyone freely admits it.
However, Phill and Sean don't know what Mark is going to say, so everything else *is* off the cuff.

Anyway, for some reason Lemmy got pissed off (I think with Mark) and tried to walk out on the show he appeared on, apparently pretty impressed with himself, as the show would be 'un-usable.'

They had just finished filming, so he ended up looking like a fool.

>I believe that the ad-libs are the only rehearsed part of the show. This has never been a secret and everyone freely admits it.
>However, Phill and Sean don't know what Mark is going to say, so everything else *is* off the cuff.

So at least the scores at the end of the game are a genuine reflection of the pop know-how of the contestants. At least we can be sure of that.

>I believe that the ad-libs are the only rehearsed part of the show.


Shit - I meant the INTROS.
Yes, even *I* sometimes make mistakes.

(name removed) and (name removed) (name removed) and (name removed) (name removed) and (name removed) (name removed) and (name removed) (name removed) and (name removed) (name removed) and (name removed) (name removed) and (name removed) (name removed) and (name removed) (name removed) and (name removed) v

Having watched the rehearsals and recording of NMTB, I can tell you that the teams are told the questions beforehand, then they sit in their team rooms and think up their answers. The programme is rehearsed , but they put researchers and people hanging around in place instead of the teams.

Lemmy was interviewed about the NMTB thing in Q magazine a few months back. He claimed to have walked out a lot earlier but that the show was re-edited to make it look like he stayed for the whole thing. Having recently watched the repeat I have to say that it was a pretty nifty bit of editing if this was the case. But if it is true then it makes Lamarr's snidey reference to the incident in a subsequent show (pretty much the way Ailie described it) a lot more horrible than it seemed

But more odd is the actual reasoning behind Lemmy's walkout - it wasn't just the pre-rehearsed ad lib thing which pissed him off but the sneery laddish sexism towards the female guests and the woman-out-of-Bucks Fizz identity parade. Lemmy was irritated by comments like 'Didn't I see the one on the left down the whorehouse?' (or something equally witty) and the fact that the Bucks Fizzers weren't miked up so they couldn't retaliate even if they wanted to. That's saying something - the main bloke out of Motorhead getting annoyed at misogyny. Don't want to turn this into another slanging debate or anything but, whatever point in the show Lemmy walked out, the evidence seems to suggest that Lamarr is the 'fool' in this instance. Not buying into TV bullshit, getting offended by wanky 'aren't we deliciously non-PC' twattisms, having to sit next to Lamarr's spitting gob and being generally rather good and witty through despite all this made Lemmy a veritable fucking hero in my eyes. Even if he does collect Nazi memorabilia and hasn't turned out a decent LP since 'Rock N Roll'.

And he was great in 'Eat The Rich'.

Lamarr's Attacks seems like a way of cashing in on the PR of that nasty one-sided Gail Porter session by presenting a show which plays up to it. What was actually a particularly shameful half hour is seemingly seen, by Root's BBC, as something fantastic to entice viewers of a certain sneery mentality.

Watching that Gail Porter/Marianne Faithful episode of NMTB actually made me realise that I could, if presented with the opportunity, kill a man. And I'm pretty sure that all bullied or abused children will be with me on that one. Luckily we chose to hang him in picture form instead. And gave Ailie some pleasure while doing so it would appear. We aim to please...

Had to work with Lemmy recently. He was late, grumpy and thoroughly unhelpful. But I've met worse.

Cheerio

Steve

>Watching that Gail Porter/Marianne Faithful episode of NMTB actually made me realise that I could, if presented with the opportunity, kill a man.

I'm with you on this one. Their treatment of Gail, and indeed of several other guests who had done nothing wrong apart from appearing in the public eye in a way that self-confessed uptight musical snob Lamarr disliked, was disgusting, and certainly very bloody far from entertaining.

The whole show is just one gigantic parade of overinflated egos, and is nothing more than a sprawling, incoherent, innefectively produced mess. Why anyone should think that it justifies repeats is beyond me.

*sigh*
It's been a long day, but...

The show with Lemmy was recorded quite a while back. I assume that you take into consideration that Lemmy has now had the time to reflect upon the incident and put together a convincing case against Lamarr?

>if it is true then it makes Lamarr's snidey reference to the incident in a subsequent show

I wasn't aware he even made reference to it in another show. He's spoken about it in interviews, but he's been *asked* about it in interviews.
He doesn't go into depth about what happened, but rather states (I'm para-phrasing) that 'Lemmy wasn't as funny as he thought he was.'

>the evidence seems to suggest that Lamarr is the 'fool' in this instance.

Not really. If the arguement which you just put across applies to Mark, then it applies to Phill, Sean and other guests too.

>Not buying into TV bullshit, getting offended by wanky 'aren't we deliciously non-PC' twattisms,

Lemmy being offended by non-political correctness?
Is this arguement meant to hold water?

>Lamarr's Attacks

Lamarr's Attacks is something entirely different, which I can't be bothered to write about, as I'm just about to go home from work.

>entice viewers of a certain sneery mentality.

I don't like Gail Porter. If people want to slag her off for 'comedy' value, then I usually laugh. Does this make me sneery?
Oh, hell, probably, but these people are fawned over on a daily basis.
I see nothing wrong with deflating their ego a bit.
I'm not a horrible person, but I suffer no fool.
You may choose to label Mark the 'fool,' but our opinions would differ there.

>Watching that Gail Porter/Marianne Faithful episode of NMTB actually made me realise that I could, if presented with the opportunity, kill a man.

Marianne was having a great time!

Gail didn't make an effort to defend herself and nor did anyone else...

>we chose to hang him in picture form instead. And gave Ailie some pleasure while doing so it would appear

Ummm... I missed the pleasure in it, but it didn't really bother me.
Ultimately the way I choose to feel and the humour I find funny is exactly that; the way *I* choose.

I am now going home to take my shoes off and have a cup of tea!

:0)

>Lemmy being offended by non-political correctness?
>Is this arguement meant to hold water?
>
>>Lamarr's Attacks
>
>Lamarr's Attacks is something entirely different, which I can't be bothered to write about, as I'm just about to go home from work.


Sorry Ailie, as you haven't yet gone into detail on what makes L'sA different. But I actually think it *was* commissioned on the basis of his NMTB persona. (See also Nick Hancock's latest series - both made by the same production teams as behind their ratings successes)
>
>>entice viewers of a certain sneery mentality.
>
>I don't like Gail Porter. If people want to slag her off for 'comedy' value, then I usually laugh. Does this make me sneery?
>Oh, hell, probably, but these people are fawned over on a daily basis.
>I see nothing wrong with deflating their ego a bit.

Hmmmm. And no-one ever fawns over comedians? The way the press and media fawn over certain comedy figures (Lamarr is one) Not so sure - I hate Gail Porter, but she holds little real influence in the media, to be absolutely honest. But the influence of Lamarr and his ilk - the Corpses are right. The intimation behind NMTB (particularly that horrible Porter episode they're so delighted with) is that "women don't belong in rock'n'roll". Unless they've gone through a career where they were seen to be all but wasted (which is presumably why Marianne Faithfull was "spared").

The real tragedy about NMTB (beyond the misogyny question) is that there is a potentially superb comedy show about pop music waiting to be made. Not this self-satisfied guff, which is about as rock'n'roll as Denis Norden's Looks Familiar.
Only not as good.

>But I actually think it *was* commissioned on the basis of his NMTB persona. (See also Nick Hancock's latest series - both made by the same production teams as behind their ratings successes)


Lamarr's Attacks is Open Mike. NMTB is Talkback, if that makes a difference...

>The way the press and media fawn over certain comedy figures (Lamarr is one)

Don't know if I agree with that.
Mark has had some horrible reactions from the media in the past.

>Gail Porter, but she holds little real influence in the media,

Exactly, but we have to hear about her naked antics in every magazine we open.
Why? Because she voluntarily puts herself into the spotlight and tries to attract male attention.
She has no real value in the media, so why not make fun of her sexuality? By her conduct, i.e. stripping off for male mags, surely she is open to criticism and such criticism does not constitute misogyny.
I slag her off, but I'm female.
Does this make me a misogynist? No. It's silly.

>"women don't belong in rock'n'roll".

Rubbish.
Plenty of women have gone on that show and had no problems whatsoever.
Men have gone on and been treated in just the same way.
Do you see how your comment makes no sense?

What you suggest, is a very blinkered way to look at the situation and I think you're seeing sexism which isn't there.

>The real tragedy about NMTB (beyond the misogyny question)

Don't agree that it's misogynistic and that's from a female perspective.

I like the fact Mark doesn't hold back with the criticism. Whether it gets a laugh or not, other shows are unwilling to go against the grain and for that reason, it has my admiration.

>She has no real value in the media, so why not make fun of her sexuality?

*splutter*

Good God, Ailie, you can't mean that!! Two sweeping unrelated statements... I'm shocked. I understand what you mean - you think that she's marketing herself purely on her sexuality and that therefore it is OK to attack her on that level - but honestly, she *is* a TV presenter, not a porn star!

>I slag her off, but I'm female.
>Does this make me a misogynist? No.

YES. The idea that women can't be misogynist is ridiculous - in fact misogyny in women can be far more dangerous and damaging than predictable old male misogyny. Similarly ethnic minorities can be racist (toward their own race), gay people can be homophobic etc.


>Plenty of women have gone on that show and had no problems whatsoever.
>Men have gone on and been treated in just the same way.

Now this *is* a good point - I don't think that Lamar singles out only women for this sort of treatment, members of boybands who dare to go on the show get treated just as badly, in fact anyone from a certain level of dumbed-down culture gets attacked. However, in Gail's case it was a particularly lazy effort, focussing on her sexuality and not her personality. It may well be the case that Lamar thought it was clever to use sexism as a stick with which to beat her and isn't actually misogynist himself (I'm inclined to believe this) but that's hardly a defence is it? "Oh, I didn't actually *believe* in what I was saying, it just seemed the best way to make her cry..."

>
>Don't agree that it's misogynistic and that's from a female perspective.

Again, being femailie (sorry) gives you no more authority on the matter...

I can see truth in both sides of this argument. Oh, I don't *know*...

>>She has no real value in the media, so why not make fun of her sexuality?
>
>*splutter*
>
>Good God, Ailie, you can't mean that!!

Shit. No I didn't mean it like that! That sounded really bad, didn't it? It wasn't worded as well as it should have been.
What I meant is that she (and many others) presents herself in a manner whereby I do not think that mocking her sexuality is wrong. (Does this seem any more coherent or less misogynistic)
Gail Porter has a very 'look-at-me-don't-I-have-a-great-body-aren't-I-great' mentality, but should someone dare to challenge this and say, yes, well, you have a lovely body, but you're a pointless figure in media, they become wrong for doing so?

I just don't get that.

>>Does this make me a misogynist? No.
>
>YES. The idea that women can't be misogynist is ridiculous - in fact misogyny in women can be far more dangerous and damaging than predictable old male misogyny. Similarly ethnic minorities can be racist (toward their own race), gay people can be homophobic etc.

I'm not a misogynist. Really.
I'm not racist and I'm not homophobic.
What irritates me is the so-called 'celebrities' (male and female) of limited talent. *That* is where my intolerance comes from.

>>Men have gone on and been treated in just the same way.
>
>Now this *is* a good point -

And one which was overlooked by everyone.

>However, in Gail's case it was a particularly lazy effort, focussing on her sexuality and not her personality.

But how are we supposed to know her personality when she's most famous for getting her kit off?

>Again, being femailie (sorry)

I almost thought it might have been you that was the phantom 'name writer' on that other strand, but it seems you can write more than a sentence or two, so you're off the suspect list.

>I can see truth in both sides of this argument. Oh, I don't *know*...

Well it's all about balance isn't it. I'm not saying it's acceptable to slag off any woman by using her sexuality as a weapon, but at the same time, if you put yourself in the limelight and get your kit off, you can't assume that everyone will take kindly to it. The act in itself doesn't seem worthy of admiration.

>
>I'm not a misogynist. Really.
>I'm not racist and I'm not homophobic.

I didn't believe you to be...that's why I was shocked. BUT:

>What irritates me is the so-called 'celebrities' (male and female) of limited talent. *That* is where my intolerance comes from.

Fine. Me too! And *that's* what should be attacked, not how she looks. As long as everybody obsesses over these nonentities' looks then that will continue to be the criteria by which they are hired/selected. If we all banged on about their actual *talents* as much, then TV execs would get the impression that this is an important factor. No?

>
>I almost thought it might have been you that was the phantom 'name writer' on that other strand, but it seems you can write more than a sentence or two, so you're off the suspect list.

*shocked*

I would NEVER pretend to be an out-of-work comedian in the belief that it would impress people!

*slams door*

*opens door a crack*

Er, no offence, Mr. Herring...

>If we all banged on about their actual *talents* as much, then TV execs would get the impression that this is an important factor. No?

Very true, but I like a bit of personal arguement too.

>*slams door*

COME BACK!

That was such a teenage thing to do. :P


There's nothing wrong with being an out of work comedian. My problems rest with the anonymous 'comedian' in question and their pathetic cowardice...

>
>That was such a teenage thing to do. :P

I have never been so insulted...I HATE YOU!!

*pouts, forms rubbish indie band*

Have you had hair growing in strange places?
Are you confused about your sexuality?

You need both these things before you can form your indie band.

>>But I actually think it *was* commissioned on the basis of his NMTB persona. (See also Nick Hancock's latest series - both made by the same production teams as behind their ratings successes)

Sorry - meant producer, not production company. It is the same bloke (Richard Wilson) - Harry Thompson produces both Hancock "vehicles".
>

>>The way the press and media fawn over certain comedy figures (Lamarr is one)
>
>Don't know if I agree with that.
>Mark has had some horrible reactions from the media in the past.
>
Thing is though - here is a man who, from his appearances on The Word onwards, has fashioned an image of "Mr Tell It Like It Is". "Patron Saint Of Controversy". (And what's the name of his new show again?!) Yet he gets so petulant about the slightest shred of criticism. (Hughes and Jupitus are just as guilty, incidentally - this is certainly not just a dig at Lamarr.) They can't see the contradiction in this - if you set yourself up as confrontational/controversial, then people (rightly or wrongly) are going to have a go. You'd have to be pretty naive not to expect some kind of response.

>>Gail Porter, but she holds little real influence in the media,
>
>Exactly, but we have to hear about her naked antics in every magazine we open.
>Why? Because she voluntarily puts herself into the spotlight and tries to attract male attention.
>She has no real value in the media, so why not make fun of her sexuality? By her conduct, i.e. stripping off for male mags, surely she is open to criticism and such criticism does not constitute misogyny.
>I slag her off, but I'm female.
>Does this make me a misogynist? No. It's silly.
>
Why have Porter on at all, then? What's she got to do with music? Or comedy? And why show that episode three times in 18 months? Does this mean BBC2 or Talkback are really delighted with this episode? Because it certainly left a nasty taste in my mouth the first time round. This is as good as Friday night comedy gets, the Comedy Zone trailers scream. Well, sorry, but I'll have Frasier, please.

>>"women don't belong in rock'n'roll".
>
>Rubbish.
>Plenty of women have gone on that show and had no problems whatsoever.
>Men have gone on and been treated in just the same way.
>Do you see how your comment makes no sense?
>
Bullying anyone in that way (man or woman) is unacceptable. Simple as that. Another example: they had one of Westlife on (one of my least favourite groups, musically - but then, quite frankly, I'm hardly their target market), and proceeded to say quite astonishingly rude things about him. Now - you might say, "he's in the public eye - he should take it". But compare the two sides in this battle: on the one hand, you have the comedians' camp (umpteen years collective experience at being supposedly funny off the top of their head, but who still need five or six writers to come up with any material), opposite people who are not naturally gifted at wit (if you can call the content of NMTB wit, that is?) because they are musicians. Not urbane wits (exceptions: Ian Dury, and even then he didn't say very much, and Tony Wright out of Terrorvision, who when I've seen him is a sod of a sight more amusing than any of the regulars). Big difference.

It shows what an appalling idea Buzzcocks is, when compared to HIGNFY. On form, HIGNFY mixes comedians, writers, politicians, journalists and public figures - in other words, people who are used to talking off the top of their heads. When it works, it works very well.


>What you suggest, is a very blinkered way to look at the situation and I think you're seeing sexism which isn't there.
>
>>The real tragedy about NMTB (beyond the misogyny question)
>
>Don't agree that it's misogynistic and that's from a female perspective.
>

Ewar answered this very well - just to say read any middle-market tabloid or most women's magazines and you'll see female-created misogyny on a towering scale.

A couple of other things:

I want to re-iterate this is not simply a desecration of Mr Lamarr. (He was, after all, funny on his Room 101, Radio 5, 1993) No, Jupitus and Hughes are every bit as bad, and I've heard them both talk "sincerely" about the often horrible bullying they endured as youngsters. Is this programme some kind of revenge, some kind of cathartic howl on the part of the regulars? Surely, they know what it's like, then?

You may think, Ailie (and anyone else who thinks I have gone off my trolley) that I am making a proverbial out of another proverbial. I hope I'm not. I'm not aiming this brickbat simply at Mark Lamarr - it's also the other complicit performers, the writers, the producers and the production company, and worst of all, the BBC2 schedulers, for running these blasted panel game repeats when they could be running decent repeats instead: Fist Of Fun, TMWRNJ, Fry & Laurie, People Like Us, Seinfeld, Larry Sanders, Simpsons (new ones of those, though, please - I think we've had QUITE enough repeats there!), Alexei Sayle's Stuff, Ripping Yarns, Python (later series, preferably)...ah the usual ones we long to see again.

Because this is the message I get when I see the NMTB Gail Porter special advertised: "Whaddaya mean, you missed it?! The one where we made that skinny bitch cry!!! Well, now's your chance - then you can laugh along with your mates when you go to the pub...."

You'd think Talkback would want to bury this one, not highlight it.

btw - I know I described Westlife as "musicians" - someone will pull me up on it, so I might as well correct myself now.

One other thing: you may think Westlife are an example of everything that is wrong with the British record industry. But (do you see? Aaaaaaah....) they're not - it's the A&R people, the company MDs with their stupefying ignorance and parties (see Music Week and vomit). I know this sounds like "the BUSinessman - in his suit and tie", but I work in it (albeit in a relatively low position), and believe me, it's the likes of the people at the top of that ladder who should be getting the rotten fruit.

I will say this about the 11ocs show, though. At least they spare us the repeats while it's off the air...

I forgot about The Goodies in that list of possible NMTB replacements.

Perfect.

>Thing is though - here is a man who, from his appearances on The Word onwards, has fashioned an image of "Mr Tell It Like It Is". "Patron Saint Of Controversy". (And what's the name of his new show again?!) Yet he gets so petulant about the slightest shred of criticism.

And I think people are entitled to their own opinions. It doesn't mean that I agree with their views, but I'm able to open my mind enough to see it from another perspective.

>Why have Porter on at all, then? What's she got to do with music? Or comedy?

She presents Top of The Pops, which is a bit of a tenuous link... I also read that she was trying to break into the world of comedy. Presumably Dotcomedy is evidence of this...

>And why show that episode three times in 18 months?

Well just look how controversial it obviously is.
It makes sense to show this episode over another because people will tune in to see it, as it's been heavily publicised.
I've been watching the repeats, as there are a few I missed first time around.
I agree that other things could be repeated, but are BBC2 limited to comedy only on a Friday night? Why don't they go really wild and show some on a Tuesday, or something? There's bugger all else on, so that would almost guarantee viewers.

(note: Tuesday was a random day. I have no idea what's on telly that night)

>they had one of Westlife on (one of my least favourite groups, musically - but then, quite frankly, I'm hardly their target market), and proceeded to say quite astonishingly rude things about him.

That guy was deranged. He spent the entire show telling Mark he looked like a duck.

Why not look at it this way: anyone who has seen or heard of NMTB (and you'd have to go some to miss it) knows what it's all about. They know what to expect and they either like it or they don't.
As far as I am aware, no one forces celebrities to go on the show. If they *do* go on the show, it's a gamble.
On one hand, they could be completely humiliated. On the other, if they are confident and clever, they can generate good responses.

>It shows what an appalling idea Buzzcocks is, when compared to HIGNFY.

Totally different! You're comparing a pop quiz with satire and don't tell me that people aren't humiliated on that as well.

Justin, I love you....

The guests on NMTB obviously go on in order to get good PR. They cynically use it, on the advise of their agents, for their own career needs. Hence they deserve everything thrown at them. In fact the *only* value in a show like NMTB (which is basically pretty shabby) is if you look at it as a hoax along the same lines as Brass Eye, tempting the witless would-be pop celebS into what they think is the ideal chance to raise their "profile" and broaden their "reach" and "expand" their "demographic" and "something else" in "quotes." But it hardly ever is like that, so it should be binned. Is there anything more sick making than the pompous way that Lamaarse intones the correct lyrics after the "Guess the Lyrics" round?

>Is there anything more sick making than the pompous way that Lamaarse intones the correct lyrics after the "Guess the Lyrics" round?

Wow - it's a close run thing - but...Sean's novels. You ever tried to *read* one?

>Justin, I love you....

Excellent standard of postings today. (Not you, Dan.)

>>Why have Porter on at all, then? What's she got to do with music? Or comedy?
>
>She presents Top of The Pops, which is a bit of a tenuous link... I also read that she was trying to break into the world of comedy. Presumably Dotcomedy is evidence of this...

Dotcomedy was vile, fair enough. But she still didn't deserve the barrage she got on NMTB.
>
>>And why show that episode three times in 18 months?
>
>Well just look how controversial it obviously is.
>It makes sense to show this episode over another because people will tune in to see it, as it's been heavily publicised.

Which really does say it all, doesn't it?
>
>>they had one of Westlife on

>That guy was deranged. He spent the entire show telling Mark he looked like a duck.
>
Which is positively Wildean compared to Mark saying "If you're not going to take your clothes off, you may as well piss off" to Porter (or words to that effect, I'm obviously not doing such an epigram justice).

>Why not look at it this way: anyone who has seen or heard of NMTB (and you'd have to go some to miss it) knows what it's all about. They know what to expect and they either like it or they don't.


Here's two observations:

1) When was the last time someone in an indie band, or (even more significant) any comedian got a hard time on the show? Still thinking....? There's decidedly a them and us on that show, don't you think? And the 'them' would seem to be fluffy, happy pop stars who've never really done any harm to anybody. The Westlife incident was definitely a case of "look at us, we're not 13 year old girls anymore". It's not clever, chaps, so fucking grow up.

2) I wonder what would have happened if The Corpses had doctored a Buzzcocks recording transcript - not as many surprises there if people started hurling vitriol at each other, huh?
>
>>It shows what an appalling idea Buzzcocks is, when compared to HIGNFY.
>
>Totally different! You're comparing a pop quiz with satire

Sadly, you deleted the next few lines where I explained why Buzzcocks doesn't work when compared to HIGNFY. Read them again.

Anyway, do you really, honestly, genuinely think that NMTB would ever have been conceived, had it not been for HIGNFY? I can imagine Michael Jackson saying to Peter Fincham, "Y'see, Have I Got News is alright, but what's in it for the younger ones who don't watch the news? Can we devise something that's a bit noisier, with a bit more swearing and abuse?"

(NB I know HIGNFY is not about the news. It is a soap starring Deayton, Hislop and Merton. It's not all that gripping anymore.)

and don't tell me that people aren't humiliated on that as well.
>
Well, ok. Sure. Has happened. But it's generally people who can more than hold their own in a TV forum like that - the Piers Morgan incident comes to mind. The Paula Yates incident is an exception, and fair enough, the BBC were quick to exploit that "water cooler" moment too (it was issued on a bloody video within a year).

We're not going to agree on this, I know, Ailie. You're absolutely entitled to like it, obviously, and clearly its ratings suggest I'm in a minority for people of my age group. But the way they are still trumpeting that Gail Porter edition...whatever the reasons are, they're a million miles from comedy-related ones.

Well, I like it.

>Well, I like it.

Damn! Missed it! I love it really - just being controversial, I was. Richard Littlejohn, I am.

But Al - not watching Eurotrash? It's brilliant tonight - they've (probably) got a report from a porn film set - and there's a twist of some kind, I imagine. Meanwhile, there's some bloke pissing on some canvas for an exhibition in Dusseldorf, and in part two, there are some very medium-sized breasts.

Justin, you forgot to mention the hilarious german who collects shit... and even has a shit museum! Ah ha ha, stupid forigners! they really are so strange and weird etc...

La prochaine semaine sur 'Brit-trash': un regarde hilarieux at les 'rosbifs' et their habit curieux de rirant a Johnny etrangeur. Et une femme avec les tits grandes. Sacre bleu! Ne missez pas! (Avec Phil Daniels. Les subtitles. Le stereo NICAM) (repete)

Surely "Jean Etrangeur"?

Brit-trash ... I like it, Al. But think how depressing a real Brit-trash show would be:
"On tonight's show, the woman who campaigned hysterically about imaginary paedophiles but left her own child to wander away naked while she was being interviewed for TV."
[see Saturday's Grauniad]