A moving story

After four and a bit happy years here at Blogger, I'm moving the Cheeseford experience to my own webspace. From now on, it can be found at http://cheeseford.net/blog/. See you all over there for more of the same.

Cheeseford Virtual Archive TV Advent Calendar day 8

Phew, we've caught up. For day 8, it's the early arrival of this week's BO Problem podcast with me and top comedy writer Matt Owen. Treat yourself to just under an hour and a half of erudition and scurrilous nonsense about the seating arrangements on Blankety Blank, how Nick Knowles got into telly, a great night out with the newsreaders, how John Travolta really made his fortune and how God-fearing Brummie comic Don Maclean blew his chances in Hollywood.

Cheeseford Virtual Archive TV Advent Calendar day 7

Or, if you don't fancy having a dinner party, why not get a talented mate to bring his bongo-playing chum? Even better if you've got a camera crane to hand for the bongo herbert to perch on. Yes, that's right. No inlay or overlay, Juan Mendoza is actually sat in front of the camera as it tracks in and out. Dennis Main Wilson directed this one. No idea who was on camera 1, but the hat is doffed.

Cheeseford Virtual Archive TV Advent Calendar day 6

Apologies. I've been a bit busy, so have missed a couple of days. Let's now play catch up. At Christmas, what could be better than having your closest friends around you? Why not have a dinner party? That's what Cleo Laine and John Dankworth would do. The campaign for a DVD of this series starts right here.

Cheeseford Virtual Archive TV Advent Calendar day 5

And for day 5, let's nip to Agricultural Hall Plain to visit the other side. On the right is the main Anglia building, where the company has been based since 1959, while on the left is the old Post Office, which it annexed from around 1980 to a few years back.

Cheeseford Virtual Archive TV Advent Calendar day 4

Apologies for a slight delay in presenting the fourth day of this extravaganza, but I found myself tired, slightly deaf in one ear and spending most of Sunday on trains. Anyway, have this picture of a pleasant Georgian building in Norwich. This is St Catherine's Close on All Saints Green, from where the BBC did its eastern stuff from the 1950s to 2003, when the operation moved to The Forum.

Oh, go on then, have another picture. This bit is the extension, built when Look East went into colour around 1975. It is now a dental practice. From Stewart White to pearly white. There you go. Don't complain. You're getting it for nothing.

Cheeseford Virtual Archive TV Advent Calendar day 3

For day 3, we go to something I found on the end of a VHS tape while transferring stuff a while back. From the 6 January 1995 edition of The Word (recorded because Sleeper were the opening band, I suspect), we have Frank Bruno saying something that could well be deeply inappropriate and a future sitcom vicar's wife gambling her possessions for a CD player. Postpubtastic.

Cheeseford Virtual Archive TV Advent Calendar day 2

For day 2, an outtake from the recording session for the inaugural BO Problem podcast, featuring a serious discussion of an important aspect of television history - the Nationwide cake-passing ritual.

The BO Problem - podcast number 1

The first BO Problem podcast is up now, including Dave from Minder's porn shame, Derek Nimmo format bingo, alternate careers for newsreaders, showbiz autobiography titles and inappropriate laughter during wedding ceremonies. It's all here, folks: http://www.sendspace.com/file/g2b2st - You need to go to 'Click here to start download from Sendspace'. The other 'download' links are ads.

Cheeseford Virtual Archive TV Advent Calendar day 1

Blimey, is it December already? Seems so, which means another 24 days of archival oddities, you lucky people. We start with a strange and lovely thing that was looped 24 hours a day on Sky channel 999 a few years back. No word of a lie, I recorded two hours of this and have kept it on DVD. Occasionally in moments when I feel like my head is about to explode, the disc comes out and order is restored. It's a soothing yet slightly melancholy thing, thanks, I think, to the music. A talking terrier and a similarly vocal duck seated in a toy fire engine would be something rather special any day of the week, but the music elevates it somehow. I can say with confidence that it's the best thing Sky has ever made or transmitted. Less so the interactive menus featuring the dog and duck, which can be seen after the initial couple of minutes.

Casting a pod

For yonks now, I've had the vague idea of doing a podcast, but have dismissed the whole idea of talking to myself as boring, both for me and for anyone else. However, after extensive negotiation, I have persuaded my good friend, the comedy writer Matt Owen (Private Eye/Joan Rivers Position/11 O'Clock Show) to join me once a week for the discussion of light entertainment, real ale, interpretative dance, politics and life in general. Here, from a recent discussion on Cook'd and Bomb'd radio, is a rough downloadable MP3-type idea of what to expect. Oh, and here is a link to Cook'd and Bomb'd.

Wahey

To underline Barry Cryer's point about the warmth of the old school light entertainment stars, have a look at this glorious clip of Eric Morecambe opening a holiday home in Norfolk for handicapped children. A class act through and through, with time for everyone. "Yeah, but he's got a camera crew following him around," some of you might say. Well, I've heard numerous reports that, camera crew or no camera crew, this was how Eric Morecambe conducted himself in public. If so, it goes a long way to explain why he and Ernie were so loved. When the reporter asks a daft question in a slightly misguided effort to be funny, Morecambe plays along. This, ladies and gentlemen, is how you do it.

No honour among comedians?

Some interesting comments crop up in today's Guardian interview with Frankie Boyle, comedian, Sun columnist and author of a heavily-promoted broadside against consumerism. I shall leave aside his defences of his offensiveness. I have no problem with offensive comedy, but I don't think Boyle's any good at it, or properly able to justify it. I might return to this issue when I've got less work to do and thought it through a bit more.

What really interests me is his comment about Stewart Lee being "irrelevant and flabby". In a fit of apparent gallantry, Boyle goes on to defend Michael McIntyre and Russell Howard against Lee's criticisms. However, I can't believe that Boyle's dismissal has nothing to do with Lee's criticisms of his own work, particularly Lee's assertion (once again in a Guardian interview) that with "most of those professionally offensive comedians...no one is ever actually offended. Everyone understands the parameters and operates within them, the audience and the performer".

This leads me back to something that Barry Cryer said when I interviewed him for my forthcoming book The Trials and Triumphs of Les Dawson. Baz loves everyone and is loved in turn, so he finds it distressing to see comedians trying to get at each other in public. "Writers have got more cameraderie than comics. Now it's fierce," he said, telling the story of a very famous young comic who rang him up for advice. "[He said] 'They're all having a go at me. Why? Why? Why?' and I said 'Lie back and enjoy it. You've played the O2. You're big. It could be jealousy.' He said 'People can enjoy Frankie Boyle and Jimmy Carr, they don't have to watch me.' I said 'Calm down and enjoy'."

Baz then talked of another phone call he received, this time from one of the old guard. "I was talking to Ronnie Corbett this very morning on the phone...I said 'It's fascinating that we remember Eric and Ernie, Frankie, Tommy and everyone. They were all friends. Competitors [but] they never slagged each other off in public. Now they're all doing it. Are you jealous of him? What's happening?"

Maybe it all became too calculating and business-like with aggressive management operations like Avalon, Off the Kerb and John Noel promoting a 'kill or be killed' attitude? I'll let Baz have the last word. "Denis Norden, my dear old friend, said a brilliant thing. He's like me and Ronnie Corbett, we love the young ones. I've just done Edinburgh. I love the young ones. Denis said 'Comedy's as funny as it ever was, but it's not as much fun'. The warmth thing. There are brilliant people around now. Ross Noble's warm. Bill Bailey's warm. There's a lot of IQ about now. Brilliant brains, but not the warmth."

Now then, now then

If I weren't so busy, I'd be very tempted to hop on a train to Leeds and pay my respects to Sir James Savile OBE KCSG at the Queen's Hotel. He was a fascinating figure and a shrewd old buzzard, as this previously-unpublished excerpt of the interview I did with Jim'll Fix It producer Roger 'Doctor Magic' Ordish for my book Turned Out Nice Again proves:

"I didn’t have big agent struggles, particularly when Jimmy Savile didn’t have an agent, really. Bunny Lewis was nominally his agent, and sometimes he’d want him to deal with something. Jim would say things like 'I don’t want to up my fee for two reasons: I’d pay to be on in the first place, and if you’re on a low fee, you’re not beholden to anyone'. For instance, sailing close to the wind, I remember he came onto a Juke Box Jury that I did, '79 or whatever it was, he wore a t-shirt that said, what does it say on hoardings? 'This space available.' Something like that. 'Your name here.' Not surprisingly we were always doing things with the railways [on Jim'll Fix It, and] we had the [British Rail] chairman Peter Parker on, and then he and Peter Parker had a serious conversation. The next year, Jimmy Savile was doing those ads – 'the age of the train' for years and years. He said, 'That’s the money I want. I don’t want the Beeb fiddling around whether they’re going to pay me another £50 or not. I want millions of pounds from British Rail. That’s the means to the end'. As they used to say at the time ‘Why is this train late, Guard?’ ‘It’s the age of the train, sir’."

Roger is a very clever chap, and it might have been easy for him to look down on the show that he oversaw for its entire 19 years on BBC television. He never did. "I really think that when I started there, most people thought 'What I make is good, and I’m not going to make it if I don’t think it’s good'. I loved that about Jim’ll Fix It. Very lowbrow, very simple programme, but we always wanted it to be good. The attitude, I feel, now is 'This is the sort of crap that they like, so this is what we’ll make'. But they’re saying this is crap. It may have been so, but we never made anything with the idea that it was going to be crap because that’s what the common people want. It’s very arrogant."

No Jobs

This is a sad day. A man has died of pancreatic cancer. That man ran a computer company. Did he invent the personal computer? No, he led a team that refined the object to a point that certain people believed his computers to be more than just devices for writing, looking at the Internet, designing and editing things. Did he invent the mobile phone? No, but his company made really smart smartphones. Did he invent the MP3 player? No, but his company made the shiniest MP3 players in the business.

I love good design, and many of Apple's products qualify. Indeed, I have used Macs happily at various points in my life. However, I have a couple of problems with the whole Apple thing.

• The expense. A while back, a Twitter acquaintance asked for netbook recommendations. I threw my 2p's worth in, regarding my £169 Windows machine. Another chap said that the enquirer simply had to get a MacBook Air. I did a quick bit of research and couldn't find one south of £800. It's a fine looking object, but is it £631 better than my netbook? When sitting in the British Library, making notes from the Radio Times, would I get the full benefit of that £631? Or would I be better off spending it on gin? The chap recommending the MacBook Air said it was worth every penny without providing any convincing arguments as to why. When I bought my first home computer in 1997, I really wanted a Mac. I'd worked with them at Lancaster when I was running the student newspaper, Scan, but they were so much dearer than IBM-compatibles that I climbed in through Windows 95. The same still seems to apply.
• The cult of Apple. Some people seem to need something to believe in. Many of them think they're too clever for religion, but they display the same sort of blind devotion to a purveyor of technology. Apple strikes me as a more benign and slightly less expensive version of Scientology.
• The smugness. Apple shops do not have customer service or repairs departments. They have Genius Bars. Even if the choice of name is slightly tongue-in-cheek, it can still fuck right off.

Naturally, the reaction to Steve Jobs' death on Twitter has been extensive. The level of gadget frotting over there is high, as is the number of people who'll make a shit joke about anything. So, the avalanche of quasi-religious Jobs worship is being counter-balanced by lots of weak iDead, iStiff and iCoffin gags. In many ways, it seems to be a Princess Diana moment for nerds. Some keen on being seen to emote the most about a person they never met or knew (Flowers being left outside the Apple shop on Regent Street? Really? Is that where we are?), while others are equally keen on being seen to show how little they care about the person in question. Neither position appeals to me, so I'm avoiding Twitter today, except for the odd dip in to see if they've stopped. There is a #ThankyouSteve hashtag that brought out the worst in me. Thank you for what? Thank you for selling me an overpriced shiny bit of kit that allows me to feel slightly superior? Thank you for all the 'inspirational' platitudes?

What about everybody else who's going to die today? Many of them will die in horrible ways that could be addressed if the world's wealth were more evenly distributed. Relative values mean that some in the west regard poverty as being unable to afford an iPhone, while many elsewhere have no access to fresh water. A man has died. Get a fucking grip.

We have been watching...

Very sad news about the passing of David Croft. His greatest achievements were in comedy, rather than variety, so he got only a passing mention in Turned Out Nice Again. One of the more uncomfortable editorial decisions I had to take, but there we are. To redress the balance slightly, I think this previously-unpublished passage from the transcript of my interview with former BBC TV head of light entertainment Jim Moir is worth sharing.

---

"We were discussing how when you come off the training course, you get stuck with a whole bunch of producers. I was attached to David Croft for a show called Ad Lib. It was an early ‘you take a sentence, I’ll take a sentence and we’ve got to get to this conclusion’ type show. Very experimental for BBC2. There were two trainees on it, me and a fellow called Dick Clement. I did my bit, ran the floor, I was in the bar with David and he said ‘Well what do you think?’. I said ‘Well, I was just thinking what else we could put in the show. What about if we got a jazz singer, a scat singer? Because that’s kind of ad lib.’ He went ‘Mmmhmm’. Three weeks later, Annie Ross rocks up on the show. He had not said one single word to me, but he had listened to me, thought it was a good idea and just went out and did it. I’d not said anything to him ‘Did you do that because I said so?’ because clearly he did.

When that series came to an end in about May, the boards for the permanency – I’d been a trainee for about 6 months, the boards were in June. And it was David Croft who gave the report on me after 6 months of traineeship, and said ‘Hire this boy’. I have everything to thank him for, for that opportunity, and I can honestly say that he was probably the greatest head of light entertainment we never had. I don’t think he could have afforded the drop. He’d be looking round to commission himself. He was a powerhouse. He brought on an enormous amount of in-house talent. He was generous, as was Michael Hurll with the people who came up under him, as was Yvonne Littlewood. I don’t think people even know they’re doing it. It’s not ‘Today I will bring on X amount of talent’. You just do it. You recall the chances you were given."

Fucking diddums

Novelist and raddled Kevin Godley lookalike Howard Jacobson has been moved to pass stern comment on blogs and blog(wo)men. Apparently he feels "a bit chilled" when he looks at blogs. "What you read is extreme ignorance and pure poison," says Jacobson, "It is a poisonous, poisonous medium. You can’t believe how malicious, how ignorant, how stupid… and you do wonder if they don’t have anything better to do than attack people who have written articles. And you do wonder whatever happened to the idea of the critic; of the reviewer… people who have given their lives to honing the art of what they do."

He goes on to add that "Occasionally I read some people’s comments on Amazon, some of which are beyond belief", which is, for me, the clincher as it makes fairly clear that he is basing his opinion of all blogs and non-professional commenters on unfavourable comments that have been made about his work. He's Googled himself, discovered that not everyone regards his every last word as spun gold and had a hissy fit. Bless. Jacobson seems to be saying that the only valid critical opinions are the ones for which the reviewer has been paid by a mainstream publication, and that if you bought one of his books and found it rubbish, you should keep schtum about it. Obviously the same applies if you love his work. Obviously.

This attitude is problematic balls on several levels. For one thing, mainstream book reviewers run the risk of meeting the authors they're reviewing and might be tempted to temper their views for a quiet life. Or they might overstate their views to get a bit of controversy going. It's a myth to think that newspaper book reviews are beacons of fair play. You might not like the honest response of a punter, but them's the breaks. Then there's the fact that blogs are no more inherently poisonous or ignorant than a blank sheet of paper. It's what's written therein that matters.

Jacobson also seems to be saying that only paid writers pay any attention to the matter of craft, which is, frankly, insulting nonsense. "People who have given their lives" suggests a degree of suffering, but in my experience, being a professional writer means going to bed when I like, getting up when I like and, in between, having a lovely time with concepts and words, rather than "giving my life" to a grinding job that I hate for an employer I despise.

Bloggers are "people who have written articles", you hidebound old media ninny. They might not have a column in The Independent, but they have a forum, and this can be a wonderful thing. What exactly is it that makes them inferior? I write books and articles for money. I also have a blog. Do I have to dress up half as an author and half as a blogger, and argue with myself like Tommy Cooper used to? All in all, it seems to be another manifestation of the ailment known as Linehan's Palsy, in which someone moderately celebrated who likes the freedom to give out their opinions to all and sundry can't actually bear anyone else having that freedom if the opinion is not in their favour. Free speech is wonderful, but only up to a point.

Howard, love, if you look a bit harder, you might find that the vast majority of blogs aren't about you. For sure, there are some unpleasant things said out there in blogland (I've said some of them myself, I admit quite freely, and I stand by every last syllable), but there's also a lot of intelligent, in-depth discussion of interesting topics that wouldn't necessarily be covered by the mainstream media. Saying that all blogs are poisonous is as erroneous as saying that all novelists are ill-informed horse-faced narcissists.

What's a chap to do?

These are fearful, paranoid times. We are all under observation (Even you. Especially you, in fact.), and our habits and utterances are being monitored for the merest hints of insurrection and incitement. There's a question to which I need an answer. Is it OK for bearded men to smile and pull faces at children on public transport? I do it because I remember how much I enjoyed a good childish adult when I was a bairn. Hiding behind a hand then removing the hand to reveal a gurning visage. All adding to the gaiety of modern life in all its grimnitude. I'm not doing it to groom anyone. I'm doing it because I'm 38 going on 6. Maybe there should be a licensed jester scheme, with CRB-checked gurners being denoted by a 'harmless loon' badge? Until then, should I just scowl at youngsters to be on the safe side? If the Phantom Dog-Nosher of Norwich does a phone-in on this, I'll know I'm onto something.

It's a scab eat dog world

Not entirely unexpectedly, there has been a wee bit of reaction from within the BBC at Norwich to my musings on BBC Radio Norfolk presenter Nick Conrad. One colleague of Conrad's, whom I know a little and like a lot, dropped me a note to say "I wouldn't say we were close friends, but I have always got on very well with him and I think he's an excellent presenter". We agreed to disagree on the final point. However, another colleague was less warm, describing Conrad as a "walking disaster area", and noting that the blog post had "caused some smiles".

Conrad achieved a degree of national notoriety in February, when he had as a guest on his show a man who claimed to be the son of the rightful owner of the cat adopted as a pet by the Camerons. The whole thing was a hoax intended to highlight churnalism, and, while Conrad sounded sceptical throughout the interview, the fact was that by the time the piece went out, it had already been revealed as a hoax. That "really troubled some of us here," Conrad's colleague explained, "It wasn't only because he and others were taken in by an experiment in churnalism. They picked the story up from the Daily Mail which is their habit and then, had they simply checked on Google News, they would have found the originators 'fessing up to it. But that one simple check wasn't done."

Another broadcast that caused alarm to some of Conrad's colleagues was his show of 27 July 2011, which was billed as a look at the Olympics and Norfolk's part in the whole beano. It transpires that it doesn't have one. Once again, the programme opened with a repetitive, breathless three-minute introduction that said all that needed to be said in the first minute.

Nick Conrad 27-07-11 intro by Louis Barfe

Mmmm, pie. Any more pie? How many times did he refer to pie? I truly can't be arsed to count. The real problem with Nick's Olympic spectacular had little to do with catering arrangements or duff metaphors, though, and everything to do with the unprofessional way he addressed the unavailability of Keith Nicholls, head of the University of East Anglia's Sportspark, whom he, in the words of his dismayed colleague, "berated". "In Conrad World nobody has anything in their day which could be more important than answering his summons," his fellow broadcaster observed, "And it is in direct contradiction of BBC Producer guidelines where a clear 'empty chair' policy is set out. And we are simply not allowed to make a judgement on people who choose not to come on a programme."

Nick Conrad 27-07-11 by Louis Barfe

Note the moment where he suggests the council chap should spend more time in the Radio Norfolk studio, so that Conrad can keep him informed on his own business. That's the sound of someone who believes their own publicity a wee bit too much. It's the sound of massive self-importance, and it's completely at odds with the laid-back, gently-mocking tone of Radio Norfolk's best presenters and output.

The following day, Mr Nicholls made time to visit The Forum and make an appearance on Conrad's show. Why was Mr Nicholls denying Norfolk its slice of Olympic pie (presumably made in a tin in the shape of five linked rings)? Mr Nicholls explained calmly the logistics of Olympic training, and how it would not be in the interests of the Sportspark users to deny them use of the venue for a month so that it could be given over to training.

Nick Conrad Keith Nicholls 28-07-11 1 by Louis Barfe

Mr Nicholls is not some bland suit or a risible Mr Brittas-style timeserver. He's a former English volleyball international, and he was instrumental in setting up and designing the self-funding Sportspark over a decade ago. In summary, he knows what he's talking about, and in his professional judgment, the interests of the UEA Sportspark and its customers would not be best served by chasing reflected Olympic glory. Later in the interview, he states that he's open to discussion with teams who want to use the Sportspark, but clear that it would be on the Sportspark's terms. Fair enough. Except it isn't. Conrad ploughs on, suggesting that Nicholls and the council have lied or been guilty of some kind of cover-up, when clearly a sound and reasonable business decision has been reached. Listen to a Conrad show (if you have the stomach for it) and the phrase "I put it to you..." will be much in evidence, suggesting more an over-familiarity with the Network DVDs of Crown Court than any sound journalistic nous.

Towards the end of the interview, the subject changed to Mr Nicholls' non-appearance on the previous day's show. If you can't be bothered to listen to the whole of the following clip, go to 2 minutes 27 seconds, listen to Nicholls, then listen to Conrad's reply, and do please let me know in the comments below whose side you're on.

Nick Conrad Keith Nicholls 28-07-11 2 by Louis Barfe

"Forgive me, " Conrad practically hisses, "but I know my audience far better than you do." What a horrendously high-handed thing to say, even if true, and what an unpleasant way to say it. Conrad's despairing workmate puts it this way: "Since then 'I know my audience' has become another tongue in cheek quote plied around the production office here. But what happens next time we want to talk to the UEA Sportspark? I think it's the lack of a sense of a proportion which I find so shocking. He thinks he's Paxman."

How well does Conrad know his audience, though? As I said earlier, his tone jars hideously with the well-established personality of the station, and it's a station that has routinely beat BBC Radio 2 in the ratings on its own patch. I'd be very interested to know how Conrad's figures compare to the rest of the day's output, and with historical figures for that same slot. Maybe it's getting to the point where Conrad could reach the same number of people each morning by doing house calls on foot. When I first moved to the area, the bit between breakfast and afternoon was the largely the province of a broadcaster called John Mills, who specialised in solving problems for listeners and tackling the authorities on their behalf. Sadly no longer with us, he was a softly-spoken man whose words nonetheless carried a lot of weight, but who knew when to ease off and keep it light and polite. In contrast, Conrad seems to be under the misapprehension that you have to be a cynical, aggressive hard-arse about everything.

On the 27 July show, Conrad says that sometimes people in authority have to hold their hands up and say they got it wrong. Maybe they'd be more inclined to do so if there were a bit more give and take from his end of the studio. Conrad's personal response to criticism is illuminating. My correspondent at The Forum sent me another email this week, informing me that the ENPS database on which the station's contact details for contributors are stored has been amended to read "in big red letters" the following: "WARNING - has written offensive material online. Avoid." The entry was modified on 3 August 2011 and last modified by Nick Conrad. I have to confess that this news made me burst out laughing. Over the years, I have written plenty of offensive material, both online and in print, but I don't think my previous piece on this fascinating specimen of bad radio qualifies as offensive in the slightest. I've been in and out of The Forum semi-regularly for the last six years or so, blethering unpaid about music and archive TV, and judging talent competitions, simply because I like the station and I like the people I've been on air with. Graham Barnard, Chris Goreham and Stephen Bumfrey are among the very best presenters that radio (local or national) can offer, and I loved working with dear old Roy Waller. The production staff too: Amy Barratt, David Webster, Kirsteen Thorne, Kevin Newman, Thordis Fridriksson. All really good radio people. I said what I said about Conrad because I felt he was letting their side down, and if I'm now not welcome at The Forum for saying it, well, that's a price I'm happy to pay.

Meanwhile, he continues, stinking up the Norfolk airwaves for 2 hours a morning. Has Conrad's show really got the whole county talking? If so, what are they saying? I suspect that more than a few will be saying "Oh Christ, not him again. Turn it off".

Everybody out for some sweet and sour labrador

It's always fun on BBC strike days, watching to see who's had no problem with waltzing through the picket lines. Last night, on the late edition of Look East, we got Nick Conrad, the 9am-11am presenter from BBC Radio Norfolk. Immediately, I thought "Oh look who it isn't. Not only a dog-eater, but also a scab".

A dog-eater? Why yes. I listen to a lot of BBC Radio Norfolk's output, but I'm afraid the radio goes off whenever I hear Conrad. He seems to think he's edgy and provocative, but he strikes me as terribly bland and not a little smug, which is never a combination designed to keep me tuned in. However, one morning in February, I didn't get to retune quick enough, and the intro to the show made me stay listening, because I thought "this could be interesting", and not in a good way either. Here's that intro.

Nick Conrad 09 02 2011 intro by Louis Barfe

What amuses me most in retrospect is the way that he reiterates the various points endlessly, simply to last until the end of the jingle, which is 2 minutes and 41 seconds long. After the first minute, he is talking loud and saying nothing new. Maybe he feels that the listenership is deaf and/or as thick as pigshit?

My faith was rewarded fully about 20 minutes into the show.

Nick Conrad 09 02 2011 dog by Louis Barfe

"Every animal should have a right to a human death," says one listener. Conrad corrects himself. It is unclear whether the listener in question couldn't spell or whether it was Conrad's reading at fault, but what is clear to me is the memory of spluttering coffee across the room as I burst out laughing.

Then comes David from Thorpe St Andrew, who has a point to make about the live transport of horses for food. He's unhappy with the inhumane way the cargo is treated. It is at this point that Conrad deploys what he believes to be his thermonuclear warhead, the thing that really puts the cat among the pigeons (in this case in a white wine sauce with aubergines and shallots). The way he admits to having eaten dog while on holiday in Vietnam clearly indicates that he's been bursting to drop this bombshell from the moment the show's subject was decided: "Yes, that'll get Norfolk's dander up. My canine snack will really get them going." The "What do you reckon to that?" is delivered in the manner of someone who feels he's holding four aces. Outrage will be created. Talk radio gold will ensue.

Only one problem. It doesn't work. David from Thorpe St Andrew responds in a boringly matter-of-fact manner and proves (perhaps surprisingly) open to the concept of relative cultural values, Conrad doesn't like it. When David says he's eaten kangaroo, Conrad's purse-lipped "Yes" seems to carry overtones of "YES, BUT A KANGAROO IS NOT A FUCKING DOG, SO I REMAIN KING OF THE MEAT HOBBY, THUS I WIN", an impression underlined by his "David, allow me to speak" interruption. The show is not going according to the plan he had thought so fiendish and clever. David is despatched with "Good to hear your voice, you take care", which I hear as "Good to hear your voice, but it's a shame you didn't use it to react in the way I expected. You take care. Don't fall down any manholes, y'bastard".

With David out of the way, Conrad repeats that he "ate a dog" (a whole one?) in Vietnam, and adds that it's something that "really infuriates people". Well, not everyone, evidently.

EDIT: In the interests of accuracy, I have been asked to point out that there was no picket line to cross at the Forum in Norwich yesterday. This doesn't make Conrad any less of a scab, obviously.