Saturday, December 01, 2007

Winehouse slaps Doherty

Gordon does find some space in his column for something approaching news this morning: Apparently, Mitch Winehouse slapped Pete Doherty backstage at Winehouse's Brixton show last week:

An onlooker said: “He told him to leave Amy alone, saying that he was the last person she needs at moment.

“Pete was smirking until Mitch turned and whacked him.”

Gordon - who has the air of a man who sometimes watches that cage-fighting thing - embraces this vigilantism:
IT’S high time someone taught PETE DOHERTY a lesson.

The courts have not bothered to punish him properly and he keeps leading people astray.

So I was delighted to hear that AMY WINEHOUSE’s old man has done what most of us have wanted to do for ages - and lamped the junkie singer.

Not, of course, that Gordon is happy with just a bit of a slap:
In the meantime, if I was Pete I’d look twice before crossing the road from now on.

You never know when a taxi might suddenly appear.

Is it really appropriate for a journ... well, a writer, to suggest jokily that someone should be run over?


12 comments:

Anonymous said...

He's not suggesting anything!He's just making a joke since Amy Winehouse's father is a taxi driver...

simon h b said...

Yes, I'm aware that Mitch is a taxi driver, and that Smart thinks he's funny; the question was if it's an appropriate joke to suggest someone should drive a car into another human being.

Anonymous said...

I really don't see where he is SUGGESTING that someone(Mitch?) SHOULD do that...It's a joke that combines the facts that Mitch Winehouse is mad at Pete and a taxi driver.If the joke was something like "hey Mitch,use your taxi for something else than carrying people around" then it would be a suggestion...i just don't see what you're saying.

Rachel Summers said...

Gordon Smart-apologist anon:

Perhaps not suggesting that someone should do such a thing, but the "look out Pete!" bit seems to a bit of juvenile gloating/wishful thinking that's not the most mature.

Personally, I don't think it's appropriate for serious journalism..but then it's hard for me to see Smart as a serious journalist. After Newton, he's really just living down to our expectations.

simon h b said...

Anonymous, I salute your innocence - you strike me as the sort of person who, after the mafia have left your parent's shop, would be saying "oh, no, they didn't threaten to smash the place up - in fact, the nice man said it would be a shame if anything happened to the stock, didn't he..."

Anonymous said...

Well,i like how you use the word innocence when the explanation clearly "suggests" that the word stupidity would be more appropriate to describe me.Were you trying to make me think it was a compliment?You think i am that innocent/stupid?:)...The other poster (Rachel Summers) seems to agree with me that it's not a suggestion.I guess there's is a lot of innocence in this world:) (rachel is a bit less innocent than me because she sees wishful thinking underneath) ps:Why would you say that the mafia would leave my PARENTS shop and not MY OWN shop?You think that in order for me to be that "innocent" i must be really young or that i'm incapable of having my own shop?Oh well,now you turned me into the "i see evil everywhere" person...do i remind you of anyone you know?:)

simon h b said...

Blimey.

No, I wasn't trying to compliment you, and, equally, I wasn't trying to call you stupid. Because, you know, if I thought you were stupid, I'd have called you stupid.

You do seem to be quite touchy, though - I set my fictional gag in your parent's shop because the set-up needed you to be having a conversation with a shop-keeper who had been menaced by fictional mafia in order for you to be putting an innocent spin onto their approach.

I have absolutely no idea if you're capable of having your own shop or not, and I'm not quite sure where you made the leap from your assumption that I thought you were a stupid child into me thinking you're "I see evil everyone" person - seriously, I must be a bit stupid as I don't understand how 'not capable of running a shop' = 'sees evil everywhere'.

Still, since it's obviously keeping you awake at night worrying, let's try this one more time:

Gordon Smart says that - when he hit Doherty - Mitch has "done what most of us have wanted to do for ages", and that this was some form of justice because "it's high time someone taught PETE DOHERTY a lesson. The courts have not bothered to punish him properly and he keeps leading people astray."

He then concludes that "In the meantime, if I was Pete I’d look twice before crossing the road from now on. You never know when a taxi might suddenly appear."

Now, it's not incitement to commit a crime; it's not even a serious suggestion. It's just inappropriate to suggest that someone being run down by another human being is a topic for a bit of a laugh, especially in a piece where the same man has been applauded for attacking someone.

Rachel Summers said...

Anon--I was attempting to find some middle ground by essentially saying "no, Smart didn't literally suggest it, _but_ the tone was inappropriate.."

In questioning the propriety of Smart's words, I'm in agreement with Simon. I'd go on but you'd probably see some outrageous insult to your self in my wording.

Anonymous said...

Rachel Summers i swear i totally got what you said...in fact that's why i added that you 're less innocent than me to make it clear that i didn't think you were on my side completely but as far as the suggestion part goes it seemed like you were. Now i swear again that while i was writing my last comment i was smiling and being sarcastic basically because simon did use the word innocent to be nicer when what he described looked like a stupid person to me......Now,simon,the whole thing with the parents shop,why you would think i couldn't have one ecc ecc was me FAILING to show you that you, reading a suggestion in Smart's words ,was equal to me reading into all these crazy stuff in your words...to you i am an innocent person,to me you are an "i see evil everywhere person".Maybe we're both right,maybe we're both wrong,maybe only YOU are right...:) By the way,your explanation of why you set your fictional gag in my parent's shop makes no sense.Couldn't i say the same thing to a third person if the mafia came into my shop?hahahaha i really don't get you:) ps: i swear for the last time that my comments are not made with a mean spirit,and are not angry comments...i've had disagreements with you before and i'm intrigued by how DIFFERENTLY we see things,that's all! ps2:i'll try not to comment again though in your posts because in your last response with phrases like "Still, since it's obviously keeping you awake at night worrying, let's try this one more time" i feel like our virtual relationship is going down the hill:(
Thanks anyways for the news!

James said...

See? This is what happens when Gordon tries to write about something other than breasts.

Rachel Summers said...

Oh now James..I hardly think it's fair to blame Smart for all this. Anonymous insecure posters babbling mindlessly have been here forever..

..though just in case you're right...*dashes off missive to Gordon Smart to "get back to tits, _please_*

Anonymous said...

"Anonymous insecure posters babbling mindlessly have been here forever"...wow,i don't think i have offended or got personal with anybody...i'm sorry that you felt the need to do so. :(

Post a Comment

As a general rule, posts will only be deleted if they reek of spam.