Just when you thought the Daily Mail had hit rock bottom, they’re now insisting on referring persistently to  the parliamentary commissioner for standards as “the Commons sleaze watchdog”.  One really has to feel sorry for Sir Philip Mawer.

Comedian Linda Smith has died from ovarian cancer, aged 48.

Linda was somebody I, along with many others, liked a lot. She was one of that rare breed of comedian that can always make you smile, regardless of what mood you’re in, or however much you don’t want to. I loved listening to her on The News Quiz, Sorry I Haven’t a Clue, Just a Minute, and watching her appearances on the excellent QI, as well has her not infrequent appearances on Question Time, where she always had interesting points to make – as always, deadly serious but delivered in a comic way.

In his tribute, Jeremy Hardy tells how Linda chose not to tell many people about her cancer, not wanting to be seen as ‘that comedian with cancer’, but rather just ‘that great comedian’. And she truly was great.

There are formal obituaries on the BBC website, and also at MediaGuardian.

She will be sadly missed.

Not the latest inspired marketing campaign for Kleenex (sadly), but rather the new one for Norwich Union Direct – at least according to this week’s Guide:

In a regrettable attempt to ingratiate themselves with the nation’s youth, the shadowy dream-weavers at NUD’s marketing department have centred their latest ad on a joke about masturbation. The onanistic wheeze unfurls thus: a large-chinned twentysomething is engaged in an animated telephone conversation with NUD. Cut to a shot of his grandmother, who, by standing outside his closed bedroom door with a cup of tea, is an unwitting party to the climax of said transaction. “YES! YES! I LOVE YOU!” he bellows, as an unheard customer-service operative delivers the explosive news that his car insurance might cost him slightly less than he thought.

Of course, in normal circumstances, any grandmother encountering this apparently masturbatory outburst would be expected to either: a) stagger backwards in horror, clawing wordlessly at the banister before slumping, unconscious, to the carpet; or b) tiptoe downstairs and immediately set about cutting the pervert out of her will. But these are not normal circumstances. These are ad circumstances, which mean they bear no relation to real life and are, instead, wholly stupid and entirely nonsensical. Thus nan responds to the outburst by smiling enigmatically and caressing her ancient breastbone in the manner of a saucy Edwardian chambermaid fingering a colonel’s monocle. “Just like his granddad,” she says to a baffled Craig Cash before wandering off, possibly to the bathroom, whereupon she will spend the next 40 minutes tickling her support hose while thinking about her dead husband’s cravat.

What are we to take from her reaction? That her grandson’s decision to spend afternoons using his genitals as a mortar and pestle is grounds for familial pride? That her husband was as aggressive a masturbator as her grandson? That she gets off on the idea of a close relative roaring himself to orgasm? Who knows? And so another gag goes off in the trousers of advertising incompetence. Still, kudos to NUD for having the chutzpah to imply, however inadvertently, that their customers sound like wankers. Now that’s funny.

It’s definitely an original idea, if nothing else.

Council Tax is rising by a predictable amount – probably as low as it could possibly ever rise by, given that it primarily funds people’s salaries.  But if one more person goes on TV claiming it’s a stealth tax, I think I’ll scream.  It’s by far the most publicised and debated tax we pay.  It’s forever in the media.  It’s about as stealthy as taking your pet elephant round Tesco, having previously taken it to get its hair dyed orange.  It’s not in anyway stealthy.  So to call it a stealth tax is positively ludicrous.

Some people have been getting rather het up (to say the least) over the publication of twelve cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed. But how can I, in good conscience, post something as potentially offensive as this, and then not post a cartoons like this? To do so would be to say that I respect the beliefs of Muslims above those of Christians, and that’s simply not the case.

I never post with the intention of offending people. So whilst I wholeheartedly apologise for any offence caused by the cartoon, but simply cannot apologise for publishing it here. I accept that it’s against the Muslim religion to depict Muhammed, let alone belittle him in cartoons. But it’s equally against the Christian religion to depict Jesus as a skimpily-clad camp guy doing a Gloria Gaynor impression. As much as it is the right of the holders of those beliefs to follow their relgion in their own way, I have the right not to follow the rules of their religion. If people are offended by my choice, then they equally have the right to challenge my saying it, and even to mock me if that’s what they want to do. But nobody has the right to stop me, or anybody else, from saying something they believe in order to stimulate debate and discussion.

In this particular instance, I’m merely using the cartoon to illustrate a point. I have to say that I think the imagery appears to me to be somewhat offensive. But that’s not stopped me publishing imagery which may be offensive to followers of the Jewish faith for purposes of discussion. In such cases, posting the image clearly does not imply agreement therewith, but merely faciliatates discussion.

As I’ve already said, I intend to offend no-one. That probably can’t be said for the writers of comments on this site, such as this. Clearly, I tend not to agree with the assertion that I am a ‘little shit’ or a ‘fucked up prick’, yet I don’t feel the need to censor the writer’s (misguided) beliefs, but merely debated the finer points of her argument. Was I able to do this without resorting to anger because I’m a really calm guy, or just because I’m certain of my beliefs? Perhaps if shakier beliefs of mine were challenged, then I would have more difficulty in responding, and so feel more angry towards the challenger. Whatever else is said, violent aggression from the defendent can only ever damange his cause – especially when that cause is a basically peaceful religion.

Update
After several requests, I’ve now put the full set of cartoons online here. Please feel free continue to use this page for discussion of them.

Update
For the sake of sensible, reasonable discussion, I’ve removed the cartoon which previously appeared on this page. Read all about why I’ve done that here, and rest assured that you can still view all of the cartoons on this page of the site.

For those of you, like me, who are having difficulty coming to terms with the fact that the seventh season of the West Wing will be the last, you may be heartened to know that today’s G2 has a couple of articles (here and here) about the show’s demise. And me being somewhat behind, it means I still have 36 episodes still to go. But with 118 gone already, that’s no so comforting.

There’s rumours flying around all over the place, though, that the final episode will give a proper send-off to the late John Spencer, which would be right and fitting. Some would says it’s too late, and that the show should have ended when Sorkin left, but I say The West Wing still can die with dignity. Let’s hope it does.

Whoever wrote the script for tonight’s Six needs to be sacked.

[In reference to prostitution] Fiona Mactaggart went out with police to experience the problem first-hand

Is that not libellous?

Even if it’s not, why on Earth did the next item need a live from inside a waste incinerator, with a noisy crane operating in the background? What did that add to the story? Not to mention that the package following opened with a lengthy shot of someone putting some rubbish in a bin. Just in case we didn’t know what rubbish was.

I’m not normally one to moan about these things, but that was, frankly, ridiculous.

A radio phone-in contributor in Liverpool has died on air. You really wouldn’t think the DJ would want to be featured in the national news if he bores his listeners to death…

The ITV News Channel is to be axed. It’ll disappear from screens in January. But with its viewing figures, the question really is: Will anybody notice? Probably not, but it hardly says much for ITV’s commitment to news.

Pre-budget statement? African earthquake? Saddam trial?

No way… Not when there’s ‘MAN OFFERS GIRL, 11, LIFT IN HIS CAR‘. Stop the presses!

You’ve got to love local news:

The man … is believed to be in his 40s and bald, with only a little bit of hair at the sides

You really couldn’t make it up.