Many a true word is spoken in jest; there is an old quote from a Harry Enfield and Chums sketch 'Women! Know Your Place'. Although a woman's place is now wherever she so pleases, there is an element of truth behind accepting what your place is.
As an actress you have to accept your place; not as a lower class citizen as believed about the first actresses in London but what our 'cast-ability' truly is. We are judged by our looks, talents and niche and the sooner you accept what your cast-ability is the happier your audition life will be. I may want to be Nala in The Lion King but I have to face facts that it is never going to happen.
Similarly, Phillip Schofield may want to be the next hard-hitting journalist hack but it ain't gonna happen. His place is as a warm, friendly, popular culture television presenter; we want to see him giggling uncontrollably with Holly Willoughby about phallic shaped parsnips not leading a campaign against the government.
I have always been a fan of the Silver Fox from the gopher, to loin cloths to the This Morning sofa but I think he got it wrong yesterday. I suspect it was the This Morning editorial team/producers with Panorama aspirations that pushed this idea with dreams of daytime TV seen to front the campaign against cover ups and paedophilia. But they need to remember that This Morning is exactly that - Daytime TV.
It can be argued that David Cameron was booked as a guest so therefore This Morning was obliged to cover hard hitting topics (he was booked to discuss dementia) however, it is doubtful that Downing Street's PR team book the prime minister on such television shows for an in-depth debate. The purpose of these appearances is surely to display how in touch he is with the people of the UK - those ironing at 11am and those waiting to hear from auditions although wherever he is, interviewed, David Cameron should expect to answer tough quesitons. Debate and confrontation is welcome in all kinds of television and I am not insinuating that daytime viewers don't have opinions and a desire to share them but such acts must be done in the right setting.
The act of Phillip Schofield handing over a list of Tory names allegedly linked to child molestation claims to David Cameron has been called a "silly, tabloid stunt," and I have to agree. It wasn't a presentation of well thought-out research, documentation or a manifesto but a list scribbled on a cue card that Phil said he "had got off the internet" the night before; his turn of phrase cheapened the act before he even handed it over.
This conversation and David Cameron's calm response obviously went viral over the Internet within hours; everyone had an opinion or a mock up-photo to tweet. I am loathed to say it but I think the government are right to warn against trial by Twitter. Response and opinion can be created so quickly online by any number of people and although there are so many advantages to the cyber world, it is right to be wary of this force, too. Speculation is expected but we must be careful of creating lists about such a scandalous and sensitive subjects without documented evidence. Tom Chivers has written a great comment in the Telegraph blog today about this, citing how people are "incredibly prone to groupthink" and prompting us to remember the "name and shame campaign" of the News of the World a few years ago prompting vigilante behaviour against paedophilia. He makes some throught-provoking points, take a look
So Phil, you were a lovely Joseph but since I have accepted that I cannot audition for the blonde, leggy Ulla in The Producers, you need to accept that you cannot audition to be Jeremy Paxman - it would confuse the Dancing on Ice viewers.
Follow Daniella Gibb on Twitter: www.twitter.com/DaniellaGibb