Stop the love-in

There are few people in the public eye now that can be described as "best-loved". In days gone by Britain's best-loved sitcom was Only Fools and Horses; best-loved magician Tommy Cooper; best-loved double act Morecambe and Wise and best-loved royal Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother.

Now people are liked rather than loved. Tolerated for a brief time until they are no longer wanted.

This doesn't stop publishers referring to "best-loved". I have already commented on Julian Clary who is not one of Britain's "best-loved entertainers" despite what his publishers may think.

Two more incidences arise. Richard Hammond is "one of Britain's best-love television presenters" and Graham McCann is apparently "Britain's best-loved showbiz writer".

This is plainly nonsense.

As with Clary, when was the last time you heard someone say, "We must watch telly tonight Richard Hammond's on"?

And Graham McCann is not "Britain's best-loved showbiz writer" for two simple reasons: one, Britain does not have a best-loved showbiz writer, and two, no one has ever heard of him.

Enough of the luvvieness.

Enough with the Elton John obsession

I like GQ. At the moment it is probably my favourite magazine. However, the obsession with Elton John in the November issue is wearing a little thin.

The edition celebrates the GQ Man of the Year Awards, a ceremony which was hosted by Elton John - so it is fair that he is mentioned there.

I am sure that Sir Elton is a very nice man. However, is it really necessary for Simon Kelner to tell us what "Elton and David's favourite restaurant" is during an interview with Christian Slater?

Or for Nick Foulkes to mention the singer several times in the opening paragraphs of his story about watches?

Frankly, I don't care where "Elton and David" eat. I couldn't give a monkey's about the "jeweller to the court of Sir Elton".

GQ is supposedly an aspirational mag for thirty- and fortysomethings. Sir Elton is in his sixties and rich beyond the dreams of avarice. More to the point, I believe that 90 per cent of the readers don't aspire to be like him...

The Diana bandwagon rolls on...and on

On 31 August 1997 a woman and her boyfriend were killed when the car they were in, driven by a drunk, crashed in an underground tunnel in Paris.

Neither were wearing seat belts.

On Tuesday 2 October 2007 an inquest opened into the woman's death – it is expected to last six months and cost the British taxpayer £10million.

Why is this farrago allowed to go on?

Diana, Princess of Wales died because she was not wearing a seat belt and the driver of the car she was travelling in was driving too fast. That is the beginning and end of the story.

There was no assassination plot.

There was no MI6 involvement.

Prince Philip did not authorise a murder.

Diana was not pregnant.

Can we now please move on?

Criminal stupidity

I have several books on true crime on my shelves and a few are devoted to stupid criminals. This case takes some beating.

Stewart Monk, 28, of Ackerley Court, Ashford, Kent, who worked as an on-board trolley steward for Rail Gourmet on trains between Kent and London, admitted making 11 false bomb threats concerning Charing Cross and Ashford International stations.

A stupid thing to do at the best of times but Monk made nine of the threats from his own mobile phone.

He was sent to prison for two and a half years - presumably six months for his threats and two years for being terminally stupid.

The over-selling of Clary

Recently, I was browsing in a bookshop when I saw a new novel written by Julian Clary. Obviously, I didn't buy it – that only encourages them.

However, I was surprised that the blurb said, “Julian Clary is one of Britain’s best-loved entertainers”.

No, he’s not. He has a extremely limited appeal to a very niche market. When was the last time you heard someone say, “Oooh, we must stay in tonight (or set the TiVo) Julian Clary’s on the telly”?

Sometimes prison does work...

The wife of convicted paedophile Chris Langham has said that he is being bullied and tormented in prison.

Apparently, he has been pelted with missiles, his cell has been flooded and the screws are ignoring him.

Oh dear. What a pity. Never mind.

Keep Arsenal English

Once again my club is on the front pages of the national newspapers for reasons that have nothing to do with football.

Former vice-chairman David Dein who was sacked in April has sold his shares in Arsenal for £75million to a Russian chap and then become chairman of the company, Red and White Holdings, set up for the shareholding.

Dein wanted the club to be taken over by the American Stan Kroenke because he believes that the club cannot compete unless there is a huge injection of cash - from a foreign buyer.

The Arsenal board has signed a memorandum agreeing not to sell until April 2008 at the earliest. Will they sell then? I hope not.

Do foreign buyers actually make any difference? Chelsea have won the premiership and the FA Cup twice each since they were bought by Roman Abramovich in 2003. It is generally agreed that the Russian oligarch has put money into the club.

On 6 February 2007 Liverpool were bought by two American businessmen, George Gillett and Tom Hicks. It is obviously too early to say if that purchase has had any positive effect on the Anfield club.

When Malcolm Glazier bought Manchester United on 12 May 2005, against the wishes of many fans, his supporters claimed that he would invest in the club. As far as I am aware that has not happened.

Back to Arsenal.

The board has invested hundreds of millions of pounds in the new Emirates Stadium. It is a long-term plan that won't see money recouped for several years. Why would they sell to a foreign businessman so that he can benefit from all their hard work? Unless he paid well over the odds, it would not make sense to them. If he did pay over the odds to compensate for future losses, it would not make sense to the business tycoon.

I hope that they don't.