Niamh Walsh’s Manifesto
No longer any need to mutiny over the Bounty
I AM an avowed anti-cancel culturist – but I will make a confectionary exception. Hypocrisy ye may cry, but everyone is allowed a personal contradiction.
When it comes to Cadbury’s decision to cancel the Bounty in its seasonal tins of sweets, I am firmly in the abolitionist camp.
Bounty, for me, is more than just a literal waste of space. Figuratively it is the sugar-coated personification of a wider societal divide. Bounty, to some, may be just another innocuous coconut-filled chocolate, but to my tastes it’s objectionable. More than just unpalatable, it is an irritating squatter in a box.
Let me explain: Bounty has inculcated in those who favour its taste something akin to entitlement. Acutely aware that it is the least favoured of the Celebrations, the ‘minority’ who munch on Bountys also tuck into the other popular chocolates and reason that, as noone else wanted the Bounty, they technically don’t count as being part of their share.
The silent majority, therefore, who shun the Bounty are at a significant disadvantage having already relinquished at least 15% of the total box before any treat has touched a tongue.
The minority, meanwhile, smugly scoff more than their due share of sweets.
Of course this Celebrations row has seen a cohort trot out the typical trope that there are far more pressing concerns than a proxyCadbury’s war.
Bitter experience has taught me that ‘death by chocolate’ is all too real a possibility – and which has inspired my desire for equality of the treats. One Christmas my brother looted my selection box and made off with my Curly Wurly. Like a pro pick-pocket, he expertly resealed the box after the raid.
It did not protect him from my wrath when I discovered the absent bar. Fearing for his life he fled the scene with a six-year-old psychopathic little sister in hot pursuit. Round and round we went, through every door, with my mother caterwauling about the baby Jesus and the season of goodwill. A sudden thump put paid to my murderous rage as he slammed my fingers in the door. Christmas ended with a trip to A&E, siblings at war and an inconsolable child who had a Curly Wurly turned into a lumpy bumpy.
All is fair in love and chocolate, it would seem.
Corden hit boiling point over an egg!
CELEBS who find themselves in the eye of a storm invariably attempt to court sympathy by pulling the ‘I’m just a person’ card. I have always listened to such disingenuous pleas for mercy with a distinct dollop of disdain.
Having worked the showbiz circuit for more than 13 years, I realise that celebrities consider themselves just ‘people’ like the rest of the plebs, only when it suits their agenda.
James Corden’s fall from grace is a perfect case in point.
Like all humankind there are good people and the not-so-good. Then there are also good people who sometimes do bad things and bad people who perform acts of great kindness.
While I don’t know Corden, I am very aware of his rise from supporting actor, whose one-liners in sitcom Gavin and Stacey propelled him to superstardom as host of The Late Late Show in the US.
Corden capitalised on being a comic everyman. The funny fat fella – which are his words, not mine [Note to Mr Corden, that is how you attribute others’ words].
He is living proof that if he can make it over there (in America), anyone can. But celebrity invariably infects even the most common of men with an odious sense of superiority. That’s because if they are funnier, prettier, richer, or thinner, that somehow automatically makes them better!
Take it from one who has seen more than her fair share of fairly abhorrent behaviour, they are not. They may often have more money but as Corden has proved money doesn’t make the man. Manners cannot be bought. To be kind should not have to be taught. Being a decent person does not depend on one’s bank balance, or aesthetic.
While Corden may have been quite adept at playing the court jester and masquerading as just a smalltown boy, standing in front of a waitress asking for an ‘egg-free omelette’, it forever puts him in the firmament of the pampered, entitled, nasty celebrity elite. His behaviour will forever undercut future attempts to portray himself as one of us. And no longer can we be confident that he is the pleb behind celebrity lines, laughing at the excesses, instead
of sharing in them.
Higgins’ invite is totally Lula
ANOTHER famous fella who seems to have lost the run of himself is our very own President Michael D. Higgins. The current resident of Áras an Uachtaráin this week issued a fawning and, quite frankly, cringey invite to Brazil’s presidentelect, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, inviting him to our shores.
In the letter President Higgins offered his ‘warmest congratulations’ and sent ‘good wishes’ on behalf of the people of Ireland.
‘As I reflect on this significant moment, I recall our most recent meeting, exactly 10 years ago in Sao Paulo, in October 2012,’ he said.
‘The issues we discussed then remain at the forefront of my mind, including our shared concerns on global challenges,’ wrote Michael D, providing zero context as to their ‘shared concerns’.
Concern was raised for me after I recalled that in May of this year, when Russia was raining down bombs on innocent children in Ukraine, Lula made the following worrying comments to Time Magazine.
‘I see the president of Ukraine, speaking on television, being applauded, getting a standing ovation by all the [European] parliamentarians,’ Lula said.
‘This guy [Zelenskiy] is as responsible as Putin for the war,’ he added.
While I am happy as the next person to see the back of Jair Bolsonaro (who has ravaged his country’s native rainforests), I have precisely zero tolerance for a Putin apologist. And while I would never dare to speak on behalf of the people of Ireland, I doubt this country – who has shown such solidarity with our European neighbour – would welcome anyone who espouses the view that Ukraine is to blame for Russia’s invasion of their country, and the consequent murder, rape and torture of its civilian populace.
President Higgins is quite entitled to have whomever he so wishes around for tea and a tête-àtête. But he should be aware that if he pals around with Putin apologists – and given the context of his own wife’s controversial letter on the same issue – that some of us may draw our own conclusions as to his private views on this question for history.