Best Shot

A few months ago I gigged with a great comic called Steve Best. As a hobby/bit of fun he takes photos of all the comics he works with. And they're really great photos. Click here to see the one of me, which I love!

Two Interesting Reads and a Related Thought

This is a great bit of insight into what's wrong with the way our criminal justice system deals with rape cases. And she counts as one of the "lucky" ones in that her case actually went to court. I know several women who have been raped and either decided not to go to the police or were disbelieved by the police (like being refused a rape kit... how is it legal for the police to refuse to send a woman who asks for it for medical testing for rape drugs and sperm?).

Secondly Laurie Penny makes some great points about the way that misogyny is deeply seated in our culture. She's so right!

Yesterday I appeared on a show called Sunday Morning Live on the BBC (available via the link on iPlayer for another 5/6 days) and on the show the discussion was about prostitution and I said I thought the Swedish/Nordic model (criminalising those who pay for sex rather than those who sell it) would be a good idea in this country. Later in the evening a comedy promoter who had spotted me on TV "chatted" me on Facebook and said "So I guess you will never become my prostitute then xx". Yes - with kisses - like there was something cute about that remark. This is someone who I have to be nice to because I work freelance and he has a lot of paid work to offer (though to date he has never paid me, despite repeatedly promising me that he would and admitting I was better than some of the acts he was paying). If it was the only club like this I'd just not play the one club but in fact his behaviour is completely typical and I have to gig somewhere. It's so infuriating having to put up with this crap when I JUST WANT TO BE ABLE TO DO MY JOB!

(That's me by the way leading the chanting at the Anti-Pope rally!)

Sunday Morning Barely Alive

I was just on Sunday Live on BBC One talking about prostitution. It should be available on iPlayer in a bit.

Divorce Line-By-Line

Todays appalling piece of women-hating journalism is brought to you by one Harriet Sergeant who tells us all in the Daily Fail about The cruelty of women who use children as weapons in divorce (top tip by the way if you plan to use children as a weapon - sharpen their heads first...). Line-by-line as usual by yours truly...

"About ten years ago, I was standing in my son's junior school classroom. The teacher had stuck up on the wall the best essays on the topic: 'How I Spent Last Weekend.' One caught my attention."

Hankies out - who needs facts when a one-off tear-jerker case study will suffice...

"Not for this little boy a visit to the zoo or the excitement of a football game. Instead, he had chronicled a weekend's battle between his divorcing parents."

As we all know - no-one argues in the park or at the zoo. And only couples who are divorcing argue - not those who have decided to stay together for the sake of the kids but actually hate each other. But interesting angle - I think the kid shows great potential as a columnist - lets hope he aims a bit higher than the Daily Mail.

"'Mum calls dad names on the phone,' he had written in his laborious handwriting. 'We had cake for tea. My sister and I cry.' The teacher caught my eye. She had put up that story on purpose."

If the kid hears Mum calling Dad names there are two conclusions we can draw: (1) We have no idea what Dad is doing - where he is, who with, what he's saying to Mum. (2) Mum is looking after the kids, including making them tea with cake.

"'I want the parents to see what divorce they are doing to their children. They should be ashamed of themselves,' she said."

Shouldn't teachers be better at grammar than this? Also I do pity the child whose story was really well written but who didn't get picked to go up on the board because the teacher was pushing a political agenda that has nothing to do with the national curriculum or quality education.

"My son recently bumped into that little boy. A decade on, he is 18, has dropped out of school and is on drugs."

Most drug-users I'm aware of are pretty secretive about their habit. If this kid told your son about his habit I'd be prepared to suggest a possible explanation: maybe your son takes drugs too. In fact maybe your son is the dealer! But do carry on telling the rest of us how to parent.

"Sir Nicholas Wall, the President of the Family Division of the High Court, agrees that something has to be done. He has accused separating couples, especially those from the middle classes, of using their children as 'both the battlefield and the ammunition' to try to score points in their personal disputes."

Yes and how down to earth and clued up is Sir Nicholas Wall? Well lets put it this way - in his spare time he enjoys "composing clerihews". Exactly. And even he is talking about parents - both parents - not just mothers.

"'There is nothing worse, for most children, than for their parents to denigrate each other,' said the country's most senior family court judge. 'The child's sense of self-worth can be irredeemably damaged.'"

I've got one! Something worse for a child than their parents denigrating each other: the parents denigrating the child. Also famine, disease, child labour and having parents who read the Daily Mail.

"Six years ago, my husband and I divorced. It came as a great shock. But we were all too aware our children were just becoming adolescents - and that adolescence is perilous enough without warring parents."

So you were "all too aware" of the issues but now you feel the need to harp on about them for the rest of the world's benefit? Thanks. I don't even have kids and you're getting right up my nose.

"We tried, not always successfully on my part, never to criticise each other in front of the children. Very occasionally, I even managed to emphasise his good points (of which there are many) - it was quite hard when at the time all I wanted to do was murder him."

So you were actually doing this dreadful thing that we all need to be told (by you) not to do. And even in retrospect you admit you "wanted to murder him"? Easy now, remember your son is reading this on drugs.

"A female friend was shocked. 'Why aren't you using the children against him?' she asked. 'I would.'"

My friends are not like this. Your friends are.

"Her reaction is not unusual. The battlefields Sir Nicholas Wall describes are too often of the wife's choosing."

How often is "too often"? I mean I think the one in four women in the UK who is a victim of domestic violence is pretty much entitled to "badmouth" her partner. Particularly after he has "blackeyed" her. And bear in mind the most common time for violence to start in a relationship is while the woman is pregnant, so there's a really good chance kids will have been witnessing violence.

"This is because most divorces are initiated by women due to their husband's infidelity, as the fatherhood research body Fathers Direct points out."

Aaargh! No! In 100% of these cases it is the husband who has instigated divorce by BEING UNFAITHFUL. Oh dear Fathers Direct - seems almost like you might be some sort of "men's rights" organisation... Mind you I was guessing that when your website said your aims included "helps shape national and local policies to ensure a father-inclusive approach to family policy" and no mention of "helps end domestic violence perpetrated by men".

"These women are hurt and they want to get their own back through the children, money or both. They are determined the husband is as much divorced from his children as his wife.

One wealthy man I know finds himself, despite his riches, at the beck and call of his former wife."

Are women supposed instead to lie to their children - tell them "Daddy's been totally faithful, he's just friends with that aerobics teacher with the huge breasts"? And if you do tell your kids that then no doubt they respond by blaming Mum for the divorce. You've surely got to be honest with your kids at very least.

"The strategy is very successful. This otherwise powerful man submits to every capricious demand."

Though presumably the strategy wasn't effective enough to stop him screwing around in the first place. Ho hum.

"'With just two hours' notice, I had to cancel an important meeting and take them to the dentist,' he said. If he refused, his wife said, he would not see them for a month."

And what if the wife had an important meeting just at the same time as an emergency dentists appointment? Presumably she should cancel it...? Gosh, it's almost starting to sound like kids are a responsibility, not a fun weekend treat...

"An advertising director found himself equally powerless when his wife suddenly moved from London to the Midlands with their two sons."

Almost like she was trying to get away from you huh? Why would that be?

"'How can my wife hurt me? How could she bring me to my knees?' he asks. 'Through my children.'"

Of course if you really loved her - she could hurt you by leaving you. But that bit doesn't seem to bother you much does it mate?

"'She did not tell me. One day she just stopped answering the phone. Until then I had been seeing my sons every weekend,' he says."

OK that sounds harsh, but we'd need to hear her side to pass judgement wouldn't we? Not at the Daily Mail!

"By the time the case reached court, the sons were settled in a new school. The judge admitted that what the woman had done was illegal, but because it was in the best interests of the children to be with their mother, he did nothing."

Now of course the judge had the power to remove the children from the law-breaking mother and place the kids with dad instead but decided not to do that. But don't let a little gap in information like that prevent you drawing sweeping conclusions about how awful women are.

"'She had got away with effectively kidnapping my children,' said the father. His relationship with his sons has all but broken down. Their new home is too far for them to come to London."

So go visit them - it's only the Midlands - not the Middle East.

"When he goes to see them, he has to stay in a hotel."

How awful. I do hope there's no pool.

"'The children get bored in an hour or two,' he says. 'They have their friends and their sports, which they would rather do instead.'"

So take them out. As I understand it there are zoos, theme parks and fun fairs in the midlands. Or since you're visiting them - take them to play sports or meet their friends.

"He tells me he finds the situation 'so goddamn painful. I try to play the role of a father - but how can I when I have been deliberately moved to the periphery of their lives?'"

Try? Not very hard by the sounds of it.

"The situation leaves many men I have interviewed distraught. They describe the loss of their children as 'an emotional amputation' or 'a living bereavement'."

No doubt there are guys who mean well and want to see kids but there are also plenty of Dads who don't bother to see their kids and don't bother to contribute financially. In the interests of balanced journalism shouldn't we hear briefly about them too... Well I guess we would but we're too busy laughing at the concept of "balanced journalism" being mentioned in the same blog post as "The Daily Mail".

"It is no wonder that within two years of divorce, half of fathers lose contact with their children."

Yes women just love single parenthood so much they're filled with contempt at the idea of someone actually helping them out. What is frightening is that within two years of divorce 50% of mothers are effectively on their own raising kids.

"As one man said sadly, divorce 'leaves many fathers on the edge of a bloody great abyss. Many fall off and are never seen again'."

Maybe they should think about this before they start screwing around?

"Douglas Alexiou, one of London's pre-eminent family lawyers, agrees that the wife holds all the cards in a divorce case."

That is odd since most judges are men and the law is designed so that the number one priority is the kids. Now if it turns out that most women have much better relationships with their kids than men, that would work in their favour. Men could combat this by spending more time with their kids. I know, I know, it's a radical idea...

"'Court order after court order is served. The wife claims the children are ill or just do not want to see their father,' he says."

We all know in real life kids are never ill and never don't want to see their father.

"'There is very little a court can do if a mother has poisoned the minds of her children against the father. There is no sanction against the mother apart from a jail term - and no court will do that."

A court could also award custody to the father. Of course that would only be relevant if the father was prepared to do the hard work of parenting, not just the odd visit.

"'Perhaps one day a judge will be bold enough to jail a mother and finally set an example.'"

Yes no doubt single motherhood would be greatly enhanced by being jailed.

"In all this there is only one real victim - the children. If one of those wives was handed an axe and ordered to hack off a limb of her child, she would be appalled. Yet so many women are happy, even gleeful, to commit the equivalent emotional amputation on their children by depriving them of their father."

Yes - ruthlessly keeping their kids playing sports with their friends instead of in a creepy hotel with Dad. How evil.

"U.S. author Kathleen Parker in her excellent book Save The Males points out that in depriving a child of their father, 'we reduce a child's chance of a successful and happy life.
'Growing up without a father is the most reliable indicator of poverty and all the familiar social pathologies affecting children, including drug abuse, truancy, delinquency and sexual promiscuity.'"

Yes Kathleen growing up without a father is a reliable indicator of poverty. One parent families do worse. And poverty is an excellent indicator of all sorts of future problems. That wouldn't be the case of course if fathers paid towards the upkeep of their absent kids. Yet the statistics show that many don't. And if they're not sharing the cost - why should they share the fun parts?

"But this misery is not only the fault of the parents. The family court system is adversarial and encourages couples to fight, says Nadine O'Connor, campaign manager at the lobby group Fathers4Justice."

Fathers4Justice? That would be the discredited organisation that had to be disbanded after revelations that a number of senior members were perpetrators of domestic violence...

"And change, she says, will be a long time in coming - until lawyers stop making their own killing from warring parents, children will continue to be used as weapons."

Even Nadine thinks it's lawyers at fault. Harriet it's only you who has managed to blame women here...

How is it that you write a whole article about how male infidelity leads to divorce and unsupported single motherhood and wind up coming down on the side of blaming women for problems their kids have?

Protest The Pope Video

I am the one shouting into the microphone, leading the chanting from the back of the truck. Of course!! Good lip-readers will notice I am shouting "Arrest The Pope!"

Papal Aside

I didn't see Mock The Week the other day but I did see the short clip of the comments made on the show about the papal visit. Inevitably none of the panellists seemed impressed by the visit. However I was sat watching seven straight white guys (yes, an all-male, all-straight, all-white panel) discussing the dreadful attitude the Pope has towards women and homosexuals and thinking "Have you looked at your own house lately...?". Yes the Pope's attitude is dreadful but it's also enormously commonplace albeit at a more subtle level right across the most supposedly liberal parts of the UK. Sad. Especially for people like me who (a) could use that sort of work and (b) would make an awesome job of it.

Aaarrrrgh!!!!

So the BBC today has 99.9% of it's coverage focussed on the Papal Visit - what did his Holiness wear? What is the significant of St Ninian's feast?

I wonder what the SECOND most important story on the BBC website today might be.

"Trident cash timetable could change - minister". Oh ok, so it's just about a rescheduling of defence budget spending... Lets just double-check and read the first line:

"Britain remains committed to replacing its nuclear weapons but the timetable for financing the scheme could change as a result of a value for money review, Armed Forces Minister Nick Harvey has admitted."

But of course that's only the Armed Forces Minister. It's not as if David Cameron has made a big statement in support of Trident. Oh hang on - lets check paragraph 13. Really.

Am I the only one who thinks the bit about the Armed Forces Minister and payment schedules changing is not the key message here? The Prime Minister has announced we are going to spend billions of pounds on a totally unnecessary nuclear weapons system that will reduce global security and that very few people in the UK want.

Talk about hiding the real news.

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