SILLY POINT

Bairstow and TwatWhether a hangover from the ‘let it all hang out’ mantra in evidence at numerous outdoor pop festivals in the early 70s or simply a symptom of bored narcissists acting the clown, when streaking became a craze in 1974 it was…erm…stripped of any ‘radical’ hippie associations and was instead regarded as the latest gimmick of the attention-seeking prankster. After all, by the mid-70s, most gestures that had possessed a politically radical edge in the late 60s had well and truly had those edges smoothed out; and deciding to run onto the field naked at a packed stadium was seen as more Benny Hill than Woodstock, something to laugh at rather than be viewed as symbolic of the decline and fall of Western civilization. Ray Stevens’ chart-topping 1974 hit, ‘The Streak’ was very much in this vein, being the archetypal 70s comedy record and not exactly a ‘protest song’. After a bearded streaker was captured on camera being escorted from the pitch at Twickenham in April of that year – and a conscientious policeman had famously invented a novel new use for his helmet – many top sporting events covered on television suddenly appeared to attract chaps prone to getting their kit off in public. And it was primarily chaps who were into this streaking lark; Erika Roe’s 15 minute-stint in the spotlight at Twickenham in 1982 was something of an anomaly.

Obviously, streaking in Britain was primarily a summer sport, which meant it honed in on venues hosting cricket. No game seemed more susceptible to streaking than cricket. An especially unforgettable example of John Arlott’s masterful ability to cope with the unexpected occurred at Lord’s in 1975, when a streaker interrupted play between England and Australia. Despite strangely referring to the streaker as a ‘freaker’, Arlott responded to the sudden apparition by declaring, ‘And it’s masculine, and I would think it’s seen the last of its cricket for the day.’ Television producers – and viewers – were less squeamish back then; cameras didn’t cut away with the commentator issuing an apology along the lines of ‘Well, we’re sure the viewers at home don’t want to see that’; no, the whole performance was beamed into the nation’s living rooms as a comedy interlude far more entertaining than rain stopping play; I also have a memory of the moment when the streaker leapt over the wicket even being incorporated into the opening titles of the highlights programme at the time.

Streaking has experienced occasional revivals over the years, but along with flared trousers and platform heels, it’s never really caught on in quite the same way as first time round. There was a lone wolf who routinely indulged around 20-25 years ago, most memorably at the 2003 UEFA Cup Final in Seville; as Glasgow Celtic were finalists, the game was televised live on the BBC, though the commentator had to emphasise the BBC was using a feed from Spanish TV when the streaker appeared and his charge around the pitch as the police gave chase was tracked by the cameras. The Spaniards clearly didn’t regard a silly man interrupting proceedings with his tackle on display as something to induce cardiac arrests in those tuning-in across Europe, unlike the BBC’s ‘it’s got nothing to do with us’ disclaimer. The character in question making a habit of regularly streaking at prominent sporting events made it look as though he was a professional with a premeditated plan rather than an amateur responding spontaneously to favourable conditions, so his actions were different to those that had provided light relief in the 70s.

As stated previously, streaking had no radical elements to it, let alone political ones; interruptions to sport that have a political agenda are a different beast altogether. The likes of Suffragette Emily Davison at the 1913 Derby is too distant to trace a straight line to the modern era, but perhaps the first such protests of a manner we’d find familiar today occurred during UK tours by the South African rugby and cricket teams in 1969 and 1970, when the British Anti-Apartheid movement (including South African exile and future Labour Minister Peter Hain) took direct action at a time when governments were still reluctant to impose the blanket ban on South Africa’s sportsmen and women that came into force just a few years later. Despite strong opposition in some quarters, most recognised the iniquities of racially-divided societies in South Africa and Rhodesia for what they were and the Anti-Apartheid protests could be said to have helped bring about an expulsion from international competition that eventually led to the end of those regimes – even if it took a good few years. Recently, there’s been a resurrection of direct action at sporting events, though – unlike the Anti-Apartheid protests – any sympathy with the promoters of the cause in question rests very much with the minority as opposed to the majority.

Whereas a public sector union on strike can disrupt the lives of the public when taking industrial action, there is nevertheless always a degree of support amongst some members of that public re the unions’ grievance, and it is the Government stalling on a pay rise that is largely viewed as the enemy. This isn’t the case when it comes to the likes of those who disrupt the lives of the public with protests unrelated to issues the ordinary man and woman in the street can directly relate to, such as the cost of living. The ‘end of the world is nigh’ hysteria of the kind that largely emanates from privileged middle-class ‘activists’ with a somewhat patrician attitude towards people bereft of their privileges is not likely to inspire much sympathy; if anything, it inspires anger and diminishes wider support for a cause that already seems fairly abstract, a product of the crystal ball rather than something as immediate and tangible as a supermarket receipt recording rising prices.

Having disrupted play at the World Snooker Championships as well as the Grand National and the Derby lately, yesterday the Ptolemy and Titania brigade made their presence felt at Lord’s. Almost 50 years ago, play in an Ashes Test was momentarily halted at the same location due to a daft man in the nuddy; half-a-century later, the entirely humourless idiot sons of the Climate Change industry invaded the pitch, the Just Stop Oil soothsayers with their tiresome orange powder trick yet again. Cockney geezers protesting against the imprisonment of George Davis caused an Ashes Test to be cancelled at Headingley in 1975 by pouring paint on the pitch overnight; this time round, attempts to reach the pitch during an actual match were thwarted by swift security men, not to mention England wicketkeeper Jonny Bairstow showing impressive physical prowess by carrying one of the protestors away. As with every other stunt of this nature to have been staged in recent months, most are pretty sick of the sight of Just Stop Oil and their antics; how many have been converted as a consequence? Answers, I suspect, on a very small postcard.

The philistine goons with the silver spoons in their mouths who went through a phase of defacing great works of art at galleries a few months back in a way demonstrated just how clueless these posh eco-activists are. The Art world is on the same wavelength as them, after all, teeming with curators who loathe the collections they are supposed to be looking after and who denigrate Britain’s artistic heritage as symbolic of racism and colonialism and slavery and so on and so on. Equally, the corporate world of sport is increasingly in thrall to a certain ideological dogma it rarely misses a moment to shove down the throat of the punter weary of being lectured to. But it is the punter that keeps these sports in business, and one can hardly expect him or her to respond with favour to having yet another lecture – albeit one manifested as a protest – interrupting the enjoyment of something representing one of the few escapes from the day-to-day grind still remaining to them. If we are to have pitch invasions, at least give us a laugh and get yer kit off.

© The Editor

Website: https://www.johnnymonroe.co.uk/

Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/user?fan_landing=true&u=56665294

Vimeo: https://vimeo.com/824916098

24 HOURS FROM MOSCOW

Ukraine AgainRussia’s entry into any war is often based upon a past tense scenario that rates the nation’s military capability via a distant triumph; to be fair, though, this is routinely the case where a country’s army is concerned. For example, when British troops were committed to the Crimea in 1854, no British forces had been engaged on a European battlefield since Waterloo in 1815, more than one generation previously; so enduring were the oral histories of the Napoleonic Wars, however, that British supremacy was a given amongst the British people. Similarly, whenever Vladimir Putin feels like flexing his warmongering muscles, he can always fall back on historic victories to stir the patriotic spirit in his subjects, whatever the realities of Russian military might in the here and now. The fact that the Russian Army is so overstretched that mercenaries and bandits closer to the Taliban than troops adhering to the rules of engagement have been loosely incorporated into the armed forces was something that could be glossed over once the swift annexation of Ukraine as anticipated was achieved. The uncomfortable truth of the conflict in Ukraine from a Russian perspective, however, has opened up fault-lines in the accepted narrative that has exposed the likes of Yevgeny Prigozhin’s Wagner group as precisely what they are – ex-cons and opportunists employed as freelancers by the Russian state to keep a foothold in various trouble-spots across the globe without dirtying the hands of the official Russian military.

The presence of the Wagner group in Ukraine needs a moment’s pause to consider. Imagine if the IRA had been recruited into one of the British Army’s Irish regiments during the Falklands conflict of 1982 and you’d perhaps have a clearer image of just how close the Russian state has been playing with fire by allowing Yevgeny Prigozhin to represent Mother Russia in Ukraine. Prigozhin’s online rants against the cosseted Moscow mandarins directing manoeuvres from the Kremlin have upset the apple cart in the propaganda war against Ukraine, and during a remarkable sequence of events over the weekend it momentarily seemed the world was watching a rerun of the military mutinies that not only accelerated Russia’s premature withdrawal from the First World War but also eventually brought about the end of Tsarist rule. At times, I was also reminded of how Algerian-based French generals rebelled against directives from Paris at the height of France’s colonial crisis in the early 60s and turned the capital into an armed camp with missiles aimed at it from North Africa. When the authority of an elected President or de-facto dictator is challenged in such a manner, the whole house of cards necessary to keep a foreign war running smoothly suddenly shakes to the point where the entire foundations of a regime are threatened. That appeared to be what we were witnessing for 24 eventful hours on Saturday and Sunday.

Being the effective gangster that he is, Vlad has been as reliant on his henchmen as any Al Capone is on his hired hands until their undisciplined natures reassert themselves and the whole concept of running a country as though it were an organised crime syndicate begins to disintegrate. For a while over the weekend, it seemed as if this was indeed the case. Memories of the failed Communist coup intended to oust Gorbachev in 1991 resurfaced as news filtered through that the Wagner group had crossed the Ukrainian border and seized control of the Southern Russian city of Rostov-on-Don, allegedly receiving a euphoric reaction from the citizens there, which in itself was a direct challenge to the Kremlin. The pace of this story moved so fast that I personally thought it wise to wait and see what happened next before issuing a comment; but when the latest headlines suggested Prigozhin’s forces were en route to Moscow itself – stationed as they were just 124 miles from the Russian capital – rumours of Putin going AWOL evoked stories of Stalin’s private train out of Moscow on stand-by when it seemed as though Operation Barbarossa was destined for success in 1941. Who knew where this would end?

The ‘insurrection’ provoked both panic and pleasure in foreign observers, some wondering if it was a case of ‘better the devil you know’ should Putin’s authority be rendered redundant by a thug like Prigozhin and fearing where it might leave the global balance of power. In the end, it did indeed appear that Vlad’s long-held dominance had been diminished by the fact he declared an amnesty on his former heavy (and anyone who served under him) rather than relying upon the standard fall-from-a-tower-block fate that has met so many of Putin’s opponents in recent years. The most vocal critic of the Moscow military establishment has essentially been exiled as opposed to executed. Prigozhin himself has backtracked on moves shrouded in mystery by claiming his rebellion was ‘a march for justice’ and that ‘In 24 hours we got to within 200km of Moscow; in this time we did not spill a single drop of our fighters’ blood’ as he ordered the men recruited from prison cells back to base and the armoured convoy went into retreat. Putin may well regard his ex-ally’s behaviour as an act of treason and ‘a stab in the back of our country’, but the apparent empathy with the rebels of a Russian people witnessing a different outcome to the Ukraine invasion to that which the Kremlin promised has irked Vlad and has perhaps highlighted the limitations of his power at last.

It took the intervention of an ‘outsider’, Belarus leader Alexander Lukashenko, to broker a deal that enabled the rebel forces to put the brakes on their march upon Moscow; Belarus is the retirement destination of self-proclaimed patriot Yevgeny Prigozhin as his role in the Ukrainian conflict is now seemingly at an end, free from criminal charges yet still possessing the potential to be a perennial thorn in the side of the Putin regime that one imagines it won’t tolerate for much longer. Hell, if it can dispense polonium in a London cuppa, surely it won’t put up with such an unstable character as Prigozhin on its doorstep for long? After all, the Wagner kingpin has raged against Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu for months and also refused to sign a defence ministry contract that would have neutered his independence from the official Kremlin war machine, viewing the reasons given for the invasion of Ukraine as an opportunity for ‘a small group of scumbags to deceive the public and the President’; when Prigozhin was embarking upon his alleged march towards Moscow, he declared ‘There are 25,000 of us and we are going to find out why there is such chaos in the country. Everyone who wants, join us.’ Such statements suggest he’s the kind of character Putin ordinarily wouldn’t countenance, yet the whole amnesty plotline implies Vlad’s hand has been forced. I’ve a feeling this story isn’t over yet.

Without naming names, Putin addressed the Russian people on TV at the height of the crisis and declared, ‘What we are facing is precisely treason’ and ‘an armed mutiny’, though the apparent ease with which the Russian people will take everything uttered by their glorious leader on television as Gospel has been severely tested by the weekend’s events. The chaos that reigned amidst rumours that the President had recorded his address well in advance of a flight from Moscow has undeniably done damage to his Presidential prestige, and the apparent anarchy that emerged so easily in the wake of the Wagner group’s challenge to Putin’s supremacy has no doubt forged further uncertainties re the folly of the invasion. Of course, viewing all this from the distance of the West is a bit like eavesdropping on a family feud in which one has no direct emotional investment; the difference is that any such development as that instigated by a rogue commander gone even further rogue has the power to affect lives way beyond the source of the feud and a myriad of outcomes remain on the table. We continue to watch with breath well and truly baited.

© The Editor

Website: https://www.johnnymonroe.co.uk/

Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/user?fan_landing=true&u=56665294

Vimeo: https://vimeo.com/797932964

YOUR LIVES IN THEIR HANDS

Flat CapsReflecting on the brief, bedazzling interlude when a kid from a council estate had been courted, flattered and exploited by the powers-that-be, Noel Gallagher admitted a sense of disappointment that the New Labour model he’d been momentarily seduced by had quickly turned out to be just as ’orrible and sleazy (his words) as its predecessor. It was a unique way to learn a lesson that those members of the electorate not fortunate enough to have penned a few million-sellers when songs still sold a million all eventually learn; and it’s one that not only thousands of voters in the imminent by-elections triggered by recent Tory resignations will shortly be confronted by, but millions more across the country at some point in the next year-and-a-half. Whether merely disillusioned or incurably apathetic, the Great British voter’s faith in public servants has rarely been so severely tested as of late; even the most fanatical supporter of a political party whose official aims and ambitions superficially mirror their own must be wondering where to go next. Take the SNP.

The recent arrest of ex-First Minister of Scotland Nicola Sturgeon was an interesting episode for those of us who figured Wee Madam Krankie had always received an easy ride from the left-leaning intelligentsia south of the border; canny campaigner that she was, Sturgeon pitched herself as the anti-Boris like Bonnie Prince Charlie pitching himself as the rightful ‘king-across-the-water’ in opposition to the House of Hanover. As Johnson’s unpopularity grew and increasingly hysterical comparisons with Trump spewed forth from media mouthpieces, Sturgeon was envied as an alternative leader cut from cloth her Sassenach groupies were exceedingly comfortable with – i.e. far more authoritarian and contemptuous of the masses than even the Labour Party has dared to be in recent years, let alone Boris’s Tory administration. Lockdown and the pandemic presented Sturgeon with the perfect platform to really flex her illiberal muscles, though her SNP had already been introducing – or proposing – legislation that flew in the face of both civil liberties and common sense with or without Covid; criminalising conversation in the privacy of one’s home and giving male rapists a free pass into prisons crammed with real women simply because Glenn had proclaimed himself Glenda were just two of the First Minister’s brainwaves; at least the latter came back to bite her.

But beneath that carefully-constructed veneer of the ‘liberal’ politician, developments imply Krankie and her cabal were just as corrupt and self-serving as all the rest – even Boris. Well, bugger me! Her arrest came as part of an ongoing investigation into missing money collected to fund a second independence referendum – all £666,000 of it; and mobile homes posing as campaign buses notwithstanding, the arrest of both Mr Krankie (Peter Murrell) and Colin Beattie (SNP treasurer at the time the supporters’ lucre went AWOL), suggests something fishy was afoot. Mind you, not that much digging can be done beyond McKnacker; Scotland’s stringent interpretation of the contempt-of-court laws are designed to block commentators and media folk – both mainstream and social – from discussing this kind of scandal lest it prove prejudicial to a legal case, and the threat of a prison sentence tends to work in dissuading discussion in the public arena; thus, coverage of the kind that the likes of Partygate has received has been considerably muted where this story is concerned. As far as laws go, the Contempt of Court Act 1981 is something of which Presidents Putin and Erdoğan would no doubt wholeheartedly approve.

Policing and regulating the eating, drinking and smoking of their fellow citizens not to mention their disastrous handling of the NHS and education, the SNP under Sturgeon were obsessed with independence seemingly at the expense of everything else, especially a union that gives them far more leeway than the union they sought to be absorbed back into. But perhaps the EU is the kind of institution in synch with the SNP’s particular form of governance, as it is the über-Remoaner approach to the wider electorate as typified by the Starmer brand of Labour. Of course, at the moment nobody is watching the unravelling of Sturgeon’s legacy closer than the Labour Party; with the bonus of an extreme virtue-signalling Identity Politician having inherited the crown from Wee Nicola with suspicious speed, speculation is rife that the SNP stands to lose a record number of seats at the next General Election – and if they lose ‘em, there’s only one place they’ll be going. Should it happen, however, will Labour’s revival north of the border be as brief as that of the Scottish Tories under Ruth Davidson in 2017?

For all his choreographed smarm offensives, Sir Keir has a problem in that his strand of the Labour Party loathes the great swathe of the electorate it is ultimately dependent upon to get back into power. How much easier it would be for the Labour Party if it only had to rely on Guardian-reading, university-educated, metropolitan middle-class voters of the kind it adores and who adore it in return as they embark upon their latest crusade on behalf of whichever designated victim group is steaming ahead in the Oppression Olympics. Instead, Labour has to lower itself to the distasteful business of ‘acting the pleb’ every four or five years, to pose with a pint or a pasty and pretend it watches ‘The Eastenders’; like a reluctant 80s Indie band forced to appear on ‘Top of the Pops’ by their record company, Labour grins, bears it and hopes its facade of working-class chumminess passes muster on the hustings. Naturally, once in office, the Red Wall can go f**k itself – after all, that’s what the Tories have done since picking up the bricks in 2019; but for the moment, just don’t ask Labour to define a woman and it might convince the deluded faithful it still has their interests at heart.

And then there’s the Lib Dems. Oh, dear – I do try and be nice to them in a way you’d be nice to someone you feel sorry for sat on their own at a party; but they do make it hard when they’re so in thrall to every combatant in the Culture Wars who reckons they’re on ‘the right side of history’. If Keir Starmer struggled to admit only women have cervixes, Lib Dem leader Ed Davey reckons they’ve got dicks. At one time, the worst elements of this kind of thinking only surfaced in the Lib Dems with fruitcakes like Layla Moran; having a self-confessed Christian like Tim Farron at the helm at least kept a lid on it, but now the Party seems to have thrown its lot in with a mindset shared by only a tiny percentage of the electorate – albeit one with a very loud voice and the means to make it heard. Have the Lib Dems not learnt from the disastrous pro-Second Referendum reign of Jo Swinson that backing a horse because you believe the minority riding it is a majority will not win you enough seats to make coalition a realistic prospect again? Perhaps the best the Lib Dems can hope for next time round is to return to their former status as a protest or tactical voting option.

And where would our round-up of the not-so-good, the bad and the ugly be without our ruling Party? The damage done to the brand by its previous two leaders does present poor old Rishi with a somewhat unenviable task; it doesn’t help either that – in one shape or another – the Conservatives will have been in power for 14 years come the next General Election; they’ve been at it long enough now to have no excuses left, and even if one might be kind and say that any Party would have faced a big ask confronted by Austerity, Brexit and Covid, a glance at Boris’s resignation honours list simply suggests they’re still looking after their own and the rest of us can take a running jump in the direction of the nearest food bank. Any voters finding themselves floating – and I should imagine a fair few are – must despair at the thought of endorsing any of these options in 2024; but what choice do we have when there’s no discernible best in such a bad bunch?

© The Editor

Website: https://www.johnnymonroe.co.uk/

Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/user?fan_landing=true&u=56665294

Vimeo: https://vimeo.com/824916098

PLAY ON

Duke's theatreWhenever I take a week off from this here Winegum, whether due to an actual physical vacation, general headline fatigue, or a pile-up of other creative commitments, the hope is always that no major news story breaks that I’d ordinarily respond to. As it happens, I’ve just returned from a sort-of holiday bereft of the tools of my trade, so wasn’t in a position to post anything anyway. However, that didn’t prevent me jotting sentences down on a notepad whenever they gatecrashed my thoughts, for I had a feeling they’d form some sort of post once I was back home again. And, remarkably, I survived what used to simply be regarded as warm weather of the kind summers actually tend to specialise in. Remarkable indeed – and even more remarkable was the fact it rained once or twice after a dry spell; again, this is the sort of thing we’d never heard of before climate change became a corporate bandwagon on a par with Pride. I honestly don’t know how we coped before the powers-that-be alerted us to all this shit.

ElizabethAnyway, whilst the passing of a famous name I had a soft spot for can often come to my rescue if I’m struggling to think of something to write about, the worst thing is if such a name should pass away in my absence. It happened twice during my latest stint AWOL, and I figured I may as well give the two an honourable mention now I have the chance. Glenda Jackson, whose death at the age of 87 was announced at the back end of last week, was an actress who made her mark at a moment when British cinema was benefitting from ‘England swinging’ via handsome injections of cash from Hollywood. She established herself in groundbreaking Brit flicks such as ‘Women in Love’, ‘Sunday Bloody Sunday’ and ‘The Music Lovers’, and then seamlessly transferred to the small screen when bringing some cinematic gravitas to her portrayal of the Virgin Queen in the BBC’s landmark 1971 production, ‘Elizabeth R’; television was also responsible for the unveiling of her hitherto-untapped comic timing, which she showcased alongside Eric and Ernie. She then exported this to the big screen, winning an Oscar for the 1973 Rom Com, ‘A Touch of Class’.

Jackson also enjoyed a substantial stage career before abruptly retiring from acting, demonstrating her commitment to the political cause that had been a sideline all her adult life by winning the seat of Hampstead and Highgate for Labour at the 1992 General Election, and holding it for an impressive 23 years. After finally standing down from Parliament in 2015 (with perhaps her most telling contribution to events in the Chamber being her unsentimental reaction to the death of Margaret Thatcher in 2013), Jackson then resumed her previous career, picking up where she’d left off as though she’d never been away, winning a BAFTA for her performance as a grandma with Alzheimer’s in the BBC’s ‘Elizabeth is Missing’ and winning plaudits for her draining interpretation of ‘King Lear’ on stage. I suppose her death just eight years after returning to acting might prompt some to muse on all the parts she could have illuminated when putting acting on ice for her constituents; but others might ponder on how far her time in politics could have carried her had she not been distracted for so long by the smell of the greasepaint and the roar of the crowd.

GordonThe other notable passing in my absence was that of a Scottish colossus of 70s soccer, Gordon McQueen, whose death at the age of 70 from an apparent combination of cancer and dementia was also announced last week. Central defender McQueen began his career at St Mirren before joining a well-established exodus south of the border to Don Revie’s mighty Leeds United in the early 70s. Earmarked as a replacement for the ageing Jack Charlton, McQueen was part of an awesome line-up of combative Scots at Elland Road, including seven first-team regulars. He was crucial to Leeds’ 1974 title-winning side and played a vital role in the following season’s European Cup run under Revie’s ‘proper’ successor Jimmy Armfield, only missing out on the Final due to being sent-off in the Semi after performing a move from the Johnny Giles manual of self-defence against a niggling Barcelona forward. McQueen formed a close bond with fellow Leeds scot Joe Jordan and controversially accompanied Jordan across the Pennines in 1978 to Manchester Utd, with whom he won the FA Cup in 1983. McQueen also had many a memorable moment in international colours, especially his goal against the Auld Enemy at Wembley in 1977 (prior to an infamous pitch invasion). Mc Queen had carried on a tradition instigated by Jack Charlton at Leeds, dashing up from the centre of defence during a corner and hanging around the goal-line before utilising his height to leap up and head the ball down into the back of the net. Sadly, it was the legacy of this tactic to which his dementia was attributed in later life. Hard balls headed by hard men in a harder footballing age; a pity the personal price was so high for such a towering giant of his era.

To return now to the subject of acting, one of the highlights of my week away was to witness a staging of Shakespeare’s ‘Twelfth Night’ by a theatre group called the Duke’s Theatre Company. Yes, I appreciate for some that the words ‘theatre’ and ‘company’ may well evoke the shuddering spectre of Legz Akimbo, the spoof theatrical collective from BBC TV comedy ‘The League of Gentlemen’, the team specialising in plays about ‘issues’, with such cutting-edge classics as ‘Everybody Out’ (gay); ‘White Chocolate’ (racism); and ‘Vegetable Soup’ (disability). But whilst it sometimes feels as though Legz Akimbo’s crass, unsubtle approach to contemporary concerns is now the backbone of most mainstream TV dramas – not to mention Hollywood movies – surely a theatre group performing Shakespeare will spare the audience a lecture on how bigoted we all are. Mercifully, if the Duke’s Theatre is anything to go by, the answer is yes.

The Bard’s exploration of universal human themes that the centuries cannot render redundant give his plays a timeless relevance and flexibility which leaves them open to multiple interpretations; even what could be regarded as the sole barrier – the florid language – ceases to be a hindrance to unaccustomed audiences if the presentation is suitably contemporary or (in the case of the comedies) simply funny. In this respect, Shakespeare’s works can be staged in more myriad ways than other iconic wordsmiths such as Dickens, whose novels so rooted in time and place don’t suit the imposition of current stances on history, as has been proven recently at the BBC, with their latest abysmal rewrite of ‘Great Expectations’. And, at least, when it comes to Shakespeare’s less intense pieces, what matters more than anything is that they make everyone other than the most hardened Shakespeare scholar crack a smile. In the case of the version of ‘Twelfth Night’ I was witness to, the Duke’s Theatre succeeded.

As someone who prefers Shakespeare’s tragedies to his comedies, the prospect of sitting through one of the latter didn’t fill me with expectations of such a good evening out as it turned out to be. This particular performance, however, had a great bonus in that it was staged outdoors, a midsummer night in the grounds of Heskin Hall, an old manor house in Chorley, Lancashire. The audience had to bring their own ‘deckchairs’ and were encouraged to picnic; most present did so with an ease that implied this was as familiar to them as it was new to me. The actors themselves were far from being ‘am-dram’, and they injected the play with a winning mix of music-hall, Noel Coward…and Barry White. But more than anything else, they gave the play something which modern audiences might not always associate with Shakespeare comedies given a more staid, traditional treatment – genuine humour. I thought it worthy of a mention just in case it might be up your street, and as evidence I wasn’t merely twiddling my thumbs in temporary exile; I was actually gathering material. I can’t help myself…

© The Editor

Website: https://www.johnnymonroe.co.uk/

Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/user?fan_landing=true&u=56665294

Vimeo: https://vimeo.com/824916098

GOING, GOING, GONG

BorisTo paraphrase Groucho Marx, who would want to join a club that has some of this lot as members – Priti Patel, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Michael Fabricant, and Guto Harri? All have been elevated up the social ladder in Boris Johnson’s resignation honours list, rewarded for services rendered to a discredited administration; as if to underline just how low the archaic institution of departing Prime Ministers awarding peerages, knighthoods and damehoods has sunk, many of the gongs dished out go to those who participated in the ‘Partygate’ affair, receiving a winner’s medal despite breaking rules the rest of us had to abide by; they already deny they did any wrong, and now their denials have been legitimised by the man whose rotten government they propped-up whilst simultaneously accelerating its demise. Ironically, on the same day his very own ‘Lavender List’ was belatedly unveiled, that man walked what one hopes is the final parliamentary plank he’ll ever set foot upon. Yes, Boris has resigned as MP for Uxbridge and South Ruislip, vacating the backbenches ex-PMs rarely sit comfortably on; his announcement comes in the wake of the ultimate Boris groupie, Nadine Dorries, also quitting her membership of the Commons after learning all that sucking-up to her former leader couldn’t even earn her a poxy OBE. Rishi Sunak may be glad to see the back of both of them, but two imminent by-elections coming along at once won’t be the kind of litmus test of his performance so far that he was looking for.

Highlighting how the odious shadow of Partygate continues to contaminate Boris, his decision to stand down as an MP seems to have been largely prompted by the cross-party investigation into whether or not he misled Parliament on the subject of the scandal. What he himself referred to as a kangaroo court of ‘such egregious bias’ is one he appears to believe is determined to find him guilty, and this was something he referenced repeatedly in a resignation statement which displays a level of persecutory paranoia worthy of Richard Nixon. ‘Most members of the committee, especially the chair, had already expressed deeply prejudicial remarks about my guilt before they had even seen the evidence,’ he said. ‘Of course, it suits the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats, and the SNP to do whatever they can to remove me from Parliament…but they have wilfully chosen to ignore the truth because from the outset their purpose has not been to discover the truth, or genuinely to understand what was in my mind when I spoke to the Commons.’

One cannot deny there is a grain of truth to Boris’s self-pitying whinging when he touches upon the eagerness of certain MPs in the Privileges Committee to oust him from Parliament; his scalp would be a notable feather in the cap of several involved, not least Labour veteran Harriet Harperson, chair of the Committee. And this is hardly unprecedented. One only has to think back to how a handful of prominent – not to say desperate – Democrat politicians in the US tried every dirty trick in the book in order to claim their place in history by kicking Donald Trump out of the White House without a single member of the American electorate having their say. In the end, the Democrats wasted the best part of two years on a fanatical kamikaze mission that got them nowhere and it was then left to the American electorate to do the job the democratic way, which they did. Now Boris has denied his own pursuers the chance of a kill by jumping before being pushed. Even if the Committee finds him guilty, they can no longer dish out the desired sentence, so he has at least achieved a minor victory as he walks away from Westminster of his own accord.

This isn’t the first time Boris has stood down as an MP, of course; he was out of Parliament for seven of his eight years as Mayor of London from 2008-2016, winning a seat at the 2015 General Election in what can be retrospectively regarded as the first stage of his campaign to grab the keys to No.10. But eight years on from his return to the Commons, this latest voluntary exit is more reminiscent of the manner of his departure from Downing Street; the same impression is given that he is a wronged man, forced out against his will, presented with no option but to quit without that being his own choice, playing the victim as he denies he ever committed the crime of which he is accused. ‘I did not lie’, he said, ‘and I believe that in their hearts the committee know it.’ Naturally, those who have continued to defend Boris despite everything have had the bitter pill of his surprise exit somewhat sweetened by his delayed honours list, no doubt finding solace in ennoblement – with the notable exception of his former Culture Secretary. One of the reasons given for Dorries not receiving promotion to the Lords was that such a promotion would trigger an unwanted by-election; but she’s gone and triggered it anyway.

The ‘everyone’s a winner’ mantra certainly seems to have fuelled Boris’s list, whereby many of the winners can hardly be viewed as runaway successes in their previous positions as pals and colleagues. Aside from the more well-known names, there are numerous characters listed that didn’t exactly cover the ex-PM’s administration in glory. Former failed London mayoral candidate Shaun Bailey – captured on camera at a lockdown-breaking Xmas shindig at Tory HQ – is handed a peerage; Martin Reynolds, the principal private secretary known as ‘Party Marty’ for his text invites about bringing your own booze to No.10 garden parties, is given a knighthood; Shelley Williams-Walker, Boris’s head of operations and the wannabe DJ responsible for the party playlist at the notorious bash the night before Prince Philip’s funeral, becomes a dame; Ben Mallett, alleged buddy of ‘Carrie Antoinette’ Mrs Johnson and another attendee at the infamous Tory Xmas do in 2020, has to settle for a mere OBE; a peerage goes to Boris’s chief of staff (and another casualty of Partygate), Dan Rosenfield; oh, and there’s also a peerage gifted to Ben Houchen, the Tees Valley mayor accused of ‘cronyism and backroom deals’. Actually, is there a more fitting qualification for being named in this list than that?

Considering the manner in which Boris’s Ministers dished out PPE contracts to friends, neighbours and pub landlords during the pandemic, it’s no great surprise that Boris’s resignation honours list radiates such a similarly malodorous odour. Why indeed would any of the aides and employees rewarded by Boris experience a sudden realisation that their behaviour at a time when the rest of the country was suffering unprecedented restrictions imposed upon it by the very same people not prepared to abide by them was unacceptable? You do wrong and you get a free pass to the overcrowded Upper Chamber; that sends out an interesting, if somewhat twisted moral message. Filling the Lords with the same space-wasting shower that cluttered the Commons during Boris’s premiership may at least remove some of the stench from the Lower Chamber, but it does make one wonder yet again what the bloody point of the Lords is after all.

Boris’s now-overlooked political talents were evident for one last occasion yesterday, with his resignation as an MP being expertly timed to bury the bad news of his honours list; barely had journos composed their damning critiques of that before they had to hurriedly pen a fresh obituary, with all talk being of Boris’s departure from Parliament rather than the recipients of his shameless cronyism. However, unlike Harold Wilson, whose reputation suffered such severe, long-lasting damage that it all-but eclipsed his record as Prime Minister following his own resignation honours list, it’s difficult to imagine Boris’s equivalent will alter opinion on Johnson one way or another; we expected nothing less than what we got, and Boris delivers every time.

© The Editor

Website: https://www.johnnymonroe.co.uk/

Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/user?fan_landing=true&u=56665294

Vimeo: https://vimeo.com/824916098

HOME TO ROOST

BearNot so long ago – at least using the widest historical perspective – wars undertaken on foreign soil were sufficiently detached from home not merely in terms of geographical distance; prior to advances in communications it’s all-too easy to take for granted today, the latest news from the front might not reach those with an emotional investment in the outcome for weeks. We’ve all grown up with stories of WWII telegrams being delivered to doorsteps that informed a war bride her bridegroom was either missing in action or had been killed in conflict; but before the 20th century’s technological innovations, the lengthy wait for news must have made whichever war was being fought overseas seem as though it was taking place on another planet. Ironically, the advances the last century brought us didn’t just shorten the interminable gap between events on the battlefield and deliverance of reports to the housewife, but also served to bring the war to the streets of the nation waging it. Zeppelin raids on England during the First World War were a wake-up call that distance was no longer a hindrance to experiencing the horrors of war for those who hadn’t been called-up to fight it, and what followed a generation later shattered forever the comforting illusion of isolationist security that a bit of water engendered.

The USA certainly received such a wake-up call with Pearl Harbour in 1941 and was again shaken out of its torpor 60 years later in New York; but some had received it a little earlier, at a time when it was thousands of armed men rather than advanced technological hardware that presented citizens of a country engaged in a war abroad with the consequences of their nation’s actions. Napoleon’s ill-fated invasion of Russia in 1812 saw the Emperor overwhelmed by the vast landmass before him as well as the onset of winter – factors which also played into the demoralising defeat of another failed conqueror of Mother Russia 130 years after Bonaparte embarked upon his humiliating retreat back to the West. But whilst the sheer mind-boggling scale of Russia as a country may prove to be a deterrent to invading forces of flesh-and-blood, the 21st century doesn’t even require the manned aircraft that the previous century depended upon to bring the conflict closer to home.

Recent drone attacks on Moscow that the Kremlin credited to Kyiv have belatedly alerted many Russians that it no longer matters how far from the frontline they are. Explosions that rang through some of the Russian capital’s more exclusive gated communities – ones lined with expensive residential homes of the kind certain wealthy Russian exiles have bought up Monopoly-like in London – came hot on the heels of drone strikes on the Kremlin a few weeks ago, ones which Moscow claimed to be an attempt to assassinate Vlad himself. The latest drone assault last week was aimed at the suburb of Rublyovka, a neighbourhood that is home to some of the country’s most powerful political and business movers and shakers. Even Putin himself has a pad there. The Russian Ministry of Defence claimed more than half-a-dozen drones were either downed or intercepted via electronic jammers en route to Moscow, whilst media reports suggest upwards of 25 to 30 were involved in the attack. The Kremlin points the finger at Kyiv, and though Kyiv itself has denied any involvement in the attacks, one Ukrainian presidential aide found it hard to hide his pleasure. ‘Of course we are pleased to watch,’ said Mykhailo Podolyak, ‘but we have nothing directly to do with this.’

Reactions to a war instigated by Moscow suddenly encroaching into Moscow itself have been greeted by some residents of the affected neighbourhood with a weary resignation – one reported response was that the assault was ‘to be expected…what else were we waiting for?’ The solution from the hawk side of the argument is to hit Ukraine even harder, though considering the Russians bombarded Kyiv with its own drones and missiles on at least 17 separate occasions in May alone, the evidence hardly suggests Moscow is easing up. The pro-war factions have been critical of the Ministry of Defence for allowing the drones to breach Russian defences, and those actually engaged in the conflict on Ukrainian soil have been even more vocal. Yevgeny Prigozhin, the leader of the so-called Wagner mercenary group fighting in Eastern Ukraine, has repeatedly criticised the Russian military establishment for not providing his troops with adequate ammunition and support as well as decrying the ineptitude of their strategy; he laid the blame on last week’s drone attacks at the feet of the same out-of-touch military officials that reside there. ‘Why the f**k are you allowing these drones to fly to Moscow?’ he snarled. ‘Who gives a shit that they are flying to your homes on Rublyovka? Let your houses burn!’

There certainly appears to be a clear disconnect between those directing events on the ground from afar and those actually on the ground itself, though hasn’t this always been the case in warfare? We’re all aware of the gulf that existed between WWI generals stationed in grandiose mansions several miles from the trenches and the soldiers bogged-down in them, even if that awareness stems from ‘Blackadder Goes Fourth’; and support for Putin’s warmongering is far-from universal in Russia itself, something drone attacks on home soil will surely only intensify. Vlad’s appearance on state television in the wake of last week’s assault saw him railing against Kyiv and its attempts to ‘intimidate Russia and Russian citizens’ with such a ‘terrorist attack’, pointing out that the drones were aimed at residential rather than military targets, as though Ukraine (if it was indeed responsible) was somehow veering from the honourable rules of engagement; but anyone who has witnessed the aftermath of Russia’s own attacks on Ukrainian towns and cities will know Russia never honoured these rules in the first place.

Ukraine’s multiple allies in the West have observed events with caution though, as our very own Foreign Secretary James Cleverly said, ‘Ukraine does have the legitimate right to defend itself within its own borders, of course; but it does also have the right to project force beyond its borders to undermine Russia’s ability to project force into Ukraine itself.’ Washington, on the other hand, said it doesn’t support attacks inside Russia – officially, anyway. Given the convenience of today’s technology to wage war from a distance – even if boots are still being deployed on the ground – it’s no surprise the conflict will eventually be deposited on the doorsteps of those who launched it; every advance in the hardware of warfare – airships, fighter jets, drones – enables those engaged in war to inflict damage ever further from the frontline, and events in Moscow last week have demonstrated this yet again.

Incidentally, current reports of another troubled spot on the map – Sudan – suggesting historical artefacts are at risk from the bombardment of Khartoum, highlights the short-sighted idiocy of returning precious archaeological treasures to the country of their origin on ideological grounds; the reason so many have survived is precisely because they were dispatched to Western museums in the 19th century; the locations they were sourced from have been unstable regions for decades and the fact the latest conflict in Sudan is putting those that stayed put in danger shows up the fanatical determination of our museums to ‘decolonise’ their collections for being the futile moral crusade it is. The loss of such artefacts in Iraq and Syria in recent years should surely have served as a warning, though it’s almost as though brainwashed British curators are prepared to sacrifice the priceless objects in their possessions simply to secure their place on ‘the right side of history’. What’s happening in Sudan at the moment is an internal struggle, though one could say Russia sees the Ukraine issue in exactly the same way, a civil war in which neighbours sharing a common history are at each other’s throats just for a piece of bloody land and a bloody border. Maybe the war was on home soil all along.

© The Editor

Website: https://www.johnnymonroe.co.uk/

Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/user?fan_landing=true&u=56665294

Vimeo: https://vimeo.com/824916098

TOP MAN

HaighThe sad news that Network, the finest of all companies issuing vintage TV on DVD, has gone into liquidation is a double blow to anyone who finds intelligent grownup television drama from half-a-century ago preferable to today’s often pitiful excuse. Firstly, the other companies that competed with Network in its early days, such as Acorn and Simply Media, appear to have completely abandoned the DVD/Blu Ray market, meaning Network was virtually operating in a field of one that has few potential operators to fill its shoes; and secondly, Network’s eagerness to keep releasing physical product meant it was a superior option to those that have succumbed to the dubious advances of streaming, a system vulnerable to the vagaries of pop cultural fashions, and one that can edit or remove content without the consent of the subscriber if the puritanical arbiters of permissible material suddenly declare it ‘problematic’. The timing of Network’s tragic collapse was also strangely ironic for me personally, as the very evening I heard the news I’d just finished watching perhaps what could be called an archetypal Network box-set release, ‘Man at the Top’.

The wonderful thing about Network was that it not only released remastered versions of programmes that have survived in the public consciousness as classics via regular screenings on repeat channels, but also put out series that were popular in their day yet have barely been seen since, thus failing to stretch their reputations beyond their initial audience. ‘Man at the Top’ was one such series; produced by Thames between 1970 and 1972, ‘Man at the Top’ continued the life and times of Joe Lampton, the cocksure character created by John Braine in his 1957 novel, ‘Room at the Top’. When the book was filmed a couple of years after its incendiary publication, its literary impact was replicated on the big screen, lighting the blue touch paper for the ‘kitchen sink’ era that gave the British film industry a kick up the backside. Lampton was played with swaggering charisma by Laurence Harvey in the movie, but the roots of the cinematic social realism that ‘Room at the Top’ inspired lay in the theatre, primarily with John Osborne’s groundbreaking play, ‘Look Back in Anger’ in 1956. In a canny piece of casting, when Joe Lampton’s adventures were updated for the early 70s small screen, he was played by Kenneth Haigh, who had brought the eloquent antihero Jimmy Porter to life onstage in the original Royal Court production of Osborne’s play.

Joe Lampton is a beneficiary of post-war educational improvements and the social mobility that followed them, a working-class northern lad who took advantage of the opportunities available to him and transcended the limited horizons that had kept his parents tied to their humble origins. Brash, bullish and bright, once the ambitious Lampton can see this tantalising career path laid out before him, he seizes every chance he gets with a ravenous ruthlessness that mirrors the avaricious arrogance of the local self-made men who run the town – the councillors, mill-owners, and all the usual cigar-smoking Masonic movers and shakers; Lampton is desperate to get what they’ve got and he sets about it with little care for who he tramples over to get there – including women. Despite being involved with the older wife of a colleague, he also courts the boss’s naive young daughter Susan; the predictable outcome of that pre-pill period is a shotgun marriage that secures Lampton’s lofty place in the family firm. For many, that would be job done; but Lampton’s ambition stretches beyond the north; Yorkshire isn’t big enough for him.

When we rejoin Joe Lampton in 1970, he’s a high-flying management consultant, prowling the concrete jungle of the capital’s sky-scraping office blocks; he drives a flash motor, resides in the Surrey stockbroker belt, and is 16 years into a static marriage whose vows he doesn’t exactly honour. The odour of executive success proves to be an irresistible aphrodisiac to seemingly every woman he comes into contact with and I swiftly lost track of all the ones he beds throughout the series, most of whom are familiar faces from the 70s TV rep company such as Stephanie Beacham, Katy Manning, Ann Lynn and Janet Key. Joe Lampton is a fascinating character because he’s such a bastard, yet Kenneth Haigh gives us an utterly believable and honest portrayal of a man of his generation, background and class – warts and all. Whenever his long-suffering wife Susan (played with sympathetic weariness by Zena Walker) attracts male attention or appears to take a shine to a member of the opposite sex, Lampton reverts to caveman mode and all-but drags her back home by her hair. Yes, one didn’t have to dig too deep beneath the sophisticated veneer of the moustachioed waistcoat-wearing businessman-about-town of the era to reveal the uncouth backstreet ruffian with his arse hanging out of his pants; indeed, a semi-regular character played by Colin Welland (a coarse old school-friend from Lampton’s hometown) proves the one thing money cannot buy is class. Yet Lampton, by contrast, seems far more able to conceal his provincial shortcomings when mixing with the high and mighty.

Yes, Joe Lampton is a bastard; but he’s in an environment where he’s surrounded by bastards, many of whom were born with advantages he never had. This fact is made all the more stark when we encounter a character such as the one played in a memorable episode by Michael Bates, a good man married to a philandering, spendthrift wife he inexplicably worships; the character ends up as a casualty of the system when she leaves him for his best friend; he dies by his own hand because he lacks the clinical streak necessary to survive and prosper in the world he finds himself in. So, despite ourselves, we can’t help rooting for Joe Lampton because whenever he experiences a fall from grace, it’s usually been caused by an even more unlikeable, self-serving, amoral brute who puts personal gain in business above and beyond every other concern. The message is pretty clear that nice guys don’t make it all the way to the top. And once at the top, Joe Lampton soon comes into contact with the equally callous cold fish of hereditary privilege, something that finally impresses his overbearing, self-important, self-made-man of a father-in-law, Abe Brown.

To opportunists like Abe Brown, his son-in-law’s rise is a chance to feather his own nest, and he and Lampton’s aristocratic patron push him into running for Parliament. Lampton sacrifices the chance of genuine love rather than another one-night stand to pursue this aim and then walks away from it at the eleventh hour, belatedly realising the gold in the pot isn’t enough after all. The series ends on an uncertain note, though Kenneth Haigh’s portrayal of Joe Lampton received one final outing in a 1973 movie that followed the second series. Haigh is the only actor from the TV series to feature and although the film is an interesting extended episode, it doesn’t quite hit the same heights. Nevertheless, the fact the movie was included on the box-set of the series was a classic Network move; no other company would have bothered to complete the set like that. But Network always made sure its releases were of the best quality, not only picture-wise, but all the extras, the accompanying booklets, and even the original transmission dates printed on the flipside of the DVD sleeve. Nothing was left out; the company knew its niche audience and went out of its way to give it what it wanted.

I counted 66 Network releases amongst my DVDs just before penning this paragraph, and chances are there are a few more I overlooked. They range from children’s shows to grownup telly to movies and documentaries. The variety Network offered was never less than impressive, and one wonders now how many neglected series they may well have excavated in the future will henceforth remain locked away in vaults for good. Even streaming sites tend to stick to the obvious vintage shows that have been repeated to death; Network could always take you by surprise with what it exhumed, and it’ll be missed.

© The Editor

Website: https://www.johnnymonroe.co.uk/

Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/user?fan_landing=true&u=56665294

Vimeo: https://vimeo.com/820105421