ROADHOUSE BLUES

Pennine Tower 2Battered bangers – that’s the delicacy that still springs to mind when I think of motorway service station cuisine, even though I doubt such dubious gastronomic delights have been served in those locations for the best part of 40 years. The uniquely sickly odour that radiated from the battered banger mingled with the pollutants generated by passing vehicles to create a distinct queasiness in the diner whose egg, beans and chips were garnished with two or three of them; along with packets of sugar bearing the stag logo of Trusthouse Forte, these are the signposts that signal the service station as an establishment in my head, though I guess my impression of them remains rooted in the ones I recall calling at during lengthy journeys to holiday destinations as a child. In the 1970s, most retained their original designs – that modernist ‘Scandinavian’ style of the early 60s, resembling the kind of imaginary airport terminals one could imagine Gerry Anderson characters taking off from. Their initial appearance on rural landscapes must have been as much of a surreal site to locals as the super-highways that they were erected to serve, a sample of the future straight from the pages of ‘The Eagle’. With motorways and motorway service stations now having been with us for more than 60 years, however, the sheer ubiquitous nature of both to the British way of life has long since extinguished their exciting novelty.

Whenever one sees early film footage of motorways in this country, the threadbare traffic (not to mention the absence of crash barriers and non-existent speed limits) is a reminder not only that car ownership was considerably smaller at the time, but that the Pathé crews dispatched to capture this Brave New World of high-speed travel on camera missed out on the main beneficiaries of motorways when they first opened, i.e. musicians. Jazz and rock ensembles criss-crossed the road network unlike any other workers outside of long-distance lorry drivers at the time, living hand-to-mouth from gig-to-gig; the arrival of motorways certainly made essential journeys a hell of a lot easier than they’d been when having to use the congested old A and B roads. The innovation of 24-hour services was another welcome development to a nocturnal breed who’d often arrive at their provincial destinations back when the country went to bed early; if they were lucky, the town in question might possess an Indian restaurant. The service station en route was therefore quickly established as a stop-off point, and virtually all of the acts who made their mark in the 60s came to depend on them.

The first two motorway service stations in the UK were Newport Pagnell in Buckinghamshire and Watford Gap, Northamptonshire; they opened their doors on the same day as the M1 opened for traffic, 2 November 1959, though their restaurant facilities didn’t arrive till a year later. Watford Gap’s standing amongst musicians was based more on its status as a meeting place in the wee small hours than its food, the standard of which had deteriorated by the 70s; indeed, the nosh on offer eventually acquired a reputation to rival that of British Rail, so much so that Roy Harper famously penned a tongue-in-cheek track criticising the cuisine on offer – ‘Watford Gap, Watford Gap/A plate of grease and a load of crap.’ A board member of EMI, Harper’s record company, was also a director of Blue Boar, which owned the service station; pressure was brought to bear and Harper was forced to replace the song on subsequent pressings of the album it appeared on in 1977, though it was later reinstated, long after the fuss had died down.

Perhaps the notorious state of Watford Gap’s food, combined with my own memories of the battered banger, were symptomatic of how the optimism of the era in which service stations were viewed as futuristic oases for the traveller of tomorrow had degenerated by the following decade, like so much of the nation’s road and rail facilities during those harsh economic times. Punch-ups between coach-loads of rival football supporters probably didn’t help either, though the thought that went into the design of service stations during their 60s construction – such as all-weather enclosed bridges linking northbound and southbound sides, or the famous air traffic control-like ‘Pennine Tower’ at Lancaster Services (which once housed a restaurant and a sun deck) – were poorly maintained and allowed to slide into disrepair once their shiny newness had faded. Moreover, innovative amenities didn’t yield much in the way of profit, however good they looked, so the condition of many service stations had gradually become grubbier – and the service they provided increasingly basic – by the 1980s.

An overhaul began in the 90s, when many of the familiar high-street chain-stores started to open outlets at service stations and the buildings themselves were given a facelift, losing the distinctive design they’d had from the beginning. As happened to many government-owned properties in the age of privatisation and deregulation, service stations were sold to private companies rather than being leased to old operators such as Granada or the Rank Organisation, and this no doubt played its part in the changes. As a non-motorist, my main experience of motorway service stations is as a childhood passenger, with my awareness of how today’s versions compare to the ones I remember being fairly threadbare. All that has changed over the past week or so, however, due to stumbling upon a YouTube channel new to me – one that goes by the name of Auto Shenanigans; motorways figure highly on this channel, which I found a refreshing change from the multiple YT channels dedicated to trains and rail travel. One series of videos on it sees the host and his sidekick embark upon the bonkers task of visiting all 95 of the UK’s service stations; I’m only around halfway through this mad challenge, but so far the pair have managed to stop at over half of them, and exposure to service stations as they are in the present day has been an eye-opener.

The majority of the service stations visited in these videos resemble the kind of bland, sterile shopping malls that can be found in most major towns and cities throughout the country, boasting the same tired, over-familiar old coffee and fast-food brands that the public evidently can’t do without. One of the services visited – which one escapes me now – even boasted a bloody Wetherspoons pub, something that seems a tad incongruous considering virtually all visitors are driving; perhaps conscious of this, the sale of alcohol at service stations has a chequered history – banned in 1961, reinstated in 1998, banned again (on new sites, anyway) in 2008 and permitted once more as of 2013. However, some of the newer additions to the service station map are consciously environmentally-friendly, such as Gloucester, which opened in 2014 and rejected the usual chain-store monopoly in order to provide food and produce sourced locally; alongside aesthetically-pleasing ponds and garden areas, the building also has a green roof, intended to help it blend into the landscape, which is certainly something the original design of the first wave of service stations couldn’t lay claim to.

The planning of new service stations is often confronted by opposition from local residents, and a fair few projects have been cancelled as a consequence of such opposition; perhaps the efforts of Gloucester to make them more sympathetic to their surroundings is the way forward for these rather unsung institutions that have been with us now for well over half-a-century. To find a YT channel celebrating instead of criticising service stations – albeit with a knowing humour – is a reminder that, whether we like them or not, motorway services are here to stay, and I suppose the country’s increasingly congested motorways today need them more than ever.

© The Editor

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

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

Vimeo: https://vimeo.com/843169827

GUILTY TILL PROVEN INNOCENT

SpaceyClose-knit and incestuous cliques do have a habit of closing ranks if one of the chaps lets the side down. I always think of the somewhat sad scenes in ‘Scandal’, the 1989 movie documenting the Profumo affair, when Stephen Ward is abruptly cold-shouldered by a panicked aristocracy terrified that their rather depraved private lives are poised to become known to the proles whose tugged forelocks they still depend upon to reinforce their crumbling superiority. As long as they continued to project an image of Great British propriety to a public still hampered by hand-me-down deference, they could be as debauched as they liked behind closed doors without fear of frightening the horses; the society osteopath whose address book had fallen into the grubby hands of Scotland Yard therefore had to be quietly excommunicated lest the whole house of cards come tumbling down. I was reminded of this ruthless process around the time that Kevin Spacey, one of Hollywood’s leading darlings, was dramatically cancelled by Tinsel Town in a manner that seemed determined to erase him from history overnight.

Nowhere was this better exemplified when all of his scenes in the already-completed movie, ‘All the Money in the World’, were hurriedly (not to say expensively) cut and his role recast; Christopher Plummer was quickly recruited as Spacey’s instant understudy and Hollywood expected audiences to watch the film as though it were merely another movie rather than spending their viewing time trying to spot the joins. Spacey was also dropped from season six of Netflix’s critically-acclaimed remake of ‘House of Cards’, which had to be trimmed from 13 intended episodes down to half-a-dozen and Spacey’s dominant character recast following a break in production. Hollywood has a long tradition of dropping difficult actors or directors from films before they’ve finished shooting, and in some cases – Marilyn Monroe’s cinematic swansong, ‘Something’s Got To Give’ being a prime example – the projects end up being abandoned altogether; but the speed with which Kevin Spacey was blacklisted and airbrushed on the strength of unproven allegations was breathtakingly clinical.

Two words why – those being Harvey and Weinstein; the revelation that the powerful producer was a perverted ogre at the centre of a salacious, seedy little empire – albeit one built on familiar foundations where Hollywood is concerned – sent Tinsel Town into a panic as all those stars who had sucked-up to Weinstein for years and turned a blind eye to his casting couch rushed to place distance between them and him as they desperately tried to avoid being tainted by association. We’d already seen this happen on a smaller scale over here when Jimmy Savile’s ‘crimes’ were posthumously exposed and all those old Radio 1 DJs and 70s celebrities who’d shared screen-time with him back in the day fell over themselves to declare how much they’d always felt there was something dodgy about him after all. Of course, this didn’t prevent many of them receiving punishment by proxy; the queue to accuse Savile was seamlessly transferred to his one-time acquaintances as every household name in the firing range sought to proclaim their innocence in vain. Therefore, when a sting of sleazy accusations were levelled at Kevin Spacey in the immediate wake of the Weinstein scandal, a hypocritical Hollywood that was determined to emphasise its New World Order Woke credentials banished one of its own without a moment’s hesitation.

However ‘credible and true’ the MeToo machine is eager to portray any allegations from claimants – not victims, claimants – it is ultimately down to a jury to decide whether or not the accused is innocent or guilty; and Kevin Spacey placed his faith in a Court of Law as opposed to the Court of Public Opinion when it came to allegations he’d committed nine counts of sexual assault between 2001 and 2013, coming as they did on top of additional claims he’d behaved ‘inappropriately’ during his 11-year stint as the artistic director of London’s Old Vic. Forced out of the closet during this intense public scrutiny of his private life, Spacey wasn’t exactly embraced as a casualty of an ‘institutionally homophobic’ system by rainbow flag-wavers too busy normalising drag queens and gimps; instead, he had to rely on the testimony of respected establishment gays like Sir Elton to sing his praises during his four-week trial at Southwark Crown Court. The fact Spacey was acquitted of all charges and is now officially an innocent man speaks volumes for the absolute necessity of habeas corpus in cases of this nature, when an age that prioritises ‘emotions’ over facts and logic can all-too easily condemn a man on the strength of boys (or girls) crying wolf.

On the steps of Southwark Crown Court, Spacey issued a statement after the verdict. ‘I would like to say that I am enormously grateful to the jury for having taking the time to examine all the evidence and all of the facts carefully before they reached their decision,’ he said. ‘I am humbled by the outcome today. I also want to thank the staff inside the courthouse, the security, and all of those who took care of us every single day.’ Despite the pernicious sea-change brought about on this side of the pond by the likes of a ‘Future Prime Minister’ in his previous guise as DPP, it’s comforting to know the oldest method of determining guilt or innocence can still be relied upon to end a personal nightmare for one individual whose livelihood was left in tatters by false allegations and by those with a financial investment in promoting them.

SINEAD O’CONNOR (1966-2023)

SineadI was grateful, in a way, that the Kevin Spacey story enabled me to add a brief obituary for Sinead O’Connor rather than making that the main focus of this post; there are a few too many shades of 2016 for comfort at the moment, when every post seems to be marking a death – and, to be honest, it gets a little bit depressing. O’Connor’s remarkable car-crash of a private life aside, the Celtic chanteuse who became an international household name in 1990 with her tear-jerking cover of Prince’s ‘Nothing Compares 2U’ has spent the last 30 years as an erratic presence hovering on pop culture’s frazzled fringes, instantly recognisable yet not consolidating her fame (or infamy) with sustained commercial success. One could say she sabotaged any prospects of a long-term career as a global superstar when she notoriously ripped-up a photo of the Pope live on US TV in 1992, though subsequent revelations of crimes committed by the Church of Rome on the Pope’s watch have somewhat vindicated O’Connor’s stunt in the years since, and it can now be viewed as her own ‘Punk Rock’ moment, staged at a time when she could least afford to do it. The fact she knew the risks and went for it anyway makes it all the more admirable in retrospect.

Sinead O’Connor’s public profile since that incident has relied less on her uniquely haunting vocals and distinctive visual identity than on the eccentricities and tragedies that have made the headlines on her behalf – her conversion to Islam being one, the sad suicide of her teenage son being another. One sometimes suspects that, had she been a male rock star, her occasionally bonkers behaviour would’ve been served-up as entertaining anecdotes proving what a ‘character’ she was, negating the need to support such shenanigans with a solid body of work; but there remain elements of the mad witch in the village when it comes to female singers who don’t adhere to the manual, and Sinead O’Connor appears to have fulfilled that role with a premature passing that may – or may not – have been brought about by her own hand. It’s a bloody shame, anyway; her finest recordings leave us with a tantalising glimpse of what could’ve been had she managed to get her personal house in order and concentrated on her art. She did have lovely eyes, though.

© The Editor

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

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

Vimeo: https://vimeo.com/843169827

ONE IN A MILLION

Trevor Francis 2Approximately 45 years and the best part of a million miles away from the aggressive product-endorsement industry of the here and now, an ad appeared in the 1970s and 80s boy’s Bible of the beautiful game, ‘Shoot!’ magazine; the tagline was ‘A Close Shave for Trevor’ and featured Nottingham Forest and England forward Trevor Francis promoting a brand of razorblade lost to the mists of memory. Bearing a closer resemblance to the kind of ads non-smoker Stanley Matthews fronted for Craven ‘A’ cigarettes in the 1950s, the ad in question inexplicably re-entered my consciousness yesterday when I heard Francis had died of a heart attack at the criminally-premature age of 69. Yes, footballers were promoting consumer goods long before the present day wrote it into their contracts, but they did so back then with a refreshingly amateurish cheesiness that feels curiously charming in retrospect; they looked almost embarrassed to do so, as though endorsing a product unrelated to their profession was somehow ‘selling out’. Francis may have been British football’s first million-pound signing, but I should imagine his wages were no higher than those of his team-mates at Notts Forest; subject to the often-petty eccentricities of the man who signed him in 1979, Brian Clough, Francis reluctantly plugged products as a means of embellishing his income. He may have been a European Cup winner, but that didn’t necessarily project him into the jet-set at the turn of the 80s.

Sadly, a fair few cover stars from the heyday of ‘Shoot!’ have had the final whistle blown on them over the last couple of years – Frank Worthington and Gordon McQueen to name just two; and Trevor Francis is the latest addition to a worryingly-lengthening list of childhood heroes to remind those who once pinned their pictures to their bedroom walls that extra-time isn’t indefinite. A lot of what has been said since Francis’s death was announced suggests he failed to fulfil the potential he showed when hitting the headlines by scoring four goals in one game for Birmingham City against Bolton Wanderers when just 16 in 1970; the hype surrounding Francis when he dramatically emerged as an adolescent one-to-watch implied he was following in the footsteps of Jimmy Greaves and Peter Osgood as an explosive teenage talent destined for greatness, though the fact the West Country boy wasn’t playing for one of the title-chasing teams of the early 70s such as Leeds, Liverpool or Derby County perhaps postponed the inevitable England call-up, and Francis didn’t play his first game for his country until 1977.

After several seasons as the stand-out player for a team struggling to survive amongst the First Division big boys, Francis was finally recruited to a club competing for honours; the short journey from the West to East Midlands took him to Nottingham Forest in February 1979. Forest had presented a serious challenge to the over-dominant Liverpool the year before by capturing both the League title and the League Cup, and the following season they were pursuing the Holy Grail of the European Cup back when a team had to win its domestic championship in order to qualify rather than finishing third or fourth. Francis made his European debut for his new club in the Final itself, against surprise Swedish opposition Malmo; his header from a cross by John Robertson turned out to be the sole goal of the game, though any suggestions by the press that Francis had paid back his transfer fee were rubbished by the characteristically contrarian Clough; one almost felt that the chip on Clough’s shoulder that he retained from the cruel curtailment of his own playing career at the age of just 29 was occasionally manifested as resentment towards players he felt had had it easy by contrast.

The previous record signing between English clubs prior to Francis had been a month before, when David Mills had moved from Middlesbrough to West Brom for £516,000; breaking the bank by signing Francis meant Clough had placed an unprecedented pressure on the striker’s shoulders, though injuries prevented Francis from enjoying the kind of career at Forest that his fee justified, missing out on 1980’s European Cup Final (which they won). After a couple of summer spells in America’s NASL with Detroit Express, Francis became a million-pound player for the second time when he signed for Manchester City in September 1981. However, the Man City of 1981 were a different proposition to the all-conquering Man City of 2023, and the club couldn’t really afford a signing of such proportions at the time, let alone of a player plagued by injuries. Despite domestic dramas, Francis continued to be an automatic name when it came to England and he was a vital member of the squad heading for the country’s first World Cup tournament in 12 years.

At España ’82 Francis vindicated his selection for the England team by scoring in the group games against both Czechoslovakia and Kuwait, though couldn’t find the back of the net thereafter, and England exited the competition unbeaten at a time when the structure of the tournament enabled such anomalies to occur. By the start of the 1982/83 season, Francis was tempted by the prospect of wages the Football League couldn’t afford and decided to ply his trade on the Continent by joining Italian side Sampdoria; he was hardly unique at the time, finding himself playing alongside ex-Liverpool captain Graeme Souness when he signed for the club; after four years, he moved to Atalanta. Despite playing out of his skin against Scotland in 1986, Francis failed to be selected for the England squad destined for the Mexico World Cup that summer, and he ended his international career on 52 caps and a dozen goals. On the domestic front, he was signed by former team-mate Souness when the combative Scot took charge of Glasgow Rangers, and managed to add the Scottish League Cup to his trophy cabinet before heading south of the border to join Queens Park Rangers in 1988.

At the age of 34, Francis became player-manager for a brief spell at QPR and then joined Sheffield Wednesday as a player under Ron Atkinson, where he won the League Cup. Francis was promoted to player-manager at Hillsborough following Atkinson’s departure in 1991 and made an instant impact, guiding the club to the dizzying heights of third in the First Division and to both domestic Cup Finals in 1993, despite losing the pair of them to Arsenal. Francis finally hung up his boots after almost a quarter of a century in 1994 and was dismissed as manager by Wednesday the following year. He then returned to Birmingham City, but couldn’t manage to claw them out of football’s second tier, despite leading them to the League Cup Final in 2001; a final stab at management, this time with Crystal Palace, was met with similar failure to reach the Promised Land of the Premier League, and Trevor Francis walked away from the game at the age of 49.

Trevor Francis maintained a relatively low profile for the last 20 years of his life, living out his retirement years in Spain whilst remaining a fondly-recalled figure from the last era of English football before the money-men moved in and transformed the game beyond recognition. That he himself had inadvertently played a part in that slow transformation by being the game’s first million-pound player didn’t grant him the kind of lifestyle that is second nature to today’s so-called superstars, so he stands as a figure with a foot in two different ages of the national game, arriving too late to financially benefit from the age he ushered-in by default. That said, his untimely passing is one that will nonetheless be marked by men of a certain age for whom Francis at his playing peak in that classic England kit introduced by Don Revie will always be a key element in the faded wallpaper of yesteryear.

© The Editor

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

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

Vimeo: https://vimeo.com/843169827

TACTICAL CHAIRS

LabourTory, Labour, Lib Dem – the three major parties each win a by-election on the same night; no revolution, no dramatic shake-up of the status quo; nobody had a clean sweep, so nobody is preparing for government. Yes, Labour overturned a 20,000 Conservative majority in Selby and Ainsty with the largest by-election victory in its history – and in the process elected a new ‘Baby of the House’ in the fresh-faced shape of another Keir, Mather; but it failed to grab Boris’s old seat of Uxbridge and South Ruislip, the one it really wanted. Many in the Party are putting the blame on London Mayor Sadiq Khan, whose extension of the Ultra Low Emission Zone from the inner city to the outer suburbs has been understandably unpopular with the electorate. A punitive tax on drivers of older vehicles, ULEZ means those whose cars or vans don’t fit the ‘Green’ criteria can be charged upwards of £12.50 a day, a punishment that will come into effect as of next month. Even Labour deputy Angela Rayner has admitted the ULEZ issue probably cost her Party an otherwise entirely winnable seat. The political class’s obsession with eco issues increasingly looks like a backdoor way of taxing the people even further and assuming they’ll fall in line because it’s all about saving the planet innit – and those who can’t afford to do their bit will have to pay for it.

Few – not even the Tories themselves – were so gormlessly optimistic as to predict a hat-trick of Conservative wins in Thursday’s by-elections; quite the opposite was dreaded and expected. Holding on to Uxbridge and South Ruislip was the sole crumb of comfort for Rishi Sunak as he was confronted by the prospect of a humiliating whitewash. Had the degree of defeat the Tories suffered in the other two by-elections been replicated at Uxbridge and South Ruislip, it would’ve been a catastrophic portent of the devastation many have been forecasting for the PM’s Party come the next General Election; in the end, the Conservatives just scraped through, requiring a recount in the wee small hours to confirm it. In Somerton and Frome, however, the Lib Dems overturned a 19,000 Conservative majority. The Lib Dem victor, Sarah Dyke, acknowledged the employment of tactical voting as she thanked the loaners of votes from Labour and the Greens in her winning speech. ‘There is no doubt that our electoral system is broken,’ she said, ‘but you have shown that the Conservatives can still be beaten under it.’

Just as the collapse of the Red Wall in 2019 was more a comprehensive rejection of Corbyn’s Labour rather than a sudden conversion to the Conservatives by old-school Labour voters, the two results that left the Tories in tatters on Thursday give the impression that the main aim of the electorate was to deliver a bloody nose to the Government as opposed to nominating Keir Starmer as the nation’s saviour. Leave voters are especially disillusioned right now, and the fact they’ll either vote for a Party led by an unashamed Remainer or simply stay at home is their ‘protest vote’ against the Tories; after all, the Lib Dems’ performance in Somerton and Frome was not mirrored in the other two by-elections, whereas Labour’s impressive Selby and Ainsty win was isolated in relation to the results elsewhere, particularly in Somerset and Frome, were they came fifth and lost their deposit. This is not a 1997-style sea-change moment whereby one Party has emerged as the alternative to an ailing Conservative Government and the country switches allegiance en masse. The use of tactical voting, especially in Somerset and Frome, has shown the electorate are calculating which are the methods most likely to succeed in ousting a sitting Tory; if that means voting Lib Dem instead of Labour, then that’s what they’ll do, because ousting a sitting Tory is the main aim.

Indeed, it’s difficult to imagine that 25-year-old Keir Mather could be viewed by anyone other than people like himself as the future. In many respects, he’s the archetypal example of a conveyor belt MP, an Oxford graduate with little or no life experience outside of politics, a readymade wet-behind-the-ears Professional Politician straight from the production line, one who adhered to Labour’s metropolitan mantra of Identitarian ideology by apparently once calling Germaine Greer ‘a dangerous and abhorrent transphobe’. Is he the kind of figure who will inspire mass migration to Keir Starmer’s Party? Essentially, Labour could have followed in the footsteps of Hartlepool and put a monkey forward as their candidate in Selby and Ainsty and would still have obliterated the Tories because voters in the constituency wanted the Tories out. If anyone is looking for a pattern that might characterise the next General Election, chances are we received an intriguing preview last Thursday night.

TONY BENNETT (1926-2023)

Tony BennettWith the death of Jerry Lee Lewis in October 2022, the curtain finally came down on the Rock ‘n’ Roll generation of the 1950s, as ‘The Killer’ was the sole survivor left from the original pioneers who had blown the crooners out of the water. Remarkably, however, when Jerry Lee shuffled off this mortal coil, one of those crooners was still with us and perhaps even more remarkably, he’d enjoyed a top ten album just the year before – at the ripe old age of 95. That album had been the second of his collaborations with Lady Gaga, the sequel to an album they’d recorded together in 2014 – and the first one had sailed all the way to the top of the charts, making Tony Bennett the oldest living performer to score a No.1 album in the US. But there’s a lot about Tony Bennett that made his a life worth celebrating. His death at the age of 96 feels like another era is over, but an era that by rights should’ve been over a long time ago. That he kept going, even despite the crippling affects of Alzheimer’s, is testament to an amazingly resilient spirit; the fact that people were still listening highlights the affection audiences retain for the Great American Songbook and the singers who imbued it with such swagger, style and class.

It seems like an aeon since we lost Sinatra and Dino and Sammy Davis – so long ago now that the standards they defined were in danger of being reclassified as museum pieces trotted out as vintage artefacts by cheesy curators like Harry Connick Jr, Michael Bublé or Robbie Williams in his ‘Swing When You’re Winning’ phase. Yet the one thing that prevented this sentimental slide into a corny showbiz ghetto was the fact we still had one of the authentic song stylists with us, one of the original ‘interpreters’. As Tony Bennett gradually became the last man standing from his own age, his significance seemed to grow along with an overdue appreciation of his talent. In the 1960s and 70s, the rise of the rock star had rendered so much of the surface trimmings that had characterised the Vegas crooner terminally ‘uncool’ and something worthy of parody at best and outright contempt at worst. There were few things more unfashionable during that era, and it took another generation before the strength of the songbook shook off these negative connotations and it was recognised anew as the precious legacy of the last century it truly is.

To have a man around in this century who’d been there when the Great American Songbook was the only songbook in town was a privilege; artists young enough to be his grandchildren queued up to record with him, most notably in recent years the likes of Amy Winehouse and the aforementioned Gaga. Most of the legendary performers that remain revered are ones that passed away long before their many admirers got a chance to see them live, let alone duet with them; with Tony Bennett still recording and performing until relatively recently, one can therefore understand why he attracted such notable admirers who wanted to share a little of that rarefied air, like drinking from the only surviving bottle of a vintage wine that was once the nectar of the Gods.

© The Editor

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

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

Vimeo: https://vimeo.com/843169827

THE UNDESIRABLES

BankWith a CV like Tony Blair’s, one would imagine there’d be a fair few regrets – though it’s telling that the only real regret the former PM once claimed he had from his time in office was the Freedom of Information Act 2000. It’s certainly one I imagine the public bodies forced to submit to intrusive FOI requests from the plebs over the past couple of decades probably regret; for the rest of us, however, it’s thanks to that particular Act that many of those bodies have had their true colours exposed to the public gaze. Not strictly related, other than perhaps as a sympathetic sibling, is the section of the Data Protection Act 1998 that states, ‘You have the right to find out if an organisation is using or storing your personal data, which is commonly known as making a subject access request’. It was one such subject access request that has enabled Nigel Farage to get at the truth of his recent blacklisting by the Coutts bank; and it would appear his suspicions – dismissed by many as characteristically hysterical hyperbole on the part of Mr Brexit – were spot on. Despite the denials and the rebuttal put about by Coutts that Farage’s accounts were closed because they fell below the financial threshold the bank requires of its wealthy customers, Farage has now gained access to documents that make it abundantly clear that Coutts jettisoned a somewhat controversial public figure from its books on solely political grounds.

Just as the myth of cancel culture being a right-wing conspiracy theory was long ago blown out of the water, de-banking has now been officially proven as a sinister tool for excluding undesirables from the cashless society; and it doesn’t matter a jot whether one is in synch with Farage’s worldview or his politics, for this is a scary development that should concern us all. The file Farage obtained is one he describes as a ‘Stasi-like surveillance report’, one that repeatedly references (inevitably) a certain event he helped bring about in 2016, as well as his admiration for – and association with – Donald Trump, his views on the LGBTXYZ thing, even his friendship with Novak Djokovic; it also describes Farage as ‘xenophobic and racist’ and reveals Coutts to be well-versed in the kind of dirt-digging more commonly associated with the gutter press, with its dossier on Farage stretching all the way back to his days as a ‘fascist schoolboy’. No wonder Farage says the file resembles ‘a pre-trial brief drawn up by the prosecution in a case against a career criminal’; he goes on to add, ‘Monthly press checks were made on me. My social media accounts were monitored. Anything considered problematic was recorded. I was being watched.’ We expect this from MI6, sure; but a bank?

The minutes from the meeting of the Coutts ‘Wealth Reputational Risk Committee’ contradict the blatant lie fed to the MSM – one heavily publicised by both the Financial Times and the BBC in the wake of Farage making the termination of his bank accounts public; in it, the committee acknowledges Farage meets ‘the economic contribution criteria for commercial retention’. Whilst Coutts denies it views Farage by the legal term of a Politically Exempt Person, the documents Farage has got his hands on say otherwise. The minutes state, ‘The committee did not think continuing to bank Nigel Farage was compatible with Coutts, given his publicly-stated views that were at odds with our position as an inclusive organisation’. Quite. I wonder how many non-white faces or state school accents were present at that committee meeting, given the bank’s position as an inclusive organisation, eh? After all, as the committee concluded, ‘This was not a political decision, but one centred around inclusivity and purpose.’

The tiresome ‘inclusive’ cant that has now superseded unintelligible Birt-speak in the corporate world runs through the report like – as the Pythons once put it in a classic sketch – a stream of bat’s piss. Farage himself reminds us that the public are sizeable shareholders in Coutts, which is part of the 39% taxpayer-owned NatWest Group, when he says, ‘I thought the purpose of companies was to return dividends to the shareholders…but they’re more bothered about putting up rainbow flags and being popular at dinner parties in Chelsea.’ Coutts reemphasised their stance by claiming some of Farage’s past comments are ones they perceive as ‘distasteful’ and that these comments ‘appear increasingly out of touch with wider society’. Precisely how wide is not stated, though the conclusions reached by Coutts seem to imply anyone on board with their public face is perfectly welcome to bank with them; and to a small albeit influential and powerful segment of a society it would be foolhardy to describe as ‘wide’, there’s currently no worry about de-banking; it clearly only happens to the other lot – to Them, not Us.

But, of course, any form of cancel culture acquires an insatiable appetite for scalps and once all the right people have been liquidated, that appetite still needs feeding. We’ve seen it happen enough times on social media, when those revelling in the cancellation of those on ‘the wrong side of history’ suddenly slip up and find themselves targeted by the same attack dogs they used to take for walks. Anyone who imagines this trend will cease as soon as the Ministry of Truth has erased the recommended names from the history books is sleepwalking – as Farage says – ‘towards a China-style social credit system in which only those with the “correct” views are allowed to fully participate in society’. Still, the West’s love affair with the Chinese way has already seen it adopt one socially-destructive policy – lockdown – and the effectiveness of that in neutralising widespread dissent has shown the means of controlling a populace pioneered by a Communist state short on civil rights and liberties can work.

What’s especially unsettling about de-banking is that even those related or connected to the undesirable individual are damned by association. The children of several Tory peers to have had their accounts closed in a similar fashion to Farage have also been denied bank accounts merely due to their parentage – and the same thing has happened to members of Farage’s own family. If one were to take a hypothetical scenario hardly unusual within the family, that of a father and son/mother and daughter/brother and sister no longer seeing eye-to-eye and terminally estranged – well, what if one of those had become a Farage–like figure? The estranged parent or child or sibling could be punished for the incorrect opinions of the family member they have absolutely nothing to do with. Judging whether or not somebody is eligible for a bank account on their bloodline is as ludicrous as forcing them to apologise for the alleged activities of some distant ancestor who was a cabin-boy on a slave ship 200 years ago. Yeah, imagine that! Oh, hang on a minute…

Yes, having a social media platform suspended or terminated sucks, particularly in an age when some long-distance friendships and relationships are conducted solely in cyberspace and have no equivalent standing in the real world; but it is possible – difficult, true – but possible to get by without them, just. However, a bank account is a different matter altogether. To deprive an individual of one based on political or moral opinions that jar with the consensus of the cosseted clique pulling society’s strings is criminal, the most callous incarnation of cancel culture yet to be devised. But maybe all is not lost; perhaps there should be correction camps where the offenders in question can receive a re-education and learn how to love Big Brother all over again. Then we could trust them with bank accounts once more. I’ve no doubt Nigel Farage will eventually acquire an account without such methods, though those deprived of his media profile might not be so fortunate.

© The Editor

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

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

Vimeo: https://vimeo.com/843169827

CROSS-CHANNEL DOLLY

Jane BirkinIn the early months of 1984, Big Brother took the shape of Mike Read; at the time, the bespectacled, mullet-haired DJ was the host of the Radio 1 breakfast show as well as BBC1’s ‘Saturday Superstore’, and a regular presenter on ‘Top of the Pops’; he seemed to be the heir to Edmonds and bore all the egotistical hallmarks of a B-list celebrity fortunate to be operating in an arena boasting huge audience figures. When a record entered the charts by an unknown band with the odd name of Frankie Goes To Hollywood, Mike was offended by the sleeve’s blatant gay iconography as well as some of the suggestive slang phrases peppered throughout the song, which was called ‘Relax’; back then, it was possible to be offended by such things and not be sacked on the spot for homophobia. Anyway, Mike declared on air that he would not be playing ‘Relax’, and such was his moral clout at the Beeb, the rest of Radio 1 followed suit; despite being played regularly until Mike intervened, the record was no longer to be heard on Radio 1. Of course, thanks to the publicity, ‘Relax’ climbed all the way to No.1, reducing TOTP to a farce when the show couldn’t even climax with the best-selling record of the moment. In 1984, however, I wasn’t aware this had happened before – albeit 15 years before (which was a virtual lifetime ago to the 16-year-old I was then).

In the highly appropriate year of ’69, the first banned chart-topper of the pop era was also the first foreign language record to hit No.1 in the UK. The alien lingo could’ve enabled the artist to get away with murder had his co-vocalist not pouted her way through the track and then embellished it with the kind of orgasmic heavy breathing guaranteed to get the Vatican hot under the collar – which it did, so much so that it was denounced by the Pope, probably at the same time he was turning a blind eye to the far more dubious activities of some of his priests. As with ‘Relax’ 15 years later – albeit on an international scale – ‘Je T’Aime Moi Non Plus’ by Serge Gainsbourg and Jane Birkin was a huge success thanks to the disapproval of the old guard and their attempts to silence it. Gainsbourg was a household name in his native France – and had already penned a Eurovision winner – though it took this duet with his then-partner to put him on the pop map of the Anglosphere.

Swinging London ingénue Jane Birkin was establishing herself as a movie star in the mid-60s, giving British cinema one of its first full-frontal nude scenes in 1966’s ‘Blow-Up’; after a brief marriage to composer John Barry whilst still a teenager, Birkin met Serge Gainsbourg when they appeared together in the French film, ‘Slogan’. Gainsbourg had recorded the original version of the song destined for notoriety with Brigitte Bardot, but the sex kitten’s husband was so outraged by the end result that he pressurised Gainsbourg into not releasing it. For one of the few times in his professional life, the infamous agent-provocateur of Gallic pop bowed to the pressure and shelved the salacious song; when he began a relationship with Birkin, however, he decided to re-record it with her. Whereas Bardot sounded very much like a fully-grown woman on the original, Birkin sounded more like a schoolgirl, which appealed to Gainsbourg’s sense of the perverse. With its lush orchestral backing and Chopin-like melody, the addition of Birkin’s voice created a unique listening experience that would cast a long shadow over the rest of her career.

She also lent her vocals to what is undoubtedly Gainsbourg’s greatest achievement, the 1971 album, ‘Histoire de Melody Nelson’; but she thereafter mainly tried to focus on acting, eventually splitting from Gainsbourg in 1980. Perhaps their finest musical legacy is their daughter Charlotte, who has proven to be an exceptional talent in her own right. Although awarded an OBE in 2001, Birkin was a prominent Francophile for most of her adult life, living on the other side of the Channel for the best part of fifty years; indeed, her death at the age of 76 yesterday (following a stroke in 2021) provoked tributes led by none other than Monsieur President himself. Even if over here Jane Birkin is chiefly remembered for one pop cultural contribution above any other, that solitary hit still trumps the output of many acts with dozens of hits to their names. And some never even manage the one.


RacquetTHE KING IS DEAD, LONG LIVE THE KING

Looking back on the shock moment in 1981 when Bjorn Borg’s five-year dominance of the Centre Court came to an end at the hands of John McEnroe, a veteran US commentator at Wimbledon compared the changing of the guard to the death of Queen Victoria. Yesterday, defending champion Novak Djokovic saw his failure to emulate the Swede’s five consecutive singles’ titles herald another passing-on of the torch as arguably the greatest tennis player of all time came unstuck courtesy of a Spaniard 16 years his junior. A trio of titans have ruled over tennis for most of Carlos Alcaraz’s entire lifetime, though the rapid rise of Alcaraz from young contender to grand slam winner has given a men’s game in sore need of fresh blood a long-overdue shot in the arm. Yet Alcaraz was up against a 36-year-old looking to not only equal Borg’s record; the Serb colossus was also after his eighth overall singles title at SW19 as well as seeking his 24th major, which would have put him ahead of every male tennis player to have preceded him. Djokovic hadn’t lost a match on Centre Court for a full ten years, not since Andy Murray beat him in the final back in 2013, and it was increasingly difficult to imagine anyone doing likewise again.

The fact Djokovic had already won both the Australian and French Opens this year made a mockery of his age, and even a Speedy Gonzales of a 20-year-old was surely destined to crumble when confronted by this immovable mountain of a man. As it turned out, the challenger toppled the champ after a stumbling start in which he’d been blitzed by the kind of ruthless display Djokovic has been subjecting his opponents to ever since his first Wimbledon win in 2011; Alcaraz was blown away 6-1 in the first set, won the second on a tie-break, then took the third with the reverse of the score-line that had humiliated him in the first. Alcaraz’s inexperience in the cauldron of a final at Wimbledon required him to find his feet quickly lest Djokovic run away with another title, and by taking a two sets-to-one lead, it seemed he’d done precisely that. A British crowd always sides with the underdog, and the rapturous cheers that greeted every point won by Alcaraz clearly irked his opposite number; the Serb has often felt the respect audiences have for him has never been accompanied by love, and several sarcastic gestures on his part highlighted how this fact remains a niggling thorn in his side whenever his opponent has the upper hand.

At one incendiary moment, a frustrated Djokovic even evoked the spirit of Super Brat by smashing his racquet against the net post and leaving it resembling one of Pete Townshend’s guitars after a 60s Who gig. However, one of Novak Djokovic’s strengths is that he can channel his frustration at being cast as the villain into his game, and it appeared as though the script was running to form when he won the fourth set 6-3. A fifth set was what the final everyone wanted needed, so the world’s No.1 (Alcaraz) and the world’s No.2 (Djokovic) took it to the limit. Perhaps the age difference between the two finally told in the end, for even though Djokovic presented more of a challenge to Alcaraz than 39-year-old Ken Rosewall had been to 21-year-old Jimmy Connors in the 1974 final, the athleticism of youth won out – along with a precociously gifted talent that seems destined to dominate the game for the next decade or so. As the current holder of two of tennis’s four grand slams, it would be premature to write off Djokovic just yet; but the fact the younger man now holds the other two suggests a potentially exhilarating rivalry that will be fun to watch while it lasts – which will hopefully be a little longer than the age gap implies.

© The Editor

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

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

Vimeo: https://vimeo.com/843169827

HUW AND CRY

Huw EdwardsThe phrase ‘a good day to bury bad news’ has become something of a cynical byword for a convenient distraction when a guilty party would rather all eyes were looking elsewhere. There’s a fairly plausible theory that the Yewtree/Midland witch-hunts of a few years back – along with the nonexistent ‘Westminster Paedo Ring’ promoted by a chubby chancer now putting his fat feet up in the Lords (cheers, Keir) – were contrived as a handy diversion from focusing on the actual industrial scale abuse of innocents that was hiding in plain sight at that very moment, rather than 30 or 40 years before, i.e. the grooming gangs in Rotherham and Rochdale. The fact that, even now, anyone pointing out the fact the majority of these crimes were committed against white working-class, underage girls by Pakistani men still results in calls of ‘racism’ shows its grim significance is something a huge swathe of the political class remain in denial of – an uncomfortable truth it’s far easier to turn a blind eye to (as police forces did) than acknowledge as the appalling corruption of children it was.

And, one wonders, is a certain story dominating headlines at the moment another one of these scandals held in reserve for the right moment? Before you can say ‘Look you, boyo’, a respected household name who could rightly claim to have been one of the few trusted voices left in broadcasting is reduced to a sad clown with his trousers down; and endless hours of pontificating in a mainstream media prevented from revealing the identity everyone online knew before the name Huw Edwards was officially announced was given over to the story at the expense of other items. This story emanated in the Sun, of course, and it’s probably one they’ve sat on for a while; its appearance smack bang in the middle of the Covid inquiry is maybe not such a coincidence considering the paper’s political stance. Indeed, how many headlines have you seen relating to the latter story compared to the former ever since the sleazy activities of TV’s ‘mystery man’ became front-page news? Sure, the Schofield saga received more than enough exposure a few months ago, though the additional ingredient exciting Fleet Street where this one is concerned is the BBC, a long-running punch-bag that is admittedly its own worst enemy. To the right-leaning quarter of the press gang, a sex scandal at the Beeb involving a famous face is the perfect distraction from their government on trial.

One can easily lay the blame at the door of the plank who initiated this lurid little episode in the first place, and now his name can be said out loud without fear of legal repercussions, he will be cast out of the village and only ever mentioned again in relation to this particular incident. But even as that happens, further unchallenged testimonies by former Ministers who made damaging decisions that affected all our lives will sneak under the public radar effectively unnoticed. The Government has done its utmost to resist handing over notebooks, documents and diaries to the inquiry that could undermine its defence, and it wouldn’t be a great surprise to find Boris’s personal material missing a few pages in the tradition of the ‘accidentally erased’ sections of the Watergate tapes. And yet, so far those who have been called before the Covid inquisitors have hardly faced a grilling on a par with the House Un-American Activities Committee; most have been allowed to state their case free from much in the way of opposition.

All of those who have given evidence appear to believe lockdowns were utterly justified and don’t seem willing to admit a policy rejected by everyone until China went for it has left a long-term legacy of damage unparalleled in peacetime; blame everything on Brexit or – as the British Medical Association has done – the Austerity programme of the Cameron administration; post-Covid, the deteriorating state of the nation also involves the war in Ukraine, lest we forget. But the wilful denial of those who advocated and instigated a measure that even doom-mongering soothsayer Neil Ferguson had initially doubted any Western government could get away with remains the biggest elephant in the room. Ex-Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt, along with the Government’s favourite medical Mekon, Chris Whitty, both claimed the wrong type of pandemic was planned for – influenza instead of a coronavirus – and Hunt says that the UK should have followed South Korea’s Zero Covid plan, which didn’t exactly do much for democracy and civil liberties when implemented in Australia and New Zealand. Nobody was really taken aback, therefore, when the incurably-loathsome Matt Hancock appeared at the inquiry and declared harder, longer lockdowns were the solution, with the first we endured being instituted too late; how the illicit slap & tickle both he and Neil Ferguson indulged in during actual lockdown would’ve been affected had Hancock’s fantasy been fact probably isn’t a factor; we all know by now those regulations were for us, not them.

Lockdown-breaking was also the latest allegation aimed at the ‘mystery man’ prior to his exposure; he apparently breached the regulations when meeting a chap from a dating site, thus adding another outrageous element to the story. Mind you, does anyone really express shock anymore that someone in an elevated demographic broke lockdown rules? Isn’t that a given? It would’ve been more of a surprise to discover he’d actually obeyed them. The accused is alleged to have visited this chap’s home as well as sending him cash and requesting one of those photos in return; the chap in question was 23, so not really ‘the nonce effect’ in operation there. Incidentally, this 23-year-old isn’t the teenager-cum-crack-head whose mother started the ball rolling; he’s another accuser in a list that currently numbers four. Despite hogging the headlines for six successive days, the Met clearly doesn’t regard it as shocking as the Sun does and has concluded there is no evidence a criminal offence has been committed.

The BBC’s approach to the story has been, in part, to decry the Sun for publishing it whilst some of the Corporation’s prominent presenters urged the accused to ‘out’ himself in order to spare them from further unfounded speculation on social media. Jeremy Vine has opted for that option, whereas one-time BBC employee Richard Bacon has instead expressed sympathy for the accused, which isn’t perhaps surprising, considering his own experience with the tabloids a few years ago. In the end, Huw Edwards was ‘outed’ by his wife. Before she issued the statement that officially clarified the secret identity of the star, the BBC’s former North America editor Jon Sopel had claimed the mystery star was far from happy with the Sun’s exposé (no shit!), adding, ‘It is fair to say that the presenter at the heart of this of this is also extremely angry over a lot of the Sun coverage and is convinced they’re trying to dig and find new dirt.’

To be fair, the Sun won’t need much of a shovel; Edwards handed them the story on a plate by being so blasé about his clandestine behaviour whilst he was engaged in it, certainly if an image doing the rounds is genuine – and it doesn’t look photo-shopped, I have to admit; you can usually tell. How on earth he thought none of this would eventually reach beyond a secret corner of cyberspace is either a hallmark of arrogance or stupidity; take your pick. Oh, and mental health issues – of course – figure in the wake of the official unveiling of his identity by Mrs Edwards; she says the man himself is in hospital suffering from ‘serious mental health issues’. The long-time news anchor has a history of battling depression, so there may be some substance to this, however convenient an excuse it could appear. Heir to the Dimbleby dynasty as far as fronting heavyweight TV events go, Huw Edwards will now probably find his most momentous broadcasts confined to the same sealed vault housing ‘Jim’ll Fix It’, ‘It’s a Knockout’ and ‘Rolf on Saturday, OK?’ – whilst gentlemen who did far more damage will continue to receive an easy ride at an inquiry that remains ongoing, whether we know it or not.

© The Editor

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

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

Vimeo: https://vimeo.com/843169827

NAMING NO NAMES

Faceless ManThere should’ve been a nice, neat line that could be drawn under all that unseemly business for good, and it was certainly attempted – blame it on the past, on yesterday’s unforgivably ignorant attitudes and those primitive, dated decades bereft of the more understanding emotional sophistication of our own enlightened age. Middle-aged men in shiny bomber-jackets, of course; it was that lot who got away with murder before the blind BBC eyes for years. Back then we apparently didn’t know any better, so it was possible for such predatory perverts to hide in plain sight, shielded from accusation by doing a lot for charity (which they didn’t like to talk about); how thankful we are that such a thing couldn’t happen ever again, for the stars of today are a much more aware crowd when it comes to the potential abuse of their impressionable audience. They are schooled in the importance of ‘isms’ and tick every approved box to show just how different they are from their disgraced predecessors; it’s not as if they would use these admirable attributes as a convenient cover for less-than acceptable activities in the same way the stars of yesteryear employed their own convenient covers – perish the thought.

Then again, perhaps apportioning blame to the past was simply a symbolic sweep under a carpet that contained other examples of previous mainstream fare now considered beyond the pale, such as ‘The Black and White Minstrel Show’; the inexplicable failure of bygone times to conform to contemporary mores can even be revised by rewriting the past in today’s multicultural colours; the BBC excels at that, as its drama output can testify. Yet, believe it or not, human nature’s response to ‘power’, however big or small, is not rigidly moored to a particular point in history. Its corrupting capabilities are timeless, and those susceptible to it are just as abundant in 2023 as they were in 1973, 1983, or any other year one cares to pluck from the pages of the perverted past – no matter how much of a smug show is put on for the benefit of viewers to demonstrate just how educated today’s household names are in all the right lessons.

What a shock it was, then, when hip Radio 1 DJ Tim Westwood was accused of the kind of sexual impropriety more associated with that station’s stars from the shiny bomber-jacket era; Westwood, with his cutting-edge ‘street’ lingo and ceaseless spinning of an über-cool Hip Hop playlist, was supposedly cut from a very different cloth, regardless of how embarrassing his patois was to ears beyond his audience. How could this happen, we asked ourselves! And even over on ITV, former BBC employee Philip Schofield was outed and hounded from the nation’s collective sofa – despite the memorable melting of our hearts when he had bravely emerged from the closet as a husband who had cheated on his wife! Hold on a minute – wasn’t all this kind of scandal something that happened 40 or 50 years after the event, something we could pin on those wicked and depraved 70s or 80s? Aren’t we supposed to be ‘kinder’ now and morally superior to those who went before? None of this fits with the image we’re being sold – just as it didn’t fit with the image we’d been sold decades ago. My brain hurts.

For the moment, the latest ‘big name’ at the BBC whose seedy private life has become front page news remains anonymous; the threat of legal action is keeping Fleet Street bound and gagged – regardless of the fact that other media types on the likes of Talk Radio have admitted they know who the accused party is – whilst social media has speculated to the point whereby a parade of stars from the Corporation have lined-up to deny they’re the one. This anonymity is actually doing damage to wholly innocent individuals forced to declare ‘I am not Spartacus’ – individuals one may not particularly care for, but who are nevertheless undeserving of the finger of suspicion; the likes of Nicky Campbell, Jeremy Vine, Gary Lineker and Ryan Clark have had little choice but to go on the record in the face of unfounded naming and shaming, something that wouldn’t be necessary were the genuinely accused exposed. At the same time, the accused is entitled to this anonymity, something previously accused celebrities haven’t always had the luxury of, unlike those making their ‘credible and true’ allegations. The BBC is conducting its own internal inquiry (and has been since May) but has also now approached the Met; the accused has been suspended, prompting those with nothing better to do to work out which BBC stars are currently absent from our screens, thus narrowing down the list of suspects.

From what was revealed in the Sun, this alleged household name has been providing a teenager with a steady income totalling £35,000 over the past three years; the payments were a reward for providing the unnamed celebrity with sexually explicit images of the youth, who was 17 at the time the clandestine exchange began. The adolescent’s mother complained to the Beeb that her offspring had used the payments to fund a crack habit, yet the star remained on air throughout the online ‘affair’. Recent reports suggest the star has subsequently contacted the youth since the story broke, a move which appeared to have prompted the BBC to belatedly take him off the air and arrange a meeting with the Met. It’s inevitable that sooner rather than later the identity of this individual will seep out, and when it does his career will probably be over. At one time, he might have recruited the PR skills of Max Clifford to rescue his reputation and maybe fix a confessional interview in which he could beg forgiveness and perhaps eventually secure a spot on ‘Celebrity Big Brother’; but Mr Clifford was himself exposed as a bit of a dirty old man and is no longer with either us or HM prisons, anyway.

Most of the falsely accused on social media are faces the majority of us would recognise due to them being TV veterans of 20+ years, yet I do wonder if when the accused in this case is finally unveiled, will I even know who they are? Let’s face it – one doesn’t have to do much these days to qualify for celebrity status; I’m routinely greeted by headlines on Yahoo News concerning some apparently household name who’s a stranger to my own household due to their status stemming from participating in ‘Gogglebox’ or ‘Bake Off’; if the accused is one of that lot, this whole saga will be something of a damp squib. This kind of thing does have a habit of bringing out the worst instincts in people, after all; if we’re honest, when an anonymous household name is embroiled in such allegations we can’t help ourselves from hoping it’s someone we already dislike, therefore justifying the dislike which had little rational reasoning before. Moreover, as it stands, it’s not even clear if any actual laws have been broken, unless it can be proved the youth was too young to send images of himself that could be considered sexually explicit.

Mind you, who cares beyond the natural curiosity of a ‘Who shot JR?’ mystery? Well, the mother of the youth at the centre of the allegations, one presumes; and the accused is bound to care that his cheap thrills have been made public knowledge as a premature prelude to the end of his career; and the BBC no doubt cares, having gone out of its way to distance itself from past scandals and reinvent itself as the nation’s leading Woke broadcaster; and yet, does anyone ever learn from these episodes? Whoever the accused is, it seems evident that they figured their elevated status exempted them from exposure, and that is hardly a new trend. In the modern age of mass communications, Hollywood produced such attitudes long before the small screen staged its first internal inquiry, and the belief in their untouchable positions that household names are prone to subscribe to has a habit of encouraging recklessness that tends to end in tears – even if me and thee won’t be shedding them.

© The Editor

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

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

Vimeo: https://vimeo.com/843169827

CHARITY ENDS AT HOME

Captain TomIf the pandemic threw up its fair share of villains – most of whom have been officially exposed as such in the aftermath of that insane interlude – heroes were in shorter supply. Of course, nurses acquired the kind of heroic sheen once reserved for the likes of the miners at this time, though doorstep and street-corner clapping for the NHS felt more like emotional blackmail than a genuine and spontaneous gesture. With a set weekly time for the confined to legitimately break the curfew and perform their government-sanctioned ceremony before disappearing back indoors again like good little obedient citizens, it didn’t improve the lives of anyone working on the Covid frontline; but it made a lot of people feel better about themselves. One eccentric act that did have an air of honest authenticity about it was the curious case of Captain Tom. 99-year-old Thomas Moore famously marked his impending century by walking 100 laps around his garden with a walking frame at the paranoid peak of Lockdown Mk I in April 2020, receiving maximum feel-good publicity during a time characterised by an abundance of doom ‘n’ gloom. In the end, Captain Tom managed to raise the best part of £38.9 million for NHS charities and was eventually honoured for his efforts with a knighthood courtesy of Her late Majesty.

Few bar a handful of mean-minded online trolls begrudged Captain Tom the recognition he received, and although he died less than a year after becoming a household name (in February 2021), the Burma veteran had made a considerable mark in an extremely short space of time; he even featured on a chart-topping cover of ‘You’ll Never Walk Alone’, setting a record for the oldest person ever to reach the No.1 spot in the singles chart – something he managed on his 100th birthday. During the last few months of his life, he was also granted the Freedom of Keighley (his hometown) as well as the Freedom of the City of London; he was awarded Honorary Doctorates, a gold Blue Peter badge, and the front cover of GQ; he even received an RAF flypast of Hurricanes and Spitfires over his home on the day he turned 100. In the thick of an intensely unsettling period in which all certainties had been turned upside down, Captain Tom and his role in WWII seemed to be a last, lingering link to a very different era, one that was rapidly vanishing over the horizon as a lived experience; perhaps that might partially explain the Captain Tom ‘mania’ of the time.

Just two months after a sponsored walk that had garnered unprecedented publicity, a charitable foundation named after Captain Tom was set up to raise funds for charities aimed at the elderly. Captain Tom’s daughter Hannah Ingram-Moore and her husband Colin became trustees of the Captain Tom Foundation; and this, it would seem, is where the tidal wave of goodwill that overwhelmed Mrs Ingram-Moore’s father began to disappear down the plughole. Barely a year after Captain Tom’s death, news broke that the Charity Commission was investigating the Foundation following questions about the intimate relationship it had with certain members of Captain Tom’s family. A report in the Independent had even claimed Mrs Ingram-Moore was to be appointed CEO of the Captain Tom Foundation with a six-figure salary, one that would see her pocket 13.68 % of the charity’s total income for the first twelve months of its existence. Although this story has been denied ever since by the Foundation, it nevertheless sowed seeds of doubt over Captain Tom’s legacy, suggesting it had been entrusted to those with less than altruistic intentions.

Anyway, the Charity Commission blocked this proposed appointment and then expressed an interest in a detached single storey building that had suddenly appeared in the grounds of the Ingram’s home, one they had received planning permission for because they said it was to be used as an office by the Foundation; however, they later submitted a retroactively revised plan for an extension turning the annex into a 30ft by 20ft pool house, which was rejected by the planning authority. A spokesman for Bedfordshire Central Council yesterday confirmed the Ingrams have been ordered to demolish the now-unauthorised building, whilst the Captain Tom Foundation are doing their best to distance themselves from Captain Tom’s daughter and son-in-law. A statement from them reads, ‘At no time were the Captain Tom Foundation’s independent trustees aware of planning permissions made by Mr and Mrs Ingram-Moore purporting to be in the Foundation’s name. Had they been aware of any applications, the independent trustees would not have authorised them.’ The Foundation is now no longer accepting any further donations as it seeks to cooperate with the Charity Commission. ‘At this moment in time,’ continues the statement, ‘the sole focus of the Captain Tom Foundation is to ensure that it cooperates fully with the ongoing Statutory Inquiry by the Charity Commission….as a result the Captain Tom Foundation is not presently actively seeking any funding from donors. Accordingly, we have also taken the decision to close all payment channels whilst the Statutory Inquiry remains open.’

On paper, this whole business emits a rather distasteful stink. The Ingrams clearly aren’t short of a bob or two; their Grade II-listed residence is evidently a big home with a big garden – big enough, indeed, to contain a pool house; and a pool house doesn’t really equate with the initial reasons provided for the erection of the annex, that of it being used ‘in connection with the Captain Tom Foundation and its charitable objectives.’ But none of this looks very charitable at all; what it looks like is a couple of wealthy, avaricious opportunists exploiting public goodwill towards a deceased war hero; it looks like they’re living off the admirable achievements of the old man and selfishly milking them for personal gain. Even if the six-figure salary story was a work of fiction, it reinforces the general perception that charity is now nothing more than just another corporate racket no different from all the rest, less interested in raising money for deserving causes and more concerned with making a fat profit for those running it.

Charity appeals naturally employ a heavy degree of emotional triggers in order to persuade people to part with their pennies. I myself am routinely inundated with requests to donate to animal charities; all it takes is one click of approval over a sad image of a stricken cat or dog in need of financial assistance on Twitter or one’s signature on an online petition and one is overwhelmed by regular reminders of just how many there are out there that require help. Indeed, if I could actually adopt every feline and canine looking for a home that triggers this in me, I’d need a home so large that I could erect a pool house in the garden. Alas, when charities are revealed to be controlled by those whose motivations are less than honourable, it has a counterproductive effect on the prospective donor – almost akin to the negative perception that a homeless beggar is actually a druggie charlatan merely seeking enough readies to score his next fix. And feeling as though one is simply subsidising a stranger’s addiction rather than contributing towards a meal for his empty belly has an air of deception about it that neutralises the natural instinct to help.

When charities are exposed as exploiting the honest intentions of others to aid the less fortunate and are instead using the money raised to finance a luxury lifestyle for their trustees, the whole concept of charity itself comes across as cynical and manipulative. It’s not so long ago that ambassadors for Oxfam were revealed to be indulging in somewhat seedy practices when on business in Africa, yet Oxfam now has the nerve to adopt a holier-than-thou stance by joining all the other hypocrites carrying torches on the JK Rowling witch-hunt. The despicable dishonesty surrounding Captain Tom’s legacy could, of course, be disproven come the findings of the Charity Commission; otherwise, it feels like just one more shattered illusion associated with a period in which the majority were emotionally triggered in order that a loathsome minority could benefit in the worst possible way.

© The Editor

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

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

Vimeo: https://vimeo.com/797932964

THE BANKS THAT LIKE TO SAY NO

AccessOnce upon a time, a bank would depend upon its respective branch managers to represent that bank in the community and give it a human face, to embody the aims and ambitions of the institution and present them to the customer in a way that made it seem less like an anonymous entity and more of a welcoming local business along the lines of the butcher, baker and candlestick-maker on the same high-street. The bank manager of old, such a familiar fixture from classic sitcoms, has practically vanished now – as indeed have most of the branches he ran – as banks instead connect with today’s online clientele by embracing fashionable causes they imagine will appeal more to yer modern punter than the bank manager’s somewhat antiquated authority. The authority he radiated is, of course, out of tune with contemporary mores and sensibilities as perceived by the powers-that-be; he wouldn’t be seen as ‘touchy-feely’ enough for a corporate world eager to push a particular ideological message it views any objections to as tantamount to membership of the alt-right.

The old bank manager could sometimes be cut from the same cloth as a school headmaster, reducing customers seeking a loan or the extension of an overdraft to anxious children when granted an audience with him. As the bank’s regional representative he had been delegated by head office to play Pontius Pilate, with the powers invested in him able to determine whether or not his customers’ hopes would be accepted or rejected. So, banks turning away custom is therefore nothing new, though this traditional privilege has taken on a sinister new element of late, becoming an insidious offshoot of cancel culture as it exploits the increasing dependency on cashless transactions by hitting undesirables where it really hurts. Despite the fact that the last census revealed 98.5% of the country’s population is of a heterosexual persuasion, we are all nevertheless expected to respond to the obligatory rainbow logo with the kind of compulsory obedience North Koreans are trained in when confronted by their national flag. With this in mind, perhaps it’s no surprise that the Yorkshire Building Society has closed the account of a clergyman who politely questioned the promotion of Trans dogma on its website, informing the vicar his opinions were ‘not tolerable’.

In an effort to justify its actions, the Yorkshire Building Society has admitted it now closes the accounts of customers should it deem them to have engaged in ‘discriminatory’ behaviour, such as questioning the plethora of Pride flags in their remaining branches. Denying it singles out clients for their personal beliefs, the YBS nonetheless says, ‘We would only make the difficult decision to close a savings account if a customer is rude, abusive, violent, or discriminates in any way’. But it isn’t merely raising a questioning voice against the consensus that can provoke banks into excommunicating clients; if you happen to be ‘on the wrong side of history’ in any shape or form, it will exert its powers. In recent months, the likes of journalist Toby Young and the ‘Triggernometry’ YT channel have both had accounts suspended, only for them to be swiftly restored due to the fuss generated in the wake of these temporary cancellations. Now we hear Mr Brexit himself Nigel Farage has been informed the bank he’s been a customer with for over 40 years is closing his account.

Although currently receiving attention due to a rash of such moves, banks have been slowly using this tactic for a while now. Former Brexit Party MEPs Christina Jordan and Henrik Overgaard Nielsen both say their accounts were closed ‘without explanation’ when they were elected to the EU Parliament back in 2019; moreover, Nigel Farage has revealed family members of his received similar treatment from their banks when Labour MP Chris Bryant accused him of receiving money from Russia, something Farage has always denied. After being told his own account was to be terminated, Nigel Farage claims he was then turned down by seven other banks he attempted to open accounts with, which makes it sound as though this is a concerted effort at blacklisting by the banking industry. ‘It should alarm everybody that a bank has the power to punish those it considers to have erred or strayed,’ said Farage. ‘If they are coming for me today, they can come for you tomorrow. If you were to post a political opinion on social media that did not conform to your bank’s “values”, you could find yourself in my position.’ Christina Jordan echoed Farage’s sentiments when she recalled her own financial cancellation. ‘My family and I all had our accounts closed, even though I’d been a loyal customer for 30 years,’ she tweeted. ‘To those cheering and celebrating the cancellation of Nigel Farage’s bank accounts, let’s hope it never happens to you.’

Justin Trudeau exceeded his Prime Ministerial powers when he froze the bank accounts of the striking Canadian truckers a couple of years ago, a heavily-publicised action by a politician attempting to silence the opposition that was roundly (and rightly) condemned. Governments, it seems, can use this weapon with even greater impunity than the banks themselves, depending on how far they’re prepared to stretch the rules; in Canada, the federal government can freeze accounts in special cases, such as suspected terrorism – though ‘suspected’ appears to mean anyone the government declares a terrorist, and that word is always open to interpretation. But in the cases of banks closing accounts without government intervention, terrorism doesn’t figure; it’s more about morals. Just the mere notion of banks posing as moral arbiters – yes, bloody banks! – would be hilarious were the consequences not so serious. Some of the public figures to have suffered in this way have managed to eventually override the decision by publicising it and rightly rousing the anger of the public who can see beyond partisan issues; but what if one is deprived of the platforms these public figures can call upon to come to their rescue?

To have an online platform abruptly removed, such as a YT channel or a Twitter account – and to therefore see all one’s traces erased from these platforms overnight – can feel very ‘Ministry of Truth’-like; but it is possible to live without them, even if their removal can render you a non-person in certain quarters. However, how on earth is it possible to function in today’s society without a bank account? Salaries, mortgages, bills, and (in many increasing cases) shopping are now almost all wholly centred on digital transactions for which a bank account is essential. It should be regarded as a universal civil right if an individual is to survive and thrive in a society run along such lines; the banking industry’s system of ‘financial inclusion’ that means any demographic in a difficult position like immigrants, refugees, the homeless and so on are entitled to a bank account in order to get by needs to be enshrined in law so that it covers everybody – and prevents banks from excluding individuals from that right just because their opinions don’t tally with the corporate consensus.

The most extreme proposal of Universal Credit in its lengthy planning stages was the suggestion by Iain Duncan Smith that he was considering regulating what claimants were allowed to spend the benefit on by providing them with cards instead of cash that would limit the amount of alcohol or cigarettes they could purchase. This came across as a politician overstepping the mark by interfering in personal choice, and as the prison chaplain in ‘A Clockwork Orange’ reminds us in his objections to the twisted morality of the Ludovico Technique, without choice we cease to be human beings. If we choose to disagree with the prevailing trends promoted by corporations like banks, we have a right to do so; we shouldn’t be penalised for expressing that right. And love him or loathe him, Nigel Farage is correct when he states that cancel culture in all its myriad forms doesn’t distinguish between the good guys and the bad guys once it has been emboldened by targeting those perceived to belong to the latter camp. We’re all vulnerable now.

© The Editor

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

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

Vimeo: https://vimeo.com/820105421