Tag Archives: bbc

Words on Walford: Fortnight of 13 – 24 April 2020

Has the pandemic changed the way anyone else watches EastEnders? I used to watch every night, but lately I’ve been saving up four episodes (or what would be a week’s worth in normal times) and binging them at the weekend. In some ways this is nice—Friday night was spent in Walford, for example, and I made an event of it—but then I go two weeks without seeing my favourite show and dodging spoilers, which isn’t easy given how many EastEnders stars and fans I follow on social media.

I touched on the decision to move to two episodes a week in my last blog but didn’t discuss it in depth because I didn’t see much point. I still don’t—the producers were left with an impossible choice and are making the best of a bad situation, which I respect—but I do wonder how this change will affect future viewing habits. I don’t know if I’ll go back to watching every night or if I’ll continue to binge at the weekend. It might not matter; iPlayer has already revolutionised how we watch tv. Then, it might: will people used to getting only two episodes a week go back to demanding four? After all, our attention spans are getting shorter, not longer. Might two episodes a week be all people want to commit to once our hectic lives resume?

This was certainly seen as a justification for cancelling my favourite American soap opera, All My Children, back in 2011. Executives at ABC didn’t feel people wanted an hour-long drama five days a week anymore. Of course, British soaps are a different beast in so many ways so the analogy is far from perfect, and I don’t think any of the British soaps are in any danger of being cancelled. This is all idle speculation on my part. Still, if and how the pandemic changes our viewing habits will be interesting to see going forward.

Until then, there’s still a lot to unpack from the last fortnight in Albert Square.

From the moment Iqra convinced Ash to go to Vinny’s party, I knew it would be trouble. Nothing good comes from convincing your partner to go to a party they don’t want to attend, especially when it is thrown by a family member. It’s like Iqra has learned nothing from her year in Albert Square.

That party was very confusing to me. At first, I thought it was just a way for Vinny to show Ruby his sick beats. Turns out there were drugs there, though I’m still not entirely sure I understand why. Was Vinny selling the drugs? Were people just doing drugs (as they’re wont to do at a party/rave)? What was Dotty’s role in all this? I freely admit it might just be me who missed these things—the flashing lights and loud music made it difficult for me to follow what was happening, just as it would have in real life (I’m not a nightclub kind of guy). Still, I was left with more questions than answers.

Still, a couple things were clear to me—both regarding the Panesars. One is, as has been hinted before, this is not a family to mess with. So much has happened since last autumn that it’s easy to forget the Panesar brothers first came on the scene by kidnapping Lola in revenge for Ben stealing Kheerat’s car. This is a family of violent gangsters on par with the Mitchells. Now we know they also do, or sell, drugs (again, unclear on what was happening there). We know that they don’t keep this a secret, that it’s a family operation which even Ash was, if not involved with, okay with—she lied to the police and paid off the homophobic guy Vinny (understandably, if not rightfully) beat up with aplomb. I mean, in those moments I saw in Ash Panesar everything Louise Mitchell wishes she was.

So did Iqra, and that is bound to cause problems for the couple going forward. While their row over Ash’s behaviour was resolved with “I love you” this week, it’s clear that the Panesars and their seedy dealings are going to continue to drive a wedge between the couple. That’s not necessarily a bad thing—soap is nothing without conflict—but it does raise some questions in my mind, specifically regarding Ash. It made no sense to me that Ash would suddenly act like a stone-cold thug when that is not what we’ve seen before, and it made even less sense to me that she would subsequently warn Iqra not to make her choose between her and her family. This is a woman who spent years avoiding her family, to the point or changing her name—have they ever addressed why she was Ash Kaur, now Ash Panesar?)—so I felt like I got whiplash watching how quickly her personality changed. Was it the booze? Is something else going on with Ash? I hope the show explains this change soon.

Still, I’m glad to see Iqra and Ash getting screen time. They’re one of my favourite couples, and both Priya Davdra and Gurlaine Kaur Garcha are capable actresses and just a delight to watch. More of them, please.

The other big development to come from this party was Keegan’s arrest. After months of issues with racist coppers, his storyline has finally reached a rapid boil with his arrest in the melee outside. I’ve been very glad to see EastEnders tackling this storyline, and I think they’re handling it very well. Keegan is one of the most interesting characters of the past decade, and Zack Morris is such a talented young actor. I love seeing him front-and-centre where he belongs.

There’s a lot to unpack here, though, and frankly I could write an entire entry on Keegan. So, let’s start with the smallest. That near-riot outside the party escalated very quickly and was very clearly just a plot device to get Keegan arrested. That the police were called I understand—Ruby warned Vinny that Marsha (whom I have never heard of before now but want to know everything about) would call them—but that instead of dispersing the crowd threw bricks at them I don’t get.

Still, as a plot device it worked, and Keegan was arrested for something he didn’t do. Perhaps coincidentally, this all happened because of a party thrown by Vinny, who was the first character to mention to Keegan that the cops were targeting him because of his race. That is clearly what is happening here, even if the police officers themselves don’t seem to think so.

Too often we think of racism as only being outward projections of hate—burning crosses, racial epithets, violent hate crimes, overt discrimination—when in reality it is much deeper and more pernicious. People can be racist in little ways, ways they might not even be aware of. Ever cross the street when you see a Black person walking? Ever make an assumption about someone’s intelligence or education because their name or accent sounds “Black?” Ever hear about a violent crime and assume the perpetrator must be BME? These are just a few examples of subconscious prejudice. We live in a society which teaches us that Black people are danger, or less intelligent, or more prone to violent crime, and even if we don’t want to we internalise those messages.

Denise Fox understands this, which is why she was more sympathetic to Keegan than Jack. It is important that Denise is the one siding with Keegan here, too, because Denise has never been one to let Keegan’s shitty behaviour pass without comment. Keep in mind that in their first meeting Denise slapped Keegan for being a disrespectful brat. Denise now being one of Keegan’s allies—and, I suspect we’ll see, his fiercest—is telling. She understands what he’s going through better than almost anyone else in Walford. She also has, in the eyes of both the audience and her neighbours, moral authority. Denise is unflinchingly fair, so if she says “nah, this is some racist bullshit,” it carries an added weight. I’m not saying it should be this way, mind you; Keegan saying “this is racist” ought to have been enough.

No one wants to admit they might be even a little bit racist, though. Zack Morris himself tweeted earlier this month that “[t]this storyline isn’t about ‘racist police.’ [I]t’s about the unconscious bias that is imbedded within society when it comes to black people.” He’s right, and I think the story is even more interesting and relevant because they are tackling these subconscious biases. It would have been so easy to make these police officers foaming-at-the-mouth racists, but by bringing Jack Branning into it, we’re meant to see how even people we think of as “good guys” can have subconscious prejudice.

Full disclosure: I’ve never liked Jack Branning, even as I love Scott Maslen and the way he plays the role. He’s smug and self-righteous. But most viewers think of him as a “good guy.” His unwillingness to believe Keegan, then, indicates to the audience that even those of us who see ourselves as decent, non-racist people can, in fact, be unaware of our own racial biases. I am very excited to see how this storyline plays out over the coming weeks, especially as Keegan and Denise deal with their white partners’ inability to see their point-of-view, and I continue to commend EastEnders for tackling this important topic with sensitivity and nuance.

This feels like a good place to leave off, even though there is so much else to discuss. I’ll put some of it in my stray observations section, but most of them could do with much more analysis. There was just so much happening in the last fortnight, it is hard to narrow down what to write about in detail. The past four episodes are the best since the 35th anniversary, and everyone at EastEnders should be very proud of the work they’re doing. The show is in rare form, and I cannot wait to see what happens next.

Stray observations: I got a distinct 90s feel from these episodes, with the way that they went from one conversation to another in the Square and the market. I liked it. I really like the sense of community which has returned to the show. Chantelle’s scene with Kheerat in the caff felt forced. I know they’re going to end up having an affair, but I’m not yet convinced. Mikayla coming back was random enough, but for her to now be so upset about the son who tried to kill her (and who she said she never wanted to see again) feels like a heel-turn. She’s Leo’s mum, so I guess no matter what he did she would be sad he died, but Christ alive, this feels contrived. I also feel like Gray and Whitney are destined for an affair. It’s going to happen. Ugh, Whit really does have the worst taste in men. “Ugh, like at what point does Whit decide to become a nun or a political lesbian?” is literally a line from my notes. MORE RUBY PLEASE. Louisa Lytton is so sorely underused. Tiff getting the ring Keanu gave to Louise seems like a bad omen. Tommy’s dyslexia storyline will be interesting, and Davood Ghadami was very good in his scenes with Shay Crotty. Glad Sharon’s going away to see Michelle; her and Phil should not get back together. Where the hell was Bernie in all the Keegan drama? Tiff could have used her best friend and Keegan could have used his sister. Honestly, they need to use Clair Norris a lot more than they do. I feel like Oates and Sen just don’t know what to do with Bernadette, but I love Bernie and want more of her. Did anybody else notice the cups from the caff got a jaunty redesign? Love the Rainie and Stuart scenes. They’re so good together. Ricky Champ and Tanya Franks are so charming and imbue such humanity into two broken characters. It’s a pleasure to see them act together. Jean thinking Daniel was in the box had me howling with laughter!

Scene of the fortnight: Rainie asking Max for a divorce and not knowing Ruby’s name. I know I didn’t talk much about Rainie and Stuart, but they really were a highlight of the week.

Line of the fortnight: “I only blow on my husband’s dice.” – CHANTELLE!

Performance of the fortnight: Zack Morris as Keegan Baker. Just absolutely broke my heart. I love both Zack Morris as an actor and Keegan Baker as a character so, so much.

Character of the fortnight: Ash Kaur Panesar. She really surprised me this week and is clearly more complex (and messed up) than any of us realised. I’m looking forward to learning more about Ash and her crazy family.

Skylar Baker-Jordan is a freelance writer based in Tennessee. His work has appeared at the Independent, Huff Post UK, Salon, and elsewhere. Follow him on Twitter @skylarjordan and become a sustainer at www.patreon.com/skylarjordan

 

 

The 35 most iconic scenes in “EastEnders” history

Next week, EastEnders celebrates its 35th anniversary. While producers have promised some amazing and gripping scenes as the citizens of Walford take to the Thames for a death cruise, there are plenty of great moments to look back on.

As a lifelong EastEnders fan—I began watching from America on PBS when I was about 8-years-old—I decided to look back at 35 years of action in Walford, ranking the 35 greatest scenes in EastEnders history.

35. Linda and Martin “kill” Keanu (2020)

It’s not even been two months since Martin Fowler, on the orders of Ben Mitchell, was meant to kill Keanu Taylor. A drunk Linda Carter stopped that from happening, instead orchestrating a coverup. The convergence of two of EastEnders’ major storylines—Sharon and Keanu’s affair and Linda’s alcoholism—this was a return to form for the show and will be remembered for years to come.

34. Reg Cox’s body is found (1985)

Keanu might have survived, but the same can’t be said for poor ole Reg. EastEnders debuted on 19 February 1985 with the murder of pensioner Reg Cox. Arthur Fowler, Den Cox, and Ali Osman find him murdered in his flat (by Nick Cotton, as we later find out). Putting us right in the middle of the action from the very first scene, EastEnders showed from the very beginning it was unlike anything British tv had seen before.

33. Mark tells everyone his is HIV+ (1996)

When Peggy Mitchell found out Mark Fowler was HIV+, she orchestrated a hate campaign against him. In these scenes, Mark confronts her prejudice—and the prejudice of the community—by giving them the facts and insisting that he be served in his local. The are moving scenes proving that throughout its run EastEnders has never shied away from tackling controversial and topical issues, always with compassion and care.

32. Sonia has a surprise baby (2000)

“Well if your school had a sex education teacher they should sack him!” is still one of my favourite lines in EastEnders history. After a brief liaison with Martin Fowler, teenaged Sonia Jackson—who had no idea she was pregnant—went into labour. With the help of Mo Harris, Sonia gave birth to daughter Bex in this dark but comical scene that served to both continue the Fowler/Jackson families and establish Laila Morse (who plays Mo) as one of the greatest comic actors the show has ever seen.

31. Lou Beale’s home truths (1988)

Lou Beale knew she was dying, but she wasn’t going to go quietly into that gentle night. Rather, she gathered her family around to give them a piece of her mind (and a few heirlooms). It’s a classic scene in which Anna Wing shines as Lou, and reminds us that EastEnders is always at its best when it centres strong, smart women.

30. Pat and Peggy get drunk in an ice cream van (2009)

The friendship between Pat (Pam St Clement) and Peggy (Barbara Windsor), two of the most iconic characters in EastEnders history, is enough to make this scene stand out. Throw in a bottle of vodka, a bunch of sweets, and a peeved Shirley Carter and Phil Mitchell and you’ve got one of the funniest scenes the show ever did.

29. Nick Cotton kills Eddie Royle (1991)

It’s hard to pick out Nick Cotton’s most evil deed, but murdering Eddie Royle has to be near the top. The greatest villain in the soap’s history murdered poor Eddie and then framed Clyde Tavernier for the crime. It was the start of one of EastEnders’ most compelling stories to date, exploring racism in the criminal justice system and the perceptions of Black boys in modern Britain.

28. Syed admits he’s gay (and in love with Christian) (2011)

EastEnders has never shied away from telling compelling stories about LGBT people, and the journey of Syed Masood is one of the best in the show’s history. Syed didn’t expect to fall in love with Christian, but their connection proved too much for him to ignore. It’s hard to pick just one scene from this story of faith, family, and acceptance – but this, when Syed finally admits the affair to his family and friends, stands out.

27. Jim Branning proposes to Dot Cotton (2001)

I love a good romance, and it’s hard to beat the love story between pensioners Jim Branning and Dot Cotton. Neither one of them expected to find love again at their age, but find it they did, beginning one of the greatest partnerships in EastEnders history. Jim’s proposal to Dot on the London Eye is the most romantic scene the show has ever aired.

26. Johnny Carter comes out to his father, Mick (2014)

EastEnders has had many gay characters over the years, but never has a parent’s response to their child’s coming out been as pitch perfect as Mick Carter’s was when his son Johnny came out to him. Letting Johnny know that Mick loved him unconditionally, he gently coaxed his son into finally opening up. It’s still hard to watch this with dry eyes, and that’s down in no small part to the brilliant, compassionate performances of Sam Strike and Danny Dyer.

25. Phil sets fire to Frank’s car lot (1994)

You’d be forgiven for thinking that Phil Mitchell is a bit of a pyromaniac. He famously set fire to the Queen Vic in 2010, but before that, he set fire to Frank Butcher’s car lot in 1994. Frank wanted to burn down the car lot for the insurance money, but what neither expected was that there would be a man there sleeping rough. That man died, and the guilt of his death has haunted Phil ever since.

24. “Hello, princess” (2003)

We all thought we’d seen the last of Den Watts when he died in 1989. No so! Despite having identified his body years before, Sharon was stunned when her father showed up in Walford very much alive. He’d be dead again soon enough (thanks to wife Chrissy and Pauline Fowler’s doorstop), and years later Kathy Beale would pull her own Lazarus stunt. But few things have surprised us more than the resurrection of Dirty Den.

23. The fire at the bed and breakfast (2011)

There’s so much going on here it’s hard to know where to begin, but what makes this scene truly iconic is the stellar performances by Nina Wadia and Ace Bhatti. Evil Yusef had been abusing Zainab for months, even threatening to kill her son. Plotting her escape with ex-husband Masood, Yusef caught them and set fire to the B&B in an attempt to kill him. Turning the tables on her abusive husband, Zainab convinced him his daughter Afia was in the burning building. The look on Yusef’s face when he finally realizes Afia is outside—right before he dies—is one of the most haunting yet satisfying moments in the show’s history.

22. Ronnie and Roxy drown in a pool (2017)

I hesitated to include this moment at all because I know how much people hate it. To be fair, I understand why. Killing off Ronnie and Roxy (and on the night of poor Ronnie’s wedding, at that!) is one of the greatest mistakes in the show’s history, and this scene is certainly one of the most controversial, at least among diehard fans. But it’s specifically because of that controversy that this scene belongs on this list. It was the end of an era as the Mitchell sisters bowed out and a lesson to future producers in thinking twice before you kill off one (let alone two) fan favourites.

21. Cindy Beale flees with Peter and Steven (1996)

Dastardly Cindy never took to married life or motherhood, cheating on Ian not once but twice—including with his half-brother, David. When Ian found out, he threatened to sue for custody of their children. Not having that, Cindy hired a hitman to take Ian out. She had a chance of heart at the last minute, but it was too late, and Ian was shot. Panicking—and realizing the police were hot on her tail—Cindy kidnapped her two sons but was unable to get her daughter, Lucy, instead leaving with her ragdoll. Cindy would later die giving birth to Cindy Jr, and both Lucy and Steven would meet grizzly fates of their own.

20. Whitney confesses that Tony has been grooming her (2008)

One of the most distressing but relevant storylines of the 2000s, Whitney’s confession that Tony has been sexually molesting her from the time she was 12 was difficult viewing in 2008. Shona McGarty and Patsy Palmer have a real chemistry that really sells the stepmother/stepdaughter relationship between Whitney and Bianca, and Shona especially gives a moving performance as Whitney comes to the realization that Tony didn’t love her, he abused her.

19. Jane admits that Bobby killed Lucy (2015)

The culmination of a nearly year-long mystery, on the 30th anniversary we finally learned who killed Lucy Beale. In one of the most shocking twists in EastEnders history, Lucy’s murderer turned out to be none other than her 11-year-old brother Bobby. Laurie Brett gives a heartbreaking performance as Bobby’s mum Jane—who kept his involvement a secret for months—and Adam Woodyatt really conveys Ian’s shock as he realises the truth. All this is made even more remarkable by the fact that it went out live.

18. The first gay kisses (1987/1989)

EastEnders—and Sir Michael Cashman–made history with the character of Colin Russell, the show’s first gay character and one of its most popular in the late 1980s. In 1987, the show broke new ground when it showed Colin kissing his boyfriend Barry on the forehead—the first gay kiss in soap history. They went a step further in January 1989, airing a kiss on the mouth between Colin and his new boyfriend Guido. Looking back, it’s hard to see what all the fuss was about—but it was one of the riskiest and most controversial moments in the show’s 35-year history.

17. Ronnie realizes Danielle is her daughter (2009)

Ronnie Mitchell never could catch a break. Having given birth to a daughter just a teenager, Ronnie’s evil father Archie told her that the baby had died. Instead, Archie gave the girl up for adoption. Years later, Ronnie’s daughter, Danielle, turns up in Albert Square looking for her mother. Ronnie finally learns the truth and accepts Danielle—only for Danielle to be mowed down by Janine Butcher moments later. Samantha Womack’s piercing cries of “she’s dead!” still give us chills after all these years.

16. Trevor attacks Little Mo on Christmas Day (2001)

Warning: these scenes are very distressing. One of the most harrowing storylines EastEnders ever attempted was the abuse of Little Mo Slater by her husband, Trevor Morgan. For a year we watched as Trevor abused and tortured his poor wife in some of the most difficult viewing in the show’s history. This scene—which transmitted on Christmas Day 2001—is among the most memorable ever because of its sheer brutality. Viewers watched in agonizing horror as Trevor humiliated Little Mo, violently shoving her face into her Christmas dinner. He got his comeuppance the next year, I’m happy to report.

15. Mel leaves Ian after their wedding (1999)

If there is one consistent truth that runs through all 35 years of EastEnders, it is that Ian Beale is a wanker. He lied about daughter Lucy having cancer in order to get Mel to marry him. She found out mere minutes after their wedding on New Year’s Eve 1999, and in one of the greatest lines ever “Well guess what, Ian? I don’t love you, and I never have done,” Mel told Ian to bugger off as Walford rang in the new millennium.

14. Frank’s bowtie (2000)

Pat and Peggy spent a lot of time fighting over Frank, but you can hardly blame them once you see this scene. Charming wide boy Frank Butcher showed up on Pat’s doorstep wearing nothing but his birthday suit and a spinning bowtie. Of course, his wife Peggy didn’t know where he was, but that didn’t matter. This scene is instantly iconic and provided the internet with one of the greatest gifs ever – nothing screams “I quite fancy that” like Frank’s spinning bowtie.

13. Tiffany Mitchell dies (1999)

It’s hard to explain just how popular Martine McCutcheon’s Tiffany was in the late 1990s. When McCutcheon decided to leave to pursue her music career, producers killed her character off—a real shame, because who only knows what could have happened with Tiffany had she ever decided to return. Her death on New Year’s Eve 1998—run over by Frank Butcher (father of Janine, who herself enjoys a bit of automotive homicide) at the stroke of midnight following a fight with husband Grant Mitchell over their daughter Courtney—is one of the most tear-jerking in the show’s history.

12. Hassan Osman’s cot death (1985)

In the show’s first hard-hitting, topical storyline, Sue and Ali Osman’s infant son Hassan dies unexpectedly. Sue’s struggles to come to terms with her son’s death would be a central focus of early episodes, and baby Hassan’s death was itself a shocking moment. It set the standard for EastEnders storytelling—focusing on real issues real people face, but doing so with such compassion and humanity.

11. Phil and Grant crash into the Thames (1999)

No two Walford siblings have a more complicated relationship than Phil and Grant Mitchell. When Grant slept with Phil’s wife Kathy to get revenge for Phil having, years before, slept with Grant’s wife Sharon (who is now Phil’s wife, though he’s probably going to divorce her—like I said, complicated), Phil confronted him. It resulted in a car chase through East London, Phil trying to shoot Grant, and a crash into the Thames. Both brothers survived, though, and eventually made up—well, sort of.

10. Bradley falls off the roof of the Queen Vic (2010)

EastEnders doesn’t shy away from big, flashy stunts, but few can compare to the 25th anniversary episode. The culmination of the “Who killed Archie?” storyline, chief suspect Bradley Branning fell to his death from the roof of the Queen Vic while on the run from police. As it turns out, Bradley didn’t kill Archie—his wife, Stacey did. It remains the gold standard in live episodes and murder mystery reveals, and Lacey Turner and Jake Wood deserve special praise for their performances as Stacey Slater and her father-in-law Max Branning.

9. Phil is shot (2001)

In March 2001 the nation was asking itself one question: “who shot Phil Mitchell?” It was a gripping storyline precisely because most of Walford had a motive to shoot the hardman. The storyline dominated tabloids and was even covered by the evening news. In the end, it was revealed that Phil’s estranged partner Lisa was the culprit, though Phil eventually forgave her and, in 2019, they were even able to laugh about it. Good times.

8. Den Watts “dies” (1989)

The Mitchell brothers weren’t the first gangsters on Albert Square. In the late 1980s “The Firm” reigned supreme. Den Watts, the archetypical Walford bad boy, incurred their wrath when he used one of their cronies to burn down the Dagmar (in revenge for James Willmott-Brown raping Kathy Beale). Den was sent to prison for arson, but The Firm still thought he was a liability so orchestrated his “murder” in early 1989. Fourteen years later, of course, we’d learn that he had faked his death—but at the time, we all thought we’d seen the last of Dirty Den, the undoubtable breakout character from the original cast.

7. Dot helps Ethel die (2000)

Few soap characters are as beloved as Ethel Skinner. A cantankerous pensioner who lost her family to a doodlebug in the war, Ethel and Willy (a dog, not a penis) were two of the most delightful creatures to ever trot across Albert Square. With her health failing, though, Ethel decided to go out on her own terms. What transpired was some of the most touching scenes and most compelling story in EastEnders history as Ethel’s best friend, devout Christian Dot Cotton, wrestled with whether to help her friend end her own life. Dot eventually does agree to help Ethel, and it is perhaps the most moving scene in the show’s history.

6. Max’s and Stacey’s affair is revealed (2007)

Max and Stacey have such an exhausting history now that they’re a bit of a punchline, but back in 2007 their affair had viewers gripped. Stacey married Bradley Branning while carrying on an affair with his father, Max. It all came to a head on Christmas Day 2007 when Max’s daughter, Lauren, put on a DVD that ostensibly showed Bradley’s and Stacey’s wedding but which had also caught Max and Stacey doing the dirty. The look of horror on Jo Joyner’s (Tanya’s) face as she realizes what she is watching is both heartbreaking and riveting. Watching this unfold was a bit like watching a trainwreck—cringey and uncomfortable but impossible to look away.

5. “You bitch!” “You cow!” (1998)

Pat and Peggy might have wound up great friends, but they weren’t always so chummy. In 1998 they were fighting over—who else?—Frank Butcher, and in the process gave us one of the greatest rows in television history. Pat taunts Peggy about how Frank loves her more, Peggy taunts Pat about how she can’t arouse her own husband, and then they physically attack one another. If you say “you bitch!” in the right tone of voice, chances are someone around you will respond with “you cow!” – proving just how iconic this scene is.

4. Janine pushes Barry off a cliff (2004)

Look, I could an entire list of 35 of Janine Butcher’s finest moments. Stabbing herself to frame Stacey? Killing Michael and then blaming Alice? Her row with Laura right before Laura took a tumble down the stairs? All great moments. But Queen Janine’s finest—read: worst—moment is undoubtedly her first kill. Janine married poor Barry Evans for his money, thinking he was dying. When it turned out that Barry wasn’t dying, Janine took matters into her own hands and shoved him off a cliff on their honeymoon. While I always maintain that Janine didn’t mean to kill Barry, she certainly sat by and watched him die.

ICE. COLD.

3. Den serves Angie with divorce papers (1986)

“This, my sweet, is a letter from my solicitor telling you your husband has filed a petition for divorce.” Those words still give me chills. Feeling that her marriage was about to fall apart, Angie Watts faked cancer to keep husband Den around. Of course, he found out because that’s a dumb plan, and he was not at all happy when he did. On Christmas Day 1986 Den served Angie with divorce papers – and more than 30 million people tuned in to watch.

2. Sharongate (1994)

There will never be another soap opera storyline quite like Sharongate. Certainly there will never be one as popular and gripping. Playing out over the course of not months, but years, Sharongate centered on the love triangle between brothers Phil and Grant Mitchell and the woman they’d both end up marrying, Sharon Watts. Sharon initially fell in love with Grant and went on to marry him, but in 1992 she had an affair with Phil. This continued to play out for another two years, coming to a head in 1994 when Grant discovered a recording of Phil and Sharon together—playing it at the Queen Vic for all of Walford to hear. It’s a legendary moment, one that still gets mentioned in casual conversation and even on the show.

1. “You ain’t my muvva!” (2001)

It’s hard to think of a more shocking moment in soap history than when Kat Slater revealed that sister Zoe was actually her daughter. Conceived when Kat’s uncle raped her as a young girl, Zoe grew up thinking her grandfather was her father. The truth came out when Zoe decided to move to Spain with her mother’s rapist uncle—and with that “You can’t tell me what to do, you ain’t my muvva!” became an iconic phrase. Michelle Ryan (as Zoe) and Jessie Wallace (Kat) convey the depth of pain, shock, and urgency these characters are experiencing. Nearly 20 years later, it remains the single greatest scene in EastEnders history.

 

Do you agree with my choices? Or do you think there are some glaring omissions? Leave your favourite scenes in the comments below!

Skylar Baker-Jordan has been writing about UK and US politics for more than a decade. His work as appeared at The Independent, Salon, Huff Post UK, and elsewhere. He lives in Tennessee. Follow him on Twitter or become a supporter by contributing to his Patreon account.

What if Britain had a First Amendment?

There’s been so much talk about the importance of a free press and free speech lately that I feel as though I’m at a salon with Milton and Locke. In light of the Royal Charter regulating the press and furor around the Guardian’s reporting on and release of classified GCHQ intelligence documents , there’s been a lot of talk, including from former Sunday Times editor Harold Evans, about the UK’s need for an American-style First Amendment. Indeed, I’ve spoken at length about my passion for the First Amendment and the freedoms it guarantees, and I realise that I can’t approach British politics through a British lens because my own perceptions are intrinsically coloured by these deeply ingrained principles.

You see, if in the canon of American civil religion the Constitution is our Bible, the First Amendment is most certainly our gospel. In one run-on sentence, the framers articulated the essence of the new nation, the core principles for which so much Yankee blood was shed and which would transform the world:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of greivances.

Now, I refuse to play the part of the arrogant American who feels Britain ought to adopt the First Amendment verbatim. Though our legal system stems from your common law, the two have understandably evolved differently since separation. I’m not even suggesting that our way is the best way. But I think it’s important to understand what the First Amendment means to Americans before discussing whether Britain ought to adopt it as its own.

The problem is, articulating the first amendment in tangible terms is a challenge. Like our taste for cold and flavourless beer and our belief that every household should be armed like South American guerillas, the First Amendment runs in our blood. We don’t really notice it on a daily basis, because it’s not something we often think about. It just is. The First Amendment is like the air around us-it isn’t really palpable; you can’t really feel it until a storm rolls in.

For that reason, it’s easier to explain what the First Amendment isn’t. It isn’t government intelligence agents ransacking a newspaper office and destroying intellectual property in an attempt to curtail publication. It isn’t sending the police to grandma’s house because she doesn’t like gay people. And it isn’t breaking up a peaceful protest and arresting a lawmaker. I’m not saying America always gets it right either. (See: my alma mater’s horrible policy on freedom of speech in e-mail ; the case of the Legal Schnauzer out of Alabama ; or all of the 1960s.) But by and large, it gets the job of protecting our liberties done.

The First Amendment doesn’t grant permission to be like Jeremy Clarkson on steroids, spouting off every inane thing that comes to mind. It doesn’t mean that you can threaten bodily harm to someone, or falsely report a crime, or the favourite example on this side of the pond, shout fire in a crowded theatre. With great freedom comes great responsibility. I think Spiderman said that, or something close to it.

So what does it all mean? I don’t bloody well know. Asking an American what the first amendment means is like asking a Canadian to define maple syrup. We know it tastes sweet, we know that we love it, and we know that it’s intrinsic to our national identity, but we can’t really tell you why. I suppose it means being able to crassly and tastelessly joke that Prince Harry got a handjob from an Abercrombie manager without fear of the guillotine. It means questioning whether your leaders are who they say they are without penalty or sanity, and it means being able to say the the most vile, repulsive things about me and yet have me defend your right to say it (while laying a verbal smackdown on you, of course).

That’s one of my biggest concerns with the British approach to hate speech. I’m choking on my words right now, but David Starkey articulated it quite well . Britain’s laws against hate speech would never survive under the First Amendment, and thank God for that. As Jonathan Rauch recently wrote in The Atlantic, the freedom to offend minorities is imperative, not only to the cause of liberty, but for the social advancement and acceptance of the minority itself-a similar, if not an exact, argument to that of Starkey. “The best society for minorities,” Rauch writes, “is not

Political cartoon by Robert Ariail. First published in the Spartanburg Herald-Journal.
Political cartoon by Robert Ariail. First published in the Spartanburg Herald-Journal.

 

the society that protects minorities from speech but the one that protects speech from minorities.” Indeed, its only by exposing bigotry and ignorance in the public sphere that we can attack it head on and continue to win not only legal but social equality. This applies to gay, Muslim and black Britons today as much as it applied to open disdain for the working class, suffragettes and papists in days gone by. It’s hard to attack an enemy in the shadows, and laws restricting speech push bigots into the night, where they silently seethe with contempt, stifling not only their own hatred but any chance for social growth. Or, to put it another way, you have to counter speech with more speech, not less speech.

Of course, the primary medium for speech has historically been the press. On last week’s Question Time, Paris Lees asked what made newspapers so special that they needn’t be regulated by Parliament. Well, it’s quite simple: for 300 years the British broadsheets have been the conduits of liberty and democracy, as outlined by more than 70 human rights organisations in an open letter to David Cameron. Similarly, Louise Mensch brilliantly makes the point while simultaneously taking the press to task for its own meandering failures. Laws regulate what is or isn’t shown on television, as they also do in the United States, because the First Amendment provides leeway for some censorship of material deemed contrary to public taste and decency, but it’s a fine line and one which is frequently challenged.

But saying that you can’t show nekkid people before the threshold isn’t the same as restricting what can be reported on; nobody dare argues that the journalistic integrity and independence of the BBC ought to be regulated. Likewise, as an American, the thought of a government agency-even one as loosely affiliated with Westminster as that established by the royal charter-sits very uneasy. As schoolchildren, Americans learn of John Peter Zenger, a German-American writer johnpeterzengerwho successfully defended himself against charges of libel and is widely regarded as the Ron Burgundy of the eighteenth century. The Supreme Court has upheld the freedom of the press to print the Pentagon Papers, and set the bar very high for plaintiffs to claim libel in New York Times vs Sullivan, birthing the so-called “Sullivan defence” mandating that the plaintiff prove “actual malice” was involved and intentioned, citing and strengthening press freedoms. The UK, on the other hand, has no Sullivan Defence, and it is much easier to prove libel in Britain than America. A First Amendment, though, could feasibly alter British libel law, and in the United States has continually prevented government (and any public figure) from meddling in what our newspapers report. Still, we’re by no means perfect, as evidenced by the arrest of journalists covering the Occupy movement and the treatment of Michael Hastings prior to his fiery and mysterious death led to an outpouring of shock and grief from journalists around the world, even though his family continues to insist he wasn’t murdered.

It’s for this reason that Reporters Without Borders ranked the United States three spots behind the United Kingdom in this year’s Press Freedom Index, though the US rose fifteen spots from 2012 in large part because of public outrage about the detention of the Occupy journalists. The United Kingdom, is it reasonable to say, should expect its ranking to plummet in light of the current fires of regulation and oversight the Government and Hugh Grant have stoked. David Cameron’s warnings of consequences to publications disclosing the Snowden leaks , as well comments by Conservative Party Chairman Grant Shapps’ on reforming the license fee, widely interpreted as a threat to cut the BBC funding unless it produced more favourable reporting on the government, are about as helpful as sending Pétroleuses or Mrs. O’Leary to put that fire out.

The debate about a free press and free speech isn’t contained to the broadsheets, though. As important as it is to protect the rights of the good and noble, it’s just as important to protect the rights of the tasteless and crude (here’s looking at you, Jack Whitehall.) In the United States, that means protecting the smut published by Larry Flynt, who recently gave an interview touching on free speech to the BBC’s Newsnight. In the United Kingdom, it’s Page 3. Despite an online petition to ban Page 3 (which, in case you’re gay or American or both, is a page in The Sun with scantily clad women), David Cameron has said he doesn’t support it, despite his admittedly noble but ultimately flawed plan to filter internet porn. That’s a good Tory, because curtailing the freedom of a paper to publish what it will and of consumers to vote with their pocketbooks is decidedly antithetical to small-c conservative principles. Oh yeah, and democracy.

A similar First Amendment argument can be made against the oft-debated banning of the burqa or niqab. This has come up a lot in the last few years, especially following France’s outright ban on full face coverings, and most recently in September, when a judge ruled that a woman could not give evidence in her own trial whilst wearing the veil. Ken Clarke seems to support it, but Baroness Warsi summed it up as un-British. “I think people should have the right to wear what they want in this country,” she said. “Women won the right on what to wear many, many decades ago.” Well, yeah. Baroness Warsi speaks pointedly of the feminist arguments, echoed earlier this fall by Laurie Penny, who drew the conclusion that this isn’t just an issue of sexism, but also of Islamophobia. But if Britain had a First Amendment, would this even be a topic of debate?

Probably not. Take, for example, the case of two Christian women who appealed to the European Court of Human Rights to be allowed to wear crosses on the job. This case would be easily decided in favor of the plaintiffs on this side of the Atlantic, as is evidenced by the prolific case law on religious freedom. Similar is the case of Celestina Mba, a Christian who was sacked for refusing to work on Sundays. She lost her appeal. Accross the pond, though, the Civil Rights Act 1964 requires employers to make “reasonable accommodations” for people of faith, as a nod to freedom of worship and the First Amendment.

Now, this isn’t to say Americans aren’t bigots. Duh. We’re the nation that produced Michael Savage and Mel Gibson. Look at the ongoing struggle of Muslims in Murfreesboro, Tennessee to simply have a mosque, which while being challenged on planning and zoning laws, is rife with religious subtext-and, also, less-subtle nods to Islamophobia, including the plaintiffs citing fears about “sharia law” and “terrorists.” The Tennessee Supreme Court refused to take the case, allowing for an appeal to the US Supreme Court. Then there was the furor of the pastor burning the Koran in Florida and the New York mosque built close to Ground Zero, which had striking parallels to the case of mosque being built on the eastend of London several years back.

Despite the wishes of the good denizens of Murfreesboro, the First Amendment doesn’t give way to a right to discriminate in the public sphere, though-at least not really. Your rights end where mine begin, and in 2009 I made the argument that it was right to sack a Christian registrar who refused to officiate same-sex civil partnership ceremonies. The same goes for the Christian couple that wanted to ban gay people from their bed and breakfast. If you’re offering a public service or operating in the free market, you must abide by certain rules, and one of those rules is that you gotta play fair. It’s oft said that freedom of religion is freedom from religion, which is why the Supreme Court banned school-led prayer but not prayer in schools. The distinction is fine yet clear-free exercise of religion in a public sphere is acceptable, but the public sphere exercising religion is not. Frankly, it’s always baffled me why the United Kingdom-with an established church-is so antsy about the former. (If I ever meet Owen Jones, I’ll ask him.)

Less convoluted than the muddy waters of religion, though, is the the freedom of assembly. Two years ago I was living with a rather senior member of the Occupy Chicago movement-well, as senior as a horizontal leadership structure can allow-who was arrested for refusing to leave Grant Park after hours. The Occupy folks didn’t have a permit, which led to quite a few of them spending the night in jail. Still, the right to freely assemble is often cited by those staging protests, such as the storied

Caroline Lucas, the Green party's only MP, was arrested for protesting fracking

Caroline Lucas, the Green party’s only MP, was arrested for protesting fracking

March on Washington. From what I can tell, Britain’s pretty good on this one too, and the aforementioned fracking protest with Caroline Lucas was busted for reasons similar to the Chicago Police breaking up and arresting the Grant Park occupiers. The difference seems to be that the Balcombe protesters believe the police were ‘heavy handed’, while shockingly, the folks in Grant Park thought CPD did a fair job of things. This isn’t always the case. Birmingham police turned hoses and attack dogs on children in the Civil Rights Movement, and Chicago Police notoriously brutalised protesters at the 1968 Democratic Convention. And none of this has to do with the First Amendment and everything to do with alleged police brutality, though the First Amendment could feasibly be construed to ensure the people have a right to assemble in a public space. In fact, this was pretty much the mantra of the Occupy Chicago protestors, and regardless of what you think of them, the First Amendment allows a compelling argument to be made.

What’s also compelling, if only for both its blatancy and banality, is the right to petition. It’s oft overlooked in American discourse, because really, writing a Congressman isn’t nearly as flashy as giving a speech on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial and certainly less scandalous than posing on Page 3, unless of course you were writing to former Congressman Anthony Weiner. But it’s important to note that the right to petition grievances was one of the primary factors propelling the thirteen colonies to separate from the motherland. Thomas Jefferson famously wrote, in the Declaration of Independence, that “…in every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury,” and provided just cause for insurrection and independence. That King-in-Parliament wouldn’t hear-or rather, validate-the concerns of the colonists was the driving force behind its inclusion in the US Bill of Rights.

What most Americans don’t realise-and would be loathed to admit-is that this right already existed under the British constitution. It’s included in the Bill of Rights 1689 (called the “English Bill of Rights” over this way). So that’s not exactly a novel American concept.

Really none of it is, as pretty much all of this has its roots in Magna Carta or subsequent acts of Parliament. But don’t tell my compatriots that, because it’ll just hurt their feelings. America likes to think it invented liberty. Of course, it didn’t. But it did codify it in a succinct and explicit way, providing the framework for American case law, in turn allowing for the growth of those freedoms, which developed in a way distinct of their British antecedents.

It’s for this reason that looking at what a First Amendment would really mean for contemporary Britain is so interesting, and frankly, needed. The roots are the same, but the blossoms quite different, and in the more than two centuries since our two countries parted ways, my side of the Atlantic has taken things on a slightly different trajectory, ensuring personal liberties over collective cohesion. This is purely anecdotal, but it seems to me the British public prefers it this way. From Question Time/Big Question audience reactions to debates about multiculturalism and secularism to broad support for the HackedOff charter (because really, that’s what it is), and even in conversations with British friends who just don’t understand why we allow the Westboro Baptist Church to picket everything from funerals to fun parks, the Brits seem to like things the way they are. And that’s fine. While I personally feel very concerned about press freedom in the UK, overall, it’s still a functioning democracy. Still, it’s an interesting notion, and as the debate over religious freedom, hate speech, and press regulation continues, I imagine one that will resurface from time to time. Best be prepared.

For an interesting, more learned, and British(!) perspective on this issue, see Jonathan Peters’ July 2012 interview with Lord Lester in The Atlantic.

Chicago vs London: Round 1 – Entertainment

I first told my father I wanted to move to London when I was five. I last swore I would never live in Chicago when I was 25. Yet somehow, despite my best efforts, I’ve not properly lived in London, but have managed the Windy City for over two years. I’ve fallen in love with Chicago, its lakeshore, its giant rats that look like Master Splinter but attack like a friggin’ honey badger, and the friendly and forward-thinking Midwesterners who live here. That doesn’t mean I don’t miss my beloved London, with its winding streets which, on the night bus, make you feel like you’re in A Newport State of Mind. Yes, Chicago may be my husband, but London is my lover. As soon as I get enough money and the cats are grown, I’ll leave Chi-town for Londontown.

And like just like when sleeping with two people, it’s hard not to compare everything from size to warmth to overall performance. When I first moved here, it was very hard not to compare Chicago to London. They have many similarities-both are an amalgamation of neighbourhoods which were once separate villages, each with its own unique identity. They both smell brackish and industrial if you catch the wind at the right angle. And both will have hosted the Olympics by the end of this decade. Oh wait.

But which is better? Which is truly superior? I set out-and by out, I mean down, on the couch, with a beer-to investigate. In this week’s “London vs Chicago” matchup, we take on three key components of entertainment-sport, music, and telly. Will London leap to the top, or will the Windy City win this one? Find out below in an in-depth study just chock full of alliteration!

Sport
I confess, I’m not much of a sports fan. Or, at least I wasn’t until I moved to Chicago. From the friendly confines of Wrigley Field to the Madhouse on Madison all the way down to the Cell and Soldier Field, Chicago has some of the greatest and most storied stadiums in the world. Yes, London has Wembley, Wimbledon, and Stamford Bridge-perhaps my favourite sporting venue on earth (I keep the blue flag flying high!)-and yes, it hosted the Olympics with characteristic

Wrigley Field opened in 1916 and has served as home of the "lovable losers" of Major League Baseball, the Chicago Cubs, ever since. Affectionately known to fans and enthusiasts as "the friendly confines," it is one of the last bastions of pure Americana.

Wrigley Field opened in 1916 and has served as home of the “lovable losers” of Major League Baseball, the Chicago Cubs, ever since. Affectionately known to fans and enthusiasts as “the friendly confines,” it is one of the last bastions of pure Americana.

pomp and circumstance. And while there’s no denying that Londoners can make a football match into a Mardi Gras party at Animal House, it can quickly it can quickly turn into the stampede that killed Mufassa. Chicagoans, on the other hand, just get drunk-whether tailgating before the Bears game, betting on NCAA basketball, or cheering on the Blackhawks for a 2010s Stanley Cup three-peat. Sport isn’t just a form of entertainment here, it’s a way of life. I’ve literally seen grown men come to fisticuffs over who the greatest Cub was. Our greatest steakhouse was founded by a sportscaster. A goat is responsible for the Cubs’ century-long misfortune. And we have an entire neighbourhood built around a baseball diamond that is essentially one giant fraternity party 24/7.

Score: Chicago 1 – 0 London

Music
Ask me about the time I was invited to do heroin with Pete Doherty. Okay, so heroin wasn’t explicitly part of the invitation, but I mean, come on. It’s Pete. London has produced some of the world’s greatest music, from Handel to Adele. The undisputed capital of the European

Pete Doherty is one of the most poetic songwriters of this century. And he paints with his own blood, too.

Pete Doherty is one of the most poetic songwriters of this century. And he paints with his own blood, too.

entertainment industry, London combines the  best of New York, LA, Stockholm, and Nashville, producing an eclectic and talented group of artists. And don’t get me started on the live music scene, from The Hope and Anchor to The Old Queens Head (both in Islington) to the more legendary Royal Albert Hall and O2 Arena. Sure, Chicago has the Metro, the Congress, and a decent local music scene. And yeah, we’re rivaled only by New Orleans in jazz and Memphis in blues. But it’s just not even a contest. Chicago is an X Factor reject; London is Leona.

Score: Chicago 1 – 1 London

Telly
One word: Broadcasting House. One more word: Elstree. Plus, Chicago Fire keeps shutting down my neighbourhood because they like to blow up cars at 8:00 am, like this is Karachi or something. Bonus for London: Blue Peter is filmed there, which is of little consequence, except it

EastEnders was one of my first introductions to workaday Britain. I used to dream of living in Walford. I also wanted to be a rubbish collector. Kids are silly.

EastEnders was one of my first introductions to workaday Britain. I used to dream of living in Walford. I also wanted to be a rubbish collector. Kids are silly.

gives me an excuse to say Blue Peter. I seriously don’t think the Brits know just how filthy that sounds to us Yanks. (But really-the BBC is one of the most respected broadcasters in the world. Chicago just can’t compete.)

Score: Chicago 1 – 2 London

So London won tonight. But don’t worry Chicago, I still love you and your horrible drivers, your pseudo-Canadian accent and your hot dogs. Actually, not your hot dogs. I like ketchup on mine. Guess in that regard, London wins again.

#NNSexism: Newsnight illustrates the rise, Twitter the need, of digital feminism

Last night, Fi Glover had an excellent piece on BBC’s Newsnight about digital feminism and the future of women’s liberation in the 21st century. She profiled Laura Bates’ “Everyday Sexism Project”, the media’s fascination with and objectification of breasts, including Amanda Palmer’s Glastonbury nip slip, as well as the objectification of black women’s bodies. The prevailing theme was that technology and social media is changing the face of feminism, promoting the democratisation of the women’s movement.

So perhaps it was inevitable that a story about feminists online would prompt a storm of controversy on the Twittersphere. Using the hashtag #NNSexism, the Twitterati engaged the masses in their own experiences with everyday sexism while a debate erupted over the role of feminism and, indeed, women themselves. One of the biggest debates I had was the tiresome, redundant, 20th century debate over the difference between sex and gender, as illustrated below:

Now, for those of you who aren’t aware, the difference between sex and gender is quite simple. Sex (male/female) is physiological. It has to do with your reproductive organs, your hormones, and your pelvic bone. Gender (man/woman), on the contrary, is a social construct. It’s the set of characteristics we are assigned, even before birth, based on our sex. Think of it as blue for boys, pink for girls. Dolls for Linda, trucks for Liam. It’s not a radical notion; it’s been debated pretty heavily for the past sixty years, certainly since the advent of the third wave feminism in the United States.

My position sparked a lot of vitriol, mostly from conservative (small c) men. Some of it was quite nasty:

Others took to calling out the “sexism” of the Newsnight piece:

What was most poignant, though, were the women (and some men, like myself) using the hashtag as a sounding board for their own experiences with everyday sexism:

What was most disappointing was the number of men trying to trivialise or completely write off sexism and misogyny:

To say there is no evidence of real sexism is laughable. It certainly shows, at the very least, that one hasn’t been paying much attention to, well, anything. Just this month we’ve had Newsnight presenter Emily Maitlis speak out on the fear many women have of being “found out” or labeled a “fraud”, the United Nations showing just what the internet thinks of women (and it isn’t pretty), and The Great British Bakeoff finalist Ruby Tandoh defending herself against allegations that she flirted herself to the top. I mean, cos, you know, pretty women can’t bake well. Only male chefs and your nan.

Or they attempted to turn the conversation away from women and onto their own perceived grievances:

Which Laurie Penny succinctly put down to actual, perhaps stealthy, misogyny:

And of which I stand guilty:

I’ll be honest, it hadn’t occurred to me that by sharing my own experience I was steering the conversation away from sexism against women (which is 99% of sexism, after all). In fact, I thought Laurie Penny was calling me specifically out when she tweeted that, and it made me reevaluate my personal approach to the hashtag. After all, regardless of whether or not I identify as a feminist, gay men are still capable of sexism, and we have a notorious entitlement to womanhood and women’s bodies.

In the end I forgave myself. My feminist credentials are fairly well known, and while it was perhaps rude to change the subject in the middle of a conversation, it wasn’t entirely off-topic. In fact, I challenged Laurie on this point (and got no response, I should mention-though I do hope she’d agree):

For as the men who couldn’t grasp the difference between sex and gender prove, we (as a society) can’t even seem to get the vocabulary, let alone the conversation, right. So the men who actually acknowledge not only the merits of feminism but the hindrance patriarchy places on their own existence ought to be not only allowed but encouraged to freely contribute. At the very least we’re acknowledging sexism is real and tangible, which is more than can be said for a great lot of us.

That’s not to give us a pass, though. Patriarchy manifests itself in all sorts of ways, and the internet has proven that even those of us with the best intentions can sometimes stand accused, and even slightly guilty of, inadvertent sexism. In the end, Newsnight did a commendable job of highlighting the rise of digital feminism, but Twitter itself illustrated the dire need for it. Social media makes it possible, in real time, to illustrate tangible examples of blatant and even unintentional sexism and misogyny, and the Twittersphere was not lacking either yesterday. The rise of sites like EverydayFeminism and Jezebel give voice to women (and men) who may otherwise lack one, and perhaps it’s only a matter of time until we have a Feminist Spring.

Until then, let’s all brainstorm it a catchy hashtag.

What do Peter Hitchens and Russell Brand have in common? They both sound like Katy Perry.

Let’s clear one thing up: I’m American, okay? I don’t claim to be anything but. I’m prone to hyperbole. I talk with my hands. I’m loud. I’m crass. And I don’t understand the point of apologising to someone who stepped on my foot, even if it was stuck out halfway across the train carriage. Watch where you’re going, ass.

One thing all Americans do understand, though, is political turmoil. After all, much like iOS7, our government tends to unexpectedly shut down. So you can see where I could possibly understand Russell Brand and Peter Hitchens, arguing from completely opposite political plains, that the government is fundamentally broken and beyond hope. The only thing is, I don’t understand at all. For like listening to a drunk Sarah Palin talking to a stoned George Bush, it’s all just a bunch of babbling with some laughs here and there.

I’ve already taken Hitchens to task over encouraging young Brits to abandon the ship of state, which he reckoned he “ought to be pleased by.” Likewise, the Telegraph Men columnist, Caroline Kent, did a bang up job in her personal blog (which she Tweeted-so I feel alright citing here) of surmising Brand’s articulate but ultimately incoherent argument; “he is basically just spewing the contents page of the Occupy manifesto in people’s faces,” she wrote, adding that it is “hardly groundbreaking stuff.” Hear, hear.

There’s been a lot of commentary on Brand’s Newsnight interview, and I imagine the story has only just gotten its legs. Less has been written about Peter Hitchens’ comments, because let’s face it, the average Brit hardly knows (or cares) who Hitchens is. But what I haven’t seen is anybody linking their dour pessimism together.

Yes, obviously comparing the two is akin to comparing Chantelle Houghton and Katie Hopkins, but I can’t help but to think that there’s a lesson for those living in the Westminster bubble. I mean, after all, it’s not very often that you’ve got the left and the right agreeing, albeit for very different reasons, that things are, on the whole, quite crap. On last Thursday’s Question Time, David Dimbleby deadpanned that anyone conscious knows the British people are disillusioned, and Russell Brand attributes voter apathy to a betrayal by the system.

In his column for politics.co.uk, though, Phil Scullion points out that “voter apathy grows in societies which are well fed, safe and where people feel they are being dealt with by the state in a just and fair manner.” By his estimation, then, people were most content in 2001, the zenith of the Blair premiership, when voter turnout was lower than at any time since full adult suffrage was achieved. However, in the two subsequent general elections, turnout has steadily increased by two to three points. By this logic, though, people are increasingly fed up. So Brand and Hitchens are right.

According to the other star of the week, they are. I don’t want to spend an endless amount of time analyzing Sir John Major’s windfall tax proposal, but his uncharacteristicly candid foray into policy debate is, at the very least, indicative of a wider concern. “If we Tories navel-gaze and only pander to our comfort zone we will never win general elections,” he cautioned, encouraging the Conservatives to look geographically north and economically down to address the concerns of workaday Britain.

Likewise, sitting opposite Peter Hitchens-figuratively and literally-on Question Time last week was Owen Jones. “There’s a huge disconnect with politics and ordinary people,” he said, going to lambast M.P.s for the same things Sir John cautioned his own party over, recounting a conversation he once had with Hazel Blears who allegedly admitted that there was no one in the Brown government interested in housing issues. Like Sir John, Owen recognises that the average Brit feels completely alienated from their own political process and their representatives. He too sees the writing on the wall.

I’ve sung a similar refrain for some time now. A couple months ago I did an analysis of the increasing support for Ukip over the past four years, pointing out that it hit double digits for the first time in April of this year. The question I was most often asked afterward was whether Ukip was chipping away from Tory votes or Labour votes. What’s interesting isn’t my answer, but that the answer most of my inquisitors offered depended on their political persuasion; Labour blames disenchanted Tories for the Ukip rise, and the Tories think Labour’s natural constituency is moving in favour of the nationalists. Recent opinion polls show Labour’s lead narrowing, with the Tories growth marginal, so it looks like the latter is true. At least now. I imagine most of the Tories that will have already defected.

So at least to here, I agree, with both Hitchens and Brand that the British public are forlorn and weary, not of Broken Britain but of the gits in government. What I don’t agree with, though, is their rhetoric. Phil Scullion hit the nail on its succinct head: “the content delivered by Brand is so often empty populism, wrapped in linguistic window dressing.” Likewise, Hitchens’ incendiary comment that young Brits ought to emigrate before it’s too late does nothing other than garner him the ire he feeds upon. In both cases the only purpose served is fueling the flames of their own vanities.

It doesn’t raise the level of political discourse. And it certainly doesn’t offer any real alternatives to the British people. What it does do is pander to the likes of Ukip and the SNP, fringe parties which feign populist (small p) agendas but which ultimately serve nothing more than their own doctrinal desires. It’s all a bit like listening to another American that Brits (especially Russell Brand), love to hate-Katy Perry: autotuned to sound appealing, but when you strip it to its barest, is nothing more than out of tune superficiality.