These subjects don't come round very often in parliament so the decisions made now could be with us and future generations for a long time. So it's vital that we do whatever we can now to make sure women's rights are protected.

Which is all a rather long-winded way of saying PLEASE COME TO THE PUBLIC MEETING AT 7pm ON 7th OCTOBER. Click here for more info. A really big turn-out will make sure MPs realise how important this issue is to us.

And if you should happen to be the owner or creator of a feminist blog/website/organisation/girl-gang please let your members know about the meeting and encourage them to attend. If you would like leaflets, an e-flyer, etc, I can provide, just give me a shout. See you there, do say hello if you're an F-word reader!

Clarkson is not just a car show presenter, he's the car show presenter. He defines the genre. For many years he's been the driving force behind the way the television-shows-about-cars industry works. When he first worked on Top Gear in 1988 it was a show that mostly reviewed different cars and advised would-be buyers on the advantages and disadvantages of different models. When it was re-modelled in 2002 he was the main presenter.

Now even when the show first started it had a mixture of male and female presenters. The new version has always been 100% male - and for that matter 100% white and British. And the standard of the banter went with it. Cars that Clarkson doesn't like are referred to as "gay" or "girly" - as though those were insults. Women are standardly referred to as "birds". The focus of the show shifted from reviewing cars to frivolously taking pointless journeys, racing sports cars against military vehicles and aircraft and sometimes even destroying perfectly roadworthy vehicles.

As the environmental movement raised awareness of the impact carbon emissions had on the climate, the show could have incorporated advice on reducing emissions, on lower emission vehicles and emphasised that high-speed low-efficiency sports cars were the sort of things to be driven occasionally as a treat if you enjoyed that sort of thing. But with Clarkson at the helm of course that didn't happen. We can only imagine that after all those years of being given privileged access to fancy cars and events he was so far in the pockets of the motor lobby that he couldn't see the wood for the burnt stumps where once there were trees. Instead he started making insulting remarks about environmentalists. He bragged about breaking speed limits and complained at length about fuel and congestion taxation, which aims to cut emissions.

Now that in itself would be enough reason for some people to hate the man. I am not so quick to use such strong terms. I can sympathise that there is a market for that sort of misogynist, homophobic* planet-murdering prattle and someone was always going to step up to the plate.

The trouble is he isn't just a (or the) car show presenter any more. He's gone to great lengths to present himself as a spokesman for the white middle-class male adrift in a sea of political correctness. His website (and I know, I know, it's a joke...) says "Jeremy Clarkson - Clarkson information, books, DVDs, forum, and news from Britains next prime minister?". And if that's just a joke, why have nearly 50,000 people have signed an online petition asking for him to become prime minister? He writes newspaper columns - and they appear in the political pages, not the motoring pages. His books include collections of poltical essays. The style may be "fun" and chatty to read but he's covering topics like Basque separatism and war in Iraq.

The first article on the Top Gear website is clearly a 100% political piece written by him and titled "CLARKSON: Soon the annual tax bill for a commuter will be £10k"

Firstly that is a straightforward lie. Road tax on even the most polluting vehicles is £400 a year. If your commute goes in to central London (and if so why the hell are you driving!) you'll pay £8 a day congestion charge (5 days a week, 49 weeks a year = £1960) and if your commute is 50 miles each way (then get the train! or at 8 miles per litre, 65p tax per litre, 5 days a week, 49 weeks a year = £1991) then that's £4351 a year - less than half the number he is suggesting.

Secondly the whole point of increasing tax on higher emissions vehicles on unnecessary routes is to encourage drivers to switch to other means of travel and lower emission cars. He grumbles the cost of a tax disc on a Lamborghini Gallardo could rise to nearly a thousand pounds. But given the car itself costs £133,000, I think owners can afford it. And given it emits at least 325g of CO2 per kilometer (more than twice that of, for example, a Renault Megane or a Vauxhall Astra) my feeling is great, lets put the tax up even higher. No-one needs to drive a car like that.

Thirdly - and for the sake of my mental health I'm trying to limit myself to only looking at one of his horrible articles - the thing is littered with offensive remarks. The first sentence refers to a woman as "some bird". He refers to a female politician as "some orange-haired old bat".

Then he gets on with denying climate change. Now of course he never says it's not happening, because it is. Instead he says certain events may not be a direct result of it. Sure, sometimes a freak wave gives you wet feet when the tide isn't actually coming in - but when it's up to your knees, best to fold up the deck-chairs just in case. People are already dying around the world as a direct result of climate change. There's no probability about whether or not it's happening, it is already happening, the uncertainty is how much worse is it going to get.

His conclusion on the cost of taxing so-called "super-cars" is this: "That's not taxation. That's rape.". I won't even say anything, I think it's pretty obvious that's not an appropriate thing to say.

And that's on his car show website. So it's not that he's been "spotted" on his car show and asked to branch out in to politics - he's actively choosing to use his car show as a platform for his political opinions. And here's the real rub: It's working! He's kind-of accepted on TV as some sort of lovable right-wing not-afraid-to-speak-his-mind pundit. He's on Have I Got News..., QI, even Who Do You Think You Are? as though he's an institution that we're all comfortable with in the UK.

But are we really all comfortable with vicious anti-environmentalism on the basis of lies? With misogyny and homophobia* from someone who is genuinely trying to influence policy-making in the UK? Personally I'd like to present the alternative point of view in a one-off BBC TV special called "Jeremy Clarkson: Who The F*** Does He Think He Is?"

* Actually he's been pretty racist too, I'll leave that for now, I think we've got enough to be getting on with!

That said, lets press on. Is anyone else uncomfortable about the runaway success of The Lady Boys of Bangkok? The only conversation I have heard about them all week is straight guys asking each other "Yeah but would you though? Would you?" and telling the uninitiated "They are so convincing, I have to be honest, I was nearly getting a stiffy there at one point". The show is as far as I can make out, an old-fashioned freakshow where the "exhibits" are 16 transexual women. I really refuse to believe that the dancing (and lip-syncing to pre-recorded music) is any part of the draw.

Further I have concerns about the well-being of the performers. Two shows a day, each close to two hours long is a lot of stage-time, especially in uncomfortable clothing (high heels, heavy make-up, etc). Add to that the economic imbalance between Thailand and the UK and you've got to wonder whether at least some of the performers aren't working - and potentially having medication and surgery - under some sort of financial duress.

I am sure that promoters would assure us that they are well looked after and willing and enthusiastic about performing. However the Lady Boys themselves don't seem to ever give interviews - to the point where I can only assume they are contractually forbidden to do so - or appear away from the rest of the group either at functions or just out and about at festivals (and I have been to a lot of festivals). To me those are some of the signs that abuse may be going on.

And yet the reaction of festival organisers is not to question the spirit in which the shows are staged or the working conditions for performers in the show, but to put up street signs (pictured) around Brighton to advise motorists how to find the show. And evidently the public are traveling in from around the area to see the show.

Am I the only one who doesn't quite feel comfortable about it?

Photo by kastakephoto, shared under a creative commons license.

I'm the last person who wants a big fuss made about one teeny little unscripted word. And a part of my head is warning me not to say anything on the subject in case I hear myself being quoted on Fox News in a special "International Reaction To Obama's Career-Ending Insult". First of all remember Mr Obama is likely to be standing for election against John McCain - a man whose election would undoubtedly see US gender equality sent packing back to the dark ages. This is a man who voted AGAINST the equal pay act. This is a man who has openly said he thinks Roe vs Wade should be overturned. Obama is undoubtedly the more woman-friendly candidate.

However it does really annoy me when guys I'm dealing with professionally call me sweetie or darling or love or pet or other patronising terms of endearment? Of course I don't mind, in fact I quite like some cute nick-names from my boyfriend or really close friends. But I often stop people and ask them not to use the term.

Of course I only make a fuss when it's not going to affect my career - it would be professional suicide not to be a bit thick-skinned from time to time. But I do object to it regularly from shop-keepers, tradesmen, taxi drivers, those kinds of people. And the reaction varies - of course every individual is different:

1) Some (very few, mostly shop-keepers while the money is still in my hand!) apologise. One even said "sorry darling"!?

2) Some try to engage with me in a discussion about feminism, usually with an opening gambit like "oh, so you're one of them are you". And usually end up going on about Heather Mills and women receiving large divorce payouts resulting in giving the rest of us "a bad name", and things having "gone too far", or potentially about how there's a "girl in our office who doesn't mind it at all".

3) Some argue it. I've been told - less politely than this - that I should put up with it because it's either (a) a traditional local term, (b) a traditional working class term. To which I can only respond that if we insisted on sticking to traditions at the expense of all else we'd have to bring back witch-dunking and burning heathens at the stake.

4) Some really make a fuss. I've been spat at, called "lesbian" and "dyke" (not of course insults in my world, but clearly intended as such) and "bitch", etc. One guy went out in to the street and loudly told his colleague that I was "one of those uptight cows".

On the other hand I was on a train the other day and they guy in front of me called the woman behind the buffet car counter "sweetheart" - she asked him not to to which he responded that women like being called sweetheart. So I unexpectedly chipped in and said "No they don't" and he skulked off looking miserable and she and I had a good laugh about it.

I consider correcting people who address women with these patronising terms a cumulative act of feminism. Each individual time makes very little difference but if we all do it whenever we reasonably can, we will make a difference. Please add a comment if you've corrected someone recently and let me know what happened!

Photo by Graciepoo, shared under a creative commons license.

Last night a number of F-Word writers and readers were in attendance to see Hackney Council refuse to give Satchmo's a license to become a Sex Encounters Establishment (strip club).

Thank you and well done to everyone who wrote letters of objection and showed up for the hearing - it worked! For more info see the Stop The Strip Pub website.

Photo by adman_as, shared under a creative commons license.

For more information about the campaign to avoid the opening of a pole and table-dancing joint in the middle of residential Stoke Newington (in the same building as a venue used as a children's centre and a place of worship...!) please go over to the STSP website.

See you there if you're coming!!

Or if not maybe see you at the Abortion Rights Mass Lobby Of Parliament tomorrow. More info on that at the Abortion Rights Website.

The NSPCC, and I'm sure not going to make myself popular arguing with a group as respected as them, are saying that schools should teach more about relationships in sex education. This comes in response to data from Childline suggesting 50 children a day ring up saying they feel pressured to have sex. And in that light the NSPCC suggestion sounds wildly sane but I have to admit it actually made me flinch a little.

At the moment schools are only obliged to teach the facts of human reproduction. The first thing that frightens me is that if the syllabus is expanded out to include relationships, what is the risk that the facts of biology will be lost? I think children have a right to understand how their bodies work in factual scientific terms. Many especially faith schools are reluctant to teach these facts and given the chance to hide them discreetly behind a barrage of warnings about the unholy nature of any kind of relationship not fully approved by religious leaders, the message could be watered down beyond recognition.

It's also difficult to understand how children will react to hearing the facts of biology lined up next to what can be nothing more than advice about relationships. I think a clear line needs to be drawn between the facts of how the human body works and advice about how to deal with the stresses and strains of relationships.

And finally who exactly is going to set the relationship agenda? I'm sure religious leaders would love to. And so would some of the virginity cults that we seem to be importing from the US at the moment. The uproar from religious parents if their children were taught that anything other than chastity and fidelity was acceptable and enjoyable means that the education is always going to be skewed. Who is going to let kids know that promiscuity, safely practiced, can be a lot of fun? And we all know the fuss that ensues if you teach children that it's ok to be gay.

All that said, I'm not totally against raising in school the subject of dealing with pressure to have sex. I think children should be taught that they have human rights, and that one of those is the right to make their own decisions about sex (or this could be covered under the women's studies addition to the national curriculum that I've been talking about forever). But I'd like to see that taught separately from the biological facts of sex.

Photo by Reading is Fun, shared under a creative commons license.

Talksport DJ James Whale has been sacked from his job for telling his listeners to vote for Boris Johnson. Apparently this constitutes a breach of the impartiality laws, who knew!?

Now I had the joy of working with Mr Whale a couple of years ago on a rather low budget panel show called Where In The World? which is still occasionally shown on SkyTV's Overseas Property channel. Two things I remember:

1) He asked a male comic who had been a panelist to come and be a guest on his radio show. He also invited me to do so - but only if I sat in the studio naked. I declined the offer.

2) During a break in filming someone brought out a tray of pastries and I grabbed donut and promptly spilled half the jam on the floor. When everyone realised what I'd done, I looked round and jokingly said to the other guests "sorry, does anyone have a tampon?" whereupon Whale launched in to a dramatic and extended rant about why-o-why do female comics always have to go on-and-on about their periods. This was the only remark I had made all day on the subject and - if he's bothered to come see it he'd know - my normal stage routine doesn't mention periods, period(!). And so what if it did - there are enough male acts out there talking about their dicks, about masturbating and defecating and urinating and all kinds of bodily functions - including for instance the rather poor masturbation joke that TalkSport use as an advertising slogan on the London taxis they sponsor (pictured). And what's so disgusting and unbearable about the totally natural process of menstruation? Unless of course you're a big misogynist.

I just hope that this move turns out to be a genuine death knell for his career, that he's not hired next week by an even bigger radio station.

Photo by James Cridland, shared under a creative commons license.

10) Jamie Goodwin urges the last person to leave London today to turn the lights off. RIP London.

9) Chuquai Billy says: See? I told you so!

8) Mark Watson can only hope that now, London doesn't become an overpopulated, expensive, dirty, unfriendly dystopia or anything like that. (Sarcasm.)

7) Brian Damage is ruing the day I thought it would be quite funny if Boris actually became Mayor.

6) Sam Stone says chill. None of it is real. We are all in the matrix including the mayor.

5) Stuart Goldsmith hopes that Boris ruining London will remind the rest of the country that Tories are cocks, JUST IN TIME.

4) Chris Mayo is *insert negative Boris Johnson comment here*.

3) Josie Long is pissed off you didn't listen to her. She goes away for three little months and you fools let the Tories in.

2) (OK, a journalist not a comedian, but a very witty one...) Johann Hari is going to hang himself about Boris. Have I Got Noose For You.

1) (pictured) Broderick Chow is clawing at the bathroom mirror trying desperately to get back through it.

Photo by Alexis Dubus, with permission.

Now Lindsey German is a great candidate with some great policies. However if voters didn't want THIS to happen then whether they voted Paddick, Berry or German, they had to put Livingstone as second choice. German was never going to make the head-to-head so a second choice vote for her was a total waste. That's really the point of a first and second choice system: you can vote idealistically first and tactically second. Not idealistically, twice. THIS did not have to happen.

And by totally bizarre co-incidence we are in the middle of a big issue involving my other area of expertise - stand-up comedy. I've not posted my comments up here since the subject's already been addressed in earlier posts. If you want to follow up though it's here on my blog and here it is reposted on Liberal Conspiracy where the debate is rather heated.

Photo by Steve Ullathorne, with permission.

Well I spend a lot of time addressing issues of misogynist violence, abuse and hatred. My first-hand experiences - with the exception of my abusive childhood - are generally at the less threatening end of the scale - guys shouting stuff at me when I'm on stage or whistling at me in the street, that kind of thing. Not nice but, for me anyway, not something that affects my life too much.

Recently that has changed. In December last year I had a crank phone call from a male voice who asked if this was the number for a brothel. I said no and asked where he got the number and he hung up. I figured it was either a genuine idiot mis-reading a number he'd read in a phone box or someone I knew a bit drunk thinking they were being funny. The number came up as "the caller withheld their number".

A few weeks later my partner answered my phone and again a male voice asked if it was a brothel. He said no and again the guy hung up.

Another time my partner answered and the guy hung up immediately.

Another couple of weeks later and I answered one again. This time he had a lot more to say - still asking if it was a brothel, asking if I was a hooker (his word, not mine) and asking me to describe myself physically ("how big are your tits?", etc). He also mentioned the area in which I live - which frightened me as evidently he knows my address. I told him I was going to contact the police if he didn't stop.

This afternoon I had two more calls, back to back from the same voice. This time he said he was coming round straight away to "fuck" me "really hard" and a lot of very very unpleasant things. He also said my name (I haven't told him so that's another frightening sign, he evidently has access to my details). And he told me that I was a "bitch" and that this was why he was making these calls and if I didn't want them I should "stop being a bitch". He then told me he worked for the local police - and re-iterated that he was coming round immediately to "fuck" (i.e. rape) me.

Of course it would be the one morning this week when my partner was out, so by this stage I was in a total panic. So I called the police. I explained the situation in full, and that I was home alone. They suggested I contact my mobile phone company (yes really - as though the problem was the calls rather than the threat of rape - and also as if I should investigate the crime myself, rather than them doing it) and then said they'd "try" and send someone round. They also said I shouldn't use the word "rape" since the caller hadn't used it (the caller also didn't say he was coming round to "fuck" me but only if I gave full consent... the threat is obviously rape).

I was then home alone for two hours. I did ring O2 and they said they absolutely could try to trace the call but they would need to speak to the police to do so, not me. As I thought.

Then my partner got back - in a rush, having come from Leicester to get to me and make sure I was ok. The police arrived more than two and a half hours after I called 999. They sent two male officers (despite me explaining that the caller had claimed to work for the police, etc, surely it was obviously a better idea to send a woman?), who refused to show my partner any ID and instead told him to go outside into the street (leaving me indoors alone) and look down the road at the police car parked there.

Then, finally they took down the info about what had happened. They were mostly interested in some pretty odd stuff like what make my mobile phone was, and whether I had called the police for any other reasons recently... But I went along with it to try to get to the bottom of the situation. Then they asked "Are you not too bothered about this?" in a way that they clearly wanted me to say "I'm not too bothered". Of course I said "Yes I'm terrified I'm going to get violently raped"

Then they left telling me (a) to keep a diary of when the calls happen in future and (b) to give them a ring if there were further developments and (c) that they would send me a letter by the end of the week letting me know what was happening.

Not a very satisfactory state of affairs. I work in an industry where I'm forever giving my number out to anybody and everybody who might have work for me, so it's not really feasible to figure out who it is. I have a couple of potential suspicions but definitely no clear answer. Advice - legal and practical - very welcome.

But of course that wouldn't be the sort of thing that would stop someone like Cardinal Keith O'Brie. The BBC reports that Scotland's top Catholic (according to the pope that is, I'm sure the public would vote for Billy Connolly!) has announced that any MP who votes to defend the legal status of abortion will be thrown out of the church. This is very bad news if:

1. You are a catholic MP who believes that women have the right to choose what happens to their own bodies.
2. You are a catholic MP who follows church doctrine yourself but represents an area with a majority atheist/protestant/jewish/muslim/pagan/jedi pro-choice population.
3. You are an atheist MP from a Catholic background and thus viewed as a Catholic by Cardinal O'Brien and co and likely to cause upset in your family if you are suddenly very publically ex-communicated.

But it begs another, for me, bigger issue. Why all the fuss about abortion? The bible says nothing about abortion. If God meant the "no killing" rule to apply pre-birth, you would think He would mention it. And look at the miscarriage rate - for someone who disapproves of abortion, God sure carries out a lot of them Himself.

But also - why isn't there a big fuss about blasphemy. Blasphemy is actually in the 10 Commandments - it gets a whole commandement to itself. People across the country commit blasphemy every day (God knows I do!) but I don't see politicians being threatened with ex-communication if they fail to vote for lengthy prison terms for those who take the Lord's name in vain.

The truth is that very few people are genuinely anti-abortion out of respect for the "life" of a gnat-sized cluster of cells. The anti-abortion movement should be re-named the "punish women for having sex" movement or just the "anti-women" movement. If they really wanted to cut abortions they would encourage birth control availability and support significant increases in the power of the Child Support Agency and the level of benefits available to make sure that single mums have the means to raise their children if they want to.

And finally - why are we even thinking about taking advice on how to legislate a sex-related issue from a member of an organisation which has repeatedly suffered humiliation as case after case of child sex abuse hits the courts? Why are we taking advice on legislating over women's bodies from an old unmarried man who has probably never even seen a woman's body? Why are we taking advice on morality issues from a man who eats what he genuinely believes to be human flesh at least once a week? And why are we giving any media coverage or prestige at all to a man who dresses like an extra from Harry Potter World?

The information is all well and good but it raises more questions than it answers. Is it that the military "belittles" the enemy by feminising them? Is it that nasty potential rapists are drawn to join the military? Is it that rape and sexual assault are commonplace in the military and the culture stays with servicemen after they get home? Is it that life in the military means being away from women for long periods of time and so media messages about women are not counter-balanced by experiences of real women? Is it an expected result of big groups of men hanging out together? Is it that all the training boosts testosterone levels and sex drive? Is it that the military is so disorientating, and doing awful, awful things is taught as being "correct" to the point that judgment is permanently impaired?

The answer is clearly some of those thing to varying degrees and some other things too.

And the solution is... complicated. One thing that really would help, though, is more women in the military. It would change the atmosphere in camps, it would leave male recruits training alongside women, it would result in military leaders being unable to "feminise" the enemy, since their own troops included many women. And - here's the biggie - it would massively cut rape and sexual assault in and out of the forces because women, in or out of uniform, commit those crimes at a tiny fraction of the rate men do.

"Does this mean we can stop coloring our hair?"

When were we supposed to start? Did I miss a meeting?

"Guess those fake breasts paid off!"

Since when was cosmetic surgery a business plan?

"You can never be subtle enough when it comes to reminding a guy where his vagina is coming from"

Any sentence with the words 'his vagina' needs a re-think doesn't it?

"Conventional wisdom holds that women's magazines aren't as good as men's magazines."

At what? And who writes half the crap in so-called women's magazines? Men! I don't think the author of this piece has subscribed to BUST yet...

"Males of the species: Now, sadly, even more irrelevant."

Speak for yourselves, the men in my life are very relevant thanks. Of course the article is about fertility treatment. Because remember ladies - life is about baby-making!

"We thought feminism was supposed to be straightforward."

Who told you that? It's as diverse as, erm, the women who definitely WON'T be reading your stupid website!

Yes I know... And the article goes on to back up this argument by saying that the victim was overweight at the time of the attack. Evidently rapists are getting picky these days.

Now you sort-of can't really blame the lawyer because it is her job to get the guys (three of them in this case) off the hook, although personally I don't think I could live with myself if I said things like that in a court of law and a case like this. However what sort of a newspaper takes such ridiculous comments and reprints them as "news"?

Oh hang on - THIS sort of paper. Page 2 features Dita Von Teese in only a thong and a couple of pasties. Page 3 features entrants in the send-in-a-photo-of-yourself-in-swimwear contest. And by page 23 they are asking readers to phone in to a premium rate number and vote for which woman should receive the top prize of ... wait for it ... a modeling contract. And, for those of you who live outside London, this paper is distributed aggressively for free on all major train, bus and commuter routes, to the point where by 7pm my bus is literally carpeted with copies people have glanced through and dropped. Your free misogynist handout every day. If by any weird chance you don't think The London Paper is the best thing to happen to London in years, the good news is they would love to hear from you (apparently). Contact yourview@thelondonpaper.com, be nice now!