Archives for category: Opinion

Screenimage: The Guardian.

The events of the past five days around the country are a sobering sight for people around the United Kingdom. Rioting has been widespread and in amongst some of the abhorrent stories that have filtered through news agencies and social networks such as Twitter and Facebook, message and stories of hope have trickled through too. Signs of solidarity in London with residents of areas cleaning up their own areas with brooms and applauding police cars driving through areas that now look like warzones are a relieving sight after days of trouble. Events like this have been organised for surrounding areas such as Birmingham, Bristol, West Bromwich and Wolverhampton and this community spirit is an unexpected side effect of this rioting. The most remarkable of these stories surely has to be that of Sangat TV, a Midlands-based Sikh television channel broadcasting on Sky channel 847 and the internet, which took to the streets on two nights of rioting around Birmingham and the Black Country as well as areas of London, armed only with a van and a camera.

Despite covering the events on the 8th August when rioting began in Birmingham, it was the night after that showed some of the most gripping and emotional live television ever shown on British screens. Sangat took television to another level, one that the bigger broadcasters such as the BBC and Sky seemed almost reluctant to broadcast in amongst more ‘juicy’ stories they favoured instead. The rawness of such a small crew filming events that Sky for example would not was incredible. The low budget nature of the channel – note, their adverts on a continuous loop – and of some of the interviews that were conducted, often from within cars with members of various religions in the middle of the night was staggering in a way that cannot be described. Sangat were able to broadcast live on the move to areas where they had heard there was trouble in the West Midlands.

Within only a few minutes, they could access Wolverhampton from Birmingham, somewhere that had suffered with violence throughout the day and was now seeing the trouble enter the night with looting still rife and reports of the violence failing to cease continuing. Sangat could access these areas and broadcast them live to an eager audience that had grown due to its presence being spread on social networks. What was once a small Sikh television station was now pushing the boundaries of live television journalism and reporting on stories as they happened in real time before Sky and BBC were able to.

Arguably this reached its peak when the cameras and presenter Uphinder Randhawa arrived at Dudley City Hospital in the early hours of the 10th August where local muslims had gathered due to news filtering of three local muslims being run over by rioters. This really reached its peak when footage of one of the brothers of the victims stormed out of the hospital in an emotional rage, having to be restrained by the crowd that had gathered outside. It was truly emotionally gripping television and wasn’t to be missed.

If there was an area to criticise Sangat TV, it would be very hard, but often there would be long sections where Randhawa would become increasingly more and more angry at other news agencies. The way they reported on the events wasn’t news-like and that was part of its charm but at times these impassioned rants became almost cringeworthy. There’s no doubt that they all did a lot of good, but for example, criticising Sky News and shouting loudly in front of a crowd of grieving members of the community that Sky reporters don’t deserve their money for not reporting fast enough didn’t seem substantiated. Sky and other news agencies have to abide by OFCOM’s laws and regulations and reporting on things that have yet to be reported as final, such as the three murders we have seen today in the Winson Green area of Birmingham, should have a good amount of confirmation before being reported on a national and international scale. Randhawa would do well to remember this instead of perhaps riding on his own viral success.

In conclusion, Sangat TV was fantastic and still happens to be fantastic. Reporting on riots can be hard when they’re so dispersed as we’ve seen in the past few days and their ability to give a willing audience pictures and more to the point proof of what was happening in their local areas when tensions were high was fantastic.

Image: Unique Events.

Formula 1 in the UK is entirely dependant on ratings in order to bring in the advertising money to supplement the expensive team sport. For at least the last 40 years, the sport has worked like this. We all know why the Sky deal has happened today and that’s because of money and the spurious nature of the license fee. No longer can the BBC justify the money it costs to buy the rights to the sport in times of austerity, which is all well and good, but when you look at the other sports that they continue to buy, it starts to become puzzling why they’d drop a popular sport like Formula 1 to only 9 or 10 races a season when they buy Open Golf rights for the next 6 years, or rights to the Rugby League Challenge cup. Indeed, the sports rights list that the BBC currently owns reads like an expensive Christmas list.

It’s not that I don’t think that these other sports that I mention are unworthy; I’m not naive enough to suggest that Rugby League for example doesn’t merit a big enough fanbase in order for their showpiece final to be shown, but in the grand scale of things, compared to Formula 1 which often gets 6-8 million viewers, other sports that cost just as much cannot be justified given today’s announcement. So why do I believe that Formula 1 on the BBC is worth protecting? It’s simple. When certain sports move to Sky Sports, the company treats them well and gives them professional coverage that’s in depth and informative, whilst being attractive and glossy without resorting to the American-style ESPN-ness that some have come to expect. Simply speaking, Sky Sports is fantastic because it does television sport coverage right.

There are two problems with this however, ratings and what the BBC already offers. The Formula 1 coverage on the BBC is already in depth and informative, it has a great young presenter in Jake Humphrey, fantastic commentary by former Formula 1 drivers Martin Brundle and David Coulthard, to the minute reporting from Lee McKenzie and Ted Kravitz as well as being given priority and stunning coverage in High Definition on the BBC One HD channel. The BBC already puts F1 at the forefront of its live sporting coverage and its delivery has been superb and on a whole different level to the previous rights-holders ITV whose coverage was lax and even interrupted live coverage to screen adverts, often at exciting points of a race.

With the above in mind, that draws me back to my original points; what on earth can Sky Sports offer viewers of F1 (who bear in mind, are used to free coverage of the sport) when they already have amazing coverage on the BBC? Sky Sports comes at a premium and given the scheduling of races at weekends, Sky may even relegate the coverage of qualifying on a Saturday to Sky Sports 2, ditto with the main race on a Sunday if it comes against a lunchtime or evening kick off of a football match, which arguably, Sky will argue would be more important. For this reason, Sky cannot offer the same level of coverage that the sport has been used to since its televised inception. There’s no doubt that Sky Sports will dedicate a great deal amount of money and time to Formula 1, but Bernie will have to get used to the fact that for the first time in the UK, half of the races will be shown on a channel that won’t give the sport priority. What does this mean for fans? Well apart from the fact that Sky may let Formula 1 become victim to haphazard scheduling, they really have little to no incentive for fans to invest a great deal of money into subscribing to watch the sport.

If the BBC are showing half of the races a season until 2018, then why would anyone in their right mind pay for Sky Sports to watch the rest? It just doesn’t make sense, it’s pricing the loyal fans out of an already expensive sport. The magic will be lost forever if this happens to continue. If Bernie wanted Formula 1 to become a premium sport like football has become in this country – whereby you have to pay in order to watch the most high-profile matches – then he’s about 25 years late off the mark. Formula 1 already has a fanbase and fantastic coverage elsewhere, and I’m not naive enough to assume that it couldn’t be a little bit better, but moving most races to a pay TV operator just will not work and I predict that this will be detrimental to the sport in this country. At the end of the day, Formula 1 doesn’t need Sky Sports, and in a way, Sky Sports doesn’t need Formula 1. It’s not like darts or speedway, two sports in particular that have become reliant on the coverage and money that Sky Sports brings in to keep the sport going professionally.

Formula 1 is already a sport driven by money, but it has an affinity with its fans that is unlike any other sport. Football seems to have lost its way with massive transfers and the whole endeavour becoming somewhat of a soap opera year-round, but Formula 1 is about passion, skill and strategy. Unfortunately, I can’t see this deal panning out too well and it would be wise of Bernie to keep his mouth firmly shut at this moment in time, because financially, he’s let the sport go to owners who aren’t necessarily going to make it any better than what it already is. There’s absolutely no evidence to suggest that F1′s audience will grow with Sky as Bernie seems to be saying. If any race on Sky Sports reached the lofty heights of 8 million viewers as seen with Jenson’s amazing win in Canada, then that would make it the most popular sporting event Sky have ever shown on their premium sports channels. Therefore it’s insane to say that this deal was brought in for fans, because it clearly wasn’t. It’s yet another move brought in by Bernie that’s garnered by greed. It’s sorry to see it go, because the BBC’s coverage has even won a BAFTA in the past.

But never mind, we can always watch Open Golf, or the Commonwealth Games, the Grand National or the Rugby League Challenge Cup. Oh remind me, where are all their BAFTA’s?

This week, we received a comment from someone named Col.

Image: BBC

Col left a comment. A comment that went something like this:

Bonkers. It was utter genius. You have totally missed the point! It’s all about what’s going on underneath! You’re right about one thing – it’s not a sitcom. It’s far too brilliant. The focus at the end on the child’s chair – yet there’s no mention of children. Don’t you get it? It’s dangerous. Simmering beneath the surface. Also I don’t know where you get the reception’s been bad. There have been raves all over for it! So no – I don’t agree!

I don’t like to appear narrow-minded, so I said I would watch the episode again and see what I thought. In the end, I’ve had a busy week, so I watched last night’s episode this morning, only this time I watched it all the way through. I still didn’t like it, but this time around, I did kind of see the point a bit more. There’s a lot more to the programme than what appears. I would like to clarify though, that the BBC are pushing this as some sort of comedy/sitcom, due to the endless amount of trails they’re broadcasting about it being the ‘home of comedy’ – or something similar – that are in the style of a Wes Anderson film. The programme is also featured on the BBC Comedy website, with interviews and the like. Therefore I don’t think I’m being a bit too presumptious by assuming I’d be treated to something that would make me laugh a lot.

Overall, the programme stems much more deeper than I first imagined and saw on my first viewing. It’s fairly powerful stuff, but something that I just can’t make the effort to watch more of. It’s not my sort of show really, but if you see it and think you’d like it then by all means you should watch it. Either way, I think it’s worth having a look.

If you disagree with anything we review here at RB, like Col and you can string two words together to form a polite query or opinion just like Col did, then I’d like to hear it. I love feedback. Also, if there’s anything we haven’t reviewed that’s been on lately or even further back, let us know by the usual contact details (preferably my Twitter) which can be found on our Get In Touch page to the top.

You can find the whole first series on DVD, here.

Finally got around to watching the series finale of the BBC’s Sherlock.

Did anybody else think the ending was a bit disappointing?

And did anyone else think that this bloke looks like Dec, of Ant and Dec fame?

Dec

I’ll have you know, that I got five whole minutes in to Roger and Val Have Just Got In before switching off. From what I’ve read, I actually did rather well, because the reception hasn’t been very favourable.

UPDATE: Re-review here.

Image: BBC.

From the ads that have played all week for it, I was expecting an Outnumbered-style sitcom where laughs are delivered from an everyday scene inside a house but with two people instead of a big family. And in a way, it’s not far off that situation. But I’m confused as to whether it’s a comedy or a piece of drama. It feels like a play that you aren’t meant to laugh at but without that amount of humour. I don’t wanna be mean beause I like Dawn French a lot and I’m keen on Alfred Molina but this was about as funny as a hemorrhoid.

Over the five minutes I lasted Alfred arrived home from work to find Dawn looking for a receipt for a hoover in something of a tizzy. I know I’ve had my fair share of things to say about the middle class but it doesn’t make them look good if this programme is meant to be believed, if they can worry about receipts like they can here. I can imagine the exact reverse of that actually, say set in Liverpool but this time with an inevitable punch-up.

I didn’t laugh once. Neither did my Mother. It was five minutes of me watching two people simply exist. There’s nothing wrong with it, the acting is good, for example. But nothing happens. It’s akin to watching Big Brother Live when they’re waiting for the shopping to come and they’re in that momentary limbo between rations and food. They’re slightly apprehensive and irritated, but they’re literally just living their lives. And that is exactly what Roger and Val Have Just Got In is like. Two co-habitees living in their strange world which we don’t know whether we’re meant to laugh at.

The entire first series can be found on DVD, here.

Pete Versus Life was originally meant to be part of last year’s Comedy Showcase, a series of pilots not unlike Comedy Lab which aired earlier this year. The two series’ have been going on and off for about the last 10 or 15 years and from these series, the pilots that are shown on them can sometimes be good and sometimes be bad. Of course, giving half an hour of airtime for 6-8 weeks to pilots that might not always be shown on broadcast terrestrial television will result in a mixed bag of quality comedy and in this business, it’s all about separating your Campus‘ or PhoneShop‘s from your Girl Friday‘s.

Poncey McMiddleClass

As I have mentioned, Pete Versus Life was meant to be part of last year’s Comedy Showcase, but was never shown, as Channel 4 instead opted to go straight to commissioning a series, something which not even Campus or the extremely hilarious PhoneShop could muster. Therefore you might assume, Pete Versus Life must be stupidly funny and if not, at least worth a series without hesitation. Well you’d be wrong. The first episode didn’t really stand up for itself very well and I can’t see how the series will get any better.

I’ve mentioned in the past how much middle-class comedies annoy me when they don’t need to be over-reliant on the snobbish middle England types. Pete Versus Life appears to be no exception to this. The series has a very simple premise, Pete, played by Rafe Spall, goes about his life in a clumsy and embarrasing way whilst being commentated on by two commentators as if his life is some sort of sporting event. On the face of this you might assume that shoving random middle-class characters into an already weak narrative might make the programme more pompous and annoying whilst also clashing with the image of the dozy protagonist, Pete. Ah, well you’d be right this time.

Whilst watching this on Friday night (I know! I actually made the effort to watch this when it was broadcast, instead of being lazy and watching it on 4OD) I decided that I would forgo the usual screencaps of a programme and use my stupidly-expensive point-and-shoot to take some psychadelic pictures of said television programme from my laptop’s screen. So here’s some pictures of Friday’s episode.

I dunno, some dick

Seriously. This woman epitomises what is wrong with putting an overtly middle-class person into a comedy drama. She doesn’t work. She’s so fucking annoying that I can’t even remember her name. The whole programme was so weak that I only remembered Spall’s character’s name and that’s only because that’s in the title. There’s one part of the whole half an hour that I can remember and it was of a surreal scene where our hero Pete (who’s a Sports writer, don’t you know) ‘goes down on’ a girl he’s just lied to and then fucks. Whilst this is going on, said intercourse and the former cunnlilingus is commentated on by the two blokes who you’ve probably already seen in the thousands of trails that Channel 4 have been broadcasting for what seems like the last 6 months.

Apart from my complaints, the programme might just work if it weren’t for a few issues. First of all, as I’ve already covered, the casting of sooooo many middle-class people ultimately doesn’t feel right when Pete appears to be some sort of cockney with a brain the size of a bollock. It’s a culture clash of epic proportions and although I’m not completely against the rising of the middle-class in comedy nowadays (I’d hardly call myself a class-fascist, I just get fed up with the way there’s no alternative to the middle class or the working class in comedy) the addition of either Pete to the posh peoples or vice versa appears to be some sort of afterthought by the show’s writers.

The bulk of the ‘comedy’ in the show appears to be based on embarassing moments, which unless it’s achieved well, should be avoided at all costs. Here’s an example.

Cringe!

Take a look at the above shot. Social setting, stood in a semi-circle, girl with mother looking downwards in disgust, mother looking pissed off with bumbling boyfriend dressed in generic chequered shirt.

SHOCK HORROR! This looks to be a gratuitous embarassing situation to make up for the lack of a clever sitcom with actual laughs and jokes. If you break Pete Versus Life down, effectively what you have is a more grown-up Inbetweeners, which tries and fails because ultimately The Inbetweeners isn’t frivolous with its audience and doesn’t rely on the embarassing situations they get into. At least there it links to the fact that growing up, school and the opposite sex can be a very awkward time. Lying to a woman about climate change and pissing off your best mate’s fiancé’s brother leading to a public confrontation that inevitably leads to the protagonist looking like a bit of a dick *breaths* isn’t comedy. It’s utter bollocks and only highlights how shit the programme is when stood up against proper embarassing humour.

In the end though, it’s not amazingly terrible like some of the pilots that were shown last year in Comedy Showcase.Girl Friday for example was fucking terrible and I don’t day that as some sort of dickhead-chauvinist. It was just genuinely the worst sketch show I’ve ever seen. So the creators of Pete Versus Life can rest at ease that they haven’t created the worst sitcom ever, but it’s not exactly an easy-going and care-free half an hour.

It’s downright frustrating.

The entire first series can be found on DVD here.

Image: E4

The new skins cast was announced on the 5th of August, and I made sure I refrained from basing my opinion upon them through appearance (like everyone else rightfully did).

So I decided to read what the actors had to say about their selves. Here are some of the exciting things they had to say on the e4 website:

  • “I thought it would be pointless but turns out it was all worth it.” – Will Merrick
  • “I went along, queued for hours, made friends – it was crazy but all totally worth it!” – Freya Mavor
  • “But I’ve never learned so much in my entire life.” – Sebastian De Souva
  • “I got the part the day before my birthday so it was the best birthday present I could have ever hoped for!” – Sean Teal

It doesn’t note that any of them have any past experience with acting, as which most of the first generation of characters had. And what they had wrote about their selves seemed as though they were writing out a review form on the experience , or it was coming out the mouth of a five year old.

I expect the new series to be utterly dreadful, possibly even worse than the last. But I seriously doubt, that out of 7000 applicants, that this group would be seen as the most interesting, and as the best people to portray modern youth.

The Great Outdoors is on BBC Four Wednesday’s at 9pm.

UPDATE: End of series review, here.

The Great Outdoors

Image: BBC

The BBC appear to have commissioned a programme that has every comedy actor in that the casting agent could think of. Have a look at the cast:

Christine – Ruth Jones
Bob – Mark Heap
Tom – Steve Edge
Sophie – Katherine Parkinson
Joe – Stephen Wight
Hazel – Gwyneth Keyworth
Victor – Joe Tracini
It’s like watching half an hour of people you’ve seen before in other things, then forgetting that they’re not the characters you know them for. I couldn’t avoid thinking Katherine Parkinson was actually Jen from The IT Crowd in outdoors clothes. And fucking DK from Coming of Age is in it! Steve Edge is his usual dopey self in it, too, which just proves that this programme isn’t too much of a departure for him. But he’s a Wolves fan so I don’t mind, and his dopeyness kinda evens out the programme from being way too middle-class, which I’m glad of.

The series revolves around a walking group in Buckinghamshire, lead by Bob (Mark Heap) with the help of his daughter. What follows is the usual haphazard organisation and plenty of educated laughs that you’d expect for a BBC Four comedy. I really liked the show and I think it works well on the channel it’s on, but then so did We Need Answers and they fucking cancelled that even though it was educated and funny. So exactly whether the series will last beyond its inital three episode run, I do not know, but I hope it does, because there’s a lot to like about The Great Outdoors.

I hate sycophancy in reviews. I hate gratuitously scathing reviews. I hate reviews that are undecided or in the middle. In short, I hate everything and everyone. It’s because of this, that I’m torn about how to phrase this review of Sherlock, because I absolutely, positively, adjectively loved it. It was so good that I’m starting to hate myself that I don’t know whether I can make it through even one hundred words without bursting.

sherlock bbc 2010

Image: BBC

I hate myself.

Sherlock is a modern adaptation of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes series. Of course, because this is the BBC and not ITV, it’s a slick job, with a lot of attention to detail. They could have so easily recreated the bland crime drama that sells well and rates well (I’m looking at you, Lewis), but the reason Sherlock is so good is because it’s made by a broadcaster who’s willing to give a shitload of money to a production company to make something truly brilliant. Earlier this week, we revealed the press release for this series and I made it clear I was excited for it. Not even the fact that the ‘shit’ teacher from the last series-but-one of Waterloo Road was in it, could put me off. Make no mistake about it, these kinds of dramas are few and far between. I honestly can’t remember something I’ve watched on television for the first time and instantly knew I’d love it. A lot of this goes down to casting and I must admit, that prior to watching tonight’s episode of Sherlock, I wasn’t all that in love with it.

Martin Freeman in particular seemed like a strange choice of casting given his comedy background and only prominent work of drama I’ve seen him in before was ITV’s Boy Meets Girl, which was excellent but made shit because…well it was made by ITV. (I realise now that I have strange taste after I’ve called Boy Meets Girl ‘excellent’ but I choose my words carefully, and it was actually pretty good, if a bit haphazard with its script). Benedict Cumberbatch, whose name is reason enough to watch Sherlock, was rather good, however I found some of his acting in places was rather 1970′s. Not that that is a bad thing, of course, I liked the feeling I was given from the quick narrative yet rather drawling voice from Cumberbatch which seemed to fit together rather well. The 1970′s influence struck through from his voice which made me reminisce about Upstairs Downstairs, but on the whole, the adaptation of an old story into a new generation was smooth and didn’t feel gimmicky, which leads me to my next point.

At points in the narrative, a character might recieve a text, which we are shown in the blank space of the mise-en-scene and I kinda liked this, mainly because it was interesting and although it was a gimmick, it didn’t antagonise me and didn’t interfere with what was unfolding, instead giving us the information we need without losing sight of the character’s reactions. On the other hand, the cinematography over the hour and a half was okay. It was only okay because there were moments when there’d be what looked to be an expensive camera shot between floors or spinning around a street that didn’t feel as if they should be there or didn’t really do anything for the perspective of the audience.

Camera shots aside though, the story of the opening episode was rather good. Holmes, the reaction specialist and his new-found partner Dr Watson embark on an adventure to discover the reason why there have been a number of strange suicides in London within a couple of months. Holmes, teamed with Watson, work together to aide the Police with their investigation, with Freeman playing the serious role of a war-wounded doctor surprisingly well. One gripe I did have about Sherlock was that it was much too long. An hour and a half made the episode feel like a film and not a television show which now I type this up, doesn’t seem like such a bad thing but at the time I wasn’t expecting it. Fact is, there should be more television shows that feel more like film but I just don’t think that Sherlock justifies the extra hour that it’s given.

All in all, Sherlock is easily the best thing I’ve seen on British television since Life on Mars began in 2006. It’s a shame that the series only lasts for three episodes because I can tell I’m already going to be a bit forlorn when it disappears from the screens. There’s something about the programme that is incredibly engrossing and draws you in cleverly without having to resort to a twist every five seconds or the overtly middle-class to keep the audience entertained. Hardened crime drama fans may not find a lot to enjoy in Sherlock, as it’s narrative (at least in the first episode) doesn’t allow for much in the way of a plot but for people who want to watch a crime drama that isn’t the same boring and formulaic Midsomer Murders kind of thing or are sick of the stench of unbelievable middle-class bollocks (cough, Identity, cough), then Sherlock is the one for you.

Sherlock is the programme to beat right now.

Two days ago, Keith Chegwin (a lot of publications calling him a ‘comedian’ but to be frank, I’m not sure what his job title is. Perhaps Jack of all trades, master of none?) was accosted on Twitter by someone reminding him in no uncertain terms that the jokes he had recently posted on Twitter were not his own and one or two in particular were of floppy-haired Mock the Week’er Milton Jones. Others also pointed out that some jokes posted by Chegwin, 53, were of other renowned comedians such as Jimmy Carr and Lee Mack.

Cheggers

The Grinning Face of the upcoming DC Comic, 'Jokestealer'.

Image: Keith Chegwin.

What followed was the kind of audacity in the face of criticism, not seen since…gosh maybe just a week earlier during the famed Gillian McKeith ‘liar’ scandal. Chegwin blocked the person who pointed out the jokes were not his own and sent him a private message allegedly thanking him for the sarcasm and stating that comedians have stolen his jokes for years. This terse response was then broadcast on Twitter for all to see and within a couple of hours, Cheggers was trending on Twitter.

Enter, Ed Byrne. Irish funnyman Byrne took it upon himself to condemn Chegwin to his face (well, through @ response, same thing, maybe?) through Twitter, quoting Chegwin’s misspellings and said he was wrong to not credit the work of working comics. What followed after this was effectively a Team Comedians; Team Cheggers situation, with some choosing to metaphorically call Byrne a fucking idiot or hail him as the saviour of the freelance comic, banishing the ignorance, arrogance and sheel gaul of the greying thief Chegwin. Others chose to ignore the fact that Cheggers was passing others’ work off as his own by giving him support in the face of rightly pointed adversity. Then Cheggers implies that comedians are ‘precious’.

Two days later and after threats by Russell Kane to round up comedians and get them to set their display pictures to ones of Chegwin and numerous jokes by would-be joke stealers and Chegger-inspired piss-takers, and the arguement is still brewing. Earlier tonight, Cheggers apparently went on Radio 4 to explain his actions.

I didn’t listen to this, but I imagine Chegwin might have stolen a self-congratulatory speech from Simon Cowell or someone equally as self-serving. But hey, that’s just me. In fact I haven’t been just sitting here whilst this has been going on. Take a look at this.

Here’s me mistakedly (and regretably) sounding like I’m voicing my opinion in Cheggers’ favour last night:

Keith Chegwin Joke Storm 1

(Might I point out that I was replying to something he posted which basically said he could take criticism in person but not ‘cyber bullying’, which if you think it sounds like total contradictory bollocks, so did I. In actual fact, when I researched this post, he’d deleted said post that I was replying to).

Then literally a few minutes later, I recieved this (which you can hopefully read):

Cheggers Joke Storm 2

Which says to me, Keith obviously thought I was on his side and decided to follow me. Which I’m not. I think he’s been a prick about the whole thing for two days, now.

So, 24 hours later, I made the now obligatory Cheggers joke:

Cheggers Joke Storm 3

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Yeah.

So, to summarise, Cheggers steals joke(s). Some dude tells him he’s stolen them. Big bad Cheggers blocks dude and sends him bitchy message. Dude posts bitchy message for all to see. Cheggers starts trending. Ed Byrne (amongst others) delivers terse but completely true statement to Cheggers, telling him what he has done is wrong. Cheggers implies comedians are ‘precious’. Twitter shitstorm ensues.

UPDATE: Keith Chegwin made the decision to block me from Twitter an hour after this article was posted. Click here to read the full story.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.