24: The First Season

BINK-u…BINK-u…BINK-u…BINK-u… Which is, as near as I can figure it, a phonetic representation of the start of 24, with its relentlessly ticking digital clock*. We missed the show first time through, largely because of Fox’s incessant advertising of it during the 2001 World Series. We watched every pitch, since the Arizona Diamondbacks were playing, but this resulted in a steadily-increasing aversion to all the hype. After all, what was the last decent thing Kiefer Sutherland was in? The Lost Boys? [Ok, we might give him Dark City.]

It thus passed us by, but the second season drew us in, and hooked us completely, becoming the most-anticipated show on television. It was no surprise to find the DVDs of the first series in my stocking in Christmas morning, though if we were being honest, I think it was as much for Chris as me – hey, turnabout’s fair play, I bought her Brotherhood of the Wolf! What was a shock was how fast we got through it, especially given the nine months it took to get through the similarly-sized second season of Buffy. We started at 2pm December 29th; by 11pm on the 31st, we’d gone through all 24 episodes, some 19 hours of TV in less than 2 1/2 days.

The gimmick is, of course, that the show takes place in real time. 24 episodes = 1 day, each representing an hour. If someone takes ten minutes to drive from one location to another, that’s how long they take. Fortunately, there are multiple story threads, which save us from lengthy sequences of Kiefer Sutherland picking his nose in traffic. Central to the story is a plot to assassinate Democratic Presidential nominee David Palmer. At first, this seems straightforward – he is the first black candidate for the office – but as things unravel, it becomes clear that there is a lot more going on. People in his entourage are working against him, and his wife is not prepared to let anything stand in the way of her becoming the First Lady.

Leading the hunt is Jack Bauer (Sutherland), agent of CTU (Counter Terrorist Unit) who is equally unwilling to let anything – least of all department protocol – stop him from finding the perpetrators. This is made pretty clear early on, when he shoots his boss with a tranquilizer dart and blackmails him in order to extract information. It also becomes apparent that someone inside CTU is not totally loyal either. Oh, and Jack’s wife and daughter have been kidnapped, to coerce him into assisting the assassination. Are we having fun yet?

It’s weird watching season one, only after seeing a good chunk of season two. In some ways, it does weaken the show, because you know who returns, which removes the sense of threat. But in others, it heightens the tension, providing a sense of futility to the struggles of characters who you know are going to die. We now know who is the mole inside CTU – so, in season one, every time the hero interacts with the traitor, we urge him to pull his gun and pump an entire magazine into the treacherous scum.

Mind you, some things are refreshingly similar. His daugher is still an irritating and stupid bimbo – the sooner she gets reunited with her mother, the better – and Palmer’s wife remains about as trustworthy as a king cobra with a hangover. The greatest joy of the DVDs is that you don’t need to wait a week for the next one, which was a huge relief, because it is genuinely hard to turn off. We inevitably found ourselves watching “just one more episode”, and returning to season two with 167 hours between installments was an immensely painful experience.

The scripting is great, despite an obviously contrived nature – each episode brings several mini-climaxes, building towards a finale of apocalyptic intensity (it’s remarkable how many exciting events happen at 58 minutes past the hour…). Our favourite was probably the end of #23, where the mole is revealed, yanking the carpet out from under you in truly spectacular fashion. We can only imagine how that felt on the first screening.

If there’s a flaw, it’s in the villains’ plans to assassinate Palmer, which are hideously over-convoluted, and more befitting a Bond villain. They have plants working in the power station where the first attempt is made, but rely on Jack to smuggle in a weapon when the security is at its tightest. Their ability to tap into any CCTV system at short notice is remarkable, and they possess so much technology as to suggest assistance from the Rowell aliens. They can infiltrate federal buildings and personnel. One would imagine they could find less complex methods, that are more likely to succeed.

However, the pace is so breathless that such concerns seem trivial, and the acting also helps paper over the cracks too. Special mentions go to Susan Clarke, as the cool, ultra-efficient Nina (who is even better in series 2), Dennis Haysbert as David Palmer (surely heading for a write-in Presidential campaign next year!) and Carlos Bernard as Tony (loyal to a fault, despite his previous differences with Jack). They lend critical support to Sutherland, and help make the show infinitely watchable.

It makes us wonder why there aren’t more films done in similar style – the last one to run minute-for-minute was Nick of Time, an obvious inspiration for 24, with its kidnapped child and omniscient villain. It’s probably a logistical nightmare – imagine the continuity problems of making sure everyone looks exactly the same throughout the months of shooting. But still, suspect we might well now see a slew of them in the wake of this show’s success.

But they’ll be hard pushed to deliver the same amount of excitement and intensity as the first season of 24, right up to the final scene. If the second series can manage to finish on such a high note – well, it was high, unless you were the major character whose cold corpse was discovered therein – we’ll be more than happy.

[* Chris just made it her “You’ve got mail” sound; freakily, guess how many messages she had in her mailbox when she tested it out? Yep – 24…]

Jerry! Jerry! Jerry! The Joy of Jerry Springer

Christmas with the Klan. I’m Pregnant by a Transsexual. Get Your Mitts Off My Man. And not to mention the infamous, I Married a Horse. Ah, there is nothing quite like the American talk show in its finest, most distilled form: The Jerry Springer Show.

I’ve been a fan since first stumbling across the My Teen Worships Satan episode, in a Phoenix hotel back in October 1997. But Springer has been delighting his fans, and appalling everyone else, with a steadily- mix of softcore sex ‘n’ violence, and hardcore freakishness, providing an insight into the shallow end of the gene pool, that horrifies and amuses in equal measure.

We recently rediscovered the show, courtesy of Chris’s mother, who used to sit in the living-room and watch, calling us through for any particularly startling moments. Now, we have a tiny portable screen of our own in the kitchen, and it’s somehow appropriate to watch it in flickery Grey-o-vision. The show’s credits start zooming down a back-street alley, to a trash can with a television set in it… it’s clear Springer isn’t taking himself too seriously.

It seemed a little restrained, compared to what I used to remember, and a comparison with The Best of Jerry Springer tape revealed this not to be mere nostalgia. Though if the violence was trimmed, every other guest took their clothes off instead, usually for no readily apparent reason. And, in a lot of cases, you would be looking for severe and detailed explanation to justify seeing these citizens in the flesh.

As the photo (right) shows, it hasn’t always been so: back when the show started in September 1991, Jerry was just another talking-head. It was only really when executive producer Richard Dominick came on board in 1994, that the direction changed, and things gradually evolved from there. The show is a cocktail of multiple ingredients, without which, while it would still work, the taste would be that much poorer.

  • Jerry Springer, the former mayor of Cincinnati, who once paid a prostitute with a rubber cheque, is the perfect host for this kind of show. He knows when to lob in one of his barbed comments and, remarkably for a talk-host, when to shut up.
  • Steve – the bald security chief – came on board as a one-off for a KKK episode when trouble was feared. The Chicago cop (who still pounds the beat!) has become a cult icon himself, even cameoing on The Simpsons.
  • The Audience have become a Greek chorus with their various chants for all occasions. Whether it’s a simple “Je-rry, Je-rry…” or the ever-popular “We Love Lesbians!”, they’re a group never shy to voice their feelings, much like a WWF crowd.

Speaking of wrestling, the question of fakery has to be addressed – though personally, it’s no more relevant to my enjoyment of the show than whether The Rock and Steve Austin really are mortal enemies or not. The lines are more blurred on Jerry, however. While rival channels irregularly reveal guests who are not what they claim (“I was [supposed to] be with someone for two and a half years and I was cheating on him with my photographer. I didn’t even know the two guys.”), there certainly are some real guests involved. In July 2000, only hours after the broadcast of an episode entitled Secret Mistresses Confronted, the body of one participant was found in Florida. Another guest, the victim’s former husband is currently in jail awaiting trial for her murder. If this is fake, it’s pretty convincing.

Great Springer Episode Titles

  • I Gave Myself an Abortion
  • Dwarves are People Too
  • Dads Who Hate Barney
  • I Got My Mom Off Crack
  • You Look Like a Freak
  • I’m a Breeder for the Klan
  • You’re Too Fat to Make Porn
  • Lesbian Cousins in Love
  • Honey, I’m Really a Guy!
  • My Parrot Runs My Life

This kind of escapade is why the show represents something of a dilemma for Jerry’s masters at Studios USA, the company that produces and distributes the show. On the one hand, it is a major cash-cow for them, bringing in an estimated $30-40 million per year. Springer even did what no other talk-show in the 90’s managed – he dethroned Empress Oprah from her position atop the ratings, even in previously untouchable demographic groups, such as the prized “women, 18-34” category.

On the other hand, its controversial nature and ability to attract criticism has proved an embarrassment, particularly to head honcho Barry Diller (though hard to see how the man who also owns QVC and the Home Shopping Network could really complain about quality). In April 1998, they vowed to “eliminate all physical violence from the series”, and in May 1999, they said, “We will produce and distribute a program that we feel is responsible – no violence, physical confrontation or profanity.”

The month after the latter statement, they even started shopping the show around to other distributors, hoping to offload what they perhaps say as an embarrassing member of the family. In the end, however, they held onto the show, and though ratings dropped, it now remains a steady #2 behind the Book Club Queen, and is still vastly entertaining.

Though the glory days of I Married A Horse – their never-aired bestiality special from May 1998 – are now perhaps behind it, even in this (slightly!) toned-down version, the show still remains a glimpse into bizarre corners of Americana. Despite what scarily bland shows like Friends would have you think, to quote Richard Dominick, “Life isn’t just a bunch of white, middle-class people living in the city.” For reminding us of this, Jerry Springer and his team can only be applauded.

Have I Got ____ For ___ – The [Censored] Tapes

You probably know Have I Got News For You, the satirical news quiz that pits Ian Hislop, Paul Merton and celebrity guests against each other in a light-hearted battle of wit and irony. The following purports to be a transcript of the sections removed from an episode, when the guests included Jimmy Saville, and things got more than usually out of hand. It is entirely possible that it is a complete fabrication, and I make absolutely no claims as to the validity of the following – but even if it’s a complete fabrication, it is extremely funny.

Or rather, it was. Demon refused to let me publish the full version – what follows is edited, and approved by them. If you want to see the reasons why this is the only version I’m allowed to publish, here are the details.


Series 17, Show 7

Recorded 27/5/99 for transmission on 28/5/99
Guests: Sir James Saville OBE, Diane Abbott MP
Prog No: 06/HGT/SW76Q
Running time: 102'46'03 (Edited to 28'54)
Producer: Giles Pilbrow
Hat Trick 1999

Here are some extracts from an unedited Have I Got News For You rushes
tape. (The cut dialogue is isolated by square brackets and printed in
bold.)

Out-take 1: 02’45
Following a discussion about the England rugby boss taking cocaine:

MERTON
It wouldn’t be so bad if News Of The World, News International, if they actually paid any tax in this country – they haven’t paid any tax since about 1983. So that would be alright, you could say ‘Well, y’know, OK, they can have a go at the royals, they can have a go at anybody’. But they, y’know, they owe us billions of pounds in tax. You could have built hospitals with that. Or given it to me. (Audience applauds)

DEAYTON
I assume the applause was for the hospitals, not giving it to Paul. (Audience laughs)

[MERTON
There you go – that’s me reading Ian’s bits on the autocue. That’s post-modern for you. Hospitals? Yeah, like I give a fuck. (Huge audience laugh)

SAVILLE
The ______ of the ________ – what’s his name?

HISLOP
________.

SAVILLE
That’s right. Very nice man.

HISLOP
Mmm. ________________________________ (____ ______ _______ _____; Audience giggles)

DEAYTON
I feel the word ‘allegedly’ homing into view…

HISLOP
Yes. And I feel the phrase ‘________ __ _ ___ ___ ______’ homing into view. (Pause) Sorry, I’m just looking at our lawyer in the front row. (Waves at lawyer) Hello! (Audience laughs)

DEAYTON
Have you ever taken drugs, Jimmy?

SAVILLE
Well…

HISLOP
You can tell us. ________ and you are like that.
]

SAVILLE
I have a drugs record. (Uncertain pause)

HISLOP
Do you?

SAVILLE
Mm.

HISLOP
And do you play it a lot? (Audience laugh)

SAVILLE
212 marathons and I’ve never been tested once.

[HISLOP
Good god. You and ________ both.

SAVILLE
Ah, but he never ran the marathon…

HISLOP
Oh right…

MERTON
Yes he did. He used to go dressed as a ___ ___ ______. (Audience laughs)

HISLOP
Oh yes, I remember now…

MERTON
It made a change from a giant chicken, so he said. The judge gave him five years (Pause) I don’t know what I’m talking about. I’ve done 212 of these shows and I’ve never been tested once.

HISLOP
(To Saville) So they’ve never tested you?

SAVILLE
Yeah.
] And I say, what’s wrong with me, why can’t you test me? And he said ‘Because you come in last, so…’. (Audience laugh)


Out-take 2: 04’17
Following a discussion about Sun editor David Yelland’s decision to publish topless pictures of Sophie Rhys Jones:

 

SAVILLE
It’s well out of order.

HISLOP
Indeed. And it’s Mr Murdoch again.

SAVILLE
Yes. How would he like to see his, er, er, secret lover naked in someone else’s paper?

HISLOP
If anyone’s got any pictures, do drop them…in…

[MERTON
____ ___ ____.

DEAYTON
Well, you’ll have to share them with us next time, Paul…

MERTON
I will. It could be an entirely new game. ________________________

DEAYTON
Are you _______ __ _________ _______ _______ into question?

MERTON
Not at all. __________________

DEAYTON
We look forward to it.

MERTON
I don’t. ________________ (Smattering of audience applause)

DEAYTON
But The Sun have apologised, of course…
]


Out-take 3: 09’36
During the headline round:

 

DEAYTON
You used to be a wrestler didn’t you?

SAVILLE
I still am.

DEAYTON
Are you?

SAVILLE
___ ______ __ _____ ______ ______ __ ___ _______. (Audience laugh)

DEAYTON
Yeah, I’ve heard about that.

SAVILLE
What have you heard?

DEAYTON
I’ve…

MERTON
____________________________ (Huge audience laugh; Awkward pause)

SAVILLE
____________________________

MERTON
____________________________ (Audience laughs)

HISLOP
Weren’t you leaving money in phone boxes or something? (Saville glares at him) Or have I got completely the wrong end of the…

SAVILLE
(To Deayton, heavily) The question you asked was about wrestling.

DEAYTON
Yes. And then you mentioned ______ _______. I don’t know whe…

SAVILLE
Well I understood this was a comedy programme. I realise now how wrong I was. (Audience laugh)

DEAYTON
So were you a professional wrestler?

SAVILLE
Yes I was.

DEAYTON
(To audience) Glad we got that cleared up. (Pulls face; audience giggles)

HISLOP
______ __ _____ ______ _____ __ ___ _______…

SAVILLE
That’s right.

MERTON
_________________________ (Huge audience laugh)

DEAYTON
Erm…

HISLOP
You’re on top form tonight, Paul…

SAVILLE
(Strangely) I’m…this is not what I…

FLOOR MANAGER (OOV)
OK, do you…[inaudible section]…shall we, for pick-ups…

MERTON
I’m terribly sorry. I don’t know what came over me.

SAVILLE
_______________________ (Shocked audience laugh)

MERTON
Oh, it’s nice to see you joining in. We’d been waiting for you, _____________. (Audience appears to do double-take)

DEAYTON
I think we…d-d-you you want to apologise to our guest, Paul?

MERTON
Sorry, I do apologise. ________________________________ (Audience unrest)

HISLOP
Sorry, I’m just looking at our lawyer again. (Waves) Hello! (Audience laughs)

DEAYTON
Shall we get back on course with this, or sha…

SAVILLE
_______________________________________

MERTON
_______________________________________ (Audience laughs)

FLOOR MANAGER (OOV):
Come on…I’m getting an ear-bashing here. It’s…

MERTON
Oh they want to continue. Sorry, I’ll contain myself. Carry on…

DEAYTON
Right (Pause) You used to be a professional wrestler didn’t you? (Huge audience laugh)

SAVILLE
(Calmly) I did.
]

DEAYTON
You didn’t have a nickname or anything?

SAVILLE
Yes – ‘Loser’. (Audience laughs)


Out-take 4: 21’20Following a discussion about caravans:

 

DEAYTON
Last month, Roger Moore sold his luxury caravan in Malta. [Asked by the…

MERTON
I visited your caravan the other week, Jimmy.

SAVILLE
Did you really?

MERTON
Oh yes. ______________________________ (Audience laugh)

HISLOP
He just told you, it was twelve years ago…

SAVILLE
No, I lived in it for twelve years.

MERTON
_____________________________ (Audience laugh)

DEAYTON
Here we go again…I’ll be backstage if anyone wants me.

MERTON
_____________________________ (Audience laugh)

SAVILLE
_____________________________

HISLOP
Not even Sarah Cornley?

SAVILLE
She was an exception.

DEAYTON
Who’s Sarah Cornley?

SAVILLE
Sarah Cornley is…

HISLOP
About fifteen grand in damages, wasn’t she? (Uncertain audience laugh)

SAVILLE
That’s right.

HISLOP
_____________________________

SAVILLE
You’d be very wrong. (Pause) _______________________ (Audience unease)

MERTON
_____________________________

SAVILLE
Chrome-plated SC-700 sun-visors, these are. Sent to me by…

MERTON
_____________________________

HISLOP
(To lawyer again) Hello! (Audience laughs)

MERTON
_____________________________

DEAYTON
(Visibly out of character) Do you wanna stop, or…?

MERTON
_____________________________

SAVILLE
_____________________________

MERTON
_____________________________

FLOOR MANAGER
(OOV) …About five minutes, just to… (Phil Davey enters)

PHIL DAVEY
OK, well top that as they say. You’re looking troubled by that, aren’t you mate? I tell you, I came back from Amsterdam recently…

[RECORDING PLACED ON STAND-BY; CUTS BACK TO CLOSE-UP OF DEAYTON AWAITING HIS CUE]

DEAYTON
OK. Second time lucky. (Pause) Last month, Roger Moore sold his luxury caravan in Malta.
] Asked by the New York Times about his relaxed acting style…

How I managed to piss off Jimmy Saville…or possibly Paul Merton

Devil: My job is to ensure standards of television programmes continue to spiral downwards. Chat-shows, game-shows, soap-operas — anything I can do to guarantee their continual awfulness.
[SIGNS PAPER]
Condemned Soul: What was that?
Devil: Just commissioned another 25 years of Jim’ll Fix It.
Condemned Soul: Oh, good. I like Jimmy Saville – he’s very good with children.

TV Hell introduction, 31st August 1992

The significance of the above will become clear in due course. But first, let me take you on a journey, which began one Friday evening when the very site you are reading, ceased to exist. Permission denied, it said. This being my own site, it seemed a little strange, to say the least. But logging in, I found the following email had been sent to postmaster:

From: _____@demon.net
Cc: legalnotice@demon.net
Subject: www.trshcity.demon.co.uk…
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000

Please note: The contents of this email may be legally privileged. They should not be copied or disseminated within or outside Thus Plc without prior authorisation from Legal Services. The recipient of this email may reply to Legal Services but should not cc other addressees.
___________________________________________________
Dear sir,

We have received an allegation that you have material on your website
http://www.trshcity.demon.co.uk/ARTICLES/NEWSFORU.HTM
which our external solicitors believe to bear defamatory meaning and as such we have had to suspend access to your webpages.

The part in question is the transcript.

We cannot and do not make any judgement as to whether such material is defensible. However, the state of the law at the moment means that if we are put on notice that defamatory material is being published through our systems, Thus plc may be liable for damages, along with you, if it does not take action to prevent that material being published. Those damages could be substantial and we could both incur heavy legal expenses.

In addition, the current state of the law could leave Thus plc liable if it failed to take action and you disseminated any further material through our systems which was later found to be defamatory. While we do not necessarily agree with the current legal position we must accept it, and have therefore suspended access to your website.

Please reply to this email acknowledging that you understand the problem, that you have removed the material from your website and that you will not, in future, publish further material which could be considered defamatory of various (named) celebrities through Demon’s systems.

We attach below a suggested form of acknowledgement for your convenience.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT

I acknowledge receipt of your email and confirm that I understand your explanation of the legal situation regarding material which is considered defamatory.

I confirm that I have removed the material from my website. I will not publish such material in future using my Demon service, and will not publish further material which could be considered defamatory of the celebrities which have been named on the site.

I look forward to hearing from you.
_______________
Paralegal
Thus Plc

The piece in question was a transcript of alleged outtakes from an edition of Have I Got News For You featuring Paul Merton and Jimmy Saville. This had been sent to me by a friend, and I’d posted it on the site, simply because I’d thought it was funny. I even added a disclaimer saying that I had no idea whether it was accurate, but this was no defence in the eyes of Demon.

To get my web-site restored, I removed the piece, and sent the form they requested back, and in due course, www.trshcity.demon.co.uk returned to service. However, I remained a more than a little peeved that Demon would pull the site and, in effect, pronounce me guilty, not only until proven innocent, but without even giving me any chance to prove my innocence. I wrote, pointing this out. Their reply follows.

Currently the situation regarding defamation in the UK is such that ISPs are liable for content held on its servers as soon as it is put on notice of such content and failure to remove that material could end up with us being sued as well as you.

As an ISP, the Defamation Act requires us to act responsibly by (a) removing the material from our servers and (b) making sure that similar material cannot not be published in the future. This requires us, in your case (having received a complaint), to notify you of this situation and seek some kind of acknowledgement regarding future
material, and also to remove the material from our servers, which is achieved by temporarily suspending your web site.

We do not take these decisions lightly and refer all cases to external solicitors (at cost to us) for a decision about whether the material bears a defamatory meaning.

We do not wish to make any judgement as to whether the material in question is indeed defamatory. We are in no position to make this decision ourselves, this is up to a Court to decide.

You may have heard of the Godfrey -v- Demon Internet case where Demon Internet were taken court over defamatory material held on its servers.

We would also like to have more information as to the precise nature of the alleged defamation. It is clearly wrong to claim that every single word in the transcript is defamatory, and without full details of the accusations being made against us, we are unable to accept that they are justified. We thus request details of the specific complaints received by you.

Our solicitors felt that most of the web page could be considered to bear defamatory meaning. Specifically, they felt that it was defamatory of Phil Hall, David Yelland, Jimmy Saville, Paul Merton and possibly Angus Deayton and Ian Hislop too.

With regard to the article, we would still like to publish it, and want to work with you in order to achieve this. We therefore offer the following possibilities for discussion, with the aim of hopefully reaching agreement on the matter.

1) The article already contains a disclaimer which states that we “make absolutely no claims as to the validity of the following”. This could be made more prominent and/or reworded.

I do not believe that this would make any difference if the material was found by a court to be defamatory. You should seek further legal advice regarding this.

2) If we are given details of the parts found offensive, they could be > removed from the piece.

We would suggest that you seek legal advice based on my comments above.

3) We can move the transcript from Demon to another server, and make the link on our site point to it there.

Unfortunately, this could also be considered defamatory as it still causes in effect, the publication of the defamatory material through your Demon service, even if it is hosted elsewhere.

But when looked into further, this seemed very debatable to me. The interconnectedness of the Net means that, if linking to a defamatory site is itself just as defamatory, then any one defamation renders virtually the entire Internet guilty! This is clearly nonsense, and indeed, Section 1(3) of the 1996 Defamation Act states that, “a person shall not be considered the author, editor or publisher of a statement if he is only involved…(e) as the operator of or provider of access to a communications system by means of which the statement is transmitted, or made available, by a person over whom he has no effective control.

As a result, in the case of Godfrey vs. Demon to which they referred, Justice Morland said “In my judgment the defendants were clearly not the publisher of the posting and incontrovertibly can avail themselves of Section 1(1)(a)”, relieving Demon of liability. As far as I could see, what caused Justice Morland to find against Demon, was their failure to take action after being notified of the alleged defamation. If the material in question hadn’t been held on their servers at all, it was hard to see how Demon could have been found liable for it.

So, while I could conceivably be sued, Demon would be perfectly safe. However, the chances of any suit were, I reckon, very slim: I doubt the people who read the piece here numbered more than a few hundred at most, as opposed to the millions who would find out about it during a court case. Far better just to send out some threatening letters, try and suppress it all quietly, and hope it goes away. In this light, it’s also interesting to note Demon’s unwillingness to tell me who had complained – I have a pretty good idea though, and I doubt very much it was Angus Deayton.

In this case, however, it backfired – their actions fired up my interest in a piece I’d otherwise have quickly forgotten about, and I started looking on the Net. First thing I found was, that if someone had been trying to suppress it, they’d been doing a pretty poor job. My very first search engine query, the very first page, and I was there, staring at the whole thing. Not just once, but five separate copies of it. They used to say that the Internet treats censorship as damage, and routes around it – I was beginning to understand the truth of that statement.

Picking around the sides of these, I did find a couple of interesting sites. One site said responsibility had been claimed by Some of the Corpses are Amusing, but I could find no actual evidence thereof. There was one piece in the Guardian about the transcript, citing un-named “sources” as saying it was a hoax – un-named equals no reliance in my book (the Guardian also had a very interesting interview with Saville). But there was absolutely no trace of, for example, Paul Merton saying, “it’s a hoax”, which would have nailed things shut, once and for all.

All the while, I continued, sporadically, to debate the possibilities with Demon, and work towards an edited version of the transcript. I can feel some sympathy for them, and I have to say they were friendly and polite, explaining the reasons for their qualms. But they were obviously erring strongly on the side of caution and even wanted material removed that was part of the broadcast! We finally came to an agreement, and the edited version may be found here. It’s not very funny though…

It’s hard to come to a compromise when they keep saying “Nyet”: if I’m not allowed to link to it, can I perhaps give people instructions on how they can find it? No, because of Hird v Wood in 1894 – the relevance of that in the Internet era is somewhat arguable. There was something deeply ironic about Demon defending the honour of TV presenters against totally unwarranted accusations of paedophilia, while their servers carried the likes of alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.children.

Almost as interesting as the veracity or otherwise of the transcript, is looking into who would be behind a hoax, if such it actually is. A leading suspect must be Chris Morris, of Brass Eye fame – he announced Saville’s death on his radio show once, and got into a bit of bother for it. I’ve no idea whether the resulting law-suit was ever settled, but it does at least give Morris a motive, and his surreally excessive style of comedy would fit the transcript.

But there are perhaps two other candidates: the people in the sketch at the top of this piece, which I stumbled across in my tape collection only a few months ago. Who were these reprobates, expressing such a clear dislike for Jimmy Saville, seven years before all this allegedly happened? None other than Angus Deayton and Paul Merton…

[Here is the Demon approved, expurgated version]

War of the Robots: Robot Wars vs. Battlebots

Non-stop violence

What better way to wind down after a tough week at work than with a little mindless violence? And for the couple of years, the first dose on a Friday evening has been in the shape of Robot Wars, BBC2’s glorification of mechanised mayhem which pits radio-controlled robots against each other in a demolition derby of titanic proportions. There can be few finer sights than seeing a lovingly-constructed machine being reduced to shrapnel in under sixty seconds.

It’s originally an American concept, but only recently has it become the televised spectacle there, that it is here, where it’s regularly among the channel’s top-rated shows. The American version, Battlebots, is on The Comedy Channel, of all places, home of South Park, rather than a network channel, and this, together with the relative novelty of the show as yet, may help to explain why…well, to quote a housemate, “They’re a bit crap aren’t they, these Americans.” For it does have to be said: the British entrants have already been through several years of evolution, and it shows. Rather too many of the American ones look to be relying on “naive charm” as their major offensive weapon, and a robot capable of flipping the opposition, a common sight in Britain, would have a field day.

Donna D'Errico shows her credentials

There are a number of other differences, both in the presentation and the content of the show. While Robot Wars has the cheerfully ignorant Craig Charles, Battlebots opts for something which looks more like a regular sports show, with two (mildly sarcastic) presenters in the studio, to deliver the almost inevitable stats without which no American sport is complete. Both shows have a lady in the pits, and this element is a definite win for the Brits. Even though Phillipa Forester has gone to have a baby, her replacement is still better than former Baywatch bimbo, Donna D’Errico. However, the American version does hit back with nifty little segments showing the builders “at home”, in their garages or dens, even if usually this does only confirm that they need to get out more.

For the Battlebots contests themselves, there is an announcer in the “ring”, like at a boxing match, though woe betide any robot with a tricky name, as he has a nasty tendency to slaughter them – Mjollnir, Thor’s hammer from Norse mythology was rendered as muh-JOLL-neer, which I don’t think is right… There are also no house robots with which to contend (not even the entirely useless ref-bot introduced in this series of Robot Wars, but there are rather more in the way of booby-traps, including a vicious double circular-saw with a camera mounted between the blades, which gives an interesting perspective.

The two episodes of the American edition I watched didn’t appear to have much in the way of a tournament, though there were vague references to one a little bit down the line. Interestingly, while Robot Wars has only one weight category, with a maximum limit, Battlebots has several, up to and including some super-heavyweight creations which are undeniably impressive. I also enjoyed the ten-man…er, ten-machine Robot Rumble, a free-for-all which certainly proved to be eventful, if perhaps not quite as skilfully controlled as a traditional head-to-head contest!

Oooh...scary!

It’s not, in the end, fair to compare Battlebots and Robot Wars in their 2000 incarnations, since it’s obvious that four years of network exposure will lead to more interest and entries than a rookie show on a cable channel. There have been a couple of attempts before to pit British and American robots against each other, and the lack of American experience has been obvious. However, before we get too cocky, perhaps we should remember how we used to regularly win the Ryder Cup too… I’ve no doubt that the Americans’ day will come.