There are plenty of good things about London’s O2 arena. For one, it’s situated on a windy peninsula.

Then there’s the material. The exterior dome of the arena is made of a PTFE-coated fibreglass, which can become slippery when subjected to rain. And then there’s the fact that, at its highest point, the O2 arena is 170 feet high. Bon Jovi played on the roof of the O2 arena yesterday, so it was too much to ask for them to lose their balance on the fibreglass surface, topple off the roof and shatter several bones in the process.

But did that happen? Did it hell. Once again, Bon Jovi continue to be a staggering let-down.

Remember when The Beatles played a brief set on top of the Apple building in 1969? Well, yesterday Bon Jovi had a shot at replicating that spectacle, with just three changes:

1) Instead of the Apple building, Bon Jovi played on top of London’s O2 arena,

2) The Beatles are an unimpeachably important landmark in the history of popular music, while Bon Jovi is a terrible band made up of idiots with awful haircuts,

3) Nobody cared.

But still, to mark their 12-date residency at the O2, Bon Jovi yesterday became the first band ever to play on the venue’s roof. Which, however you look at it, isn’t that impressive – it’d be just as easy to be the first band ever to play a set at the Sutton Coldfield branch of Nando’s, or be the first band ever to play a set wearing flippers at a nursing home, or the first band ever to play a set with cats Sellotaped onto their faces like pirate beards. What’s our point here? That Bon Jovi is a terrible band, haven’t you been reading. The Telegraph reports:

Missed the performance? Don’t worry, you can always do the next best thing by putting some Barbie dolls on top of your garden shed, walking so far away that you can barely see them and then paying a homeless man to whisper a selection of bad 1980s soft metal songs at you. Perfect.

Follow hecklerspray on Twitter

The will-he won’t-he train has taken yet another turn towards… umm… won’t… ville… after the news emerged that Michael Jackson is being sued for $40 million.

And it’s probably not even for what you’re thinking it’s for.

What’s that? You think it’s because he’s allegedly contractually obliged to perform in the US in a Jackson 5 reunion show before he comes over to the UK for his 50-show run in the O2 Arena?

Alright then, it is for what you’re thinking it’s for.

It was reported earlier in the year that AllGood Entertainment had flung a cease and desist order the way of the singer and his interesting face, but it has now been confirmed that they will be suing Michael Jackson for a fair bit of money.

The promotions company are looking for $20 million in compensatory damages and a further $20 million in punitive damages.

Wait – do all compensation packages deal in amounts this high? As we know someone who fell over in the street/at work/in some other public place and it wasn’t their fault. If they could get a few million out of it then that would be nice.

Oh – it’s because Michael Jackson‘s an international supermegastar who everyone always wants to sue; not just because he made AllGood fall off a ladder or anything.

A statement released by them that want that money said these words, in a very righteous and “fight the power” fashion:

“This is a case where the little guy followed the rules and was pushed aside by industry giants AEG and the Jacksons for the promise of bigger money and movies.”

Regardless, the suit is saying that Jackson cannot perform his scheduled O2 dates until some time around 2010, after he has hooked up with the Jackson 5 reunion tour.

Wait – why is he going on a J5 reunion?

What do you mean he was in the Jackson 5? But… he… Oh, he’s that one? Well, wonders never cease.

It’s yet another episode in the beginning-to-be long-running saga about a few ruddy gigs that really should be a lot easier to sort out than they are, thanks in no small part to (not) having cancer, the original cease and desist and because he’s a big doo doo head who can’t do anything right.

Needless to say, it’s sure to be a relief for the one who was in the Jackson 5 to get sued about something different for once, instead of just because he’s alleged to have fiddled some kids. Again.

He didn’t do that though, just so we’re clear. We’re just saying he must have a bizarre sense of relief that he’s only being sued for breach of contract, not breach of a youn(CUT! – Ed)