Is there a correlation between arts degrees and hating Jordan Peterson?

Something concerning of late is the number of Left-wing journalists laying into the scientific theories of Jordan Peterson, even though they have arts degrees! I have nothing against arts degrees, incidentally, but I do take issue with people pontificating about areas they know nada about…

This they do over and over again, particularly around psychology – which is Peterson’s specialist area. Yesterday it was the turn of Jared Yates Sexton, who accused Peterson of “bad science” and “patriarchal pseudoscience” – whatever that means.

Yates Sexton had taken offence to Peterson’s recently publicised hypothesis that enforced monogamy serves a protective function against male violence, whereas sexual frustration in men can lead to aggression. This observation does not seem unreasonable to me, considering most terrorists seem to be young blokes who weren’t getting any (nothing against virgins, incidentally).

It’s actually quite a complex theory, and certainly not a literal instruction for forced marriages, nor any suggestion that violence doesn’t happen within monogamous relationships. It deserves nuanced academic contemplation, but we are not in that sort of age.

Yates Sexton’s ‘critique’ resorted to nothing but insults, before he accused Peterson of relying “on shaky research and logical fallacies”. All of this prompted yours truly to investigate the background of Yates Sexton: how does he know? Is he a scientific researcher himself?

It turns out that he’s in fact a creative writing professor (though his prose tells another story). That someone whose job is making stuff up is tasked with analysing a Professor of Psychology says everything about the desperate state of academic debate.

Indeed, every time I see Peterson criticised, his opponent seems to have some sort of arts degree – be it English, creative writing or something else.

Like I say, I have nothing against arts degrees; I did music, art and drama at school and find literary people very attractive. It’s only that I am exhausted with “arts-plaining”; writers with no understanding of psychology trying to lecture on it. The expression “know your limits” comes to mind!

Much of the reason they find Peterson controversial in the first place is they haven’t studied psychology, nor dared to read about the topic, therefore they are hearing many theories for the first time through him. They take him way too literally; “Jordan Peterson wants forced marriage!” It’s hilarious at times…

Their infantile retorts (he’s “bad science”, “dangerous”, “alt-right”) are ultimately a smokescreen for their lack of scientific knowledge from which to draw.

Much of Peterson’s assertions are reflective of psychological research, not ideology. I know this because I studied psychology and his analyses chimes with the research. It is merely that facts do not always make Left-wingers happy.

Generally, the Left has huge issues with psychological theory. This is because of their belief that people are ‘blank slates’ who can be shaped by the environment, so as to justify their desire to engineer it. Thus they cannot stand anyone who cites biological variables in human development – for example, personality traits have genetic components – as Peterson and all psychologists will do…

This aversion to psychological theory is part of the reason why I have never been published in this subject in a left-wing publication. I have a First Class Honours BSc in Psychology and 86 in a neuroscience paper – sorry for the brag, just making a point – yet I am deemed as “right wing”. Why? Because I was always accurate about reporting my studies. It is astonishingly frustrating to have an ideology planted onto you for being factual.

All the while I have watched numerous Left-wing journalists cover psychology, even when they have no background in it. It is not a problem to lack qualifications… I am not an academic snob and love self-taught people, as well as thinking that university is overrated. But the issue is having no interest or knowledge of topics; it shows!

One of the worst examples of this was Owen Jones’s criticism of James Damore last year, who was fired by Google for writing a memo that suggested sexual differentiation in the brain. Owen accused him as ‘alt-right’, increasingly code for: “I don’t know what to reply”. Everything Owen wrote was wrong. But is it any wonder? He has a history degree!

It strikes me that one of the greatest diversity issues in media is actually academic diversity, as there don’t appear to be many scientific writers in the mainstream. Of course, by its very nature, journalism will attract arty, literary types. But if we do not have more BScs over BAs, is it any wonder journalists react to Peterson, as well as other scientists, with such horror?

Of course, Peterson covers numerous other areas like economics, history and religion which others may want to touch. These are ones I am more reticent to partake in; psychology is my area, and I really do know my own limits!

By all means people should criticise Peterson, but it is not enough to hurl insults, nor assume that sanctimony is a replacement for expertise. I am not against psychological criticism of Peterson, but, bloody hell, let’s have some facts. Until then I will keep count on the correlation between hating Peterson and arts degrees.


My nightmare trying to claim O2 insurance (day 5 of life without a phone)

On Saturday, I broke my iPhone by dropping it on the floor. It has a broken screen and I can’t use it. I have insurance with my phone provider, O2, so I assumed this would be easy to remedy.

On Sunday I went to an O2 store and explained the situation. The assistant there told me to ring O2’s insurance line, which I did in the store. On the phone, the advisor pointed out that I would need proof of purchase to go ahead, which the store could not offer as they only provide receipts for up to six months and my phone was purchased in 2016. It also transpired that my IMEI number does not match to the IMEI number O2 has on records for me. An IMEI number is a method of identification.

My IMEI number does not match for this reason: in 2016, I had an iPhone SE. When it was time to upgrade, I chose a Sony. The Sony broke in the first few weeks of having it – the screen peeled away. I went back to the O2 store to complain and the assistant swapped me back to an iPhone SE. However, this advisor did not register my new IMEI number on the account. Thus I have been paying insurance towards a different IMEI number for God knows how long. Essentially, it is an admin fault on the part of O2 that these details were not synced.

I explained this event in the store and the assistant passed me over to her manager, who then communicated on my behalf with an O2 phone advisor. The phone advisor seemingly understood the IMEI issue and remedied it. He went through my details and informed me they would update the system and send me a proof of purchase so I could go ahead. He said this would take 24 hours to go through. I waited. Nothing reached my email account.

So on Tuesday, I contacted an online advisor and relayed all the details of what had happened in the store. I said I hadn’t received my proof of purchase. They told me that they would send me a new one and were reassuring – telling me that it would come through.

On Wednesday, I had received no proof of purchase. So I contacted two new online O2 advisors. One told me that my proof of purchase could not go through because of the IMEI number sync issue. I was not happy about this response, seeing as I had explained the IMEI issue already in a store, and online, and been led to believe that this was fixed. I asked the online advisor to escalate the concern to their manager who gave me the same response. It shocked me that I had been given such contradictory feedback every step of the way. Two advisors gave me the impression my proof of purchase was coming through, along with the correct IMEI, two others said no to this.

I tried ringing insurance next, for want of knowing what to do. The conversation concluded in him telling me I couldn’t make an insurance claim, and that I needed to ring the store to get a proof of purchase.

I rang the store up again. The man who answered the phone said he couldn’t help me, as the proof of purchase records only go up to six months. Which, of course, I was told at the beginning, but I was running around in circles at this point. He told me he could not help and to phone customer service.

I rang up customer service and spoke to a nice woman. I explained to her all the difficulties I’d had, and the story of my IMEI number, and she seemed to understand this. She took my IMEI number down and said that she would put this through on the new proof of purchase. It seemed that everything had finally been solved!

I received my proof of purchase, and I rang up insurance. Insurance told me to forward my proof of purchase to an email address. The chap on the phone received my email, and said he would forward this on to the claims department. I asked him when I would know if my claim had been sorted, and he said that I needed to phone insurance. I pointed out my lack of phone, and asked if they could email. He said they would.

On Thursday, today, I had no such email. I phoned up an insurance advisor to ask what had happened to my claim. Astonishingly, she told me that they cannot put my claim through because they have the wrong IMEI number on their system for my phone.

I feel like I am in Groundhog day. I do not know how many more times I can recount the story of my IMEI, and when someone is going to actually listen and sort it out. Moreover, I cannot believe the amount of contradictory advice I have received. I pay O2 £10 a month for my insurance, which adds up.

I still don’t know what is happening with my phone, incidentally, so this blog can get longer. It’s up to O2…

Even Jordan Peterson’s followers must beware of groupthink. My thoughts on his talk at The Hammersmith Apollo:

Yesterday evening I went to see Jordan Peterson speak at the Hammersmith Apollo. I’ve been a huge fan of Peterson ever since his Channel 4 interview with Cathy Newman, which has always seemed like a pivotal, slightly euphoric, moment in the culture wars, not so much between the political Left and Right, but between the Far Left and common sense. Like many, I felt a (rather evil) satisfaction as Peterson demolished so many of the Lefty arguments we’ve become sick of hearing, thrown at him by Cathy Newman.

One of Peterson’s famous bits of advice is to be wary of group identity in favour of individualism, which is why the first part of his show caused me alarm. It felt like something of a rally, as he was introduced to the stage by Dave Rubin – an American political commentator, seemingly on the same ideological spectrum. As compère, Rubin did an excellent job stirring the audience up, and when Peterson entered the stage much of them hypnotically rose to their feet and applauded. I watched in horror; it was as if someone had shoved a mirror in front of my face. Am I in a cult? I wondered. Is it possible I have been so concerned about left-wing collectives that I, myself, have inadvertently become part of another? Perhaps…

Thankfully, the talk settled and the Jordan-mania calmed down, too. Even so, I do think – myself included – that Peterson followers must watch out for their own ‘cultish’ tendencies. Understandably, many are sick of being demonised by the scary Left and thus see a saviour in Peterson, who serves an important existential purpose – batting away overly-promoted sociological constructs (patriarchy, privilege) that could have sinister consequences. But this shouldn’t mean taking Peterson’s every word as gospel, nor view him as a type of messiah. This thinking merely makes us the type of group we purport to fear. We must keep a critical mind, and be prepared to disagree with Peterson (and I’m sure he himself would agree on that…)

Back to the event, anyway. Peterson has an amazing mind, and is a hundred times cleverer than me – so excuse my criticism, but I did find his talk too free-flowing, like his 12 Rules book. It needs more signposting; often I do not know how we got from A to B, or if we’re even on Z, in terms of his thought processes. Like I say, I love the guy, so none of this is to slight his analyses or conclusions, just how they are packaged and pulled together. From my perspective, Peterson is best when he’s being interviewed or debating, which focuses the discussion. I also like his parenting and life advice, as I am a sucker for self-help. Who isn’t, ey?

Overall, I found it astonishing that Peterson’s event has come to exist at all. It says a lot about how scared people are to speak their minds that we now need famous figures to do it for us. Peterson and pals aren’t actually saying anything radical, merely speaking common sense. It is just that common sense has become the new controversy.

Part of the reason men and women especially need Peterson is his academic understanding, as we are locked in ideological warfare. The Left often misinterprets science or creates pseudo-intellectual arguments to advance itself (last week I read an ‘academic’ article arguing that white women tears are a type of racism…), thus there’s a new demand for opposing heavyweight intellectuals. This is why Peterson works so well, who’s able to use multivariate analyses as if it were a huge baton to hit idiots with.

The talk did make me wonder how prevalent far-Left ideology actually is, as I stared at the droves of people there – ‘the silent majority’. I suspect the SM is way bigger than the SM thinks, and has been mobilised greatly because of the internet. The internet has so much to answer for in terms of social fractures. It has meant that individuals from completely different geographies are now thrown into dialogue with each other. We have got to the point where Jane from Dorset is now debating with Stacy the Guardianista on Twitter. They are so far apart by virtue of their locations that it shall be almost impossible for them to reach a middle ground. This is we can never achieve a rational, constructive dialogue, instead our TV debates are raging wars between Left and Right. (I confess I have gone a bit free-flowing in this paragraph, hypocritically after my earlier critique).

Can Peterson sew the world back together? Perhaps! Ultimately he serves an important function, providing an alternate view to Left-wing groupthink. Peterson believes individualism is what can save us all, but at the same time I hope no one misinterprets that advice as encouragement to retreat from their opponents, which would only polarise debate further. If there’s one thing his audience figures suggest, it’s that lots of other people have the same thoughts, which is all the more reason to break up from each other and talk to the opposition, lest we become guilty of groupthink! We must not be so afraid to tell others of our opinions; we must take heart from the bravery of Peterson.

Why should we feel hope over fear?

Now that Donald Trump has been confirmed to come to the UK on Friday 13th of July, Sadiq Khan of course had to Tweet to showcase his virtuous credentials, posting: “If he comes to London, President Trump will experience an open and diverse city that has always chosen unity over division and hope over fear. He will also no doubt see that Londoners hold their liberal values of freedom of speech very dear.”

It is an irksome statement in many ways, not least because it is anti-diplomacy. 

Khan’s worst offence, though, is his love of ‘liberal’ platitudes; the usual guff we have become accustomed to hearing… “hope over fear”, “unity over division”. 

Much of these terms have been said in the wake of terrorist attacks and other violence. They do little to solve either of these dangers, which loom over us all the time. They are a means of suppression, in a sense; a way to delegitimise people’s natural concerns while London goes down the bin.

Khan is currently on track to become one of London’s most hopeless mayors ever, because of his obsession with cheesy soundbites. Too often he sounds like he wants a job at the Guardian, rather than to be a tough London mayor.

As everyone knows, the biggest crisis Khan has to solve is knife crime, which mainly affects young men. To be fair to him, it’s a tough one to fix – mainly born out of socioeconomic circumstances – and the mayor is trying.

Even so, he is so distracted trying to please left-wing feminists, censoring bikini outfits and the rest. All the while, people keep being stabbed to death.

These dangerous times are why Khan is wrong to lecture on “hope over fear”, which he says to divert attention from his lack of ability to solve violence. “Hope” has ultimately become a synonym for “I don’t know what to do”.

Moreover, this idea that we should choose “hope” is utterly daft. Being fearful or hopeful is not some sort of decision; fear is sometimes a reasonable response to an unreasonable situation. It’s an evolutionary reaction that drives us to take action. Were leaders more fearful, perhaps we would have solved the housing crisis, knife crime and much more right now.

There is another flipside to fear, too, which makes Khan wrong to ridicule it. Fear is something that politicians do need to instil at times. 

One of the UK’s biggest problems is that our politicians are not strict enough. They sound more like sex therapists – “love not hate”, “let’s hold hands” – than leaders. 

The result is that the public becomes unruly and undisciplined. This explains why we have so many protests these days driven by crazy millennials. It may even partially explain rises in violent crime. There is no sense of authority around.

The public has ultimately started to wield power over our politicians, even using Twitter as a democratic tool. They create the fear instead.

I don’t want Kim Jong-Un in charge, incidentally, but we do need firmer leaders. They must act more like the teacher at school you respected; who was strict, but right.(Remember, the teachers who were too nice always got bullied.)

Leaders who continuously spout “hope over fear” messages are ultimately not respected.  They are not inspirational, either, because they are not talking at an individual level. 

If you ever watch motivational speakers, they say the word “you” a lot. This wakes people up; they think “who, me?!”

But I digress. Khan cannot simply go on spouting cheerful soundbites, and expect this to please the public. Not least because there is no “hope” if you are dead from knife crime, or lying in a hospital bed with a slashed stomach.

Frankly, Khan should look to London’s own problems, instead of lecturing Trump on Twitter.

There are a lot of reasons I can protest the American president. I didn’t like how he pretty much molested Macron last week, for starters. 

But because I choose “hope over fear”? No, no. I experience fear. 

And until the mayor does something radical, who can say they feel anything otherwise?

Left-wing, free pass to abuse

Comedian Robert Webb has spent the last year lecturing all and sundry on gender stereotypes, which he says are very bad in his book How Not To Be a Boy. So grave are his concerns that he has cautioned his young daughter to be wary of the patriarchy – ‘the trick’ – as he calls it, and warned everyone not to use the expression ‘man up’, lest it damages men’s mental health.

With all of these modern sensibilities, it did strike me as out of character of Webb when he called the journalist Julia Hartley-Brewer a “thick Oxford twat” on Twitter yesterday. I confess it is something of a rule of mine to avoid blokes who describe women – let alone anyone – as “twats”, but maybe I just need to man up.

Hartley-Brewer had been involved in a debate on education. She had addressed the question of whether going to Oxford University was the result of privilege, or something else. In typical Hartley-Brewer style, she said the wrong answer; that she had won her place due to being “clever”. Feminist Webb did not like that argument very much. Clever? Woman? No, no, no. He Retweeted her adding: “I didn’t go to Cambridge because I was clever. I went because I was a white male from a stable family who encouraged me to work hard at an excellent state school. That’s all privilege. All of it. You thick Oxford twat.” This post – a masterclass in left-wing bingo (“white male”, “privilege”) –  received 12,000 endorsements at the time of writing.

Watching events unfold, I did wonder when the feminists would swoop in to save Hartley-Brewer. But such expectations were daft, because Hartley-Brewer is right-wing, and right-wingers do not need saving, only abusing. And left-wingers are now given a free pass to say what they like; they are so socially conscious, after all, that even their most demonic utterances must surely serve some higher purpose. This state of play is not only obvious from the anti-semitic abuse that goes unpunished in the Labour Party, but from the media pundits that represent the left. Frankie Boyle regularly writes for The Guardian and has 2.8 million Twitter followers. He also made a rape joke about Katie Price’s disabled son, which he has never apologised for. But don’t forget the rule! Abuse doesn’t matter if you’re left-wing.

Were someone like Toby Young to call a woman a “twat” or make rape jokes, we know for certain it would be game over. All right-wingers realise that some are more equal than others, namely by virtue of their Corbynista credentials. Yes, forget being “clever” or a “white male”; left-wing identity is the real privilege these days.

The British have lost the plot

On a recent trip to Cambodia, I spent a day at the Tuol Sleng Genocide Museum and the Killing Fields, discovering the evils of the Khmer Rouge. I stared at photographs of their victims in utter shock; it is estimated around three million people died in the most unimaginably cruel ways. These sort of experiences are harrowing, but also make you grateful for the time and place in which you were born. Truly, it is a privilege to be alive.

The British have forgotten this. While I was away I logged onto Twitter to find that people were arguing about a chicken. On Masterchef John Torode had told one of the contestants, a Malaysian woman, to make hers more crispy. This struck me as a moderately annoying event (it was a Malaysian dish), but certainly not one worthy of the national headlines, nor the outrage it received. It merely convinced me that the British have lost the plot.

After all, these days we do occupy ourselves with the most trivial of matters, which have increasingly been allowed to take precedence over significant news and debates. While women in Iran waved their hijabs, we pondered the moral complexities of an MP sending a text to a female journalist. When President Duterte of the Philippines suggested female soldiers should be shot in the vaginas, our top press reporters were too busy covering the Me Too women in their red carpet outfits. Whether it’s the Twitter history of Toby Young, the offences of a sombrero hat, or something else, there is an inordinate amount of pointless analysis and in-fighting in this country; one in which people have convinced themselves things are very, very wrong.

It seems to me that there is something Maslowian about our current mindset. When people have it all – safety, enormous amounts of socialist protection, liberty and wealth – they tend to self-destruct, convinced that the grass is greener elsewhere. In Britain there is a huge grievance culture, where we are continually encouraged to look for offence or wrongdoing. Complaining is no longer a social taboo, but rewarded. Victimhood is the new supremacy; say you’ve had it hard, and there’s a book deal waiting for you.

The nation’s youth, in particular, has been totally brainwashed – radicalised even – into hating the West, perceiving it as a shackle on their soul. I often wonder if this delusional thinking is the result of teaching hours going down at universities; thus students spend their free time convincing themselves they’re oppressed. It’s just worrying that the adults don’t tell them to get a grip. “Yes, bubzy, you’ve had it hard,” they are told instead.

Britain is by no means perfect – there’s a housing crisis, rising knife crime and homelessness – but it is certainly not the prolifically unjust country its painted in the press, nor the worst place to live on earth – as so many seem to think these days. We are some of the most fortunate people in the world; many will go home to Netflix, electricity, and water, and still convince themselves they’ve somehow got rotten luck. Frankly I think it’s time we all got off Twitter and opened our horizons. Sometimes it’s better to work with, and appreciate, what you’ve got.

Films I watched on the plane

As some of my Twitter followers may know, I recently went on holiday to Southeast Asia, which involved a horribly long flight.

I decided to make the most of this time by watching all the films I have avoided for the past two years.

Generally I avoid films that people tell me are good. I don’t trust other people’s opinions, ever since they told me Star Wars was sound.

But faced with nothing to do other than worry about the circulation in my left bum cheek, I had to take my mind elsewhere – to Hollywood.

I had to try all these films that the media dahlings, and Joe Bloggs, said were so excellent.

Without further ado, here are some (rather breezy) film reviews.

Darkest Hour
I rather liked this one, even though I don’t generally enjoy biopics. I always find myself wondering about how realistic everything is; did Churchill really sneeze like that? Did he eat broccoli? The sort of questions that can be better answered in the blessed art form: the documentary.

Thankfully, Darkest Hour has a real sense of authenticity and avoids any sort of revisionism to please Guardian reader audiences (maybe they can have their own GR rating one day. Then we’ll know what films to avoid). Gary Oldman gives a fantastic portrayal, and it is a film that honours the leader and his achievements.

On a side note, I thought there were modern day parallels with Halifax in the movie, as he comes across as a bit of a pain, repeatedly telling Churchill to talk it out with Hitler. Sort of like the way Jeremy is telling us to chat with Russia…

As the film reminds us: “You cannot reason with a tiger when your head is in its mouth”.

I, Tonya
Sorry to upset the myriad, but this film is absolutely dreadful, in SO many ways.

It is far too sympathetic with Tonya Harding, for starters, instead of the true victim of the story – Nancy Kerrigan, whose knee was bludgeoned in order to promote Harding’s competitive chances. Imagine being Kerrigan now; having to watch the woman implicated in this crime get her own Hollywood biopic. How does that work?

The trouble is that people – producers, the public, writers – have a very difficult time accepting that women can be bad people, so much they try to explain it through art. This comes across greatly in this film, which tries to justify Harding’s behaviour through the prism of her misfortunate upbringing.

Yes, Harding had a hard life, but directors should still not portray women as devoid of agency in their choices. Nor intellectualise people being bad or stupid.

Moreover, I, Tonya projects modern day sensibilities onto Harding’s life, as part of its apologist narrative. We are made to believe, for instance, that Harding was awarded low scores as an ice-skater because she was working class and couldn’t buy a nice outfit. Having Googled photographs of Kerrigan and Harding, I can confirm that they both looked equally terrible, as it was the 80s. And frankly, no one cares about class in sports. Medals, though…

On the same spectrum of ‘apology films’ is Molly’s Game.

I did like Molly’s Game, not least because it’s written (and directed) by Aaron Sorkin.

Sorkin’s films are always a fantastic mental workout, full of twists and turns, and multi-dimensional characters.

Molly’s Game is no different. It tells the (real life) story of Molly Bloom, a fiercely intelligent high-stakes poker entrepreneur. I would try to explain the plot in detail, but I don’t even know how to play poker, let alone fraudulent poker, and I’m pretty sure I went cross-eyed trying to understand everything. All I do know is that Molly was a bit naughty.

Sorkin’s screenplay has strange parallels with I, Tonya as it tries to provide explanations for Bloom’s behaviour that remove her agency, and render her sympathetic.

I wouldn’t be amazed if Bloom is on the psychopathic scale in real life. Psychopaths aren’t so much fearless, but aroused by fear, which is why they might like get a buzz out of extremely risky poker games.

This is why it is so strange that we are led to believe that Molly was, in some way, a victim of “the system”, and a lovely person.

Frankly, I think Harding and Bloom are both pretty cunning – in different ways – and a more interesting film might have made that statement.

Three Billboards
I have to confess, ever since I watched Frances McDormand do that laugh at the Oscars I have been a bit wary. She seems like the sort of person you might move a few rows away from on the bus.

In Three Billboards, I’m pretty sure Frances McDormand is playing Frances McDormand. This is a weird movie that I’m seems to be sending some sort of message about Trump supporters, which the baddies all seem to be based on.

McDormand’s character is Mildred Hayes, whose daughter has been raped and murdered in Missouri. Mildred sets up Three Billboards to draw attention to the crime, attracting controversy that leads to numerous run-ins with the police.

This is a film about willpower, empathy and vigilantism. I confess I most enjoyed the violent bits, though I found the ending slightly disappointing; it was a bit meandering, and some of the characters seemed to change personality too much. Even still, I definitely cannot accuse the director of denying McDormand any feminist agency. There is no other Frances McDormand.

I honestly knew this film would be boring because it’s about two people stuck in a room for 7 years. It’s actually intended as a hard hitting drama about a woman called Joy (Brie Larson) who gets kidnapped, then pregnant, before living with her son, in the room, for the next five years. Room is so boring that none of these bits made me sad. I spent the whole movie wanting the son to get a haircut.

The film is just too obvious. There’s a room, and they want to get out of the room, and everyone’s a bit upset along the way. The media dahlings said this was a brilliant movie, but I think maybe there were no other brilliant movies that year, because it isn’t. Also, I can’t help feeling Larson’s acting style is ‘the girl who got your order wrong in McDonald’s’. Not sure what the fuss is. My brother thinks she’s gorgeous, though.

Finally, I get onto Kingsman 1 and 2. Much to my surprise I actually ADORED these films, which made me laugh a lot. They had all my favourite things – cute dogs, camp humour, political incorrectness and Alfie Allen thrown into a mincer.

Kingsman 2 is written by Jane Goldman. I swear she does not get enough credit. She is brilliant and I can only hope I can write like her one day.

When I got home I forced my dad to watch Kingsmen 2, who told me I was deluded and it was rubbish. But sometimes things don’t have to be perfect to make you smile.

So yes, those are my plane reviews. I thought I’d end on a high note, so you won’t go away thinking I’m overly fussy about films. Which I don’t think I actually am. It’s just Star Wars is really, really crap.