I don't know much about cricket, but I recognise a great, steaming narcissist when I see one. Told on 5 Live of Michael Yardy's decision to leave the World Cup squad, before England's quarter final against Sri Lanka, Geoffrey Boycott immediately decided it was something he'd said. "He must have been reading my comments about his bowling. It must have upset him." Yes, Geoff, it's all about you.
Boycott proceeded to criticise Yardy's playing style ("liability", "poor choice"), until the BBC reporter pointed out that Yardy was suffering from depression. Boycott replied that he didn't understand depression and didn't feel qualified to comment on it.
Boycott then said: "I've been, with respect, a better player… so I've not been in the position where my quality of play has been poor and got to me mind-wise." Boycott proceeded to muse on his own setbacks and lack of depression: "I've been lucky, I've been good enough." Did you hear that, Michael Yardy, this depression you've got is all about not being up to scratch. YOU ARE NOT GOOD ENOUGH, MICHAEL YARDY! Let's hope this makes you feel better.
Boycott is wasted on cricket commentating – he should be set to work by the Samaritans, talking depressed sportspeople down from ledges. "What's wrong, lad, was it something I said or wrote? Is it getting to you that you're no good – not as good as I used to be?… oh bloody hell, there goes another one, best fetch the shovel."
The crippling effects of depression generally, and depression in sports-people in particular, were widely documented last week and, in fairness to Boycott, he never set himself up as an expert. Nor did anyone expect (or want) Boycott to start weeping, or lighting incense sticks for Yardy. Still, this is a grown man entering his 70s, a pundit for decades – one would have thought he'd understand the basic mechanics of empathy.
If Michael Yardy is suffering from depression, his sporting form is neither here nor there, and to suggest otherwise is painfully crass. Then again, this is Geoff Boycott – such a "character". Even now, one imagines that Boycott's supporters will be reaching once again for the trusty "gruff Yorkshireman" defence. "He says how he sees/he tells it like he is/like it or lump it." Except isn't this all wearing a bit thin now? Not to mention a bit hard on Yorkshire?
As I was born in Yorkshire, may I be "gruff", maybe even a bit rough, with Geoff? Whatever he may have soppy clueless Southerners believe, Yorkshire is not exclusively populated by rude, tactless, potentially undiagnosed sufferers of narcissistic personality disorder. It may be a general northern trait to speak one's mind, but that alone does not excuse the towering crassness displayed by Boycott. There is something rather non-Yorkshire about Boycott's self-absorption and relentless bigging-up of himself, displayed even in this one isolated incident.
It could have been worse. Boycott could have suggested that Yardy relieve his stress by taking it out on a woman (Boycott was convicted of assaulting his girlfriend, Margaret Moore, in 1998). Not that Boycott would probably want this mentioned; like so many who pride themselves on being "gruff", he sometimes seems a little sensitive, thin-skinned, about matters pertaining to himself.
One hopes that Yardy is aware that, like Marcus Trescothick before him, he has shown a great deal of courage "coming out" about his depression. I use that term advisedly. In the macho sporting culture, even in these relatively enlightened times, coming out as mentally ill must be almost as frightening as coming out as gay. As for Boycott, he should stick to what people tell me he's good at (commentating), leave Yardy's diagnosis to professionals ("No, Mr Yardy, there is no such thing as 'bad bowling-inspired clinical depression'") and be mindful of his own glasshouse when he next feels like throwing stones.
Golly, what year do they think it is?
Married couple and would-be councillors Bill and Star Etheridgecorrect resigned from the Tory party after being suspended for posing on Facebook, clutching golliwogs. Mr Etheridge has now joined Ukip, with the couple, both campaigners against political correctness, saying the stunt was to provoke debate about what they view as a "harmless toy".
Hark, do I hear yonder an anti-PC choir: "What happened to free speech?" "Blimey, can't you say what you think anymore?" (Repeat ad nauseam.)
Far from this being an example of "political correctness gone mad", it seems to me that it's the Etheridges who are over-reacting. It doesn't matter that golliwogs were banished from jam jars or Enid Blyton books. The true reason they disappeared was that British people decided en masse that the dolls were racist and creepy and stopped buying them for their children.
For their part, British children survived their golly-deprivation – there have been no scenes of heartbreak on Christmas morning, with disappointed kids kicking the tree, wailing: "Where is my crude black caricature?" Generally, modern children seem happy with their Buzz Lightyears and Xboxes.
Nevertheless, the anti-PC brigade persists in conjuring scenes of subterfuge and repression. In truth, British society moves on, not because it has been forced to by PC tsars, but because of natural wastage. Britons instinctively find their own default cultural setting and, for obvious reasons, the likes of golliwogs and The Black and White Minstrel Show aren't making the cut in 2011.
With this in mind, what are people such as the Etheridges trying to prove with their golliwogs? There seems to be certain element that likes to style itself as "anti-PC", when at best they are tragically dated or, at worst, catering to the lowest common denominator. You could call it anti-political correctness gone mad.
The truth about Jack Nicholson and actresses
A new book claims that the sex scene between Donald Sutherland and Julie Christie in Nic Roeg's Don't Look Now was real. Yawn. This is one of those persistent Hollywood rumours, on a par with Jack Nicholson and Jessica Lange fornicating on the kitchen table in A Postman Always Rings Twice, always denied by the actresses, not that truth is allowed to get in the way of cinematic misogyny.
Sex scenes are professional minefields for actresses, which is why, once they are established, they opt for "no nudity" clauses and body doubles. It's not about prudery, it's about having enough power to say no. "Real sex" rumours are the most misogynistic of all, elevating the man and diminishing successful actresses to the level of porn stars, happy to screw for real on film.
Still, every cloud… the male star's reaction is a good litmus test of their character. While Nicholson, the berk, has always relished the Postman gossip, Sutherland has staunchly denied the rumours and defended Christie. This says everything you need to know about these two men. On a wider level, it illuminates the ugly side of an industry that views women as meat.
