Jon Richardson - A Little Bit OCD

First Broadcast: 
Tuesday 24 July at 22:00
Channel 4
Open Mike Productions Ltd.

This programme, as part of The Channel 4 Goes Mad season, really intrigued me.  I have always wondered what defines OCD, and I really enjoyed the fact that it was a well-known comedian, Jon Richardson, who was exploring the details.  It made the programme feel much more real, as Jon feels he has experienced some level of OCD in the past.  In the programme, he sets out to find out how OCD really affects people's lives, and if he has the disorder himself. 

"So do I have a medical disorder, or am I just an annoying man who has to have everything exactly the way he wants?"

Around 1 million people in the UK have OCD, and as part of his investigation, Jon meets a number of people who have all been affected by it at some level. He goes on a short walk with fellow comedian, Tom Rosenthal, on which they both make comments on the rules of which parts of the pavement you are allowed to walk on.  He also speaks to his flatmates, who have to try and live around Jon's minor compulsions, such as having the butter spread evenly in the tub "like a beach, just after the tide's washed out." 

This is all very light-hearted,  but Jon's compulsions gradually begin to come across as more problematic.

He tells of how angry he gets when people enter his bedroom: "This is the only little bit of the earth that is mine."  He also meets his old flatmates, including comedian Russell Howard, and tells them of how he used to sleep in his car because he couldn't live in the untidy environment that they had created within the flat.  In an attempt to justify himself, he says, "I deserve to be unhappy for wanting it a certain way."

But, no matter how serious Jon's problems are portrayed in the programme, the people he meet demonstrate lives that are on the brink of unbearable.  He visits a woman called Gemma, who is obsessed with cleaning.  Her compulsion is so strong that she can't even allow Jon to enter her home as she doesn't feel it is clean enough, even though she had been preparing for his visit.  She spends hours creating lists of objects needing to be cleaned, but often achieves nothing.  She even dusts individual sheets of paper.  

Reaching higher levels of compulsion, he meets Joyce, a woman who has had OCD passed down her genetically, and whom had passed it onto her son too.  Her son had so much potential, but unfortunately could not live with his extreme OCD and committed suicide.  Joyce even said, "I'd have rather not been born than have my son die like that."  That sentence was the horrifying crux of the programme.

It is really interesting to see the shock on Jon's face when being told this story.  I enjoy seeing comedians out of their comfort zone - it adds emotional depth to the programme, because we are so used to seeing only the humorous side of these people.  It was the first time in the programme, or ever, I had seen Jon Richardson without a cheeky smile on his face.

The programme was fantastically informative.  In the end, Jon was "diagnosed" as a perfectionist, not as having OCD, and I like to think that the people he met while filming the programme and the tough experiences he learned of will prevent him from developing OCD in the future.  

"I feel I have Obsessive Compulsive Order, so my brain works in a measured and maticulous way.  I keep my forks a certain way and I smooth my margerine over, but I'm happy with that."

Are we all... just a little bit OCD?

Image from: www.channel4.com/programmes/jon-richardson-a-little-bit-ocd

Gordon Behind Bars - Episode 4

First Broadcast: 
Tuesday 17 July 2012 at 21:00
Channel 4
One Potato Two Potato

So, after watching this final episode of Gordon Behind Bars, are my opinions still the same as the ones I formed after watching episode 1?

Slightly.

I thought the concept was brilliant.  But I didn't realise that the prisoners were going to produce one product, and one product alone.  Can a lemon treacle slice really solve all the problems that prisoner's have caused within society?

No, but it's a start.  And that is what's important.

At the beginning, I judged the prisoners.  They represented lives I would never want to be a part of.  And I have no shame in this - the prisoners had all committed crimes to get to the positions they were in.

But in this episode, I feel, as viewers, our opinions were being manipulated to support the prisoners in some way.  We were supposed to feel sorry for them, and be proud of them for the hard work they were putting in.

"Today, in my mind, I've forgotten the word, 'prisoner,' and they've turned into cooks." - Gordon Ramsay

I am happy to go along with this, when I feel that the prisoners are going to make an attempt to reform.  But are these prisoners that dedicated?

Yes, I believe a lot of them are, especially after receiving Gordon's help.  But one prisoner certainly wasn't.

Paul had a drug problem before entering jail.  In order to help him make something of his life, Gordon gave him work experience in the kitchen at one of his top restaurants, The Savoy, and, provided that he stayed off drugs, he would give him a job at the end of it.

Surprise, surprise, Paul went back onto drugs and threw the opportunity away.

This moment made me really angry and highlighted the mood of the series for me.  Do these prisoners really deserve our help, or Gordon's?

Situations like this answer that question in my mind with a straight, 'no.'  But I understand that Paul does not represent all prisoners.

I did enjoy the series - I found it really interesting to see the lives behind the bars and how these people reacted to the proposition of hard work.  I was pleasantly surprised, and I'm really happy that Gordon's project is having a positive effect on the prisoners.

"This course has made me happy inside, makes me wanna get up in the morning, makes me want to strive to be someone, to do something, y'know, with my life." - David Jones

I fully support anything that will stop prisoners committing crimes over and over again.  I enjoy seeing people reform, succeed and make something of their lives.

I just wish that Gordon could have shown more faith in the project continuing after his departure.  The series closed with his single favourite word:

"F**k."

Undercover Boss - Episode 3 - Paddy Power

First broadcast:
Monday 16 July 2012 at 21:00
Channel 4
Studio Lambert Ltd.

Well, I decided to watch this programme because I had got myself all settled down ready to watch The Riots: In Their Own Words on BBC2.  Unfortunately, a court judge prevented this programme being shown (grrr), so I switched over to Undercover Boss.

For those who have never seen it, Undercover Boss involves someone who is very high up in a company, such as the director, going undercover and posing as a new employee in their own company.  They do the dirty work at the bottom of the chain, and get a feel of what it is like, and what needs to be changed in order to increase profitablity.  They then invite the employees they met to head office (in this case - "Power Tower" - oh dear), and put right the wrongs they discovered.  This is usually in the form of a pay rise, or a free holiday.

I actually think the concept is really strong - it is really interesting to see how the big guys cope doing the dirty jobs - but only if the company are prepared to research into every branch and every employee in their chain, to make a fair change.  

Paddy Power has 400 branches, yet the undercover boss, William Reeve posing as Sam Palmer, only visited 3 or 4 of these shops, and met around 5 employees.

Yes, it is wonderful that he was able to meet these employees needs' and reward them for their hard work and effort.  I am not saying that these people do not deserve it, but what about the large number of other employees that "Sam" did not bother going to meet? They could be more hard-working and in more need of help.

One employee got given the chance to go and work in a branch in Australia, after his application to change jobs within the company had previously been lost.  Had they checked if any other applications had been lost? How could they?

Two other employees got given a £5000 holiday each for them and their families.  He then issued a company-wide extra day's holiday.  It's hardly the same thing.

One manager was thanked for her hard work and told that the company would put £20,000 into relaunching her shop.  Yes, this is beneficial to the company, and not just one employee, but 1 shop of 400 is hardly a monumental change.

I would be very intrigued to see a follow up programme to all episodes in the Undercover Boss series, highlighting the differences the show has made to the individual companies.  I worry that this programme would only consist of a couple of refurbished shops and some holiday snaps.

I think the idea behind the programme is genius, but conducting company-wide research is one aspect that I would like the programme to introduce in future series.

Image from www.channel4.com/programmes/undercover-boss

The Town That Never Retired - Episode 2

First Broadcast:
Thursday 12 July 2012 at 21:00
BBC One
Silver River Productions





I was highly intrigued by the concept of this programme.  With the state pension age rising in the UK, older people are to be expected to work much longer into their lives.  This programme conducted a study to investigate how feasible this is going to be.

"If you take a newborn today, it's quite likely that their state pension age will have to be 77... If you think on to our children's children or your grandchildren's children, their state pension age could easily be into their 80s." 
- Raj Mody - Head of UK Pensions PwC

This is a scary thought, but only in this day and age.  If, in the future, people are to have a greater life expectancy, then they should be fitter and more able to work when they 80 compared to the 80 year-olds of today.

Nick Hewer, who is presenting the programme alongside the brilliant Margaret Mountford, asks the question:

"Even if we are still raring to go, will anyone want to employ us?"

In order to gain an answer, they put pensioners back to work, and in this second episode, put them up against people of a younger age.


The problem I can see with this experiment is that the young people were hopeless!  They didn't represent the younger generation of workers at all.  I'm 19, I've been working since I was 15, and I was totally shocked and angered by the attitude of these young workers, particularly in comparison to the enthusiasm of the pensioners.

A lot of the younger people didn't even bother showing up to work, often pulling a sickie.  I do wonder if these layabouts were selected because of this trait, as you'd think the workers would make more of an effort, seeing as they're representing their generation in the UK on television.  It angered me because I know that I am much more  hard-working than them, and I know a lot of people of my age that are equally capable, yet our generation is being made to look like we're lazy and incompetent.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the programme.  I like watching programmes that enable me to have a good rant.  I am also big fans of the presenters, due to my abnormal obsession with BBC's The Apprentice.  I just feel that the experiment was flawed.  The older generation wouldn't have cut the mustard if the programme had employed younger people with more work ethic.  Not to discriminate the older generation - a lot of them aren't computer literate,  but that's simply because they haven't grown up using this kind of technology. This, combined with the fast pace of the working environment would have put the younger generation further ahead.

The programme is looking well into the future anyway, when people are expected to live longer, and therefore, work longer, so why put the pensioners of today back to work in order to gain an understanding?

Image from www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00tt325 

Cherry Healey: How to Get a Life - Episode 4 - How prejudiced are we?

First Broadcast: 
Wednesday 11 July 2012 at 21:00
BBC Three
Renegade Pictures (UK) Ltd.






As a society, we initially judge people on their appearance.  We all do.

But that's not a fault on our part.  That's how we are made  - our eyes gather information much more quickly than our ears.  If someone us speaking to us, we can see them directly, whereas our ears have to wait until the end of the sentence to process an adequate opinion.

I watched this programme to open my eyes. And it did.  But even though I learned a lot from watching the programme, it hasn't changed my views completely.

Cherry met a few people who are fed up of being judged purely on their appearance. But everyone is.

Alison is in a wheelchair, and is also very independent.  As society, we look at people in wheelchairs as people who need help, and Alison has shown that this isn't the case.  She says that if she needs help, she will ask for it.

I feel this puts able-bodied people in a difficult position.  We are never sure if we should offer help, because we do not want to steal a disabled person's independence away from them, but we also do not want to come across as rude for not offering help.  An act of kindness could become an annoyance, and have the opposite effect to the one that was intended.

I really admire Alison.  She is persuing her dream just as she would have had she not had the accident.  She even says she is doing it to spite her wheelchair - "Ha, you're not going to control me and ruin my life."

I know you have to go through a situation like that to really understand what it's like, and she's made me re-think the way I see people in wheelchairs.  Just because they cannot walk, they do not always require help.

I also admired Rebecca the firefighter.  Her strength and determination shows that she really should not be a victim of prejudice - she is just as capable as men.

Moving on to Gurdev, who is a Sikh and carries around a dagger under his jacket as an essential symbol of his religion.  I can fully understand how prejudiced views can take over.  Knife crime is on the rise on the UK and it's very understandable that a lot of people would find it difficult to trust someone who carries around a dagger, and would even see them as a threat.  This, to me, is the only truly controversial issue covered in the programme, as the prejudiced views are actually making an attempt to stop someone fully persuing their religion.

As with every other episode in this series, I admired Cherry's honesty. 

At the beginning of every programme, she expresses her concerns, saying that she feels the world is running away from her, whilst, on the screen, we see her standing with the goings-on of the city sped up behind her - an effect which makes her honesty relate to the real world and also, us. With her revealing her thoughts so openly, the programme helps us come to terms with our own opinions and not feel so guilty about them.


“What unites us is our desire to be treated as individuals.”

Image from: www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01k77mc