Funny thing politics isn't it as the story of two recent leaders of small European countries is proving. While one is sat in the Hague facing charges of being responsible for the death of 7500 muslims while undertaking his role of Supreme Commander of the Bosnian Serb armed force, the other one, responsible for killing over a million Muslims while in his role of head of the British Armed forces, is being touted as a possible President of the continent.
Not to dismiss Karadzic's crimes, he deserves to be sat where he is and i hope he rots in a prison cell somewhere, but at least he can apply the twisted logic to his argument that his country was involved in a war at the time. Blair can make no such claim.
His own Attorney General, the top legal advisor the UK has, stated that there was only three possible legal justifications for launching a war. Self defence, humanitarian intervention or with UN Security Council Authorisation.
The foreign secretary, Jack Straw, told Blair that "Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran'.
When he tried, and failed, to get the Security Council Authorisation then any military action was outside of his own legal teams three justifications and therefore illegal.
So why is Tony Blair not sat beside Radovan Karadzic facing crimes against humanity or why is Karadzic's name not being put forward as a European Presidential nominee?
Blair certainly has a case to answer and he has said that he is prepared to be held to account by God for ‘those who have died or have been horribly maimed as a result of my decisions’.
The familes of those that have been killed or those who have been horribly maimed as a result of his decisions probably wish that they can get hold of him long before the big man upstairs does.
Despite all his crimes, Saddam Hussein was actually hanged after being found guilty of ordering the killing of 148 Muslims.
Karadzic rightly faces trial for overseeing the death of 7500 Muslims.
Tony Blair speaks falsehood after falsehood to launch an illegal war with kills over a million Muslims and pockets a multi-million pound book deal and launches himself for European President.
Yep, it's a funny thing politics but i'll be damned if i can see why Karadzic is on trial and Blair isn't.
Tuesday, 27 October 2009
Sunday, 25 October 2009
New England V Tampa Bay
American Football comes to the UK this evening with the Tampa Bay Buccaneers and the New England Patriots buttonhooking and intefering with each other at Wembley Stadium.
This is the third successive year that the NFL have brought a regular season game to London and tonight's game will be in front of a capacity crowd which shows that the game does seem to be gaining popularity over here.
Usually the only person we see rolling around on the grass at Wembley is Emile Heskey after he has just shinned one wide from a few yards out but tonight its the likes of Tully Banta-Cain being jumped on by a large group of men.
The Patriots are favourites apparently and i'm sure that the fickle English will cheer for them just because they have the word 'England' in their name.
An added incentive for us wanting to see the New Englanders stuff Tampa Bay is because the Buccaneers are owned by the Glazer Family who also own England's most hated team, Manchester United.
Buccaneer fans have been suggesting that the Glazers are siphoning off funds from the American Football team to prop up Man Ure who are a reported £700m in debt.
England in their name and playing against the team who are part of the Manchester United stable, it's a no brainer.
Come on you Pats, we want to see you roughing the kicker and using the Wishbone Formation whatever that is. Failing that, if there is a purple nosed Scotsman sat next to the Glazers, maybe you Buccaneer players can punt one into his swingers as he's the one taking all your money and spending it on the likes of Owen Hargreaves.
This is the third successive year that the NFL have brought a regular season game to London and tonight's game will be in front of a capacity crowd which shows that the game does seem to be gaining popularity over here.
Usually the only person we see rolling around on the grass at Wembley is Emile Heskey after he has just shinned one wide from a few yards out but tonight its the likes of Tully Banta-Cain being jumped on by a large group of men.
The Patriots are favourites apparently and i'm sure that the fickle English will cheer for them just because they have the word 'England' in their name.
An added incentive for us wanting to see the New Englanders stuff Tampa Bay is because the Buccaneers are owned by the Glazer Family who also own England's most hated team, Manchester United.
Buccaneer fans have been suggesting that the Glazers are siphoning off funds from the American Football team to prop up Man Ure who are a reported £700m in debt.
England in their name and playing against the team who are part of the Manchester United stable, it's a no brainer.
Come on you Pats, we want to see you roughing the kicker and using the Wishbone Formation whatever that is. Failing that, if there is a purple nosed Scotsman sat next to the Glazers, maybe you Buccaneer players can punt one into his swingers as he's the one taking all your money and spending it on the likes of Owen Hargreaves.
Saturday, 24 October 2009
The BNP Bounce
Following Thursdays appearance of the extreme right wing British National Party on Question Time, the results are in and it seems that Nick Griffin's Party has got the bounce it was after.
The YouGov poll for today's Daily Telegraph puts them up to 3% support from 2% previously, with 22% of Britons prepared to consider voting for them in local and European elections.
Nobody with half a mind should be feeling great about that so where did it all go wrong. He was a sitting duck, waiting to be exposed and ridiculed in front of a national audience, and yet he seems to have emerged stronger for it.
Firstly the whole hour was dedicated to asking the BNP leaders his thoughts, and then shouting him down and kicking him around before he had chance to answer. We didn't need Jack Straw shouting out that Griffin was a bigot or a racist ten seconds after he opened his mouth, we could hear that ourselves or at least we could if they give him chance to speak his piece. At the end of the hour, Griffin came out of it looking like the bullied rather than the bully.
Secondly, i would suggest that although the vast majority of the BNP views are abhorrent, three big ones that chime with a large number of voters are his views on Iraq, Afghanistan and immigration.
Iraq was an illegal war and those who initiated it should be charged with crimes against humanity, we should pull out of Afghanistan and there are too many people coming to Britain. I would estimate that at least two of these three strike a chord with an overwhelming majority of Brits and the very reason why the BNP may see a lift in its recruitment numbers.
None of the big three parties want to stick their head above the parapet with any of these three issues despite them consistently cropping up as areas of concern for voters. The BNP poll boost simply reflects British contempt for mainstream politics.
This Government has been all about the sleaze, the wars, the expenses scandals, the disregard for voters, the economy, the bankers, the bailouts and rising crime. The Conservatives before them imploded on much the same issues and it is expected that the next Government will be much the same.
Until the Government, or the other big two, are willing to tackle immigration or foreign policy, the only party that are saying what most people want to hear is the British National Party and no amount of the Lib Dems, Tories or Labour party shouting at the BNP leader will help when his accusers are also held in such low esteem by the electorate.
The YouGov poll for today's Daily Telegraph puts them up to 3% support from 2% previously, with 22% of Britons prepared to consider voting for them in local and European elections.
Nobody with half a mind should be feeling great about that so where did it all go wrong. He was a sitting duck, waiting to be exposed and ridiculed in front of a national audience, and yet he seems to have emerged stronger for it.
Firstly the whole hour was dedicated to asking the BNP leaders his thoughts, and then shouting him down and kicking him around before he had chance to answer. We didn't need Jack Straw shouting out that Griffin was a bigot or a racist ten seconds after he opened his mouth, we could hear that ourselves or at least we could if they give him chance to speak his piece. At the end of the hour, Griffin came out of it looking like the bullied rather than the bully.
Secondly, i would suggest that although the vast majority of the BNP views are abhorrent, three big ones that chime with a large number of voters are his views on Iraq, Afghanistan and immigration.
Iraq was an illegal war and those who initiated it should be charged with crimes against humanity, we should pull out of Afghanistan and there are too many people coming to Britain. I would estimate that at least two of these three strike a chord with an overwhelming majority of Brits and the very reason why the BNP may see a lift in its recruitment numbers.
None of the big three parties want to stick their head above the parapet with any of these three issues despite them consistently cropping up as areas of concern for voters. The BNP poll boost simply reflects British contempt for mainstream politics.
This Government has been all about the sleaze, the wars, the expenses scandals, the disregard for voters, the economy, the bankers, the bailouts and rising crime. The Conservatives before them imploded on much the same issues and it is expected that the next Government will be much the same.
Until the Government, or the other big two, are willing to tackle immigration or foreign policy, the only party that are saying what most people want to hear is the British National Party and no amount of the Lib Dems, Tories or Labour party shouting at the BNP leader will help when his accusers are also held in such low esteem by the electorate.
Friday, 23 October 2009
25 Years On And Still They Die Of Hunger
There are not many television programmes that are so shocking and influential that they launch an international reaction and shame Governments into action but the first of two shown 25 years ago today did exactly that.
A couple of seven minute BBC news reports in 1984 revealed the full scale of the horror happening in drought hit Ethiopia and the pathetic sight of a population dying en-mass from hunger.
'A person dies from starvation ever 20 minutes' Michael Burke informed us along with the revelation that Governments won't help because Ethiopia is run by a Marxist regime and that Europe was sitting on a massive grain surplus as people died through lack of food.
The impact of Burke’s report left singer Bob Geldof so moved and angry with the world for standing by at such a time, he decided to do something about it.
Concerts, singles and a massive fundraising drive raised tens of millions in aid and Governments, embarrassed by their lack of action despite warnings over the previous 18 months, sent planes full of food and supplies.
The Government blamed the civil war and a corrupt Ethiopian Government but everyone else just saw people dying from hunger while our elected leaders stood idly by.
Shamefully, 25 years on and still people are dying of starvation in Ethiopia which begs the question, why, after a quarter of a century and hundreds of millions of pounds, is there still not enough food there to feed them?
Are we not giving enough? Is the food the money buys just treating the symptom but the cause of the almost annual famines remain untreated? Is the money not being wisely spent by the aid agencies?
I could point out that to see anyone starve to death while half the World are debating ways to combat over-eating is obscene and if we spent as much money on fighting hunger as we do on wars, then the world would be a better place but it seems that what we are doing, we are either not doing it enough or doing it the wrong way and have been since the beginning.
A couple of seven minute BBC news reports in 1984 revealed the full scale of the horror happening in drought hit Ethiopia and the pathetic sight of a population dying en-mass from hunger.
'A person dies from starvation ever 20 minutes' Michael Burke informed us along with the revelation that Governments won't help because Ethiopia is run by a Marxist regime and that Europe was sitting on a massive grain surplus as people died through lack of food.
The impact of Burke’s report left singer Bob Geldof so moved and angry with the world for standing by at such a time, he decided to do something about it.
Concerts, singles and a massive fundraising drive raised tens of millions in aid and Governments, embarrassed by their lack of action despite warnings over the previous 18 months, sent planes full of food and supplies.
The Government blamed the civil war and a corrupt Ethiopian Government but everyone else just saw people dying from hunger while our elected leaders stood idly by.
Shamefully, 25 years on and still people are dying of starvation in Ethiopia which begs the question, why, after a quarter of a century and hundreds of millions of pounds, is there still not enough food there to feed them?
Are we not giving enough? Is the food the money buys just treating the symptom but the cause of the almost annual famines remain untreated? Is the money not being wisely spent by the aid agencies?
I could point out that to see anyone starve to death while half the World are debating ways to combat over-eating is obscene and if we spent as much money on fighting hunger as we do on wars, then the world would be a better place but it seems that what we are doing, we are either not doing it enough or doing it the wrong way and have been since the beginning.
Wednesday, 21 October 2009
The Other Side Of The Aisle
'Come join us, we have no women or gays in our movement' isn't much of an advertising slogan but it is the carrot that the Pope is dangling in front of thousands of disaffected clergy of the Church of England.
It seems that after years of approaches to the Vatican from Anglicans unhappy with the way the Church of England fairly treats women and gays, the Pope has issued a decree that allows them to skip across to the Catholic side of the Christian faith. The top estimate is around 2000 priests defecting with as many of their women and gay hating congregations as they can persuade to come over with them.
So just why is the Catholic Church so full of misogynists and homophobes? It all comes down to to the fact that Jesus had no female disciples and because Eve ate that apple. That Eve, the one created from her husbands rib who himself was made from dust by someone nobody has ever seen or heard. When your whole faith is based on those origins you kinda expect them to be a bit loopy.
Gay people are not liked because they are just sinners and gay sex is an abomination against God who set down Adam and Eve and had no problem with incest as they went forth and multiplied.
To be honest i am totally underwhelmed whether some churchy types want to be Catholics or Church of England but at least now i, along with the 99% of the British population that don't attend Church of England services, can instead not attend Catholic masses as well.
It seems that after years of approaches to the Vatican from Anglicans unhappy with the way the Church of England fairly treats women and gays, the Pope has issued a decree that allows them to skip across to the Catholic side of the Christian faith. The top estimate is around 2000 priests defecting with as many of their women and gay hating congregations as they can persuade to come over with them.
So just why is the Catholic Church so full of misogynists and homophobes? It all comes down to to the fact that Jesus had no female disciples and because Eve ate that apple. That Eve, the one created from her husbands rib who himself was made from dust by someone nobody has ever seen or heard. When your whole faith is based on those origins you kinda expect them to be a bit loopy.
Gay people are not liked because they are just sinners and gay sex is an abomination against God who set down Adam and Eve and had no problem with incest as they went forth and multiplied.
To be honest i am totally underwhelmed whether some churchy types want to be Catholics or Church of England but at least now i, along with the 99% of the British population that don't attend Church of England services, can instead not attend Catholic masses as well.
Monday, 19 October 2009
Poor Whitney But An Even Poorer Cheryl
If there was ever a living advert for staying away from drugs it is Whitney Houston.
Arguably one of the greatest female talents of our generation, the years of drug taking has left her a pale imitation of the great vocalist she once was.
Her appearance on X Factor this weekend was shaky at best by her own high standards and the interview afterwards was painful to watch.
She looked confused, took an eternity to answer the questions the host, Dermot O'Leary, asked and shuffled uncomfortably while staring at the ground.
It could be excused as a sign of nerves, after all she is returning to the stage after almost a decade away but with her history you have to think that it goes much deeper than that.
I don't know if she needs the money or if she has other reasons behind her comeback, but if this is an example of what we can expect from her, she would be best advised to cancel it now before she turns into the Elvis of our generation and is remembered more for the humiliating struggle at the tail end of their careers rather than their heyday.
Something else this weekends X Factor showed was that you could see why Cheryl Cole was not so keen to sing live. And she has the nerve to criticise anyone else about their singing?
Arguably one of the greatest female talents of our generation, the years of drug taking has left her a pale imitation of the great vocalist she once was.
Her appearance on X Factor this weekend was shaky at best by her own high standards and the interview afterwards was painful to watch.
She looked confused, took an eternity to answer the questions the host, Dermot O'Leary, asked and shuffled uncomfortably while staring at the ground.
It could be excused as a sign of nerves, after all she is returning to the stage after almost a decade away but with her history you have to think that it goes much deeper than that.
I don't know if she needs the money or if she has other reasons behind her comeback, but if this is an example of what we can expect from her, she would be best advised to cancel it now before she turns into the Elvis of our generation and is remembered more for the humiliating struggle at the tail end of their careers rather than their heyday.
Something else this weekends X Factor showed was that you could see why Cheryl Cole was not so keen to sing live. And she has the nerve to criticise anyone else about their singing?
Feck! Arse! Drink! Girls!
In the excellent Father Ted, Father Jack was a foul-mouthed, alcoholic priest prone to frequent lapses of violence and spending most his time passed out in the Parochial House. I often thought that if the Catholic Church did have priests like him then it would certainly make weddings and christenings more exciting. I could even be moved to go along to find a pew on Sunday mornings to hear the drunken ramblings. Rather than Jesus loves you it would be more i love you, your my best mate you are followed by him throwing candles at the choir as they sang all things bright and beautiful.
Of course there are no such priests in the Catholic Church, at least not now that Father Edward Pilarskiego has been forcibly removed from his church in Poland.
The parishioners had enough of the Father spending the collection plate money on booze and cigarettes and displaying his grip of the more saltier words in the Polish language during drunken sermons and they dragged him from his pulpit and threw him out of the church. They then changed the locks on the church to keep him out.
I don't know if they will now find him the equivalent of a Polish Craggy Island for errant clergy but i'd love to see him make a visit to my local Parish. We need more drunken priests.
Sunday, 18 October 2009
Support For The Postal Workers
Imagine, if you will, working for a company that has just posted a doubling of it's annual profits. Now imagine your company saying sorry but no pay rise this year and we are introducing new work practises that will lead to wide scale redundancies. I don't think anyone could be surprised if you said you were a tad upset with the big bosses but what could you do?
The options are:
A) accept it and hope that you are not one of those who receive the dreaded call to the managers office.
B) stand up say hold on, you are making hundreds of millions in profit but you plan to introduce new working practises which will lead to thousands losing their jobs to make even more profit?
If you chose answer A then you can stop reading now and i wish you well and hope that you find alternative employment soon.
If you are still reading, which i would guess is the vast majority, then you chose option B.
So you pop along to the Union and say it's a bit unfair i may have to lose my job because the company want to make even larger profits and the Union say too right, i will go and have a chat with the big bosses. They come back and say sorry, but it seems the Politicians want to part privatise the company and obviously need to be seen to be making massive profits to entice in a buyer. The Union then go and spend 18 months in negotiations on your behalf to try and save jobs but to no avail, the cuts and changes are being imposed regardless.
The options now are:
A) accept it and hope that you are not one of those who receive the dreaded call to the managers office.
B) join in with strike action and hit the bosses in the pocket to force them to be reasonable and try to safeguard thousands of jobs, possibly your own.
If you chose answer A then you can stop reading now and i wish you well and hope that you find alternative employment soon.
Those who chose the second option would find themselves in exactly the same position as the UK postal workers find themselves today and why we may have to deal with our letters being a few days late.
If you are not a postal worker, or are married to a postal worker or depend upon the wages of a postal worker in anyway or have any sympathy with the little guy or people about to lose their jobs, then you can stop reading now.
Good, the selfish ones are gone and those left and have got this far down should be supporting the postal workers. Maybe send an email, i wouldn't bother with a letter, all the postal workers will be striking.
The options are:
A) accept it and hope that you are not one of those who receive the dreaded call to the managers office.
B) stand up say hold on, you are making hundreds of millions in profit but you plan to introduce new working practises which will lead to thousands losing their jobs to make even more profit?
If you chose answer A then you can stop reading now and i wish you well and hope that you find alternative employment soon.
If you are still reading, which i would guess is the vast majority, then you chose option B.
So you pop along to the Union and say it's a bit unfair i may have to lose my job because the company want to make even larger profits and the Union say too right, i will go and have a chat with the big bosses. They come back and say sorry, but it seems the Politicians want to part privatise the company and obviously need to be seen to be making massive profits to entice in a buyer. The Union then go and spend 18 months in negotiations on your behalf to try and save jobs but to no avail, the cuts and changes are being imposed regardless.
The options now are:
A) accept it and hope that you are not one of those who receive the dreaded call to the managers office.
B) join in with strike action and hit the bosses in the pocket to force them to be reasonable and try to safeguard thousands of jobs, possibly your own.
If you chose answer A then you can stop reading now and i wish you well and hope that you find alternative employment soon.
Those who chose the second option would find themselves in exactly the same position as the UK postal workers find themselves today and why we may have to deal with our letters being a few days late.
If you are not a postal worker, or are married to a postal worker or depend upon the wages of a postal worker in anyway or have any sympathy with the little guy or people about to lose their jobs, then you can stop reading now.
Good, the selfish ones are gone and those left and have got this far down should be supporting the postal workers. Maybe send an email, i wouldn't bother with a letter, all the postal workers will be striking.
Saturday, 17 October 2009
Corrupt Firms Can't Silence The Internet
I have always been against any regulation being imposed on the Internet to try and control it. Of course this approach also leaves untouched some abhorrent sites but that's unfortunately the cost to continue with the anarchic approach. Governments, celebrities and big business hate it because it's a source of media that they can't control which means bloggers and Tweeters are not held by the same rules as the mainstream media, as was shown with amazing effect during the Trafigura affair this week.
Lawyers, Carter-Ruck, acting for oil trading company, Trafigura, were forced to abandoned attempts to stop the British press running a story about the fatal dumping of toxic waste in west Africa by the company.
The case began with the dumping of 500 tons of the waste in a landfill site in the Ivory Coast in August 2006.
Official estimates said 15 people were killed and tens of thousands left ill as a result. Trafigura denied any deaths took place but offered £950 to each of 31,000 people affected, without accepting liability.
A report written soon after the initial incident found based on the "limited" information to which it had been given access - the waste was capable of causing severe damage to human health.
When Trafigura learned that The Guardian newspaper was about to publish an article based on the report, the firms lawyers issued a 'super-injunction' blocking it.
They then tried to stop the British media from revealing that an MP had tabled a question relating to the report.
Stopped in their tracks, the Guardian then cleverly wrote a front page piece on how they could not write what they had planned to, due to an injunction from an oil company concerning an MP's question due to be asked in Parliament that day.
A quick scan of the MP's questions that had been tabled and soon Bloggers and Tweeters were posting and tweeting about to such an extent that it made the injunction useless.
Users posted so many comments and posts about Trafigura and the parliamentary question that the issue soon became top of Twitters list of popular topics.
In a statement, the lawyers agreed to drop the injunction stating that "there is no longer any purpose in the injunction remaining in place".
Proof of the power for good of the Internet coupled with a strong sense of injustice from the Internet users in battling corrupt firms and morally corrupt lawyers.
Now that it is out in the open, I'd like to see the oil company closed down for such a flagrant case of toxic pollution, it's assets sold off to properly compensate the people of the Ivory Coast and those involved tried for murder.
Lawyers, Carter-Ruck, acting for oil trading company, Trafigura, were forced to abandoned attempts to stop the British press running a story about the fatal dumping of toxic waste in west Africa by the company.
The case began with the dumping of 500 tons of the waste in a landfill site in the Ivory Coast in August 2006.
Official estimates said 15 people were killed and tens of thousands left ill as a result. Trafigura denied any deaths took place but offered £950 to each of 31,000 people affected, without accepting liability.
A report written soon after the initial incident found based on the "limited" information to which it had been given access - the waste was capable of causing severe damage to human health.
When Trafigura learned that The Guardian newspaper was about to publish an article based on the report, the firms lawyers issued a 'super-injunction' blocking it.
They then tried to stop the British media from revealing that an MP had tabled a question relating to the report.
Stopped in their tracks, the Guardian then cleverly wrote a front page piece on how they could not write what they had planned to, due to an injunction from an oil company concerning an MP's question due to be asked in Parliament that day.
A quick scan of the MP's questions that had been tabled and soon Bloggers and Tweeters were posting and tweeting about to such an extent that it made the injunction useless.
Users posted so many comments and posts about Trafigura and the parliamentary question that the issue soon became top of Twitters list of popular topics.
In a statement, the lawyers agreed to drop the injunction stating that "there is no longer any purpose in the injunction remaining in place".
Proof of the power for good of the Internet coupled with a strong sense of injustice from the Internet users in battling corrupt firms and morally corrupt lawyers.
Now that it is out in the open, I'd like to see the oil company closed down for such a flagrant case of toxic pollution, it's assets sold off to properly compensate the people of the Ivory Coast and those involved tried for murder.
Thursday, 15 October 2009
Cheating Cheryl Cole
Cheryl Cole's career has recovered well since she was found guilty of assault in 2003. Luckily for her the charge of racist assault was dropped as the jury couldn't agree if Cole had called her victim a bitch or a black bitch as she pummelled her so it was just plain old assault on a toilet attendant or she would really have been in trouble. It's one thing to punch people but another thing if you are racist while doing it.
Since then she has managed to keep her fists to herself and has turned into a British icon and has landed herself a job as a judge on one of Simon Cowells karaoke programs, the same sort of show that started it all off for her.
While her husband was off having sex with hairdressers, we collectively hugged her to our bosom and gave her a cuddle but now the tide may be turning back against her again.
As one of the winners of Pop Idol, you would imagine she would be quite a good judge, having been there and done it all previously.
You would think but it seems that when the judge performs her debut solo single on The X-Factor this Saturday, her vocals will have been recorded earlier in the day, whereas the contestants are compelled to sing live leaving me to wonder how can they take her comments seriously when she mimes when its her turn to step up to the plate?
I've always felt a sense of dishonesty when pop singers lip sync. There was time when Milli Vanilla and Betty Boo were chased out of town for doing it but they don't seem to even try and hide it now. Britney was at it a while back and that's bad enough considering how much she charges for a concert ticket just to hear a recording of her singing.
As someone who basically makes a living from critiquing peoples' singing, that's a pretty bad move for Mrs Cole, it's admitting that the contestants are more talented than those judging them.
I can't wait for the first contestant she criticises to ask her if she would care to show them how it's done and hand her the mic. If only the toilet attendant had been so good at ducking things, she might not have ended up so badly beaten.
Since then she has managed to keep her fists to herself and has turned into a British icon and has landed herself a job as a judge on one of Simon Cowells karaoke programs, the same sort of show that started it all off for her.
While her husband was off having sex with hairdressers, we collectively hugged her to our bosom and gave her a cuddle but now the tide may be turning back against her again.
As one of the winners of Pop Idol, you would imagine she would be quite a good judge, having been there and done it all previously.
You would think but it seems that when the judge performs her debut solo single on The X-Factor this Saturday, her vocals will have been recorded earlier in the day, whereas the contestants are compelled to sing live leaving me to wonder how can they take her comments seriously when she mimes when its her turn to step up to the plate?
I've always felt a sense of dishonesty when pop singers lip sync. There was time when Milli Vanilla and Betty Boo were chased out of town for doing it but they don't seem to even try and hide it now. Britney was at it a while back and that's bad enough considering how much she charges for a concert ticket just to hear a recording of her singing.
As someone who basically makes a living from critiquing peoples' singing, that's a pretty bad move for Mrs Cole, it's admitting that the contestants are more talented than those judging them.
I can't wait for the first contestant she criticises to ask her if she would care to show them how it's done and hand her the mic. If only the toilet attendant had been so good at ducking things, she might not have ended up so badly beaten.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)