Michael Barrymore and the Tragic Death of Stuart Lubbock Part 1: The 999 Call

Stuart Lubbock

Published to coincide with the anniversary of Stuart Lubbock's death. Let's find out the truth.

This blog series was prompted by the recent Channel 4 documentary Michael Barrymore: The Body in the Pool. First of all I'm a little appalled by the title. It uses the TV star's name (to draw viewers, that's acceptable) but the victim is just 'the body'. This is disrespectful and callous. Stuart Lubbock was a person. He mattered and he had a name. It diminishes him to call him ‘the body’. At least have the courtesy to use his name as well as Michael Barrymore's. As in my previous crime blogs, it analyses the language used by those connected in some way to Stuart's death.

My intention with this blog is to analyse some of the statements made by those involved in the incident, starting with the 999 call. I'm not apportioning blame, just pointing out how what people say (and the words they use) and choose not to say can reveal underlying attitudes and intentions. As so much has been published, said and broadcast on this case, I have a lot to consider so will publish the blog in sections. The second part is mainly background, who was there, etc. and you can find it here. The third part covers the four post-mortems and can be read here.

Justin Merritt

The 999 call 31 March 2001 5.48 a.m.

The caller, Justin Merritt's words are in blue, any other quotes in purple.

When the caller is asked for the address, he has to be prompted by someone else (but who? Michael Barrymore?) on every line, from the house number to the town, which suggests that he either doesn’t know the place well or is unsure what he’s allowed to say and is waiting for a cue. Perhaps he's more biddable than the other guests. This kind of prompting puts me in mind of Patsy Ramsey’s 911 call over JonBenet.*

*If you haven't heard of the JonBenet Ramsey case, See my blog for more on the strange words of John and Patsy Ramsey.

The Barrymore 999 call goes like this. Asked for the address:

Someone in the background says Number 4.

Number 4

Someone in the background says Beaumont Park Drive.

Beaumont Park Drive

Someone in the background says Roydon.

Roydon

Someone in the background says Essex.
Essex

This begins with an attempt to establish a narrative, similar to Kate McCann’s cry on the night Madeleine disappeared. She is variously described as saying: Someone’s taken her! They've taken Madeleine! and The fucking bastards have taken her!

What this does is put into everyone's minds the idea that a) Madeleine's been abducted b) A third party is involved in the abduction, perhaps more than one person c) Kate and Gerry are not involved. 

It's also similar to Patsy Ramsey's assertion, the first thing she says on her 911 call:

We have a kidnapping.

This is such a strange way to put it. It sounds as if John said to Patsy, 'We need to call the police' and Patsy asked 'Well, what shall we tell them?' and he said: 'That it's a kidnapping'.

The pool at Barrymore's property, hot tub in foreground

Back to Barrymore, the call continues.

A geezer’s drowned in the pool.

This sentence has several effects:

1. It sets up the drowning/accident idea, so establishing the narrative as mentioned above, what the caller/prompter wants us to believe.
2. It distances the caller from the person in the pool. He doesn’t name the victim (a bit like the Channel 4 documentary) and acts like it’s someone random, whom no one there knows, who's turned up and drowned in the pool although by the time the call was made, you'd have to assume that the caller and the rest of the group know it's Stuart Lubbock but possibly I'm doing them a disservice, perhaps they didn't know his name at this stage.
3. The use of ‘geezer’ is almost derogatory, akin to ‘Oh no! Some geezer’s only gone and drowned in the pool!’ Plus it has the effect of making light of the rest of the sentence.
4. From this and the sentence that follows we know that the person in the pool is already dead, has died before this call was made. Why? Because you wouldn't use 'drowned' of someone who was still alive. Drowned is an ending, it's final. We don't know whether he was dead when he was put in the pool. 

When the emergency operator questions him, the caller rephrases the statement slightly.

A fella’s drowned in the pool?

He uses ‘fella’ instead of ‘geezer’, but the word has the same connotations though is perhaps slightly less dismissive. This time, however, his intonation goes up at the end; it’s said as a question, as if now the caller himself doesn’t really believe what he’s saying.

Asked: Are they still in the water?

No. We've got them out.
We're not told who the 'We' is.

Not sure of the order here but we hear at one point:
Fucking hell.
Asked: Have you done resuscitation?
Did resuscitation. It ain't workin'. Don't know how long he's been there.
And the tone of that last sentence also implies that he doesn't care. The caller's affect is distinctly matter-of-fact, unbothered. This account is at odds with that of James Futers in which he claims Stuart was still breathing when pulled out of the pool. And it suggests that Stuart could have been in the pool, unconscious or dead for a while without anyone noticing.

Then he adds information, an attempt to insert at least something that's actually true.

There’s a party going on and someone’s just gone out and found him.

Again, the victim is still not named although by this time you would have hoped/expected that they'd worked out who it was. The mysterious ‘someone’ we now know was Michael Barrymore and you'd have to assume that the caller knows it was Barrymore but opts not to name him but for a different reason: to try to keep him out of the picture for as long as possible.

Jonathan Kenney

In relation to this, I've just learnt that in Jonathan Kenney's first statement to police, he lied, saying that Michael Barrymore wasn't at the house on the night Stuart Lubbock died, presumably in an attempt to protect Barrymore. But it also reveals that the truth is not an imperative here.

Then the caller ad-libs with extraneous information that has no bearing on the situation at all. As before, this unwarranted outburst of information is possibly something that the caller knows is true so he wants to get it in, to prove himself reliable, normal, straight. 

I tell you what, mate, the first time I’ve been out in four f****** years, I have me kids every weekend, and f****** hell.

Who cares? How is this relevant? And the expletives make it even less appropriate.

So, let's break it down as Peter Hyatt might.

I tell you what, mate.

The purpose of the language used in this diatribe is to align the caller with the operator and establish a rapport, a chumminess. The 'I tell you what' is informal and invites the operator to listen to him as he relates a 'story' and trust what he says because we're all mates here, the same sort of people.

The first time I’ve been out in four f****** years.

This is said to alert the operator to the fact that the caller is not at a party every night, that this is unusual for him. It shows a callous disregard for the victim and even an unspoken attempt to blame him for the fact that the caller’s night out has been ruined and thus also reveals a disturbing lack of perspective. The person in the pool is dead.

Aerial view of Barrymore's property

I have me kids every weekend.

This is an attempt to ensure that the emergency operator realises that the caller is a family man, he has children, who he cares about so has with him every weekend but it also implies that he expects kudos for this. What he's trying to say is: if there was a gay orgy, he wasn’t involved. And moreover, we have to assume that the caller was chosen to make the call because he was married and had children, to steer the emergency services away from the idea that there was anything untoward going on. What we see is that the caller has no sympathy for the dead ‘geezer’. Even if you didn’t know him well, you would have to think this was a tragic end to his night, that perhaps should take precedence over your momentary disappointment. 

... and f****** hell.
More of the same. Said to show shock but comes across as self-involved somehow.

You don’t expect it, do you?

No you wouldn't. Unfortunately this still comes across as uncaring, just a casual aside. There's no empathy.

F****** hell. I think the geezer’s dead, mate.

The inclusion of 'Fucking hell' is supposed to imply surprise although we already know that Stuart is dead and so does the caller. We know this from his first sentence: 'A geezer's drowned in the pool'. The inclusion of ‘mate’ is another attempt to involve the operator in the situation, to make it seem like we're all in the same boat. Still, it’s just a ‘geezer’ to him, no one worth naming. He's a bit like Channel 4 in this.

Along with this, we need to consider:

1. The decidedly offhand tone of the caller throughout. He doesn't sound in a panic or overly concerned, only rising to annoyance when talking about himself and his night out. He positions Stuart as a bit of party pooper whose death is only significant to him inasmuch as it's ruined his fun. This doesn't mean he's necessarily guilty of anything but it also demonstrates how little he cares. He is later reported as being in the jacuzzi with Jonathan Kenney while Stuart was dive-bombing into the pool. This puts them both at the scene at one point, if we're to believe Stuart really drowned. Did no one notice that Stuart was in trouble?
2. What is missing from the content of this call. He hasn't panicked. He hasn't asked for advice on what to do. He hasn't said anyone is attempting CPR. To me, this means that Stuart is dead and beyond advice or resuscitation.

Michael Barrymore

Conclusion

So, we gather from the 999 call that the caller drew the short straw (no one could have wanted to perform this difficult task), probably because he was a family man. His statements show that he doesn't really feel any responsibility himself for what happened.

What we also know is that Michael Barrymore is not mentioned at all, probably because it was hoped that he could be spirited away without anyone knowing.

Later it becomes apparent that Barrymore's PA, Michael Browne, was called after Barrymore had fled the scene. It would be interesting to find out whether he was called before or after the 999 call. Did Barrymore consider his own career and reputation ahead of the need to involve the emergency services? I'm told he did call afterwards. If not, it would be similar to when Oscar Pistorius killed Reeva Steenkamp and called his estate manager and friend, Johan Stander, before calling for an ambulance. See my blog on the Pistorius trial. Damage limitation has to be achieved before the police arrive. I will consider further echoes of the Pistorius case and the JonBenet Ramsey case in the blogs that follow.

And of course, most importantly, it has accomplished its prime goal of establishing the narrative: A man has drowned in the swimming pool.

Justice4Stuart
Always remember the victim.

Stuart Lubbock, Rest in Peace.

Stuart Lubbock, also a father

The Bulger Killers; James Bulger; Children Who Kill + Update

Jamie Bulger

Under consideration here: The Bulger Killers: Was Justice Done? (Channel 4); James Bulger: The New Revelations (Channel 5); Children Who Kill with Susanna Reid (ITV).

I’m not including James Bulger: A Mother's Story (ITV) because it is a much more sensitive piece, balanced and compassionate, as you might expect with Sir Trevor McDonald at the helm. I cannot fault it nor the assertion of Denise Fergus (formerly Denise Bulger) that Jon Venables and Robert Thompson have never really been punished properly for their crime.

This article investigates murder, justice, law and the language used by reporters, presenters, officers of law, and the accused. The guilty tend to give themselves away. For more on high-profile murder cases, see my blogs on JonBenet Ramsey and Oscar Pistorius. Always #rememberthevictims.

Thompson/Venables

The Bulger Killers: Was Justice Done?

Fact: On 12 February 1993, James Bulger (2) was abducted, tortured and killed by Jon Venables and Robert Thompson (both 10).

Originally I assumed that the title was asking us to consider whether the sentence given was adequate to the suffering Thompson and Venables had inflicted on James Bulger and his parents. But the programme's remit seemed to be the very opposite, to convince us that it was wrong to imprison the ten-year-olds convicted of this horrific crime. The programme seems to expect the system to show the killers the mercy they never afforded their victim.

Matt Smith, the narrator: ‘In England, you’re responsible for a crime you commit when you reach your tenth birthday.’

This is ambiguous as it suggests that when you reach 10, you’re tried for crimes you committed when younger or that you would only be responsible on your actual tenth birthday. What he meant: ‘In England, you’re considered criminally responsible from the age of 10.

Blake Morrison

Blake Morrison: ‘I think the nation was eager to understand what had brought it about.’

I think the nation wanted the killers brought to justice. Yes, possibly we hoped that their might be some obvious scapegoat but nothing in the boys' backgrounds could explain or excuse what they did. I really wonder what Morrison would say if these ten-year-olds had killed his two-year-old.

This programme and its interviewees continually employ certain language techniques to distance the boys from the murder. It’s very similar to the way Oscar Pistorius talks about his killing of Reeva Steenkamp, refusing to own his actions by saying ‘the gun went off’, ‘the night of the incident’ (rather than ‘the night I murdered Reeva’) or ‘I’m sorry for what happened’ rather than ‘I’m sorry for what I did.’

Dominick Lloyd

Robert Thompson's solicitor Dominic Lloyd said, in an absurdly convoluted sentence: 'Both of those two children can't have been anything other than severely traumatised by what they were part of on February 12.' On a lighter note, I'm a little traumatised by his mutilation of the English language. Perhaps 'Both boys must have been severely traumatised … ' would have been clearer.

I question the use of the minimising 'what they were part of', implying that a number of others were involved, or that they were somehow coerced into it or had no (or very little) agency in it. As above, it's a tactic used to dissociate the boys from the crime. But they weren't 'part of' something. They performed this egregious act alone.

Venables/Thompson

Can the very trauma they initiated and perpetrated be used in their defence? When they essentially traumatised themselves through their own incredible cruelty? James Bulger was more than merely traumatised, he was abducted, terrorised, tortured and killed for their entertainment. I'm in tears whenever I think about what they put him through, how they planned to do it and worked out how they might get away with it.

This tactic is used more than once hence: ‘Yes they should have been tried because of their part in that murder.’

They didn’t have a part in that murder; they committed the murder.

Even this inadvertently depersonalises the action: ‘It was intended that a child should be killed.’

It reminds me of Patsy Ramsey saying ‘I’m the mother’ or ‘I loved that child’. See earlier link to the JonBenet case.

‘Real prison – it'll expose them to real psychological fear.’

Surely all fear is psychological? And what do they think Jamie Bulger felt? God forgive that his murderers should have to suffer any fear.

The court is described as ‘An environment that would have been intimidating to an adult let alone children.’

But their own actions placed them in this environment.

Lloyd also said: "Many years after the trial a juror said 'we found them guilty of murder but we didn't have the option to find them guilty of being two very bewildered and frightened little boys who made an awful mistake and need a lot of help'."

Pistorius

This is simply more bleeding-heart liberalism. Again ‘an awful mistake’ is language that might better describe a spot of truancy not a savage killing. Oscar Pistorius also calls his crime a ‘mistake’. This was not an awful mistake but an act of unparalleled, cold-blooded evil. It wasn't a spontaneous action, a bit of bullying that went too far. It was premeditated murder. And let's face it, they were bewildered and frightened by a situation they created themselves.

Think about it – even today the general public is not allowed to hear the extent of James Bulger's injuries; they are still too disturbing to be revealed. We know that he was kicked in the head with considerable force because there was a shoeprint on his face. This is what we're allowed to know so how bad must his other injuries be if we still have to be shielded from them? Here are some details - if we fail to consider them, we cannot come to a reasoned judgement. After reading them of course, it's very difficult to reason, to feel anything but rage.

Ralph and Denise Bulger

‘To lose a child in those circumstances is appalling.’

This again diminishes the true horror of what they did. The Bulgers didn’t lose a child in certain circumstances. It wasn’t an unpreventable, unfortunate tragedy, like an earthquake. It wasn’t an act of God. It was orchestrated. We learn that the two boys had already tried to capture one child and failed. The Bulgers' child was frogmarched to torture and death by two other children; he wasn't lost.

Narrator: 'Whilst in custody, witnesses who had seen the boys with James, started to come forward.'

Why were the witnesses in custody? He means that the perpetrators were in custody.

Morrison: ‘Justice could never have been served.’

Yes – it could have, if they’d received appropriate sentences. Morrison evidently believes that Venables and Thompson’s childhoods ended on that day (he neglects to add ‘through their own unimaginable malice’). But so did Jamie Bulger’s, through no fault of his own. Where's the perspective?

Morrison even manages to suggest that Jamie’s mother must feel guilty though he doesn’t explain why. Because she let James out of her sight? How could she possibly have foreseen what would happen? It’s an attempt to attribute blame to anyone other than the guilty parties. Let’s blame Jamie’s parents, Venables’s parents, Thompson’s parents, society, the system.

James Bulger: The New Revelations.
First of all, let me say there are no new revelations about James Bulger as the title suggests. How can there be? He’s the same guiltless two-year-old boy he always will be thanks to his murderers Robert Thompson and Jon Venables.

Burke and JonBenet Ramsey

Most of this concerns tapes of the killers talking and in particular, Thompson’s plea for parole. Remember that these quotes are from the eighteen-year-old rather than the ten-year-old and tell me if you think remorse, guilt or empathy are at all in evidence. Instead you'll find the same distancing techniques that Pistorius and the Ramseys use.

His reasons for lying he explains as: 'I wanted to tell what happened but I was too frightened to accept any blame' I'm not surprised. This gives the lie to the people who claim children of that age can tell right from wrong but not understand the possible consequences (see below). He's frightened because he knows he did something terrible and will be punished accordingly if he admits it.

'I would be under risk if convicted.'

This shows fear and a wish for self-preservation rather than any regret for his actions.

Of the public reaction: 'It frightened me … the people who were accused of that crime.'

But he wasn't just accused of it, he did it, was convicted of it and sent down for it.

Then there's a truly unforgivable bit of poor me-ism: 'The van stopped and I hit my head.'

Why mention this now? Has he still no idea that him hitting his head is not going to garner much sympathy after he’s tortured and beaten a toddler to death? That an ‘ouch’ does not compare to the terrible ordeal they put James Bulger through?

'I’m ashamed of playing a part in this murder.'

At least he’s used the word murder instead of ‘what happened that day’ but he did a bit more than play a part. That suggests a minor role in a conspiracy rather than someone who chucked bricks at a toddler until he stopped crying or moving.

Then there’s the usual partial amnesia. See my Pistorius blog: I Don't Remember What I've Forgotten.

'I’m not completely sure of everything that happened' and 'I’ve not got it sorted out in my head.'

Read as: I can't think of anything that would absolve or excuse me so I’m going to fake confusion.

And now for the apologists, one says: 'There was something at home that Robert was avoiding.'

My sister suggests: 'Consequences.'

'Crimes like this come from very bad experiences' and 'Experiencing such violent acts … can lead to trauma.'

But let’s get this straight, he didn’t experience it, he caused it so just like Oscar Pistorius, he can't call himself a victim of the trauma he initiated.We're asked to blame the parents not the children.

Reid with Phillips

Children Who Kill with Susanna Reid

The title is a bit poorly phrased as it suggests that Susanna Reid was alongside them when they killed. The programme considers two cases.

Fact: In 1998, Joshua Phillips (14) killed Maddie Clifton (8) in Jacksonville, Florida.

Josh Phillips's appeal is all about him. He bleats on about how he never knew what real suffering was until he went to prison: 'I was just a kid. I’d done some really dumb stuff.’

Witness the same strategy in his choice of words. 'Dumb stuff' would be knocking over mailboxes, not beating a little girl to death, then hiding her body under your bed for six days while the whole neighbourhood searched for her.

He says ‘I’m so sorry for what happened’ rather than ‘I’m so sorry for murdering your daughter’. Again, it’s a blatant refusal to accept responsibility.

Leppert and Lowry

Fact: In 2008, Morgan Leppert (15) and her boyfriend Toby Lee Lowry (22) beat, stabbed and suffocated the disabled James Stewart (62) to death in his own home in Melrose, Florida.

Reid: ‘What would you say to your fifteen-year-old self?'

Leppert: ‘I wish I wasn’t so naïve and gullible.’

Once more, focused on herself, how she's been affected rather than ‘I wish I hadn’t beaten, stabbed and suffocated a man to death.’

Leppert giggling about the murder

Reid: 'Will the most brutal of crimes still condemn children to die in prison?'

This is such an emotive sentence. No one wants to think of children dying in prison. But the facts are that these two were teenagers, close to adulthood, and if they remain in prison long enough to die, they won't be children when they do. Sadly I couldn't even find a photo of the victim, James Stewart.

Some new science featured on these programmes, a theory that the area of the brain that controls behaviour, empathy, and the ability to predict consequences, does not fully develop till after puberty although some newspapers have misinterpreted this as meaning that preteens cannot yet tell right from wrong. What the 'experts' seem to say though is not that the killers could not predict that beating, strangling someone, etc. would result in pain and death as they could clearly see the effects of what they were doing but that as a result of this death, they might have to face the consequences of ending up in prison for life. Too bad. Meanwhile, see this article on potential psychopaths.

Until these ‘children’ admit their own culpability, and understand the consequences of what they have done, they should not be released. This programme proves they haven't and the American courts were astute and brave enough to recognise this fact and recondemn both to life without the possibility of parole. Hurray for America. Meanwhile the European Court of Human Rights ensured that Jamie Bulger's killers were released. 

#rememberthevictims James StewartRIP

James Bulger RIP

Maddie Clifton RIP

In Defence of Boris Johnson: Blond Ambition: Channel 4's Attempted Character Assassination

Channel 4 brand

An aside before I begin. Today the BBC (remember its somewhat patronising mission statement: 'To enrich people's lives with programmes and services that inform, educate and entertain', rather than to misinform, mislead, disseminate propaganda) has accompanied a news story about sexual harassment at the Presidents Club Dinner with video of Boris Johnson as if he were attending said dinner and involved in the allegations. He wasn't. He merely allowed them to auction off a lunch with him to generate funds for Great Ormond St Hospital. It really is as Judy Sheindlin (Judge Judy to most of us) is wont to say: 'No good deed goes unpunished.'

Programme blurb: Channel 4 charts Boris Johnson's first 14 months as Foreign Secretary. Our unlikely chief diplomat has shared his grand vision for Brexit, but can he ever achieve his dream of becoming Prime Minister?
 

This programme purports to be a documentary but is really simply an unfunny hatchet job on Boris Johnson.

I should have guessed what it would be like from the fact that its title focused on Boris’s appearance (so what if he’s blond?) and implied that he has a desire for power for himself, regardless of party politics. It also aligns him with Madonna, whose 1990 tour had the same name, so suggesting he’s more of an entertainer than a bonafide politician. Of course I can't deny it’s also a catchy, clever title.

Seriously this programme was so blatantly biased that I assumed it was on the very much pro-Remain, unremittingly anti-Brexit BBC, on which they continually talk about the Foreign Secretary's 'gaffes' (their favourite word around Boris, even if he solved world poverty, it'd still be a gaffe to the BBC) even though that's just their opinion. The BBC always sticks to the same left-leaning agenda. See my Brexit blog. Well done, Channel 4, for sinking to that level. I write that in the certainty that it will be taken as a compliment.

Boris Johnson and Theresa May

Everything is presented in such a way that Boris Johnson cannot win. If he backs the government, he’s not sticking by his principles, if he doesn’t, he’s undermining Theresa May. If he tries to do a bit of both, to be loyal and be honest, he’s dismissed as inconsistent. But some of us applaud his refusal to toe the party line when he feels strongly about something.

The image Channel 4 chose to accompany the programme

Boris’s appearance is usually accompanied by silly, fairground-style music to imply that he’s some kind of clown who can't be taken seriously. It is also suggested that his being well known will be a detriment to his political career. It’s not as if he’s appeared on Celebrity Big Brother. He’s known for his political nous and straight talking, things most people would appreciate in any politician.

The Channel 4 interviewer seems determined to provoke everyone else into having a dig at Boris and is disappointed when Andrew Neil responds with this: I don't think you can fault the man for doing the right thing.

C4: That makes it sound like he could be leader still (to Jacob Rees-Mogg who evidently believes Boris has done nothing to disqualify himself from the role).

Channel 4 describes the situation thus: Once again the PM can't control him.

The book he didn't promote in Serbia

They even go so far as to claim that he used his visit to Serbia to promote his own book although anyone watching can see that a member of the public brought him a copy of his book to sign. He can hardly be responsible for that and he can't really refuse to sign it. How ungracious would that seem? It’s not as if he sat down at a table with tons of copies and a pen though this is how C4 characterises it. In fact, you can tell he’s embarrassed enough to make a joke about it.

C4: He was wading in on the Syria question.

‘Wading in’ is loaded against Boris, as if he were at fault for having strong feelings and daring to express them, as if he shouldn’t get involved, for daring to do his job.

C4: Could he resist playing the joker?

Time and again C4 acts like being quick-witted disqualifies him from a job for which you would think it would be a prerequisite. He’s not allowed to have a sense of humour, something else that you’d imagine would be a boon to any negotiator or diplomat.

C4: Less of a chance to play at politics.

This vocabulary is chosen to belittle him. He’s not 'playing at' politics. He’s a politician.

C4: A chance to prove he’s not just a joker.

Again that’s merely C4’s entirely unobjective opinion.

'Intransigent' EU still holding us to ransom

They criticise him for panning Donald Trump, while doing the same themselves. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. In fact, they treat Trump in much the same way as they do Boris, showing gold busts of him dropping off a conveyor belt. This is done in an effort to connect the two. Boris has opinions and he shares them, perhaps occasionally unwisely but I would rather put my faith in someone who takes a stance than someone who doesn’t. If anybody else had done this, C4 would be applauding them. He says what he thinks, is not spun till his position is not robust enough to survive a strong breeze.

C4: No 10, clearly exasperated.

Again, according to C4.

Another politician, can't remember who, sees Boris as: A mix of altruism and egotism.

Like the politician, I see nothing wrong with that.

Rudyard Kipling

The documentary makers continually attempt to ambush him. He’s not allowed to recite Rudyard Kipling because C4, BBC et al. believe we have to apologise for the Empire for the rest of our lives even if no one alive today had anything to do with it. But are we asking for reparation from the Romans or the Vikings? What's really being attacked here is Boris's erudition because the media has a patronising attitude to the general public (particularly prevalent at the BBC, our so-called public service broadcaster) who they're sure will not understand the reference. And there may be a little truth in that. A phrase like 'Gadarene rush' might easily be lost on some people but to me this is more evidence of the fact that Boris is not willing to promote an image that's not real. He isn't striving to be an Everyman; he doesn't purport to be 'a man of the people'. He's not going to pretend not to know something he does. He doesn't condescend to people like David Cameron or Jeremy Corbyn do. I would rather endorse someone who is well read and erudite than someone who isn’t.

C4: Scolded, wooed and mocked, again and again breaching the line.

They don’t know that any of this has happened and come across as bad losers, disgruntled that Boris finally refused to have anything to do with them, no doubt because of their wilful misrepresentation of certain situations, eg the book-signing incident.

C4: The most centralised and controlling no. 10 anyone could remember.

They seem to believe that this is a good thing. Why? And that Boris is some sort of mischievous schoolboy, always up before the headmistress. This notion does not reflect well on either Theresa May or Boris Johnson. And why wouldn't you respect someone who refused to be controlled?

If he keeps out of the way, in order not to steal the limelight, they attack him for that, with: Boris, chairing his own version of Bake Off. If he were in the throng, they would say he was trying to compete with the Prime Minister. He really can't win.

Jeremy Corbyn at Glastonbury

C4: There were several articles mocking Boris Johnson as a joke.

According to Channel 4. Have they read the Evening Standard’s satirical report on Jeremy Corbyn at Glastonbury? I love the description of Corbyn looking like a pensioner who'd lost his coach party.

The programme closes with a sequence showing Boris good-naturedly participating in a tug of war and ends, predictably for Channel 4, with Boris falling over.

C4 is asking us to believe that you can't be taken seriously if you

look rumpled

have a sense of humour

are able to quote literature

occasionally reference something the media consider is not widely known

have a wide vocabulary

ride a bike

have blond hair.

They’ve refused to understand what Boris is about,

I hope that the viewers are able to distinguish the dishonest, subjective agenda that the programme makers are trying to push. It really is the exact opposite of impartial reporting, with every opportunity taken to subvert Boris Johnson’s mission and motivation. It’s a failed assassination attempt on his character.