7 Reasons

Tag: Face

  • 7 Reasons Not To Throw A Foam Pie At Rupert Murdoch

    7 Reasons Not To Throw A Foam Pie At Rupert Murdoch

    You probably hadn’t considered throwing a foam pie at Rupert Murdoch.  Nor, I must confess, had I, until Jonnie Marbles turned up at the House of Commons earlier today and threw a foam pie at Rupert Murdoch.  Then I considered it.  After a half a nanosecond or so of consideration, I came to the conclusion that throwing a foam pie at Rupert Murdoch is an imbecilic act.  I know that most right-thinking people will probably already have come to a similar conclusion about the merits of throwing foam pies at Rupert Murdoch, so they need read no further; they can simply retweet this piece, press the Google +1 button at the bottom of it (and share it on other social media too) and go on their merry way.  For all wrong-thinking people – that’s just you, Jonnie – here are seven reasons not to throw a foam pie at Rupert Murdoch.

    Jonnie marbles hits Rupert Murdoch with a foam pie
    Don't do this.

    1.  It Draws Attention Away From The Hearing.  Hitting a man in the face with a pie is a dramatic and attention-grabbing act.  Because of that, a lot of the focus of the coverage of the Murdochs’ appearance before the Commons Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee, will be about the pie, rather than the important issue of wholesale corporate corruption that was being raised.  Am I writing about the hearing?  Are you reading about the hearing?  No…well… yes, but only a tiny bit because I’m demonstrating how little we’re reading about the hearing because of the pie.  Mostly what’s happening here is that I’m writing about the pie and you’re reading about the pie.  I’ll also be reading about the pie when I edit this and eventually, once I’ve finished, I’ll be tweeting about the pie, even though the pie isn’t the point of the hearing.  The point of the hearing is corruption.  You’ve obscured that.

    2.  It Generates Sympathy For Him.  With one blow of a pie, you’ve turned this man, the head of a corrupt organisation that has nefariously committed numerous despicable and illegal acts, into a victim; someone that’s deserving of our sympathy.  Because, while every right-thinking person will abhor what was carried out in Rupert Murdoch’s name at the News of the World, that very same innate moral decency will cause them to see a frail, elderly man being subjected to an assault as an outrage.  Because assault is an outrage, no matter whom it is perpetrated against.  Even Rupert Murdoch.

    3.  You’ve Made Him Appear Lovable.  It seems that making us feel sympathy for Rupert Murdoch wasn’t enough for you though.  You’ve actually made him appear loveable.  By provoking his wife to leap so rapidly and publicly to his defence, you’ve demonstrated that he is loved, and very loyally.  You’ve taken a man that heads a sinister and morally-bankrupt organisation and caused us all to admire his wife’s love for him.  In terms of public relations, you’ve accomplished more for Murdoch in five seconds than his own PR people have managed in the past five years.  And you’re not even getting paid for it.

    4.  You’ll Look Incompetent.  While I’m no expert on pie-throwing, I can’t help but think you’re not very good at it.  You see, in my (admittedly inexpert) understanding of the act of pie-throwing, a pie is supposed to be thrown by the pie-thrower into the face of the pie-receiver, or victim as they are also known.  But what’s going on in this picture?

    Jonnie Marbles, the man that threw a foam pie at Rupert Murdoch

    That man appears to have been caught brilliantly smack in the middle of the face by a pie.  But wait!  That doesn’t look like an octogenarian media despot magnate.  That’s you!  You’ve attacked an eighty year old man with a pie and ended up wearing it.  That’s possibly the worst throw of a pie in the history of pie-throwing.  Throwing a pie doesn’t seem like a difficult thing to do, but you’re not competent to do it.  You’re not fit for pie-pose (that only works if read in a New York accent).  It was your big moment and you’ve ended up with metaphorical egg on your face.  And actual pie.

    5.  Self-Publicity.  It’s an oft-heard-phrase that all publicity is good publicity and this might be seen as having a certain truth to it.  If you’re an idiot.  For the rest of us, however, and I feel that I am speaking for the entire population of the planet here, you’re going to be forever known as the prick that threw the pie.  Badly.  That won’t help you with your comedy career.  In fact, that won’t help you with any career, and certainly not one that involves throwing or pies.

    6.  The Police Won’t Thank You For It.  The Metropolitan Police are reeling from the repercussions of the News of the World scandal and their reputation has been severely damaged by it, so sneaking into a commons committee that is being viewed by a vast worldwide audience and attacking a git with a pie is going to make them look feckless and incompetent right at the very moment that they probably don’t want to.  Now, ordinarily, exposing institutional incompetence might be seen as a good thing, but not for you, because right at this moment, the Metropolitan Police are your landlords.  They’re also your caterers; responsible for feeding you and bringing you the odd cup of tea.  Probably, in fact, very odd cups of tea.  Enjoy those!

    7.   “All The World Loves A Clown.”, according to Cole Porter.  But that’s just not true, in fact, coulrophobia is one of the world’s most commonly professed phobias.  What all the world hates, in fact, is a clown.  A clown is a coarse buffoon who throws foam pies at people.  That’s you.  For some duncical, nitwitted, dunderheaded reason you decided to disrupt a long overdue attempt to make News Corp accountable for their actions by pratting around with a pie and you’ve ended up overshadowing an important hearing and distracting from the serious testimony that was being given there.  You haven’t damaged News Corp and Rupert Murdoch, you’ve positively helped them.  You are a clown.  No one likes clowns.

  • 7 Reasons Not To Elbow Someone Whilst Sleeping

    7 Reasons Not To Elbow Someone Whilst Sleeping

    Last week you found out that my girlfriend and I discuss potatoes in bed, well today you are going to discover that she elbows me in the neck whilst sleeping. But this post is not so much for the benefit of her as it is for everyone. The simple fact is this: elbowing people whilst sleeping is bad. Here’s why:7 Reasons Not To Elbow Someone Whilst Sleeping

    1.  Sides. Like most couples, my girlfriend and I have dedicated sides of the bed. I am on the left with 80% of the duvet, Claire is on the right shivering. Now, if like me you never venture from your side of the bed, it means your fellow sleep partner must be breaking bed protocol if her (or his) elbow is making contact with your neck. In such situations you do have to wonder why you had to nominate sides in the first place.

    2.  Damage. Of course, before you wonder about why you agreed to nominate sides, you need to inspect your injuries. In my case I had to check I was still breathing. Thankfully I was, but an elbow protruding into my trachea made it much harder than it usually is. Still, I am one of the lucky ones. Other injuries you may suffer from being elbowed in bed include: a black eye, a broken nose, a fat lip, a dislocated jaw and a wobbly tooth. And that’s just on your face. If you sleep upside down it could be a whole lot worse.

    3.  Reflex. Generally when people feel pain, their first reaction is to react. This probably isn’t news. If you are asleep and someone disturbs you by elbowing you it would be very natural for you to instinctively punch them in the face. Satisfying, yes. Sensible, not really. Especially when you consider that a reflex of being punched in the face is to kick out. You could quite easily end up having a pillow fight. Without the pillows.

    4.  Retaliation. Maybe you manage to avoid reacting instinctively though. Possibly because you are already awake. You can’t let your partner get away with it! They’ve just whacked you in the face. This is when you start turning to dark places. (Unless you switched the light on to work out what the bloody hell just took your head off.) Thoughts turn to revenge. Should you kick them? Knee them? Pinch them? Poke them? Slap them? Chances are you won’t do any of them, but thanks to your partner you stay awake all night thinking nasty thoughts. Then you’re cranky all day. You snap at people. You argue with people. You put salt in people’s coffee. Then, come 6pm, you have no friends left. And all because the lady loves Milk Tray elbowed you up the nostril.

    5.  Moving. In something of a design flaw, when someone elbows you whilst they are asleep, they rarely move their arm back to its rightful place. As a result you have to move it for them. Which is not as easy as it sounds. Joints were only designed to move in certain directions and usually the only direction it wants to go is further into your eye socket. Generally speaking, the only solution here is for you to move. Probably downstairs to the sofa bed.

    6.  Dreams. As I do on most nights, I was dreaming in my sleep. Last night’s adventure was particularly exciting as I was unbeaten on 245 and Shane Watson had just pulled a hamstring. It was a pleasant change to his usual trick where he pulls a hamster from a Tesco carrier bag. So there I was watching Shaun Tait jog in from the Michael Jackson Statue End (we were playing in Fulham) when I lost sight of the ball. Next thing I knew it had smacked me in the throat. Which is when I woke up with a start and realised that not only had I been dreaming, but Claire had been the one to spoil my moment with a viciously placed elbow. Pathetic.*

    7.  Petty. If you have an issue with someone, elbow them in the face when you are awake. That way they’ll know exactly how you feel. Doing it while you are ‘asleep’ is childish and, as detailed above, helps no one.

    *When I did get back to sleep, Janet Street-Porter yorked me first ball. One of us were also naked. That’s the stuff nightmares are made of.

  • 7 Reasons Pablo Picasso’s La Lecture Is Not Worth £25M

    7 Reasons Pablo Picasso’s La Lecture Is Not Worth £25M

    Last night, Pablo Picasso’s alleged masterpiece, La Lecture, sold at Sotherby’s for just over £25M. Twenty. Five. Million. Pounds. Now, I know art is subjective, but how?! There is so much wrong with it. So much. Let’s start with seven:

    Pablo Picasso's La Lecture

    1.  Lines. Seriously, if I had paid £25M for a painting I would at least expect the artist to be able to draw a straight line. I assume – which given the state of this picture is probably a dangerous thing to do – that the thing behind this girl is a chair. Well what the bloody hell is going on with the top of it? If you struggle to line things up get a ruler. And rulers did exist in 1932. I’ve checked.

    2.  Perspective. This picture would make much more sense if we could only see one half of the girl’s face. Instead of that we have something that clearly inspired the formation of gypsies.

    3.  Nose. Good gracious it’s a big one. Too big I would wager. The bridge of one’s nose usually ends in line with the eyes, this poor girl’s nose ends somewhere at the top of her forehead. Which raises two questions. One, is this an accurate portrayal of the young girl? Two, if it is why on earth wouldn’t Picasso have chosen someone better looking? You may think I am shallow for saying that, but paintings do not have personality. They simply don’t. And anyone who says, “I just adore the personality of this piece,” is a prick.

    4.  Neck. The last time I saw a neck like this, Gladstone Small was playing for England. I am beginning to wonder if Picasso really did like this girl? The big freak.

    5.  Breast. That’s right, just the one. At least I assume it’s supposed to be a breast. It might well be a ring doughnut. Or a bagel. Or perhaps the fire alarm fell off the wall. I know art is supposed to leave something to the imagination, but this takes the biscuit. Ooh, perhaps it’s a Jammie Dodger.

    6.  Time + Materials. I think that is a fair way to establish how much a painting is worth. So let’s have a look at La Lecture. These are only rough calculations, but I would guess the following: Time spent painting = eight minutes. Cost of crayons = £3.49. A brilliant artist could probably get away with charging £2,500/hour. Judging by the above, I would say Picasso could get away with charging £2.50/hour. So I reckon La Lecture is probably worth about £3.82. That’s about £25M less than it sold for. It’s a difficult one to explain to the wife.

    7.  Morals. I question the morality of the buyer here. This painting depicts the image of Marie-Therese Walter, Picasso’s 17 year old extramarital lover. That’s not right. In fact it’s wrong. If Picasso wanted to get his end away with a teenage girl he could at least have had the decency to divorce his wife first. There is no excuse for sleeping behind people’s backs. And, judging by the expression on Walter’s face that is exactly what had happened about five minutes before Picasso whipped out the crayons. By allowing the sale of this painting for £25M what are we saying? It’s okay to sleep around so long as you produce a bunch of distorted lines afterwards? Sad times.