Archive for rubbish

Pretentious crap

Posted in Adverts, Venting with tags , , , , on August 27, 2008 by Apollo

If you knew me, you’d know the utter scorn and contempt I hold for “designers” and “designer labels” – as distinct from real designers, people who creates plan to be used in making something (such as buildings). Their “design” has nothing to do with real design, other than the design of a plan to fleece the weak-minded out of their money by brain-washing, or rather conning, them into believing that some piece of worthless tat actually gains some sort of almost priceless status because it has a “name” stuck onto it.

A worthless piece of clothing stitched together by the bleeding fingers of a child in India, grateful for the few pennies they are given for spending the daylight hours of their childhood assembling, is sold for hundreds or even thousands by a big name company fronted by lawyers who plead ignorance of these events on their behalf.

I won’t be seen dead in anything with a label on it, and if I pick something up in a sale, will happily sit an pick out the stitching, or obscure it some way if it is bonded on in some way.

The last piece of rubbish I picked up for a few pennies in a sale was clearly labelled by someone who had been playing in the Magic Mushroom Field, and the crazy label content is worth quoting here, before I throw the labels in the bin. I think the original came from some delusional copywriter employed by Tesco, if I’ve identified the brand correctly.

This was written on a lightweight jacket, and quite what it has to do with a piece of cheap clothing is beyond me, as is the mentality of the Sales & Marketing (and “designer” loony) that thought it added any value to the thing:

(I might add that the spelling of their as there below is as per the label, not my mistyping.)

A & H
by Angels & Heroes






What a pity that their “CLOSE ATTENTION TO DETAIL” doesn’t extend to spellchecking their own wording on their own labelling.

It makes you wonder if they also made a mess of the last line, and actually meant to refer to their garments being unique, rather then the wearers, and should have said:


I’d just like to know what ancient myths, legends, angels, heroes, and gods have got to do with a lightweight, summer, leisure jacket.


Johnny Smith go home

Posted in TV, Venting with tags , , , , , on March 23, 2008 by Apollo

dirty lil boyWatching Channel Five’s Fifth Gear motoring programme is becoming really depressing. Woolly mop head Tom Ford is becoming the best full time presenter, as Vicki Butler Henderson’s endless guffaws are becoming more numerous during her reports, and are very tiresome and irritating. However, turn the sound down and her driving is still entertaining, even if you lose the point of the report as a result.

No, the depression comes every week when the pointless Johnny Smith makes his appearance.

What’s he there for?

In terms of intelligence, my cat demonstrates more sense and intelligence than this moron. Ever since he turned up, his items have been characterised as being little more than the rambling of an immature schoolboy, and every time I see him, all I can think of is the time this boy genius bolted a Smart car on to the roof of another Smart car, in the name of making a four-seater, and was then surprised when the pair rolled over as he demonstrated his driving skills.

His items are all in a similar vein, making you wonder how much he is paid to waste the programme’s time.

The thing I’ve never understood is what he thinks he looks like. Generally a shabby mess, he dresses in what looks like clothes rejected by a charity shop, and that they would have burnt as ‘irrecoverable’. From a distance, his face looks as if he sits with a black ‘Magic Marker’ and draws silly shaped sideburns on his cheeks, and a comical sliver of a beard down his chin. The reality is worse, and when the camera offers a closeup, then the result can only be described as horrific. The ‘beard’ and sideburns are real, but his skin looks like something that would send a beautician running for the hills, with the pores blocked solid with blackheads – or at least that’s what the director’s chosen camera shot and angle make it look like like.

No wonder the talent of the show, Tiff Needell and Jason Plato, make light of their appearances, and don’t appear in the main stream, just articles. They’ve probably got terms written in their contract to ensure that the programme is structured such that they remained distanced from direct association with the the other three, which could ruin their credibility… more.

I wish we could get back to simple motoring programmes, where the presenters aren’t chosen to be ‘stars’. Top Gear’s too full of itself and its larger than life presenters, AND has sold out to the cult of celebrity with free publicity for a ‘Star’ every week. Recent addition Vroom Vroom is so puerile, using an assortment of bimbos to flesh out its brainless car tests. The Used Car Road Show largely manages to hit the spot, but suffers some from vacuous moments (the dolly bird and the superfluous auction story each week, where she advises the buyer with gems such as – “Jason says it’s a good idea to start the engine and see of any warning lights come on, and listen to the engine” Duh!), and being stretched to fill an hour long slot. Possibly the best offering that manages to avoid celebrities, not insult the viewer, review real cars -with supercars appearing only occasionally for a little spice – is Pulling Power. The only problem seems to be the director’s overuse of the same piece of musical punctuation and logo between items – it seems to appear every time the presenter paused for breath, and the shortness of the programme. Little time is left for it in a half hour slot once the starting and ending credits and adverts are allowed for, and the ad-break takes place in the middle.

Rubbish Telly

Posted in TV with tags on January 11, 2008 by Apollo

Hot on the heels of of my mention of Quality Telly, along comes a classic example of today’s Rubbish Telly.

The sad thing is that it relates to factual content, and shows how many such programmes are becoming trivialised by their lack of objectivity as they are being produced by people with a personal message that they are using their privileged position to present, instead of presnting their subject from a neutral, or balanced perspective.

Last night we had a programme in the Dispatches series on Channel 4, outwardly promoted in its pre-publicity blurb as some sort of expose of how the supermarkets are lying to their customers on the labelling describing the contents of their products.

Instead of learning something of value and interest (and I have to declare here that the presentation was so poor and irritating that I kept channel-hopping while it was on), all we seemed to be treated to was the presenters campaign against the various methods of labelling, and an incessant moan about how all the supermarkets were not forced by the Government to use the same labelling system. At no point did we appear to be presented with any basis for the apparent pre-programme publicity that the supermarkets were lying anywhere, and the presenters problem seemed to be that they were simply too thick, and assumed that everyone else was similarly thick, and couldn’t read the label and make any sort of decision based on what was reported there.

They want labels colour coded, so that we (rather they) can see whether the contents are low, medium, or high, in respect of the amount of any particular constituent eg salt, sugar etc. While I’m sure this may seem like a good solution to them, this is a joke, as it means that they don’t have to decide, and can rely on someone else to decide exactly what constitutes high, medium, or low. To see what a farce such a system is (as opposed to simply reporting the amounts on the label), one simply has to look at the steadily falling figure given by the Government for ‘safe’ alcohol consumption over the years. Outwardly a simple figure of ‘alcohol units’, with one for men and one for women, it remains ignored, with consumers not having a clue what a unit is, how it relates to the different strengths of drink available, and clueless when it comes to assessing how the figure varies for a sub-10 stone featherweight, and a 20 stone man-mountain. They just ignore it, drink what they want, and have a good binge to forget it.

The programme (maker) tried to make points about the labelling and methods of reporting the contents, but the best they could come up with was griping about thinks like the cereal manufacturers quoting 30 gramme servings. They rubbished this by giving some kids a bowl and a packet of cereal, and coming up with the shock surprise result that most kids poured themselves a larger helping than 30 grammes, and then rubbished the figure because no-one knew what 30 grammes was anyway.

After that sort of stupid comment, one is left wondering if the maker was truly interested in their subject, or just filling a programme slot, and earning a commission for doing so.

Why was the comment stupid? Well, if the consumers the programme is so keen to provide with ‘correct’ information about the content of the product are smart enough to be as concerned as it claims, aren’t they going to have at least some sort of a clue about what 30 grammes of product is?