2010 in Dicks

2011 has started and seems disappointingly familiar, but it gives us all a chance to look back at the year just gone. And I felt that I'd look back at all the dicks who have made the world slightly worse. And where better to start than...

THE CONSERVATIVE-LEAD GOVERNMENT: We all knew it was coming. There was no way that New Labour could hold on any longer, but the popularity of the Liberal Democrats (a phrase that is as laughable now as it was last January) just kept the Tories from a majority. And then gave them the MPs they needed anyway. Much of the anger has been (rightly) directed at Nick Clegg for backtracking on virtually every promise that made him so popular in the first place, but let's not forget that to bend to the every whim of the Conservative Party, there needs to be Conservative policies to begin with. So whilst Cameron and Osborne are happily pissing on everyone, let's not take out all of our anger on the guy pointing and laughing.

THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM: This was the year when Paul Chambers was convicted for an illegal use of irony, but at least he was fortunate enough not to end up in hospital at the hands of the police (allegedly, of course). Surely the worst injustice of the year is of the rape victim jailed for eight months for retracting her genuine allegations. Though she has since been released, she still has to fight for her children. The husband had all the charges against him dropped, begging the question: How can they convict someone of falsely retracting allegations of sexual assault, and yet not convict the (therefore genuine) rapist? It saddens me that the organisations that are suppose to protect me -- the police and the CPS -- have shown themselves to be thuggish and shockingly misguided.

JULIAN ASSANGE: Not for his work with WikiLeaks, an organisation which I support and I believe has done a remarkable amount of good work in revealing what it has, but for his entirely dick-ish remarks following the recent allegations against him. Sunny Hundal has compiled a brilliant piece on whether the accusations of conspiracy stand up, but regardless of his guilt or innocence (neither of which have yet been proven in court, and I would not like to speculate on it), he has recently said some phenomenally unpleasant things, such as claiming he fell into a "hornets' nest of revolutionary feminism", that Switzerland is the "Saudi Arabia of feminism", and that these women had got into a "tizzy" about something as trivial about the very serious subject of STDs. WikiLeaks would do very well without him.

KAY BURLEY, ADAM BOULTON AND BEN BROWN: 3 journalists, two working for Sky and one for the BBC. Boulton and Burley provided us with such shoddy journalism that people were compelled to shout at them in the street, but then at least you would expect that of Sky "News". Ben Brown's treatment of Jody McIntyre was a different matter, with the supposedly "impartial" BBC doing all they can to pin blame on a victim of a violent and horrific incident. The official statement from the editors completely misses the point. Would they really interview anyone in the same way? Is Crimewatch an interrogation of the victims, ascertaining whether they were "rolling towards" the criminals, perhaps? It was not a balanced view, but a disgusting display of victim-blaming.

NADINE DORRIES: I have tried several times to write a post about Dorries, about her 70% fictitious blog that she uses to make personal attacks on her constituents, but every time I begin I realise that Tim Ireland has said it earlier and better than I ever will (and been the victim of some vicious and nasty smearing as the result), so I'll just point you in his direction.

DANNY DYER AND ZOO MAGAZINE: Oh how we laughed back in May when Danny Dyer joked about cutting women's faces. Except we didn't, because it was deeply unpleasant. Dyer initially claimed to have been misquoted, but has since offered this apology, in which it becomes clear that the problem was that he was quoted, albeit an off-record aside. He has since resigned, and released the film Pimp to huge box-office takings of £205. Zoo magazine, however, which approved and printed the column, continues to be published to a wide readership.

THE POPE: An inevitable inclusion on this list, the Pope currently feels more like the head of SPECTRE than the Catholic Church. Accusation after accusation after accusation of child abuse and subsequent cover-ups have been leveled at Catholic Priests (too many to link to, but the length of this Wikipedia article is startling in itself), and yet all Ernst Stavro Blofeld and his lot have done is attack homosexuals, secularists, and women. I said back in September that

I will never be able to put into words the horror and sadness that I feel, knowing that there are millions of people who hold this hateful, bigoted, misogynistic homophobe in the highest regard possible.

Since then, the Pope has claimed that paedophilia wasn't a big deal in the '70s, and that child pornography is increasingly seen as "normal". Am I really expected to moral advice from a man who opposes the use of condoms more than child pornography?

So, that's why he's my Dick of 2010. Until the end of Monday you can vote for five dicks here (Cameron, Osborne, Dorries and Dyer were my other choices, by the way).

Happy New Year!

Why, Stephen Fry, WHY?

I consider myself a normal person (pretty much). And like every other normal person I love Stephen Fry. His wordiness, his wit and his intellect have often left me amazed. In fact, in my last blog post I asked whether it was "possible to describe anything Stephen Fry has done as anything other than wonderful?". Sadly, it seems that this might almost have been a challenge.

In case you are unaware, Fry was interviewed for Attitude magazine, and made a series of comments suggesting women did not enjoy sex, but "that sex is the price they are willing to pay for a relationship with a man, which is what they want." When these comments were picked up by The Guardian on Sunday, there was naturally a huge commotion on Twitter, amongst other places.

Fry claims to have been misquoted by the Guardian, saying

"So some fucking paper misquotes a humorous interview I gave, which itself misquoted me and now I'm the Antichrist. I give up."

Since then, he has tweeted once more -- "Bye, bye" -- and so, worryingly, looks like he may be about to leave Twitter, which would be a terrible shame for one of the most popular tweeters out there.

I have found the whole situation to be incredibly confusing and disheartening. Fry has not earned the "National Treasure" badge by accident, but by being one of the most likable and warm public figures in the country. These comments seem so out of character, so naturally I would hope that he has been misquoted, as I'm sure would so many people.

But Fry doesn't seem to be using Twitter as he said he could. One of the benefits of the social networking site is that it enables you to clarify your position without having to be filtered through the journalists who can twist your words to suit their own agendas. When the Mail accused him of leading an "Atheist Hate Campaign", he neatly demonstrated this to be false in his blog, and was able to put across what he actually believed.

Slightly more problematic in this regard is that Fry himself tweeted a link to a website with extracts from the interview himself (I believe it was this one), but has since deleted that tweet. Certainly, this article contains contentious quotes, so it seems less likely that The Guardian has entirely misrepresented his case, leaving one to wonder why he would initially tweet the link, then remove it after he claims to have been misquoted? (For what it's worth, I had this on my Tumblr the day before The Guardian ran with the story, and it's contents are such I don't feel I need to argue Fry's point again here.) He also seems to have made similar comments in a previous interview, which can be found on YouTube here.

The curious thing I have found is that some defenders of Stephen Fry are so ready to criticise The Guardian for misquoting the interview without looking into any other sources to see what the interview said. Of course, it's still possible that his intentions have been misread, and I would dearly love this to be the case, but to blindly assume that someone is right just because they're Stephen Fry is wrong.

I have focused on this more than most stories of this nature. Had it been almost any other figure, I probably would have made some remark and passed over it, but Fry is different. His charm has won so many people over, including me, and his intellect is so great that it's often easy to forget that he is fallible, and so devastating when proved so. But I hope that Fry rejoins Twitter, takes the time to clarify his statements, point out where he's been misquoted, and that this issue can be left behind very soon.

The Exeter Reclaim the Night March 2010

In November, Exeter was to have seen its first Reclaim the Night March, a march in keeping with the others nationwide promoting awareness of the issues women face, particularly walking at night. Sadly, this event is now no longer to take place, at least, not in November. Below is the email sent by Caitlin Hayward-Tapp, the president of Exeter University's Gender Equality Society, explaining the situation:

Dear all,

I'm afraid I have some sad news. For now, Exeter Reclaim the Night is going to have to be cancelled. This is certainly not for want of trying - in fact, it very nearly became a reality. However, the Devon Police Force withdrew its support, rendering the march financially impossible.

Their reasons for doing so are two-fold. The first is a desire not to take officers away from their core duties. Their second reason is much less palatable - a Reclaim the Night march is, apparently, not of National Significance. This statement follows detailed descriptions of the aims of such an event: to protest the shockingly low national rape conviction rate, to raise awareness of the importance of women's safety on the streets at night, and to campaign for a rape crisis centre to be opened in Devon.

One would hope that women's safety would be a number one priority of the police force. This response shatters that illusion. Of course, we're not taking this lying down. While there is a limit to how much we can do to change the police force's decision, we can make our discontent and disapproval heard. In order to do this, the committee have drawn up a petition.

This message, then, is not entirely bad news. There is something you can do to help. Please come find us, in town or on campus - I'll be sending out times as soon as we know them - and sign the petition. Also, if you'd like to be part of the campaigning team don't hesitate to get in touch. The more of us out there making ourselves heard, the better.

This situation is such a shame, as I know just how much effort went into making this happen. But we can show that, although women's safety might not be a priority to Devon's Police Force, it is to us. If we can't make the message heard on the streets of Exeter, we do have the internet. Use Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr or anything to let people know. If you're in Exeter sign the petition. Even if you're not, please sign the online petition. And there IS still hope. Caitlin ends her e-mail with this:

Thank you all for your support thus far. We WILL bring Reclaim the Night to the streets of Exeter, one way or another. And when we do, we hope to see you there.

UPDATE, 21/10/2010: The Exeter Reclaim The Night event has a blog, which will keep be used to keep you updated on events.

Breast Cancer on Facebook

Recently on Facebook a lot of people have been posting the phrase "I like it on...", and then a location, referring to where they leave their handbag (only it's funny, cos it sounds like sex!). This is all for Breast Cancer Awareness Month, which is a very worthy cause. However, I have a LOT of issues with this campaign.

The logic behind it is non-existent. It's making an in-joke out of a scheme to raise Breast Cancer awareness. I usually find awareness is much better when, you know, people are BEING MADE AWARE, as opposed to being kept in the dark. Why not post a link to, say, Cancer Research UK (you can even just click here). That way, everyone knows what you're talking about, and maybe some of them might even donate. They are certainly more likely to do so after being directed from a link than with an obscure reference to where you leave your handbag.

For some reason that I haven't fully worked out, breast cancer seems to hold a special place amongst terminal illnesses, in that it's the only one that you're allowed to find sexy. Yes, I know they're breasts, but if you're getting turned on by a mammogram then there is something wrong with you. Try doing that with any other serious illness or condition -- if you made a sexual innuendo about AIDS, for instance, people would rightly deem it in poor taste (at best). I appreciate that dwelling on the details of cancer might not be best suited to Facebook, but there is a huge gulf between doing that and sexualising something that, I am sure, a huge percentage of your Facebook friends have seen affect or take a loved one.

All this, and I haven't even mentioned the fact that there is no link between cancer and handbags. Demonstrably. The only link is that it involves breasts -- like what girls got -- and handbags -- like what girls got. The word "Tenuous" probably covers that connection best, and only then if we assume strict gender binaries: that all women have a handbag, and all men don't (and we then forget about the 1-2% of cases affecting men).

So don't post this status. It's ridiculous. It really is no better at awareness raising than the chain e-mails that used to spam Bebo and the like, and certainly much worse than donating, or even telling people about it plainly. Or clicking this link, which directs you to a site where each hit earns someone a free mammogram. Much better.

(Thanks to Charlotte Bennett, whose Facebook comment helped lead to this blog)

Ad Priorities

I am, it is fairly safe to say, not a fan of advertising. In fact, I usually find it shallow, depressing and repetitive. I've already blogged generally about LGBT issues and advertising, and often refer to Charlie Brooker's excellent Screenwipe on advertising (on YouTube in three parts here, here and here). But the other day I saw an ad which annoyed, frustrated and depressed me more than a thousand "Go Compare" singers ever could.



Yes, if there was ever any doubt, beauty is entirely skin deep. But it doesn't stop at that, because happiness is directly proportional to how attractive you are. And, of course, we can make you more attractive. All it takes is to lop a bit off here, suck a bit out of there, and Hey Presto! You now conform to everything you've been told is beautiful, because that's the only beauty there is!

This is nothing new in advertising. Every advert for a beauty product suggests that, by using it, you can become a happier or more popular person. But this one is remarkably upfront, about something so incredibly drastic, and it's hard not to worry about the repercussions of an industry which finds this permissible. The token male doesn't detract from the heavy-handedness of it either.

Women seem to get the worse end of the deal whichever gender the advert is aimed at. Men's adverts have always used sexual images to promote their products, equating semi-naked women with everything from deodorant to video games(once rather tactlessly described by someone I knew as suggesting a "Buy One Get One Free" deal). Yet adverts aimed at women promote stick-thin models as an ideal that you SHOULD be living up to.

I don't know how long this cosmetic surgery advert has been showing, how often it has been seen, or even if it has attracted any complaints. I caught it one evening on some digital channel. However, I was aware of a storm of complaints around this advert:


So this advert is offensive? All it seems to offer is some images of women in contemplation, then a web address which offers more information. The word "abortion" is not even mentioned in the advert, let alone depicted or promoted. The ASA recognised this, concluding that:

...the ad was for an advice service for women dealing with an unplanned pregnancy, and stated that Marie Stopes could help women who were 'pregnant and not sure what to do'. We considered it was an ad for a general pregnancy advice service for women who wished to learn about and discuss their options, which might include, but were not limited to, abortion.

Yet still the mainstream media focus on the complaints this advert receives, and so instead of offering women the information and choices they may need, we're left with identical women obsessing on hair, make-up and pro-biotic yoghurt.

5 Minutes with the Pope

I've been meaning to do a blog on the Pope UK visit for some time now, but this article in the New Humanist has finally inspired me to get around to it. So, if I had five minutes with the Pope, this is what I would like to say:

Pope Benedict, may I assume, for a second, that there is no God -- the primary justification for your actions and your position of authority. If this is the case, you have made women second class citizens and homosexuals outcasts for no reason. You have helped to spread HIV/AIDS by condemning condoms on the basis of a myth. And people in your organisation (and, if many reports are to be believed, you yourself) have covered up child molesters to protect the reputation of a lie. Given these countless millions who have suffered or have been killed, how is it that you can be regarded as a figure of moral authority, and how can you say, with the complete confidence that it would require, that you have acted justly?

I believe that this is the closest I can come to expressing my disgust at the actions of the Catholic Church, but I will never be able to put into words the horror and sadness that I feel, knowing that there are millions of people who hold this hateful, bigoted, misogynistic homophobe in the highest regard possible.

Consent & Videotape

Sometimes, you hear something that really depresses you. Like this, for instance.

The story is put succinctly here:

STLToday reports that the woman, identified only as Jane Doe, was dancing in at the former Rum Jungle bar in 2004 when someone reached up and pulled her tank top down, exposing her breasts to the "Girls Gone Wild" camera. Jane Doe, who was 20 at the time the tape was made, is now living in Missouri with her husband and two children. She only found out about the video in 2008, when a friend of her husband's saw the "Girls Gone Wild Sorority Orgy" video and recognized her face. He called up her husband, and in what has got to be the most awkward conversation ever, informed him that his wife's breasts were kinda famous.

The woman sued Girls Gone Wild for $5 million in damages. After deliberating for just 90 minutes on Thursday, the St. Louis jury came back with a verdict in favor of the smut peddlers. Patrick O'Brien, the jury foreman, explained later to reporters that they figured if she was willing to dance in front of the photographer, she was probably cool with having her breasts on film. They said she gave implicit consent by being at the bar, and by participating in the filming - though she never signed a consent form, and she can be heard on camera saying "no, no" when asked to show her breasts.

Now, I am sure I am not alone in finding this troubling. Very troubling. If nothing else, how does this fit with the idea that we'd all like to put across: that consent is vital when it comes to sex, or sexual matters?

Firstly, I was under the impression that you had to get a consent form for anything appearing in anything (4:56 into this video). Is all that effort for nothing? It would appear to be, and so it seems I can go out and film what I like. You might say that this is a small point in the context of the whole story, and you'd be bloody well right (consider this a run-up), but it does beg the question: "what kind of legal ground is this ruling based on?"

The jury foreman, Patrick O'Brien, explained that it was perfectly justified as "through her actions, she gave implied consent". Implied Consent??! I admit I haven't seen the tape (for fairly obvious reasons), but, by all accounts, she is heard to exclaim "no, no" on being asked to reveal her breasts. Surely any implicit consent is overruled empirically by the CLEAR FUCKING EXPLICIT STATEMENT SHOWING EXPLICITLY A LACK OF CONSENT. It seems that you can be done for a clearly ironic joke because of its literal meaning, but in a case like this, it's all about reading between the lines!*

Ah, wait! I forgot that she was dancing. AT A PARTY! I would say that, on the whole, that is the single most sane place to dance. Honestly, try it anywhere else -- on a plane, for instance, or at a funeral -- and people may reasonably question your motives. But at a party, you're often seen as unusual if you don't dance (believe me).

This decision is a travesty. The only positive that we can take from it is that the incident ended with just the exposure of breasts, rather than anything worse, but it's not hard to see where it could lead. As PZ Myers put it:

If you're willing to dance, you're willing to be stripped of your clothes. And presumably we can carry this a little further and reason that if you're naked in a bar, you've consented to sex, although fortunately it did not go that far in this case.

The fact that there are people out there defending this decision -- a decision by jury -- genuinely worries me. I remember when I first heard the phrase "No Means No", I thought it laughable in how obvious it was (I was young, and so didn't really understand what 'rape' was). But if "No" was clear enough then, how on earth did it come to mean "yes" in court?

*I know they're two different courts and countries, but it was hardly the first instance of statements being taken too literally.

UPDATE, 23:51: As Jack of Kent points out on twitter, whilst the story may be accurate, "my experience is there can be a disconnect between the report and what happened", and that "Bad law stories are sadly as common as bad science stories." I feel that this blog covers subjects beyond the individual case reported, but it is an important thing to take into consideration. For proof of misrepresentation of legal cases in the media, check out his excellent series on the McKinnon case.

Burqa Off?

So everyone seems to have been talking about the French burqa ban. Even David Mitchell offered his views in a column for the Guardian, and his opinions seem to echo the majority of people that I follow. This being a blog that deals with religious and feminist issues, it was only a matter of time before I had to cover the burqa, and so here is that blogpost.

And I am undecided.

The problem, as far as I can see it, is that to impose a ban would restrict freedom of expression, whereas not to do so seems to ignore the current restrictions of freedom suffered by a lot of Muslim women. So either action or inaction would restrict the freedom of a group of people.

Ideally, of course, I would love to live in a world in which the burqa was a thing of the past. It is deeply symbolic of the oppression of women that some areas of Islam impose, and to claim that that is some kind of cultural misunderstanding is to be complicit. Of course, cultural values may differ, but there are certain rights that no human should have to sacrifice simply because they were born into the wrong culture, and to be able to go outside without those oppressive garments is one of them.

The solution could be to tell them that they can't wear it, but isn't this also an imposition on what people can wear, or more specifically what they can't? And so how exactly does this leave you better off? If this is an argument that we all have the right to wear what we want, it's pretty bloody stupid to make that point by forbidding everyone to wear something. And as a man with a penchant for bow ties, it would be a bit hypocritical of me to criticise someone for wearing something different. What you decide to wear should be up to you, given that it is appropriate for what you are doing (as David Mitchell said, "crotchless jeans outside primary schools" is unreasonable, but a trip to the shops in a burqa should be fine).

Right then. So that means I'm against a ban on the grounds that anyone should be allowed to wear whatever they like? Well, yes, but as I said earlier, the burqa is not just an item of clothing. It is a symbol of an aggressive patriarchy within certain quarters of the Muslim community. To take a stand against it is to show those oppressed that we will fight for their rights, even if they feel they cannot. Surely there is nothing we value higher than the right for everyone to live free from fear? I would certainly place it above the right to an alternative fashion.

And so, there's the problem. On the one hand, you want to help oppressed minorities, and on the other, you want to make sure you're not oppressing them yourself. I haven't even mentioned issues of security, which I feel are separate to this issue. It's inescapable that in today's world you will need to be identified, and quite clearly impossible with a covered face, but that is just the same whether it is covered by a burqa, a motorcycle helmet or a mask of Richard Nixon.

Perhaps the answer is just in tutting loudly, or perhaps legislation is the key, but if called upon to vote, I would have to abstain. If you think you can sway me, please feel free to leave a comment below.

My Problem With Organised Religion in 100 Words.

The Church of England has recently announced that it is putting an end to years of institutionalised sexism and will start allowing women to become bishops.

It was also announced this year that the Catholic Church had been protecting paedophiles within its organisation for many years, with internal documents claiming that it was the best thing for the image of the church. These allegations even extend as far as the current Pope.

One of these decisions has so angered some of the members of its church that they are threatening to defect to the other.

Can you guess which one?

Richard Littlejohn is a ...?

Hello all,

Before I start, this is an IMPORTANT NOTICE (capitals and everything). This blog post contains uncensored language which may offend. This post is inspired by this one from Bloggerheads.

In an era in which Frankie Boyle can publish a book called My Shit Life So Far, and have this book prominently displayed, uncensored, in the windows of High Street Booksellers nationwide, it would be reasonable to assume that we, as a society, are no longer shocked by four-letter-language. To my mind, this is no bad thing, since, as George Carlin put it, there are no "bad words", just bad contexts. To assume that it shows a limited vocabulary would be to assume that Shakespeare, a man who introduced over 1000 words into the English language, suffered from a limited vocabulary. However, there is one word that still has the power to shock and offend most people, and it remains problematic because of its association with women.

It has recently been my pleasure to get to know many members of Exeter University's Gender Equality Society, and I asked two of them where they stood on the word "cunt". (Since this was an informal conversation I shan't name them, but they're welcome to comment either on the blog or to me personally if they feel misrepresented.) Both had no qualms about its use descriptively, both expressed a regret that society has deemed its greatest insult to be so associated with women, but one admitted that there were times when no other insult seemed appropriate.

This is the main problem. There are times when you really need to shock, when no other word seems to quite have the power to convey the disgust you feel at something or someone. A brilliant example would be Richard Littlejohn, the Daily Mail columnist whose apparent lack of any shred of human decency would make him a worthy recipient of the title "cunt". His Wikipedia page nicely sums up his failings as a human being, but his most heinous article, undoubtedly one of the nastiest things I have ever read, was this vile piece (and in case you think that that was a one off many years ago, this post was less than two months ago). His inability to see the person behind the label of "prostitute" marks him as a foul, putrid groveling excuse for a human, and a festering genital wart on the carcass of journalism.

Stewart Lee also took offence at Littlejohn, and conveyed this in a very funny section of his live show, but once again, relied on the power of the word "cunt" to convey his anger. Yet, as the top article puts it,

[A]sk yourself who really wins when you call a notorious woman-hater like Richard Littlejohn a 'cunt'.

The replacement suggested by that piece "cloaca", seems a suitable alternative, and has been used at the b3ta.com image challenge on Littlejohn, but will probably remain an in-joke whilst "cunt" stays known and used in society, which is a great shame. I can't say that I shall never label a person as a "cunt", even though I almost never use it as such anyway, because it really is the only word sometimes with enough power. But if you feel differently, please feel free to leave a comment.

UPDATE, 16:39: Something wrong with the previous template prevented commenting on this, or any other post. This should now have been rectified.

Violence is always funny, as long as it's against women!

Hello all,

Today I have, like a great deal of other people, been moved to great anger by an article published in ZOO Magazine (that links to the homepage of the magazine itself, so probably best not to click on it if you're in work. Or anywhere, really, but it gives you a flavour of the magazine in question). As I have been tweeting about it for a while, anyone following me may find some of this a bit familiar, but the remarks are intolerable.

The offending article is Danny Dyer's Agony Uncle page, which offered some unusual advice to a man who had recently split up with his girlfriend. In fact, Dyer suggested that he could "cut [his] ex's face, and then no one will want her"! Naturally, this remark produced an enormous uproar amongst people who found this "joke" distasteful, and ZOO were forced to issue an unreserved apology.

The apology, as I'm sure you will have seen by now, is a joke. The description of its publication as a "regrettable publication error" makes it sound as if these remarks were slipped in by something completely unbeknown to them. Perhaps the presses that published the magazines are planning to overturn their cruel overlords? It should have been spotted by the editors, and they should have removed it. Perhaps the error was publishing it in the first place.

This is presumably not the first "publication error" either, if this column is anything to go by. Granted, the fact that the image is more fantastic does not make it as unpleasant as his most recent suggestion, but this does not detract from the fact that he seems to take great joy in coming up with these suggestions. I don't believe for one moment that he would act, or expect anyone to act, on his "humorous advice", but there remains a leery, lad-ish tone more reminiscent of the 1970s than the 2010s.

Unsurprisingly, there have been people claiming that anyone complaining about this joke is missing the point, and that the statement is meant ironically. But irony will only work if it is transparent. Jimmy Carr's humour is offensive, but his delivery is so staged, coupled with the fact that his off-stage persona is so well known, that the intentions are self-evident. The title of this very blog is ironic, and yet I felt that the tone of this was so apparent that it too would be obvious. Dyer's column is the opposite, so that you could never truly claim that his vile comments weren't in keeping with the rest of the piece.

Dyer himself seems not to grasp the concept of irony. During an episode of "You Have Been Watching" last year, Charlie Brooker and panelists, including Frankie Boyle, discussed an episode of Dyer's Bravo show in which he was punched in the face. After mockingly mentioning that some of them would have liked a go, Dyer published an article in his column announcing he was quitting TV after the ridiculing he received. Clearly, when the humour is turned on him, he finds it far less funny.

Finally, there is a serious side to this. Domestic abuse affects, as we all know, hundreds of thousands of women a year. To make light of this situation is to do it an incredible injustice, and yet instances of this happening seem to be swept under the carpet. Today is the birthday of singer Chris Brown, convicted of assault against his then-girlfriend Rihanna. Whilst criticism of the ZOO article was trending on twitter, people wishing him a Happy Birthday was trending far higher. There is still, it seems, a long way to go before the issue of domestic violence is even close to being resolved.