It makes me so sad to see my home town #Glasgow dressed as New York for a film set

It always makes me sad to see the way Glasgow has lost so much of its character amidst the usual panoply of distressing modern life - shopping malls, boutiques, theme pubs, mobile phone shops and suchlike. But it is even worse when anyone considers that it could possibly be mistaken for New York.
The nightmare is made even worse by this article in the iniquitous Mail Online telling of a film being made featuring that annoying luvvie Benderdick Cummersnatch.
The list of errors, grammatical, factual and others, include -

The MailOnline describes this as an "art deco clock" and it is a feature familiar to Glaswegians in Bothwell Street. Anybody with the slightest commonsense can see that it is only the casing that is art deco in design whereas the "clock" itself has Roman numerals. The company - Scottish Life - was founded in the mid 19th century so it is probably safe to assume that the mechanism was rehoused sometime in the 1920s or 1930s and the case may well have been inspired by the work of Charles Rennie McIntosh.

The article caption says of this picture "Power dressing: Extras seen donning an array of outlandish suits for the scenes would look right at home on the set of classic soap Dynasty"
Apart from the fact that I see nothing whatever "outlandish" about their clothing, I'd say that if they were actually "donning" the clothing when the pic was taken they would have been within their rights to inform the police and reporting the photographer as a peeping tom.

The caption for this pic states - "Benedict was spotted in an array of ensembles for the scenes, as he took on the tole of playboy Patrick Melrose from the self-titled novel series"
The school leaver or work experience kid (Laura Fox by name) responsible for this abominable piece is obviously unaware that eponymous would have been a far better choice of word than "self-titled" Evidently she doesn't care to read her own garbage after writing it (and who can blame her?) otherwise she would have changed "tole" to role.
Her article describes Bennydick Cummersnatch as wearing an "array" of outfits for the filming but I could only count three in the pictures.
Needless to say I will NOT be watching this movie when it comes to TV.

If this article in the #MailOnline represents modern policing then gawd help us

I sincerely hope that this article is just a typical example of how the Mail Online takes some silly little event and magnifies it out of all proportion. On the other hand if it does, in any way represent modern policing then we had all better stay at home with our doors locked - not only for fear of criminals but also for fear of the police themselves.Article Here

I'm having a rather snide chuckle about ITV's woes after the opening episode of #TheNightlyShow

It was a blatant attempt to extend what they naively call their prime time entertainment slot. Why ITV consider David Walliams to be prime time value is way betond me. His antics may keep an X-Factor audience amused but he is actually only another camp comedian - something that is, thankfully, past its sell by date. I find his toilet humour and puerile remarks that hint at anal sex tiresome in the extreme. On top of that ITV threaten us with Gordon Ramsay, whose only talent is swearing a lot, John Bishop, the man with the most annoying accent on television, and Mel and Sue, who are little better than children's entertainers, as hosts for future episodes.

It is also quite amusing that Twitter users were complaining about following Broadchurch with something as awful as The Nightly Show. But they seem to have glossed over the fact that ITV happily followed the series of Endeavour with a new series of Broadchurch. We only had four episodes of Endeavour but we are now expected to swallow eight whole episodes of indecipherable and tedious growling.

I think #Twitter has an agenda. The trending Edward Woodward topic has a subheading........

I'm the first to admit I know sweet bugger all about football but I can spot an agenda when I see one.
One of the current Twiiter trending topics in the UK is about somebody called Edward Woodward (I thought he was an actor but it seems someone with the same name has something to do with Manchester United). The subheading to the topic is that the previously mentioned Edward Woodward blames Brexit for the team's falling revenues.
Well I've looked at about 100 of the "Latest" tweets and of those I could only find a couple which mention Brexit within the same 140 characters and even those were sarcastic tweets.
So why was that topic labelled as having anything to do with Brexit? Because Twitter itself must be against Brexit - that's why.
So Twitter I must tell you that the political policies of this country is nothing whatever to do with you.

Goodbye 2016. Some of the people who have most annoyed me this year

I make no attempt to deny that this item was inspired the recent article in The Spectator by Quentin Letts. My justification is that I've found this year to be particularly annoying and am fully entitled to write about it. It might be said that I'm so much older and therefore am more easily annoyed but that is neither here nor there really.

So here, in no particular order other than the first, are my pet peeves of 2016.
1) It seems that even more people are misusing the word "amazing" It's use as an expression of opinion is entirely subjective and I am not in the least interested, or "amazed" by the prices of pieces of furniture, white goods, the characters of children, pets or reminiscences of holidays etc etc. All it's use really indicates is the lack of vocabulary of the careless user. They should find an appropriate word or just STFU.
2) Benedict Cumberbatch - and here I include all the luvvies and miscellaneous celebrities who inflict their entirely unwanted opinions on matters of the day. Okay we all have opinions (see Twitter for examples) but these people seem to think that theirs are of more significance than those of the general public.
3) Gary Lineker - I cannot abide the noise he makes eating crisps or whatever that rubbish he advertises might be. Also see 2) above.
4) Jamie Oliver - Of course I don't like 'celebrity' chefs at the best of times but at this time of year we get inflicted with this twat continually going on about 'wonderful' vegetables and 'feasts' and all the rest of the it.
5) Stephen Fry, David Walliams, Alan Carr, Sandi Toksvic and all the rest of the celebrity "LGBT community" - I have no quarrel with people's sexual orientation but I have no wish to hear the persistently off-colour jokes and comments that they seem unable to keep to themselves.
6) Richard Osman - Why has this man got to keep appearing on everything? He's not nearly as funny as he thinks he is and, in any case, I don't like people who look out of proportion to themselves.
7) Theresa May - She's clearly lying to us about getting us out of the EU. Hard Brexit or soft Brexit, it's just bullshit. She's a typical, self-serving, lying hypocrite in the mould of David Cameron.
8) Twitter - Yes I know I use it all the time but it has been really annoying me this year. It's the stupid "While you were away" nonsense. It comes up even when you haven't been away at all. You click on "show me less like this" and it keeps coming back again and again and again and again. Now it's got fed up with me saying I don't want to see tweets from hours ago. So it's bringing up the same old tweets but without the "While you were away" nonsense so you still have to reload the page in order to banish them further back down the timeline to keep the timeline current. It's so bloody stupid and utterly pointless. I simply do not want to see tweets that were put out there while I was in bed asleep or shopping or whatever.
On top of that I'm getting increasingly annoyed by other Twitter users who call anyone whose opinion differs from theirs "trolls" or "haters" It just shows their ignorance. Twice this year I have been called a "troll" which I certainly am not and just because I take the piss out of certain TV soap characters it doesn't make me a "hater" either.
I saw in the twitter response to George Michael's death that some people were putting the likely cause as being his oft reported misuse of drugs. Well that may be their opinion, to which they are entitled, but the more ignorant users were saying that those people were "parasites" Why do they use words of which they obviously do not know the meaning?
9) The current producer of TV soap Coronation Street Kate Oates - I've watched this programme more or less since the beginning so if I'm not entitled to criticise it then no one is. 'Corrie' was originally intended to be a humourous reflection Northern life but now it contains so much violent crime and so many unstable sociopaths that Northerners must be afraid to leave their homes. Since Kate Oates took over the reins, I don't think there is a single mentally sound person or relationship remaining on the cobbles. Murder, larceny and arson lurk around every corner. Every simple human storyline has to be corrupted or tinged with an element of criminality or a hint of unsavoury drama to come.
10)TV Continuity Announcers Why must TV companies recruit so many badly educated speakers of poor quality estuary English. It has got to the stage now where I have to mute the sound at the end of every programme so I don't have to listen to some moronic, inarticulate gabbling about a programme the next day which has no similarity to or connection with the one the one I have just been watching. And why does the picture have to be distorted while they gabble so that you cannot read the closing credits?

My short review of the #C4F1 review of the 2016 F1 season

Channel 4s review lineup

Aside from an all too short contribution from Lee McKenzie (looking provocative in a pair of black knee length boots), the show was entirely predictable and almost boring. Of course it wasn't really intended (at least I hope not) as a review of the year but rather as a review of the Lewis Hamilton Nico Rosberg rivalry during the season. It didn't actually work as that either since it became more of a see how much of a prat Steve Jones can be type of show.

The clip that amused me most came when Toto Wolff was describing an occasion (which I don't recall seeing or hearing about before) in which Rosberg, apparently, tried to persuade the team to get Hamilton to pass him as he was quicker on track. He was quoting this in an effort to convince viewers that Hamilton's tactic during the closing laps at Abu Dhabi was unsporting and unfair. Of course he was completely ignoring Rosberg's unsporting behaviour during so many races in the past.

The entire show only served to emphasise how little I want Steve Jones to appear next year and how much more suited he is to sleazy late night sex orientated shows.

A driver who isn't under a difficult long term contract and would work well with Lewis.......

Jenson is currently only under contract to McLaren as a reserve driver and I'm sure he would love to drive for another season in a decent car. It's likely that McLaren would release him for a great deal less than Williams would want for Bottas.

Let's face it you haven't got time to mess about and you really need a driver to be available for testing in a very few months - maybe even just as a stand-in until you can get yourselves sorted on a more permanent basis.
Jenson's vast experience would be invaluable and as everyone knows he treats cars and tyres sympathetically. As far as I can tell he gets on well with Lewis and he certainly is a gentleman regarding every aspect of the sport.

You could spend a great deal more money and come off a lot worse than hiring Jenson.

#C4F1 Rosberg's decision to retire was the most sensible but certainly not the bravest #F1

"Uneasy lies the head that wears the crown"

I've got rather tired of all the professional Formula One pundits rabbiting on about how Rosberg's decision to retire was a brave one. I think it was the most sensible decision he has ever made and, in fact, it borders on being a cowardly choice too. I realise that race commentators and journalists have to say pleasant things about the participants where possible because they need to get access to them to do their jobs. But is not telling the truth also a part of their job?

And the truth in this case is probably that Rosberg, in the dark corners of the night, must have come to the conclusion that this year was probably the very last one in which he would, with the help of his team, have even a glimmer of a chance at the world championship. This is because next year the rule changes will most likely end the total dominance of Mercedes and give Ferrari and Red Bull the opportunity to battle it out for wins. And Rosberg must know full well that he is, at best, a competent driver rather than a true racer. He must also know that in a straight all-out race he is utterly unlikely to best Lewis Hamilton or even Alonso or Vettel. He would also come off worst with newcomers like Verstappen in wheel to wheel action. So for a man whose future seems uncertain the most attractive option would be to claim the old political option of wanting "to spend more time with my family"

As for the Abu Dhabi final itself, I'm not sure that Hamilton himself adopted the wisest course of action in holding back Rosberg in the hope that he would fall into the clutches of the Ferraris and Red Bulls. It's understandable that he would want to influence the result in that way. After all there is not one driver in history who would not, at least, have contemplated it. Rosberg with his history of unsportsmanlike behaviour would certainly have done the same himself. Personally in Hamilton's shoes I think I would have driven off into the sunset leaving the world to the inevitable conclusion that the best driver did not win the championship. He should really have known that there would be people and Toto Wolff in particular who would view his action unfavourably and contemplate penalties against him in the future. Quite possibly, by disobeying team instructions to let Rosberg pass he was sticking his fingers up at Mercedes and making a comment about their nationalistic and legally dubious support of Rosberg throughout this season.

The intriguing question remaining is who will replace Rosberg in 2017? Mercedes will have to decide quickly as testing begins in a mere couple of months. They will probably have to pay for someone to be released from an existing contract. Hamilton says that he doesn't care but that may be just his way of psyching his opponents out. Alonso is one possibility who I'm quite sure he'd rather not have as a team mate again even though he is Spanish rather than German and therefore extremely unlikely to get the support that Rosberg had within the team hierarchy. Vettel has apparently already ruled himself out although I'm sure Mercedes would have loved to prise him away from Ferrari. I doubt Vettel fancies his chances against Hamilton even with technical support from the team as he is not much more of a genuine racer than Rosberg.

I wonder how Red Bull are enjoying the rivallry between Verstappen and Ricciardo bearing in mind their experience with Vettel and Mark Webber. It might be better to sell one or other of them rather than risk their cars in almost inevitable future clashes. I hope they end up giving as short a contract as they can get away with to somebody like Bottas as he will give Hamilton very little bother. I cannot wait for February to come round.

Why does the Mail Online have to publish these dreadful duck-face Facebook profile pics

It doesn't seem to matter what sort of crime has been committed by these narcissistic women the Mail has to publish their duck faces. Personally I'd rather see a police identity picture of them up against a plain wall with a height ruler.
The woman in my pic, Mandy Leacock, has been convicted of the particularly nasty crime of keeping a woman with learning difficulties as a slave over a period of 14 years. She also treated her to a variety of tortures including making her sit in a bath while pouring bleach over her and beating her with a frying pan.
So why does the Mail publish pics like this? Are they trying to get dates for this abysmal excuse for a human being.
I'd also like to know why they are not taking comments on the article. Leacock has been convicted and awaits sentence, so it cannot be a matter of prejudicing a jury. Maybe it's more that the scurrilous Mail Online is afraid of attracting comments that are unfavourable to itself (as if!!!!)

The Mail Online obviously shares Bill Clinton's notion of what constitutes sexual relations

The Mail Online frequently misleads in it's headlines, whether purposely or not I don't know, but this is one of the most blatant I have seen. Under the headline:-
Devout Christian French teacher, 28, 'is pictured in Travelodge hotel bed after having sex with a pupil on prom night.
A totally scurrilous article continues with the above picture which it claims shows a 28 yr old teacher having sex with a pupil. And then to make matters worse it declines to accept readers comments on the article. The editorial staff must be afraid of the comments which would ensue beause it cannot possibly be concerned about any legal action since no one, or any kind of ill advised activity, can possibly be identified from the picture - except possibly underaged drinking and even then, I'm not sure that holding a wine bottle can be called drinking any more than standing in a doorway of a room with a woman lying in bed can be called having sex.
I'm not sure which is worse the Mail Online's misleading headline (obviously designed to lure gullible readers to click on the advertising) or the slender evidence which could cost the teacher her career.
The 'damning evidence' continues:-

Fraser Thomson, a council employee who investigated the case, told the panel an investigation began after senior teachers learned of the picture on social media. Describing the photo, he said: 'The pupil standing in the door is Pupil A.
'You can see there what appears to be a lady in the bed. The colour showed the lady with long blonde hair.'

Mr Thomson told the panel students said they saw 'Pupil A and Mrs Graham lying on the bed, one on top of the covers and one underneath the covers'.

The prurient and misleading nature of this piece of irresponsible 'journalism' utterly appalls me.