Not Getting It

I was busy and couldn't go to the Hackney Empire New Act of the Year competition on Saturday night. I did want to as I was in the final myself last year (as some readers will remember) and it is pretty much known to be the best competition for newer acts in the industry. So I went online and read the review of the show at industry-standard review site Chortle. I can't comment on the reviews as such because I wasn't there but based on my knowledge of the acts some comments seem fair and others less so - but of course they may have been having a better or worse than usual night.

I will briefly mention Ro Campbell (pictured) who came second. He did a run-through of his set at my club the night before. He is correctly described as covering some fairly brave subject matters - abortion, rape, etc. And the comment reads "Very wrong, rather funny." which I think is unfair. Unlike a LOT of acts on the circuit Ro does not condone rape in his set, quite the opposite in fact. And his attitude to abortion is to condemn the hippocracy of those who oppose it so vehemently. My response when he was at my club was "Very right, very funny". Sadly he lives in Glasgow so it may be a while before you get the chance to see him again in London but whenever he is back we will be begging him to come and play Soho Comedy Club so let me know if you want to go on the mailing list!

But here's the thing about the review that really made me sit up. And it's an act I haven't seen so I can't comment on the act - only the review. "Craig Murray ... was happy to play along with Northern typecasting as vegetarian- and gay-averse." Can anyone tell me the difference between "homophobic" and "gay-averse"? I don't know whether the actual material is homophobic or whether he is in fact reflecting critically on character traits he sees in himself or those around him. I just have a rather visceral negative reaction to the use of the term "gay-averse", because it seems to be trivialising a very real cultural problem.

America...

In a desperate attempt to make me feel like I should really get up earlier a friend of mine has written a book. It's a very very funny guide for Americans living in the UK and vice versa to the difference between American and British English, especially slang. You can find out more about it, buy it, and also read his very funny blog, again about the differences between the UK and the US on his blog which is simply called America!

Two Snippets

Too busy for "real" blogging but a couple of interesting things.

1) Did a Radio Five Live discussion this morning with the truly dreadful Lynette Burrows. We were responding to news (against all odds in a rather reasonable article in the Telegraph) that courts have overturned a decision by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority to reduce compensation payouts to rape victims by 25% if they had been drinking. Needless to say Lynette was full of wisdom on the subject insisting there must be a "culpability factor" for women who get drunk and go about with their "bosoms hanging out". She also likened the situation to that of drunk-drivers who kill people...? Weird considering the people being penalised for being drunk in that scenario are the culprits, rather than the victims! Anyway it all got rather heated. Lynette also suggested that once a woman has consented to sex she cannot ever withdraw that consent which is (a) legally not the case and (b) a frightening idea. She added that she "didn't believe" that as many as 1 in 20 women in the UK had been raped (statistics suggesting it is much worse than that can be found here). So much to argue with, what worries me is why the BBC allows voices like hers on national radio - it legitimises her wrong and offensive opinions.

2) Bad language. Yesterday a family came to my show with two kids aged 9 and 11. As they arrived my marketing team had a quick word with them to check that they knew the show would contain swearing and talk about sex. They were cool with that. Once the audience had come in I told them not to worry about there being kids in, that I had checked with the parents and that we would be swearing and this wasn't a problem. Then I got on with the show. Two guys arrived late and crept in at the back having missed that. After the show they angrily marched up to me and berated me for using the word "cunt" (the word appears in my show exactly once). I explained of course that we'd discussed it before they'd arrived thinking this would calm them down. Amazingly they stayed angry and insisted that I should have used the word "twat" instead...? I personally like the word "cunt" as I have expounded at length on this blog before, but it gave me an excuse to look up the etymology of "twat" and I am delighted to report that it derives from the Old English from the Northern English from the Viking "thwaite" meaning a small clearing in a forrest (rather picturesque I think you'll agree). "Thwaite" of course is the second half of my viking surname, the first half being "Smur", which means light rain (still used here in Scotland in some places) so I now have the joy of translating my surname as "rainy cunt" or even maybe "wet cunt"! This makes me very happy indeed, which I am sure is not what the petition-starters wanted...