Taking Money From Strangers

Interviewed after his one and only game as England manager, Sam Allardyce related an anecdote about a stranger giving him a 'lucky' coin at the team hotel prior to the match, so it is perhaps fitting that it was taking money from strangers, or at least agreeing to do so, that brought an end to his sixty-seven day, one match, reign.

It isn't the first time that Allardyce has been on the receiving end of allegations of impropriety. In 2006, Allardyce and his son Craig - who is a football agent - were alleged to have taken bribes from agents for signing players. Allardyce senior denies ever taking, or asking for, money, but it may be with those allegations in mind that The Daily Telegraph newspaper included him in an investigation into bribery and corruption in British football that has been ongoing for ten months.

The facts of the story are simply that Allardyce met with men posing as representatives of a Far East company and agreed to travel to Singapore and Hong Kong to give talks on how Football Association rules that prohibit third party ownership of footballers could be circumvented. In return, Allardyce was told that he would receive around £400,000 although as we know, he would never have received such a payment because he would not have had the opportunity to earn that money; the deal was completely bogus. Which begs the question, has Allardyce done anything wrong? Without doubt he has been caught out making a complete error of judgement; he said so himself: "It was an error of judgement...I sort of helped out someone I've known for 30 years," but is an error of judgement like this an offence for which someone can lose their job? In a way, yes inasmuch as although no actual offence has been completed - he did not take any money, he did not give advice on getting round FA regulations - he did in principle agree to commit an offence, which in law is known as an inchoate offence, that is an act that is anticipating or preparatory to a further criminal act. In that respect, were they offences in law rather than breaches of Football Association rules, The Daily Telegraph journalists were, to my mind, on shaky ground in that they were in fact inciting Allardyce to commit an offence.

Adam Lallana scores the only goal of Sam Allardyce's reign. Remember that, it will come up in quizzes before too long.

All of this is beside the point, since Allardyce's contract with the FA was terminated by mutual consent - you have to love that expression, I have no doubt it was more a question of Allardyce agreeing to jump before he was pushed - because his conduct was deemed 'inappropriate' and there can be no doubt that it agreeing in principle to commit an offence is inappropriate in anyone's book. But in some ways, this was almost a sideshow when compared with Allardyce's criticisms of his predecessor, Roy Hodgson, of Gary Neville, and of the redevelopment of Wembley Stadium. The FA's coverall charge 'bringing the game into disrepute' could just have easily have been levelled; it might not have brought him the sack, but the comments he made were hardly becoming of a national team manager in the company of strangers, even if he believed the conversation to be off the record.

Of equal - probably even greater -concern are The Daily Telegraph's investigations into corruption in English football that they maintain reveal that managers, officials and agents have been taking money to arrange player transfers. They claim to have evidence of an assistant manager at 'a high profile football club' accepting a £5,000 payment, that ten managers have taken bribes to fix player transfers, and that a high-profile manager admitted his players broke FA rules by betting on their own games, which he failed to report. In addition two well known managers allegedly discussed working for the same fictitious firm as Sam Allardyce did.

Now the allegations of actual offences are of course, very serious and deserve rigorous investigation by the Football Association and the appropriate penalties imposed if the individuals are guilty, but I am sure I am not the only person uneasy about the ethics of punishing managers who have allegedly discussed working for fictitious firms in ways that would contravene FA regulations. Allardyce called it 'entrapment' and there is no better word for it, and entrapment is a morally difficult concept to defend in every circumstance, however while the law protects against the state (the police for example) causing citizens to perform illegal acts, it does not protect against private parties - newspapers or other sections of the media -doing so. And in those instances, the actions of the private ‘entrapper’ often go beyond what would be deemed appropriate by law enforcement officers.

While there are many who would argue that the actions of The Daily Telegraph have exposed an element of the erstwhile England manager's character that would disbar him from holding that post, it is equally possible to argue that without the newspaper's actions, Allardyce would not have had the opportunity to agree to commit a hypothetical offence. The circumstances are like a thought experiment, akin to Schrodinger's Cat: Is an incitement to commit an offence where the parties to which the offence relate are fictitious and the person inciting the act has no intention of actually commissioning the act nor of paying the person being so incited, an actual offence? And how far does one take this? Perhaps if a football manager were engaged in conversation by a journalist and asked if, hypothetically, he could arrange for a player to be owned by a third party and he said, yes, in theory he could, would that be an offence? No, of course not and Allardyce's actions, while stupid are not much more than one step removed.

But, having spent so long railing against corruption in FIFA and UEFA, the FA could not stand idly by and allow any behaviour that might possibly be construed as corrupt to go unpunished. Sam Allardyce might claim that his only crime is stupidity: as a defence goes, that isn't good enough. And the problem with complaining about entrapment is that unless you say 'No,' you've no defence at all.

The Green Wheelie Bin Tax

The attempt by Margaret Thatcher's  Conservative government in the late 1980's to introduce what was commonly  called the Poll Tax - more properly the Community Charge -and the ensuing riots driven by the unpopularity of the tax is generally held to be one of the chief reasons for Maggie's demise. Yet it always struck me - and still does, come to that - that the Community Charge was a more equitable way of assessing and collecting local taxes than either the rates that preceded it or the current Council Tax system. Since the system of collecting local taxes known as rates - which began life as the poor rates in the seventeenth century, being replaced by the general rates following the 1925 Rating and Valuation Act - was based solely on the notional value of a property, a family of five wage earners would pay the same as a single pensioner living in an identical property next door, despite using more significantly more local services, and despite having an income several times greater than said pensioner. It seemed to me to fit the principle, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" but many people disagreed.

The problem with the Community Charge was less the principle than the implementation and large families in small properties saw their liability to the local authority increase significantly. With some justification, the tax was seen as saving money for the rich and moving the burden of paying for local services onto the poor. The principle remains sound, however - a family of five will generally consume more local services than a person living alone, however neither will use more street lighting nor be more of a burden on the council's planning department than the other: so perhaps the time is coming for another change in the way in which local taxes are calculated and collected. And I say that because of moves that are afoot in the London Borough in which I live that suggest that in the future council tax bills may be more tailored towards the services we consume and the degree to which we use them.

Only 12% of Barking & Dagenham's revenue comes from Council Tax, while Children's Services represent the largest outgoing.

Now, I have often sung the praises of my local council who, although they require me to pay them the best part of £2,000 per annum, have always provided a good level of service. The streets are clean, the street lights work, my refuse gets collected (albeit the refuse collectors went on strike last year for what seemed like an eternity)and generally the council get on with things with little fuss or bother. And last year, when I was clearing out my mother's house after her death, they came and took away stacks of bulky waste, although they do make an additional, nominal charge for that, which is a direction they - and other councils - are increasingly likely to take. Despite it being extremely difficult to avoid paying Council Tax - in 2014-15 it had a collection rate of 97% - it covers less than 25% of council expenditure, with central government funding and business rates covering the other seventy-five percent. But with cuts in government funding and income from business rates subject to fluctuations as businesses prosper or founder, local council services have come under increasing pressure and all local authorities are faced with the unpalatable alternatives of either having to increase council tax or cut services - or both.

At present my local council collect my domestic waste weekly and my recycling and garden waste fortnightly; next week is the last week when my garden waste will be collected this year and the service should resume next March. But when - or if - it does, I may find myself paying extra, as the council have started a consultation on whether residents would be prepared to pay extra for garden waste collections. And although they estimate it would be as little as £1 per week, I figure it would probably be considerably more than that, since the most efficient way of running such a scheme is to sell residents garden refuse sacks - and the more sacks you use, the more you will pay, or if they continue with the wheelie bin system then I guess I will be paying more than most as due to the size of my front garden (thanks to the large tree in it), I need two wheelie bins, into which I still sometimes struggle to fit all my grass cuttings and the leaves the tree drops. The proposal to charge extra for garden waste collection has predictably provoked many comments on social media, with opponents arguing that they already pay enough in Council Tax and supporters taking the viewpoint that many people pay for the service despite not using it, such as those who live in flats or other properties that have no gardens.

Come Autumn and our wheelie bins get filled with leaves.

I realise that in many other boroughs paying extra for garden waste collection is the norm, but stepping down the road of individual pricing for any service that some people might describe as optional could lead to a rather difficult debate about what an individual pays for versus what they consume. Council tax pays for schools, roads, libraries, children's services and adult social care: it also contributes towards the cost of the police and fire service, and while many of these are core services to which we all should pay, I would argue that some are optional extras. I no longer have children attending school in the borough; in fact since both of my children attended secondary school in a neighbouring borough, it is seven years since I had a child in a school in my borough. So just as the tenant of a flat on the tenth floor of a tower block who generates no garden waste feels they ought not pay for garden waste collection when they have no garden, should I be expected to pay for services like schools or libraries that I don't use? But schools and libraries are essential services, you may say. Well, so is garden waste collection - if you have a garden, because by charging extra for it, councils risk residents refusing to pay and  fly-tipping their waste, which then costs even more to clear.

Fly tipping is a major problem. This mile long tip appeared overnight near the Dartford Crossing in November 2014. Photo: East News

But whether it is individual prices for optional services, privatising services, or sharing services and resources with neighbouring boroughs, the way in which local authorities raise income and how they spend it will change. Council partnerships with private enterprises are increasingly the norm, while merging some services with those in other boroughs is also an increasing trend. The changes to the landscape of local government services that are currently in train are being delivered incrementally and at varying rates to varying degrees across the country rather than in one fell swoop, yet they are  possibly even more fundamental than the introduction of the so-called Poll Tax. Unlike the protests against the Poll Tax, I doubt there will be protesters marching on Barking Town Hall towing green wheelie bins.

Are You Experienced?

As a heterosexual, white male, I suppose it is understandable that I have not experienced discrimination (not knowingly, at least) so I am not by no means an expert on the subject - although as I am now in my late fifties, some sort of age related discrimination may be on the cards at some point soon. In a case that has attracted a good deal of publicity recently, former Apple engineer JK Scheinberg - aged 54 and with 21 years experience with the company - has failed to clinch a job at an Apple Store Genius Bar. Scheinberg retired in 2008 but decided that he wanted to get back into work, and with his background with the company thought that he would be a shoo-in for the role, despite being significantly older than the other interviewees.

JK Scheinberg

 "On the way out, all three of the interviewers singled me out and said: 'We’ll be in touch'.  I never heard back," he told the New York Times. So, was Scheinberg not employed solely due to his age, as has been implied? Apple have not yet commented on this, but their website affirms their commitment to being an equal opportunity employer, and being committed to inclusion and diversity. Which of course amounts to nothing at all, since words are cheap, but on the other hand, could Scheinberg not have been employed because - shock, horror - he wasn't suitable? He must be suitable, you might think, after twenty-one years as an Apple engineer responsible for - among other things - the first builds of OS X for Intel processors. He also worked on A/UX - Apple's implementation of the Unix operating system, and the Rhapsody operating system, so he is obviously highly qualified. "Are you experienced?" they might have asked him, and undoubtedly he is, but is it the right sort of experience?

Because how many people do you think make appointments at Apple's Genius Bar for a Unix related problem? Or have an issue with their Intel processor? Not many would be my guess. People go to the Genius Bar because their iPad is on the blink, the battery in their iPod had died, or because the latest iOS update has bricked their iPhone and no matter how much of a genius Scheinberg might be at back-end, mainframe type stuff, that means diddly squat when dealing with the average Genius Bar query. And of course, he's been out of the organisation for eight years, which in the technology business is a lifetime. That said, it's likely that while his experience and expertise might not be directly relevant to a role on the Genius Bar, it's equally likely that his background would not rule him out entirely as a good candidate for the job.  But, after a career in computer engineering, dealing with similarly minded people, how are his people skills, particularly when faced with a confused, technologically challenged, owner of a new iPhone they cannot make head or tail of?

Updating iOS...

In many ways what happened to Scheinberg is a non-story (unless he decides to take legal action against the company and that becomes some sort of cause célèbre), just one of many that I've seen on media websites and in social media feeds recently. In the days when our news consumption was limited to newspapers, TV and radio, there was only so much news that was printed or broadcast. Now the insatiable appetite of the internet means that the minutiae of life that would never have made it to print is plastered all over the web for our perusal - and increasingly - comment. For example ,there is a story that has appeared in the last week about a car driver getting a parking fine, despite having paid and displayed in a car-park in Poole, Dorset. Apparently Brian Hewlett paid £3 for two hours worth of parking but subsequently received a demand for £100 as when he was asked to enter his car registration number upon buying his ticket, he entered ‘EK002EEUV’ instead of ‘EK02EEU,’ because he was not wearing his glasses.  Maybe Mr Hewlett should have taken more care when entering his registration number. Maybe the company that run the car park should have used a bit of discretion and not penalised someone who had actually paid the parking fee. Maybe the paper that published the story on their website should have spiked it - it isn't a story, and I know that I should not have bothered reading it. It's even less of a story than Mr Scheinberg's tale - which is effectively just 'retired man applies for job and doesn't get it' - but there's little in it.

If Mr Hewlett had worn his glasses, there would have been no story. There wasn't really one anyway.

There is no doubt that legislation that fights discrimination in the workplace - at the recruitment stage and during employment - is a good thing, although there is an argument that it has actually gone too far - and it may be that Mr Scheinberg has a point when he suspects that, given he is at least twice the age of the average Genius Bar employee, his failure to secure a role was based on his age rather than anything else. But consider this too. Scheinberg's motive for applying for the job was that he was finding retirement boring; he was restless and wanted something to do. On his pension from Apple, I somehow suspect that he didn't need the money. So on that basis, a factor in passing him over - presumably in favour of someone younger - could have been that Apple thought it better to employ someone who was competent enough and in need of a job to pay their mortgage, put food on the table and pay their bills rather than a bored, retired Apple engineer who could have done some voluntary work if tackling boredom was his primary objective.

There is a balance to be struck in recruitment between the needs of the company and the rights of the prospective employee. And on the one hand, while experience is important - goodness knows, I often felt that the organisation I worked for seriously undervalued it at times - there's no way to get experience if you cannot get a job. And if you cannot get a job because you are blocked by a bored, retired, former senior employee who wants something to do, isn't that a form of discrimination too?

Eat That Frog!

Of my faults - which, according to my other half, are many and various - one to which I will readily admit is procrastination. While some people may live by the motto, "Never put off till tomorrow what you can do today," I am more likely to follow the maxim that one should, "Never put off till tomorrow what can be put off indefinitely."

Okay, I may not be entirely serious in saying that, but I'm sure I am not alone in that I have at times put things off for so long that the problem eventually goes away. This can be a good thing sometimes in that a difficult task, put off long enough, might eventually become unnecessary through a change of circumstances. Or a bad thing, as an opportunity is missed or a minor problem becomes a major one. And all too often a task that has been put off becomes still more difficult because there is so much less time in which to complete it. None of this is exactly startling; I have not stumbled on some previously undiscovered trait of human behaviour, but what I did not know (and I have a feeling many of you would not have known either), is that there is a World Fight Procrastination Day, and it was this week; Tuesday 6th September to be precise. Naturally, the first thing I did when I learned this was to Google it, and found that there is no official website for World Fight Procrastination Day: presumably no one has got round to setting one up yet.

What Googling "World Fight Procrastination Day" did find was a whole host of websites that suggest how one should deal with one's procrastination habit, and top of the list comes Mark Twain's advice that the first thing you should do each day is eat a live frog, because that will be the worst thing you have to do each day. In other words, begin the day with the task that you least want to start, and once it is done, the day cannot get any worse and that unpleasant chore will be out of the way.

That's good advice, except in my experience the counter arguments can be seductive and persuasive. First, that task may be a time consuming one, and while it is important, it may not be time critical (well, not yet, but it soon will be), and just look at all those easy, little jobs that aren't as important but are more urgent. Let's get them done, get a few quick wins and then that frog eating task can be attacked without all those other jobs worrying away at the back of your mind; a major justification for putting off some unpleasant, or difficult task is the promotion of other, easier tasks which have far less importance. You know the sort of thing; that task that requires pulling together multiple strands of research and analysing the resulting data and compiling a report for your boss that he wants on his desk this time next week (straightforward, non-urgent but time consuming) suddenly seems a much more attractive proposition than liaising with your HR department to arrange a disciplinary hearing for an underperforming member of your team. For some, it could be the other way round, but for me the most likely tasks I would procrastinate over at work were the touchy-feely, people skill needing, potentially confrontational ones rather than the more technical ones.

And procrastination gives great scope for worriers (like me) to exercise their worry muscles. You can worry about the task in prospect (how do I do it?), worry about putting it off (will I have enough time to do it now?), worry while you actually do it (am I doing it right and have I got enough time?), and worry about it in hindsight (could I have done it better if I hadn't put it off for so long?)

No wonder then that studies have shown that regular procrastination increases stress and anxiety, reduces productivity and may have a negative impact on someone's work performance, to which I would add that it can add a strain on personal relationships too. Just as the procrastinator will put off that difficult or stressful task at work, so they may put off talking about some personal issue, or delivering bad news at home, and with friends or family. At home, the procrastinator will worry about the consequences of broaching a subject - what will the other party's reaction be? And worries about the fact that by delaying bringing the matter up, it will just make it worse. The worst case scenario is that the matter is not brought up until it is too late, with inevitably disastrous consequences.

The garage after a major tidying exercise (sadly, no pictures exist of it before).

Putting things off is frequently justified by the procrastinator by the act of prevarication. If procrastination is the thief of time, then prevarication is the armed robber. Procrastination picks time's pocket; prevarication takes it into a dark alley and mugs it at knifepoint. Prevarication marshals all of the reasons for not doing something, launches them in a blitzkrieg like frenzy and bludgeons the procrastinator  into not doing something because that appears infinitely preferable to doing it.

Some things are more serious things than others if they get put off - the faint but persistent smell of gas that doesn't get investigated is likely to have more serious consequences  than not dealing with that pile of old newspapers that have accumulated in the corner of the lounge and really need bundling up and putting in the recycling.  But even the most innocent of tasks, if procrastinated over long enough, can be a cause of inconvenience, if not exactly dangerous. Val and I have spent the last few weeks undertaking what I can only describe as a major exercise in tut, tat and detritus clearance. We hired a skip (see One Man's Trash) and cut down an old conifer tree that had died a lingering and unsightly death in the corner of the garden, cleared the shed and the garage (where I assembled three new shelving units to supplement the two already there) and generally tidied on a scale not normally seen other than in advance of a visit from the Queen. Going into the shed or garage is now a perfectly normal activity and not like embarking on an assault course.

A rather poorly looking conifer in the rain, and (below) with it removed.

We went through all of the files in the study, binning the old instructions for lawnmowers, hi-fi systems and kettles that have long since bitten the dust (and who needs an instruction manual for a kettle anyway?) The pile of old receipts, bank statements and random letters from random people that, along with a major collection of old boxes and cardboard, we had kept 'just in case' have been dealt with and a major resolution has been made not to allow that sort of situation to repeat itself: no way do I want to undertake the monumental task of shredding that number of old documents that contain some sort of personal detail again. 

To my surprise, I have been inspired by the work we have done, to the extent that I have rooted around through loads of old personal stuff, binning piles of papers, tidying football programmes and generally organising myself. It's addictive and now that the only things I have to do genuinely have to wait, I'm getting impatient and suffering from withdrawal symptoms.

I would like to think that the days of procrastination and prevarication are behind me, although like being addicted to something, it will be hard not to fall into the old, bad habits, but I'm going to try. I'll let you know how I get on...if I don't put it off.

Falling Off A Cliff

Politics is not a particular interest of mine, but I can't help be morbidly fascinated by the current machinations within the Labour party. I confess to knowing only a little about Jeremy Corbyn, and much less about Owen Smith, his opponent in the Labour leadership race, but even a casual glance at the pronouncements of both men leads me to believe that Mr Corbyn has his feet a little more firmly on the ground than his opponent...although it's a close run thing.

Can Owen Smith really eradicate homelessness? No, really can he?

It isn't unusual for politicians to make bold promises when they are trying to get elected and it really is a shame that they are not taken to task more regularly and more robustly when, once in office, they fail to meet their pledges. For the record, I'm talking about all politicians, local and national, and of all political persuasions here - not just Labour ones. But it is rare that anyone, after an election, looks back and says to a Prime Minister, or council leader for that matter, and says, "Where's that income tax cut you promised?" or "What happened to the extra nurses/policemen/doctors/binmen/road sweepers you said you would recruit?" Thing is, we all know it's a game; all politicians make pledges that they soon come to realise they cannot afford - be it politically or financially - to implement. And Messrs Corbyn and Smith are no different.

Jeremy Corbyn's reserved seat failed to meet his expectations.

Jeremy Corbyn has pledged to renationalise the railways if Labour come to power  - and by the by, despite Labour's stance on Europe, a full renationalisation would not be possible had the electorate voted to Remain in the EU rather than in favour of Brexit -and also to build a million new homes within five years of becoming Prime Minister. This scheme would apparently be funded by a new National Investment Bank, and it's all very laudable: I doubt anyone would dispute that house prices and rental costs are becoming increasingly beyond the reach of many young people. But given that the next General Election is not scheduled for four more years, then Mr Corbyn's scheme has a minimum of nine years before it can come to fruition, assuming he wins the next election - actually, assuming he is even leader of the party come the next election.

But anything Mr Corbyn can promise, Mr Smith can top, it seems. Pledging to build a million new homes is small beer to Mr Smith, as he has pledged to eradicate homelessness completely within five years, apparently by passing the buck on to local councils and putting the problem in their court, which would enable him to take the credit for any success and pass on the blame for the more likely failure. Mr Smith has also promised to scrap university tuition fees, build 50,000 homes a year solely for rent by the under-30's and guarantee a high-level apprenticeship to every 18-year-old who gets good enough exam grades. Precisely how much this would cost - and more importantly, how it would be funded - is anyone's guess, but given that one of Labour's traditional methods of funding such exercises is increasing taxes for higher earners, perhaps this will lead to more of the wealthy becoming tax exiles, like Sir Richard Branson, whom Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell has suggested should be stripped of his knighthood. Mind you, that wasn't simply because of Sir Richard's tax exile status, but rather because, according to McDonnell, Branson was trying to 'undermine our democracy' after he, or rather Virgin Trains, had responded to Jeremy Corbyn's remarks about overcrowding on one of their services. Whether it was Corbyn or Branson who was right, I do not think that responding to an attack that one feels is unjustified - which is obviously how Virgin felt about the criticism they received from the Labour leader - is an attack on democracy. If refuting an assertion you believe to be incorrect undermines democracy then almost every MP is guilty of it every time they speak in the House, or anywhere else for that matter.

It's funny that Mr Corbyn's claims morphed so over a short period of time. First off, the train was packed, with no spare seats. Virgin refuted that, produced CCTV footage of Mr Corbyn walking past empty seats, to which the Labour leader responded that the seats were occupied by other passengers' bags, and later, that there were empty seats, but insufficient together for him and his wife to sit together. As my wife is wont to say, "When you're in a hole, stop digging."

Brendan O'Carroll looks as stunned as everyone else on hearing the news that his show is best sit-com of the 21st century.

While the news of what has now, inevitably, been dubbed Traingate amused me, there was another story that I saw at roughly the same time that I did not find funny at all, which is odd, since the news related to a television sit-com. And not just any old sit-com either, but the sit-com that 14,000 readers of the Radio Times have voted best sit-com of the 21st century so far. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you -and I can hardly bear to bring myself to do so - Mrs Brown's Boys. Now I will accept that what constitutes the best of anything that has to be judged as subjectively as a television comedy programme is predicated on the principle that anyone's opinion is as good as anyone else's, and the fact that Mrs Brown's Boys beat a whole host of programmes that I consider to have greater merit is neither here nor there. Just because a show is voted best comedy of the century doesn't actually make it the best, just the best in the opinion of enough people who could be bothered to vote. I wasn't among the voters, but had I been there were quite a few candidates that would have got my vote before I got to Brendan O'Carroll's creation.  In this poll, innovative, genuinely funny (well, I think they are innovative and genuinely funny) shows like W1A and Outnumbered trail in the wake of what appears to me to be a tired, old fashioned and unoriginal show.  Mind you there are a few  others in the top twenty (listed below), that most certainly would not have got my vote either, plus a few I've not even heard of.

"Ooh, you are awful!" Too flippin' right you are!

The result of the poll has certainly caused plenty of people - television critics and the general public (via social media) alike - to voice their opinions, and those opinions are, as one might expect, polarised. My view on it is coloured by the fact that Brendan O'Carroll plays the part of Mrs Brown; not that I have anything against Mr O'Carroll personally, it's just that I really cannot abide men playing women. It's probably a reaction to when I was a child and being subjected to programmes starring Danny La Rue, or Dick Emery or Stanley Baxter. Emery was OK when he stayed in menswear, but when he put on drag, I switched off -metaphorically, if not literally. And as for Baxter, well unfortunately I found him uniformly unfunny and as an impressionist, totally unconvincing - every impression looked the same, and every impression looked and sounded like Stanley Baxter to me.

"You don't have to fall off a cliff to know it hurts."

At this point I should point out that I have never watched a whole episode of Mrs Brown's Boys, just clips and trailers. These alone have been enough to put me off. On that basis there are probably those among you who would argue that I can't have a proper opinion if I've not seen a whole episode. To those who say that, I would refer you to a line from my comedy hero, Tony Hancock: "You don't have to fall off a cliff to know it hurts."