Television

James Delingpole remembers why he never watched TFI Friday - because it's dreadful

Host Chris Evans only has three noticeable qualities: big glasses, carrot-coloured hair and a ready laugh. His lack of threatening intellect rendered him perfect for the Nineties

27 June 2015

9:00 AM

27 June 2015

9:00 AM

‘Cringe!’ said Boy, after I’d exposed him to a few seconds of last week’s special nostalgia edition of TFI Friday. And he did have a point. From its once almost-daring name to its zany title graphics to its whatever-happened-to guest list (Shaun Ryder, Blur, Ewan McGregor), Chris Evans’s irredeemably Nineties game show now looks so dated and impossibly remote you might as well be looking at an early episode of Face to Face with John Freeman, or The Black and White Minstrel Show or Muffin the Mule. Gosh, time is cruel.

But it was great at the time, right? No, it wasn’t, actually. I watched this one-off revival mainly to remind myself why I almost never watched it when it was on originally. Very quickly I remembered. Because it was shit.

Why was it so shit? Well, there’s material for several PhD theses there, but I think what it boils down to is partly the awkward atmosphere — like turning up at the beery barbecue of a leery neighbour and instantly regretting it. And mainly to the eerie mediocrity of its presenter Chris Evans, who rose without trace in the early Nineties to become one of the era’s most ubiquitous, overpromoted and best-paid ‘personalities’ without any of us really understanding why.

With hindsight, the answer seems fairly obvious. He was commercially astute, incredibly pushy and brimming with bold and novel format ideas, as he demonstrated on shows such as Don’t Forget Your Toothbrush. In the penultimate episode, Evans announced that if the studio contestants won their exotic holiday, then he would take the entire audience for a week’s holiday at Disneyland, Paris. They did win: so off to Paris everyone went.


Strip away all the whacko stunts and amusing wheezes, though, and what you’re left with basically is a host with only three noticeable qualities: big glasses, carrot-coloured hair and a ready laugh. Evans learned his trade as a sidekick to Timmy Mallett on Manchester’s Piccadilly radio; but compared even with Mallett, Evans has a hinterland so shallow it makes Peter Andre look like Madame Bovary.

Quite simply, on pretty much any subject other than fast cars he has almost nothing of interest to say. Which lack of threatening intellect, of course, rendered him perfect for an era so vapid that Oasis were widely accepted as the new Beatles, and in which Tony Blair was promoting this marvellous new place called ‘uni’, where everyone could go and read Windsurfing and My Little Pony studies at some grandiosely renamed former polytechnic and be guaranteed a well-paid ‘graduate’ career in the bold, new, forward-looking, history-free Britain.

Here’s Evans in action, from last Friday’s edition, reading out a tweet from an alleged viewer. ‘Stop effing around,’ Evans begins, before adding cheekily, ‘I’m paraphrasing there.’ Which might have worked, just about, if we hadn’t seen the actual tweet reproduced on the screen. It said: ‘Stop effing around.’ Not a paraphrase then.

Am I being horribly snobbish? You bet I am. But it’s not that I’m arguing that all TV presenters should be fellows of All Souls: just that they should have a glimmer of personality or a hint of talent or some mildly unconventional take on the world. Jimmy Kimmel and James Corden can sing and act; Jonathan Ross is a twinkly-eyed naughty boy; Jeremy Clarkson (please, God, let it not be true that Evans is replacing him on Top Gear) is a shameless reactionary with self-parodic vocal mannerisms; Alan Carr (and various others) are flamboyantly camp. Evans’s schtick is that he’s on TV and radio a lot. Sorry, not impressed.

Just time to say how very much I’ve been enjoying Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell, now drawing to the end of its run on BBC1 (Sundays). If you’ve not yet had the pleasure, read no further: just buy the box set and give yourself a treat. If, on the other hand, you’ve stuck it this far, you’ll probably agree that it has been one of the best treats on TV this year this side of Game of Thrones.

Among the highlights: the shabby Georgian chic; the spectacular production values, notably last week’s extraordinarily well-realised Battle of Waterloo; the Peninsular War zombies; the superb ensemble acting, perhaps above all by Marc Warren as the sinister Gentleman; the utter plausibility with which Susanna Clarke melds real history with gothic magical fantasy; the way so much seems to happen in each episode, leaving you as disturbed and enchanted and ensnared as if you’d been transported to the dark Escher-meets-Gormenghast realm of the Raven King himself and were trapped in a waltz lasting all eternity…

Got something to add? Join the discussion and comment below.

You might disagree with half of it, but you’ll enjoy reading all of it. Try your first 10 weeks for just $10


Show comments
  • ACN

    Well said Jim. I find Evans a completely talentless ‘personality’. A 50 year old multi-millionaire ‘teenager’ wearing jeans cashing in on the Beeb’s obsession with what it thinks young viewers (i.e. non licence payers) want to watch. There are too many of these grossly overpaid tossers at the BBC trough. eg Jonathon Ross, Graham Norton, etc, Jimmy Savile was also a prime example, but I suppose he no longer counts.
    By the way, is Chris Evans having some ‘work’ done to his head? Follicle manipulation maybe? Or just trying to keep up with the current fashion for a hair style that resembles a ill-fitting toupee?

    • Hugh Jeego

      Reminds me of “Nosin’ Around”, The Young Ones’ take on TV shows “for young people, by young people”.

    • Johnny Foreigner

      He’s getting three million quid.

      • ACN

        Three million more reasons to detest him.

  • Precambrian

    Evans is the misbegotten offspring of Timmy Mallet and Chubby Brown. Perhaps the best argument ever in the promotion of euthanasia.

  • Dukeofplazatoro

    “….an era so vapid that Oasis were widely accepted as the new Beatles, and in which Tony Blair was promoting this marvellous new place called ‘uni’, where everyone could go and read Windsurfing and My Little Pony studies at some grandiosely renamed former polytechnic and be guaranteed a well-paid ‘graduate’ career in the bold, new, forward-looking, history-free Britain”.

    In one sentence the most beautiful summing up of he aesthetic of the Blair years (and by extension of the man himself) which I have seen. Well done!

    • STREETWOLFFF

      Yep. Nailed it.

      • logdon

        Seconded.

        My schoolteacher brother bought into it hook line and sinker.

        His scousie wife rattling on about ‘uni’.

        The end result was one girl with an MA working as a nursery assistant, the other with a BA as a shop assistant/ office clerk depending on what she’d just got the sack from.

        • WTF

          Yep, degrees in the bleeding useless and f****** obvious !

          At least when I flunked grammar school in 1960 I had a second chance and an opportunity to work for a pittance for 5 years as an electronics apprentice. After finishing with distinction with a trade diploma (C&G) in Electonics & Computers, I switched from wireless to computers and never looked back. A few of my families friends at that time went to UNI but at least back then in the 1960’s they still had proper courses unlike phoney Tony’s degrees. Even back then, I still achieved more than others with REAL degrees as I learned on the job and at the university of life.

          Like all of the lefts social engineering programs over the past 2-3 decades, degree courses and much more were designed as get rich schemes for those who promote multiculturalism and political correctness but did nothing useful for the poor sap who got suckered into this scam.

  • Partner

    He is truly an heir of Savile in that the BBC picks up these talentless nonentities and by sheer dint of remorseless repetition of their persona makes them into ‘national treasures’; woe betide anyone who criticises them. Because the BBC is basically peopled by the kind of people who become civil servants with a deep interest in ‘culture’ they then pick this detritus up and promote it on the grounds that the chavs need to have their fair share of ‘public service broadcasting’ rammed down their ill educated throats.

    • WTF

      Its probably an obsession with the BBC’s left that they need to promote people like Saville or Evans just to feel accepted by others or pretend they are part of a ‘new scene’. Bunch of sad individuals with no self worth or back bone !

      • mikewaller

        ……..that happen to produce an outstanding range of programmes to satisfy all tastes, all for a mere £12 a month. Without the license fee this would be impossible and we would all have to settle for Murdoch-dictated pricing plus the huge annoyance of advertising breaks. If successful, those who bring this about would make Henry
        VIII’s destruction of the great monastic buildings look like carefully thought through redevelopment!

        • WTF

          There’s far too much in the UK that we are forced to pay for even though we neither want it, get any benefit from or have a choice in and I include welfare benefits and state pensions contributions.

          I’d rather the pension element of my NI contributions for 40+ years had gone into a private pension pot as I’d be getting 3 times what I currently get. I also object to benefits that I help pay for going to immigrants (legal and illegal) for items such as health care, education, housing, child etc, etc when they haven’t paid squat into the system.

          Its the same with the BBC, I don’t watch it, I have no interest in it and I rarely turn the TV on for any broadcast programs. I have a choice with Sky on whether to get the basic free channels or pay for other channels but I don’t bother on either and my entertainment consists of watching DVDs of programs I want to see rather than sad soaps like Eastenders or should it be called “Spot the Jihadist” as that part of London is now a Sharia no go area.

          Its called choice and I refuse to pay for a TV licence when I do not wish to watch let wing fascist propaganda. Tony Hall recently remarked that if the BBC went subscription it would cost a lot more than £12 a month which I totally agree with. What he conveniently forgot to mention is that the reason it would cost more is that far fewer people would be prepared to subscribe so the cost per person would skyrocket to keep those lefties in the manner to which they’ve become accustomed. Liberal elitist viewing cost a lot of money to produce so let the elitist put their money where there fat mouths are and cough up as I’m not paying for it.

          • mikewaller

            Would you apply the same principle to the NHS where, as in the USA, moving to some kind of insurance model would leave millions without medical cover? Would you withdraw funding from opera, ballet, the national theatre etc etc which although charging high ticket prices could not exist without state subsidies yet are enjoyed by comparatively small audiences? In respect of the NHS I think to follow the American model would be shameful. With the art-forms to which I refer, although I very, very rarely participate, I would be ashamed if my country did not support such activities. Ditto public libraries and museums. And for precisely the same reason, I support the license fee which, incidentally, is the only means whereby poor children are able to get access to high quality TV. Frankly, although by no means rich I would be heartily ashamed to adopt the same stance as you, particularly over such a modest sum of money..

          • Mc

            You’re engaging in virtue signaling, i.e. “Compared to the heartless WTF, I care about the vulnerable”.
            You’re perfectly welcome to be ashamed about all the things you mentioned. I’m ashamed and embarrassed on their behalf by a great deal that the Left gets up to in the UK.

          • WTF

            Thanks, that’s exactly the liberal thinking in Baltimore where 6 police officers (black & white) are being targeted by the whining liberals in power over the death of a black druggie in police custody.

            What ever the facts that have yet to come out over what happened, its still a fact that Baltimore has been run by democrats for 40+ years, they have received and spent billions of dollars to try and improve the ‘lot’ of black people, but have nothing to show for it. Black on black crime is still par for the course and not racist crime, but what ever happened to all that cash they received to rejuvenate a decaying city ?

            Basically, they blew it like all interfering liberal fascists rather than promoting self worth in deprived areas and giving the trouble makers a kick up the a*** and a helping hand. Its never stick and carrot, its always hand outs with no conditions and they cant understand why nothing improves. Much like the BBC and the TV tax to return to the original subject matter !

          • mikewaller

            Had I more respect for you, I would be deeply offended by your remark. “Virtue signaling” is the projection of values, almost certainly not genuinely held, in order to impress others. In fact, I speak from the heart in doing what little I can to prevent my country destroying an institution of inestimable value. Amongst many other evils, such an act would give Murdoch all his Christmases at once.

          • Mc

            Is sounds like you not only indulge in virtue signaling, but also notice micro aggressions at every turn 😉 May I suggest that the Spectator comments section isn’t exactly a safe space for those in need of trigger warnings.

          • WTF

            I am assured by the left that Obamacare ensures that every one can gain access to low cost medical care akin to the French system. Medical care is an essential to life, opera is not so it has to stand on its own feet like the BBC should but doesn’t. Libraries are also unnecessary for education as I rarely used one back in the 1960’s.

            Look, the point is this, if the country was awash with spare cash we could afford to do all manner of worthy or unworthy liberal causes BUT considering its on the bread line, immigrants & the EU are sucking us dry, we don’t have spare cash for vanity projects. The priorities should be, protect our borders, feed out indigenous population and ensure they have healthcare and shelter. Everything else has to be dumped when we have a national debt of trillions of pounds.

          • Johnny Foreigner

            My God, did you take doctorate in false equivalence? Opera = medical care?

          • mikewaller

            No, I am simply looking to a “genius” like you to establish where you draw the line. Sadly it seems a challenge beyond you.

          • Johnny Foreigner

            Oh, I did enjoy that, it would of been almost perfect if you had added, that because of the BBC’s Liberal Progressive leanings, the commissioning editors and producers, make programmes that distort history, with a multitude of omissions, including words, as well as actions. I always thought it was the Yanks,that rewrote history, with their films & TV.

          • WTF

            At least with Hollywood they generally know their version of history is fictional more often than not as do most of the cinema goers. The problem at the BBC is the delusional liberal fascists truly believe their version of history is fact as they were taught it at the University of Political Correctness.

          • global city

            You’ve hit upon a fundamental truth there. They do delude themselves that what ever is the meme of their university cohort is the universal truth. They cannot recognise any truth, even when it smacks them in the face… a sort of class cognitive dissonance.

        • Johnny Foreigner

          Wow, conflating the commercial repositioning of the BBC, with the disbanded Catholic monasteries. Man, you are just out there.

          • mikewaller

            Removing England from Catholic hegemony was, in my view, an excellent thing; the physical destruction of the great monastic buildings, a gross act of vandalism. Weighing the two elements together gives – again in my view – a net loss very significantly less than would arise from the destruction of the BBC.

          • Johnny Foreigner

            I have to hand it to you (backhanded maybe), you are so wrong headed in your perspectives, but man, at least you don’t give up.
            WFT nailed it for me, read his posts again (Just a suggestion).

          • mikewaller

            Although not a Catholic, I see myself as a latter-day St Patrick in that I am a Briton who, despite having previously been very badly treated, none the less strives to bring enlightenment to the ignorant and barbaric people who ill-used him! [:-)]

        • Chingford Man

          So “outstanding” there is nothing I want to watch.

          • mikewaller

            Cannot help thinking that says more about you than the BBC.

          • Chingford Man

            Millions agree with me. Perhaps that says something about them as well. If you love it so much, you pay for it.

          • mikewaller

            Millions of people read the Sun yet I should hate them to be the ultimate arbiters of the limits of the UK’s televisual endeavours.

  • Corbus

    You need remember no more than the fact it was sh^îte

  • WTF

    His knowledge of fast cars (if true) is not an asset for Top Gear as TG morphed into Men Behaving Badly On Wheels years ago and without the sort of chemistry that MBB or TG had with its participants, it will flop. Both TV programs worked so well purely because they made fun of each other, others and of themselves be it Gary & Dorothy and Tony & Deborah or Clarkson, May & Hammond.

    • mikewaller

      It all seemed monumental childish to me, but its great value lay in further justifying the license fee by appealing to another large demographic. Frankly I cannot understand why a spur of the moment minor physical assault when JC was under a lot of personal pressure is judged as worse than the disgusting stunt pulled by the loathsome, self-regarding clown, Ross. And all he got was 3 months suspension.

      • WTF

        I agree with you on this one as TG was the only saving grace (for the masses) that I can think of but now its over, the BBC needs to be dragged screaming off the tax payers teats and forced to fund their programming by subscription or advertising. HBO in the USA does very well without intrusive ads on programs such as the Sopranos or Game of Thrones but it requires competition to do this, something the BBC are unused to and probably incapable of achieving.

        • mikewaller

          With the greatest respect, don’t be daft! The BBC has had to deal with strong competition ever since ITV came into being. If it is denied the license fee it will just finish up in bits and pieces indistinguishable from what is already on offer.
          Even worse, the wretched Murdoch would start munching his was through the bits until he has the same grip on the electronic media as he has on the press. Additional problems are that the poor will be denied access to quality television (and please don’t try to tell me that the BBC does not provide any) because subscription charges will be way above £12 per month; there will be no escape from wretched advertising, and the wonderful World Service and the BBC’s excellent website will be under dire threat. All in all, it would be an act of vandalism of huge proportion.

          • Mc

            “If it is denied the license fee it will just finish up in bits and pieces indistinguishable from what is already on offer”

            You’re confirming that the BBC has nothing to distinguish it from commercial TV, which begs the question why a compulsory license is required. BBC management knows it’ll die without its guaranteed income stream, because they know its product offering is no better than the market.

            “Additional problems are that the poor will be denied access to quality television”

            “Quality” is a subjective assessment – an assessment which shouldn’t be forced on those who have no desire to consume BBC output. If the BBC output is genuinely of quality, the BBC will thrive as a subscription service.

            “there will be no escape from wretched advertising”. I view great on-demand film and TV programs of my own choice via Amazon, free of adverts, and without having to wade through the cr@p broadcast by Sky or the BBC. And I only pay £90 per year, compared to £145 p.a. for the BBC.

          • WTF

            Well put, a realistic approach to modern viewing by subscription with complete freedom of choice.

            You do it by streaming and I tend to do it by buying DVD box sets or if its a TV series like the 2nd series of “The Last Ship” which started on US TV a week ago, I use my PVR/DVR.

            I record it, transfer it to my PC, edit out the adverts and watch it ad free at my leisure. Then its available on my home NAS server to watch on any TV/PC wirelessly in the house by my wife or myself.

            Too many people are stuck in a time warp of the 1960’s BBC living in the stone age of TV but things have moved on since then.

          • mikewaller

            And no choice for the poor bastards that cannot afford to pay?

          • WTF

            There’s many things that I cant afford to pay for or like smoking do not wish to pay but I don’t wheel out that pity pot and say I’m a poor bastard. As a previous smoker I know can spend my money on less harmful pursuits rather than end up in an emphysema ward at the tax payers expense.

            That’s my choice on how I spend my money just like choosing which TV channel I want to pay for like NONE. Perhaps having to pay for depressing soaps like eastenders might deter some people and rather than paying to watch that cr** they’ll spend their time more productively.

          • mikewaller

            Hardly a mere matter of wheeling out the pity pot. When I was young even newspapers intended for mass circulation contained a great deal of thoughtful written comment. Their modern equivalents are little more than rabble-rousing comics. If the BBC goes, the triumph of barbarism will be complete with those unable to afford the good stuff being served up nothing but cheaply produced rubbish. Sadly, this is very much what might be expected from the “me, me, me” generation. Makes me think that I should have used decadence rather than barbarism above. Decadence being the final face of formally great civilisations.

          • WTF

            Pity pot ? You were the one who said “And no choice for the poor bastards that cannot afford to pay”

            Lets talk about the news outlets whether in print or on the flat screen. It used to be the case that news reporting was just that with no political bias, no baiting and no hidden agenda but what do we have today. With the SNP independence campaign we saw the depths of verbal and in some cases physical attacks coming from all directions. The GE was no better when we saw almost all the press on all media conduits attacking UKIP whilst giving everyone else a free ride over debating mass immigration and the costs to the country. That was just the supposed neutral reporting side.

            When it came to (ill) informed debate and opinion such as QT or the election debates, it became a bear baiting contest with the left suppressing debate on anything that didn’t fit their fascist agenda. I’m not saying the BBC is alone or even the primary culprit here as Sky news was equally as bad in suppressing inconvenient truths whilst trashing reality. If the BBC had risen above this bear baiting and just left it to Sky & Ch 4 then I’d say they had a great deal of thoughtful written comment and neutral reporting BUT they sunk to the level of all the reporting cess pits. Most reporters today are like cheer leaders at the coliseum getting the baying
            crowd worked up into an orgasmic frenzy of hate against the person or
            party they disagree with. Their agenda isn’t to open up the true facts but to stifle inconvenient truths and do a character assassination number on the hapless target.

            “Sadly, this is very much what might be expected from the “me, me, me” generation.” now you could have taken the words out of my mouth as this describes the left & the BBC to a tee but I doubt you can see that irony. It is the me, me, me generation born in the 60’s & 70’s who are calling the shots in the media not those like myself born in the 1940’s.

            They are the champagne socialists like Brand or Harman who were born with a silver spoon in their mouths, went to a privileged school and were brain washed by liberal fascist lecturers to socially engineer us to their way of thinking. Luckily there are still plenty of us old farts around who knew a better time when we took responsibility for ourselves unlike subsequent generations.

            The bottom line is the BBC has joined everyone else in the reporting cess pit so there’s no justification in being charged by a TV tax to fund it.

          • mikewaller

            I am very much the same age as you but have no recollection whatsoever of a golden age when the BBC spoke nothing but the truth. Instead I can remember cringe-making interviews in which senior politicians were allowed to walk all over the interviewer. That said, I think things have now gone too far with egotistical clowns like John Humphrey’s so chopping up what politicians of any stripe have to say that it is virtually impossible for them to make their case. As for the treatment of UKIP in particular, my take on it is that UKIP was simply unable to make a coherent case. We all know the problems arising out of mass immigration but what practical measures can be taken about (a) non-Europeans already here; (b) Europeans now able to freely come here; and (c) the waves of economic migrants and asylum seekers desperate to get here come what may?

            Regarding (a) if you rule out massive internment camps followed up by explosion (to where?)- both of which are untenable – what would UKIP actually do? With (b), to millions of us getting out of Europe and going it alone, which is the only sure way of dealing with freedom of movement, would be economic suicide in a world in which the numbers of people now trained to make things is moving way beyond any global capacity to buy them; and with (c) short of turning guns on them what other bright ideas do you have?

            To use your own words, the overall impression created in the minds of the wider population is that of a collection of old farts full of steam but with no clear ideas. I think that was the chink in the armour the interviewers exploited much as they did with poor old Miliband concerning the practicalities of his ideas and his party’s past economic management. Politics is, after all, a rough old game!

          • WTF

            Clearly we come from opposing viewpoints as I find John Humphries by and large a reporter who tries to get at the truth rather than one who has a political agenda.

            UKIP was unable to even explain its case being consistently interrupted by the likes of Dumbleby or others along with the hand picked liberal fascists in the audience that even the BBC conceded happened over the GE period. They outsourced the picking of the audience in a lame attempt to distance themselves from claims they were biased but it still came out.

            There are plenty of measures that can be taken over mass immigration rather than taking your defeatist view, it just requires having some bottle, introducing draconian benefit requirements, having quotas, ignoring an EU outcry and the problem would be solved in a trice. Its very simple, bears seek out honey like EU immigrants seek out welfare benefits, just look at Calais or are you in denial. We don’t need a Nazi style solution, just common sense and a resolve to ignore EU threats.

            As for an old fart, I believe my solution to mass immigration would work and at least I’m prepared to suggest something that’s practical and doesn’t require concentration camps. Whats you solution, look the other way and hope it goes away !

          • mikewaller

            John Humphry’s is a guy with an ego the size of a small planet who is much more interested in showing what a smartarse he is than getting anyway near the truth. When he made the mistake of participating in a hands on art programme with Muriel Grey he revealed himself to be the petulant child he is. Interestingly when interviewing ordinary folks on programmes such as “On the Ropes” he can show a sensitive and thoughtful side. My guess is that you only warm to him because you already hate 95% of current politicians and therefore love his standard treatment of them.

            I repeat, constantly interrupting politicians is what passes for political interviews in this benighted age. My judgement is that is fine by you when it isn’t UKIP and monstrously unfair when it is. Hardly British fair play.

            Whilst I agree we have a massive problem with immigrantion the evidence seems to suggest that for the most part they come here not for the benefits but to work. What is frightening is the easy with which they seem able to displace to least effective decile of our own working population. Having worked for a number of years in what was then called Personnel Management I am fairly satisfied that it is not just a question of accepting lower wages.

            With regard the EU, you either accept the rules or get out. And unlike you I remain convinced that the latter would be very much the worse of two options. Frankly I suspect that deep down your are happiest just chuntering on because of the sheer impracticalities of making your simplistic nostrums work.

          • WTF

            We can argue about who gets the most unfairest treatment by the media and the 6 months leading up to the GE clearly showed all the usual suspects making up lies, spinning old hat in fact any lame point they thought would make UKIP look bad. Without going into a long list of examples backing this, here is one example of the differences between the parties.

            When that ethnic female Labour plant accused a UKIP person of sexual harrassment he was immediately suspended and the press had a field day over it. Of course it transpired she made it all up and it was a set up. In contrast we see from the other parties where the media down play it if even reporting it, Andy Coulson who Cameron kept on for a long time, Janner that alleged child abuser and not forgetting that Libberal jabber the Hut, Cyril Smith.

            With all your anti UKIP rhetoric of a party which wants to clean up the country, you seem to support those that embrace pedophiles, liars, abusers, cheats and all manner pond life that are part of the establishment and perhaps that shows youre own morals as well. No wonder they turned a blind eye to Rotherham for 10 years as political pedophiles had too much of their own s*** to hide with their proclivities for illegal relationships with children.

            The evidence speaks for itself which party has the most disgusting and despicable social traits and its a hard call whether they are any different to the Islamic child abusers. Its almost like a Masonic pedophile group no matter what your religion or skin color, if you’re a pedophile, you watch each others backs !

          • mikewaller

            The deeply offense imputations you make concerning my personal morality all serve to confirm my general impression that UKIP largely comprises out of control individuals not suited to run our Country. That does not, of course, mean that I do not have the deepest contempt for anybody in any party who uses their position of power either to abuse the vulnerable or subvert the democratic process.

          • WTF

            And child abusers are suitable to run the country I presume.

            There hasn’t been a single case of child abuse reported or even allegations made against a UKIP member over child abuse which is surprising given the lies & vindictive spin that comes from the main stream parties and their sycophantic supporters. The facts speak for themselves, all three main stream parties have not only been caught with child abuse offenders in their midst but have even tried to cover it and in the Janner case, even let that alleged pedo off the hook because of his apparent dementia despite appearing in the Lords.

            If people support these sorts of political parties and ignore their proclivities for kiddie fiddling, it doesn’t say much for ythem I’m afraid.

          • mikewaller

            Given the terrible level of child abuse that is now known to be there, it seems to me inconceivable that at least some Ukippers have not been involved. Obviously they will not be found amongst established national politicians because they have yet to achieve that status save only for their one MP. In future, please engage brain before hitting keyboard. Next you will be telling me that no Ukipper has ever looked at pornography

          • WTF

            Obviously you seem to wish that UKIP have pedos in their midst but if there were and it became public unlike the other parties they’d be out on their ear in a second.

            Only one pedo ? think again, try forty for starter !

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrbcUaG2uIQ

            You’re the one who needs to check out the facts before hitting the keyboard and as for porn, who knows how many have watched it but watching adult porn has no comparison to Cyril Smith or Janner !

          • mikewaller

            Your first point entirely misses mine. With the cost spread across the entire population, the BBC is able to provide a marvelous range of services amongst which, to me, Radios 3,4, and 4 extra, BBC4, the website and the World Service are outstanding. It is unlikely that many of these would survive the loss of the license fee, particularly if your “I will only pay for what I want to see or listen to” is widely adopted as it almost certainly will be, selfishness being so central to the human condition. And if you think the loss of such services would be no more or less significant than the failure of some mass entertainment service, there is something wrong with your critical faculties. Much like opera, ballet, and the national theatre, these are the indicators of a truly civilised country.

            Even worse – for all the alleged left-wing bias of the BBC which is really no more than naive belief in being nice to everyone – all our news services would then be in private hands which from what I have seen of Fox News in the States and the recent disgrace of the Daily Telegraph because of its selective treatment of HSBC news stories is something to be resisted at all costs. I am therefore amazed that anybody with the sufficient ability to string together a sentence would consider going down that route.

          • WTF

            Your selfishness being so central to the human condition is such that you wish to force your subjective viewing habits on others and make them pay for it as well. As Mc put it, your viewpoint completely substantiates what I and others object to but you apparently don’t recognize this in your posts.

            I also have watched Fox News on many occasions in the USA and in a democratic country, its our right to watch whatever channel we prefer with or without subscription. Its still a false argument of yours to judge whether the BBC is better than Fox or Sky is better than NBC as that is purely a subjective matter for the individual and has no justification for having a TV tax attached to it.

            What is important is my freedom of choice of viewing without enduring a financial penalty to subsidize a product I do not want. If I buy a six pack of beer I don’t expect to subsidize a bottle of champagne just because some champagne socialist is a snob and feels that ordinary beer drinkers need elevating to champagne so we’ll tax them to ensure they get educated.

            NOBODY has a monopoly on saying what is ‘GOOD’. The best intention (real, imaginary or subjective) if enforced by a universal tax is nothing more than a removal of our freedom of choice by liberal fascists.

          • mikewaller

            Why do you not just buy yourself a T shirt on which should be printed “I am a barbarian and as such do not believe that anything is objectively merit-worthy”.Come Armageddon, I, in contrast,will stand proudly with the elitists.

          • WTF

            If your definition of a barbarian is one who doesn’t share your view that’s rather pathetic but coming from someone who wishes to impose their subjective views on others and trying to remove our choice that must make you an imposer.

            Here are many traits I’m sure you’ll recognize if you look at yourself –

            http://www.baggagereclaim.co.uk/when-someones-imposing-something-upon-you-theyre-trying-to-remove-your-choice-and-overstepping-your-boundaries/

          • mikewaller

            HBO may well suit your particular range of interests, but it cannot fairly be compared with the whole range of services provided by the BBC. Because of this, anybody with a broader mind than yours would finish up paying far more than £145 p.a. Years ago I was told that Radio 4 alone cost much more than the license fee if costs were divided by listener numbers. No doubt to your nonjudgmental way of thinking its merits are no more or less than that, say, of Big Brother; but in my view it reflects British values at their best.

            We know from Fox News and the recent high profile resignation from The Daily Telegraph what happens to news services once put into private hands and it isn’t difficult to guess what will happen to any kind of serious programme making that does not sit comfortably with a major commercial interest. Ergo, again in my view, an unwillingness to support an outstanding public service broadcaster would be the mark of a civilisation in terminal decline. So shame on those seeking, selfishly, to bring it about.

          • Mc

            You make two subjective judgements, both of which of course happen to be pro-BBC:

            “but in my view it reflects British values at their best.”

            “We know … what happens to news services once put into private hands”

            The nub of the matter is that it is authoritarian to impose your subjective valuation of the BBC’s output on others, by forcing people to pay for a product they have no intention of consuming. I’m delighted for you that you love the BBC, but it’s unacceptable that others are forced – on pain of criminal conviction – to subsidise your consumption choices. Yours is the classic logic of the Left and of dictators, where they’re keen on justice and fairness (and supposedly looking after the interests of the poor viewers), but only if it supports their world view.

          • mikewaller

            The decision by one of the Daily Telegraph’s senior journalist to resign because what he wished to write was being restricted in deference to the papers commercial interests is NOT a value judgement. It is a fact.

            Regarding individuals being forced to pay for things they have no interest in, that is precisely the position I am with regard to ballet, opera, and the state-funded theatre. However, not being a self-obsessed twerp, I would not have it otherwise. This is because I am more than willing to fund activities which place my country in the top rank of the culturally enlightened whether or not I participate. And even if I lacked the tastes which now draw me to the BBC, I hope to God I would still consider its continence as essential to the same cultural considerations. After all, by my lights, taking a different view would place me fair and square amongst the barbarians!

          • Mc

            You’re again indulging in virtue signaling, again applying subjective values to output (“culturally enlightened”) and again justifying forcing people to pay for something which you think has value, without giving them the free choice to make their own decision on the matter. Fundamentally, the most basic tenet of fairness is don’t force others to do something (compulsory purchase of BBC products) which you wouldn’t want them to force on to you (compulsory purchase of the likes of Murdoch’s products, the Guardian, the Daily Mail, etc). The same principle applies to every luxury good and most essentials.

            And yes, the state shouldn’t fund the arts for the above reasons, because it’s wasteful and because it distorts artistic output.

          • mikewaller

            As I thought I had already explained, virtue signalling is an activity practiced by shallow individuals – hence your interest? – with no real values other than a pathetic desire to impress. I write from the heart and, as such, see you as somebody who recognises no higher value than personal utility. If I am correct, you have my equally heartfelt sympathy.

          • Mc

            You’re a virtuoso virtue signaler, such as describing your opinions as “coming from the heart”.

          • mikewaller

            And you show remarkable skill in talking out of your anal orifice.

          • Mc

            You’re getting politer as this conversation proceeds.

          • mikewaller

            I try to adjust the nature of my response to the recipient.

          • Mc

            Aha, some more subtle virtue signaling there

          • mikewaller

            I am most grateful for your response as I had deleted your earlier contribution only to realise that your basic problem maybe just the want of a decent upbringing. I say this because the code in accordance with which I was brought up dictates that if someone assures you that, for example, the views he or she expresses are genuinely felt, you do not challenge this unless you have solid evidence to the contrary. Your not understanding this indicates to me that, for whatever reason, you suffer from yet another conceptual defect. As I doubt that even educational or medical intervention at this stage could help. I would suggest a decade listening to BBC Radio 4. My hope is that if you follow such a course there would be at least the possibility of your absorbing some of the excellent values subscribed to thereon. If that does not work, all I can offer is my condolences.

          • Mc

            Your concern for my wellbeing is much appreciated. My psychoanalyst advises one stays away from R4, as she insists it turns the infantile and feeble-minded into virtue signaling, Mesianic Social Justice Warriors who speak in cobbled together logical fallacies.

            She does though have a soft spot for Women’s Hour, wishing their entire staff would join ISIS in order to produce an inside scoop on ISIS’s contribution to feminism and LGBT rights. (Actually, I suspect she just fantasizes about seeing the smoking hot Jenny Murray prancing around in a burkha ). She also has a secret addiction to phoning those BBC helplines that are announced at the end of edgy programs (“If you’ve been affected by issues in the show, find out more about further resources”)

          • WTF

            And if I was a DT reader I could voice my objection to editorial restrictions by not buying that newspaper, freedom of choice again.

            If you as an individual are more than willing to pay towards certain arts, theater or the BBC because you feel they should be supported, I’m sure they would welcome your donation. Its your freedom of choice but equally I should have that same freedom of choice not to donate to something I have no interest in.

            For example, despite being an animal lover, I would never donate to the RSPCA due to recent vindictive positions it has taken over various matters. But I would and have taken direct action and offered a home to puppy that was at risk.

            Perhaps if you looked at “what can I do to help others or animals” and took direct action instead of telling others what they should do by forcing your will on them, you might see it slightly differently.

          • mikewaller

            Regarding your giving up the DT, the effect would be like a bucket of water thrown into the Pacific Ocean. All privately owned media organs are subject to the whims of their owners. Even the illustrious “Times” kept quiet about News International’s phone hacking until this became impossible. You and I are just too inconsequential to hurt them. Only a body like “Hacked Off” makes them think, and then only briefly.

            Regarding the RSPCA, the proper course is to stand for election yourself. Just dropping out means privileging your idiosyncratic political views over the undoubtedly good work they do for animals in the field. As for the BBC, you can carry on until you are blue in the faced, as I think it is worth dying in a ditch for, shoving a hand in your pocket is, to me, small change. [:-)]

          • WTF

            I agree on your fist paragraph but on the RSPCA, like many large charities they are not charities in the original sense of the meaning but are now just there to fund their own lifestyle and throw a few crumbs at abused animals, but we disagree we is fair.

            I’m glad you think the BBC is dying for as I’m sure they will welcome your subscription as thats your free choice. I want to see my free choice not to view it or pay for it.

          • mikewaller

            The RSPCA has a whole network of field officers so whilst there is some truth in what you say, it is a ludicrous over exaggeration. As for the BBC dying, please read with much greater care. It was me figuratively dying in a ditch to defend it, as I have risked doing on this list against the massed ranks of philistinism. [:-)].

          • WTF

            A philistine is a person who is indifferent to art and culture and in this setting becomes hostile to those who smugly tell all what is best for them. No wonder the massed ranks or philistines are against you with your controlling attitude !

          • mikewaller

            I do not do it smugly; you tragic mindset is a matter of the severest disappointment to me. [:-)]

          • WTF

            Your air of superiority, smugness and supercilious views to those who don’t share your adoration of the BBC have been consistent as well as boring throughout almost all your posts. Even your very recent reference to philistines epitomizes how you look down on those who would ignore the BBC as a source of news or entertainment.

            Who appointed you as the guardian of TV programming ?

          • mikewaller

            It is simply a by-product of my superior intelligence! [:-)]

          • WTF

            Liberal fascists have this mental defect of a superiority complex but its so transparent its a joke. Dream on with your subjective views as you don’t live in the real world.

          • mikewaller

            Your case clearly being hopeless, if in your little Matrix world that thought makes you feel more comfortable, I feel I have no right to press matters further.

          • WTF

            Now be a good little brown shirt and go and play in your sand box with your other fascist mates instead of demanding we pay for your viewing preferences !

          • mikewaller

            Cobblers! Hundreds of thousands of people who do not wish to be treated in a public hospital adn who pay a fortune for private health care are, nonetheless, forced to contribute to the NHS. Ditto those who pay for private education with regard to State education. It is all about recognising the greater good. Ditto with the BBC.

          • Mc

            Yeh right. A private education, a TV purchase and the BBC are outright luxuries, while the NHS (or whatever form of healthcare insurance a country has) is a necessity. Never mind that calling the BBC a greater good is totally laughable.
            And yes, in a fair world those who decide to use private healthcare or private education should obtain a refund from the government for the equivalent public sector cost of the product.

          • WTF

            Your argument about value for money from the BBC is a pathetic false argument to justify a TV tax that’s been wheeled out by its supporters time and again but that isn’t the real point is it. We could easily argue that many other organizations offer good value for money but that doesn’t mean that we should be forced to pay and use their services or products when we either don’t want to use them or we might prefer other offerings.

            The whole world is in turmoil around us due to Islamic terrorism and EU fascists contolling our lives whilst our politicians fiddle and you make the ridiculous claim that it “would be the mark of a civilization in terminal decline”.

            You really do need a reality check !

          • mikewaller

            To the major problems you identify you have no practical answers. Regarding the BBC: “There’s none so blind…..”

          • WTF

            I have various suggestions for other issues but to keep on the subject, I and many others have clearly identified a solution for the BBC TV tax. Repeal it and let the BBC put its ‘money’ where its mouth is and rely on subscription. If as you attest they are exceptional value for money then they should have no problem funding their programming at a lower cost than the TV tax. That would be a win-win for everyone, the BBC would win with a guaranteed revenue stream, those that want to watch it can do so for less and those that don’t want to watch the BBC will save on the TV tax.

            How about it, any flaws in my suggestion ?

          • mikewaller

            As I have already pointed out, the same applies to the NHS and State education in respect of those who would prefer (and do) to make their own arrangements. Ditto, for that matter, pacifists in respect of defence spending. I am surprised that you do not have the breadth of intelligence to see this. I would recommend 10 years listening to BBC Radio 4.

          • WTF

            The same does not apply to the NHS or state education as they are an absolute necessity for the continuation and well being of the state. However it has been funded, these two functions have been essential for centuries is the survival of a group, a village, a city or a nation and likewise defense spending. You could have an opt out for health and education and I see no issue with that but defense is problematical whilst the BBC is not.

            By default a pacifist is getting the benefit of armed forces and if they don’t want that protection they are free to leave. Likewise for the same practical purposes If I don’t want to watch & pay for the BBC I should be allowed to dump them. There’s enough torture around without subjecting myself to the BBC for 5 minutes let alone 10 years.

          • mikewaller

            Don’t be draft, the British state existed for most of its history without either state education or state health care, and large numbers of people who had been well able to look after themselves were very, very annoyed when they were forced to contribute to the well-being of others. Similarly with pacifists; you and I might think them daft, but they have proved willing in the past to lose their lives rather than take up arms. Again someone else’s notion of the greater good has been imposed on them. That is where I stand on the BBC and you don’t; so If you learn nothing else from my efforts, please recognise that in this world there are very few absolutes.

          • WTF

            You really have a problem with historical fact don’t you.

            For centuries the church or religious body in all countries carried out what is now the the states function for care and education. Once religion lost its hold of the population the state took over.

            I repeat what I stated before, Imposition of ones will on others by force is fascism, pure and simple and you are a fascist by that definition !

          • WTF

            Now you’re being deliberately obtuse or are mentally retarded as that wasn’t what I said at all. I clearly pointed out that healthcare and education is a pre-requisite to ensure the nations welfare as is defense spending to ensure it can continue to exist.

            Being forced or not to paying a TV tax makes no difference to the welfare or existence of the state, but it does infringe on the freedoms of the individual.

          • mikewaller

            So any nation without the equivalent of the all-encompassing NHS is failing in its basic duty to itself. Try telling that to the Americans. That said, for my part I have only to look at the American media and in particular its news services, to know why we need the license fee and the BBC.

          • WTF

            l don’t give a sh** about your personal views of America or the BBC as they are irrelevant and have nothing to do with the argument over a TV tax. , All that matters is that I disagree with liberal fascists like yourself using a purely subjective view to impose a tax on me for something that is not essential for the national good.

            Whether you like it or not, the TX tax revenue is already falling. this government is saying its cutting back on funding so suck it up, as the BBC will be cutting back your elitist programming that the philistines don’t want. If its that good in your eyes, you better start a petition for subscribing to your preferential viewing habits.

          • mikewaller

            What marks you out as a barbarian is your failure to understand that the maintenance of high cultural standards is essential to a nations well being. You may wish to sink into a Matrix-like world in which all your tastes and opinions are shaped by monsters like dear old Rup, but millions of sensible people like me, don’t, As for the the future of the BBC, I think Osbourne and Hall have played a blinder and, in so doing, stiffed that clown Whittingdale. With the World Service and free TV for the oldies hug round the BBC’s neck, politicians now have a massive interest in keeping the license fee going less these costs get swung back to them. Hooray! Hooray!

          • WTF

            If that be the case I’d rather be a barbarian than a fascist like yourself. The term Barbarian stems from the Greek βάρβαρος (barbaros) and Greeks used it mostly for people of different cultures or ideas.

            Not much wrong with that and the term may have preceded diversity and multiculturalism by over 2 millennia. You have your opinion and I have mine over the BBC but a fascists is one who tries to impose their will on others. Welcome to the N*** party, you’d have fitted in well there with your demands that others pay for your entertainment !

          • mikewaller

            My Nearly 50 year old recollection is that the the Ancient Greeks, whilst seeing themselves has having both intelligence and courage, classified their Northern neighbours as having courage but no intelligence and their eastern, Asiatic neighbours as having intelligence without courage. Assuming that behind your alias there lies a Northern European, I am sure the Ancient Greeks would have ended the exchange with their equivalent of QED.

          • WTF

            It doesn’t change the fascist nature of the EU and people who support super state fascism or enforced payment of a TV tax that funds an elitist agenda rather than allowing people free choice.

            No matter how much you squirm, conflate, change the subject and many other lame ruses, the fact still remains that you demand that others pay for YOUR viewing preferences and you take a superior condescending attitude that we should pay for it just because you say in your subjective POV its good value !

            That would be like me forcing my wife to eat shrimps just because I love them but she doesn’t. As with the BBC, its not at all important to her welfare and my trying to tell her what to eat (I don’t) would p*** her off just as you p*** many others off telling them what they should pay for and watch.

          • mikewaller

            Don’t be daft, I don’t squirm and only follow the debate in whatever direction it leads, frequently to your discomfort. The difference between us is that I believe that the importance high culture to civilisation is so great that it warrants State support. You clearly don’t. And that is it. You will continue to consider me elitist, a label I accept with pride, and I will continue to see you and your like as lesser devils to the Great Satan, Murdoch, all engaged in the progressive yobification of my country.

          • WTF

            You’re at it again already in this post deliberately ignoring the key point and trying to change the debate. Lib~~~tards do this all the time when confronted with awkward undeniable facts they cant dispute and its very tiresome.

            The issue is very simple, you are trying to enforce your viewing preferences on others through a TV tax. You’ve made this clear all along but haven’t had the courage to admit it and everything else is just liberal fluff to try and hide the central point.

            Until you can get back on the real issue namely the TV tax, a little light humor is called for ! Here’s three for starters.

            Q: What is the Liberal doing when he holds his hands tightly over his ears?
            A: Trying to hold on to a thought.

            Q: What do you call a basement full of Liberals?
            A: A whine cellar.

            Q: Why is it good to have a Liberal passenger?
            A: You can park in the handicap zone.

          • mikewaller

            Are you stupid or just one-eyed? At no stage have I denied a willingness to require others to fund a service they many not use at all. I just happen to believe that this is to the greater good of my country. Were I you, I would in future just stick to the intended humour; it’s pathetic, but not quite as pathetic at your attempts at mature debate.

          • mikewaller

            Read my other posts and try to come to terms with your severely restricted cerebral processing capabilities.

          • WTF

            I suggest you re-learn what fascism stands for & actually means, as its an attempt to force others to your thinking by force. It doesn’t matter whether the thoughts are benign or malignant, its still fascism.

            If I am forced to pay a TV tax specifically for one broadcaster ONLY, that is not freedom of choice and sits comfortably with fascist aims. Your assertion that I should pay this tax automatically labels you as a fascist as well !

          • mikewaller

            So under your definition forcing those who make their own health and educational arrangements nonetheless pay for the NHS and State education is fascism? I think that’s crap and I have a degree in politics. Do you?

          • WTF

            Being funded by a compulsory tax on families is hardly what I would call strong competition. Why do you think that ITV ran into serious financial problems years ago and other free non tax payer funded channels.

            “If it is denied the license fee it will just finish up in bits and pieces indistinguishable from what is already on offer.” or what we currently get !

            As for the world service, we’re now a third rate western power that cant even pay 5% towards NATO without Cameron fudging the accounts and including foreign aid. Who listens to the UKs view these days as our colonial days are long gone.

            If intellectuals and elitists want the ‘quality’ broadcasting you claim the BBC offers, then let them pay for it by subscription as a free choice, much as others pay for subscription channels like HBO. It is not the function of others to tell me or anyone what I should pay for just because they believe it is good for me, that’s tantamount to liberal fascism !

          • mikewaller

            And where do you draw the line? Pacifists should be allowed to withhold tax appropriate to our defence budget; childless couples, that appropriate to education; those paying for private insurance, that appropriate health; those with adequate personal pensions, that appropriate to the cost of the old age pension? etc. etc. Either we degenerate into the realms of individual self-obsession or some regard has to be paid to the greater good. Or is that a shade to complicated for your simplistic world view?

          • WTF

            If you look back through history there’s plenty of ways that the populace or electorate will voice their objection to a tax and its always at an unfair tax and not a tax that is needed for the benefit of all.

            We had a window tax centuries ago and that failed when people boarded up their windows, we had a Tea tax which triggered the American war of Independence and in more recent times we’ve had taxes that were noncollectable like the poll tax because teenagers ‘disappeared’. The dog license was dropped, a radio license was dropped and it wont be long before the TV license is dropped.

            If you ask people would they withhold part of their income tax (assuming they could) that goes to the defense budget, 90% at least would say no and pay it willingly. The same goes for NI contributions for health care and state pensions although that needs looking at.

            In essence, if a tax is fair, sensible, essential and for the benefit of all, no one has a problem. Its when a tax is unfair, non essential and unnecessary for the benefit of all, we want to dump it.

            As 50% of the country doesn’t want to pay for the TV license at all and a further 25% want to see it reduced, that isn’t self obsession. Its the minority that want to see it continue of increased who are self obsessed.

          • Johnny Foreigner

            Total Balls.

          • mikewaller

            I am deeply impressed by the depth of your scholarship!

  • David R

    The Word pissed all over TFI Friday.

  • Michael H Kenyon

    Avoid ADHD TV crap. It’ll improve your life no end.

  • Dan O’Connor

    Mr Personality. Bread and circuses for the comotose Eloi.
    Chewing gum for the mind.

  • Albert Zbingswiki

    Less My Little Pony knocking, please.
    I appreciate that it was a previous iteration of MLP that was around when Blair was ranting about Yoonis, but the current (wonderful) series is actually a worthwhile artistic endeavour. I suggest you google “Winter Wrap Up”.

  • Ebst

    I didn’t realise this Evans fella was famous before The One Show. Guess I missed the ’90’s…

  • John M

    Jesus it was just a bit of fun for under 25’s on a Friday night. There’s no need for a narcisstic, over intellectual analysis of the programme as it was just a bit of fun (well done)

    And that probably explains a lot about Delingpole. Not only is he dissecting something he claims he didn’t watch, but I suspect he just wasn’t one of those kids who had fun outside of school… probably sat at home reading Dostoevsky or some other thing that only kids with zero friends and a bag of personal problems read.

  • Hugh Jeego

    I’ve never forgotten why I hated TFI Friday. Now he’s going to be fronting Top Gear!

  • trace9

    Have you ever seen, an Aeroplane
    Flying through, your Windowpane?
    If they never made, an Aeroplane
    They’d not crash through
    – Your Windowpane.

    Aeroplanes = Baad. Give ’em up. Make the beautiful sky a no-fly zone – not a fouled-up Dellinghole – & thank God for That!

  • MichaelHFerguson

    22222Ultra Income source by spectator. Find Here

  • AlbanSW19

    ‘…. I watched this one-off revival mainly to remind myself why I almost never watched it when it was on originally. Very quickly I remembered. Because it was shit”.’

    Substitute the words ‘watched’ for ‘read’, and you have a spot-on summary, ready to be written in a year or two, in consideration of the collected works of James Delingpole.

    I only use this tosser’s name, because he’s onanistically in love with its sound.

  • rodger the dodger

    I recall during a candidate screening in about ’93, my boss saying to me of someone’s CV, “What the f**k is ‘Media Studies'”?. The rot set in long ago on that front…

  • GeoffSouth

    Did Evans keep his fee for the Savile tribute voice over?

  • UncleTits

    James, admit it, you’re still jealous because Evans nailed the young Billy Piper. “TFI Friday” wasn’t all bad and indeed had some surprisingly good moments. One that I still recall is when JDB (Manic Street Preachers) covered “Last Christmas” on his acoustic guitar. See?

  • Teacher

    “Jeremy Clarkson (please, God, let it not be true that Evans is replacing him on Top Gear) is a shameless reactionary with self-parodic vocal mannerisms; ”

    This may well be true. However, he is also a clever, educated man with a witty writing style and great command of the English language who posseses the ‘gift of the gab’, all of which, combined with his outgoing, fearless personality have contributed to his success as a presenter of ‘Top Gear’. I doubt whether Evans, skewered by his hapless, bumbling, embarassing performance in the clip accompanying this piece, is going to be able to cut the mustard. Talent will out.

Close