I haven't watched it yet, but I thought Doug Stanhope was everybody's problem with the show in the first place.

whoops should've read the old one first too. Can't say I've seen enough Stanhope to formulate an opinion.

I really enjoyed his bit on the show...and even if you didn't like him, look at what your dislike hast wrought.

I'd take Stanhope over Zeb any day.

Stanhope was always the weakest part of the show; I wouldn't say I had a problem with him, he was good, just not up to the standards set by the rest of the Wipe. As for Zeb Russell Brand, I think people dislike her because here, at least, she hits too close to home.

Also, she's far less hot than Philomena, which raises the question: why not give her segments to Philomena instead? Phwooor!

Re: Zeb specifically, Mr Brooker has raised this point before, as have other cultural satirists, including The Onion as well as Matt Stone and Trey Parker. While I don't *entirely* disagree with what he says, and the point made is certainly an important observation, I do have two strong objections here:

First, there is a world of difference between the voluntary exchange of personal information between an informed party and his or her circle of peers, and the coercive intrusion by state forces into the private lives and thoughts of citizens. If *you* want to shit out TMI about certain aspects of your life all over the vlogosphere, then that's your choice, that's on you. But there's really no ethical nor political comparisons to be made between social media behavior, and the sorts of creepy panopticon initiatives being explored by Herr Cameron and his tentacled, eyeless, bat-like cronies.

Second, there is a *danger* in presenting this sort of argument, particularly to an audience of internet dweebs! No sane person who raises the "Zeb observation" is actually _in favor_ of the surveillance state, Charlie Brooker least of all. Whenever the "Zeb Observation" is made, the *intended narrative* seems to be to get people to re-examine their own pattern of behavior; to note inconsistencies and possibly reclaim their own privacy by taking steps to minimize how much of their crap gets thrown out there. HOWEVER, might it not be equally likely that your average "Barry Shitpeas", already well-accustomed to a routine of life-casting and Twitter-bombing, could see a sarcastic segment like this and think, "Oh, well, fair point! Guess I don't have anything to worry about! Spy away, Big Tory Brother!" ? Could this tactic not be counter-productive, and, instead of raising awareness about privacy rights, might it not inadvertently convince even more people to stop giving a shit?

Not enough Cunk for my tastes.

I can't stand Zeb but I think that's kind of the point.

I think Zeb is supposed to be a dude. I vaguely remember Charlie Brooker referring to Zeb as "he" in the last episode.

Also, if you check out the actress that plays Zeb, she's way more attractive than Philomena Cunk when she doesn't have on her Zeb outfit. So there.

No she's not.

http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/images/ic/480xn/p01pd4jf.jpg

Brooker has referred to the lumpy internet creature as "he", hence why I just call it lumpy internet creature.

Anaxagoras are you a lesbian or something?

When Morgana Robinson isn't playing a garish character, she's very easy on the eyes.

http://img.spokeo.com/public/900-600/morgana_robinson_2011_03_19.j pg
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/06/06/article-2155319-137A DE7D000005DC-627_306x450.jpg
http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m55y9zayn71qmaytl.png

After a while I decided Stanhope was just a huge jerk who spends more time punching down than punching up. So maybe he is a good cultural ambassador after all.