Chavism: The new prejudice

Every now and again, I contribute to the Pod Delusion. Recently, I volunteered/was asked to do a piece on why I think the term 'Chav' is a form of class prejudice. Martin Robbins, celebrated Blogger and science journo is the one arguing that 'chav' is not an offensive term. The other side of the argument was my incompetent self. Arguably, this could be seen as yet another form of 'Chav' prejudice.

Anyway, this is the relevant episode of the Pod Delusion.

POD Delusion: Pro-'Chav' Rant

I didn't go to a posh school. There were over a thousand students in my school, but if you added up the A-level Chemistry, Biology and Physics classes, you got 7 students. 3 of those students were me. It was a poorly funded, oversubscribed school. Studying was something you did if you couldn't get a girlfriend. And yes, a lot of my fellow pupils would fall into the social and behavioural groups that many would label 'chavs'. They were from poor backgrounds, they smoked under age, they had little discipline, they all dressed in ways that they considered cool but others would consider stupid. I didn't think of them as 'chavs', though. I thought of them as 'teenagers'.

I was born and raised working class. I might still be working class, I'm not sure what the class criterion are any more. I didn't grow up in a cultured or well-to-do place; when I grew up we lived in a pub in a former Welsh mining valley where unemployment and heavy drinking was the norm. I did go through the usual teenage phase of rebelling against my dad, but seeing as my dad was a hard-fighting hard drinking landlord, my rebellion took the form of staying in and reading books, hence I ended up becoming the sort of person who contributes to the POD delusion. But whenever I see or hear someone described as a 'chav', I do get existentially irked as, in a parallel universe very close to our own, they're talking about me. That's my version 'there but for the grace of God..', by the way. It's a useful quantum/atheist version.

I grew up among so-called 'chavs'. I went to school with them. I imagine a lot of my family could be described as such. Not by me, obviously, they're members of my family. The names I call them are not something you could repeat in polite company.

I want to make it clear that I don't think the sort of people labelled 'chavs' are necessarily good people. They often aren't. But saying that, I'm not that nice a person myself on occasion. And I'm not saying everyone should be nice. Check out the blog of my good friend Ted Shiress. A stand-up comic, Cerebral Palsy sufferer, and he sometimes comes across as a decent bloke. He's not though, he's the most evil person ever made (haphazardly) by nature, and I've said so to his face. In public. Which makes me look bad. So this isn't an issue of me arguing about who I like and don't like, it's as impersonal I can make it.

Nor do I think that everyone who uses the term is being deliberately classist or offensive. But saying that, when I was in infant school I used the word 'Paki' quite often. I had no idea what it actually meant. Growing up in a very small, isolated British community in the 80's, in the context I'd heard it used I thought it was another way of saying 'daft person'. But despite my lack of negative intent, it is still clearly an offensive term, given its origins. And I feel, to a lesser extent maybe, the same can be said of the term 'chav'.

I'm sure Martin Robbins has presented a far more well researched and reasoned argument about why the term 'chav' is not classist or offensive. More so than one I will present anyway. I personally find it difficult to argue about the intent behind the label 'chav' because it seems to mean many things to the many different people I've asked. Some think it means someone who breaks the law, some think it means someone from a council estate who hangs around in bus stops, some seem to think the term applies to anyone with a Burberry cap and false tan. It's very hard to argue about the intent of people using the term when it's not certain what they mean exactly.

But the Wikipedia article for ''chav'' summarises as 'chav' as "aggressive teenagers, of working class background, who repeatedly engage in anti-social behaviour such as street drinking, drug abuse and rowdiness, or other forms of juvenile delinquency". Given the way Wikipedia operates, I'm going to assume enough people agree with this definition for it to be considered accurate.

It suggests that 'chavs' are from working class backgrounds. But obviously, not all working class people are 'chavs'. Apparently, a 'chav' has to engage in illegal, antisocial behaviour to truly be worthy of the label. It seems a 'chav' also has to be a young person.

But however you define it, it seems undeniable to me that the term 'chav' has given many people something they really like having; a convenient form of acceptable prejudice.

Prejudice is, unfortunately, something that is very easy to instill in humans. Check out the famous robbers cave experiment by Muzafer Sherif et al (1954), which took place at an American summer camp, where two groups of young boys, of the same ethnic and social backgrounds, met for the first time, became friends, and were then turned into bitter rivals to the point vicious accusations and attacks after just imposition of a few experimental variables. This wasn't the work of months or weeks, but a couple of days. People form prejudices quickly. It's likely to be an evolutionary consequence of humans living in tight-knit social groups, where other groups turning up were usually potential rivals for resources and living space. Whatever the reason, it happens a lot.

It even happened to me. I'm not afraid of 'chavs' or feral teens or whatever they're called. I went to school with them, I'm habituated to them. I've been unsuccessfully mugged by examples of such people on two separate occasions. Their strategy seemed to rely on me being automatically scared and deferential based on how they came across. I wasn't though, and they had no backup plan, and we just went our separate ways.

But when I went home recently, I was in a cafe and saw a bunch of Burberry clad teens in a bus stop nearby. One left the group and approached the cafe. My first instinct was to move toward the currently unguarded till, thinking I could hold him back from it long enough for someone to call the police (It was a small business). Said teen came into the cafe, went tot he counter, and asked for some more milk to the takeaway coffee under his hoodie, which he had legitimately paid for minutes before I turned up.

I'm the last person who should behave in this manner, but the social stereotyping had got to me in the end, and I didn't even realise it. Ergo, I think the term 'chav' is another form of prejudice. It's a term used to separate and denigrate others who are less fortunate than ones self. When someone calls someone a 'chav', they're not being complimentary. However you define it, the term 'chav' is never a compliment. But saying that, I've heard many arguments about why using the term 'chav' is acceptable.

It has been argued that 'chavs' are self identifying, and as such it's ok to call them that. I admit, I knew many kids who would fit the description of 'chav' in my school. Thing is, I didn't hear the term 'chav' until I got to University. In Cardiff, capital city. I'm not sure if it's still the case, but 'chav' was very much a label imposed on that particular social group, not one they sought out for themselves, and even if they have become accustomed to it and now use it willingly, that doesn't automatically make it OK. Other countries became accustomed to the British Empire, but that doesn't mean they'd prefer not to have been brutally conquered in the first place.

By using the 'self-identifying' argument, it suggests that being a 'chav' is a conscious and thought out choice on behalf of the individual. But 'chavs' are, apparently, young people from deprived backgrounds who are poorly educated and shunned by wider society. In such circumstances, peer pressure and your immediate social groups are all you can rely on, so it's hardly any wonder that they conform. Saying it's a conscious decision suggests that there is an element of choice, but choice requires options, and in certain deprived backgrounds this isn't necessarily the case.

It has been argued that 'chavs' and similar people are just as insulting towards the upper classes when they use terms like Toff, hooray Henry, snob and so on. And that may well be the case, but I don't see how this justifies anything. I've encountered many men who say that feminism means women are just as sexist as men these days, so that effectively cancels their own misogyny out. But I believe that logic is exactly what it seems to be; a flimsy rationalisation for bad behaviour.

Similarly, a class prejudice is not an equivalent two way thing. A working class prejudice to posh people means the latter might think twice before parking their expensive cars in areas they'd never go to anyway. An upper class prejudice to working class people can lead to massive cuts in the public sector

Perhaps that is rather melodramatic, but the underlying reality is that, when one form of prejudice has genuine consequences for the victims and the other does not, they can't be said to be equal at all.

The strongest argument is that 'chavs' are usually criminals, and criminals don't deserve respect. A slightly right-wing argument, but one that rings true for many people. It's a valid point, but not one limited to working class people. The term 'chav' has seemingly moved beyond the criminal arena and moved on to any working class group of youths who like that. Hanging around in a bus stop, wearing too much foundation and drinking white cider, these aren't crimes, but enough to get you labelled a 'chav'. Using other people's money in vast sums in risky, self-gratifying ventures that eventually will threaten the foundations of the world's economy, this is a morally reprehensible action far beyond vandalising a phone box, but it doesn't get you labelled a 'chav'. So being a 'chav' is not necessarily a criminal act.

To summarise, you and your friends can smash up a public establishment. If you're thought of as 'chavs', you'll probably end up with a criminal record or ASBO. If you're in the Bullingdon club, you'll probably end up running the country. You might think the latter accusation is just based on anecdotal evidence. I would argue that the same is true for the former.

All things being equal, there are many things that get someone labelled a 'chav'. Being disrespectful of authority, publicly disruptive, expecting others to provide for them, damaging property of others, antagonising others in large groups, yes these are all the hallmarks of 'chavs'. Thing is, I've heard people refer to the noble UK Uncut movement in exactly the same terms. And the student protests. And many others. None of these are 'chavs', as they have a decent education and political awareness.

I'm not saying the people referred to as 'chavs' are pleasant people. They're generally not, the clichés around them are there for a reason, and it's arguably true that they have no respect for civilised society. But society has never shown any respect for them, and rather than do something to change the situation, society has decided to ridicule and condemn them. I would rather they didn't behave in the way they did, but that goes for people of all classes. But only those of a working class background warrant their own disparaging term, 'chav'. The ones who are least able to alter their situations and behaviour are the ones most condemned for refusing to do so. These people are also the ones least able to retaliate in any appreciable way. The propagation of the word 'chav' is, to me, an example of 'blame the victim' culture writ large.

You may disagree with this entire analysis, and it's your right to do so. After all, 'chavs' are acceptable targets, and nobody wants to lose a useful whipping boy if they can avoid it.

Email: Humourology (at) live.co.uk

Twitter: @garwboy

I'm back, from Outta Space!

Greetings Loyal readers. And Dave.

I've not done one of these for a loooooong time. That thing called a thesis keeps intruding. Recently handed in another draft, which was good overall, apart from being awful in places. The main problem is, for those of you who have a bizarre concern for my progress, that as I didn't do a Psychology BSc but a Neuroscience one (which is the correct way of doing things, if anyone ever asks), I lack the grounding in the correct terminology for discussing animal behavioural processes. I know what I'm talking about, but I don't know how to talk about what I'm talking about.

With me so far? This is a theme which has been prevalent during my blogs thus far, I'm sure you'll have noticed.

Anyhoo, I decided to write the blogs again on the off chance that they take your space from you if you stop. I've had no warning of this, and not heard of it happening to anyone, but given the credit crunch and all that, they might start renting my space out to an ex banker or something. To hell with Stewart Lee, I can do my own satire!

So, you may have noticed there's no link to an article at the top. Usual blog procedure is I find something on a Science news website (99.9% of the time its the BBC news website), discuss it in what I hope is an accurate but amusing manner, people read it, sometimes ponder on it, and promptly forget about it. But as it's my first one in a while I thought I'd discuss my own projects, so feel free to skip ahead to the promptly forgetting part.

Since we last 'spoke', my Science Comedy project 'Humourology' has taken off a bit more than I really anticipated. The story of Humourology thus far goes as follows.

Sometime last year, I believe it was around summertime, I can't be any more specific than that (try and pinpoint the exact time you had a specific thought and you'll see what I mean), I had the brainwave of finally combining my science and comedy experience into one project. At the time there was no title, but the possibility of a night of Science-based stand-up comedy was the general gist of it.

There are plenty of references to Science in comedy, usually with an anti-religion, anti-quackery intentions, or sometimes with the intent of showing off the performers intellectual abilities. The latter isn't always for the best, and relies on the common assumption that all scientists are more intelligent than the average person. This is a bit of an overestimate I feel, scientists just have knowledge of areas that are normally not well understood by the general public. For example, I know several people who are ardent football fans, they can recite team members and layouts going back decades, they can quote word-for-word the commentary during several 90 minute games, they know the problems with strategic structure and tactical approaches, but they aren't considered intelligent because there are many other people who can do the same thing.

Also, anyone who likes sport is a knuckle-dragging primate, so get bent.

But the general theme I've noticed is, if you talk about science without being a scientist, you're an intellectual. If you talk about science and you are a scientist, you're a nerd. Which seems unfair. And this is evidenced by the fact that most comedians who use science aren't scientists themselves. Many comedians who are scientists by trade (Dara O'Briain, Jo Brand, Harry Hill) rarely or never use science jokes.

I find this annoying, so decided it would be a good idea to do a comedy night that, a) Featured scientists doing science comedy on their own terms, or b) featured jokes about science for the sake of science, not as a means of attacking something else.

Seemed like a good idea. And like all of my good ideas, after an initial bout of enthusiasm, it soon died from lack of nourishment. Or more accurately, anticipating an upcoming barren period, entered a hibernation cycle, or dormant state if you were going with a plant analogy. Either way, the metaphor holds together.

Round about October time, I got involved with Laura (Hi Laura) in a purely professional capacity and offered to help out with Cardiff first Science festival that she was organising. I think. Or maybe I was enlisted based on earlier discussions. Either way, it happened.

One of the main reasons I never really got round to doing a science-comedy night to begin with was that I couldn't really see a good reason for doing so. I had my mates on the local scene who would obviously be happy to help put it on and take part, but to what end? The Cardiff comedy scene isn't like London, a lot of our audience are regular, they've seen me before, have no problem with my (or others) science stuff, so what would I achieve by doing such a show for them? As well as disrupting one of the regular nights the other guys run, it would probably look like a vanity exercise on my part, which it wasn't (not just that, anyway).

The point is, I genuinely want to get people to see that Scientists are also people. Regular, idiotic, fallible, bumbling people with opinions and feelings like a normal human. It pisses me off when the animal rights hypocrites attack scientists for being evil, because yeah, they're all massive twats for conducting research that, although unpleasant, could potentially save lives. Bloody Bernard Matthews or Tesco's effectively treat poultry like packing foam and the worst they get is a posh TV chef crying about it. People breed dogs to have skulls too small for their brains, a horrific thing to do, but they don't get their grans dug up and held to ransom, they get rosettes at crufts.

A rant, yes. But I feel it's justified. The reason, I think, that scientists get this over-enthusiastic negative bias is that people see them as detached from the general public. A sort of intellectual class-divide. I want to disprove that. Granted, a lot of scientists are very clever, people accuse me of that very thing, but that doesn't mean we're any better. But we're not nay worse either, and that's the thing I want to emphasise.

But yes, I wanted a night that shows Scientists in a good light. Comedy does that, it makes people like you. Or hate you, but then they laugh at you against their will, which is more impressive in a way.

So, Science festival. What better way to show Joe Public that we're not all borderline-sociopathic dweebs? I have to point out that there are many things with this intention that are ongoing, but to me there's either a sense of preaching to the choir or targeting the younger groups (under 14s, for example), which smacks of just writing off those older as a lost cause. I didn't want to do that, I wanted to put on a Science themed event that allowed alcohol consumption, sex references and the word 'fuck'. Because that's what normal people like (I'm told).

Oddly, the part for me that was the most successful was the preview thing I did at the Science Cafe. I may have mentioned this in another blog, but it was fun, and really did what I hoped for. Then came the first Humourology night. Just to point out, the night was confirmed and I was asked to supply a title asap, 'Humourology' is the best I could do at short notice. It's not good, but it sounds like it should be Latin for 'the science of comedy' (but it isn't). Ironically, the 'humours' were what the Romans believed were the four fluids in the body that maintained health, so the science of humours could be seen as the science of health. In other words, medicine. And what's the best medicine? That's right. It turns out I was being clever all along.

It went well, but it was undeniably a comedy night. This was because nobody (including me, if I'm honest) really knew what the structure was. It was fun, but I was going for a 50-50 science-comedy ratio, ended up being about 35-65 respectively. Still, was fun, people enjoyed.

Didn't know what to do with it then. Felt it still had places to go, but it what capacity. There are thousands (I think) of themed comedy nights around the country, and this triples during the month of August (work it out). But what would this be for?

Basically, I really didn't expect the level of enthusiasm people had for the project. The shows thus far were sell-outs (although free), far more people wanted to be involved than I could have anticipated, the support I was getting was somewhat alarming. Being as self critical as I am (see earlier paragraphs/blogs/routines/diaries) I assumed I'd be fighting an uphill battle at all times with this, but one that I'd enjoy fighting, as long as the risk of death remained as low as it is in normal stand up gigs (Jongleurs is outside the typical range, depending on the city/night/number of stag parties in the crowd).

In March, I organised another gig for NSEW, National Science and Engineering Week, which came a close second to National Pie Week, which occurred on the same week. Clearly, there is much still to be done. But this one was a free gig in the large lecture theatre at Cardiff University Main Building.

That night, had about 100 in again, which is very good for a 'niche' gig. But everyone seemed to enjoy (apart from some bloke on Twitter who felt it was more comedy than Science, and that this was a bad thing). And the use of powerpoint seemed to really help matters. Much easier to incorporate Science material with a screen for your graphs/slides/data/diagrams/pointless pictures. Also, I hosted this night, as the person who organises the bloody things I figured I was the best equipped to explain what was going on. Due to some last minute cancellations, I had to extend my opening bit. Turns out I did nearly 40 minutes, without batting an eyelid, which is impressive. Even more impressive, everyone else seemed to really like it. Add up the intersecting bits from later sections, I've got nearly 60 minutes of stuff there.

But everyone was great that night (except Iszi, who was OK at best, she kept doing stuff about the Beach and I'm not really into that). It really 'worked'.

Since then, I'm booked to do 'Humourology' at Bath Comedy Festival (which is tomorrow), I've got 2 conference gigs lined up, one of which I believe is at the Royal Institute, which may be a first for a comedian. I've got several school speaking events lined up too, apparently I'm some sort of inspiration. Who knew? But I'll keep you posted as to what happens when.

So, long story short, I haven't got a job yet.

Art V Science: Personification

No Article, but here's the upcoming gig I keep referring too

Greetings, seasons wishes and merry new year and all that. First December entry, so I thought I'd get into the spirit of things. And why not start with a bit of self-indulgence and talk about my recent talk? Why not indeed.

I recently did the monthly Science Cafe, which was three days ago as I write this. It's a monthly forum for the open discussion of Science ideas and thinking, or just something novel about the field of science that someone wants to talk about. It's all good, and takes place in the lovely cafe-bar at the Gate, not too far from where I live. So far, so good.

I've never done this before, but am currently promoting an upcoming gig (see link above) which is billed as a science-themed comedy night. Now, I am totally aware that this may be a stupid idea. It may all go horribly wrong, it may be the most confusing gig ever, but I don't think it will be. My hypothesis is that it will be great and a novel experience. But I don't know, this gig is in every way experimental, which is somewhat appropriate.

But if I feel this way, and I'm the one who organised it, surely others will have stronger doubts? Curiosity alone may not be enough to get an audience, which is integral to any gig. So, what we need is strong evidence to support the claim that Science can be funny. Unfortunately, I can't provide that. All I can show are my own efforts at this (see what I did there? Self depreciation? It's all the rage). And that's what I was doing at Science cafe. The concept of science being a valid source of comedy most people consider inter sting in it's own right, but I was to put together a semi-talk, semi-routine to both provide a sneak preview of the gig and a talking point for the assembled masses.

It was a good night. The highlight of which was an almost literal personification of the ongoing clash between art and science. Here's my report of the evening, which may differ wildly if you ask anyone else. That's the problem with subjectivity, it's subjective.

Evening began with the first speaker, Science journalist Dr. Toby Murcott, discussing his talk about 'Why Scientists are always wrong, and why it's a good thing'. The main point he makes is that scientific reports can't offer what the media demands as a straightforward yes or no. When a scientist makes the claim that they definitely know something, then they will invariably be proven wrong with further research. Fair point, but I sort of disagree with the 'scientists are always wrong' claim on similar grounds as that in itself is a definite conclusion. Several examples he used could easily be picked apart, and the people I was with didn't really buy what he was saying, finding their own opinions reaffirmed rather than challenged. But that can happen in any debate, so no worries.

My turn then. Went very well, started talking about my background, school, education, tendencies, and my experience at dealing with the general public, always throwing in as many punchlines or humorous anecdotes as I could, most of which worked very well. This was reassuring, as it's always a risk when you try and do comedy in front of people who aren't out for comedy. It can help or hinder. If it's a music night or something like that, it can be annoying as people think you're just getting in the way. Whereas when it's more a whatever you'd define what I was doing as, people aren't expecting to be made to laugh, so it can be more effective.

Did my talk thing, got laughs, people liked, I got given a card, jobs a goodun. Break, then Q and A with me and the first guy. Most questions are aimed at the first speaker, as he made an actual claim that could be questioned/challenged, whereas my talk seemed to result in a more sort of 'fair enough' response. I said science can be funny, effectively demonstrated it, no worries.

During the Q and A, someone mentioned that school seem to favour arts over sciences when teaching. Toby came up with some reasoning, can't remember it now. At this point, our roles seemed to be that of someone asks him a question, he gives a very long answer, I jump in at the end with a humorous observation, move on. I simplified his argument, in what I thought was a clearly jokey manner, by pointing out that schools need high pass levels, and arts are easier, turning to the rest of the room and declaring "We've all thought it, don't deny it!". Much laughter. Followed by shriek of disapproval.

Intense looking middle-aged woman at the back takes exception to my ribbing. She did an arts degree. There followed some back and forth which seemed to kick off a room-wide debate. I will know highlight the main point made and my thoughts therein, and where they deviate from what I said if this occurred.

Arts woman:
"I have an arts degree" (I can't disprove that either way, lets take it as true).

"Arts subjects are just as hard as science!" (I had made no claim to the contrary, it was clearly a joke I thought, but her statement was overconfident, as she has no basis of comparison to test her claims, at best it seems to be based largely on the fact that she found her arts subject difficult but assumed she's equally/more intelligent than most people)

"Anyone could do science if you (an aggressive 'you', meaning all scientists present) just demystified it!" (A bizarre claim. Science, with it's rigid structure, logic, cause and effect mentality and absolute adherence to the laws of nature, where every claim has to be rigorously tested with approved methods and be sanctioned by a group of well informed experts and every published piece has to be explained meticulously, that's mysterious. Whereas arts, a largely subjective medium based on a shared belief system, personal opinion and with no measurable qualities, that's perfectly normal. In fairness, someone nearby immediately replied 'you could say that about arts'. Arts lady attempted to be more precise)

"But you can do arts, and you can't do science. (looks at me) I could get up and do stand-up (she really couldn't, but I was very tempted to let her try) but I couldn't just go and be a neuroscientist if I wanted! (no, she couldn't. This seemed to mean that you have to be a scientist to do science, whereas anyone can be an artist, a claim which normally enrages artists as it cheapens their profession/talent/livelihood etc. She appears to resent the fact that us scientists keep it away from the public. This is clearly just a malicious attempt on our part to keep 'normal' people in awe of us. Rather than, say, some rational attempt to stop the system collapsing entirely. Would you fly on a plain where the pilot was someone who just fancied having a go? I doubt it. Everyone is allowed to do science, as long as they know how things work, and that takes a bit of learning. What do you get if you do 'science' without knowing how things work? Homeopathy, bogus medication and Gillian McKeith, that's what you get).

Me in response
"I don't believe that scientists are any more intelligent than artists overall" (This is true, it's a ridiculous thing to say, like all women are bad drivers, such a sweeping statement can never be true. Plus I've met some incredibly stupid people who are qualified scientists. A scientist invented homeopathy, don't forget)

"I would never claim to be more intelligent than someone just because I'm a scientist" (I wouldn't it's true) Art's lady: You're not more intelligent than me (All evidence to the contrary thus far). Me: That's what I said (in a way). Arts lady: ....

"Science is seen as complex and difficult, so anyone who does it is believed to be more intelligent, but it's just another form of intelligence. You could have someone who's just as good at music as I am at Neuroscience, that would make us equally "intelligent" (I didn't mention the quote marks while talking out loud, but you get the idea) But you ask most people they'll say I'm the smarter one. I have no clue whatsoever as to how music works, but because it's more common, to more people it's not as impressive, that's the only reason scientists are seen as they are. If people can get over this misconception then we'll all be happier." (I believe all this)

This went on for some time, I managed to maintain the moral high-ground by not getting into a slanging match. It was obvious that most people in the room were not on her side, and I was coming across as the more rational, thoughtful, considerate person. it was Obama V McCain all over again (this is what I was told afterwards, not an arrogant self-appraisal)

The sad thing is I believe what I said. She'd turned up to an event called science cafe clearly expecting a dispute and to score some points off the arrogant boffins who think they're so smart, and she was going to get her argument even if no-one was willing to give it. So what we got was the scientist on one side, making calm statements, taking opinions on board and thinking rationally about the claims being made, and the artist on the other side, shouting passionately about their own opinions which made no sense and no-one agreed with but fuelled largely by self belief. Ironic how the person defending the artists was probably the worst possible ambassador. But not to worry, she'll be fine, she clearly was the sort of person who's convinced they've won a non existent argument in spite of all evidence.

But it was a fun night overall. I hope she comes to the gig this Sunday, it'll be a rude awakening. I was being polite and restrained because of where we were. Some of my fellow comics aren't so generous, if she wants to shout her mouth off again she might as well paint a target on her face. So, if anyone's free, anyone fancy walking round an art gallery shouting 'This Is Bollocks'! as loud as possible? See if they show similar restraint?