The Sporting Post

Ok, this is going to be a big one. There are things in life that we take for granted, things we've always known to be true and don't usually feel the need to question. And then sometimes for one reason or another we end up questioning them and sometimes they hold up to that questioning and sometimes they don't. Now I'm going to say something controversial:

Professional sports are a waste of money and resources.

I guess what made me really start thinking about all this was the death of Bob Woolmer. It's still not clear what happened but the general consensus that seems to be forming is that someone cared more about protecting their own match fixing racket than about Bob Woolmer's life. Even if we found out that Bob died of natural causes, the fact that we all assumed there was enough incentive for murder there should be cause enough for concern.

Then a couple of days ago I got a letter from my energy supplier - EDF. They were proud to announce they would be sponsoring the forthcoming rugby world cup. So proud in fact they felt the need to write and let me know specially. All I could think was that this was an excuse by the management to use company money to get themselves ringside seats. Personally I will not benefit at all from their sponsorship. I would benefit much more if they instead reduced my bill by an amount equivalent to my share of the sponsorship. A bit like I would benefit much more from the London Olympics if they just reduced my council tax in line with my share.

Today I read an article from the BBC about the impact of sports on fans. The research showed that winning fans were in fact more aggressive than losing fans. They also found these fans were more aggressive than they had been before the game. Losing reduced happiness, but winning did not increase happiness. It's not the biggest study or the most impressive but it doesn't seem to have found any positive side effects to guys watching sports. And of course we've all seen horror footage of fans rioting after football matches. And I think most of us have been out socialising and had our evening disrupted by the arrival of a big crowd of noisy drunk guys huggging each other and singing something about "One-nil". And many of us have felt intimidated or actually been hurt, deliberately or accidentally by these guys.

Professional sports do nothing for gender equality. The three top sports in the UK: football, rugby and cricket are barely played by women, when they are the matches are almost never televised or promoted and sponsorship is negligible. No women play these sports professionally in the UK. Other minority sports face a continuous uphill struggle to get funding and recognition for the women's side of the game. How can we tell young people that they live in a society where we value equal opportunities, then say "boys you can work as professional sportpeople, sorry girls you can't"?

And finally look at all the other things that professional sports fans are encouraged to do: drink too much, smoke, eat unhealthy pies and chips and waste money gambling. They also are likely to hang around in big groups of guys leaving their wives unsupported and their children feeling unloved. If children are brought along they are dressed up in team colours they are too young to understand, taught how to shout abuse at other fans and exposed to drunken rowdy behaviour.

By now you are probably thinking "bah humbug"and you probably have a few questions racing round your head. A few points about the benfits of sports that have been drummed into us all from birth and are going to take a bit of dislodging...

What about encouraging children to take up sports? Surely we need sports funding more than ever now to combat rising child obesity?

I am all in favour of sport in schools. And indeed my EDF letter assures me that they'll be funding a major school rugby program alongside the rugby world cup. I can't get hold of the numbers but what percentage of the money they're spending is going to schools? I suspect very little. Lots more good could be done if management didn't need to keep their executive boxes.

When I was at school we all played sport twice a week. Well most kids did. We were told in every subject from music to maths that we shouldn't be competitive, it was about doing the best WE could. Except sport. Then is was about winning. And I wasn't good enough at it to win. So I wrote excuse notes, faked illness, went AWOL, etc. And I was wildly depressed about it - all the subjects I was good at I had to shut up about and the one thing I wasn't so good at I was paraded infront of the rest of the school and made to look like an idiot. Parents were not invited in for geography day - no, they came in for sports day and laughed at me.

Funding school sports equipment is the excuse for everything these days. You can even get free school sports equipment vouchers with chocolate eggs. Equipment doesn't make kids fit, bright enthusiastic dedicated teachers and parents who encourage kids to participate without belittling them make kids fit. Chocolate bars and a nation obsessed with sitting on the sofa watching others do sport don't help either. The number of children who will go on to play professional sport is tiny. The number who aspire to do so and see their dreams end in disappointment is much higher. And the number who know from the outset that they'll never be able to live up to that standard and are quickly taught that sport for them is something to watch, is the highest of all.

What about encouraging sports at grass-roots level for adults?

Years after I left school I discovered I enjoyed playing sport. I tried to join a team and when I couldn't find a team I started my own. Over the three years I ran that team (in Tokyo), I spent a fortune out of my own pocket paying for practice courts, balls, bibs, kit, spare shin-pads, socks, adverts to find new players, laundering kit, competition entry fees, website upkeep, hiring refs and linesmen, league subscription fees and internal administration money. Not to mention all the time I put in. Of course I was pretty careful about saving money where I could. We got our shirts from a local mens team who were throwing them out to get new ones, etc. Despite eventually winning the all-Japan women's five-a-side tournament, I was never able to get any sponsorship money from local businesses or government programs.

When I came back to the UK I joined a local FA-registered side. I paid £50 FA registration fee, I paid to train every week, we all chipped in to pay for coaching, I paid for a transfer when I wasn't getting a game and we payed for matches we played and covered our own transport to and from games.

As far as I can see there is NO FUNDING at grassroots level for adult sport in the UK or overseas. Or if there is it isn't coming into the women's games at all. I no longer play group sport, the effort and cost isn't worth it.

Don't men need sports to somehow use up all that testosterone?

Well, as the Cardiff University researchers have established, watching sport in fact generates more testosterone and increases the likelihood that guys will become aggressive. If guys wanted to use up excess testosterone, they could try playing sport. Mr Cru likes boxing - he used to participate but now he just watches it on TV. I'm not a fan but in the interests of domestic harmony I tolerated it when he first moved in. A little over a year later I've started deliberately leaving the room when it's on. If I watch it late at night I don't sleep so well and I have more violent and upsetting dreams. Even as cynical and defensive towards it as I am, I am still well aware that I am affected by it. I thought boxing was the extreme end of sports but I increasingly see similarly agressive behaviour being accepted as the norm in rugby and even in supposedly non-contact football. And of course our screens and stadiums are now welcoming the even more violent option of "ulitmate fighting" where kicking, strangling and breaking arms and legs are also allowed. Occassionally Mr Cru will watch this too to my horror and every time I see it, there is actual blood spilt.

But what if I like watching sport?

So do I. But wouldn't it be nicer to go and see a game where the stakes were a great deal lower, where the games were genuinely played for honour? The prize money came from the ticket sales and thus accurately reflected the entertainment value of the sport? So playing good quality skillful sport became as important as winning and diving and then screaming for a penalty was a thing of the past? I think a happy medium would be that ticket sales could go to pay players wages, sponsorship money could only be given to school sports campaigns and merchandising profits should as a sign of good will be given to charity. Government money should of course be barred from going into sports, other than where needed in schools. I think the fun to be had watching sport under that arrangement would be much greater. And you could genuinely feel that you were doing something positive by going to a game.

But what about our international reputation for being good at sport?

We could trade that in for an international reputation for having the good sense not to waste resources encouraging drunken violent sexist aggression, cheating and in some cases even murder. We could use the money we save to build a new reputation as the country which prioritises improving the human condition across the globe rather than spending all our money on having half a dozen guys who can kick really hard and run really fast...

Don't Forget To Leave a Good-Looking Corpse...

...while you're still alive girls! The Huffington Post has the most thorough coverage on the subject I think. To summarise, the producers of what-were-we-expecting misogyny parade America's Next Top Model have set the women contestants the "challenge" of staging their own deaths. Luckily the size zero women already look pretty close to death in most cases so maybe the exercise was just to save on make-up...

The Right News For The Wrong Reason

Rapper Snoop Dogg has been refused a Visa to come and perform in the UK. And the concert's been cancelled as a result! In fact he's been refused because of a previous violent incident at Heathrow. What he should have been prevented from performing for is having lyrics clearly intended to incite hatred and violence against women. For instance:

"Can you control your hoe? (You got a bitch that wont do what you say)
You can’t control your hoe? (She hardheaded, she just won’t obey)
Can you control your hoe? (You’ve got to know what to do, and what to say)
You’ve got to put that bitch in her place, even if it’s slapping her in her face.
Ya got to control your hoe. Can you control your hoe? "

Love Not Actually

Spot the deliberate mistake. Stephen Marsh loved his wife deeply. So he took several lovers and started a sadomasochistic relationship with one of them behind his "beloved" wife's back. You know, just for a "bit of fun". But he loved his wife deeply, no really.

Is that the sort of evidence you would expect to hold water in a murder trial? No, me either.

Does Anyone Ever Actually Get Convicted of Rape?

Yet another stomach-churning story, this time from overseas. Key flaws in the defence's arguement - swallowed by the judges include:

Firstly they claim a discrpancy between the number of men accused and the number of men she said raped her. The offence they are charged with is "sexual aggression" so presumably the fourth guy sexually assaulted her without actually raping her. She also claims to have been blindfolded throughout the attack. So how is she supposed to count the number of guys attacking her while blindfolded?

Secondly - and this is the really nauseating bit - they claim "she had invited them to have sex "without a word". ". Yup "without a word". So she consented silently? Guys here's an idea - before having sex with a woman, ask her if she wants to have sex with you. Clever huh? Do I get a prize?

Born Again Virgins...

There's an article on Alternet about the phenomenon of Born-Again Virgins. Which is all very well and I find the subject kindof amusing until we get to the bit where the author, Amy DePaul says:

"There is a strong argument to be made on behalf of women -- Christian or not -- taking control of their bodies and making choices that are right for them."

Why does having sex mean you're not in control of your own body? The implication is that women who have sex are doing so because men want them to. Maybe some women actually like sex.

More importantly the whole article is about women's virginity, no mention is made of whether men should try the whole not-having-sex thing. No it's women for whom virginity is an issue - of course!

Is this Appropriate?

The BBC has published a glowing review of Phil Spector's career - to mark the beginning of his trial for the murder of Lana Clarkson. I think that's a bit sick.

Oranges are not the only Book Awards

Article in The Independent on the nominations for the Orange book award. The article starts off saying women's fiction is too domestic and not imaginative enough (that's right Ms Rowling, teenage wizzards and quidditch and platform 9 and 3/4 or whatever isn't imaginative enough, sorry). And it goes on to complain that there are too many books about "rural school teachers". Well someone must want to read about rural school teachers or no-one would publish such books. Then the article goes on to say women authors are doing so well that maybe there's no need for a special prize. Well hold on, you can't have it both ways. Either women are less imaginative than men and need special help or they're doing so well they don't need a prize - you REALLY can't claim that both are true.

Parental Rights and Wrongs

There is yet another push afoot to force contraception and abortion providers to tell girl's parents if such services are being requested. Tory MP Angela Watkinson says parents have a "right to know".

Well I agree, parents do have a right to know. If they wish to exercise that right they need only raise their children in a loving supportive environment where they make it clear that they are there to help, not to judge. Do that and your kids will tell you what's going on in their lives. When kids don't want to talk to their parents, there's a problem. Usually fear. To be honest if kids are getting pregnant while they're still at school, that's one sign that the parents haven't done the best job to start with.

If such a law were passed it would lead to:

1) More runaways, pregnant teenage runaways sleeping on the streets getting ill, getting raped and murdered, getting co-erced into prostitution and drugs, babies born hooked on drugs, infanticide.

2) More domestic violence and child abuse when abusive parents find out about their childrens sex lives.

3) More late term abortions - because why tell your parents you're having an abortion at 8 weeks when you can wait til 14 weeks, just after your 16th birthday, and have one secretly then?

4) More teenage pregnancy - because girls dont' want their parents to know they're taking contraception.

5) Even more teenage pregnancy - when parents find out and confiscate contraceptives.

6) More STDs - because teenagers don't want their parents to know they asked for free condoms.

7) Less education on the subject - because teenagers who feel unable to ask their parents for sexual advice will be afraid to visit clinics for advice in case their parents find out.

But of course Angela Watkinson han't thought about this. She's such an expert on the subject that she even added "The first thing [parents] learn may be when their children are reported to have some form of sexually transmitted disease", which would only make sense if everyone who requested contraception or abortion ended up with an STD. Clearly at least those requesting free condoms are less likely to get an STD, and it's perfectly possible to catch an STD without getting pregnant or using contraception.

But finally the whole thing is of course about knowing when GIRLS are having sex. No-one wants to talk to the parents of the boys who are getting teenagers pregnant, and no-one wants to talk to teenage boys whose girlfriends might be using contraception, nor indeed who might themselves be asking for free condoms. Because of course sex is only shocking and awful when women do it...

Action to take Today

The UK government will vote this Wednesday on the renewal of the Trident Nuclear programme. Blair wants to spend around $20bn on nuclear weapons which almost no-one in the rest of the country thinks is a good ideas. Johann Hari has done a lovely job in The Independent of explaining why "renewing" Trident puts us at more risk than ever of nuclear holocaust.

My own reasons for not wanting to "renew" (they use that word to make it seem less shocking, they mean BUYING NEW NUKES) the weapons stockpile is a little different. You see I'm not a world leader, I don't and never will have my finger on the nuclear button. So when Tony Blair describes Trident as a "deterrent" I don't get it. What he must mean is "I won't detonate my nukes unless someone nukes the UK". I really hope no evil despot anywhere around the world nukes the UK. If they do though then as I watch the flesh shrivel off my bones and melt into the blackened earth the last thing that will make me feel better is the sure knowledge that somewhere near the offending despot are hundreds of thousands of civilians who probably didn't even have the opportunity to vote against him and their flesh is being melted off their bones too. I was listening to Marcus Brigstock on the Now Show last week and he made this point rather succinctly when he said "When it comes to nuclear war, there's no such thing as one all".

And why is it that the only people with access to nuclear bunkers are the same people with access to the nuclear buttons? I could also point out how much good could be done in this country's health and education systems, as well as in international aid with $20bn.

Well two days to go to the vote and lots of MPs are showing signs of wanting to vote against it. If you haven't already done so please use the website www.writetothem.com to ask your MP to vote against the proposals.

McCruella

Good news for Scottish fans of me and my comedy. Myself and Mr Cru are off on a mini-tour of Scotland during the latter half of this week and you can catch us at:

Thurs 15th Mar:
The Moffet Tavern, Forres, Scotland

Fri 16th Mar:
Flannigan's Elgin, Scotland

Sat 17th Mar:
The Harbour Bar, Buckie, Scotland

Real News!

Last night on my way back from gigs in Ladbroke Grove and Camden I was on a 341 bus going past Islington Green, up Essex Road when the bus stopped and ahead of up I witnessed at least 10 police cars and at least 30 police officers, half of whom were carrying guns, filling the road. Some of them were even crouched behind their cars pointing their guns across the roof. They appeared to have stopped a dark blue car and were going through it very carefully seat at a time and through the boot and bonnet too. The car was stopped right in the middle of the road - it hadn't pulled over and there was some broken glass on the road though it wasn't clear where from. I've been watching the news to see a story about a drive-by shooting or something but nothing coming up. Probably just plod over-reacting to a speeding infraction. Shame cos I was rather hoping to sell this picture for a small fortune to one of the tabloids:

Women and War

It can't be fun going to war. And of course when things ain't fun you can guarantee they're even less fun for the women involved. This video is really shocking. Turns out female US military personel are routinely not going to the toilets on their own for fear of rape by their own male counterparts. This has led to some of them not drinking and subsequently dying of dehydration and the situation has been deliberately hushed up rather than addressed.

Showreel Time

I have a new showreel boys and grrls - which means all you Cru-blog fans in obscure parts of the world who don't get to come to my shows can experience the same effect from the comfort of your own living rooms/parlours/bedsits/hostels/internet cafes/offices. Just click here.

Family Facts and Figures

David Cameron has for some reason decided that the pressure on single parents isn't enough. I have no problem with him chasing up runaway parents (mostly Dads) for maintenance money. Forcing people who don't want to do so to spend time with children however doesn't strike me as a sensible plan and his focus on the importance of marriage above all else in child-raising offers little encouragement for the 1 in 4 women in this country who will be a victim of domestic violence in their lifetime.

His big piece of data is that "70% of young offenders are from lone-parent families". Well here's another piece of statistical data he seems to have overlooked: 80% of the benefits of a two-parent family come from the improved financial status. What single parents really need to enable them to raise their children well is quite often money.

The Best Excuse For Abuse...

...religion of course! Being ostracised from your family is a form of abuse. Being shut out from your entire community and left without any support systems is even worse. When we hear about gay people who've been ostracised because of their sexuality we are rightly outraged. Similarly parents who turn their backs on disabled children or those who look a little different from the rest (such as when a recessive gene gives white parents a black child or vice versa) are considered contemptible without question. If your child however says "Hey I just figured out there may actually not be a big guy with a beard flying around on the clouds, playing the harp and simultaneously monitoring and judging everything that we do, not to mention writing a highly mis-interpretable book" then it's fine to never speak to them again and tell everyone in the family and community to do the same.

Fox Hunting

Having lived a few years overseas in various places where it was pretty difficult to escape having to listen to Fox News allt he time, I have a deep and tightly coiled hatred for them. There is no depth to which they won't sink. They can use outright lies int he same sentence as their "fair and balanced" tag-line. Barf. This is what they're doing right now to try to discredit Barack Obama.

Jesus is Dead

James Cameron has "found" the tomb of Jesus. Apparently he's burried alongside his wife Mary Magdalene and his son Judah, just as we were all expecting having read the Holy book (by Dan Brown).

Mr Cameron is at pains to point out however that "the discovery of the tomb does not mean that Jesus was not resurrected three days after his death ". Quite right too - it's the monstrous tsunami of well-documented, repeatable, medical and scientific evidence that means Jesus was not resurrected.

Comment is Free

In my cunning guise of "Kate100" I actually managed to get my comment published on the Guardian website today. So much more I could have said if they'd let me...

Bury St Edmunds fringe early warning

For the benefit of Suffolk-based Cru-blog readers, I have just been booked to perform at the Bury St Edmunds fringe festival. I shall be there on 30th April and 1st May. I don't know times and prices yet but the show will be called Apes Like Me at Benson Blake's bar on St John's Street. There'll be a first half featuring Mr Cru aka American comedian David Mulholland compering a variety of new acts, hopefully including some local ones, let me know if you know any local wise-guys/gals and then the second half will be me. And of course there'll be lots of Bury-related stuff.

Love All

Mark Lawson has been chosen by the powers that be at the Guardian to respond to the news that women will finally be paid the same in prize money as men are at Wimbledon. Why they don't ask a female or at least feminist writer is beyond me. He makes a right mess of things. Firstly he goes into the oft-repeated-seldom-thought-through arguement that the women's game is short, three sets rather than five. The stupidity of this line of reasoning is illustrated by asking any female tennis player on the planet whether she'd rather play five sets for full money or three sets for less. The answer will not vary much.

He other key points include: "The truth is that - however assiduously women's football, cricket and rugby are encouraged - it is unlikely that millions of viewers will ever tune in to see a Paula Gascoigne or Andrea Flintoff in the finals of their tournaments." Which you can go tell to the American women whose sport is considerably more popular with both viewers and players than the male equivalent.

And "The sports that involve physical contact or some risk of death - major ball games and motor racing - simply seem more susceptible to testosterone." When did cricket become a sport with physical contact? And how many football players are subject to a risk of death? And if he's in the mood to tell Laila Ali about how her hormones are all wrong for participating in dangerous sports, he may not live to regret it.

I can't help thinking that if, as he claims, women are naturally less drawn to sports than men, since we all need exercise to stay healthy, we should respond by putting more money into womens sport to encourage greater participation.

The real issue here is equal opportunities. If women are not allowed to compete in the men's game, then the prize money must be the same - otherwise the opportunity to earn is different. Wimbledon's move is outrageously overdue and still only solves a tiny fraction of the problem but at least it is a move in the right direction. Inviting Mark Lawson to comment on women's issues clearly isn't.

Operation Iraqi Freedom

Peace and democracy flourishing in Iraq...

Cruella Would Pick...

...Someone other than David Cameron to run the country. David Cameron meanwhile has said he intends to pick "a faith school" for his daughter. Interestingly he doens't specify which faith so possible a Muslim madrassa or a Jainist commune?

Bizarrely his reasoning is that she might feel "lost" in a secular school. Personally I find a bloke in a frock telling me on the basis of no evidence whatsoever about angels living on clouds, how Jesus lives in my heart and how there's a holy book written by an all-powerful deity but it shouldnt' be taken too literally pretty bewildering. No offence to blokes who like to wear frocks by the way - you are not all priests...

Skinhead Chicks...

Stop press. Famous woman shaves head. If she shaved her pubes and armpits we'd be a lot less excited about it. There's something rather irrational about getting excited about something so irrelevant to those not intent on rigorous gender boundaries. It's a lot like Man Wears Dress. So what.

Your favourite blogstress Cru had her head shaved a few years back and I can tell you that it met with the following reactions:

95% Oh my god, that's fantastic, you look amazing, can I rub it?

5% How are you finding the chemo? You don't? Why did you do it then?

And just in case anyone doesn't believe I really did it - here's me and my friend Roy, in Tokyo circa 2001:

Media Disorders

Reports from the International Committee for Stating the Blindingly Obvious suggest that media sexualisation of young girls isn't very good for, err, young girls. Try to contain your surprise and amazement.

When I was fifteen and rapidly developing anorexia nervosa I can remember very consciously thinking that adult women were treated like pieces of meat and I didn't want to be treated like that so I would keep my body super-thin and child-like. In wasn't a question of media influence, it was a clear thought-out decision. And these were the days before Lad Mags, the situation is a lot worse now.

Deeply Creepy

The government was half way through doing something about the wildly unregulated cosmetic "treatment" industry. Something much needed as the rates of people lining up for a quick shot of deadly botulism in the head. And now they've dropped the baton, can't be bothered, too much like hard work. They prefer to leave the industry to "self-regulation", which means no regulation at all, just let the cowboys carry on.

They say they're trying to avoid leaving medical professionals with too much "red tape" to get through, but reputable clinics are furious with the news, they want the chalatans who steal their potential customers and lead to media horror stories closed down.

So there must be some other reason for the issue being dropped. What could it be. Hmm, hmmm, still thinking ... how about backhanders, bribery and corruption? Just a theory.

Not In The Mood

A report discussed in The Independent says British women lose interest in sex as they get older, more than women on the continent do. This of course is a huge surprise to anyone who has considered whether they would rather go to bed with a 50-year-old beer-gutted, armchair-dwelling British guy or a 50-year-old wine-sipping, gourmet-dining Frenchman who probably bothers to have a proper shave and wear clothes made and bought this century.

In fairness the article does cover things from a variety of angles. One thing you've got to wonder though is whether Britain's "lad" culture is in any way a contributory factor. We are bombarded with images of very young women posing "sexily", I certainly see such images and feel a bit like they're part of a world that has nothing to do with me and my life.

On the same note as I was channel-hopping last night I found one of these ubiquitous "Top 100 as-voted-by-you" shows, this one offering the Top 100 Sexiest Moments. The usual line-up of minor celebs was discussing some clips from various films and TV shows which the public had voted for. Maybe I'm getting old and nothing does it for me any more but a lot of the clips people had picked just do nothing for me. Like the basic instinct Sharon Stone crossing her legs moment. It lasts half a second. You can't see anything, no matter how many times you replay it. It was just a well-hyped media "event". Then again I suppose so is the whole idea of calling in on a premium rate line to vote for your top sexy moment...

Getting The Knife In

As regular Cru-blog readers will know, I am not a big fan of organised (or even disorganised) religion. One thing Richard Dawkins and I agree on is that children can't be defined as religious until they're old enough to make their own choice on the matter. We should never refer to a Christian baby or a Muslim baby. I also think we shouldn't cut parts of baby's bodies off for reasons other than medical necessity.

To be honest I'm not even sure we should allow adult men to undergo circumcision voluntarily. We don't allow people to have limbs or fingers removed just because they want to. If I started the cult of the Holy Digits and said all my followers had to have their little fingers cut off, people would soon have me up in court. Yet even when babies are DYING no-one makes a fuss about circumcision.

Now of course we could have the debate about whether some guys like being circumcised. They may do, although once you've gone there there's no going back so it's difficult to know. I have a friend who was circumcised for medical reasons as an adult who thinks that he lost some sensitivity and sexual enjoyment, but not much. At very least shouldn't we wait until adulthood and allow guys to choose for themselves?

More Thought Needed

There are some aspects of David Cameron's suggestions about fathers looking after kids that I approve of. I do think that father's should be expected to put in the hours in terms of parenting as much as mothers. At the moment if a child is found abandoned on the streets - the mother is prosecuted, clearly it would make more sense if both parents were prosecuted. The idea needs more consideration though. We need to look at the 25% of women in this country who experience domestic violence. Clearly these women need the same level of support but not from their actual partners.

His second point - tax breaks (more tax breaks) to "help families stay together" is nonsense. It's much cheaper to share accommodation than to live alone, there are inherent savings in having a live-in partner. This really amounts to bribing people to stay in relationships that may not be working out. Those relationships are not the kind of places children benefit from growing up in.

We have to steer away from making rules that mean support is reduced for "unconventional" families: single mums and dads, step-parents, extended families and co-habiting partners and friends. children are best raised in happy homes, well above the poverty line. Biological parentage is not what counts.

No Offence Taken

I did not watch last nights Brit Awards, I was in Chertsey having a wonderful time compering the weekly comedy club at Moore's Bar. What I missed was apparently "edgy" and for some "deeply offensive" humour from Russell Brand. Here's what he said (those of a sensitive disposition, close their eyes now...) "I think a good international breakthrough would be if the British and American soldiers tell each other where they are standing". Good line. The thing is though - if he wore a suit and had a sensible haircut no-one would be offended by that, it's the media trying to find controversy where there isn't any as usual.

The Hirsute of Happiness

Well of course I'm biased, Shazia Mirza is a friend of mine and a very funny comedienne. Still I have to say this article in the Guardian about hairy women is just great. On a personal level I've always found guys a lot less bothered about body hair in private than they make out in public. I do shave, usually, but mostly because of the funny looks from other women at the gym if you don't. Some guys actively like it and most aren't bothered. Not what you would think from flicking through the Lad Mags. But then as we all know the lad mags aren't really trying to show attractive women, they're trying to show bullied and oppressed women. As with most porn, it's power, not sex, that's the turn-on.

Kiddie porn

There's an article on the BBC discussing how pornography has become a standard part of the lives of many young people in the UK. I'm not saying lad mags are solely to blame, but this is axactly why people like myself, Object and Clare Curtis-Thomas would like to see them moved to the top shelf (or just banned, I'm open-minded...).

Doctor, Doctor

Reading this article gave me a warm smug feeling. I've been a hater of "Dr" Gillian McKeith for some time now.

For those overseas readers unfamiliar with her work she shows up at the house of some poor overweight person who eats a lot of junk food and "cures" them. Her main tactics are shock and disgust. And rather phonily constructed shock and disgust too. So for instance she shows people a giant bath tub containing the equivalent amount of fat they eat in a year and then makes them get into the tub. I've never understood why people don't come back with the obvious retort - but Gillian of course it's disgusting - it's a years-worth of fat, not a meals-worth. Her other speciality is taking stool samples and telling people how disgusting their poo is. ... Of course it is - it's poo!!

Of course what she's really doing is making standard modern television. And that means making people cry, usually women. It's seems to be the main thing that shows aim for these days. Telling people their clothes, diet, lifestyle and even bodies are disgusting and helping them engage in drastic measure to improve the situation.

It's difficult to generalise about such shows, but there are some specific issues with them. Gillian McKeith's diets are based on totally phoney science. She recommends more fresh fruit and vegetables and less fast and processed food, no doubt good principles to be starting with. However she mixes these messages in with nonsense about superfoods and quasi-scientific explanations which as the article above shows, have no relation to real science. And the products she markets herself, apart from the ridiculous claims she makes about them, are wildly expensive. At best people are left confused and ripped off.

At the other end of the spectrum we have shows like "extreme makeover". Even here there is some stuff (a very small percentage) being done that I think is constructive. Some of the candidates have specific issues, such as adult acne, which can be treated very effectively to get rid of a problem which only a few adults suffer from. At the other end we hear about storylines like "Candace, a 29-year-old family support worker and mother of two from Lincoln, Nebraska, has been teased all her life about her looks." And the solution to being teased is $100,000-worth of life-risking surgery? These shows speed up into 30 minutes or an hour the several months of painful recovery needed after major surgery. They also completely gloss over the risk of dying under the knife as well as the risk of being unhappy with the results either immediately or several years later.

And the biggie in some ways is that no mention is made of psychological issues such as BDD - Body Dysmorphic Disorder - which candidates may be suffering from and which cosmetic surgery will certainly not solve and may exacerbate. This issue has been featured in the the press this week firstly in a very witty article by Clive James on the BBC. And secondly in the case of the death of Anna Nicole Smith.

Ms Smith had had extensive surgery on her face and body and openly stated that she was trying to make herself look like Marilyn Monroe, indicating to me at least that she was deeply unhappy with her own identity and appearance. As usual when a celebrity dies prematurely the first thing mentioned in the press is the possibility of an overdose. This may have been the case. It certainly wouldn't be unusual for a depressed BDD sufferer to turn to drugs. Another, perhaps complimentary, theory came to my attention in an article I stumbled across which suggests she may have had further surgery recently and that a resultant infection may have contributed to her death.

Of course what I'm not saying here is that there's something wrong with wanting to change your own life dramatically. And indeed sometimes to do that I fully accept that risks have to be taken. There are risks and avoidable risks though. Compulsory counselling from an independent party prior to cosmetic surgery would help identify those for whom the desire for surgery is a symptom of a deeper problem. Also taking Ms McKeith off the airwaves and her products and books off the shelves would be another good move.

Buster Keaton live at Soho Comedy Club!

As some of you will know we had comedy covers night at Soho Comedy Club just before Christmas as a charity fund-raiser for Wateraid. One of the highlights of the night was Anna Black doing a turn as Buster Keaton. You can I now discover watch the clip on Anna's website, and you should, it's great!

Sentences That Piss Me Off #1

You know when you read something and it just makes you want to break things...

Elfi Pallis - not someone whose work I am familiar with is writing in the Guardian. Her opening line "Female ambition is a relatively new thing. " Really? So Joan of Arc and Boudiccia were just having a laugh were they? And the sufragettes? I mean sure, in western civilisation there has been and continues to be a big swathe of oppression all over ambitious women, but that really doesn't mean they didn't exist. Hiss hiss hiss.

More on Rape Convivtion Rates

Great article by Julie Bindel in the Guardian really goes through the subject in detail. Again she is drawn to the remark by a former senior police officer (HamishBrown) that convictions are hard to generate. He says "If there is too much in the defence's favour, such as she was carrying condoms, it is unlikely to result in a conviction". How can the police justify sending out the message that if you carry condoms you are consenting to sex with any and everyone you meet. What is this going to do for rates of STDs and unwanted pregnancies? And if you can convince a rapist to use a condom then you definitely should because the last thing you need is AIDs and an abortion to go with the trauma of watching him get away with it.

One paragraph, and I know that one-off examples prove nothing, etc, but...

"In 1998, a headline appeared in the local Grimsby weekly: "Man faces rape charge". He had dragged a 15-year-old girl down an alley and assaulted her. The CPS decided not to pursue the case. That man was Ian Huntley. At the time, he was not seen as a danger to the public, and neither are the majority of other "opportunist" rapists who get away with it."

Fact and Fiction

Anyone who has seen Al Gore's fantastic documentary An Inconvenient Truth will be as dismayed as I am to see the supposedly respectable BBC publishing a report from supposedly respectable scientists which claims that "Global climate change is 'very likely' to have a human cause". The link between human activity and climate change is not "very likely", it's "fact". The evidence is overwhelming. To imagine otherwise is like claiming that the pope is "very likely catholic" and bears "very likely" shit in the woods.

Doubt, as generated by phrases sure as "very likely", is the greatest weapon of the pro-polluting lobby. Just like the tobacco lobby used to claim it was just "very likely" that smoking could affect your life expectancy.

On the subject of the latter, I have given up again. Ouch.

Rape and the police

The Independent this sunday ran a big feature on the continuing failure of police in the UK to get convictions in rape cases. The numbers are worse than ever and a chilling case study descibes how one woman was mistreated, not believed and discouraged from going to trial, then humiliated in the trial and the defendant, who had previous convictions, and in spite of eye witnesses and stacks of evidence, set free to rape again (which he did withing weeks of the trial).

And is it any surprise the rates of conviction are so low when the police are in fact commiting rape themselves. I refer of course to a certain Greg Jones. Senior Welsh police officer. Now here's the evidence: he went out drinking with a mate and they met two women and went back to one of their houses with them - as far as the victim was concerned, this was to "carry on partying". Now Greg wasn't planning to stay long at the mate's house because of course he needed to go home to his girlfriend. Before he left though he decided to have violent sex with one of the women. Now she says she didn't consent to it. Evidence in her favour include 24 significant bruises on her body. He says the bruises were caused by "several falls" during the sex.

Now I don't how everyone else does it but in my world having a fall of the kind that causes at least eight major bruises during sex is usually the point where you stop, or at least pause, no? If you do carry on afterwards you'd be concerned to avoid another fall, so you'd move to somewhere a little less precarious right? I don't even understand how three falls can give you 24 bruises. I think struggling to get away from a violent rapist might give you 24 bruises...

And the evidence for the defence - he bought condoms and she knew he had. So at some point earlier in the evening she though she might want to have sex later. I mean surely the message we should be sending out to women is - buy condoms in case you decide you want sex later, not if you buy condoms, that's consent!

And this guy has been acquitted and is back in the police forse. If you live in Wales and you get raped - he could be the one dealing with your case. And they wonder why women don't report and why reports don't lead to convictions, hmmm.

Upcoming Gigs

Here's what I'm up to - got some great shows in the next few weeks hope to see you there...

Mon 22nd Jan - Soho Comedy Club, Roundtable Pub, St Martin's Court (club run by me and Mr Cru, where I compere)
Wed 24th - This Week On Earth, Cypress Grill, Fulham Palace Road (topical show - I am quizmaster)
Thurs 25th - Downstairs at the Kings Head, Crouch End (new act show - I compere)
Sat 27th - Downstairs at the Kings Head, Crouch End (I do a spot)
Mon 29th - Soho Comedy Club, Roundtable Pub, St Martin's Court (club run by me and Mr Cru, where I compere)
Tues 30th - Laughing Horse Soho (this is a competition night so I'm only on for a few minutes but you could come and vote for me if you wanted - I could win £1000 and a lot of paid work)
Wed 31st - 99 Club Islington, Camden Head Pub in Angel
Thurs 1st Feb - Laughing Lion, Golden Lion Pub, Britannia Row, Kings Cross
Mon 5th - Soho Comedy Club, Roundtable Pub, St Martin's Court (club run by me and Mr Cru, where I compere)
Wed 7th - UCL (I'm not sure where it is and whether it's open to non-students but I think if you go to UCL you will probably know about it)

Hope to see you there somewhere on the way round.

Winds of Change

Another thing that happened to me over Christmas is that I saw the Al Gore documentary An Inconvenient Truth. Highly recommended when it comes out over here, fascinating and frightening stuff. Now I can't watch the news without being bombarded by the amount of evidence around for ongoing serious climate change. Here's the latest.

A dose of Reality

I've been very intrigued by the furore over racism on Bog Brother this week. I can't imagine anyone in the UK has missed it but in case my overseas readers are wondering what the story is, Jade Goody, someone famous for being stupid has been very rude to Shilpa Shetty, a Bollywood starlet, while the two of them are boarded up in the BB house. And now everybody is outraged by the show, saying it should be taken off the air, etc. Seems to me that the whole point of Big Brother is to provide an expose of the way people really behave. And this is the way people really behave, this is what Indian people in the UK often have to put up with. It's not a fiction show - its true, it's a documentary really of real people and how horrid they are.

What is frustrating though is the high profile and concern given to race issues (also this week Simone Clarke at the English National Ballet was exposed as a member of the BNP, and then Janet Street-Porter was arrested for racially abusing a neighbour) while gender issues are ignored and glossed over. I keep putting the TV on and seeing panel shows with possibly one out of five or six guests being female, sometimes none and I wonder whether I'm the only person who notices and is bugged by it.

Stay-At-Home Mums

An interesting article in The Guardian by Elaine Morgan claims that corporations are dragging women out of the home, away from their children and that what may appear to be "progress" for women in the workplace is often no more than financial necessity. I'm inclined to agree. I think we should look first at the wage differential (still sky high) rather than at employment rates to assess how the gender divide is faring. Also it seems to me that while the women's movement has done well at getting women into employment (which suits corporates, since they pay them less anyway), we have a very long way to go on getting other members of society to recognise childcare as important, valuable and rewarding work. Stay-at-home Dads are still a tiny minority and childcare work is still terminally badly paid and poorly respected.

The other point that is touched on is the idea that the best way to raise children is in a tight nuclear family - married for life. Speaking as someone who had a pretty horrific childhood with my less-than-happily-married parents I beg to differ. State intervention can of course be traumatic when happy families feel they're being scrutinised unfairly. Now I guess I was one of those well-behaved don't-tell-anyone abusees but I have no doubt there were people around, teachers, etc who had at least a suspicion all wasn't quite right (the fact that I sometimes sobbed uncontrolably for hours at school, not to mention the fact that I got straight As in everything and tore out A minuses from my schoolbooks before I took them home) but no-one official ever EVER visited, checked up or even asked me if things were ok. I don't think that family is "sacred" and needs protecting, I think society has to be open and support individuals rights - particularly those who cannot protect themselves.

The Glamourous Life I Lead...

For those of you who've been wondering why things have been a bit quiet over on Cru-blog lately - I've been away for Christmas and New Year. Myself and Mr Cru (that's his blog) went to spend xmas with his parents - Mr Cru's mum also has a blog for those interested in collecting the set - in Los Angeles. We then headed off to New York and Washington DC to catch up with friends, then had a few days back in L.A. and back to sunny Hackney. Top highlights included:

1) Whale watching off Long Beach in L.A. Spotted three Grey Whales and a Fin Whale (the second largest, about 10 foot shorter than a Blue Whale).

2) Attending a comedy writing seminar where we heard from Michael Arndt (the guy who wrote Little Miss Sunshine).

3) Playing the uber-tourist around Washington DC (I've never been before) getting my piccie taken outside the White House, seat of all evil-ness (well, most of it, see other posts).

4) Friends, friends, friends, really nice to see everyone on the way round.

5) More Friends - the obligatory celebrity spot - saw Jennifer Aniston a few tables down from us at Mozza pizza restaurant in L.A. - I resisted the urge to shout "Look it's that woman, you know the one who got dumped!"

Unbelievable...

A Muslim professor has said that the NHS should start offering faith-based medical services! He's suggesting that the NHS should record your religion when you register with a doctor and then refer to Muslim leaders to decide what drugs can and can't be administered to people. Of course as a patient on the NHs every individual already has the right to ask about any drugs they are offered and request, for instance, a female doctor. This of course isn't good enough for power-crazed religious leaders. No - they need to have some sort of legal control over individuals.

Now remember these religions teach that man is given free will by God and must then choose his/her own path. So there should be no need to bully people in this way.

Furthermore within these religious groups many people have different ways of practicing their faith. So you would essentially have to register the exact denomination and how seriously they were practicing it - which could vary over time.

But finally I had a thought that perhaps religious people should be registered as such with the NHS. Wouldn't it make sense to prioritise treatment for atheists - who don't believe in life after death?

Keep Christmas Pagan

A little bit of festive cheer for Cru-blog's secular readers. Have a good Christmas all!

Which way to look...?

I am generally of the opinion that what MPs do in their private lives is up to them. We should judge them on their policies. The ones they actually act on, not the ones they claim to believe in and then throw away. Something about the blossoming relationship between Lib-Demmer (and on policies I've always been reasonable favourable on the Lib Dems) Lembit Opik and one of the aptly-named musical duo The Cheeky Girls however is just a bit much. Not least his long-standing fiancee Sian Lloyd finding out about the relationship indirectly. How on earth are we supposed to take him seriously now?

Ripping Yarns

This article in the Guardian strikes me as compulsory reading...

Vice City

Well the papers are all over the "Suffolk Ripper". And I really don't need to say that the murders are horrific. What bugs me is the media's need to constantly refer to the victims by their occupation. The linked article is one of the least offenders, the tabloid are running with things like "5TH DEAD VICE GIRL FOUND". Now I often talk about prostitution on this blog and people post comments furiously insisting it's just a career choice and that some women enjoy it. Now firstly - all five dead women had serious drug habits, none worked the streets by choice and secondly - if it's just a career, like account manager or cardiologist, why don't we describe them as murdered WOMEN and mention that they all had the same occupation in a single paragraph later on in the article? Harold Shipman murdered old women but I never saw the headline "ten more knitters deaths to be reviewed in Shipman case".

Awards for effort?

There is a general fuss being made about Zara Philips winning sports personality of the year. People are complaining that she has had an easy route to the top. Well easier than many, sure, but it's not like Paula Radcliffe has to milk the family goat and cook chapattis on an open fire before she goes running. If the award is for the person who has worked the hardest then we'd have to start looking at people who put in hours and hours of time but then never made it due to injury or just not being naturally gifted enough. If Kelly Holmes had broken an ankle before the finals and come home without a medal would we have voted for her for trying ever so hard? No - the award is for winning stuff and frankly on that basis Zara is about the best we've got at the moment, unless you count Matt Dawson getting into the last three on Strictly Come Dancing...

I Don't Know about Agnosticism

An article on the BBC extolls the virtues of agnosticism. Sadly for a lot of us, simply "not knowing" just isn't a position that makes any sense...

I don't know if Mr Cru will buy me any Christmas presents, but I expect he will and I live my life assuming he will (i.e. by buying him some), I don't know if the next person to ring my doorbell will be coming to murder me, but I expect they won't (so I answer the door). In fact when it comes down to it I barely KNOW anything. We live our lives based on probabilities.

The evidence against God's existence is overwhelming, from the fact that globally almost all the major religions are totally incompatible to the extensive fossil record to the bizarre fact that all the so called "miracles" in the bible sound a great deal like natural disasters we can now explain scientifically. We may never know for 100% certainty that there is no God but we already know with 99.999...% certainty and we're getting more and more evidence all the time.

The trouble is when people say they are agnostic they seem to be saying that God's existence is 50-50, that the arguments for both sides are equally strong. From everything I've heard and read in my life there are no convincing arguments for God's existence. Accepting the idea that there is something intellectual about sitting on the fence is only going to slow scientific progress down.

International Cru on the World Service

Well I've been asked to go on the BBC World Service tonight and talk about perms. As in permanent wave hairstyles - they are celebrating their centenary this year. Now the trouble is we're doing it as a pre-recorded spot for World Today and it might go out any time between midnight and 8am, GMT. Still if Cru-fans anywhere in the world happen to have the radio on in the car or the alarm set to wake you up with some radio, please tune in. To supplement the radio jokes here's a picture of the first ever advert for perms, mmm amazing they ever caught on at all...

Guardian in the Dogg House

Sometimes you open the paper and then go back to the front page to check the title. I mean is this article about rapper Snoop Dogg really from The Guardian? It makes no mention of the fact that his idea of a song title is "Break A Bitch Til I Die", featuring lyrics like "Hos come, hos go, hos runnin ya slow, So keep her foot up in her ass, unless a dick in her throat". Instead The Guardian (yes, I know, The Guardian...) refers to him as "pimpalicious"?! Meaning what exactly? That there's something good to be said for making money from human traffiking, co-erced sex and prostitution? Please.

Cru vs Stringfellow

Your top blogstress Cruella (that's me) was on BBC Radio Leeds again today. Didn't get much notice so couldn't really advertise. The Liz Green show was covering the Chris Tarrant affair and his suggestion that affairs were just "something men do". My "opponent" in the debate was none other than be-mulleted fake-tan embalmed sleaseball Peter Stringfellow. A couple of cool exchanges took place.

Firstly he said that he'd been unfaithful to his wife back in leeds in the 70s but that thing were different back then. I asked whether weddings were conducted without vows back then or whether he'd just said them for a laugh. He said no-one really thinks about what those vows mean...

Then he said that having affairs was "natural" for men. And I said it was natural to dig a hole in the ground and defecate in it but I didn't want to live with men who did that!

I got the last word on the matter pointing out that I really don't have a problem with people who decide they want to have multiple sexual partners, lifestyle choices, go for it. I have a problem with people who mislead others about what they're going to do.

Premium Rates

There are moves afoot to address the TV show phone-in "quizzes" where the questions are stupidly easy and the cost of entering is sky high. Now of course if GCSE maths were just a little bit more of a hurdle in this country we wouldn't have to worry about there being people out there who don't know these things are a scam. However seems like a case of too little too late to me.

Apologies in advance for quoting chunks of the article but really...

'Broadcasting minister Shaun Woodward said that, even if some channels were running scams, "it doesn't necessarily follow that they are all doing it". '

Depends what you mean by a scam. Are they making a profit from the phone lines far greater than the value of the prize they're giving away? Yes. And all the channels are doing that.

'The government would introduce more regulation if this was deemed "proportional" to the problem, but industry self-regulation would be "quicker, more flexible and more likely to work", he added. '

Industry self-regulation clearly doesn't work because that's what's going on right now. Industry self-regulation is just a euphimism for "I'll turn a blind eye and you make sure you get me a nice Christmas present".

'Mr Woodward said that "realistically, when we take part in these programmes, you know that the odds are stacked against you".'

We? I don't take part in these shows and judging by your shifting pronouns, nor do you Mr Woodward. If people taking part in these programmes are aware that they are paying far more for the call they are making than they are on average going to win then they are gambling, and that falls under much more restrictive gambling law. If they don't know then they're being scammed.

One of the responsible parties, David Brook from Optimistic Entertainment said 'We don't wish to encourage people to make multiple calls'. Now I can't say I watch a lot of these kinds of shows but I have noticed when I do watch them the never-ending urges to call and to call again if you don't get through.

And the proliferation of these shows tells us that people are falling for it and losing a lot of money.

We've also recently heard that victims of Farepak's collapse have been told to ring a premium rate number to register claims. And the same is true of the government's benefits hotline (reposted in Private Eye so no link).

What's needed is something much much stronger than what is being discussed. I suggest a major new piece of legislation to cover premium rate lines and text message services so that they can't be used for entering competitions or providing information which the company or body setting them up should reasonably be providing to it's customers or callers.

What do you think? Dial 0898 YES CRUELLA if you think premium rate numbers should be banned...

All Shapes and Sizes of Plug

Yes here they come. Brace yourselves...

1) Mr Cru has finally succumbed to the blogging bug and started his own. He has a significant amount of experience as a military journalist so he will be sounding off about Iraq mostly I expect but check him out here.

2) Next Thursday - 30th Nov I am performing in a lovely Christmas singing show at John Lyon Hall, at the City Lit on Keeley Street, near Holborn. The bad news is it's 12.45pm - i.e. during the day so I know some people won't make it. The good news is that it's free so please come along and enjoy our tuneful singing (and the rest).

3) Upcoming gigs:

Mon 27th Nov Soho Comedy Club, Roundtable Pub, St Martin's Court, near Leicester Sqare, 8pm. £5 or free if you mention Cru-blog.

Wed 29th Nov This Week On Earth, topical panel show live at Cypress Grill, Fulham Palace Road (Hammersmith end, just after the hospital), 8.30pm, £5.

Mon 4th Dec Soho Comedy Club as above

Mon 11th Dec Soho Comedy Club Xmas party as above

Wed 13th Dec This Week On Earth as above

Mon 18th Dec Soho Comedy Club Comedy Star-In-Their-Eyes Special, as above except we all do cover versions of famous acts...

Wed 20th Dec Electric Mouse Golders Green

Thurs 21st Dec Larfin Lion King's Cross

Hope to see you all soon!

Comedy Tent

Just found this cool picture of me compering the comedy tent at Fringe Sunday in Edinburgh. My job is so much fun... (of course I say that now, those of you who were reading Cru-blog during August will remember me moaning about being knackered all the time, etc.)

Spot the Slime-Ball

I'll give you a clue: HERE. Now what he superficially seems to be saying sounds emminently reasonable. That there is a difference between someone aged 17 having consensual sex with someone aged 15 and a half and someone aged 45 having sex with a 6 year old. I agree with that, of course there is. Three things though:

1) The law already recognises the difference between thse crimes. Both remain crimes but the latter incurs much more serious penalties under UK law.

2) He's suggesting the law should be changed for GIRLS from 13 up. Surely if a girl is capable of binding consent at age 13, so is a boy of the same age. There are countries in the world where the age of consent is different for boys and girls. I think that's a bad idea. I think that's sending out a message that the sexes should have different concepts of sex. And that's unhelpful.

3) He's talking about relaxing the law for men who have sex with girls from 13 up. If he means to relax the law for men and women who have sex with girls and boys from 13 up then I'm prepared to talk. However if he's relaxing the law the I think there a good case for allowing it to be applied up to a higher age limit. Say 15 to 18 year olds can have sex with someone up to five years older than them, no more. Personally I think the law is better as it is but there may be a case to be made there.

Bush's latest sneaky plan

If you can't change the law directly, there's got to be a sneaky way of having the same effect. Pass the bucket...

Operation Freedom and Love

The unsurprising news that some US soldiers in Iraq have murdered a group of people and raped a 14-year-old girl is discussed on the BBC. And to think how much of a struggle it continues to be for women who want to to get to the front lines...

Have some pity...

...for Katie Davis. On her way to prison after being convicted of making false claims of rape. Now I know it's wrong to make such claims, and of course it's traumatic for the guy who was tried for the crime, but:

(a) What kind of environment has she been brought up in to believe aged 18 that if she's accidentally pregnant her only option is to claim rape?

(b) Both parties had been drinking, neither remembered what happened fully. If someone is too drunk to remember what has happened I'm unconvinced that they can truly be said to have given consent.

(c) She was 16, only just over the age of consent, he was 24.

(d) The case was dropped because of "discrepancies and inconsistencies in Davis's accounts". Now if I was going to file a false rape claim I'd get my story straight and stick to it wouldn't you? On the other hand if I'd been raped, blocked half of the horror of it out and was trying to piece together the evidence I'm sure I would need to adjust my testamony as time went by.

(e) Even these inconsistencies only cast "serious doubt" on the verdict. No one has ever said that it was fully disproved.

(f) The guy spent 10 weeks in prison for whatever he did or didn't do. For just bringing the case against him she's been sentenced to six months.

And the police wonder why only a tiny percentage of rape victims report the crimes against them!

The Fairer Sex and the Beautiful Game

Yet another misogynist idiot has for some unknown reason had his ludicrous ranting reported in the mainstream press. Mike Newell, whose expertise in the world of football has led him to the dizzying heights of being manager of Luton Town has decided that women shouldn't be allowed to work as referees and other officials. His comments come surprisingly shortly after his team lost 3-2 in a game where referees assistant Amy Rayner decided not to award his boys a penalty. Senior referee Andy D'Urso agreed with Ms Rayners decision but oddly Mr Newell hasn't been calling for men to be barred from refereeing...

Baby, Bathwater, Bandwagon and Brown

As if any of us hoped that Gordon Brown might be any more honest a prime minister than Tony Blair. Witness this piece of less-than-joined-up government. Nick Griffin, the nasty little fascist at the head of the BNP has gotten off on charges of inciting racial hatred. Despite the fact that he clearly did (for instance when he said "lets show these ethnics the door in 2004"). To me the issue raised by the case it what's wrong with our law courts? The Times offers a good run-down of this guys offensive views so the failure to convict makes me want to know more about who was the judge, why were the jury not better screened to make sure they didn't hold racist opinions themselves and who was bringing the case and why didn't they get someone competent?

Instead of course Gordon Brown has waded in and said "Any preaching of religious or racial hatred will offend mainstream opinion in this country. We have got to do whatever we can to root it out from whatever quarter it comes. And if that means we have got to look at the laws again, we will have to do so".

Now firstly Nick Griffin's offences date from befor ethe incitement to religious hatred bill came in so we just don't know if the laws we have now would have been enough to get him. As I understand it even the old laws sound like enough to get him, but something went wrong in that process.

Secondly the issue of what should and shouldn't be allowed to be said in this country shouldn't in my view be a matter of what will "offend mainstream opinion". I have lots of opinions which some people may find offensive. For instance I believe that there is no God. Indeed I believe that the idea of cloud-dwelling fairies who can read everybody's minds and make notes and then use those to decide what happens to our eternal soul (I don't believe we have one of these either) such as being burnt in hell forever is absolute nonsense. I think those who believe it in the face of modern scientific understanding are delusional and as such should be barred from public office or going near children. I want the law to protect people from threat and intimidation - not criminalise debate.

But finally what Gordon Brown is calling for is a strengthening of the law on Racial and Religious hatred. And that's really the sneaky thing. More or less everyone I know thinks Nick Griffin should be locked up fr his offensive views on race issues. However religion and race are not the same issue. Saying it's bad to be black or Asian is wrong, because people don't choose their race. Saying it's bad to believe certain things is open to debate, people choose what to believe. Nick Griffin described Islam as a "wicked and evil" religion. Now I think many of it's modern adherents are very nice reasonable people, but looking at the history of Islam and the way it is still used in Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and even in parts of the UK to justify treating women like goats, I think there are certainly aspects of it that are "wicked and evil", and believe me, I don't agree with Nick Griffin very often... But to read remarks from Gordon Brown you would think that race and religion were somehow equally weighted in terms of things you can't be judged on. I feel bad for those people genuinely trying to defeat racism that suddenly they're being co-opted onto a whole different movement. To me that feels like Brown doing exactly the sort of sneaky backhanded politics that we're very used to with Blair. Leaving me less than optimistic for the future.

Readers in the South-West?

Are cordially invited to come and see me tomorrow night (well tonight now since it's gone midnight) Sunday 5th Nov at Mirth Control, Havanas on the Quay in Exeter. Doors 8pm, show starts 9pm. Mr Cru (aka American comic David Mulholland) is also doing a short spot. It's a fiver to get in and please come say hello if you're there, I may even be buying beers!

The Red Carpet Treatment

Cru and Mr Cru were joined by Wufnik from BazzFazz (the guy who originally got me in to blogging!) on Friday night to attend the opening of Paul Sellar's latest play 2Graves at the Arts Theatre (it was also the re-opening of the Arts Theatre itself which has been closed for over a year). Paul is a stand-up comic I've worked with many times over the last few years so that was why we got to hang with the stars. Anyway I am really really not just saying this because he's a friend of mine but the play is really fantastic. Not just the writing but also the performance by Jonathan Moore is captivating. It's a one-man piece, all in verse, about a guy from the midlands in the underworld of darts, snooker and gangsters and it's very funny - largely because of the way that it rhymes - and very dramatic and meaningful too. I won';t say anymore as I don't want to spoil it but seriously recommended.

Porn again

Interesting article in The Guardian discussing views on the post-Jane Longhurst anti-violent porn bill. I agree with those in favour - we should prosecute the owners of this stuff. I seem, in this respect to come up against three key arguements:

1) (As voiced by Bonnie Greer) Once we start censoring, the censorship will spread to affect our rights to freedom of speech, etc and be a problem for artists/playwrites/etc.

Well we already have censorship in certain areas. Child pornography is banned in the UK. All we're suggesting is moving the line of what is and isn't censored. If we can't have that debate then we effectively are censored, the decision has to be open to discussion. And no doubt at some point there will be a play that shows an act of child rape which is then debated hotly by the censors and banned in some places amid critical outcry, etc. At the same time I think we have to protect against anyone who wishes to show violent horrific acts for the purpose of tittilation and then cover their backs by calling it art. Good art and good theatre can use symbolism to evoke the situation without having to be gratuitously graphic.

2) (As voiced by Holly Combe) The problem should be solved by stopping such material being produced in the first place.

Well yes that would be an ideal solution, I agree. But the internet is a global network, covering regions where we have no control over the legislation and covering a widely varying region in terms of economic power. If we allow the download and ownership of violent porn, we have to accept that we fund the production of it. Is our aim to end the production of it or just to announce that we don't want it produced. Is it not worth a small decrease in our freedoms to prevent thousands of rapes and murders around the world? Lets be realistic not idealistic. By the same token we might suggest illegalising the sale but not the purchase of drugs, which creates a totally unclear message: if you can get it, ok, but don't let us see you.

3) (As voiced by Mr Cru) But what if someone borrows your computer or you buy a second hand computer and there are files on there you don't know about.

Well sure, some people get wrongly accused of crimes. That's like saying some guy was framed for murder and that's not fair so lets legalise murder. We make the law and then we do our best to enforce it fairly.

As usual Jeremy Coutinho from Object has some great - and to my mind shocking - points to make on the subject, so here he is:

'Obviously these proposals are "a good news day" for women's human rights. They plug a legal loophole whereby the distribution and sale, but not the possession of violent material, was illegal.

Simply closing this loophole, though, does not in itself address society's attitudes towards women, which are still extraordinarily sexist and allow rape, sexual assault and discrimination to flourish. The mainstreaming of a porn aesthetic and outlook is now endemic.

So, for instance, in Virgin Airline's executive lounge at JFK, the introduction of urinals shaped like women's mouths was only abandoned after massive protest. Then there was Zoo magazine's "dictionary of porn" which described abusive porn such as "pink eye" (ejaculating on to a woman's eye ball). Zoo is sold without age restriction as a "lifestyle" magazine, often for as little as 60p.

Or take the Sport "newspaper", which described the sex life of Jane Longhurst's murderer as "an adventurous romp" on a page crammed with graphic adverts for sex chat lines and hardcore porn.

While I welcome this bill, the mainstream objectification of women has to be tackled too if the government is really serious about women's human rights.'

Gigs tonight, etc

Doubling up tonight at 99 Club Angel (Camden Head Pub, 8.30pm, £3) and Electric Mouse Golders Green (see TO for info or something, I've only just said yes, someone must have dropped out last minute!).

Also the Soho Comedy Club is now running regularly Monday nights at the Roundtable Pub, St Martin's Court (along the side of the Wyndham's Theatre, 1 min from Leicester Square Tube). It's £7 but you can get in for £5 if you mention me. I MC it every week now. It's a dinky little place, seats 25-30 but it gets rammed sometimes, especially when there are good people on. Rich Brophy and Gareth Berliner next week and Nick Coppin, Rosie Wilby and Aaron Barshack on Nov 13th. Mr Cru aka American comic David Mulholland is usually on too. Hope to see you there.

Term time

The 10-minute bill through parliament which suggested the maximum term for abortion should be cut to 21 weeks has been rejected. Not that ten minute bills ever make law anyway but nice to know most MPs are opposed to the concept. The suggestion was that there should also be a compulsory ten day "cooling off" period. Now I think other people telling me what I can and can't do to my own body sucks but one thing that really really sucks about the bill is that they say: "a woman should be given access to information and counselling about the medical risk of termination as well as of carrying a pregnancy to term". Yeah - it is much more dangerous to carry a pregnancy to term than it is to have an abortion. Furthermore the later one has an abortion the more dangerous it is so a ten day cooling off period would kill some women.

Nadine Dorries, the MP who tabled the bill also said that "Such a cooling-off period is necessary, because the decision to terminate a pregnancy or not is one with which the woman concerned will have to live for the rest of her life" by which arguement cooling off periods should also be introduced for moving in with a partner, tattoos and piercings, getting a dog or a cat and in fact deciding to have a baby, right? Or is it just women not prepared to raise a child in an environment when that will more or less certainly cost them their career whoshe wishes to have victimised in this way?

There is a very interesting article in the Guardian featuring the stories of nine women who've had abortions. None of them regret it and one says without it she would have killed herself. I've never met a woman who's regretted an abortion. And I have met some who've regretted having kids!

If you want to reduce abortions, make it compulsory for employers to provide adequate child care, chase up absent fathers who don't pay maintenance on time, provide proper benefits, chase up companies who push out pregnant employees and drag them through the courts so it really hurts.

Whoops, there go our civil liberties...

What's the big thing with flag burning? I mean so what? In fact much better to burn a symbol of the country you have a problem with than to actually hurt people from there. Next they will be outlawing holding a placard, looking a bit hippy and using the word "bollocks". All I can say to that is, well, BOLLOCKS!

Girls vs Boys

There is another report out showing that in spite of various measures being taken boys still lag behind girls in terms of GCSE results. And of course the government is "deeply frustrated". What I want to know is why all these over-achieving girls are still on the receiving end of a massive pay gap and hold virtually none of the top jobs in this country (see dozens of other Cru-blog articles for details). When girls are behind boys in some measure the reaction is "Ah, exactly, that's why women should be barred from the top jobs, see?" in the reverse case scenario it's "We are failing our men and improvements must be made".

The truth is (if you ask me) that girls are better at following instructions and getting on with working hard on things even when those things are easy, boring and repetitive. And that is probably mainly a nurture thing - being told to sit still, be quiet, smile and not make a fuss. It could have some genetic basis too - women often have better endurance than men and men often have better burst strength than women - and that might apply to mental work too. School is boring. Parents don't teach kids stuff at home like they used to and schools and curriculum designers are so paranoid about getting (a) everything covered in case they've missed something and (b) the best results possible, so that schools who shop around for easy exams will choose them that school is not challenging for a majority of kids. Now there are two reactions to that - buckle down and get on with it, do the 47-page project on how-to-light-a-bunsen-burner (I genuinely was marked on this when I did GCSE combined sciences many years ago), or refuse, get bored, muck about, etc. And coursework is always about who did the most work rather than who got to the right answer quickest, which rewards those used to doing as they're told. I had a teacher at school who used to weigh coursework projects on a set of scales and predict the grades they would get - he was never wrong! That structure favours hard-working girls. It just does, and perhaps to some extent rightly so since in most workplaces those are the skills that are of greatest importance.

Girls should be commended on having done so well in GCSEs and having worked so hard. All children should be given the option if taking extension work. I'd like to see all educational areas offering ealry GCSEs in a small number of subjects for those who wish to take them - studying at a government-sponsored after-school or weekend club and then being allowed to sit out the corresponding lessons in school in the library or other quiet room.

Anyone paranoid around here?

Just him then.

Lifting the Veil

Seems like the last week or two I've been fielding questions on the whole to-wear-or-not-to-wear the veil question. I guess what with it being an issue of feminism and religion it definitely falls in my court so here goes:

The idea, touted by Jack Straw, Tony Blair et al that the veil is alienating for non-muslims totally misses the point. The veil is not worn to create a barrier or as a symbol to show a woman's religion. The veil is worn because Islam teaches women that their bodies should not be seen because they are a temptation to men. Now pause> rewind> play>. Men are tempted by their bodies and that's their fault and they should cover up so men won't feel bad. You know if men are tempted by the sight of me in hot pants that is THEIR problem and THEY need to deal with it. The whole idea that women should blame themselves for the effect they have on men is ridiculous and offensive. It comes under the heading of well-if-you-wear-mini-skirts-you-deserve-to-be-raped school of thought and we don't believe in that rubbish.

The veil is also not required by anything in the Quran, which simply says men and women should dress modestly and women should use a their scarf to cover their bosom (not their eyes!). The idea that the hair and even the face must be covered comes from Islamic leaders - male ones - who use it as a means to oppress women. There is no end to the things that veiled women cannot participate in fully - sports, physical work, dance, theatre, and of course now meetings with Jack Straw...

I don't think we should prohibit adult women from wearing the veil if they wish to. Remember these women have been taught that they are revealing sexual parts of their bodies if they take the veil off, that's like saying women should go to work topless, which they shouldn't unless they really need the money to put themselves through college... We should however look with pity on those women who do wear it and who often do so insisting it is their own choice. These are victims of extensive long-term cultural brain-washing and intimidation from their own families and communities. These women need more contact with the outside world, not less.

As if to prove my point for me there is a very revealing interview on the BBC with Aishah Azmi, the teaching assistant who lost her job as a result of her insistance on wearing a full face veil. During the interview she is asked whether or not she wore her veil when she was being interviewed for the job by a male member of staff. Her reply is - and this is amazing to me - "Do I have to answer all the questions?". Now I put it to you that this is NOT a woman who lives her life freely based on her own choices. This is a woman who has been pushed around, who is used to being told what to do.

This case also highlights the fact that expecting school girls to wear the veil is sick in the extreme. Firstly because it teaches them that their pre-pubescent bodies are somehow sexual and secondly because they're too young to have made up their minds yet whether or not they are religious. We should never refer to Muslim children, or Christian children. They are the children of Muslim or Christian parents. We wouldn't talk about a 6-year-old capitalist or an 8-year-old existentialist. Children should be allowed to make their own decision about religion when they are 16 or 18 or older if they choose based on fair teaching, dealing in facts. This is covered in length in Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion as recommended in just about every other post I write at the moment!

Anyone spotted the hypocrisy?

Ruth Kelly, member of extreme secretive Catholic cult group Opus Dei, has been saying that "The battle against extremism in the UK should be fought by all communities - not just Muslims"!!

Creationist Ahoy!

A very interesting female (and indeed self-proclaimed feminist!) Muslim blogger, Zola Malay has been commenting on my post on richard Dawkins over the last few days. Something I've found very interesting since she's actually a creationist. And prepared to talk about her views - in my experience most creationists are shut off to discussion. Anyway so I thought some of you might like to read the latest from her and from me and join the discussion.

From Zola:

"Cruella my response to "who created god?" is fortunatley already given in Islamic texts.

According to the Quran, Allah tells us that He is the only creator and sustainer of all that exists and that nothing and no one exists alongside Him, nor does He have any partners. He tells us that He is not created, nor is He like His creation in anyway. He calls Himself by a number of names and three of them are:

A) The First - (Al-Awal)
B) The Last - (Al Akhir)
C) The Eternal, who is sought after by His creation, while He has no need from them at all. (As-Samad)

He always has existed and He never was created, as He is not like His creation, nor similar to it, in any way.("He" is used only out of respect and dignity - not for gender, Allah has no gender).

A number of sceptics ask this question. But God by definition is the uncreated creator of the universe, so the question 'Who created God?' is illogical, just like 'To whom is the bachelor married?', i.e. God cannot be a creation if He himself is the creator?I will try and post more on this on a seperate piece on my own blog. "

Well fair enough, let me respond to that...

Starting, if I may, at the end with the notion that the creator cannot him/herself be created. That for me doesn't hold water. Only this afternoon I created a very nice tray of cinnamon shortbread. And by your reasoning I was created by Allah, which makes me both creator and created. And before you suggest that it was in fact Allah who created the cinnamon shortbread let me remind you that (a) I don't believe in Allah so it sems odd that he would help me out in the kitchen and (b) I've also created some very interesting variations on the bacon sandwich. I'm sure Allah wouldn't have wanted to help me with those. So if you believe I was created then a creator can be created. So for me the issue of who created Allah remains.

Evolution offers an explanation for how life on earth came to be. Your argument is that A created B and A "just does" exist. That's not an explanation, it's a refusal to address the issue. You might as well cut out the middle man and say life on earth "just does" exist.

Now secondly the proof you offer of your theory comes from a book. Surely if that's proof enough then I might say "Evolution is a fact because it says so on Cruella-blog". There are books about teenage wizards, talking rabbits, two-dimensional planets and inter-gallactic time-travel, it doesn't mean that such things exist.

And finally, strangely, the book you choose to accept as fact is littered with contradictions and inconsistencies not to mention things that are simply horrific. A pertinent example of a contradiction is in Quran 02: 256 "There is no Compulsion in religion. ", then in Quran 9: 29 "Fight those who do not profess the true faith". And for general horrificness Quran 4: 34 "As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and beat them."

And now some more questions - open to anyone who wants to answer them:

1) What is your view on the dinosaurs? Did Allah bury stacks of giant reptile bones as a big trick to confuse scientists?

2) There are millions of people around the world who believe just as strongly as you do that the earth was created by a God other than Allah. How can they all be wrong and you right? Do you think you would believe in Allah if you had been raised by, say, Japanese Shinto-ist parents?

Two of my Favourite Subjects

Pharyngula has a great article on "Why religion is like pornography". I'm not sure which side comes out worst!

Going on the Game

This BBC article makes for disturbing reading. It's focus is on the plight of women who have been trafficked into the UK to work in the sex industry. And the situation is genuinely shocking whichever way you look at it.

The "incidental" information in the article is pretty shocking too: one in ten guys in the UK visits prostitutes. How does that affect the way they subsequently deal with and react to women in their workplaces and homes (the typical prostitute-visitor is married)? The report suggests that visiting prostitutes is increasingly becoming "normal" behaviour. "Divorce rates, sex tourism, stag weekends, lads' mags and the ubiquity of internet pornography have all been blamed." Of course any rational person will realise it's the guys who visit brothels who are to blame... Apparently there are even websites on which people can write reviews of prostitutes they have visited!

Now the point of the article is that there is a campaign underway to encourage guys who visit prostitutes to report to the police if they suspect that the women may have been trafficked. Hmmm. So what are the signs to look out for? "Not only is there likely to be some distress on the victim's part, but there are other clues - like being offered an Italian woman, but finding an Albanian who speaks no English. Other clues might be that the price quoted is lower than normal, or unprotected sex is offered". Right so we're asking guys who want to pay the minimum price to have unprotected sex with clearly distressed women who don't speak English? Are these guys really the best people to turn to for help? Shouldn't the police be identifying and searching brothels, putting these men into jail for rape (if she doesn't speak English I don't see how she can consent - and if she's clearly in distress I'd take that as a no) and getting the women into safe, secure homes where they can get medical treatment and counselling?

Worse still we're told that some of the punters are aware that women they're having sex with are illegally trafficked and working under duress and "Some enjoy the women's plight, police say". Police say? If the police hear of someone who enjoys having sex with a woman under duress then they should surely arrest them for rape immediately...? What planet are we on? And again I'm not sure I want to work and live around these people.

Finally the campaign betrays itself with a piece of classic misogyny: "Awareness campaigns have emphasised their status as unwilling participants and men have been reminded of how they would feel if it were happening to their own sister, girlfriend or daughter." Yes suddenly we're expected to believe bthat men will not want to rape women who might have an older male family member who might be upset. Don't rape her - she might belong to someone else... And it's not about how she might feel being raped up to 30 times a day, it's about how other men who know her might feel. Screw that. Women have rights, even women without older male family members or long-term partners. I don't have any problem perceiving male suffering as part of human suffering which affects me. I do have a problem understanding how this sort of project gets underway without someone noticing that's it's implicitly condoning the misogyny which is at the root of the problem itself.

Putting in the Hours

There's a report out today that more or less all the gains of the last few years in terms of women in top company boardrooms has been wiped out.

Now one thing about the Guardian report linked above really drives me mad: "some employers were improving attitudes to flexible working, they tended not to apply the same principles to very senior jobs."

What that's telling us is that the reason women aren't making it to the top of these professions is because they need to work flexible hours. Now firstly - not all women have major family commitments that prevent them working fuller hours. When I worked in the city I often worked 15 or even 18-hour days. Male colleagues doing half that were consistently promoted ahead of me. Women I worked with accepted that they would have to put in more hours than colleagues to try to overcome ingrained sexist corporate cultures.

Furthermore if it were true that women are held back by having to shoulder a greater percentage of the burden of family care than their partners then we would notice that the few women who made it to the top jobs were women without children. That's simply not true. Dame Marjorie Scardino, one of two remaining female FTSE 100 heads has three children, Dorothy Thompson, the other, has two, Linda Cook, the only other woman mentioned in the article for her role at Shell has three, Margaret Thatcher has two, Segolene Royal, now running for the French Presidency, has four and even Hilary Clinton, potential US presidential candidate, has one. The truth is girls that sacrificing your plans for a family to concentrate on your career is a waste of time. It's not the burden of raising children that will hold you back. It's workplace misogyny. Stacks of it. Across sectors, across industries and across nations. And we should stop pretending it isn't there. It is.

Reproduction

Very interesting - 61 people complained to the BBC after Jonathon Ross suggested council estate residents should be chemically restricted from having children. To me this brings up three issues:

1) No-one makes a fuss about the idea that there should be restrictions on who can adopt a child, and very stringent ones too. They check everything from your criminal record, to your income, your sexual orientation, marital status and even how clean your house is and stuff. If he had said people living on council estates shouldn't be allowed to adopt children I'm sure no complaints would have been raised. Now I think that volunteering to adopt a child in and of itself makes you a more suitable candidate to raise a child than being able to get a shag. I'm not opposed to running a check on people to see if they have obvious reasons for being unsuitable but I don't think nonsense like marital status and sexuality, for instance, should be taken into account. This would help reduce the number of children in the care system and make it possible to offer more foster care to parents who are struggling.

2) We're back to the "wrong kind of babies" argument. While (white) university educated women with good jobs and so on are consistently on the receiving end of criticism for not having enough babies, teenage mothers and anyone from a lower class (or minority ethnic*) background is moaned at for having too many babies. What we need is of course (a) a bit less racism and (b) an education and welfare system that allows children from under-privileged backgrounds to grow up into the "right kind of adults". And we have a long way to go on that right now.

3) 61 people is not an awful lot, but it got a news story onto the BBC website. As a group, the people who share my views on things like secularism and feminism reading this blog and and so on number quite a lot more than that. It's amazing how small a group is needed to agitate on an issue. We should use this as a means to get our voices heard.