You'd never guess he was a day over 26, but he's actually going to hit the big 4-0 in August.

His achievements in theatre, on TV and in film (not forgetting a newly-acquired black belt after 12 years of study) mean that this happily married, father-of-two girls is the perfect role model for all inner city kids, whatever their background.

He's often told me that he'd never have made it without the MAC so it was good that he gave the Midlands Arts Centre - to give it its full name - two good plugs.

Ross even seemed quite interested, asking if it was still there.

All in all, it was good to see that Birmingham actually got a mention on a national chat show.

The reason why it often doesn't is the fact that so many people are shamefully ignorant about the city, as this show proved only too well.

When Ross asked Adrian about his Birmingham roots, he wondered if he might have come from either the Black Country or... get this, Kidderminster!

Whether he's on £18 million or not, surely Ross can afford an atlas and be able to spend a few minutes looking at it.

Since when has Kiddie - just the odd 17 miles away - been part of Brum?

PS. As I've written in the Birmingham Mail before, it would be a dream come true for Adrian to open the MAC when it opens again next Autumn after a £13 million refurb.

Let's hope the organisers, when they are not thinking about how many more lovely trees they can chop down in Cannon Hill Park, have the sense to ask him.

PS2. And wasn't Meryl Streep lovely at the end, despite having to sit through one of Ross's dullest-ever interviews after Adrian had gone off? I can't wait to see Mamma Mia! again when it opens.

Hussam Dwayat had gone on the rampage inside a bulldozer he was driving along a street in West Jerusalem.

He had crushed cars, overturned a bus and killed three people before he was shot dead inside the cab with several bullets.

At first, I thought I'd write an instant blog. A bit like foreign correspondents are expected to file news as it happens these days (even when nothing is happening at all).

But I then figured I'd take the proper, old fashioned approach.

And think about what I was going to say first...

But, until last night, I'd never seen a cold-blooded shooting like this on TV news before.

Therefore, was the BBC right or wrong to show the footage or not?

Consider the following:

1. I could imagine what happened next when they initially froze the film so I didn't really need to know what followed.

2. Watching the news live, I decided I didn't need to see his death so I looked away - even though I must have seen tens of thousands of people being tortured, knifed and shot etc in the thousands of movies I've seen in cinemas.

This was real life coming in to my own home and it wasn't the same thing at all as watching a film in a cinema.

Then I realised many others would have seen it and that I ought to have seen it to understand how they might feel.

Having not watched the killing initially, how could I properly question whether it should have been screened at all?

3. Easy. Using the wonders of Sky+ I was able to instantly rewind live TV. I then watched the killing again. And again. And again. Three times in all.

4. By now, I was desensitised. Once I'd seen one of the last great taboos, repeat viewings were less of a 'problem' than watching it the first time. Which is another good reason for saying we needn't have seen it at all.

5. Of course, Dwayat was wrong to have done what he did. But, maybe next time, we'll see a killing of someone who doesn't quite deserve to be shot quite so much as he did. And the next time after that it might be a bit less after that.

Recent history also tells us that people can be unjustly killed. By our own highly-trained police. To broadcast such a slaying before the truth emerged would then be at what cost?

6. Before long, every Tom, Dick and Harry with a phone will be sending over images of people being attacked left, right and centre. Rather like the current tidal wave of knife attacks, we might then wonder where it will ever stop.

7. But what about President Kennedy, you might say. How many times have we seen his assassination in the back of his car?

Here, several qualifying factors come in to play - a) he was the leader of his country; b) who did it? and c) the pictures weren't very clear.

In contrast, I doubt the BBC would have screened the shooting of Jill Dando if someone had filmed that.

8. BBC reporter Tim Franks looked pretty shocked just telling the Dwayat story as any normal person would be.

But you can imagine that BBC executives in London, after doubtless discussing all of the issues, would have been pretty excited about showing it in the interests of 'informing' us what is really happening in Jerusalem.

I would argue that there is a difference, though, between showing a killing in cold blood and investigating the horrors of mankind, from the Holocaust to today's Zimbabwe, for example, and then painting a bigger picture in the interests of all.

9. Although we were warned the BBC was about to show the killing, I bet many viewers doubted that we really would be until it was too late to do anything about it... especially when the footage was paused in traditional manner just before the main event.

How many people possibly just have switched on at that precise point, perhaps with youngish children still up?

Wouldn't they all then have seen something they might never have wanted to see in a million years and without warning?

There might have been hundreds of viewers who fell into that category in this trigger-happy, remote-control world of ours.

10. Conclusion: should the Beeb have screened the killing of Hussam Dwayat?

Guilty as charged.

The Netherlands are riding their luck at the back but look very dangerous going forward.

If they can keep their goals-per-game run going and lift the pot, they will become one of THE legendary teams.

Meanwhile, John Motson should phone a friend in Blackburn to ask how to pronounce the name of Rovers' lynchpin defender Andre Ooijer.

Mouthofax must have changed his mind ten times in 90 minutes.

Ooo-er.

I've been struggling all week to find anyone who's watched any of the Euro 2008 matches from start to finish.

Are we losing our appetite for footy, are the games on at the wrong time or is it simply because England's players have been on wedding duty and flying to the Roon that we're not interested in the bigger picture any more?

Either way, tonight's game promises to be a cracker - Netherlands v France.

If the Dutch can string some passes together tonight like they did to destroy the Italians, it should be a fine old night.

Right now, I'd take any two from Croatia, Holland and Spain for a dream final.

But if Croatia make it, Steve McClaren will begin to think that he's a good manager again.

Nothing has changed.

The series began with Brum's lovely Amy Booth-Steel being booted off so unfairly.

But what goes around, comes around.

The final three are clearly not who Lord Andrew Lloyd Webber was dreaming of.

No wonder he was nearly in tears when four became three in time for next week's final.

He'll have to change the words to Evita.

They've rightly been given a lower profile than the girls in this series.

But good luck to the three young chaps who are chosen. They'll need it.

Whether you enter showbusiness by the front door, back door, stage door or TV parachute it's a mercilessly-unforgiving business.

And the only true way to find out if you are up for it is to go through the curtains on to the stage on opening night. And then still see if you are surviving ten, 20, 30 years or more later.

Meanwhile, the girls are set to be whittled down from four to three ready for next week's final.

I do admire the losers in the weekly sing-off. Their good sportsmanship puts our petulant footballers to shame.

Catch them all in action from the earlier times of 6.50pm tonight on BBC1 and again from 7.15pm tomorrow when the axe will fall.

As for Eurovision tonight... all that'll be worth watching are the scores at the end to see what a fix this show now is in terms of the way countries vote for each other.

Don't waste your own money voting when petrol is going up like there's no tomorrow.

The BBC, so worried about the ethical nature of its own competitions recently including its little old Goal of the Month, should have refused to screen this bloated nonsense by now.

And Terry Wogan should have said the same instead of taking another trip overseas at our expense.

Maybe only then will the organisers wise up that the judging mechanism is not doing anything except raising unnecessary revenue like a desperate government eager to preserve its own overblown status.