Pickled Politics




Site Meter

Londonstani versus Londonistan

by Sunny on 1st June, 2006 at 12:40 am    

The showdown is here. Who has the better book title and who thought of it first? And will people ever correctly guess which was written by Gautam Malkani and which by Melanie Phillips?

Anyway. Both will be on 8:20am (or so) in the morning on Radio 4’s Today programme battling out their versions of looking at the world. The optimist (GM) versus the pessimist (MP). The badboy from Hounslow versus the badgirl from a mental asylum. I’m clearly going to listen back because I never get up that early. Feel free to dissect.
[interview with GM here]

  |   Add to del.icio.us   |   Digg this   |   Filed under: Media


  1. Kismet Hardy — on 1st June, 2006 at 12:55 am  

    One book tells you London is a breeding ground for terrorists who plan to bring the western world to its knees, glamourising a handful of fuckwits, who before The Sun and its How To Make A Hook Like Abu Hamza campaign, didn’t have a tit to spin on, then given the seal of approval by 7/7 (an atrocity that I reserve the right to suspect the CIA were behind – how difficult would it be for an organisation as highly skilled as them to get four stupid Pakis to be in London at the same time as the G8 summit, the very day when America would look like arseholes regarding Africa and global warming instead of superman in charge of winning the war on terror) = sensationalist bollocks.

    The other book tells you about Asians who truly believe violence is the key to self-empowerment. Not because they are politically minded, but because they follow the same logic that black people were victims until they started scaring the shit out of everyone, and want respect for themselves in their tiny little world instead of thinking their actions will have an impact on global politics.

    Ergo, Londonistan is bollocks and Londonstani rules.

    Give me a slice of reality over propaganda any day…

  2. NorahJones — on 1st June, 2006 at 1:01 am  

    Hear fookin’ hear.

    No bias you understand….

  3. Sunny — on 1st June, 2006 at 1:19 am  

    Actually Kismet, given the way you’ve described them, there is some similarity.

    Though I think it’s more Melanie Phillip’s who wants her ego stroked. Anyway, I’m a bit worried for Gautam…. MP is brutal at these things and our man is a newbie. Hold me :(

  4. Amir — on 1st June, 2006 at 2:44 am  

    Gautam Malkani’s book is awful – one of the worst things I’ve read in ages. I mean – don’t get me wrong.. I’m sure he’s a really, really nice guy – lovely bloke, a gentleman… but Londonstani sucks. He’s tried to mix the styles of ‘Paddy Clarke Ha Ha Ha!’ (Roddy Doyle) with Trainspotting (Irvine Welsh), but spicing it with a kind of meta-commentary on the root causes of rudeboyness that just comes across as patronising and bigheaded.

    The novel’s singular purpose is to elevate pathetic nonentities to some kind of urban-demigod-status. It glamorises a lifestyle that Mr. Malkani only knows from an outsiders’ perspective. Living on the street, for many young Asians and non-Asians, is a shitty state-of-affairs: poverty, junk food (if you’re lucky), drugs, drug dealers, street brawls, gangsterism, stupidity, bad manners, no manners, vandalism, mugging, burglary, underaged mothers, underaged abortions, bordered-up houses, radical Mosques, radical pamphleteers, mutual distrust, conspiracy theories, knives, guns, feral children littering the streets and hurling abuse at old ladies, etc. Malkani only knows about the superficial tit-bits that give middle-class Asians something to talk about at cocktail parties. [When it does get serious, however, it’s done in a way that’s kinda reminiscent of Eastenders: there’s something dour, fatalistic, and over-the-top about it. If Aristophanes had ever written an Asian ragamuffin pastiche (! – perish the thought), it would’ve probably read like Londonstani.]

    To make matters worse, the book is poorly structured and badly written; the so-called ‘comedy’ scenes are bland and unashamedly unoriginal (the ‘extra large condom’ malarkey is so, so out-of-date). The sprinkling of local dialect, swear words, and ‘cool’ street slang is painfully unnatural and very self-conscious (i.e. like a Dr. Dre or Snoop Dog album). Sorry, but there’s nothing at all spontaneous or palpable or life-like about the dialogue.

    One thing I’ve always noticed about Melanie Philips’ critics is how reluctant they are to engage with her on a substantive level. Like a flock of sheep, they bleat out accusations of ‘scaremongering’, ‘lies’, ‘deception’, (ya know… like cranky Republicans on the Rush Limbaugh show). But do they cite any actual evidence? No, of course not. On the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, I never ever agree with Melanie Philips. Nor do I agree with her mind-numbing apologias for Ariel Sharon (which make me want to vomit). But, then again, her tasty polemics on lax immigration and on multiculturalism are fair game. She’s not afraid to expose the unintended consequences of religious pluralism in this country, nor is she afraid to stand up for our democratic traditions and, in particular, the tradition of free speech. For this, I am indebted to her.

    Go Melanie? [Wow, what a horrible thing to say on this blog? Is Sunny gonna get trigger-happy with his delete button, I wonder? This is probably the closest thing to a ‘Jyllands Posten scandal’ on PP. I, rather selfishly, have abused my freedom of speech and insulted billions of Sunnei Hwndaleis by violating the Melanie Philips taboo.]


  5. Amir — on 1st June, 2006 at 3:07 am  

    Maybe I’m being a bit harsh on Gautam Malkani? For a debut novel, it could have been a lot worse. And well, I am, to be fair, judging the guy by ridiculously high standards – I’m accustomed to reading old dogs like Martin Amis and Salman Rushdie: not newbies. I wish him all the luck in the world.

    And that goes for Melanie Philips too!!! Ha ha ha ha!

  6. Sunny — on 1st June, 2006 at 3:23 am  

    MP is, as I’ve said before, way tooo easy to fisk. Maybe I’ll do it here soon enough, then you can try and stand by your icon. In the meantime I sent Gautam some stats and info he may use for his research.

    As for your critique. You’ve totally mis-understood the book. In fact you’re saying exactly the same that other negative critics of the book have said, without ‘getting it’. I’m publishing an interview with him this week, that may enlighten you a bit.

  7. IanLondon — on 1st June, 2006 at 8:32 am  

    four stupid Pakis

    That would be three stupid Pakis and one Jamaican.

  8. Vladimir — on 1st June, 2006 at 10:44 am  

    Well I listened to it, and though Malkani made some intresting points he wasn’t very articulate, unlike Melanie Phillips. Though Melanie Philips did not have anything of intrest to say apart from playing to peoples fears and expressing her middle England views.

  9. Sid — on 1st June, 2006 at 10:56 am  

    I got hold of Malkani’s book and read the first 50+ pages. I think it’s an entertaining read. v v funny. Could well be likened to Farukh Dondhi on 10 lines of charlie and an e.

    As for MP’s book, well I don’t think the pages are absorbment enough for wiping ass. And there are no serated edges for pulling into strips.

  10. Robert — on 1st June, 2006 at 12:21 pm  

    As for MP’s book, well I don’t think the pages are absorbment enough for wiping ass. And there are no serated edges for pulling into strips.

    Are the pages thin enough to use as rizlas?

  11. Robert — on 1st June, 2006 at 12:23 pm  

    A new strapline for PP, Sunny?

    “We don’t burn books… we wipe our ass on them! (After reading them first and advocating the authors right to freedom of expression, of course).”

  12. Sid — on 1st June, 2006 at 12:40 pm  

    Whatever happened to Farukh Dhondi?

  13. Kismet Hardy — on 1st June, 2006 at 1:02 pm  

    And the betting Amir’s read Nirpal Singh Dhaliwal’s review in Evening Standard (and the follow-up reviews based on that pile of shit) as opposed to reading the actual book…

    The books are open

    (Try flicking a page or two)

  14. contrarymary — on 1st June, 2006 at 1:02 pm  

    I thought Londonstani was a good read. in small doses. and having been brought up near Hounslow, and dipped in and out of West London as a teenager, I could definitely relate to the kinds of characters, language and general innit vibe of hounslow rudies… however the ending and that twist was weak!

    good on GM for bringing to light a subculture and people we all know exist, to more mainstream attention. to be fair Londonstani is waaaaaaaay better than that wasteman, Nirpal Singh Dhaliwal’s Tourism.

    but a six figure book deal for GM, and the title of the ‘new Zadie Smith’ seems well OTT. it doesn’t come close to the likes of Rushdie or Kureishi

  15. Rakhee — on 1st June, 2006 at 1:50 pm  

    I settled down to read Londonstani on Monday evening. Feeling jaded by having read Tourism recently, I had heard much more positive things about Malkani’s book and therefore was quite looking forward to it.

    However, maybe I wasn’t in the right mood, but as soon as I opened it, I was met with an onslaught of foul language, which (because it was written in dialect), I had to concentrate to actually comprehend. I couldn’t manage to get past the first page and haven’t yet had the courage to open it again.

    Two points to be made here:

    - I understand the need to be hard-hitting and write in a style that depicts the characters and their environment. But I honestly find it hard to be in true awe of an author who using foul language to such degree

    - I get the distinct impression that young Asian authors are simply trying too hard. The best writers in my book are those who depict a story effortlessly, passionately and with elegance.

    I will give Londonstani another try at the weekend but take it from me, don’t read it in close proximity to having read Tourism. The chances are you might be put off such literature for life.

  16. Kismet Hardy — on 1st June, 2006 at 1:56 pm  

    Rakhee, if you want be authentic (something Gautam’s critics are accusing him of not being), of course you have to resort to foul language. That’s how they talk.

    You can do a soap opera like Eastenders where a hundred hardcore cockneys settle for a ‘oh to hell with this’ when you and I both know they would say ‘oh fuck this shit’, but the whole beauty of a book is it doesn’t have the restriction of a watershed

  17. Rakhee — on 1st June, 2006 at 2:20 pm  

    Kismet, I agree to a certain extent. I’m certainly not saying there shouldn’t be any foul language at all. That, as you put well with the example of EastEnders, would be utterly ridiculous.

    However, personally, I find it off putting when there’s so much of it.

    Resorting to foul language (and filth, something that Dhaliwal focused on so much that it made me wonder whether the man has ever had good sex) is one thing. Using it to such a degree that it takes away from the true essence of the book and deters the reader is another.

    I can’t comment on how authentic Gautam’s book is yet, but my first reaction was pretty strong and I’m not sure that next week, I’ll be singing his praises. I’ll just have to wait and see.

  18. contrarymary — on 1st June, 2006 at 2:25 pm  

    Rakhee - Irvine Welsh, Niall Griffiths and Helen Walsh, all of whom are celebrated (particularly the first two) for talking in colloquial, regionally accented English (Glaswegian, Scouse, Welsh) and have been hailed as providing new, alternative voices.

    I haven’t read anything that gets to grips with da txt spk of kids 2day, apart from the awful Foxy T by Tony White, which dealt with Bangladeshi rudeboys in East London. And for me Guatam’s book and its language is far more authentic.

    I can understand what you’re saying about Londonstani. i could only read it for 20 minutes at a time.

  19. Kesh — on 1st June, 2006 at 2:39 pm  

    I’m halfway through Londonstani and people keep going on about a twist… i think someone may have spoilt it for me in this thread.

    Amir, I thought the whole point of Gautam’s being a middle class outsider looking in was the point he was making in the book, as the kids described come from quite comfortable middle class backgrounds, yet they are trying to be cool and street and ghetto. no? or maybe, cos i’m only halfway through, i’ve missed a point.

    i’m enjoying the book, despite starting to read it when i was drunk and not being able to comprehend anything.

    As for Tourism: it’s an entertaining read without any soul. I feel like Singh threw in all the halfarsed mentions to his colour in order to sell the book. i don’t think he felt like he could sell it on story alone, thus a minimal effort to throw in fleeting asian cache.

    Also, I laughed at his “I am at the coalface” speech, and calling out writers like Zadie Smith and Monica Ali as middle class people who knew nothing about the lives they were writing about… the impression i got was he was trying to, by comparison, make himself well ghetto… his books about a posh asian shagging sloanies… and mixing in high society… hardly the coalface of british life. at least gautam’s book is authentic in that it looks at a life that does exist and we’ve all come across it.

    :ignorance alert: who’s melanie philips?

  20. Kismet Hardy — on 1st June, 2006 at 2:40 pm  

    The trick is to put someone you know as the protagonist. You know the type who says ‘bled’ and ‘issit’ when they mean ‘hello there old chap’ and ‘is that so?’

    If you don’t know anyone like that, well, you should probably just be grateful


  21. sonia — on 1st June, 2006 at 2:41 pm  

    it’s hard writing a book. and any author is entitled to write what he likes, just as anyone is entitled to criticize it. just as one really wouldn’t want to be singled out as ‘representing’some race or creed or whatever - should one be criticized more because of that race/creed whatever?

  22. Kesh — on 1st June, 2006 at 2:46 pm  

    God, I’m not looking forward to putting my book out now…

    You guys are going to maul it.

  23. Kismet Hardy — on 1st June, 2006 at 2:57 pm  

    They’ll only maul it if they decide you should be a spokesman not just for your protagonists, but as Sonia says ‘‘representing’some race or creed or whatever’

    What’s with the bollocks that ‘Asians aren’t all like that’

    Of course they aren’t all like that

    They are in your story and that’s all that should matter

    And if that means one of your characters is an Asian transvestite who likes beastiality and lies in forests awaiting virgins shouting ‘I am the grand wizard of enchanted fornication’, then all it means is you’ve used me as a character

  24. sonia — on 1st June, 2006 at 3:17 pm  

    Kesh - to me its always appeared as if all literary criticism is about these days is one big pissing contest

  25. Kismet Hardy — on 1st June, 2006 at 3:19 pm  

    Look at it this way. All journalists have ‘a book in them’

    Most of them are extremely bitter that no one wants their book

    Journalists write book reviews

    It’s not rocket science…

  26. Kesh — on 1st June, 2006 at 3:24 pm  

    cheers guys…


    Kismet, I always pictured you as a shaolin monk past his sell-by date, sitting in cafes twirling batons you nicked off schoolgirls and whispering conspiracies about Jerry Garcia to anyone who’ll listen.

    Oh yeah, check my band out: www.darchetypes.com


    Yam Boy

    p.s. My book, “I’ve Forgotten My Mantra” will be the voice of a new generation of British Asians… whoops!!

  27. Kesh — on 1st June, 2006 at 3:34 pm  

    us included eh?

  28. Kismet Hardy — on 1st June, 2006 at 3:48 pm  

    You shameless gay

  29. Kesh — on 1st June, 2006 at 4:06 pm  

    forgive me if this doesn’t work…

  30. Kesh — on 1st June, 2006 at 4:10 pm  

    it didn’t

    here is the cover:


    it’s such a catch-22… on one hand, being marketed as the voice of British Asians is the kiss of death, but on the other, quotes like that get you published. Where is the middle ground?

  31. Sunny — on 1st June, 2006 at 4:25 pm  

    We don’t burn books… we wipe our ass on them! (After reading them first and advocating the authors right to freedom of expression, of course).

    Haha! I love it Robert.

    I just listened to the interview. I have to say I think GM was wrong-footed by Melanie and it may partly be my fault. I really thought she was going to launch into a tirade against Muslims but she stuck to talking about multiculturalism. Not that she isn’t hard to take apart but I reckon Gautam was thinking of something else when that debate came up. Bugger. I think I need to fisk MP now to make up.

  32. TheFriendlyInfidel — on 1st June, 2006 at 5:45 pm  

    To hear the authors speak, here is the link to the Today Programme. Note that this requires Real Audio.

  33. Refresh — on 1st June, 2006 at 5:54 pm  

    Sunny I agree -

    Melanie is an operator (who above someone describes as middle england - couldn’t be further from the truth) who kept her powder dry ’til the last minute when she happily placed it on the muslims.

    My sympathies to Gautam.

    I thought British values and culture seem to hover around fair play and supporting the underdog. Doesn’t quite describe Melanie Philips does it? Of course not.

  34. bd — on 1st June, 2006 at 6:38 pm  

    GM shouldn’t give her the oxygen ! GM afterall has more than ten times as much book sales. In anycase, Londonstani is a work of fiction.

  35. Bikhair — on 1st June, 2006 at 7:13 pm  

    Whats a wasteman? American slangh is so much better.

  36. Amir — on 1st June, 2006 at 8:25 pm  

    Ho ho ho ho ho ho ho! Ha ha ha ha ha ha! Deary me, deary me…[panting with hysterical laughter] God dam it! [Wiping tears away from his eye] – you’ve surpassed yourself this time…

    1st June, 2006 at 3:23 am
    MP is, as I’ve said before, way tooo easy to fisk….In the meantime I sent Gautam some stats and info he may use for his research.

    1st June, 2006 at 4:25 pm
    I just listened to the interview. I have to say I think GM [Gautam] was wrong-footed by Melanie and it may partly be my fault.

    [Bursts out into a gigantic fit of hysterical laughter]… oh my, oh my! Stop it Sunni, stop it you cheeky little monkey! Please, please, I beg of you! You’re killing me! [rolling around on the floor]

    Cheech and fuckin’ Chong could have done a better job of defending multiculturalism than Gautam Malkani!! …

    Cheech: Yeah maaaaan! Multiculturalism is totally, like, awesome maaaan. It’s like, I dunno, a multi selection of marijuana maaaaan! Heh heh heh [cough cough]! Mexican weed, Portuguese weed, Filipino weed, Luxembourgian weed, San Marino weed,…the possibilities are endless maaaaan!

    Chong: That sounds totally cool maaaan. I dig multicwulturalizsm maaaan!


  37. Amir — on 1st June, 2006 at 11:38 pm  

    Refresh - I thought British values and culture seem to hover around fair play and supporting the underdog. Doesn’t quite describe Melanie Philips does it? Of course not.

    How do you ascribe ‘fair play’ and ‘underdog status’ to a gang of nihilistic terrorists (and their supporters) who deem it necessary to kill innocent Brits on a tube station? According to the blurb (and other reviews), Londonistan is a polemic against the radical, alienated, anti-British fringes of the Moslem community (read this, this, and this) – and the failure of New Labour’s ‘benign neglect’ policy towards ethnic minorities and immigrants.

    The glaringly one-sided exchange between Melanie Philips and Gautam Malkani is indicative of another trend: the ideological arrogance of the Left vis-à-vis the mosaic madness we now call ‘multiculturalism’. None of you are prepared to engage in the murky debate about national identity, citizenship, and democratic participation.

    Sunny, if he likes, can prolong this pathetic turf war against Melanie Philips, The Daily Mail, and Scott Burgess, but it is unproductive and self-indulgent. As far as I can see, these puerile spats are for people who like playing language games. You know the type… Left-wing nutjobs who’ll award Von Hayek or Von Mises one star on Amazon.com, or laissez-faire freaks who’ll denounce Karl Marx and GA Cohen as a threat to civilisation itself. Etc. Etc.


  38. Kismet Hardy — on 2nd June, 2006 at 1:04 am  

    Amir, why aren’t you funny?

  39. Amir — on 2nd June, 2006 at 1:24 am  

    Because I tell people what they don’t like to hear.

  40. Amir — on 2nd June, 2006 at 1:25 am  

    [Or neologisms that they don’t understand!!]

    Either way.

  41. Sunny — on 2nd June, 2006 at 1:26 am  

    None of you are prepared to engage in the murky debate about national identity, citizenship, and democratic participation.

    Wtf are you talking about? What do you think we do here so much of the time? I know you’re fairly new here Amir, but your glaring blind-spot for right wing trash, and your arse-licking of Daily Mail/MP rubbish is slowly destroying whatever credibility you have. Come out with arguments, not long winded link infested hyperbole. I’ll deal with MP when I get a chance.

  42. Sid — on 2nd June, 2006 at 1:30 am  

    You know the type… Left-wing nutjobs who’ll award Von Hayek or Von Mises one star on Amazon.com

    No biggy. Write a counter-review. Or you can always click ‘No’ next to ‘Was this review helpful to you?’

    democracy an’ ting.

  43. Amir — on 2nd June, 2006 at 2:18 am  

    A (Brief) Critique of Multiculturalism
    Okay, since you’ve thrown down the gauntlet, I’ll respond. And if it’s gonna be personal, then let me at least defeat you in argument:

    Objection 1: The problem with identity claims.
    Those who advocate multiculturalism usually believe that saying “it’s important to my (or my group’s) identity” can be a valid reason for or against a proposal. But philosophers like Brian Barry and Jeremy Waldron disagree. Appealing to culture or identity to defend proposals or actions, on their view is purely self-interested. Why? Because it’s the equivalent to saying I really, really have a strong preference for X’. And this is not usually seen as a good reason in political debate. In a deliberative democracy, we are meant to appeal to public reasons. But the language of culture or identity is just an expression of preference like any other. Appealing to culture is thus analogous to saying, ‘I want X’.

    Objection 2: The problem of Compossibility.
    In a liberal democracy, two different types of rights conflict can occur: (a) inter-right conflicts, and (b) intra-right conflicts. The first (inter) is when two different types of right conflict, e.g., my right to basic medical care and your right to private property. The second (intra) is when two rights of the the same type conflict, e.g., your right to be rescued and my right to be rescued. Many liberals believe that a right – to be a coherent liberal right – must be able to pass a compossibility test. Two things are not compossible if they cannot be performed at the same time (an intra-right conflict). Since all identity claims are intra conflictable, they will always fail the test! And to deny a ‘right’ is to disrespect a fellow human being, to deny them a fundamental interest. Multicultural policies ‘up the ante’ of conflicts, turning them into high-stakes where everyone’s rights cannot be respected.

    Objection 3: The Star Trek Geek Analogy
    How do we know an identity claim when we see one? According to critics of multiculturalism, there is no coherent principled way to draw a line between identity claims of major cultural/religious groups and people making more eccentric identity demands (the Star Trek Geek). This is an argument for atheists, agnostics, and critics of organised religion: What separates the Star Trek fan from ‘traditional’ religious/cultural groups? What do we think is morally salient about identity: (a) Sense of belonging?; (b) provides a sense of personal identity/place in the world; (c) offers the benefits of community; (d) offers a major worldview about how to live our lives and what is of ultimate value; (d) provides metaphysical claims about God and the nature of the universe. And guess what Sunny? Guess what? The Star Trek fanatic meets all of these criteria, which raises an obvious counter-question: should we give him special rights too? This type of argument is known as the reductio ad absurdum: if you can show that a principle leads to a ridiculous conclusion then the principle must be flawed.

    Objection 4: The Social Solidarity Objection
    The final argument is pragmatic (‘means’ as opposed to ‘ends’). Some critics concede that even if multicultural policies may sometimes be required as a matter of social justice, they will have practical, negative consequences for liberal democratic societies. What kind of negative consequences: (a) resentment towards minorities/immigrants – by granting special rights, privileges, exemptions to minorities the state may unintentionally create a ‘backlash’ of hostility against those groups from the majority (i.e. calls for censorship after the Jyllands-Posten scandal). (b) undermines common sense of citizenship – by treating citizens differently according to religion/culture it may be more difficult to create common bonds of citizenship. Why do we need common bonds? Because a sense of community is required to achieve social justice in liberal democracies. People are less willing to give to others/participate in schemes of distributive justice when they do not feel part of the same community. And if multiculturalism undermines a common sense of community then social justice will be more difficult to achieve.

    Put that in your pipe, and smoke it.


  44. Sunny — on 2nd June, 2006 at 5:26 am  

    Amir if I wanted to swallow multi-cultural theory or some piece of political philosophy, I’d have said this. This issue of multi-culturalism is here and now. I don’t give a flying toss about what these people postulate. I care about what happens in real life, and as defined by current events and studies. Refer to that in your discussions please. I’ve posted a brief fisk of MP’s arguments. I can expand but it does the job.

  45. Kismet Hardy — on 2nd June, 2006 at 7:41 am  

    Hey Amir I take it back. You’re interesting

  46. contrarymary — on 2nd June, 2006 at 1:18 pm  

    Amir’s views are interesting but articulated with a condescending, patronising tone. not a good look

  47. Kismet Hardy — on 2nd June, 2006 at 1:23 pm  

    Bang goes my sarcasm PhD

  48. Rudebwoy — on 8th June, 2006 at 10:23 am  

    Interesting thread. Haven’t heard the interview yet but have read Londonstani. Guatam Malkani shows some talent but is clearly out of his depth here. I know Hounslow very well and this is defintely an outsiders point of view. I think Amir (?) nails it in an earlier post. Hounslow has a very widespread drug problem and the atmosphere there is far grimier than his book has us believe.

    His stereotypical portrayal of the ‘mummy’s boys’ and particularly Sanjay the TV gangers are appauling… Lines like, “have you seen this episode of the Sopranos, its the one where Tony first goes to the shrink.” Actually, Tony Soprano goes to the shrink in Episode 1. Also, Guatam thinks the word Yard (house) is an american hip-hop term… Its actually Jamaican. And I could go on. I’m not nit-picking, just highlighting the fact that the author does not know his subject.
    There is also a time-line problem at the end of part one going into part two. The gang goes from selling a few mobiles a month to working for Sanjay and making thousands while Jas is waiting to take out Samira that weekend! GM jumps 2 months.

    Although the sms phone slang seems genuine to most people, it is actually more Ali G in da house than Hounslow Rude boy.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2006. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
With the help of PHP and Wordpress.