2013-06-20T06:59:57-04:00 Philip Ellis http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/author/index.php?author=philip-ellis Copyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc. HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Philip Ellis Good old fashioned elbow grease. tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.3385119 2013-06-04T14:24:30-04:00 2013-06-05T08:21:09-04:00

Philip Ellis http://www.huffingtonpost.com/philip-ellis/
Coined by an anonymous account on Sina Weibo (China's answer to Twitter), the budget wife, or jingji shiyong nv, is a category of womanhood comprising a number of supposedly ideal characteristics. These include everything from personality traits (warm, sympathetic and responsible), education (Bachelors' Degree or higher) and monthly earnings ($482 to $965) to physical attributes such as height (preferably between 5ft2 and 5ft8), weight (99-120lb) and breast size (B to C cup please ladies!). The full list of what it takes to be a budget wife has been reposted over 10,000 times and garnered in excess of 6,700 replies.

The budget wife is a variation on the term "budget husband" (jingji shiyong nan), which itself originates in the Chinese phrase for budget housing (jingji shiyong fang) and has been popularised in recent years by the "Me And My Budget Husband" book and TV franchise. It alludes to the new ideal among China's white collar single ladies; a low-maintenance alternative to the fast-living "diamond husband", whose key selling point is how perfectly average he is.

A budget bloke is neither ugly nor intimidatingly handsome. He is not poor, but he is also not excessively wealthy. The purpose of this mediocrity? To foster stability; after all, a man who possesses the modesty and dutiful outlook of a budget boyfriend is unlikely to lie or cheat.

So, have the Chinese found the highly sought-after recipe for a perfect marriage? Such a cheat sheet is probably non-existent, but the budget spouse does raise some interesting questions about modern partnerships.

While the very idea can be interpreted as sexist and reductive, in that individuals are deemed to be eligible based solely on an array of pre-established wifely or husbandly traits, there is also an argument to be made that this new approach actually defies some of the negative stereotypes associated with traditional gender roles in a relationship.

For example, it completely rejects the concept of the "sugar daddy" and the "trophy wife"; budget brides must be educated, well-mannered, employable, and equipped with practical life skills. Being attractive is no longer qualifier enough. And budget husbands are measured up against a list of their own; if he smokes, drinks to excess, lacks ambition, or proves useless in the kitchen, he will be found wanting.

So many cultural divides exist between China and the UK that it is impossible to predict how such a set-up would translate here. The rise of the metrosexual (an ugly, all-encompassing term if ever there was one), not to mention the coming-of-age of a generation that is much more highly sensitised to feminism, means that courting rituals have changed a fair bit since our parents' day. Fellas, would you dare reel off a list of domestic prerequisites on a first date? And ladies, would you forgo all excitement and settle for a budget boyfriend? Or do we all secretly yearn for that elusive diamond model, no matter what our common sense tells us?

Maybe it's just me, with my "I'll know it when I see it" approach to dating, but I've always found part of the excitement in playing the field is that you meet all kinds of people, with interests and backgrounds and talents that are the complete opposite to your own. Taking a shortcut would put an end to that. Modern romance is such a minefield that the thought of simplifying matters might initially be quite appealing, but in reality, "discount dating" seems to occupy that curious, worrisome No Man's Land between lowering our expectations and simply lowering our standards.

Setting out to find a budget spouse may resemble more of a recruitment process than a romantic endeavour, but according to author Minami Funakoshi, the whole point is to form a partnership based on combined strengths which will be able to weather the many challenges that married life can throw at a couple, from pooling their finances and running a household together to ultimately having children.

And a number of Chinese bachelors would tend to agree. "I just want to find someone with whom I can get along", said one, while another explained that the most important thing he looked for in a potential marriage is "that we can spend our days together peacefully."

Some guys will do anything for a quiet life.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.2671274 2013-02-14T15:34:01-05:00 2013-04-16T05:12:01-04:00

Philip Ellis http://www.huffingtonpost.com/philip-ellis/ Dragon's Den in 2011, I've had a massive soft spot for Hilary Devey. Her recent appearance on Channel 4's Hotel GB only endeared her to me further. And it's not just her gravelly voice, drag queen shoulder pads and overall camp appeal. It's her school-of-hard-knocks life story, and what it represents: that you can get a long way in life through sheer balls and bootstrapping.

But I'm not going to dwell on Devey's personal history. After all, adversity is something you face in life and in business no matter who you are, and I've always thought that to describe someone as having done well "considering their circumstances" only serves to diminish what they have achieved. Who cares if Devey's been through the mill? Who cares that she's a woman? Her accomplishments ought to speak for themselves.

The same goes for Karren Brady, who appears on the BBC's other flagship business reality show, The Apprentice, and whose career trajectory would put that of many of her male peers to shame. Does being a member of the fairer sex make a difference to the fact that she was Managing Director of Birmingham City F.C. at the age of 23, or that she is now Vice-Chair of West Ham, or that she has had four books published?

The answer, one would hope, is no. And while Brady's success in a predominantly male environment may be seen as cause for celebration, it is also indicative of how sorely the world of work needs to evolve. Certain questions are still asked of female leaders that would never be posed to their male counterparts, and some companies feel perfectly justified in deeming female candidates unsuitable for high-powered positions because they have a baby or are planning to start a family in the near future. I have never heard a single account of this prejudice being leveraged against a man (and would be very interested to hear about it if anyone does know of such a case).

I asked Twitter, that great barometer of public opinion, for any and all suggestions of positive female business role models. Rose-Anna Bailey, a student from Ironbridge, nominated the late Anita Roddick, founder of The Body Shop and long-time Greenpeace campaigner. When asked why she admired Roddick, Rose-Anna answered: "She understood the importance of timing and didn't make short-term decisions for short-term profit."

At the other end of the spectrum, film producer Jules T-Smith from London chose Spice Girl and original WAG Victoria Beckham, justifying his selection with some creative algebra: "Cheesy girl band - ego + footballer + solo career - top ten hit / bad third album x fashion line x pout (squared) = success." He raises an interesting point about show-business and the creative industries, where at first glance female success has a much healthier ratio -- but that probably necessitates a discussion on the extent to which stars like Lady Gaga and Katy Perry really manage their own careers.

I can't say for certain why, but whenever I try to think of a business role model, I come up with a woman. Perhaps I'm prejudiced in favour of female entrepreneurs. Growing up, I learned the value of hard work from watching my mother run a small business. Thirteen years on, that business is still going and she is in the process of starting another.

Additionally, as a freelancer I am in constant contact with incredibly driven, dynamic and creative women. One prime example is author, entrepreneur and crusader Cindy Gallop, founder of IfWeRanTheWorld and MakeLoveNotPorn. Gallop stated in a piece at Adage.com last year that women in business need to be bigger "bitches" -- not simply to be antagonistic, but rather to ensure their voice is heard.

When I interviewed Gallop for The Kernel, we got chatting about the battle of the sexes, or more specifically the myth surrounding it. Gallop's stance: "I am a firm believer that if we have a more gender-equal world where everything is built equally between men and women, men will enjoy living in it. Every different business is a product of a different kind of vision. Innovation is driven by diversity. The misconception is that women only create for women, and vice versa."

At the end of the day, it seems, everything comes down to confidence and self-belief. And while women who speak their minds may be seen as "bitches," Gallop believes it is a risk worth taking in the long run. Speaking to Business Insider, Facebook's COO Sheryl Sandberg stated: "It's hard to visualize someone as a leader, if she is always waiting to be told what to do."

Or, as Tina Fey more succinctly put it: "Bitches get stuff done."]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.2245811 2012-12-05T14:06:56-05:00 2013-02-04T05:12:01-05:00

Philip Ellis http://www.huffingtonpost.com/philip-ellis/ The Only Way Is Essex recently aired its first live episode, to a reception that was mixed at best. The experimental broadcast got me thinking about the phenomenon that is reality TV, and the "stars" it spawns.

I'll freely admit, I'm a sucker for the spoiled bitchiness of Made In Chelsea and the gutter-mouthed, drunken antics of the Geordie Shore cast. But who would ever in a million years aspire to be anything like any of these people? Seriously; they're lazy, entitled, and often downright malicious. (Francis Boulle is a huge exception. I frickin' love that guy.)

Kim Kardashian is perhaps the biggest reality star on the planet, whose self-perpetuating celebrity is both the most fascinating thing about her and also her biggest source of criticism. "She's only famous for being famous," her detractors are only too happy to point out.

However, a new offshoot of reality TV might be about to buck that trend. Start-Ups: Silicon Valley is a Bravo docu-soap following the trials and tribulations faced by a gang of young entrepreneurs in America's technology capital. Produced and packaged with the same gloss and glamour as The Hills, some of its cast members are already well known in their industry. This includes journalist Hermione Way, who cheerfully gives the show its tagline in the trailer: "geeks are definitely the new rock stars."

And you know what? She might just be onto something. Once derogatory terms like "nerd" and "geek" have become celebratory in recent years. Even science fiction, the geekiest of genre terrain, has more mainstream appeal than ever - Prometheus was one of the most talked about films of 2012, and the entire nation is on tenterhooks ahead of this year's Doctor Who Christmas special. While sitcoms like The Big Bang Theory still rely on dweeby stereotypes for cheap laughs, I remain optimistic that new programmes like Start-Ups and Objective-Sea (a Survivor-style game show for app developers) will motivate younger audiences to aspire to something other than a career as a glamour model or club promoter when they grow up.

In that spirit, here are some hand-picked inspirational guys and girls from the worlds of entertainment, science and technology - all of whom might be deemed nerds, and are all the more loveable for it.

]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.2041126 2012-11-07T15:56:40-05:00 2013-01-07T05:12:01-05:00

Philip Ellis http://www.huffingtonpost.com/philip-ellis/ recent video released by Google in partnership with The Four, a number of Google staff explain their own motivations for supporting marriage equality, and encourage U.S. voters to do the same, calling it "the civil rights issue of our generation."

Google isn't the only household name throwing its weight behind this cause. Travel giants Expedia are another organizations to show their support for same sex marriage by releasing a video entitled "Find Your Understanding," which follows the journey of a retired businessman coming to terms with his daughter's wish to marry her girlfriend. Prior to unveiling the video, Expedia publicly backed a referendum which would effectively legalize gay marriage in Washington State, where the company is based. While the majority of responses to the video have been positive, one less impressed YouTube commenter took the opportunity to assert their love of Republican candidates Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, adding, "I also vote with my travel dollars," indicating he would never darken Expedia's door again.

Whether you look at it as corporate social responsibility, a PR opportunity, or simply a cynical grab for the lucrative once-termed "pink pound," supporting the gay rights movement has become a lot more fashionable than it ever used to be, especially among international corporations. In 2010, the French arm of McDonald's made international headlines when it aired a short, sweet and simple gay-friendly ad, complete with the slogan "come as you are." The video soon went viral as the Internet responded warmly to the chain's departure from its long-standing focus on depicting "traditional" family units eating at the restaurant.

Since then, numerous companies such as Facebook and Amazon have publicly aligned themselves with the movement. Oreo made a lot of friends (and more than a few enemies) this June, when it released a Photoshopped, Pride-themed image of a rainbow-colored cookie, captioned "RainbOreo." Naturally, a number of reactionaries called for the Kraft-owned brand to be boycotted.

Not all companies are ready to march in the pride parade just yet, though. It's common knowledge that talking about religion or politics is the quickest and easiest way to court controversy (something this blogger recently discovered first-hand), but when doing so within the context of a multi-million dollar business empire, the consequences can be downright disastrous. No company has learned this lesson quite as harshly as the American fast food chain Chick-Fil-A.

With a largely Christian company culture, Chick-Fil-A gained notoriety this year when COO Dan Cathy made a number of divisive public statements on the subject of same sex marriage. This came in the aftermath of the revelation that the organization had made donations of over $5 million to causes which oppose marriage equality in the U.S. and even promote "conversion" therapy, through its non-profit arm subsidiary WinShape. Chick-Fil-A's insistence on throwing its hat into the ring of national debate on gay rights sparked widespread controversy, and led to many boycotting the restaurant; high profile public figures including the mayor of Boston and the Alderman of Chicago even proposed a ban on the franchise in their respective areas.

In September, it was announced that Chick-Fil-A had "ceased donating to organizations that promote discrimination, specifically against LGBT civil rights," suggesting that while having strong views is all well and good while business is booming, even the most self-righteous of Directors will reassess their own convictions if profits are threatened. Following the scandal, an internal document was circulated throughout Chick-Fil-A which promoted an ethos of acceptance to individuals of all race, religion, and sexual orientation. But it may take more than a sudden culture change to sway public opinion now that the damage has been done.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1975640 2012-10-22T18:33:29-04:00 2012-12-22T05:12:01-05:00

Philip Ellis http://www.huffingtonpost.com/philip-ellis/
These two events became bizarrely intertwined this week in a tweet which read: "Dear Religion, This week I safely dropped a human being from space while you shot a child in the head for wanting to go to school. Yours, Science." The tweet originated on comedian Ricky Gervais's feed (although it is suspected he pinched the joke from another source), and variations on the same have been popping up all over the internet ever since.

When I first read it on Twitter, it riled me. And as the week went on, and I saw it pasted everywhere, it continued to do so. Not because I'm particularly religious (if anything I sway more towards the atheist end of the spectrum), but because the joke itself suggests a level of ignorance as damaging as that which so many religious people are accused of. It's a sweeping, fundamentalist statement equal to "money is the root of all evil" or "religion caused every major war."

By making Felix Baumgautner and science the "winners" of the joke, Gervais (or whoever actually wrote it) only succeeded in trivializing the acts of the Taliban and the fact that a young woman very nearly died. Yes, some terrible things are done in the name of religion. But to tar every religion, every single religious person, with the same brush is nothing short of fundamentalist behaviour in its own right. It is unimaginable that somebody would generalise that all of science is responsible for the atom bomb and the gas chamber, but for some reason an equally ridiculous caption has been adopted by the masses.

Never mind that it makes no sense to even be thinking of these two occurrences at the same time. One is a tragedy perpetrated by a totalitarian regime which uses religion to justify its own agenda. The other was a Red Bull publicity stunt. Admittedly, it was a pretty damned impressive one which had the entire world holding its breath, but let's be honest -- the situations are incomparable.

And shouldn't our super-modern society be a little bit too evolved and open-minded for the either/or religion vs. science argument? Why must one be superior to the other? Science is essential to the development of technology and medicine and the advancement of our society -- and religion has been a cornerstone of civilisation for millennia. It is incredibly unimaginative to believe that we can only reap the benefits of one at the expense of the other.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1670974 2012-07-13T10:26:07-04:00 2012-09-12T05:12:11-04:00

Philip Ellis http://www.huffingtonpost.com/philip-ellis/ LittleMonsters.com, an online community thought up by Gaga's manager Troy Carter. The site, which provides a platform for Gaga's loyal devotees (nicknamed "little monsters") to upload and share content, is invitation only at the moment - individuals can sign up for the chance to be sent a membership code. It remains to be seen whether this sign up model will cause the same stir with fans of Lady Gaga as it did with would-be members of JK Rowling's Pottermore site last year.

Of course fan sites are nothing new, but the idea of a "social corridor" (a term coined by Backplane CEO Matt Michelson) dedicated to the career and fan base of one performer sets something of a precedent for topic-based social networking. I reviewed LittleMonsters.com for My Social Agency and compared it to Frankenstein's monster because it appears to be a fusion of social media staples from around the web, with Facebook-inspired chat and notifications, and a similar layout to Pinterest, but little to no original features of its own. Which begs the question; is there any need for a new social network if it offers no more functionality than what is already out there?

After all, it's not as if Lady Gaga is in need of the exposure. With over 26.8 million Twitter followers at the time of writing (that's 9 million more than Barack Obama), not to mention 52.5 fans on Facebook and 2.8 million followers on Google+, one could argue that Gaga's little monsters get more than enough of their idol, and an entirely new network is hardly a necessity.

But Lady Gaga is not the only one playing this game. Last month, Conservative MP Louise Mensch announced the launch of her own micro-blogging site, Menshn.com, a politically focused alternative to Twitter. Initially only available to users in the US (which just so happens to be where the site's funding originates), the goal of the project is to unite users in discussion of shared interests.

However, what was put forward as a civilised forum, protected from un-moderated and abusive content, could easily be interpreted as something of a digital policed state. One of my Twitter followers (who rather tellingly declined to be identified in this post) called the site a walled garden, going on to say: "I know one shouldn't throw the word 'fascist' around lightly, but it looks suspiciously like attempted 'control of discourse'".

The backlash on Twitter has been vehement and far from positive. Mensch was branded a "narcissist" and "attention-seeking troll", while her business model was criticised for being ultimately "undeliverable". Numerous mentions were also made of the London riots last year, during which Mensch called for Twitter to be called down, and it was suggested that she would be only too happy to shut down her own site in times of crisis.

Mensch's motivations are less than clear, to say the least. Is she hoping to simply reduce the risk of trolls in her new community? Or is cyber-Darwinism her intention, does she wish to cultivate an elitist forum where only the most highly informed of politicos are entitled to offer their opinion?

It is far too early to say whether niche social networks are a sustainable concept, so I am probably being a smidgeon Orwellian and dramatic. And naturally there are exceptions to the rule; for instance, social networks such as Gaydar.co.uk will only ever be accessible to people of a certain persuasion. But generally speaking, social media's core appeal is the way in which it brings people together. Darting off to private corners of the internet reeks of self-enforced ghettoisation and in my mind can only serve to childishly exclude people who aren't deemed committed or fanatical enough in any given area of interest.

LittleMonsters.com may yet be able to justify its existence thanks to the passionate and fiercely loyal nature of Gaga's fans. And love her or hate her, at least the Lady encourages individuality and freedom of expression. On the other hand, Louise Mensch could not be more reminiscent of the snooty girl we all knew at school who only allowed people to be her friends if they listened to the right music, wore the right clothes and agreed with every single thing she said. Unfortunately for Mensch, people soon grow out of that thrall and end up having plenty to say for themselves - especially online.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1613829 2012-06-22T19:00:00-04:00 2012-08-22T05:12:22-04:00

Philip Ellis http://www.huffingtonpost.com/philip-ellis/
Born on the 23rd June 1912, Turing's world was markedly different from the one in which we live today. In fact, much of the technology which we now take for granted can be traced back to him in some way. Ever heard of an algorithm? You can thank Alan Turing for that little gem, who originated the concept in a paper while at Kings College, Cambridge.

Best remembered for his work at Bletchley Park in wartime, Turing devised the electromechanical Bombe, which was able to find settings for the Enigma machine, enabling encrypted German messages to be deciphered - which proved to be an invaluable resouce.

After the war, Turing went on to explore the possibilities of artificial intelligence, publishing papers on the subject and creating the "Turing Test", which determined whether the responses of an artificial intelligence could be told apart from the responses of a human being. If you think this rings a bell, it is because a similar idea forms a prominent plot point in the science fiction classic Blade Runner.

But Alan's highly celebrated career was marred and ultimately cut short by a tragic personal life. In 1952, his homosexual relationship with Arnold Murray led to a conviction of gross indecency (homosexuality would not begin to be decriminalised until 1967). Alan was offered a choice between imprisonment for his so-called crimes, or chemical castration via oestrogen injections - he ultimately chose hormone treatment over incarceration.

Unfortunately, the fact that Turing had helped save countless lives and secure a win for the Allies during the war did not prevent him from becoming utterly ostracised by his government and peers. He was relieved of his security clearance and forbidden from continuing his work at the Government Communications Headquarters. Two years later, Alan Turing was found dead by his cleaner. The cause was determined to be cyanide poisoning, but whether the death was an accident or suicide is debated to this day.

LGBT campaigners are still petitioning for an official pardon of Turing's indecency charges, although as yet the answer is "no", with Lord McNally defending the government's decision (rather weakly, in this writer's opinion) by stating that he was rightly prosecuted under the law of the era. But while a pardon may not be immediately forthcoming, John Graham-Cumming did at least succeed in procuring a public apology from then-Prime Minister Gordon Brown in 2009.

Brown responded by writing about Turing at length in a piece in the Telegraph, stating: "Alan deserves recognition for his contribution to humankind. For those of us born after 1945, into a Europe which is united, democratic and at peace, it is hard to imagine that our continent was once the theatre of mankind's darkest hour." Harder still to believe, as we celebrate all that is great about Britain this year with the Diamond Jubilee and Olympic Games, that a man could suffer so much at the hands of his own country, when it owed him such a debt.

The word "legacy" can be bandied around and overused from time to time, but in this instance it could not be more apt: not just for the debt of thanks we all owe to Alan Turing for his wartime work but also for the opportunity that his life story offers; the opportunity to learn from the mistakes and prejudices of the generations that came before us, and ensure that they are never repeated.

Now I'm going to do the unthinkable and sign off with a few more words from Gordon Brown, because for once I think he got it exactly right: "On behalf of the British government, and all those who live freely thanks to Alan's work I am very proud to say: we're sorry, you deserved so much better."]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1229367 2012-01-24T17:42:54-05:00 2012-03-25T05:12:01-04:00

Philip Ellis http://www.huffingtonpost.com/philip-ellis/ EastEnders once in a while. It seems that writers love nothing more than coming up with unique and inventive ways to keep their fictional clans miserable, and therefore more interesting to viewers.

But not all TV is about misery. There is a man inside the idiot box who devotes his life to helping fractured families overcome their differences. A man whose polygraphs and DNA tests can put a stop to any long-running feud. That man is, of course, Jeremy Kyle. He has his own daytime talk show - you may have heard of it.

Below are five of the most disturbed families in modern television, who I think would almost certainly benefit from an appearance on Jeremy's show. Needless to say, spoilers abound - so read no further if you're not keen on unpleasant surprises (which really are integral to the appeal of Jeremy Kyle).

<>]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.1014094 2011-10-25T14:55:00-04:00 2011-12-25T05:12:01-05:00

Philip Ellis http://www.huffingtonpost.com/philip-ellis/
I was 14 when the televised version of Tipping the Velvet made the entire nation blush and got people talking. Soon after, I bumped into Sarah Waters in a Starbucks in Camden and was too star-struck to tell her how much I admired her. Looking back now, I can say somewhat cynically that there wasn't anything progressive about girl-on-girl kissing proving popular with viewers, but to my teenage self it was hugely encouraging. Here was a story that dealt directly with gay experience, and not in the half-embarrassed way that a lot of television at the time treated its token gay characters.

Efforts are being made nowadays to make sex education more inclusive in schools (a hot topic I will sidestep for the moment). And while knowing the facts of life is important to anyone growing up, whatever their orientation, I feel it is also important for young people to find stories and characters that they can identify with outside the broad archetypes found in TV shows such as Glee. Here are a few of my own suggestions; please feel free to submit your own in the comments section.

]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.966036 2011-09-16T10:17:55-04:00 2011-11-16T05:12:01-05:00

Philip Ellis http://www.huffingtonpost.com/philip-ellis/
It was in Children of Earth that the Torchwood finally found its feet, managing to tell one compelling story over multiple instalments rather than the episodic monster-of-the-week format that had preceded it. It also established the show as a more adult alternative to Doctor Who, not merely by broadcasting post-watershed content, but by taking its sci-fi concept and letting it play out through the perspectives of "real world" characters like Peter Capaldi's civil servant and Cush Jumbo's political intern.

It is obvious that this fourth run, Miracle Day, has done its best to repeat the success of Children of Earth by sticking with one core storyline (everyone stops dying) and watching the consequences affect everything from healthcare to the worldwide economy. This time around Torchwood was a joint production between the BBC and the American network Starz, something which built hype among expectant fans: Hollywood actors! A bigger budget with which to tell Russell T Davies' story! But sadly, something seemed to get lost in translation.

While the "global immortality" concept seemed ideally suited to a miniseries, a longer, ten episode run was decided. As most of the original cast had been killed off, a new team of incredibly broad American characters were written in to pad out the cast and presumably act as surrogates for novice viewers in the US. The opening episode was arguably the strongest of the entire season, wasting no time in introducing the Miracle phenomenon and suggesting what the implications could be for modern society.

This was where Miracle Day showed potential: by showing the collision of the ordinary with the extraordinary. Even the reintroduction of Torchwood mainstays Jack Harkness and Gwen Cooper made for enjoyable viewing, although I maintain that Miracle Day could have worked as a standalone sci-fi series. It was in the second episode that viewers began to suspect what they would slowly and resentfully realise over the next nine weeks - that one intriguing concept is not enough to sustain a ten long hours.

It wasn't as if there weren't other interesting elements in the mix; it was just that Torchwood insisted on continually sacrificing them. Remember those masked cultists who vanished after one episode? In retrospect they were probably only thought up in order to provide a few creepy, iconic images for the ad campaigns, that's how little they mattered to the plot. And what about poor Dr Vera? Her perspective was arguably one of the more fascinating in the series, but as soon as she had fulfilled her exposition purposes, she went up in smoke. Instead of exploring the new world they had created, the show's creators devoted more and more screen time to cardboard cut-out characters like Rex and Esther.

Not to mention, of course, the inexplicable Oswald Danes, who was made so utterly repellent by actor Bill Pullman that it was almost as if he belonged in another show altogether. His rise to fame was a bizarre storyline in itself, but those final episodes? I can't imagine a single viewer would have enjoyed watching the heroes of the show reluctantly join forces with a child killer. I get that his final speech was to hammer home the point that, even in sacrificing himself he was still utterly beyond redemption, but I found it entirely unnecessary. We have been told, a number of times over the last ten weeks, that this man is a villain. Which highlights another problem with Miracle Day; the tendency to forgo all subtlety and tell rather than show. And when Torchwood does show something, it is usually Captain Jack's bum-cheeks.

Captain Jack. The sidekick who proved so popular he got his own spin-off. Fans wanted more of him when he first appeared back in the rebooted Doctor Who, but those same individuals may well be reconsidering after this series. Maybe it's because Jack has become indistinguishable from John Barrowman and his Saturday Night television persona. Maybe it's because one finds it harder and harder to suspend disbelief at a rather obviously botoxed actor portraying a character who is meant to be ageless. Or perhaps it is simply because the character has devolved into an oversexed, unlikeable cipher, equal parts cocksure swagger and writer's wish fulfilment.

With each passing episode, it was as if the team behind Torchwood: Miracle Day were contriving to come up with ways to make Jack essential to the plot, or at the very least get his clothes off, neither of which panned out very successfully. Viewers were subjected to a corny hour of Jack seducing an Italian immigrant in a softcore gay porn version of the 1920s, even though that entire episode was reduced to a minor plot point the week after. I think the writers need to learn that while it is definitely a good thing to represent different sexualities on television, this involves more than simply giving John Barrowman a scene with a strategically placed bed sheet and a double entendre.

But almost certainly the biggest obstacle to Torchwood's success is that lately, we've been spoiled. Children of Earth would have been hard enough to top in the first place, and it doesn't help that in the two years between that series and Miracle Day, Steven Moffat took over the reins on parent show Doctor Who and immediately set about telling a complex and increasingly serialised science fiction story. Doctor Who has become darker, both in theme and content, than previously thought appropriate for a family show, and subsequently, Torchwood's "adult" sensibilities seem almost juvenile by comparison.

And when it comes to the Torchwood finale, with its magical rocky crevice, shoddy effects, deus ex machina and shameless twist ending, well, the less said the better. Although if that last scene was an attempt to prove to audiences that the franchise still has legs, I have just one suggestion: more Jilly Kitzinger please.]]>