Us British Munters

How thoughtful of the Daily Male to let us know how we British women are doing in the International "Whose Chicks are the Hottest?" Olympics. Today's line-by-line destruction will be of this dreadful piece by Sean Poulter entitled Why French Women beat Brits in the Beauty Stakes: They spend twice as much on products. And incidentally if you want to place a bet on the beauty stakes do call William Hill. My money is on Chile - they've taken the South American title twice recently and a lot of their national chicks compete with international clubs.

"The women of France may enjoy perfectly powdered and smooth faces, however they pay more than twice as much as their British counterparts to achieve this effect."

So the women of France all enjoy perfectly smooth faces do they? Guess all those holiday postcards of wrinkly weathered old women sat on street kerbs in Provence are staged then or done with latex special effects make-up?

"Spending on creams and potions designed to hold back the ageing process runs at £1.85billion a year on the other side of the Channel, compared to £854 million here."

Designed to hold back the ageing process or designed to rip women off? I'm calling this a victory for British women who have an extra £1bn a year to spend on enjoying themselves.

"Although Italian by birth, Carla Bruni, the wife of the French president, has come to epitomise the women of France for whom no price is too high to hold back the wrinkles."

You said it Sean. She's Italian. Italian. And she's an Italian supermodel. If anyone thinks she represents the women of France they should try speaking to a French woman. A real one. And if no price really was too high for the women of France the country would be bankrupt in about a week and every woman's bathroom cabinet full of royal jelly and placenta.

"Indeed, some of the 42-year-old's treatments, thought to include laser skin peels and botox, have produced some startling and bizarre results."

Startling and bizarre - no price is too high for me to achieve THAT look.

"By contrast, Samantha Cameron, who is three years younger, apparently enjoys a more natural - English Rose - beauty regime."

Samantha Cameron is also NOT a super-model. She's a part-time accessory designer. And comparing one English part-time bag designer with one Italian model and then drawing conclusions about all British and all French women is just weird. There is real news out there you know Sean? Try visiting Congo, I think some women have been raped. Let us know if that helps to "hold back the wrinkles", won't you?

"New reseach looking at the body hang-ups of the women of Europe identifies some surprising differences."

Surprising? So like German women wish they had two heads while the Latvians long for lustrous feathered wings? Something tells me I am going to be less surprised than I was when there wasn't a fiver in that novelty birthday card last year.

"Certaintly, the women of France are content with their enviably flat stomachs."

Ah, enlightenment... That's probably also why Shakira looks so smug. And like Carla Bruni - she's not French!

"Just 27per cent list their stomach as a problem area, which is a fraction of the 44per cent of British women who are worried about their flabby midriff."

The question of course is what percentage are actually dangerously overweight and what percentage have merely been convinced they are by the beauty industry? But that would be journalism wouldn't it Sean? And your speciality is copying out corporate press releases. Sidenote though: I don't believe doubling your creams and lotions budget is going to shrink your midriff - it might be a better idea to halve your dessert budget.

"However, British women are far more content with their breasts and thighs than their counterparts across the Channel."

I can't wait to hear what percentage prefer not to rate their bodies like cuts of meat.

"Just 31per cent of women here are worried about having chunky thighs, compared to 43per cent of the French. Similarly, 30per cent of women in this country are concerned about their breasts, versus 38per cent of the French."

The real issue is right across Europe women have been convinced to hate some part of their anatomy that is perfectly healthy.

"Looking at other nations, Italian women have a problem with their bottoms with some 47per cent listing this as a concern, far more than any other nation."

If you have "a problem with your bottom" you should see a doctor. [Se hai un problema con il fondo si dovrebbe vedere un medico.]

"Rather alarmingly, some 57per cent of Spanish women have a worry about their entire face. Again a higher percentage than other nations."

Well spotted Sean, that is certainly alarming. Can't wait for your in depth research to discover what is behind these numbers, why we allow the beauty industry to bully women into feeling this way...

"Among German women, 46per cent are worried about their bigger bellies."

...or you could just carry on cut and pasting that press release. Stick to what you're good at eh?

"The research was conducted by retail analysts at Mintel for a report investigating the sales patterns of beauty creams and potions."

It's like I'm psychic isn't it?

"It found that for British women, concerns about ageing are focused on the eyes and the dark circles, bags and wrinkles that give their age away."

I find for me what gives my age away is that I just tell people because I don't think getting older is shameful.

"Some 48per cent said the eye area is a worry, while 35per cent were concerned about a sagging jaw line."

I still want to know what percentage told the interviewer to go f*ck themselves.

"Sixty-two per cent were worried about fine lines and wrinkles and 49per cent wanted to do away with the dark circles they have."

What percentage were worried about all this rubbish BEFORE the market researcher started asking stupid intrusive questions?

"Nica Lewis, head consultant Mintel Beauty Innovation, said there is enormous money to be made by beauty companies that find a way to hold back the ageing process."

Indeed. So much so that it might seem like even some of the companies who haven't managed it will claim they have. If only there was a journalist around to investigate, but there's only you eh, Sean?

"'Ageing skin is no longer only a worry for older consumers. Younger women are now paying more attention to preventing wrinkles while they can rather than trying to cure them at a later stage,' she said."

So now they're selling wrinkle cream to women who don't even have wrinkles. Shouldn't you be exposing the lies, pseudo-science and creepy advertising tricks that make women believe they should spend a lot of money on products that don't even work? Sorry - almost forgot you're working for the Mail...

"'Educating these younger women about the benefits of a good facial skincare regime is an important way to ensure product take-up."

"Ensuring product take-up"? Honestly - I know you didn't write this, some PR puppy did - but really Sean - don't put your name on articles this humiliating. It's ... well ... humiliating.

"'Brands could use mobile phone apps to remind young girls when to cleanse and moisturise on a morning and at night..."

Mmm how helpful of my phone to tell me when morning and night come round. What if I run out of battery though - if only some giant glowing orb would appear and disappear from the sky...

"...and notify them of new products or competitions and offers they could take advantage of."

Wouldn't that be ace? Having companies send junk mail direct to your actual phone so you don't have to go downstairs and find it on the hall floor.

"'A clear link between teen lines and ranges aimed at women in their early to mid-20s could also help brands retain customers..."

Sean, really, I understand that besuited twerps doing "brand management" graduate internships say this sort of thing but you are a journalist. Or at least you probably think you are.

"...as they progress through their age-related skincare needs.'"

Oh gosh yes so here's a quick run down of your age-related skincare NEEDS...

Age 0-5: soap and water

Age 5-10: soap and water

Age 10-15: soap and water

Age 15-20: soap and water

Age 20-25: soap and water

Age 25-30: soap and water

Age 30-35: soap and water

Age 35-40: soap and water

Age 40-45: soap and water

Age 45-50: soap and water

Age 50-55: soap and water

Age 55-60: soap and water

Age 60-65: soap and water

Age 65-70: soap and water

Age 70-75: soap and water

Age 75+: soap and water

Oh sorry Sean, I thought you said NEEDS. No-one needs expensive anti-aging products and treatments. In any case the treatments you suggest Carla Bruni has had are medical procedures like Botox. She's not having those because she got a text about brand loyalty.

And worse still there is a real story hidden in here about body image - the rise in Body Dysmorphic Disorder and Eating Disorders and the irresponsible attitude of the beauty industry pushing expensive products that don't actually work on women across Europe. Instead we've got a male journalist regurgitating a press release that reads like an advert for these products. Please stop.

Very Moving Video

Do watch this:

A Little Explanation

Many thanks to all those who follow me on Twitter (@Cruella1) and Facebook for messages of concern. I'm fine. Here's what happened (the short version).

Went out for birthday drinks then karaoke last night with a close friend. At the end of the night, 3am, five of us - the birthday girl, me, Mr Cru, a guy who helps out at our comedy club (Robert) and a comedian (Brendan) - are leaving the Cro Bar on Mallett Street, which is closing. Three guys appear from nowhere (not from in the bar as far as I can tell though it was busy) and one takes his shirt off and is kinda dancing round antagonising people and clearly trying to pick a fight with any and everyone in sight. Birthday girl and I move away down the street a bit but Mr Cru and the other guys are still only halfway out the door.

The shirtless guys hones in on a homeless guy wandering past and starts shouting abuse at him, then punching him. His two mates join in. Mr Cru, Robert and Brendan intervene and try to separate them and tell them to let the homeless guy go. A massive fight ensues. At one point Mr Cru is on the floor and I can see one of the thugs kicking him really hard in the back. Then I see two of the thugs whipping Robert, also on the floor at this point, with their belts.

Suddenly everyone is on their feet and there's a slight stand-off. I yell to Mr Cru and Robert to come to where I am - I can see blood all over Robert's face and hands. Birthday girl and I hurry Robert away from the scene and try to calm him down and figure out how badly injured he is.

The police arrive and the three thugs try to run away. Mr Cru and Brendan give chase and are about to catch one of them when he falls over anyway and is soon cuffed. An ambulance arrives and we point Robert out to them. They clean his wounds and discover a big cut in his head (about the size of, say, a belt buckle) which is really pumping out blood. He's got a smaller cut in his forehead and his lip is blistered too.

Mr Cru goes off in the ambulance with Robert. The rest of us give statements to the police. Eventually after that birthday girl and Brendan go their separate ways and I head over to the hospital to catch up with Robert who is having his head glued together by a nurse. We take him back to his place and I have to wake his poor mother up to tell her what's happened and that she should keep an eye on him for concussion for a day or so.

Mr Cru and I get home at half seven in the morning. Today his back is very painful but he's ok. We're all a bit shocked and tired.

There's a temptation to draw some sort of conclusion here about lessons learnt or questions left unanswered but it really doesn't come as news to me that there are nasty thugs like this out there. Nor that my partner and friends are the kind of people who will put themselves at risk jumping in to help someone they don't know.

Just shocked and tired.

The Trouble With Science: Line-by-Line

Sarah Sands this morning in The Independent on Sunday explains how "Scientists have physics licked, but they can't grasp the divine". Really, do explain. I'm sure one short newspaper column will clear the matter up once and for all. So here it is, line-by-line:

"The revelation that God did not, after all, create the universe went largely unnoticed last week."

No, that wasn't the news. The news was that Stephen Hawking had said he thinks that. Many of us have thought this for years. If anything the news should have been "Stephen Hawkings well behind the curve on atheism"

"I clocked the cover of The Times's science magazine: "The End of the Universe by Stephen Hawking". But the kettle was boiling and I didn't want to be late for work, so I thought, perhaps later."

So why am I reading your opinion on it? Lets hear from someone who thinks the origins of THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE is more important than tea.

"Hawking's book solves the mystery of the universe."

That should help it sell. Is the answer 42? Or is it in fact just a book about his theories on some aspects of the universe?

"In Twitterverse essence, he concludes that the world was created from nothing. So there was no need for a designer. There is no God."

Firstly since when were designers able to build worlds from nothing? Even Ty Pennington isn't that good! Secondly the argument that the universe must have had a designer is poppycock because it begs the question "Who designed the designer - or did they just spring from nothing?" which leads to an infinite list of questions and a headache. And anyway if you ask religious fundamentalists they actually have a whole stack of flimsy piffle arguments - not just the intelligent design one...

"Other newspapers did not altogether ignore this turn of events, but it was eclipsed by the Newer Testament of Tony Blair and by the rights or wrong of sharing a hotel room with your boss."

Right. Newspaper are rubbish. I agree. By the way Sarah - remind me what you do ... aren't you the Deputy Editor of the Evening Standard?

"In some ways "No God" fulfilled the criteria of a news story. It was controversial and there were plenty of experts ready to be quoted. God is a short word, so handy for tabloid headlines."

Actually the real problem with the "No God" story is that it's been around for a very long time. The first atheist is widely considered to be Diagoras of Melos in the 5th century BC. This may come as a shock to you but some journalists, and even editors in fact, do research (look it up...).

"Maybe what stopped it getting the full William Hague treatment was that it was tricky for news editors to establish veracity."

Which is hilarious because the truth about what William Hague and Chris Myers got up to in that hotel room we will never know. But the God question is over, solved, years ago. The answer is "no". Next.

"They may be clear-minded and cocksure as a breed, but even they know when they are out of their depth."

You know, Sarah, that you ARE a news editor. If you're out of your depth on a story that starts "Stephen Hawkings says..." you should consider moving in to window cleaning. Careful with those ladders though, always ask a friend to hold the bottom.

"By contrast, scientists such as Hawking or Richard Dawkins believe that their knowledge is absolute."

No they don't. They're scientists. They evaluate theories, they look at evidence, they are always ready to change their minds if new information comes to light.

"There may be a few known unknowns to tie up with a bit of string theory, but these are quite unlike those laughably unknown unknowns that constitute faith."

Faith is not an "unknown unknown" - it's the deliberate and wilful refusal to examine theories and evidence and the insistence on believing the most impossible things based on no evidence at all.

"Somehow, different races, or cultures, or sensibilities or economic theories may legitimately co-exist, yet atheist scientists refuse any freedom of conscience to people of faith."

On the contrary what atheist scientists reject is the notion that religion should not be subjected to the same scrutiny as other ideas. Scrutiny which it never ever manages to stand up to. Because it's false.

"The scientists are the evangelists now, and everyone must be forcibly converted."

No - an evangelist tells you to believe something without evidence. A scientist asks you to examine the evidence. And to be honest many scientists couldn't care less if you don't want to examine your religious beliefs until you start using them to uphold unfair arcane laws, to discriminate against others and to justify helping yourself to large sums of public money with which to disseminate to others the thrill of randomly believing rubbish without engaging brain.

"As Dawkins said to The Times's religion correspondent: "Either there is a God or there isn't. You really can't use "what feels right for me" as an argument. Why not?"

Well if "it feels right for me" is an argument we should listen to then I have to say that what feels right for me is an all-powerful baby-eating goddess who says it's my right to tazer corporate lawyers, climate change deniers and Deputy Editors of the Evening Standard who you find excruciatingly annoying. Hey hands off my "freedom of conscience" ... oh hang on ... DZZZZZZZ!!!!

"The blazing champion of atheism, Christopher Hitchens, gave a television interview, posted on YouTube, about his steadfast rejection of faith, even in the shadow of savage cancer."

Yes how amazing that he doesn't believe in God even after he gets cancer. Did no-one say to him "How can you fail to believe that a God who loves you deliberately gave you that cancer?". Ooops.

"He is courageous and witty but also compassionate."

He also wrote a horrid article about how women aren't funny and the only ones who are are "bull dykes". That didn't strike me as courageous, compassionate or indeed witty.

"Asked about the people who are praying for him, he does not denounce them in the Dawkins manner. He says that he hopes it helps them."

But isn't Christopher Hitchens one of these dreadful atheists who you claim therefore wants to evangelist about it? How can it be that he's not grabbed anyone by the throat and started shouting about the fossil record? You'll note however he doesn't say he believes prayer will help him. He suggests - sort of - that if it has any effect at all prayer may "work" on the mind of the praying person only - not because God is listening but because it's similar to meditating on a subject. Like mulling something over in your brain while listening to classical music or sitting in a nice quiet garden with a can of cold lager. That doesn't mean if he had a choice between prayers and modern medicine he'd waste too much time deciding which to go for.

"To Hawking and Dawkins, people of faith are cowardly and stupid. They are the flat-earthers."

The idea that the earth is flat is a lot more reasonable than the notion that a magic toga-wearing zombie lives in the sky and watches everything you do especially checking for bad language, signs of jealousy and sexual thoughts. Or maybe you're a scientologist Sarah?

"I wonder if it is possible to be blinded by science. Can you be so transfixed by physical laws that you miss the meaning of them?"

I wonder if it's possible to be so blinded by faith that you unquestioningly assume that physical laws must have meanings? Oh no I don't, thanks for answering that one Sarah.

"I was not so shocked by Hawking's claims that science is God, creator of all things. But I baulked at his dismissal of philosophy. I wish I knew as much as men of science about why we live. But it is hard of Hawking to forbid human understanding of what life means."

"Men of science"? Remind me to flush my degree away later... But to get to Hawking's dismissal of philosophy - that's the whole point. If the universe came into existence from nothing then the only meaning life can have is what we choose to give it - there is nothing to go back and figure out.

"Like many in the Church of England, I have a very diffident faith. I am moved by churches, especially country ones, I love hymns, and I feel that Christianity is part of the ancient fabric of Britain."

I also love history, choral music and great architecture. And I have the privilege of enjoying them without worrying that I might burn for all eternity in hell.

"My strength of belief comes and goes like digital radio reception..."

So even YOU have some doubts about this religion business? Why not allow your self the freedom to question them?

"...but I have experienced the profound peace and beauty of something that feels like truth."

Good for you - cos I've experienced the profound peace and beauty of being able to unravel more and more truth and understanding of the universe and not waste my time dreaming about sky-fairies.

"The final scene in the BBC's brilliant exposition of contemporary faith, Rev, shows the urban vicar, played by Tom Hollander, jolted from his crazed doubts to a quiet seriousness as he beholds the mystery of a dying woman."

Fiction, Sarah, fiction. Bit like your religion.

"Quiet contemplation of divine mystery."

This divine mystery is in your head. And it's only there because you refuse to examine it. Grow up, solve the mystery (clue: the answer's "no") and get on with life. Read a book, spend time with loved ones, y'know, edit a newspaper...

"It is too strong a human impulse, even for the gigantic brain of Hawking."

Firstly you think intelligent people don't have human impulses? Based on what? But more importantly Hawking has considered the idea of God and he's come to the conclusion: NO. If you accept his brain is so much bigger than yours, why not accept his point too?

In Defence Of The Blogosphere

I am not interested in William Hague's sexual orientation. Although I am a bit disgusted that in all the frantic denials of having ever had a gay relationship he has never once stopped to point out that there is nothing shameful about it if he had. Denying that he's been unfaithful to his wife might be important to her. Denying that he's ever had "improper" relations with another man implies there's something "improper" about gay relationships. Which there ain't by the way.

But this made me laugh out loud... Yasmin Alibhai-Brown criticising the blogosphere in general for "breaking" this story. Yes indeed Ms Alibhai-Brown, we in the blogosphere invented the unsanctimonious outing of people in the public eye. The bloggers invented political sex scandals. No really.

So untrue is that that The Independent itself only a few months ago actually published an online photo-gallery of the history of political scandals... and guess what? Some of them pre-date the blogosphere.

The truth is if the press was doing it's job, the bloggers wouldn't be nearly so important, but as long as the papers cut and paste press releases and leave the real news aside, we need the blogs. And if once in a while they believe some false hype or chase a metaphorical wild goose, that's a reasonable side effect. And no-one would have bothered about the story if it hadn't been picked up by the "proper" press, particularly the likes of Alibhai-Brown.

Screw Optimism!

This is such an insightful piece. And fun to watch.

The News At Cru

I'm up in Edinburgh now and the first of my shows start tomorrow so I'll be blogging about the Fringe and comedy over at my News At Kate blog. If you're coming to the festival or interested in comedy please have a look at that blog for all my shows and news and come see me while you're here! If not expect a quiet period for about three weeks.

Changing Times

By the way there is a feature about me and some other comics with interesting life stories going up to Edinburgh in todays (now yesterday's) edition of The Times. But I can't link to it cos their website now charges.

Top Ten White Male Stand-Ups...

The Telegraph needs you to know who they are (well OK one of their top ten rising stars of comedy is a male-female double act, but ask yourself this: is that really good enough?). Makes you wonder why the rest of us bother...

Express Cru-Blog

I'm quoted (in my role as vice-chair of Abortion Rights) in today's Sunday Express. You can read it here.

It's So Liberating, Not Being A Feminist

Are you like me? Do you just hate having the vote and wish you could be excluded from education and the professional workplace, subjected to forced marriage and motherhood and violently attacked with impunity by men? What a fun bunch we are! Let's all meet for lunch, well those of us with permission to go outside on our own anyway, and read the Daily Male together!

Today's literary masterpiece (misspiece? missogynist crap?) is from one MISS Kelly Rose Bradford. Her point, in the face of the 6% rape conviction rate in the UK, is that she doesn't want to be called "Ms", she likes "Miss". Lets have a little line-by-line shall we, just for fun eh?

"This is quite straightforward: I am a Miss. I do not want to be addressed as Ms or have it as the only option (apart from Mrs or Mr) on forms."

Good for you - I have yet to see any forms that don't offer "Miss" as an option, though there are plenty without "Ms", and I have yet to hear anyone refuse to refer to someone as "Miss" when asked to. Should that become a problem though feel free to write "I'm not married" in big letters on your forehead.

"Miss sums me up wonderfully - it has connotations of youth and a footloose and fancy freeness. A Miss will have an impish smile and a head full of mischievous ideas,..."

Yes, that's actually half the problem - that impish smile and fancy freeness doesn't really say "C.E.O." to some people.

"...while the more staid Ms smacks of an arch-feminist devoid of fun and up for an argument."

Ewww icky no-fun feminists with their equal rights and their readyness to argue rather than put up with shit. Gosh I sure hope I'm not one of them.

"In any case, as an unmarried woman, I am a Miss."

Yes, you can look it up in any Victorian etiquette book. Also remember never to speak in public and never to refuse sex to your husband - after all - he's had a busy day. Why not dress in a fucking crinoline while you're at it!

"I have always been a Miss and, as far as I'm concerned, always will be. My stance causes outrage among my friends."

Really? It provokes mostly pity in me...

"One girlfriend - who tears up letters addressed to Miss and left her dental practice when its computer system refused to refer to her as Ms - thinks I should be addressing the issue of equality. She says I should be examining why women want to be called Ms rather than just dismissing it as a title used to cause provocation."

Good grief no. Examining women's reasons for making choices in their lives? Who does she think I am. I work for the Daily Male remember, my job is to keep it fluffy and submissive.

"Another claims it would be ridiculous for her to be a Miss at 48, especially as she's been married twice."

Yes because as you said "Miss" implies the impish smile and the footloose and fancy free air which she probably neither has nor wants.

"Yet I take untold pleasure in declaring myself a Miss at the age of almost 37. When 'Can I take your name, please?' is asked of me by receptionists and clerks, I proudly declare 'Miss Bradford', and immediately and firmly correct anyone who calls me otherwise."

No doubt when they ask "Would you like to vote in the election?" you proudly declare "Absolutely not!", "Would you like justice if you got raped?", "I would not!", "Would you like to be allowed to work as a journalist with a national paper?", "No way, Jose!"

"There's something endearing and fascinating about a Miss. Misses are characters, people you remember."

I hope that's not true - I'm already trying to blot you out.

"Age has nothing to do with it - could Miss Marple, Miss Havisham or Miss Ellie be retitled Ms? No, they would be entirely different."

Oh gosh Kelly, I hardly know how to tell you. They were all fictional characters. It's ok, you weren't to know. Have a biscuit.

"Misses run the gauntlet of femininity and female wiles: they are little girls in twirly frocks, beauty queens, the cunning and attractive Miss Scarlett in Cluedo and little old ladies with a mischievous glint in their eye and a longing for devilry."

Of course they're not Prime Ministers or Justices of the Peace or anything like that. But seriously - a "longing for devilry"?! I know your attitudes are medieval, why let that spread to your choice of language?

"Misses are the life and soul of the party, dancing and drinking champagne, while Ms stands dourly in the corner."

So Misses are binge-drinkers? I thought the Daily Male was against young women who drink too much. Next they will be mysteriously getting pregnant all on their own.

"I realise I am very much alone in my views. My friends declare the title outdated and sexist, a term designed to label and oppress women. Most are appalled that I choose to use it."

'How can you bear being called Miss?' asks my friend Sophie, her face screwed up with horror and incredulity.

'It's a horrid, sexist invasion of privacy. You can't tell if a man is married or single from his title, so why should you be able to intrude into a woman's privacy this way?'"

Go Sophie! Get out of that one Kelly...

"While I see her point, I don't entirely get it."

We know.

"I want people to know I am unmarried. I am single and proud of it."

Then tell them. Try using the words "I'm", "not" and "married".

"'But it's a gender issue,' says another friend, Jo. 'I am always Ms. It's not that I mind people knowing whether I'm married or not. I just resent the fact that women are defined by it, but men aren't.'"

So you like being defined as unmarried do you Kelly? If not explain yourself!

"Dislike of the title Miss can lead to extreme reactions. 'I filled in an online form as Mr the other day because it was closest to the missing Ms option,' my colleague Eve tells me. 'But I am much happier not using a title at all.'"

And that's an extreme reaction? No extreme would be finding the guy who created the form and head-butting him. Ticking "Mr" is a pretty minor reaction in my world.

"I asked my friends if they judged me on my preferred prefix - if they thought my use of it immediately held me open to exploitation, sexist behaviour or inequality. It seemed not.
'You are the exception,' my pal Lindsay told me, a resolute user of Ms despite officially being a Mrs. 'You are the person for whom the word Miss was invented and you will be Miss Kelly until you're 92 and on your sixth husband.'"

First up - the whole point of "Ms" is that it replaces both "Miss" and "Mrs". There is no point at all in your friend Lindsay using "Ms" if she then changes it to "Mrs" when she gets married. She's not "officially" a "Mrs" - she's a "Ms", always has been, always will be, get over it. And part of the problem with "Miss" is that you can't keep using it when you're on your sixth husband - you can only use it between husbands or you will get corrected by everyone in sight.

"Excellent. Exactly what I'm striving for. Like I said, Misses are characters, from Miss Brahms to Miss Moneypenny, Miss Potter to (Driving) Miss Daisy. And me: Kelly Rose Bradford (Miss)."

Again, again Kelly, I have to tell you - those other Misses are FICTIONAL. Where as you're not. I wish you were though.

And really sadly what hasn't been addressed in this piece - but ironically applies directly to Miss Bradford - is the issue of unmarried women with children. The judgement passed on those who openly call themselves "Miss" and have a child in tow is enormous. "Ms" offers huge advantages for mothers who wish to protect themselves and their children from stigma surrounding single parenthood. But no, if it makes you feel like "Driving Miss Daisy" then you stick with it. In fact why not change your name to Daisy and hire a Nicolas Cage lookalike to drive you round all day? Or you could live in the real world.

Footnote: When I wrote this I wanted to include a picture of Miss Bradford. And I found one which showed her with her son in the Express. Which seemed relevant since the fact that she has a son massively impacts her choice of "Miss" over "Ms" - by instantly (thought in my view totally unjustly) stigmatising said child with the negative prejudices of single motherhood. The picture didn't have any watermark on it or copyright written near it, and I know lots of other bloggers have used Express photos and as along as a link is provided back from the photo then nobody ever seems to have had a problem. Well I heard from Kelly and the photographer. She was furious that I should have published a photo of her son. Of course a photo she has already published in a national paper (which probably has a slightly higher readership than Cru-blog!). Anyway I have great sympathy with people who are wary of privacy issues around small children. Certainly if Miss Bradford were my mother I would want to play it down a bit! So I removed the picture (though you can go see it on the Express website here). But then I read a little further down and get this... Apparently I can use the photo if I want provided I pay a £500 fee. Mmm. Is that protecting your kid or pimping him out? I just can't tell.

Apparently she doesn't like the rest of my article either (colour me surprised). Apparently I'm quoting too much of her article. Honestly Kelly I wouldn't have if it weren't that ever single line is so deserving of my twisted sarcasm. I just had to... [Or to put it another way - no-one is reading my blog rather than buying the Daily Male]. Next time though rather than trying to charge me for photos of your kid or bully me in to retracting my article, why not just write some decent quality journalism in the first place?

Scandal When We Want It

Just made the mistake of leaving Come Dine With Me running on the TV. In case you've been lucky enough to miss it it's a show where each contestant throws a dinner party for the others and they score each other. One of the contestants was a Sri Lankan woman who made a traditional spicy meal. One of the other guests, a white working class guy, decided uninvited to go through the woman's drawers and found some decorative bangles which he promptly put on and came down to the dining room in. There's a good chance they have religious or family significance, and I would be really infuriated at the intrusion on my privacy, but the hostess, no doubt hoping to score well, graciously laughed along. Five minutes later this guy was a bit drunk and as dessert was being served he shouted "How about a kebab love?". He also described her several times as Indian.

Now personally although I think his behaviour is deeply inappropriate, I actually think that one of the most interesting things about reality TV is that it exposes how widespread attitudes like this are.

But more importantly, is this behaviour any better than that which led to Jade Goody being vilified on national TV? No, not really. So it seems we our media does react to racist behaviour but only when it suits them.

I see the trailer for the remainder of the series shows the same guy telling women contestants that he "does love a good pair!" and asking them "where are the melons?" and rather than questioning whether these are appropriate or could be seen as sexist - they are the "highlights" picked out to be shown in the trailer. No doubt the media will be suitably up in arms. Not.

Some Deeply Surprising Facts

Hello Trolls,

How lovely to hear from you. Here's some advice for trolling on the Cru-blog:

1) The blog is now moderated. I used to have a policy of letting you all post comments at will on the basis that you would eventually say something stupid enough to discredit yourself and also because I figured that in answering your "points" hopefully I was helping others out there understand the issues more clearly and deal with people like you they might be unfortunate enough to meet in real life. But of course one of you had to take it "too far" and start being extremely rude and vulgar about not just me but other people. You have only spoiled it for yourselves. But just to clarify - there is no point posting the same obnoxious comment over and over again. No, your "send" button is not broken - you are a fuckwit.

2) No I am not impinging on your right to "free speech". This is my blog. You may write whatever you wish on YOUR BLOG. I reserve my right not to bother reading it.

3) In answer to your charming questions: Yes my sex life is going very well thanks and no it is not limited to the visually impaired. You may move along now.

Love Cru

Real Men Read Robert Jensen

Fact.

Cru Answers Back

I was on The Big Questions again yesterday. The first question I was answering was "Are women bishops more trouble than they're worth?", which is frankly an odd question. I'd think a better question would be "Why are there so many misogynists in the Church of England?". The second one I got in on was "Does Britain need more hugs?". I did feel that I didn't get as much chance to get my points across as I have on previous shows (the debate often seemed to be between fundamentalist Christians and moderate Christians) but I've had lots of positive feedback. So if you want to see what happened do take a peek here.

Threatened With Arrest

I wrote previously about the death of Sebastian Horsley, who I knew. Because I knew him I was paying attention to what the papers and other sources were saying about him. I suppose I had unthinkingly assumed his funeral would be a quiet nondescript affair. A cremation attended by close family. Of course I was very wrong. The funeral was announced widely as planned for St James' Church in Piccadilly (yes church - that would be the Church of England honouring the man who wrote, and never retracted or apologised for, these words: "I remember the first time I had sex - I still have the receipt. The girl was alive, as far as I could tell" and "I have slept with every nationality in every position in every country. From high-class call girls at £1,000 a pop to the meat-rack girls of Soho at £15, I have probably slept with more than 1,000 prostitutes, at a cost of £100,000.") and featuring an all-star cast of celebrity names: Stephen Fry giving a eulogy, Nick Cave, a member of the Clash. And, to me most sickeningly of all, his coffin was to be conveyed in a horse-drawn carriage through the streets of Soho. Oh and of course the whole thing was to be filmed for a documentary glamorising him and his life and death.

Well it put me to thinking about the other people in the prostitution industry, the ones who didn't inherit vast fortunes, or win big on the stock market as Sebastian did. The ones trafficked into the country, promised legitimate jobs that never appeared. The ones trapped on drugs and in a situation of poverty that leaves them with no choice but to endure night after night of gang-rape in every possible orifice (Sebastian bragged of being an "expert" on anal sex). The ones who try to escape or fight back and end up dead and rotting in some unmarked ditch. The children. The CHILDREN. The average age of entry into prostitution in the UK is 14. Based on the statistics he himself gave and the studied indifference he, by his own admission, practiced towards the sex workers he used and abused it is nothing short of fair to conclude in all likelihood Sebastian Horsley at some point paid to have sex with a woman who was in fact a child.

And it is not a matter of seeing the best in someone because they're dead - where were Stephen Fry and Nick Cave when Harold Shipman died? Being dead doesn't make you a nice person if you were a serial abuser before you died.

So I went and stood outside the church (silently and sombrely) with the sign pictured here. The reaction was interesting. The first person to approach me, who was a mourner, said I was making a brilliant point and she was glad I was doing it. Not long after however people started screaming at me. They were, I was reliably informed, offended and upset. Ironically that is exactly what I felt when I learnt that Horsley would be given this grossly indulgent funeral. Even more ironically having debated Sebastian on matters of porn and prostitution he always insisted he was an advocate of "free speech", no more so than when when a graphic column he wrote about anal sex was published in The Observer drawing large numbers of complaints from those offended and upset by it. I honestly believe he would have defended my right to express my views as I saw fit, and not the "rights" of anyone in the vicinity to not be offended or upset. One particularly aggressive woman loudly suggested to her friends that she would set fire to my sign. She came back (perhaps to do so, or to shout some more) but a security guard stepped in and protected me, saying he would prefer if I moved further away from the church but I was on the pavement so I had every right to be there. He then tried to stand in font of me so my sign could not be seen. So I held it over my (and his) head. From the start lots of people noticed the sign and read it and several photographers took pictures of me holding it.

Then a police officer came over and asked to speak to me. She told me I had to stop holding the sign and give them my details. I explained that since I wasn't in a motorised vehicle I didn't need to give my details unless I was being arrested in which case I would do so at the station to the superintendent there. She told me if I held up the sign again she would arrest me for harassment. I might have persisted but my fear was that the whole process of being arrested and at some point released, given a warning, whatever might happen, would take forever and well, frankly, I have a lot to do today (see me tonight as Super Sandra at Ariadne the Greek WAG's Comedy Bag).

So I abandoned ship and went home just as two beautiful horses arrived followed by the polished black funeral carriage draped in layers of sumptuous red velvet to convey into the historic church, lavishly decorated with sunflowers and a grand piano, the body of a man who bragged that he couldn't be bothered to check if the prostitute he was fucking was alive or not.

Something To Aspire To

Iceland has legalised gay marriage and on the same day their prime minister married her lesbian partner. That's cool huh? So...

...

...

(wait for it)

... I guess THAT'S why Mum's gone to Iceland!!

A Big Moan on Behalf of Lots of People

A friend of mine has recently been admitted to an NHS mental health unit. I went to see her yesterday. For someone who's not a healthcare professional I'm fairly clued up on good ways of addressing mental health problems. I think a healthy diet, gentle exercise, plenty of activities, regular counselling, advice about potential medication and a peaceful environment are the most obvious things that should be offered. My friend has so far seen none of these.

She described the food as "minging" but was told I couldn't bring fresh fruit in for her because "I might have injected it with alcohol" - the irony being that I did have alcohol in my bag when I went in and no-one even checked. At breakfast she was told she could have either butter or jam on her toast, but not both (while ketchup and mayonnaise are not rationed so it's not even a health or budget thing). She said very little food was provided and for instance she was required to choose between dessert and a piece of fruit and ended up having to choose the dessert because it was more filling. Vending machines with crisps and snacks are next to the place where food is served.

The only place to exercise is a tiny courtyard. There is a small gym clearly visible next to reception but no-one recalled anyone being allowed to use it and some people thought it might be for staff, not patients. She does not feel safe going out into the courtyard alone as she has already seen fights and staff do not maintain watch.

No activities offered except that she was told there would be karaoke at some future date (what about art, yoga, meditation, exercise?). She was told on admittance there was a DVD room but when she asked to use it they said there wasn't one (and then it emerged there was, and eventually they let her use it). There is one TV for around 80 patients and because most of the bigger, more aggressive patients are guys, the football is always on which she has no interest in but has been watching out of boredom.

No counselling. Nor any mention of when any would be provided.

One doctor's consultation during which she was asked to give a blood sample and asked if the TV talks to her and if she hears voices and basically nothing else.

The general environment ... where to start? Within ten minutes of arriving a man was stood with his face ten inches from mine shouting "There's mad people in here, I'm Adam, I'm Saddam, you wanna be careful you could meet a mad person in here, we're all mad". The same guy grabbed my hand and creepily kissed it, and stroked another visitors back uninvitedly. My friend is quite glamorous usually but had asked friends to bring in frumpy, longer clothing and stopped washing her hair and wearing make-up in a vain attempt to deter the other patients from a providing a constant barrage of sexual remarks and harassment. When an elderly female relative came to visit her, other patients wolf-whistled at her. Yes - at the elderly relative. Most of the abuse was sex-related although my friend said some patients were also on the receiving end of aggressive racial abuse. Staff did nothing to stop the abuse.

How exactly does anyone think this is helping? I'm not blaming staff, I'm sure they are overworked and ultimately willing to do the best thing. But surely we have to distinguish between patients likely to frighten and intimidate others and patients needing a peaceful supportive environment. Screaming sexual abuse at mental health patients just doesn't seem like it's going to solve anything.

A Quick Moan on My Behalf

Argh sometimes I hate living in Hackney/London/Earth. I get a box of organic vegetables delivered each week and it's supposed to come with eggs, some fish, cheese, milk, fruit juice and a few other basics. But within half an hour of it reaching my doorstep someone has stolen all the valuable stuff - eggs, fish, cheese, pate, pesto. I've only got four foot of front yard so there's nowhere to hide it and with all the different recycling bins there's no room for some sort of heavy lockable box or whatever. I've asked the drivers to knock when they deliver it but they usually forget or if they do knock it's not loud enough to wake me. And anyway who wants to get up in the middle of their sleeping pattern and move boxes of food around? Why can't people just not steal stuff that obviously isn't theirs? Grump grump grump.

Being Friends With Your Enemies

I found out today that Sebastian Horsley died last Wednesday. Sebastian was a tireless promoter of the sex industry. His death is not surprising, making it to 47 with a heroin habit is really quite an achievement. I first met him when we were pitched against each other for a Current TV debate called Sex and Money. Filming took a whole day and was dreadfully badly organised so we spent hours sitting around arguing between takes. After that I bumped in to him often around Soho and he even walked past Soho Comedy Club occasionally and exchanged a few words while I was waiting around outside. A couple of weeks ago a play about his life was opening at Soho Theatre where I teach stand-up and he asked me if I'd seen the posters and whether the actor playing him was better looking than him. I said "yes".

I wouldn't and couldn't defend his views on porn and prostitution or the adulation he received for them from the pimps who profit from the industry. His deliberate refusal to acknowledge and attack the human rights abuses he was well aware of being conducted by the sex trade is inexcusable. His death is excellent news for all those who support human rights but I personally am still a little saddened by it.

My Wifely Duties

Well I'm not the sort of woman who worries too much about darning my husband's socks or operating the mangle (unless Jeremy Clarkson's head is in it....). However I think I'm going to have to step up to the plate on this one. David (as many of you know) runs a comedy club in the west end called Soho Comedy Club which he gamely hands over to me whenever I want to run a big feminist benefit (that's a big benefit for feminists, not a benefit for big feminists). Anyway Westminster Council are suddenly and for no decent reason stopping his club and more than a dozen others from handing out flyers in Leicester Square. Well this is core to the business model, customers don't just magically show up... So he's having to cut pay and lay people off in the middle of, oh yes that's it, a massive recession.

If you want to really understand the situation please take a peak at this neat video (also featuring me!):

There is also an article about it in today's West End Extra here. And information on what you can do to help and a petition to sign on London Is Funny here. Another awesome way to help of course would be to come along and see a show some time! Tickets and line-ups here, I recommend next Saturday 3rd July when I'm on and so is one Ms Shazia Mirza who you may know/adore.

How Not To Parent Line-By-Line

The Times's family matter agony aunt "Professor" Tanya Byron (as far as I can tell her PhD is from The House of Tiny Tearaways ... only joking but I can tell you her PhD is about drug abuse and not about raising young children) needs stripping of her academic title and keeping away from children and families forever. And I will prove it. Exhibit A: Her response to a letter from a mother entitled "Why won't our daughter wear girl's clothes?" (you have to sign up to The Times now to read articles but I have pasted most of it below so I can critique it).

"We have a beautiful, bright nine-year-old who is taking being a tomboy to extremes and wears only boys’ clothes. What can we do?"

Do? When did "tomboy" become a bad thing? And not wearing dresses is hardly "extreme" is it? What about starting fights all the time, lying about her age and joining the military?

"When she was 5 or 6 she started to reject wearing dresses and skirts, which we were fine about, but for the past few years she has worn only boys’ clothes because, she says, they are comfortable and practical."

Well she's right. And how radical is it that your child wants to wear clothes that are practical and comfortable. Would you rather she wore clothes that hurt her and limited her ability to participate in activities with other children?

"I am concerned that she is taking this too far and now, probably because of arguments we have had, the idea of going clothes shopping fills her with dread and she can become hysterical."

Too far? Too comfortable and too practical? Yeah that could be an issue.

"Currently she has one pair of tatty ski trousers that she will wear and just a couple of tops. She finds only one pair of knickers comfortable, and buying school shoes is a nightmare."

How about buying her clothes that she feels comfortable in? Like some more of those comfy knickers? What are you trying to dress her in? Thongs?

"I have warned her that image is becoming more and more important to her peers at this age but, interestingly, she has made friends with a girl at school with similar “issues” about clothes. I am more than happy for her to be tomboyish but there are times when she needs to look smart — going out to dinner, for example — and every time a situation like this arises it causes big problems for us."

So she's not even the only girl at her school who likes to dress sensibly. How "extreme" is this behaviour - it sounds really smart and sensible to me. And I bet she hates going to dinner with her dreadful appearance-obsessed parents.

"Her hair is an unstyled mop and needs a cut but, after a dreadful experience for her at the hairdresser’s last time, the idea of returning puts her in a state."

Wow she does sound smart - she had a bad experience last time so she doesn't want to go back to the hairdressers. Who's fault that she had a bad experience?

"I am concerned at the problems this may cause in the long term, and confused about where these insecurities are coming from. She doesn’t seem to take any pride in how she looks, and reacts hysterically when her appearance becomes an issue. Should I seek professional help?"

Insecurities? She seems very secure and confident in her decisions. The insecurities are coming from her parents who seem to have confused "having a child" with "having a dress-me-up doll" and been caught out.

...No doubt Professor Byron will set them straight...

"When people want to wear clothes usually worn by the other sex, we call it cross-dressing. But this term comes laden with unhelpful stereotypes about gender and sexual orientation, and if used about children it often leaves the parents feeling very anxious."

Hold on. She's not trying to disguise herself as a boy. That would be different. She openly says she's choosing boys clothes because they're more comfortable. That's not cross-dressing, that's sensible, practical dressing. When I go skiing and I take my husband's waterproof trousers and thermal socks I'm not beginning a new life as a drag king, I'm wearing the most practical clothes for the situation.

"Children can feel deeply unhappy about being boys or girls. This can be a problem when a child continues to believe that he or she is, or wishes to be, the other sex. However, studies indicate that most children (almost 90 per cent in one study) who cross-dress and are unhappy with being their own sex do not want to be the other sex in adulthood."

How exactly does not wanting to wear uncomfortable and impractical clothes or go back to a hairdressers who was horrid last time make this child unhappy about her gender. Is she answering a different letter?

"There are many ways to think about this problem, and I want to begin by outlining some theories. As there have been arguments, I wonder if this issue represents a power struggle in which your daughter exerts her will (which reinforces her behaviour) and you, her parents, have been unable to keep authority and set boundaries. If so, a child clinical psychologist could help you (see bps.org.uk)."

Seriously - she won't wear dresses and you're advising taking her to a shrink? Go to your local high street now and see how many grown women are wandering about in dresses - very few. Are we all mentally ill?

"However, I think this is too limited an explanation in your case.Looking at family dynamics, maybe your daughter identifies strongly with her father and wants to emulate him. In families where the mother dominates, father and child(ren) may bond powerfully. This could be explored via family therapy (instituteof familytherapy.org.uk)."

Ok so footnote to readers - three things to be avoided AT ALL COSTS in your family: (1) Mum is main family decision-maker, (2) Daughter wants to be like Dad, (3) Dad and daughter have close bond. So here's the solution - maybe if Mum acts like a total doormat and Dad stops spending time with his daughter? That will definitely lead to the well-balanced family you've always wanted...

"What particularly strikes me, though, is that your daughter becomes “hysterical” at the prospect of clothes shopping, haircuts, etc, and I wonder if some tactile sensations are uncomfortable for her. She may have what is known as tactile defensiveness or touch sensitivity."

Yes I reckon that's is - she has this weird and bizarre medical condition called "Not liking being manhandled or wearing frilly scratchy clothes". Call a medical team at once. Next she'll be telling you she doesn't like being shoe-horned into a corset.

"Children with tactile defensiveness have a range of reactions that can include: disliking being stroked; refusing to handle dirty, sticky or slimy substances; needing labels cut out of clothing; refusing to wear certain fabrics, such as “scratchy” wool; and hating to have their feet touched or their hair brushed."

I have all of these things. I also don't like: nettles in the face, scalding water on my knees and motorised vehicles approaching me at over 60mph.

"Touch-sensitive people appear to feel discomfort or even pain from sensations that most of us find non-threatening or even pleasurable. It is thought that their tactile sensory system isn’t working properly, so they are constantly on alert for sensations that they see as a physical threat and traumatic, such as having their hair washed or nails cut. Such sensations feel to these children like fingers being dragged down a blackboard."

But if you look at the original letter it mentioned not liking having her hair cut (by a hairdresser who had previously caused problems), nothing about washing hair or cutting nails - and it's not like the letter suggested the parents might have been unobservant about such matters.

"The condition can lead to difficulties in concentration. At school, these children may lash out if they are bumped into. Sitting on the carpet may make them fidget. A draught on the back of the neck can lead to extreme discomfort. At the same time, such children may crave calming sensations such as firm pressure (eg, being held tightly or rocked, or being wrapped up at bedtime)."

The condition that is that this child simply does not have. Stop medicalising her desire to wear clothes she can run about in. She's a kid...

"It is hypothesised that this condition arises from neurological disorganisation in the mid-brain region — responsible for filtering incoming stimuli — such that sensation is heightened and becomes overwhelming and distressing."

Oh good cos I'd like to hypothesise that Prof Byron is a total fraud and should be struck off (and professional registers, the academic roll of honour and preferably the planet.

I'd also like to hypothesise that the correct answer to the letter was: Dear parents, very very bad news I'm afraid. Did the hospital seem busy and crowded when you went in to give birth. Did the nurses look flustered and tired? Did they anxiously keep your daughter's identification tag out of sight, insisting you didn't need to see it? You see your daughter even at the age of 9 is a bout ten gazillion times smarter than you both and the odds of that happening if she really is your child are very low. Get a genetic test (look it up) and start looking in the paper for stories about two really smart parents whose nine-year-old has been asked to re-sit kindergarten.

I stopped line-by-lining the piece there cos the rest of it (another whole page worth) is about how to treat this "touch sensitivity" issue that the kid just doesn't have. I will mention though that it does say at the bottom "If you have a family problem, e-mail proftanyabyron@thetimes.co.uk", so if for instance you and your family have a problem that you've read her piece and it made you all feel very angry and want to break things - do let her know!

A Normal Industry?

Ok hypothetical question time. An employee of yours (you're the boss) is regularly coming to work clearly under the influence of strong illegal drugs. What do you do? It's difficult isn't it. On the one hand you want to warn them to stop or you may be forced to fire them, on the other hand they work for you - you feel a sense of responsibility. I think probably you offer to take them or refer them to medical support if they want and need it but warn at the same time that the situation needs to change very quickly if they want to keep the job. Maybe you contact a friend or relative of theirs in the hope that they can offer support where you can't.

Not so, we note, the pornography industry. Ami Jordan died on 11th June of a suspected drug overdose. She was nineteen years old. Her "agent"* Kevin Kline knew she was a serious drug addict but did nothing to stop her or help her.

What I find really cringeworthy about the report is that following her death this creep describes her as "She was a super sweet girl. Always a good girl." Hmmm, I think if you're old enough to appear in pornography you're a woman. I also think that "good girls" are probably not the ones with drug problems and "careers" in pornography. What he means by "good girl" is clearly someone for whom he has no respect whatsoever but over whom he is able to exercise a lot of power. Someone who does what he tells her to. Maybe he should have told her not to take so many drugs. Or shown her the tiny bit of respect it would take to ask if she needs to take a break from the industry and get some help.

*Really, I have an agent, who would be horrified to be associated with this sort of behaviour and who would willingly cancel my schedule, find me a rehab centre and drive me there himself if he thought I was addicted to drugs. In other words - he's human.

Footnote: I was going to use a photograph of Ami to illustrate this piece but when I went to search for one on the internet guess what? Yup, all the "Ami is a real life fuckdoll", "Ami loves to suck cock" links come up, rather than any information about her as a person or any significant coverage of her needless death.

Bestest Bits

On the subject (see last post) of my stunt of the fourth plinth in Trafalgar Square last year (if you're new to the blog by the way you can read about it here). I discover the interview I did with BBC Radio Foyle while I was on the plinth has been selected as one of BBC Radio Foyle's "Best Bits" and put up on the web for all to hear. So if you'd like to hear it just click here (it's only three minutes long)!

Moving Images

I first met the photographer Guy Smallman when he arrived in Trafalgar Square to photograph me atop the fourth plinth impersonating the person who should have been there (badly) and waving a banner demanding that the 1967 abortion act be extended to Northern Ireland. We stayed in touch. He runs the a monthly benefit gig for various good causes called Acoustic Insurgency. It's mainly bands and poetry but I became the first (and so far as I know to date) only comic to take the stage and was very excited I got to share it with the fantastic political singer and songwriter Leon Rosselson.

Today I saw some new photos Guy had taken of Muslims Against The Crusades (extremist Muslim group who have been protesting at parades for returning military people from Iraq and Afghanistan) and the racist group English Defence League protesting again their protest. I thought these photos were very powerful. It's very frightening to think these things (on both sides) go on right here in the UK.

Amen to That

I was having a lovely browse on Facebook today when I noticed that in my sidebar was an advert for a missionary group called "Christ for all Nations". Naturally - being aware that Facebook advertisers pay per click for adverts - I clicked and I urge other NSS members to click early and click often in such circumstances. I was presented with the opportunity to ask them to pray for a matter of my choosing. I chose this:

I'd like to pray for an end to bogus superstitious charlatans offering false hope to people. I'd like to pray that people around the world will come to realise that while praying has no effect human efforts in helping others can have a real impact. For instance in developing medical science despite the violent opposition of a religious extremist minority. Also in working together and spending their time not kneeling but building, teaching, studying and caring, people can help one another. I'd like to pray for a world where instead of spending the money you raise on facebook adverts you spend it actually building the schools and hospitals that will prevent thousands of unnecessary deaths around the world each day. Amen to that.

And they wrote back (a generic form email) assuring me that not only they* but hundreds and thousands of Africans they reach on their missionary tours will soon be praying for my issues. Should other NSS members feel the need to have their own secular concerns addressed through the medium of mass missionary prayer tours to Africa they should do so by clicking here.

*Incidentally "they" includes their illustrious leader Reinhard Bonnke, pictured. Yes he's called Reinhard Bonnke. What a name...

See my new Edinburgh Show!

As most longer-term readers will know I take a new solo show up to the Edinburgh Fringe Festival most years. This year will be the first time that my show has been significantly about feminism (though the subject has come up most years). It's called "The News At Kate: 2010" - though that's really just because last year's show "The News At Kate" did very well and people around me want to cash in on that. It's a whole new hour and I wanted to call it "Hot Baths and Cunnilingus", because in the show I talk a lot about how the pole-dancing, double penetration "sexual revolution" isn't really working for me...

Anyway if you're going to Edinburgh you can see it up there. If not then I'm doing a single preview under the title "Sneak Previews for Choice" in aid of Education for Choice, an organisation which supports fact-based, balanced sex education in schools. Very important stuff, especially with the rise in faith schools recently with the whole "don't touch it or you'll burn in hell approach". Tickets are strictly limited to 40 and priced at £10. It's 27th June (Sunday night) at the Round Table, St Martin's Court (near Leicester Square). There will be up and coming comediennes supporting me and chat and drinkies afterwards.

To buy tickets click here. See you there!

IVF and Abortion Daily Mail line-by-line

I'm already late - going to a little private Bachman Turner Overdrive gig thanks to my tip top celeb connections tonight but just can't leave without screeching through this one from the Daily Mail (author unknown):

"Dozens of women are aborting babies conceived by IVF because they have changed their minds about motherhood, figures suggest."

Dozens is really not very many in a country the size of the UK. Dozens of people in the UK regret having had their wisdom teeth removed but it's hardly expected to be added to the coalition agenda any time soon.

"Many are in their teens, twenties and early thirties, implying that numerous abortions were carried out for social reasons, rather than on health grounds."

Huh? So only pre-teen and late-thirties plus women can have medical complications to pregnancy? That's not even close to true.

"Relationship breakdowns, fears about motherhood and simple changes of heart are all likely to have played a part in the terminations."

Right, but as you'll be aware it's perfectly legal for a woman to seek a termination in England, Wales and Scotland for any of those reasons, regardless of how she got pregnant.

"The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority statistics, released by the IVF watchdog through the Freedom of Information Act, have angered family campaigners who accuse the women of treating babies like 'designer goods'."

Well firstly cheese on toast angers "family" campaigners, who are constantly outraged by everything as a means of promoting their noxious agenda. And I'm IN a "family" but these people do not represent me or my husband, sister, nephews, grandma, etc so please stop calling them family campaigners, they're mostly either religious fundamentalists or general misogynists, or both.

"The revelation has also surprised fertility doctors who generally lose contact with patients after they become pregnant. Professor-Bill Ledger, a leading fertility doctor and member of the HFEA, said: 'I had no idea there were so many post-IVF abortions - and each one is a tragedy.'"

In a way Professor Ledger is right - it is clearly tragic when someone who has gone through such hoops to get pregnant finds themself unable to continue with that pregnancy. In fact it very much puts paid to two notions: (1) that women make the decision to have an abortion easily. Given how difficult and traumatic IVF can be, clearly these women would not go ahead with an abortion if they felt there were other options. And (2) the notion that women use abortion as a form of contraception. In these cases they could have used "not having IVF" as a much more effective contraceptive, much much more easily.

"He added: 'These women can't be surprised to be pregnant. You can't have an IVF pregnancy by accident.'"

But whoever said abortions only happen when women are surprised to be pregnant. I certainly didn't. That's your noxious assumption.

"The statistics show that an average of 80 abortions are carried out in England and Wales each year following IVF treatment."

Yes - against more than 10,000 IVF babies. So a tiny proportion.

"In 2007, the figure was as high as 97 - with almost a third of the women aged between 18 and 34."

Still that's against more than 10,000 live births from IVF. And what difference does the age of the mother make?

"Some of them would have had IVF on the NHS, while others would have paid thousands of pounds to private clinics."

Yes so again this proves they're not making this decision lightly.

"One woman told how she had an abortion after being pressurised into starting a family by her husband. Another opted to abort her much-wanted IVF baby when it became clear her marriage was breaking up."

OK. Am I supposed to start hating these women? I'm starting to hate their husbands but I figure the women have made difficult choices but choices that were right for them and their situation.

"Family planning experts estimate that every abortion doctor sees at least one patient a year requesting a termination after IVF treatment."

One a year...? Given that that's what they do for a living one case a year is very small numbers.

"Mohamed Taranissi, an IVF doctor whose clinic has the highest success rate in Britain, said: 'It is a matter that needs to be looked at. The HFEA should be more open with the data they have.'"

Looked at how? Are we to tell women that only pregnancies conceived through sex and rape may be terminated? And we haven't even mentioned the likelihood that many of these terminations are unavoidable due to medical complications (ectopic pregnancy, etc).

"Ann Widdecombe, the former Tory minister, said that women who ended pregnancies for non-medical reasons were treating their babies like 'designer goods'."

Ann Widdicombe is a religious fundamentalist who hates women and wants to ban abortion. We know this. She does't want to ban post-IVF abortion, she wants to ban all abortion. She should be more honest about this.

"She said: 'If the law was applied properly, people wouldn't be able to get an abortion just because they changed their minds.'"

No the law says that if two doctors agree the best course of action is a termination then a woman can get one on the NHS (outside of N. Ireland).

"Josephine Quintavalle, of campaign group Comment on Reproductive Ethics, said the welfare of the child should take precedence over the wishes of the prospective parents."

It's not a child - it's a foetus or an embryo. And the parents are human beings with rights.

"But Ann Furedi, head of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, said that some women could become so caught up in the IVF process that the realities of motherhood did not hit until they conceived."

Now this is a real issue - that women are told so repeatedly that infertility is awful and that they can and must validate themselves through motherhood. We should definitely look at situations where women feel pressured to go for IVF.

"She said: 'For infertile people, overcoming the problem becomes a goal in itself.
'Sometimes it is only when women get pregnant that they can allow themselves to ask the question about whether it is what they really want or not.'"

Yes Ann, I agree.

"The HFEA said that it does not regulate abortions but that the figures represent less than 1 per cent of IVF pregnancies each year.A spokesman added: 'All patients who undergo IVF are assessed, as are the implications for any child that might be born, in advance of the decision to treat.'"

Seems reasonable.

"He added that figures showing how many of the abortions were carried out for medical reasons will be released later this week."

Right so the comment earlier that these often represented a "simple" change of heart was total conjecture. Oh please - why not just write EXCLUSIVE: WOMEN ALL EVIL, SHOULD BE FORCED INTO CHASTITY BELTS as a headline and leave it at that?

Mrs Charles Saatchi

Waiting at the doctors today (bad news trolls - looks like I'm gonna make it!) I made the mistake of flicking through an old copy of Tatler magazine (I know, I know, they only put those there to push your blood pressure up and keep themselves in work year-round). There on page something was a picture of Nigella Lawson writer, chef, TV presenter, domestic goddess and well-known "thinking man's strumpet*". But of course this being Tatler she was not described as "Nigella Lawson", she was described as "Mrs Charles Saatchi". I hate that. I hate that so much. Nigella - love her or hate her - is a well known figure with a prominent career across a number of areas. Yet by marrying a bloke - any bloke - she loses the right to her WHOLE NAME and becomes known only as "property of" or "attachment to" her husband. I can forgive the odd person who calls me Mrs once in a while though if they persist in doing so after being corrected it does bug me, but if anyone ever ever EVER tries to call me "Mrs David Mulholland" I shall say now that I shall not be responsible for my actions. You have been warned.

*I like to think that a truly thinking man might have though about it long enough to have dropped the word "strumpet" from his no doubt extensive vocabulary.

The Shame!!

My TV just told me "Cracked heels can be SO embarrassing...". Really? I've never even thought about whether my heels look cracked or whether anyone else has rough-looking heels. And if I saw someone with cracked heels it really wouldn't affect my opinion of them. At all. Embarrassing? No - forgetting the name of someone you've slept with the night before is embarrassing, forgetting to wash off your fake tan and having it drip brown all over your mate's sofa is embarrassing, being caught reading anything by Jeremy Clarkson is embarrassing. Having cracked heels is nothing. It's neutral. It's a non-event. It's human.

But in case you're worried about those embarrassing cracked heels here's my little tip: wear a great big pair of DMs. Problem solved.

Criminal Waste of Time

So because of the voluntary work I do with WAST (Women Asylum Seekers Together) I was asked yesterday to attend an appointment to be CRB checked. For those from overseas or not familiar with the term it stands for Criminal Records Bureau and it's basically where they check to see if you've ever been convicted of a crime that might make you a threat to vulnerable people you might be working with.

Firstly it is downright insultory* to put obstacles in the way of people trying to help these women. I teach them as a class - if I were to try and do something dreadful to one of them (physically attack? extort money? they don't have any money, that's why the teachers are all volunteers) the rest of the class would stop me immediately. They nearly did throw me out one time when we were doing a class on beliefs and I said I didn't believe in God!

Most of these women live in homeless shelters. The other residents of homeless shelters are definitely not CRB checked. These women witness fights, screaming, abuse, extreme drunkenness and drug-taking on a daily basis and the government really thinks the voluntary English teacher is the biggest risk? If you're living on £35 a week (intended to cover both food and accommodation because you're not legally allowed to work) the woman who teaches the English class is probably not your biggest worry.

But anyway I understand that it does no harm for me to be checked out so I go along. They charge £10. The ask me to wait. Another woman goes in to the office. It takes about 20 minutes. They suggest all six WAST teachers go in together. I ask if this will save time and they say "no, you'll just be together", so since I don't want to be there for another two hours I suggest we go in in twos. Two of us are duly shown to the CRB woman's office. She fills in my paperwork first. It's a single A3 sheet folded in half (so effectively four sides of A4). I've brought three forms of ID. She looks at them but doesn't photocopy them or copy down any numbers (like passport number/driving license number or any security codes on them).

On page 1 of the form she fills in my name, address, when I moved there, phone numbers and asks for my NI number which I don't know or have with me. A couple of her colleagues come in and she has a 5-7 minute conversation about whether WAST is the same as Women for Refugee Women (which is obviously isn't if you look at the initials...). The she asks me what my name was before I got married (the same) so next to the box that says "previous name, if applicable" she writes "smurthwaite" again and next to "date of name change" she writes "2010". I don't understand why she does this. The other sections on the form include one for "additional info, optional but may help speed up the process" - stuff like bank account numbers and stuff. She leaves this blank and doesn't mention it. There's also a box (not listed as optional) for "name and address of referee". She ignores this too and doesn't mention it. Someone else comes in and asks her if she's seen another colleague, then someone comes in and tells her they're just popping out for lunch and they'll be back in half an hour and to give them a ring if they want a sandwich only there wasn't any egg mayonnaise yesterday and the other vegetarian options are always a bit uninspiring, especially the roasted vegetables which seem to be nothing but courgettes and never even any peppers or anything... And finally she hands me the form and asks me to tick yes/no to whether I've had any previous unspent criminal convictions, sign it twice and check the things she's written. It doesn't take long since she's written less than 30 words on the form, though it has taken the full 20 minutes.

Now here's the thing - I've only lived at my house since Feb 2004, and before that there was a four year period when I did not have a registered address in the UK. Now of course actually I was working in Japan in perfectly legitimate circumstances but if I was checking up on someone I'd definitely want to know where they'd been for those years. And I did know an ex-pat guy in Japan who was accused of drugging and raping a woman at a party and then the charges were mysteriously suddenly dropped (the rumour was that she had been paid off, certainly she did not drop charges against two other men who were accused of the same crime over the same incident) and he quickly left the country never to return. There is no way the information I gave to the CRB is sufficient to uncover whether something like this was true about me.

In fact there's very very little they can find out about me from only my current address and phone number (and bear in mind I was not asked to prove how long I had lived there, only to state it, as it happened my ID included my address but they accepted birth certificates, etc too so I could have made that up, they haven't rung so far to verify my phone numbers).

Which leads me to conclude that this system is a massive waste of time. Or maybe it's brilliantly clever - they make the whole process so excruciatingly irritating and exasperating that anyone with even the tiniest criminal inclination will flip out and headbutt someone.

*Apparently that's not a word - I've been using it for years...

Another Event for the Diary

So I'm hosting an event on 17th June for Wandworth Police LGBT liason team. It's a fundraiser and an awareness-raiser for issues around hate crime in the UK. Headlining are Topping and Butch which frankly for a tenner you'd be lucky to see just them let alone the rest of the line-up: Jen Brister, Luke Meredith, Jason Patterson and Toby French as well as some excellent theatre at the start of the night. Book tickets by emailing john.c.frame@met.police.uk.

Double Rage-Inducing Moment

Just slouched in front of the TV watching Comedy Central and on comes an advert for an upcoming show. Football commentary followed by a clip of Carrie falling over in Sex and the City - a joke about "diving" and an England flag waving in the background. Then it says "support the girls: Sex and the City". I can only assume it was made by someone who has forgotten that England actually has a women's football team (hint: Sarah-Jessica Parker isn't in it and they don't wear £400 stilettos).

The next advert is another "hilarious" football-related one. A voiceover asks if you've just spent 90 minutes watching grown men fall over and then suggests "watch real men stand up". The "real men" in question would be four straight white male comedians. Yes that's the choice - watch men playing sport or watch men doing comedy. Two classic professions where it's ridiculously difficult for women to get a look-in.

When can we watch "real women" actually "standing up"? I'll be doing some shows during the World Cup for people who want a real alternative to football. Watch this space.

Me and the Stylist

I'm quoted at length on page 7 of this week's Stylist magazine - talking about the Marie Stopes advert again. You can view it online here.

Nudity At Work

Nudity seems to have become a running theme on here lately so let me cover another variation on that theme that is driving me up the wall at the moment: The Naked Office.

For those of you fortunate enough to have missed this televisual "gem" let me give you the brief synopsis: Seven Suphi, self-styled corporate business training guru, arrives at the offices of a company with falling profits and analyses the way they work in an effort to boost success. So far so good. The week of business coaching however is leading up to "naked Friday" when employees are encouraged to come to work in the nude. Apparently "if you can come to work naked, what can't you achieve?!".

Now I really do subscribe to some of this. I can really understand how pushing people out of their comfort zone and normal routine can be useful for struggling workplaces. However I am very very uncomfortable with the complete ignorance of two massive issues on the subject:

Firstly body image issues. One episode I saw the employees were challenged to try wrestling and one larger woman was unwilling to participate because she was uncomfortable in the tight lycra suit provided. Rather than allowing her to wear a tracksuit and join in - she was sent home and criticised for refusing to participate (can't wait for the episode set in the offices of a Muslim-run business where the women wear burqas). No mention was made of the fact that wandering about in front of TV cameras in a lycra bodysuit might draw a woman's (or a man's) attention to insecurities they have about their appearance. It is assumed at all points that fear is preventing participants stripping off rather than shame or bitter entrenched self-loathing. One woman even mentioned having been bullied about her appearance at school but apparently she just needed to get her clothes off to resolve that...

Secondly sexual harassment at work. Imagine, for a second going to work naked without TV cameras there. I know what would happen to me - I would be shouted at, touched inappropriately and finally asked to leave by upset senior staff. But somehow all the nudity in The Naked Office is entirely non-sexual. The fact is that women who go to work in trousers and loose-fitting shirts get sexually harassed frequently in the UK, I refuse to believe a woman who shows up fully nude will not find her male colleagues passing judgement. Presumably these bits are edited out. And at one point a woman says she feels intimidated at the thought of her male bosses being naked in the office. Some men (flashers/perverts) choose to show their genitals to women with the intention of frightening and upsetting them. Anyone with that behaviour pattern would be congratulated on their bravery in this show and their victim accused of failing to participate.

It would be nice to live in a world where stripping off was seen as simply a handy way to deal with hot weather. But we don't live in that world and it's just daft to pretend we do. There are real issues here - why won't Seven Suphi focus on them?

Boring Bodies...

Is there nothing left on earth that isn't to be sold through the medium of airbrushed naked women? An advert on my Facebook sidebar now proudly tells me that beanbags and angle-poise lamps are available at "stripped bare prices" with a picture of a young slim white woman with no spots or moles whatsoever lying across a desk. The website being advertised is made.com which features a range (well I don't know - they've been airbrushed to all look the same) of young slim white women posing on stools, chairs, desks and beanbags. I feel like when I see a naked woman's body my reaction is no longer to see beauty or nakedness, to be aroused or shocked, I just think quite calmly "oh right, what are they selling? lamps? ok".

Who are these people sitting in advertising executive's trendy open-plan offices going "I've had this great idea about your beanbag collection - lets stick a skinny naked airbrushed white woman on it", while six of his colleagues mutter "Jeremy - you're a genius!!". Of course it's objectifying but it's also just SO UTTERLY BORING.

Dancing with the Devil

I was advisor this week to fashionista Caryn Franklin - yes really - I told her those shoes soooo didn't go with that bag... No, I was advising her how to argue that fashion has been bad for feminism which she was doing for a BBC Radio Four show called Devil's Advocate. You can listen to my advice and her debating skills (she's up against Julie Bindel who is also great fun to listen to) here for the next seven days by clicking "listen again".

Marie Stopes and Me

So here it is in full:

Apparently the beginning of the end for morality in the west. An advert for a clinic which provides family planning services including abortion which will be aired for the first time on Channel Four today. I've done about four radio and TV interviews on this one. One was a frankly terrifying one for Russia Today where they balanced me on the railings of a boat on the Thames and then randomly announced I would be arguing with a guy from the BNP...

Last night however was more rage-inducing than that. I agreed to go on BBC Five Live's Stephen Nolan show (which I do a lot). My opponent Bernie Smith from Precious Life just ranted about the sanctity of life, about the (false) idea that abortion leads to neverending mental health problems and all the rest.

It all got a bit shouty and then right at then end some really suspicious guy rang in and insisted that he worked for the Samaritans and was forever inundated with calls from women regretting their abortion after realising the "truth" about the sanctity of life. I asked him how often he had calls from women in crisis pregnancy worried about what to do next and he had no answer, he just ignored the question and carried on shouting about the sanctity of life.

Of course this is the trouble with talk radio, it's all very well when people ring in with their opinions but when people ring in claiming to have had a very specific experience (unsurprisingly one that backs up their extreme opinion) it takes a very very well-informed presenter and production team to make a judgement call on whether that's adding to the debate or twisting it.

Stephen Nolan and his team decided the way to deal with it was to - well - let me deal with it... You can listen to the whole thing by clicking here and choosing "listen now", and my part starts about 1h10 minutes in. I advise not taking a big mouthful of coffee though just before Bernie Smith starts talking or you may damage your monitor!