I also had the chance to give my new digital camera a workout and some of the best pictures are reproduced below for your viewing pleasure.

It’s worth reading the whole thing: 32 pages of crisp, clear images to explain how the American armed forces will discharge soldiers, regardless of their service record, for a completely unfair reason.

In some quarters, this admission will land me with Cliff Richard fans and bus-spotters in the credibility stakes. However, I think that those who automatically dismiss studio sitcoms as a relic from the past are missing out on a treat, and I shall try to explain why.

The mainstay of television comedy, from the fuzzy black and white era right up to the late 90s, was the studio sitcom. Shows such as Hancock’s Half Hour, Dad’s Army, Fawlty Towers, The Young Ones, One Foot in the Grave and Father Ted are fondly remembered by successive generations.

The audience sitcom has gone rather out of fashion in the 21st century, however, with the arrival of the “realistic” comedy in the shape of shows like The Royle Family and (of course) The Office, with a rather more subtle style of humour than the larger-than-life characters and farcical situations favoured by most traditional sitcoms.

In Extras a key plot point was the crap sitcom When The Whistle Blows, a show whose success seems to entirely revolve around the lead character’s spouting of a lame catchphrase week in, week out. By the way, is it a coincidence that this show-within-a-show seems quite similar to Dinnerladies?

I always assumed that the intention was to critique “catchphrase comedy” rather then studio sitcoms specifically — at one point there is a cutaway to the studio audience, who are all wearing T-shirts of popular Little Britain and Catherine Tate catchphrases. But intentionally or not, the image of the studio sitcom as a home for lazy writing and clichéd characters does seem to have been cemented in the public consciousness partly as a result of Andy Millman’s mugging to camera.

It didn’t help that around the same time there was a stream of absolutely dreadful studio sitcoms. In the first half of the decade the BBC inflicted The Fitz, Beast, Lee Evans: So What Now? and According to Bex on the nation. None of these shows lasted past the first series and are largely forgotten now, but the critical scorn that was heaped on them during their short existence seems to have tarnished the whole genre in the public’s mind.

Even worse, there are two shows in existence which are both dreadful and yet have inexplicably been recommissioned time and time again: My Family and Two Pints of Lager and a Packet of Crisps. The former is perhaps the ultimate in formulaic television, churning out umpteen episodes a year without making any effort to be original or innovate. The latter is just offensively poor; a sitcom consisting almost entirely of sex gags, seemingly aimed at knuckle-draggers who read Nuts magazine.

Nowadays a new audience sitcom faces an uphill struggle. Any scripted show that dares to feature the sound of people enjoying themselves is setting itself up for a barrage of criticism even before such minor details as characters or story structure are considered. “Canned laughter? What’s that about? I don’t need to be told when to laugh! Haha!”

For a prime example, check this Guardian review of first episode of the new series of The IT Crowd:-

I don’t like being told when to do anything – when to eat, when to wash, when to go to bed. Or when to laugh. If something’s funny, I’ll laugh, OK? So I’m not keen on canned laughter. All right, I know that, strictly speaking, this isn’t canned laughter, that The IT Crowd (Channel 4) is filmed in front of a real, live studio audience, and that it’s them we can hear. But, oddly, it sounds more like a laugh track than real laughter – maybe they did something technical to synthesise it? Weird if they did, like serving real peaches for dessert but with the syrup from a tin of peaches poured over the top, so that people recognise it as dessert.

Anyway, the modern sitcom audience is sophisticated enough (even I am) not to need to be told when to laugh (see The Office, Green Wing, The Thick of It). It just makes it feel dated.

I get really annoyed by these ‘sophisticated’ people (note the casual insertion of the titles of three popular comedies in the last paragraph to show how hip and cool the reviewer is). What do they do when they watch a comedic play at the theatre, a funny film at the cinema or live stand-up comedy? Do they bring a soundproof booth with them so that the noise of other people laughing doesn’t offend them?

The idea that the studio audience (it is not canned laughter) is only there to make the jokes seem funnier is just plain daft. What the audience is all about is atmosphere. For me, genuine unforced laughter from an audience who are enjoying the performances can enhance a show greatly, while I’m sure it’s also good for the actors to have real live people to play to. There’s also the bonus of instant feedback for the nervous writer, watching the action unfold from backstage.

That’s not to say that every comedy show should be filmed before a live audience. Obviously shows like The Thick of It would be completely unsuited to this style of recording. And actual canned laughter is a definite no-no: when the BBC showed M*A*S*H, they specifically requested tapes without it and the show arguably worked better that way. Fast forward twenty years, and I’m Alan Partridge — which was heavily criticised in some quarters for having a laughter track — would, I think, have succeeded either with or without.

There will always be some types of show though where a studio audience is best. Watch this classic scene from Red Dwarf and tell me it would be better without an audience in hysterics in the background:

Nevertheless, in the eyes of many, the only “proper” way to do comedy these days is on film (or at least video treated to look like film), with wobbly camerawork, subtle jokes and awkward pauses. That’s a shame, because alongside the Peep Shows of this world, there should also be room for brash sitcoms where set pieces and one-liners are packed in relentlessly.

I mentioned The IT Crowd above, but there are other shows bravely carrying the flag. My favourite at the moment is Miranda, first shown last year on BBC2 and currently being repeated on Tuesday nights. It’s a truly old-fashioned affair, right down to the Dad’s Army-style “You Have Been Watching” credits. It is, however, an absolutely marvellous half-hour, packed full of great gags and slapstick humour, with a brilliantly eccentric performance from Miranda Hart, backed up by a marvellous supporting cast.

So, in conclusion, don’t dismiss all audience sitcoms out of hand immediately. Forget about My Family and Two Pints and hunt out the genuinely funny ones that do exist. Who knows, you might find yourself laughing even before the audience cues you to!

To whet your appetite, here are some clips from recent sitcoms for your viewing pleasure.

Not Going Out:

After You’ve Gone (now sadly axed but great while it lasted):

Lab Rats (honourable mention: it only lasted one series and wasn’t perfect by a long way, but showed lots of promise)

I would have included an IT Crowd clip here, but couldn’t find a single one on YouTube that didn’t have embedding disabled! Instead I will direct you to The IT Crowd Channel.

I remember, years ago, being taken along to the parades by my Dad. 8-year-old Robert was fascinated by the costumes and music and enjoyed it. Then, as I got a bit older, I did a bit of research, realised what these parades were actually about and I didn’t like what I discovered one bit.

The whole event makes me decidedly uncomfortable. I’m not talking specifically about the drunken rabble, returning from Southport, that held up my train home at Moorfields this evening by starting a small riot on the platform — although they are, obviously, awful. But in a supposedly modern, forward-looking, 21st-century city, is this sort of sectarian throwback really something to be proud of?

It appears, ultimately, to boil down to: “MY regressive religious faith is slightly better than YOUR, slightly different but equally regressive religious faith.” And if people still feel the need to declare their perceived superiority over others, in this day and age, well… I’m just happier than ever to be an atheist.

A whole raft of tabloid stupidness has been unleashed, notably this morning’s Daily Express front page. It gets even weirder if you read the original Supreme Court judgment and realise that the reference to “Kylie concerts and multi-coloured cocktails” was not the product of a slightly mad Express sub-editor, but actually came from one of the Judges, Lord Rodger:

To illustrate the point with trivial stereotypical examples from British society: just as male heterosexuals are free to enjoy themselves playing rugby, drinking beer and talking about girls with their mates, so male homosexuals are to be free to enjoy themselves going to Kylie concerts, drinking exotically coloured cocktails and talking about boys with their straight female mates.

I think Gareth Thomas may have something to say about rugby being an exclusively heterosexual activity.

The ruling has allowed the rags to conflate their two favourite hate targets — non-white people and gay people. It’s political correctness gone mad! The Daily Mail calls the judgment “infantile”.

The popular press’s reporting of this issue ignores the key issue: that many countries being gay carries not just a social stigma, but a real danger to life. One of the asylum seekers involved in yesterday’s case is from Iran, which has the death penalty for homosexuals, while the Cameroonian appellant had been attacked by a mob and threatened with mutilation.

It was the Express’s stablemate, the Daily Star, wins out in the offensiveness stakes with a comment piece entitled NO ROOM FOR GAYS:

The idea is bound to be abused. Every illegal desperate to get into Britain will try claiming they’re gay to ensure they stay here.

People pretending to be gay? Does that ever happen outside of sitcom episodes?

Rugby scrums should be banned in schools to protect children involved in a sport which is “not safe enough” for them, an expert has warned.

I have a horrible feeling that this story — about one person suggesting that one single aspect of the sport is dropped — is going to mutate, via a million conversations in pubs, taxis and radio phone-ins, into “rugby banned at all schools”. Eventually it will be added to the list of anecdotes used by Lord Young of Graffham to illustrate “elf ‘n’ safety gone mad”.

Will this drive away punters? Almost certainly, and the Guardian wasted no time publishing a (slightly smug) “welcome” message to disaffected Times readers.

I’m guessing from the tone of that piece that the Guardian are sticking with the “free” model for the foreseeable future, but how long can that situation continue? Most newspapers are losing money and online advertising does not bring in enough revenue to compensate. New revenue sources will have to be found somewhere. Good journalism is not cheap, and it does seem a bit commercially suicidal of newspapers to give away their content for free.

On the other hand, hiding articles behind a paywall means that same quality product is at risk of being ignored by the wider internet. There will be no Google News alerts pointing to Times articles; bloggers will no longer have the option of linking to a Times article to back up their views; on Twitter, there will be few bit.ly short URLs going to The Times. Overall, there will be a big drop in traffic: will there be enough people paying money to the Times to justify taking their web site out of the global conversation?

In fact, with so many other free news sources online (for now, at least) will anyone be prepared to pay? The Financial Times has charged for some time, but that’s a specialist publication for a niche market, offering in-depth coverage not provided elsewhere. The Times, on the other hand, is a mainstream newspaper — who will pay to access the Times when the same news can be found on the BBC, Telegraph, Guardian, New York Times and a thousand other sources on Google News? Is Jeremy Clarkson’s column a sufficient draw to tempt people to pay £1?

In summary, I’m sceptical. But if it stops overseas bloggers referring to “The Times of London” in their links (that’s NOT what the paper is called!) I’ll be happy.

For the first month of Ricardo and Felicity’s affair, they greeted one another at every stolen rendezvous with a kiss–a lengthy, ravenous kiss, Ricardo lapping and sucking at Felicity’s mouth as if she were a giant cage-mounted water bottle and he were the world’s thirstiest gerbil.

(via Andrew Sullivan‘s blog)

Mr Hammond will reportedly deliver a speech on the cuts that are about to be imposed on the railway. Hopefully some of the other speakers at the conference will take the opportunity to school him about basic railway principles, including why trains get priority at level crossings.

The government is planning to slash the amount of subsidy directed at the railways. This has resulted in a swathe of projects being cancelled: the station improvement programme announced last year has been abandoned, with Liverpool Central’s refurbishment hanging on by the skin of its teeth. The Liverpool to Manchester electrification looks doomed as well.

Of course, you can only go so far with cuts, and it looks like the railways will need to find the money somewhere else. As is often the case, the long-suffering passenger will pay: the newspapers are full of warnings of steep fare rises.

It’s fair to complain about the amount of taxpayers money being swallowed up by the railways, but I’m annoyed that no-one ever mentions reforming the insane mess that is the privatised railway system. Privatisation promised a new era of efficiency; instead we got endless red tape and bureaucracy. A lot of the taxpayer’s money is being used to fund the profits of the private companies, rather than being invested in services.

But any meaningful reform seems to have been filed under “too hard”, so instead the government will screw the passengers and allow the gravy train to roll on. Nobody will benefit in the long run, except perhaps those with shares in Stagecoach, FirstGroup and Arriva.

Bonus footage here of Frank holding fort on Manchester’s Channel M overnight.