Canton Vaud. Switzerland. November 29^th. 2008.

Tomorrow we vote. Nothing special there, we vote a lot in Switzerland as the referendum system demands. One issue on the list of three initiatives is the highly volatile question of smoking in public places. An issue which takes on extra importance as our neighbours, the Canton of Geneva, made themselves look very silly a few months ago by voting for a total ban on smoking in public places then, three months later, having the decision reversed on a legal technicality which a first-year law student would have spotted. Out came the ashtrays and restaurants were full of smoke again – but pavements were tidier.

Tomorrow’s voting possibilities are as follows:

• An extremist vote: Total ban on smoking in all public areas.

• A rigorous vote: Smoking ban in all public areas except those which have been isolated from the non-smoking public and into which serving personal may not enter.

And strangely, a third possibility:

• Should both initiatives receive equal votes, the voter may tick another box indicating an eventual preference.

To make life easier for the population, citizens are furnished with a confusing booklet explaining the initiatives of the day. i.e: “Do you agree to refuse the counter initiative against the acceptation for the admission or the rejection of the proposed initiative”.

I’ve made my choice and sent in my vote. …er… at least I think I have.

How do they get it so wrong?

How on Earth can a worldwide institution with the experience and dominance of UBS totally fail to understand what is going on around it? Well, I suppose we shouldn’t be too surprised, they completely failed to see the enormous black cloud that had been looming on their horizon for the past few years.

They never thought about public opinion when they grossly overpaid themselves retirement packages bigger than some Third World nations GNP. Now UBS show us, with alarmingly misguided pride, that it has totally failed to understand the needs, wants and anxieties of its customers and to provide the reassurance investors and the financial world expect.

Today, our proud market leader can think of nothing better than spending their/our few remaining Swiss francs on a most awfully pompous, downright dishonest and self-congratulatory piece of flim-flam in the guise of an advertising campaign.

“Everyone has the right to a second chance. The UBS too. Think about all those employees who have done a good job. The UBS still deserve my confidence“

 An advertising campaign that no self-respecting ad agency would ever let out the door. This is obviously an inside job. You know the situation; the management sits around a conference table telling themselves how great and good they are and how the world would be crazy not to adore them. Then these pretentious sycophants pat themselves on the back and go out to lunch.

Do you really believe that innocent individuals, like the pretty Sybille, would make such ridiculous statements on behalf of the bank that could ruin her? Would you put your name and face to this deception? No, of course you wouldn’t, unless you were conceited enough to want your “fifteen minutes of fame.” According to a UBS press release, the clients featured in the ads were not paid and the quotes are genuinely theirs. They did it because they “believe” in the future of the bank - probably hoping to get some of their money back.  

Come on. Gimme a break. Who’s kidding who here? 

Oh how, how, how do they get it so wrong?

Damn! Do I get the right to a “second chance” when my mortgage and overdraft obligations come up for review?

Here’s the ad I’d write.

“Lights, camera, action…” and Martina does! Surely a first for her and fortunately no longer attached to its previous owner. She’s passed “The Bush Tucker Trial.”

This story will only be of interest to those of you who receive Sky TV and are stupid enough to watch “I’m a Celebrity, Get Me Out of Here.” To my other readers, I apologise.

Do we really need this? I am by no means a man of intellectual bent, and my TV favourites rarely go beyond comedy, cooking shows and football. Sometimes, if I can stay awake, I’ll watch a dumb shoot-em-up movie. But I’m afraid politics, intellectual debate and costume drama just don’t do it for me. Nor do “reality” shows.

Getting back to “I’m an Unknown Idiot, Get Me Out of Here”.

Just who are these people and how did they deserve the epithet “Celebrity”?

There’s Brian Paddick, ex-deputy Copper and former unsuccessful candidate for Mayor of London.

Then there’s Carly Zucker (sic). Ex-model, for what, I have no idea, but judging by her face it could be Toby jugs.

Dani Behr, topless model and sometime TV presenter – on one of those shows that are broadcast after the news in Welsh.

David van Day. Unknown pub singer.

Esther Rantzen. Well, we all know dear old auntie Es. Christ, she’s been around for so long no wonder she looks mummified. Probably her last shot at getting the word “celebrity” associated with her name.

George Takei. Appeared in Star Trek but too small to notice. At 71, he could be the programme’s first fatality.

Joe Swash. Yeah, I know him, he’s OK. Good in Eastenders.

Martina Navratilova. A great tennis player and darling of the press – mainly for reasons that have nothing to do with tennis.

Nicola McLean. Tits out on page 3.

Robert Kilroy-Silk. Former politician and daytime TV agony aunt. Desperately in love with himself.

Simon Webb. A bloke who, like a thousand others, sang with a no-hope boy band. Brings colour to the show.

Timmy Mallett. Totally anonymous little berk. Does imitations of Joe Pasquale, a comedian who won “King of the Jungle” title on the same programme a few years ago.

All these nobodies stranded in the Australian rain forest, just a hundred yards from a 50 man film crew and two obnoxious little Micks. Do they really think they are celebrities? Have they all convinced themselves that the World is desperate for news of their struggle to overcome the perils of “the jungle”? Will they still be “celebrities” next week? The producers and ITV should be fined under the Trade Descriptions Act.

I would imagine a million people have put their thoughts on paper about this televisual aberration, and that’s why it is so successful. It’s awful, it’s embarrassing, it’s vacuous and idiotic - and we love it. Aren’t we weird?

Just a thought. If the same TV format exists in Australia, do they send their “celebrities” to the North Pole to chew on walrus whatsits?