1980s Sceptic

Love & Aspergers

2012-01-24T05:26:00.000-08:00

This is an article from the Daily Telegraph 2008. It's pretty much spot on.

He's gentle, unworldly, highly attentive and charmingly old-fashioned. The catch? The very things that make Keith so attractive to Sarah are symptoms of Asperger's. Anna Moore meets the couples living with this surprisingly common condition

Sarah Hendrickx and Keith Newton sit tilted towards one other, laughing a lot and disappearing down the occasional alley of in-jokes, as couples do when they're still in that early, besotted stage.

Keith has just arrived at Sarah's home in Hove and they're clearly delighted by the prospect of the next few days together. As always, Keith has switched off his mobile phone because, as he puts it, 'my time here is with Sarah'. They won't see anyone else - Keith has no friends of his own and doesn't feel comfortable socialising - but plan to eat lots of chocolate, walk and watch television. 'We spend a lot of time feeling smug,' says Sarah, 'because we see other couples who don't look very happy.'

In a few days, though, Keith will drive back to Wickham, Hampshire, 50 miles away, where he lives alone and works as a computer programmer. This will always be the case. Despite meeting five years ago, they won't 'progress' as other couples do. They'll neither live together nor have children. Although there's only a year between them, at 39 Keith is so gangly, gawky, boyish and cute that he could be ten years younger than he is.

Yet Sarah - who had a child at 19 and has two marriages behind her - is confident that few women could put up with him. 'God, he's so gorgeous he could have anyone - but not for long,' she says, laughing. 'Three or four months max… then, when the conversation turns to homes and babies and bank accounts, he'd be gone!' The two burst into laughter.

It wasn't always like this. The couple met through internet dating and the first stage of their relationship was fiery and fraught. To Sarah, Keith was 'a puzzle'. He'd plainly state that their blissful weekends were enough for him, that he'd never live with her or even move nearer. Sarah frequently found him selfish, cold and distant. Keith found Sarah hard work, demanding and 'screechy'.

Ultimately, only one thing allowed them to start again from scratch - they uncovered the reason for Keith's 'insensitivity', his aloofness, the fact that he could see no future with Sarah nor seemed to want one: Keith has Asperger's syndrome (AS).

Such a late diagnosis is not uncommon. Asperger's - a developmental condition that falls within the autism spectrum - was identified more than 60 years ago but became a standard diagnosis only in 1992 when it entered the World Health Organisation's diagnostic manual. As a result, the majority of adults with the syndrome almost certainly grew up without knowing they had it.

Estimates vary enormously as to the prevalence, but one in 100 people is thought to be on the autism spectrum, and it is more common in males by a ratio of nine to one. People with AS normally have above-average intelligence but great difficulties with empathy, communication and social interaction.

People with AS struggle to understand the unwritten social rules that help most of us act and speak appropriately. They find it hard to decipher figures of speech, facial expressions and tones of voice, and are frequently (but unintentionally) concise and literal to the point of rudeness. Since the 'real world' becomes an extremely stressful place, many retreat into their own safe haven of routine, solitude and obsessive special interests.

Today AS is likely to be recognised in a child, and his school will be told he needs special support. Twenty years ago, however, he'd be the 'geek' who didn't quite fit but was left to get on with it. And that struggle has continued into adulthood. For someone with AS, the minefield of relationships, marriage and parenthood can be the hardest part of all.

Louise Corbett manages the National Autistic Society (NAS) helpline and confirms that more calls are coming from couples who have recognised Asperger's in their relationship.

'When I started six years ago most of our calls were made by parents about their children,' she says. 'Now we get more adult-related calls than child-related.' As Asperger's seems to run in families, many women identify it in their husbands - or their husbands see it in themselves - only after their child has been diagnosed and they've read the literature. 'They call in absolute shock,' says Corbett. 'Often they've been experiencing difficulties for years without knowing why. There's no way around it: Asperger's can be very hard to live with.'

Maxine Aston, the author of Aspergers in Love (Jessica Kingsley, £14.95), is one of the few counsellors to work specifically with couples affected by AS. Her surveys and questionnaires from the past decade suggest that 75 per cent of such couples seek counselling. 'I'd almost say AS was a "relationship disorder",' she says. 'It affects communication, interaction and the ability to empathise. Any research will tell you they're the key ingredients for a successful relationship.' In Aston's experience - and desperate clients come from as far as Japan, New Zealand and Canada - Asperger's relationships follow a common pattern.

'A huge number seem to meet on dating websites,' she says. 'For someone with AS it's the perfect route.' Where once many people with AS were effectively barred from the dating game, the internet now provides the perfect point of entry (it has, as Aston puts it 'opened the floodgates').

Bypassing the enormous challenges involved in chatting someone up, it allows you to make a checklist and then select according to criteria. Although many people with AS are unemployed or underemployed, others are at the top of their profession. 'On paper they look amazing,' says Aston. 'Doctors, IT consultants, engineers, solicitors… They could be in their forties but have never married - so no baggage. The internet also allows them to build a rapport by email,' she continues. 'When they meet, women are often very charmed by this polite, gentle man with an old-fashioned appeal.'

This was certainly true for Sarah who found Keith completely different to anyone she had known. 'At the end of our first date he kissed my cheek and shook my hand,' she recalls. 'So different to all the guys that ply you with rioja. Keith seemed so untouched by needless fashion and peer pressure - I thought he was a Buddhist!'

However, in Aston's experience, this appeal can wear thin. 'Women fall in love and want to nurture this unworldly, slightly vulnerable man and help him grow up. As the relationship settles, though, they often find their own emotional needs aren't being met.

'Someone with AS probably has good intentions,' she goes on. 'He wants to make her happy but can't read the signs. At the beginning of the courtship the woman could become his obsession and she has probably never experienced such attention. Five years down the line, when he has focussed on something else and returns from work, yet again forgets to say hello and goes to the garage to take the car apart, things are very different. Women often say to me, "He's either got Asperger's or he's the most selfish man on the planet."'

Another problem can be the isolation. People with AS frequently have sensory difficulties - loud noise, strong smells and bright lights can be almost painful. This, coupled with difficulties in social interaction, means that parties, family gatherings and big birthdays drop off the radar.

'I once saw a couple in their eighties who, after 50 years of marriage, realised what the problem was,' says Aston. 'They decided to stay together, but she bought a cottage up the road and he visited for meals. She could have friends and family over and he had space for his routine and interests. Quite a few couples decide to stay together but live apart.'

Penny Jones, an accountant from Oxford, tried this, following the diagnosis of her husband Chris, an IT consultant, six years ago. Chris learnt about AS through a television programme while he was off work with stress. He subsequently saw a specialist who placed him high on the Asperger's scale.

'We got together in 1995 and he'd always been very unusual,' says Penny. 'There are lots of positives about Asperger's. I like its straightforwardness. There's no game-playing. Chris was the first person I had met who just let people be themselves. Most men want you to be a bit more like this or more like that. Chris just accepts you. He's also very intelligent - he has an IQ of over 150 - and very funny.'

However, AS was hard to live with. 'He did lock himself in the room with the computer,' she says. 'We were under the same roof but not together. Rarely did we share the preparation and clearing away of meals because Chris couldn't stand the noise of cutlery and crockery.'

When their children were born - Luke is nine and Beth is seven - Chris found the chaos of family life even more difficult. 'It wasn't predictable and calm enough. Family holidays we gave up on,' she says. 'He would try his best but by day three, without his familiarity, his routine, his computer, you could see all his systems shutting down. Then he'd spend each day with a large crate of beer in front of the television while I took the children out. Chris drank vast quantities to cope with Asperger's - that was another problem.'

When Chris moved out, the plan had been that they would remain a couple, but in the end this didn't work out. 'He drank far less and was clearly so much happier in his own space,' says Penny. 'He would spend a few hours with us, then go home to his bolthole and not talk to anyone for 24 hours. In the end, I couldn't cope with the massive periods of time alone.' The couple divorced last year.

Conventional counselling isn't recommended for AS couples - in fact, it frequently makes things worse. 'Counselling works on empathy,' says Maxine Aston, 'helping you understand each other's point of view. That won't happen if you have AS. You might be told to spend ten minutes a day talking about your emotions. Someone with AS can't do it, feels pressurised and disappointment sets in.' For this reason, the NAS has a (small) database of couples counsellors who specialise in AS - of which Aston is one.

There are many strategies that can help. One is to write things down instead of saying them. Another is for the non-Asperger's half in the relationship to spell things out in no uncertain terms. ('I am feeling sad and would like a hug'), rather than hope their partner will read the cues. However, the key is understanding the Asperger's label, accepting its limitations and adjusting expectations. 'It's almost like blaming it on the Asperger's,' says Aston.

The diagnosis that saved Keith and Sarah almost happened by accident - Sarah got a job working with ASpire, a charity that supports adults with Asperger's. The more she learnt, the more she recognised in Keith. 'At first, I thought it was just a mad, crazy Sarah idea,' he says. 'But as I researched it, the similarities became too great to ignore.'

Learning about AS, he says, was 'life-changing'. Suddenly what Sarah describes as his 'isolated, biscuit-eating life' made sense. Keith had been bullied at school and gone through university with no friends at all. He'd had only two jobs in his life doing the same thing and two very short-lived relationships (the first at 31). 'From an early age you try to join the world, but gradually, with rejection and not being able to understand social situations, it becomes too taxing,' he says. 'I wanted relationships with women but didn't have the confidence, the tools or the means.'

In Sarah, Keith has found the perfect partner. She works with AS adults for a living and now understands his thought processes and almost speaks his language. She can foresee stressful situations, accepts his frequent need to be alone and rarely asks for more than Keith can give.

In return, she has a charming, quirky, logical and attentive partner who is still touchingly old-fashioned - he always opens doors for her, carries her shopping and whips off her glasses to clean them if he sees they are dirty. Most importantly, the two clearly love each other's company, share the same sense of humour - and have co-written a book, Asperger Syndrome - A Love Story (Jessica Kingsley, £12.99), to show that happy endings are possible, even if they're not quite the endings originally envisaged.

There are no plans of marriage or moving in, and Keith certainly doesn't think he could cope with children. But they seem like soul mates. 'With Sarah, I get acceptance and understanding,' says Keith. 'I don't necessarily want to join the rest of the world - but I'd like someone to join me in mine. I'd like to know at the end of my life that there's been one person who got me. That's what Sarah does for me.'

Diana's back and Wow!

2011-12-18T13:42:00.000-08:00

She's back and with not one, but two free download tracks!

Diana is the sole reason the world needs to thank Simon Cowell. OK she came 4th in XF 2008, but since then she's told Cowell where to shove his contract, starred in a West End Musical (Little Voice), had a number one single and album, become a professional model and built up one of the most devoted fanbases of our time. Not bad for a twenty year old on the recieving end of one of the most vicious hate campaigns concievable both during and after XF. Most of her 'haters' have shut up these days. Some have got a life and the more discerning have grudgingly conceded that actually Miss Vickers really does have talent.

Not only talent but versatility if this download is anything to go by. 'Kiss Of A Bullet' is slick,catchy electro-pop with a nice little twist of that Diana quirkiness us fans love. Sure she's refined the vocal that polarised so many on XF, but this is still unmistakably Vickers and damned addictive stuff.

This and the recent 'Music To Make Boys Cry' bode exceedingly well for the second album. Diana is a unique talent, a canny self publicist and one of those mavericks who make the music industry worthwhile.

Florence & The Machine Belfast

2010-08-19T16:59:00.000-07:00

Flouncing, flamboyant, ethereal -- Florence Welch is all these things and more.

I wasn't a huge fan of the 'Lungs' album -- flashes of genius sure, but hardly a classic. Deciding on both a whim and the recommendation of others to see her live, we were presented with stylish red bin bags to ward off the rain and left to wait for the good lady herself in a haze of drizzle and alcohol fumes.

Despite an opening curtain malfunction, Florence bounced onto the Customs House Square stage with a smile, a wave and a huge rendition of 'The Drumming Song.'

So many performers turn up, run through their set and wave goodbye. Not this lady. She gave us everything, a whirling dervish on stage, showcasing an almost shockingly powerful vocal set against a disarmingly elfine and adorable speaking voice.

Lots of delightful intersong banter, audience interaction and Kate Bush/Stevie Nicks style floatiness made Florence a joy to watch.

All the album was performed, with particular mention for my favourite 'Howl' and a jaw dropping encore version of 'Kiss With A Fist', rocked up to the max with Florence flailing wildly on her drums and even treating us to her keyboard skills.

Far from being a novelty act, Florence is only starting to hit her stride. The new unreleased songs were IMO better than the old, her stage skills are hugely impressive and she's clearly a force to be reckoned with.

I'll definitely be going back for more.

Get Him To The Greek

2010-06-24T17:16:00.000-07:00

OK so the title is rubbish, the poster is rubbish and it's basically two hours of Russell Brand. What could possibly go right?

Well quite frankly, all of it. Not since Borat has a film been so side-splittingly, pant-wettingly funny. Featuring every possible swear word, graphic sex scenes and constant drug use, it's amazing this squeaked a 15 certificate, but hey whatever.

The film works on several levels -- firstly as a lampoon of the music industry, complete with a shockingly good comic performance from Puff Daddy/P Diddy/Sean Coombs (not to mention a cameo from Metallica's Lars Urlich) and a hilarious piss-take on the often outrageously sexual content of the likes of Girls Aloud, Lady Ga Ga and Beyonce by the marvellously OTT love interest Jackie Q (Rose Byrne). Titles such as 'Supertight' and 'Pound me in the Buttox' don't tend to leave much to the imagination.

Secondly the travails of an innocent abroad (Aaron Green) tasked with escorting the preposterously hedonistic Aldous (Brand) from London to LA, lay bare the dynamics of his monagamous relationship when set against Aldous world of free sex and drugs.

Thirdly as a gross-out comedy with a heart and soul, it's an absolute winner.

Not for the faint hearted, but if you enjoyed Borat, Superbad or Forgetting Sarah Marshall, you'll love this.

Norn Iron

2010-04-20T04:37:00.001-07:00

Ireland is an island to the west of Britain but Northern Ireland is
> just off the mainland – not the Irish mainland, the British mainland.
>
> The capital of Ireland is Dublin . It has a population of a million
> people, all of whom will be shopping in Newry this afternoon. They
> travel to Newry because it is in the North, which is not part of
> Ireland , but still pay in Euros.
>
> Under the Irish constitution, the North used to be in Ireland , but a
> successful 30-year campaign of violence for Irish unity ensured that
> it is now definitely in the UK . Had the campaign lasted longer the
> North might now be in France .
>
> Belfast is the capital of Northern Ireland . It has a population of
> half a million, half of whom have houses in Donegal. Donegal is in the
> north but not in the North. It is in the South. No, not the south, the
> South.
>
> There are two parliaments in Ireland . The Dublin parliament is called
> the Dáil, (pronounced “Doyle”), an Irish word meaning a place where
> banks receive taxpayers’ money.The one in Belfast is called Stormont,
> an Anglo-Saxon word meaning placebo, or deliberately ineffective drug.
>
> Their respective jurisdictions are defined by the border, an imaginary
> line on the map to show fuel launderers where to dump chemical waste.
>
> Protestants are in favour of the border, which generates millions of
> pounds in smuggling for Catholics, who are opposed to it.
>
> Travel between the two states is complicated because Ireland is the
> only country in the world with two M1 motorways. The one in the North
> goes west to avoid the south and the one in the South goes north to
> avoid the price of drink.
>
> We have two types of democracy in Ireland . Dublin democracy works by
> holding a referendum and then allowing the government to judge the
> result. If the government thinks the result is wrong, the referendum
> is held again. Twice in recent years the government decided the
> people’s choice was wrong and ordered a new referendum.
>
> Belfast democracy works differently. It has a parliament with no
> opposition, so the government is always right. This system generates
> envy in many world capitals, especially Dublin .
>
> Ireland has three economies – northern, southern and black. Only the
> black economy is in the black. The other two are in the red.
>
> All versions of the IRA claim to be the real IRA but only one of them
> is the Real IRA. The North’s biggest industry is the production of
> IRAs. Consequently, we now have the Provisional, Continuity and Real
> IRA. The Real IRA is by far the most popular among young graffiti
> writers simply because it is the easiest to spell.

Alice In Wonderland

2010-03-07T15:51:00.000-08:00

This story has quite a pedigree, dating back to the 19th century and featuring in many a childhood reading list and popular culture reference.
I read the book when I was a kid, and whilst there were suggestions that it may have derived some narrative from illicit substances, it remains a cracking good, albeit Victorian-era read.

Cue director par excellence Tim Burton to update this phenomenal tale for the 21st century, complete with stunning CGI and heavy-handed plot revision.

Now I know that reviews have been 'mixed'. A ranking of 53% on 'Rotten Tomatoes' isn't a disaster but it ain't no 'Avatar' either. And Burton has the problem of attempting to create a film suitable for kids without turning off the grown-ups, many of whom will have high expectations of a tale they've likely seen/read before.

So how is it? Well first of all, the large auditorium we saw it in was packed. Has to be a good sign as at many films these days, the audience can be counted on two hands with enough digits left to make a rabbit on the screen. This time round the only onscreen rabbit was the one beckoning Alice to another world, and following a bog standard Victorian marriage proposal at a bog standard National Trust property, that's exactly where she went.

After a little eat me/drink me growing/shrinking experience, Alice enters her new world and begins to encounter some bizarre characters.
Tweedledum and Tweedledee are both Matt Lucas, which does make you wonder if he recieved two appearance fees. The Cheshire Cat is played rather wonderfully by Stephen Fry, who manages to encapsulate the feline essence to perfection. And then we have Alan Rickman playing a blue caterpillar with the voice of Sevirus Snape. But I digress.

The party is quickly crashed by a rather fearsome (for kids) Bandersnatch and the Red Queen's guards, all intent on mayhem and mischief. Once the Red Queen (Helena Bonham Carter the queen of petulance herself in another wonderfully OTT display) learns of Alice arrival in the Kingdom, she issues a warrant for her arrest, something which generally results in involuntary decapitation.

Having evaded capture for the moment, Alice gets to meet the Mad Hatter, who turns out to rather less psychologically challenged than might be assumed and the March Hare, who most definitely is. The Hatter is of course Johnny Depp, perfectly cast in another slightly unhinged Jack Sparrow type role. He proceeds to set Alice on the path to her destiny as slayer of the Jaberwock and enabler of the White Queen's apparent claim to the throne.

The White Queen herself is played by Anne Hathaway, a kind of reverse goth with a delightful if occasionally troubling demanour. Again perfect casting.

Along the way we get stunning CGI, a decent narrative and a film that is, in my opinion, an absolute delight in every department. OK the plot digresses wildly from the original story and the constant reminders to Alice that she has 'been here before' seem somewhat pointless, but the topsy turvy cast and above all Alice herself, hold things together very nicely.

It's fantastic family entertainment and good, fun, hokey nonsense, just as Lewis Carroll intended it to be. Who could ask for more?

8 out of 10.

Smarter Than You Think

2010-01-18T02:39:00.000-08:00

Smarter than you think (Sunday Times Article 17/01/10)

The animal kingdom is home to much greater intelligence than has been previously acknowledged, with scientists seeing evidence of human-like traits everywhereJonathan Leake and Georgia Warren

It was the sight of a diminutive Diana monkey attacking a giant crowned eagle in the treetops of the Tai forest in Ivory Coast, west Africa, that gave Klaus Zuberbühler his great insight into the language of monkeys.

As the animal charged the bird it emitted screams that Zuberbühler, a psychologist at St Andrews University, knew he had heard before.

“When we analysed our recordings we realised it was different to all the other monkey alarm calls — except for when they were fighting off eagles,” said Zuberbühler.

The implication was a powerful one. Jungles such as the Tai forest are a cacophony of monkey shouts and screams. Researchers had assumed they were just simple markers of territory, distress or a desire to mate. What Zuberbühler’s findings suggested was something much more exciting: the monkeys were communicating with each other, in this case passing on complex information about a specific threat and its whereabouts. In other words, they had developed a rudimentary language.

Over the following months Zuberbühler and his colleagues recorded thousands more monkey calls and spent hundreds of hours listening to the animals. Slowly they learnt the language of the apes.

They found that the Campbell’s monkey, another species, has the ability to add suffixes to its calls, changing the meaning to tell one another of different threats or opportunities. When they saw a leopard, for example, they gave a “krack” alarm call, but when they were just repeating calls made by other monkeys they added an “oo”.

The males had another refinement, emitting a “boom boom” sound to call other monkeys towards them, but sometimes appending an “ooo” sound to warn of a falling branch or tree.

“We found they have six call types, three of which can take a suffix. It means they can put the sounds into sequences that convey complex meanings,” Zuberbühler said.

Perhaps most exciting of all was the discovery that the calls could be understood by other species of monkey — and even by birds such as hornbills.

It means, said Zuberbühler, that animals and birds can communicate complex ideas not just to their peers but also across species.

Zuberbühler’s research is exciting and by no means unique. In the past few years researchers have been finding similar examples of sentience and self-awareness across the animal kingdom in species ranging from elephants and dolphins to crows and parrots. Even sheep, cows and pigs appear to be far more self-aware and to lead more emotionally charged lives than we have previously understood.

It means that humans, used to regarding ourselves as unique in our ability to think and feel, are not so special. Increasingly scientists believe we are merely at the top of a spectrum of intelligence across the animal kingdom, rather than standing apart from it. We may be better at thinking and more able to articulate our feelings — but animals can do all the same things.

AMONG scientists, the idea that animals and birds might be sentient has been around a long time. Charles Darwin suggested there were good evolutionary reasons for complex organisms such as mammals to develop self-awareness. However, he had no evidence for it.

A prescient Darwin thought social animals that lived in groups would be the most likely to show signs of intelligence. It is a prediction that scientists are confirming over and over.

Dolphins, for example, were recently proposed as the world’s second most intelligent creatures after studies showed they had distinct personalities, a strong sense of self and could think about the future.

This was backed up by MRI scans showing their brains were second in mass only to those of humans when adjusted for body size.

Chimpanzees are perhaps the most obvious species for comparisons with humans, but their abilities can still surprise, as when researchers at Georgia State University’s language research centre in Atlanta taught some to “speak”.

They taught the animals to use voice synthesisers and a keyboard to hold conversations with humans. One chimp developed a 3,000-word vocabulary and tests suggested she had the language and cognitive skills of a four-year-old child.

Perhaps the most surprising signs of intelligence have been found in birds — whose tiny heads and small brains were long assumed to be a complete barrier to sentience. All that is changing fast, however, with many species showing powerful memories and reasoning power. A few years ago Irene Pepperberg of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology taught a parrot to recognise and count up to six objects and describe their shapes.

Last year that was topped by Alex Kacelnik, a professor of behavioural ecology at Oxford, who discovered that crows are capable of using multiple tools in complex sequences, the first time such behaviour had been observed in non-humans. In an experiment seven crows successfully reeled in a piece of food placed out of reach using three different lengths of stick.

Crucially, they were able to complete the task without any special training, suggesting the birds were capable of a level of abstract reasoning and creativity normally associated only with humans.

Last week it emerged that researchers from Padua University in Italy had found that birds were able to read numbers from left to right, as humans do, and count to four even when the line of numbers was moved from vertical to horizontal. They also showed that birds performed better in tests after a good night’s sleep.

All this is powerful evidence against the idea that people are unique and, some argue, also undermines the idea that humans should have “dominion” over animals, as the Bible puts it.

This has traditionally been the justification for the exploitation and abuse of animals in many different ways, the most emotive of which is animal experimentation, particularly involving primates.

In terms of sheer numbers, though, it is farming that inflicts the most misery with about 60 billion animals farmed worldwide for food each year, most of them in intensive systems.

Recent campaigns by Jamie Oliver and Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall, the celebrity chefs, against battery-reared chickens highlighted how large poultry farms can cram up to 50,000 chickens into one shed, forcing the birds to live in their own faeces. Similar conditions are inflicted on other livestock such as pigs and cattle, again once thought of as dumb animals but which research has shown to be highly sentient.

John Webster, emeritus professor of animal husbandry at the University of Bristol, has studied the group dynamics of cows, finding that apparently peaceful herds are actually heaving with complex emotions. Cows can form intimate friendship groups of a few animals — or develop grudges that last for years. Sometimes they even turn lesbian, grooming, licking and trying to mount each other.

Research by Professor Keith Kendrick, a neuroscientist at the government’s Babraham Research Institute in Cambridge, looked at what goes on in the brains of animals such as sheep, suggesting remarkable similarities to humans.

In one experiment he showed that sheep are able to recognise the individual faces of at least 50 other sheep for up to two years. He also found that the electrical activity in the brain associated with recognising other individuals was similar to that seen in people.

“People see sheep as grass-eating robots but they are complex social animals. Their brains works in similar ways to our own,” he said.

Webster believes such complexity and possible self-awareness create a moral obligation to treat farm animals better. “What’s clear is that the animals we use on the farm, in the laboratory or in the home are able to experience emotions ranging from comfort and pleasure to pain and suffering,” he said.

“Our aim should be to keep them fit and happy: to create a physical and social environment where they can achieve a sense of wellbeing. This applies whatever may be our intentions for the animal: to love it, eat it, or to find a cure for cancer. Animals under our protection deserve a fair deal: a sense of wellbeing in life and a humane death.”

Such an approach has already been incorporated into law — but only for pets. The Animal Welfare Act of 2006 said that humans have a duty of care for companion animals and cannot maltreat them for fear of legal retribution. Farm animals are excluded, which some say is based not on science but on the financial interests of the farming and food industries.

Joyce D’Silva, of Compassion in World Farming, said the research supported the idea that animals were sentient and had complex emotional needs and lives “not so different to our own”.

“Industrial farming ignores all those needs,” she said.

“We can see their physical distress but this research tells us it goes much deeper than that and affects their emotional health, too.”

ONE fascinating aspect of research into animal cognition is the insights it offers into how early humans might have developed intelligence.

There have been 15-20 species of human in the past several million years but modern humans are the only survivor. Why is this?

Some researchers suggest that from about 3m years ago early humans had to deal with a series of sudden changes in climate that could be survived only by co-operation and teamwork.

These would have placed a premium on skills such as rapid reasoning, communication and other social skills. Hominids such as Neanderthals, who were intelligent enough to produce jewellery and wear make-up, could not adapt fast enough and so perished — while we survived.

Such ideas suggest that the cognitive abilities of animals and humans lie on a spectrum. The skills of humans may be at the top end but they are no different in kind from those of many animal species.

Thomas White, professor of ethics at Loyola Marymount University, Los Angeles, believes that some animals are bright enough to merit human rights. He suggests that hunting dolphins or capturing them for aquariums is “roughly the same thing whites were doing to blacks 200 years ago in the slave trade”.

Hyperbole, perhaps, but at a simpler level Zuberbühler has good reason to be thankful for the ability of animals to communicate complex information. Walking back to camp in the Tai forest he heard a group of monkeys screaming the warning call for a leopard.

That was nothing special but a few minutes later he passed a second group who took up the cry — and then the same happened with a third.

He said: “By then I had been listening to monkeys for long enough to recognise what the cries meant — I was being stalked by a leopard.”

Zuberbühler picked up a stick and ran for the camp, wishing he could thank the monkeys for their help.

Why Do Humans Need to Believe in the Supernatural?

2010-01-04T07:08:00.000-08:00

The Wikipedia definition:

''The term supernatural pertains to being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena. Religious miracles are typically supernatural claims, as are spells and curses, divination, the belief that there is an afterlife for the dead, and innumerable others. Supernatural beliefs have existed in many cultures throughout human history.''

Most religions don't tend to class themselves as 'supernatural' organisations. The term is generally associated with sci-fi and ghosts, yet it is equally applicable to religious belief.

Despite centuries of scientific, societal and cultural progress, supernatural beliefs are densely interwoven in all human societies. Belief in an invisible, unknowable, unproveable supernatural being is still regarded as normal, while in most cultures, atheism is regarded as unusual or in extreme cases, heretical.

Indeed the term atheism only dates back to the 16th century, and whilst there were undoubtedly non-believers prior to that time, they obviously had little influence and tended to keep their thoughts to themselves, presumably through fear of ridicule, peer rejection or persecution.

So in a world where belief in the irrational remains the norm and stating the obvious remains an outsider position, what exactly are we to make of the human 'spiritual' condition?

First of all, I should briefly outline my position. I had a religious (though not oppressively so) upbringing in the Protestant (Presbyterian) church. At the age of approx 13, I formulated my own ideas which are largely unchanged today.

My view is that humanity is merely the dominant creature in a food chain. A skilled and destructive parasite, leeching off a small planet and it's largely unfortunate (non-human) animal neighbours.
At present we have no way of knowing how the planet or indeed the universe came to be, and such questions, whilst interesting, are largely irrelevant. Infinitely more important is the question of how future generations are going to survive on a planet already massively overpopulated, polluted, ravaged and damaged in a most short-sighted manner.

The notion that humanity is in some way more important, relevant or deserving than the rest of the animal kingdom is by turns quaint and dangerously self-deluding. Dangerous in that it encourages and excuses habitat and species destruction, quaint in that it is a belief stretching back to the dimmest mists of human existence, propelled by zero evidence and egotism.

That's my take and to me it's as obvious as night and day. So why do so few others agree?

Skipping over the endless subject of organised religion and it's disastrous and frequently appalling track record, we need to turn to human nature.

The need to believe in SOMETHING beyond ourselves is largely universal. But why?
There are several theories -- that humanity needed an explanation for existence, particularly an explanation for death. That there had to be some reason for us to be here and that inexplicable natural events such as storms, earthquakes and floods needed a 'rational' explanation. And that a society built on tribal and spiritual values, often masqueraded as morality, created a more cohesive and easily manipulated populace.

But whilst we can understand the above in the context of primitive and even medieval societies, surely such notions should largely have fallen by the wayside in today's global, enlightened and technological age? Few still believe in a flat earth, the sun revolving round our planet or in witches, goblins and fairies, so why do we still feel the need for a deity?

Well there are a few possibilities. First of all, religious belief, particularly in the notion of a MALE deity (surely common sense should indicate that any deity would be sexually neutral?) helps to reinforce societally convenient stereo-types. Thus Christianity and particularly Islam are used as excuses for the subjucation and abuse of women, the persecution of homosexuals and the supposed superiority of men.

Tribalism -- humanity has always been a tribal animal, clinging to the 'them and us' notions of the earliest days when being in the correct group meant life or death. Today's tribal societies are more subtle, relying on the basic insecurity of the individual. Being brought up in one 'tribe' due to job description or skin colour is a little too 'loose' -- being raised in a tribe which has the spiritual 'truth' is quite another. Thus Roman Catholics, Sunni Muslims, Mormons etc 'belong' to a particular group, complete with their own rituals, fanciful ideas and tribal laws. They may not appear sensible or ethical to outsiders, but 'belonging' to a group, even an abusive one, is for many preferable to being an 'outcast' forced to stand on your own two feet.

Vested interests -- God = money. Whether a humble priest or a multi-millionaire cult leader, there is money to be made from the exploitation of others gullibility. It works for anti-wrinkle creams, alternative medicines and fortune tellers, so why not for supernatural belief? Indeed it's only limits are the imagination.
In addition to financial gain, other benefits of running a religious group include power, respect and control. As the RC church have so ably demonstrated, religious power brings with it such perks as unfettered paedophilia as well as huge amounts of money and influence. The world's religions have myriad reasons for wishing their particular brands to continue, and the best way to do so is by 'getting them young.'

Indoctrination -- this is perhaps the most insidious of all. Rather than allowing an individual to choose their faith in early adulthood, most supernaturalists insist on indoctrinating their children in their tribal faith (and their faith ONLY) literally from birth. What could say more about the tribal nature and uncertainty of religious faith than that parents and their religious masters are afraid to allow their offspring to choose -- they must be TOLD, despite the fact that their 'faith' is merely an accident of birth, that they have been born into the one 'true' faith.

So is supernatural belief merely about rigid organised religion and tribalism? Or is there something more?

Left to decide for themselves, having been brought up in a non-religious or religiously neutral environment, many people WILL choose religious belief of one sort or another. Sometimes through marriage, sometimes through persausion, sometimes through liking what they see in a particular faith. There's no doubt that most people still feel the need to believe and worship something. Even non-deity believers will still say thet are 'spiritual', that there is 'something greater than us.'

Why should this be? Is it merely the sense of scale? That individuals feel (rightly) dwarfed by the vastness of the universe and the seeming futility of existence? Is it a coping mechanism dating from our primeval past? And are we always likely to have these feelings?

I say always because always may not be that long. Whether or not global warming even exists, the planet's resources are being sucked dry at an alarming rate. Whether you're religious or not, the end (for humanity as we know it as opposed to the planet which will continue regardless) may well be nigh.

The question is should humanity be wasting it's time on oceans of mumbo jumbo and ancient manuscripts when the actual survival of the species is infinitely more important?

St Trinians 2

2010-01-02T16:19:00.000-08:00

If you've seen the first film in this revamped franchise, you'll likely know what to expect.

Thankfully shorn of the obnoxious Russell Brand, but somewhat inexplicably boasting David Tennant, St Trinians 2 is a pretty cack-handed romp through the bargain bins of British cinema.

A wafer thin plot, dreadful jokes and plodding dialogue characterise this fairly woeful sequel, but somehow, like the bulldog pup humping Colin Firth's leg, you can't help but quite like it. It truly does what it says on the tin, and whilst even the most mediocre episode of Dr Who could knock the socks of this film, David Tennant somehow redeems himself as the leader of a chauvinist secret society hell bent on discovering the true identity of Shakespeare. Yes it's really that daft.

Firth and the gender-bendering headmistress are back for more silliness and the girls themselves do their best with dialogue which often feels like it's been made up on the hoof. Girls Aloud's Sarah Harding doesn't have to work too hard in her role, but certainly doesn't disgrace herself and easily acts Madonna off the screen in every movie she's ever been in. Possibly not saying much though.

A nation of lads will be gutted to discover that Gemma Arterton is relegated to supporting role while some young upstart takes over as headgirl, but when the upstart is Talulah Riley it kind of softens the blow somewhat.

All in all, don't expect much and you won't be disappointed. Harmless fluff. (6 out of 10).

Avatar The Movie

2009-12-27T14:33:00.000-08:00

Clocking in at nearly three hours, 'Avatar' has one heck of a running time and is one heck of an experience. But is it a good one?

The initial impression for me is that 'Avatar' is a huge magpie borrowing ideas from numerous other films -- the space futurism of Star Wars, the human driven warrior robots of Alien, the good vs evil battle of Narnia, the going native notion of Last Of The Mohicans. And as such, whilst it's pilfering may show taste, it nonetheless also shows a rather depressing lack of imagination on the part of writer & director James Cameron.

'Avatar' is set on another planet in the year 2154, but apparently this 'alien world' is little more than a distortion of the amazon rain forest inhabited by a noble race of blue skinned bipeds at one with their environment. Such human basics as tribalism, the need for food, sleep, mating and even tribal initiation are alive and well. I find it highly unimaginative and vaguely depressing that so much science fiction visualises alien life as merely people with flat noses. For me 'Alien' is one of the few mainstream movie franchises to envisage a creature at least plausibly different from humanity. Existing purely as a lethal, highly intelligent parasite, the alien is both terrifying and utterly inhuman. Whereas the 'aliens' depicted in Avatar are merely blue coloured jungle dwellers.

The first half of the film is highly predictable -- 'marine guy sent in as a spy goes native' sums it up pretty well. By midpoint I was settling for a 4 out of 10.

But then things picked up. Not because of any great leap in narrative, rather due to a phenomenal leap in special effects. For me the first 'Narnia' film was deathly dull up until the awesome White Queen battle sequence towards the end. And so it is for 'Avatar' -- only much much more.

The pitting of the noble jungle dwellers armed with bows & arrows against the awesome might of US gunships 22nd century style is a battle that should have lasted ten seconds. Instead we see incredible acts of heroism, of jungle creatures sacrificing themselves for the land they love, of weapons being turned on their users. We have a tremendous bad guy in the form of a middle-aged general who simply refuses to give up and who actually managed a spontaneous round of applause on his eventual demise.

Cameron throws in some clumsy messages about the power of nature conquering the greed of humanity and even features the line 'let's fight terror with terror', but ultimately this is a big budget small brained sci-fi action flick and purely on that level it works a treat.

Being a 12A certificate probably hobbled 'Avatar' somewhat. The gore quotient was necessarily low and the ending fairly predictable, but in pure CGI terms (we saw the 3D version), 'Avatar' is a stunning piece of cinema and one of the best films I've seen this year (and believe me I've seen a lot).

Now if a future director can marry these incredible effects to a truly imaginative concept, we may yet see one of the best films ever made. (8 out of 10).

RATM vs X-Factor

2009-12-21T03:38:00.000-08:00

The unthinkable has happened. Despite 11 weeks of prime-time exposure and the usual media circus, the 2009 X-Factor winner has been denied the traditional Christmas number one by a nineties rap-metal track that missed the top 20 first time around.

Though hardly an earth shattering event in itself, this result makes several points:

Firstly, whilst some 6.5 million people voted for the X-Factor winner Joe McElderry, only 450k (about 8%) actually bought his single. This at a time when singles are cheaper than in the 70s and require only a couple of mouse clicks to buy.
The obvious conclusion is that X-Factor, like Big Brother & Celebrity, is merely a popularity contest, with any music element being purely an afterthought.

Secondly, the RATM campaign was the result of a Facebook group set up by a middle-aged couple -- no financial outlay, no media exposure nothing. They simply wanted to piss off Simon Cowell and his appallingly bland behemoth. And boy did they succeed.

Thirdly, if 'people power' can overturn the might of X-Factor, surely it can equally overturn the banks, the supermarkets and other suitable targets when necessary.

As regards X-Factor itself, a significant number of people are thoroughly pissed off with Cowell's smugness, his 'ratings at all costs' ethos and his insatiable greed (he's apparently demanding £2 million per SHOW for the next series). Not to mention the fact that X-Factor becomes ever more conservative, bland and tedious with each series.

Two things REALLY annoyed me this time -- Cowell's cynical support for Jedward (at the cost of Lucie, the only remotely talented finalist), having slagged them mercilessly in the opening stages -- that and the absolute yawnfest of song choices. The whole thing is like grandad karaoke, but the bizarre thing is that rather than parents and grannies sitting transfixed while the teenagers sneer, it's the younger generation who seem to be lapping it up.

As one poster on the Guardian site said this morning:

''What's happened to our country when old farts like me are buying tunes to rebel against the youngsters!''

And he's right. Joe's song 'The Climb', which is a cover of a Miley Cyrus track (Miley is the daughter of Billy Ray Cyrus who gave us 'Achy Breaky Heart' possibly the most annoying song of the 90s) is the modern equivalent of the 50s ballads that pop/rock music rebelled against in the 60s.

Fair enough Paul McCartney endorsed the show by appearing on it this time, but he later backtracked by endorsing the RATM campaign. As did old farts the NME and sour grapes former X-Factor winner Steve Brookstein.

But why does it appear to have been us middle-aged music fans who voted for RATM? Has young people's music taste become so conservative that they'd welcome back Pat Boone and Max Bygraves? Why are they whinging about 'poor Joe' who is merely another cog in the X-Factor machine, destined for the bargain bins in six months time? Why do they get excited about Whitney and Mariah, the epitome of bloated corporate diva cynicism? I can't answer that -- all I can say is that music-wise at least, many kids have become incredibly conservative -- the charts are stuffed with R&B, inspid ballads and generic pop -- sure there's a thriving underground scene but looking at the top 40 or music TV you'd never guess. The days of punk, indie, britpop, and rave have been replaced by music that young people's parents are literally rebelling against for it's blandness.

So will this result be anything more than a footnote in chart history? Well despite all the wailings about 'poor Joe', about Sony being the ultimate winners and about the irony of the line 'fuck you I won't do what you tell me', I have absolutely no doubt that the X-Factor PR people are in turmoil this week.
Denial of the Christmas number one knocks away a mainstay of X-Factor -- given past form they certainly can't guarantee a pop career of any longevity and now they can't guarantee the Christmas number one either. A major rethink is needed.

Future shows need to be less about the judges (who merely preen and state the obvious) and more about the contestants -- and that means at least some interesting, edgy finalists, like Rhydian, Diana Vickers & Ruth Lorenzo, who while they didn't win, at least brought some quirkiness and diversity.
And how about some music that isn't teeth-rotting ballads?

Just a few suggestions Mr Cowell, so that maybe next year your Christmas dinner won't be ruined by the sound of middle-aged rebels.

Creationism

2009-12-17T15:28:00.000-08:00

X-Factor

2009-12-14T03:14:00.000-08:00

My main objections to X-Factor are:

1. The obscene amounts of money demanded and paid to the judges, with the lion's share going obviously to Cowell himself, a man completely devoid of talent who is on record as saying his sole interest is making money, whilst the contestants aren't paid a penny.

2. The pretence that the show is some sort of talent search, actually contributing something to the music industry. The contestants (with rare exceptions such as last year's Diana Vickers and Ruth Lorenzo) are uniformly homogenised ballad singers moulded into little Whitneys and Bubles. Every spark of originality is extinguished.

3. The cynical manipulation of contestants for the sake of ratings. A perfect example is Cowell's deliberate jettisoning of the moderately talented Lucie Jones for short-term novelty act Jedward, of whom he had been completely critical and dismissive throughout. A few days later he was quoted as saying 'they don't realise how bad they are.' Is the show about talent or about ratings / money?

4. The short-termism of a product which has to rush it's contestants onto the road within weeks as they fade from the public memory like snow off a ditch. How many X-Factor contestants have genuinely built a solid career? Will Young, Leona Lewis certainly, Gareth Gates debateably and early days for Alexandra Burke and JLS.

It's easy to say 'if you don't like it, don't watch it' but as a lover of music old and new, it's impossible to escape, whether it's headline news or the ubiquitous Christmas number one. People need to stand up and point to the elephant in the room -- the X-Factor is all about Cowell's wallet, the judges' egos and advertising revenues. It makes a mockery of the music industry, creates virtually no artists with any longevity and glorifies blandness, whilst stifling originality and ridiculing countless aspiring singers in front of huge audiences.

The difference between X-Factor and shows such as 'Maria' and 'I'd Do Anything' is that the ALW shows feature people who actually are talented in their field -- the vast majority have had theatre experience and carve worthwhile stage careers for themselves once the shows have ended. This can't be said of X-Factor.

Cowell's strength is in providing a throwaway show perfectly tailored to the five minute celebrity culture and that's absolutely fine. Like shows such as Opportunity Knocks and New Faces back in the day, it's no-brainer Saturday night entertainment, but as with those shows, it doesn't provide anything that enhances the music industry in any way.

I'll quote Sting, who's views on this subject I completely agree with:

Rock star Sting has called the X Factor "televised karaoke" and said judges like Simon Cowell have "no recognisable talent apart from self-promotion".

The singer, 58, told London's Evening Standard that the Saturday night show was "a soap opera which has nothing to do with music".

He added: "I am sorry but none of those kids are going to go anywhere, and I say that sadly."

Sting said the singers who participate in the X Factor, created by Cowell in 2004, were "humiliated when they get sent off".

He added: "How appalling for a young person to feel that rejection. It is a soap opera which has nothing to do with music.

"In fact, it has put music back decades. Television is very cynical."

The singer, whose Fields Of Gold is a staple of talent show auditions, went on to say that X Factor encouraged contestants to "conform to stereotypes".

He added: "They are either Mariah Carey or Whitney Houston or Boyzone and are not encouraged to create any real unique signature or fingerprint.

"That cannot come from TV. The X Factor is a preposterous show and you have judges who have no recognisable talent apart from self-promotion, advising them what to wear and how to look. It is appalling.

"The real shop floor for musical talent is pubs and clubs, that is where the original work is.

"The music industry has been hugely important to England, bringing in millions. If anyone thinks the X Factor is going to do that, they are wrong."

A spokesperson for the X Factor declined to comment on Sting's interview, saying he was entitled to his opinion.

OMD Electricity 10th December 2009 Belfast

2009-12-12T06:12:00.000-08:00

OMD / Simple Minds Odyssey Belfast

2009-12-11T03:46:00.000-08:00

No they don't look like this any more. But what do they sound like?

Well it's been over 20 years since I saw Simple Minds live and never managed to see OMD before, so this should be heaven right? Erm well the venue wasn't a great start.

The Odyssey -- I really don't like this venue. Unfavourably compared to an aircraft hangar, it has zero atmosphere and was accurately described by OMD's Andy McCluskey last night as 'the biggest refrigerator in the world.'

We got great seats -- row 10, but there's just something completely impersonal about this place. Whereas the likes of the Waterfront studio (Ultravox), the Mandela (Little Boots) and the Spring & Airbrake (Numan) have a real atmosphere, the Odyssey just lacks --- something.

OMD opened with the still perplexing 'Dazzle Ships' and Andy McCluskey literally bounded onstage looking barely half his 50 years. He did warn us about his terrible dancing, and you really couldn't argue. A stork having an epeleptic fit is the most apt description, but you had to like the guy -- he worked damned hard to get the crowd on their feet.

He largely failed but you couldn't fault the set list -- pretty much all the hits -- Messages, Electricity, Souvenir, Joan Of Arc, Maid Of Orleans, Locomotion, Sailing on the Seven Seas -- thankfully no Tesla Girls. Quiet man Paul Humphries performed a nice Forever Live & Die and Andy got totally laid back for Talking Loud & Clear, sitting on the edge of the stage and shaking hands with the front row -- 'if you're not going to stand up I'm going to sit down.'
Bags of energy and an inclusion which I was personally delighted with -- 'Statues' from the 'Organisation' album. They finished off with a rousing 'Enola Gay' and I thought 'wow this is great value for money -- an hour of OMD and the main act haven't even come on yet'.

Half an hour later and on came the band -- Charlie, Mel, a young guy on bass and an exotic looking female backing singer. 'Theme For Great Cities' started and Jim arrived to segue into 'Sanctify Yourself' one of my least favourite Minds tracks.

I last saw Jim over 20 years ago so hardly surprising that he's changed a bit, but I was unprepared for the pudgy shabbily dressed guy that arrived. Dressed in a black coat and jeans, he looked like he'd just walked in off the street. Bit of a contrast to Andy and Paul it has to be said.

Setlist wise I really couldn't complain -- I'm very much a fan of early Simple minds -- after 'Sparkle In The Rain' I largely found their output disappointing, but we were treated to no less than six tracks from the sublime 'New Gold Dream' and four from the overlooked gem 'Sons & Fascination/Sister Feelings Call.' A big surprise was a great reworking of the 1979 debut single 'Life in a Day' which few in the audience recognised.

But for all the great titles, there was just something missing and I'm still not sure what. The venue seems to suck the life out of bands and despite the band being tight, Jim interacting and us having great seats, it all fell a bit flat for me.

Aside from the size of the place, the security staff were a constant distraction -- constantly marching up and down like the gestapo and hassling people for having the temerity to leave their seats and dance.

So much so that I didn't stay for the encores. As I exited the building I heard the opening bars of 'Neon Lights' and wondered if Kraftwerk would have been any better.

A bit disappointing.

Little Boots Live in Belfast

2009-11-30T04:14:00.001-08:00

Little Boots in Belfast

2009-11-28T18:35:00.000-08:00

OK so it's official -- Little Boots is a goddess.

An hour on stage is a bit frugal it must be admitted but she HAS only released one album. And Victoria's audience interaction has improved immensely since those nervous first days of gigging. Inter song banter, fun singalongs and above all a sense of real enjoyment permeate Little Boot's set.

Accompanied by two guys who no-one notices, Miss Hesketh begins with 'Ghost', a nicely understated seated keyboard performance -- then it's off with the jacket and straight down to business with 'New In Town' and a flood of great catchy synth-pop from the frankly disappointing 'Hands' album. Except that live these often lack lustre tunes take on a whole new life of their own. There literally isn't a mis-step here -- just an overwhelming sense of fun.

Victoria is an absolute delight -- an eighties synth queen twinned with a sixties style icon for the 21st century. You've just have to love her.

It's back to keyboard mode for the rather lovely 'Echo' the first of two encores -- and then the wonderful 'Stuck On Repeat' gets two treatments -- the slow one and the manic dance one.

This is genius right here -- Miss Boots is going far -- just wait for the next instalment and catch her live if you possibly can.

Setlist: Ghost / New in Town / Tune Into My Heart / Click / Mathematics / Symmetry / Hearts Collide / Earthquake / Meddle / Remedy / Echo (Encore) / Stuck On Repeat (Encore).

Just a quick word on the 'Little Boots is fat' media nonsense -- shocking though it may seem not everyone thinks that stick-thin celebrities are the ideal -- there's a reason that many men prefer Kimberley to the other Girls Aloud members. There's absolutely nothing wrong with a few curves and the media body-shape gestapo need to be roundly ignored. Victoria is a million miles from being 'fat' in the general public's sense of the term and even if she were, what the hell would it matter? Stop being so fucking shallow.

The Clerical Abuse Scandal and What it Teaches Us

2009-11-27T14:34:00.000-08:00

The latest devestating report on the sexual abuse of children within the Roman Catholic church, this time concentrating on the Dublin diocese, raises many issues.

The collusion of church, state and police force in the systematic and long-standing cover-up of child rape is shocking beyond belief, but is on another level merely an example of the horrors that absolute power creates within human society.

The difference however between this case and say the Nazis or Chairman Mao, is that here we have an organisation supposedly endorsed by God. Let's ponder that for a moment.

It's clear that the most vile and sickening abuse of children was carried out over decades, perhaps centuries, with the full knowledge of all levels of church hierarchy. This must therefore include God's supposed emisaries on earth -- successive pontiffs. The question begs to be asked -- what type of a deity would allow his ambassadors to preside over crimes which are, let's face it, pretty much as horrific as humanly possible, effectively carried out in 'his' name?

According to biblical accounts, God intervened at various points in history, ostensibly to make examples of 'sinners.' Are we to understand from the lack of divine intervention that sexual abuse of children is actually OK? That hey some people might not like it but it's done by men of God so just grin and bear it?

Or might it not be rather more sensible to conclude that this gigantic paedophile ring, masquerading as a religious edifice divinely capable of moral guidance, is merely a complete man-made sham?

Whichever of these possibilities is correct, we also need to ask exactly why anyone continues to attend mass, to listen to the mind-boggingly hypocritical moralising of this deeply degenerate and corrupt organisation. Would we be happy to respect the thoughts of Gary Glitter on child-care? Then why would anyone wish to heed the ramblings of elderly opinionated bachelors on such subjects as sexual morality, contraception and abortion?

This church with it's preposterous rituals, homophobia, sexism and criminal condemnation of the humble yet life-saving condom apparently intends to brazen out the most awe-inspiring paedophile scandal in history. Nothing is going to change other than the most basic 'safe-guards'. That means priests remaining compulsorily celibate (other than converted Anglicans -- hypocrisy anyone?), the idea of women priests some sort of inexplicable blasphemy and the mere appearance of 'his holiness' on a balcony a cause for flocks of fawning pilgrims rather than angry protests and demands for disbandment of this smug and irredeemably corrupt organisation.

We can only imagine the mental and physical suffering endured by thousands of children at the hands of these depraved perverts masquerading as men of God. We can only recoil in horror at the thought of those brave enough to come forward being ignored, punished and betrayed not only by the church supposed to protect them, but by the police and the political establishment. We can unearth endless sickening horror stories for years to come, but the question is, are we going to learn lessons from this vast religious abomination?

One lesson everyone should agree on is that absolute power must never again be placed in the hands of any organisation, whether political or religious. Another should be that religious faith must be an entirely private matter -- not organised by some group who 'know what God wants', not indocrinated into children purely because their accident of birth made them a mormon, a jew or a roman catholic.

Not much about religious belief can be proved. But one thing this sorry episode does prove is that organised religion is even more open to sexual, financial and moral abuse than secular organisations and should at best be discouraged.

The notion of raising children in one particular branch of one particular faith is every bit as preposterous as raising a child solely to be a plumber or a botanist.
It supposes that young people are incapable of making the 'right' decision on the supernatural and must therefore be indocrinated at an age when their minds are unquestioning and naive. It also supposes that there is only one 'correct' way to worship a deity and if you don't get it exactly right you're going to the bad place.

It was exactly this type of superstitious notion that caused thousands of doubtless well-meaning parents to entrust their children to an organisation who proceeded to abuse them in the most depraved manner imaginable, then compounded the crime through denial and cover-up.

This must never happen again. When a representative of the roman catholic church seeks to pontificate on a moral issue they must be openly challenged. What right have they to advise anyone on morality? Why should anyone ever listen, attend or respect anything to do with this organisation?

Additionally we should discourage the religious indoctrination of children. As societies we rightly shield our children from alcohol, sexual activity and the pressures of career choice until they are well into their teens. Why should religious belief be any different? Have the courage of your convictions -- let them decide when they want to.

As the 'clerical abuse' scandals all too painfully illustrate, keeping children away from these supposed men of God is actually a form of protection.

The Kittens Perform Rammstein 'Feuer Frei'

2009-11-26T15:12:00.001-08:00

Celebrity Torture

2009-11-19T07:35:00.000-08:00

OK in the 70s and early 80s TV was dull. Three (later four) channels, all closing before midnight, populated with dowdy dramas, hokey sit-coms and rubbish game shows. I much preferred listening to music. But in it's own way it was homely and harmless.

Fast forward to 2009 and we have huge audience figures for such gems as X-Factor, I'm A Celebrity and (until recently) Big Brother.

What these shows have in common is a rather nasty sadistic streak -- the enjoyment of the suffering of others, not entirely unlike the gladitorial spectacles of the Roman empire.

I've given my thoughts on X-Factor below, whilst Big Brother merely reached it's natural conclusion -- a 'house' stuffed full of unstable, nasty and freakish characters chosen merely for their conflict potential. The particularly unsavoury celebrity edition pitting the deeply ignorant late Jade Goody with Shilpa Shetty was likely a bridge too far for this moronic format and it's set to end after the next series.

But 'Celebrity' is a slightly different animal. Gather together a dozen has-been or never-were 'celebs', drop them (literally) into the jungle and metaphorically poke them with sticks for public enjoyment.

The 'Bush-tucker trials' become ever more sadistic and gross, to the point where the producers begin to cross the line between entertainment and torture. Back in the day we had daft shows like 'Gladiators' and 'The Krypton Factor', which tested physical stamina, yet allowed contestants a modicum of decency and achievement. 'Celebrity' instead sets out to humiliate and bully participants into performing ever more sickening tasks, egged on by sniggering schoolboys Ant and Dec, whilst millions at home presumably revel in the suffering of others.

But I hear you cry, these people are paid, they know what to expect, they get free publicity. But you're missing the point. Offer the public £10k to run naked down a street being pelted with rotten eggs and fruit and you'll inevitably find takers. But should they be allowed to degrade themselves in this way for what is after all a neanderthal voyeurism?

And more disturbingly, it's obvious that each series of 'Celebrity' is more sadistic than the last. Rather like pornography, viewers require ever harder doses of humiliation and suffering to sustain their interest.

So where will it end? Is pandering to the public's lowest common denominator in exchange for the holy grail of ratings a defendable policy? How many teenagers must be broken on X-Factor, celebrities covered in maggots before people cry enough? Or will they merely demand more? And should we be surprised by the alarming rise of bullying in schools and workplaces when we witness Katie Price screaming in a 'jacket' of squirming insects or watch Paul Burrell eating kangaroo testicles?

Yes it's easy to laugh and point fingers at these shows, in much the same way that it's easy to watch a fellow child being bullied in the school playground. But what does it say of the current state of human nature that others suffering is a cause for entertainment?

Big ratings = big advertising revenue = big money, but if this comes at the expense of one of the most basic tenets of civilisation, is it really worth it?

Sandra

2009-11-13T02:46:00.000-08:00

A heartfelt plea for (non-human) animal rights. Thank you Sandra.

X-Factor X-Ploitation -- Lucie Jones & Jedward

2009-11-11T11:26:00.000-08:00

Reality TV, it seems, has become the new gladitorial sport. Where else could you find naive, vulnerable and unpaid young people being verbally abused and psychologically tortured in a public arena by egotistical millionaires?

Simon Cowell, the current god of TV exploitation, has sacrificed yet another young hopeful on the altar of ratings. Cowell, lest we forget, has to date demonstrated no talent whatsoever. Fellow panellists Cheryl Cole and Dannii Minogue have been through the mill of pop careers, Louis Walsh has managed two highly successful boy bands. Cowell's talent merely extends to a ruthless, stalinist head for business in an endless pursuit of ratings and ever increasing mountains of cash.

Having mercilessly slated (with some justification) the embaressingly talent-free Dublin twins known as Jedward, he was given the opportunity to jettison them from the competition last weekend and save the talented Welsh singer Lucie Jones. Instead he made a lame comment about neither being able to win (how could he possibly know?) and sent the matter to the public vote, which Lucie lost. Despite his later assertion that he has no prior knowledge of who recieved the lowest number of votes, it is inconcievable that as X-Factor is effectively 'The Simon Cowell Show' (quote Pete Waterman), he would not have such figures to hand or at least to earpiece.

It is reported that the remaining contestants have been banned by Cowell from commenting on the decision. To add insult to injury he subsequently informed Chris Tarrant on live radio that the twins 'don't realise how bad they are.'

What is painfully clear is that shows such as the X-Factor are much less about finding talent and much more about big ratings, which in turn translate into advertising revenue and phone-in rake-offs.
The number of consistent success stories from these shows is painfully small -- off the top of my head we're talking Will Young, Gareth Gates (to a point), Girls Aloud and Leona Lewis with the jury still out on acts such as JLS and Alexandra Burke.

What is also painfully clear is that prospective candidates need professional guidance, before, during and after each series. Lest we forget, most of the finalists are barely out of school and completely unskilled in the business of celebrity. They are abruptly catapulted from non-entity to facing the full glare of the public and press, only to be unceremoniously dumped back home after a few short weeks.

Whereas shows such as Maria & IDA at least featured contestants who had some experience in the music business, X-Factor and it's ilk merely pluck hopefuls from the street and exploit their raw talent and naivety.
By the end of each series, the winner is awarded a contract, more or less guaranteed the Christmas number one and allowed to sink or swim largely through their own endeavours. The remainder leave unpaid and rejected, in most cases to perform in a few local shopping centres before returning to all too real reality.

Rather like it's bastard cousin Big Brother, X-Factor becomes ever more cruel to supposedly keep interest alive. The recent public disintegration of Susan Boyle on 'Britain's Got Talent' testifies to Cowell's callousness and absence of conscience. In Jedward he sees a talking point, a tabloid fodder to buoy ratings for a few weeks before being dumped into oblivion. An eventual winner will be feted for a few weeks then Cowell will turn his attention to his next expolitative charade.

Make no mistake, these shows are about big business and personal greed and absolutely nothing to do with finding new talent or enriching the musical tapestry. The format panders to the lowest common denominator -- bland karaoke song choices, long 'suspenseful' pauses before results announcements and often neanderthal mocking and interplay between judges. Cowell sits in judgement and says what he thinks of each performance, a task anyone could manage. If the show stood or fell on long-term results, Cowell would be mopping a floor near you as we speak. As it is, such shows are a success merely because people watch -- not because of any artistic merit (which as proved this week is roundly ignored by Cowell) or because it helps the UK music industry in any meaningful long-term way.

Sooner or later the X-Factor and it's ilk will run it's course. Cowell will make a particularly gross error of judgement, a 'reject' will throw themselves off a cliff or the public will wise up and stop wasting their phone calls on manipulative karaoke. Whichever -- the sooner the better. Cowell can retire to one of his villas and Saturday evenings can hopefully be home to less exploitative fare.

In the meantime, Cowell needs to publicly admit several uncomfortable truths -- the show is about HIM alone, he has no real interest in discovering talent, and his pathetic flip-flop posturings on particular acts are every bit as sad a charade as the supposed rivalry between the judges.

Perhaps then we can at least respect his honesty, if not his methods.

Couples Retreat -- or preferably run away

2009-10-23T02:22:00.000-07:00

The first film I saw in a cinema was 'Grease' back in 1979. There was literally a scrum at the door to get in. The auditorium was completely packed and the whole thing was a real event from start to finish.

Fast forward 30 years and we have huge multiplexes with myriad screens, virtually all of them close to empty. Why should this be? At around a fiver, a cinema ticket isn't overly expensive, most venues turn a blind eye to sneaking in your own snacks and the seats are comfortable and often recline. What's not to like?

Well there IS one little problem. The actual product on offer is, let's be honest, generally dire. I've seen literally dozens of films this year, and with a handful of exceptions, they have ranged from uninspired to atrocious.

One in the latter camp is most definitely 'Couples Retreat', a supposed comedy with all the laughs of an audience with Gordon Brown.

On paper, this movie looks decent enough -- a talented cast including Vince Vaughn, one of the girls from 'Sex And The City' and various other reasonably familiar faces. The premise of four couples going for a 'bonding' week in paradise surely has some great comic possibilities a la 'The Hangover' no?

That IS a no. This film is painful to watch -- it fails to be either a romantic or gross-out comedy, or indeed a comedy of any sort whatsoever. One example is Vaughn's 'shark' scene, reminiscent of a joke with no punchline.
We're treated to mind-numbingly tedious therapy sessions, a couple of middle-aged man's embaressment moments and an obese guy's butt.
The male characters are dull and annoying while their partners are completely forgettable. No-one seems even remotely interested in being on set, never mind in a major movie.
When the sole laugh is delivered via a small boy on a toilet, you know you've hit rock bottom.

And while this may be, by a squeak, the worst film I've seen this year, it's by no means unique. I've also sat through Ricky Gervais' lame 'Invention Of Lying', Terry Gilliam's complete mess of a movie 'Imaginarium' and the dreadful Jim Carey vehicle 'Yes Man.' OK there have been pluses -- Tarrantino's 'Inglorious Basterds' is well worth a look, Jason Statham's 'Crank 2' is good knuckle-headed fun and Disney's recent kids classic 'Up' is a real gem, but just about everything else is at best forgettable.

It does make you wonder how films are actually chosen for the multiplexes. Hundreds of movies are made every year, but only a minute percentage appear in your local fleapit. Surely it would be feasible for each multiplex to set aside one or two screens for 'less mainstream' films. After all they could hardly be less well attended than most of the 'big budget blockbusters', many of which attract a dozen or so punters to an auditorium seated for several hundred.

At a time when the public's attention is easily distracted by myriad TV channels, computer games and unlimited online entertainment, the film industry needs to be taking bold steps to get those bums back on seats. That means quality product -- comedy that is actually funny rather than embaressing, horror that scares rather than disgusts and thrillers that actually have a plot rather than a pile of explosions.

'Couples Retreat' is the perfect example of everything that is wrong with today's cinema -- tired, uninteresting stodge that will encourage no-one to return. Major rethink needed.

Editors In This Light and on This Evening

2009-10-17T13:25:00.000-07:00

It doesn't often happen but sometimes seeing a band live that you're barely familiar with can be an incredibly rewarding experience.

A couple of months ago my total number of Last.Fm plays for Editors was one. As of today it's almost two hundred.
My mate John lent me the band's first album 'The Back Room' and while I wasn't blown away, I was impressed and we booked tickets for their Belfast gig on October 7th.

As the huge opening synth (yes synth) bars of 'In This Light and On This Evening' echoed around the venue I was suddenly and abruptly hooked. This track is quite simply awesome as is the new single 'Papillon', neither of which I'd heard before the gig.

Check out the video for 'Papillon' (below) -- a simple but effective shoot of one man running. Sometimes joined by others but ultimately alone, the video is open to interpretation, at least one commentator comparing it to the scene in 'Forrest Gump' where Tom Hanks runs the USA solo. For me it represents one line from the song -- 'you're born, grow old and die here'. The lyrics basically concern the need for a deity -- 'if there really was a god here, he'd have raised a hand by now', a subject which you won't be surprised to know I agree with, but even without such profoundity I'd still love this wonderful synth driven classic.

The Editors have sharply divided their fanbase with this move away from indie rock to VNV Nation style synth but damn I'm in the thumbs up camp.

And the gig? Well aside from ringing ears for several days afterwards it was fucking brilliant. This may well be the start of attending more gigs by artists I'm less familiar with. Hey you only live once. And that's quite enough for me dear.

The Editors Papillon

2009-10-17T12:31:00.000-07:00

It kicks like a sleep twitch.

The Invention of Lying

2009-10-05T01:05:00.000-07:00

The somewhat unlikely transition of Ricky Gervais from 'Office' cultdom to Hollywood stalwart appeared to be vindicated by his recent 'Ghost Town' foray, perhaps best described as a gentle triumph.

So how would he deal with the really big concept? The notion of a world where no-one was able to tell a lie, or indeed even thought of doing so, is a potentially fascinating one, ripe with possibility for both mirth and wisdom.

Things begin promisingly enough with tubby Gervais arriving for a first date with the attractive Jennifer Garner, who almost immediately informs him that sex is off the menu as she doesn't find him attractive. Refreshing if just a tad galling.
Their restaurant date proves richly entertaining thanks to a brutally honest waiter and a hilarious inter-meal phone call from Garner's mother.

But it quickly becomes apparent that a world where no-one tells lies is both a cruel and depressing place. On being fired from his job, Gervais' secretary informs him that she loathed almost every moment she worked for him. Another colleague informs Gervais that he has always hated him.

And in a twist which few outside Hollywood would have thought of, all 'movies' consist of someone reading historical facts from a given century, logical when you consider that nothing can be 'made up.'

There are a few rich 'commercial' asides, particularly 'Pepsi -- for when they don't have Coke' and the guy in the Coke commercial opining that 'it's a bit too sweet'.

But things come unstuck almost as soon as Gervais thinks up the idea of lying -- in this case by telling the bank cashier that he has more money in his account than he actually has.

His exploitation of this incredible discovery is muted at best, pathetic at worst. 'Winning' some money at a casino and getting his job back with a made-up script about the 13th century might not be everyone's first priorities.

And things really go pear-shaped when Gervais (a committed atheist in real life) 'makes up' a notion of heaven to comfort his dying mother in hospital. Overheard by several nurses, he is besieged at home by huge crowds demanding to know about this supposed afterlife.

It goes without saying that attacking the 'man in the sky' idea is akin to shooting fish in a barrel. To achieve any thought-provoking or comic effect, it needs to be done subtlely, a la 'Hitch-hikers Guide to the Galaxy' for instance. Instead, Gervais goes for the bull at a gate approach, coming across as infantile. Though the 'sermon on the mount' using two pizza boxes as stone tablets is a nice little touch it has to be said.

The highly unsatisfactory rom-com denouement is both disappointing and pathetic and we're left with a high concept ruined by a complete cop-out plot-wise and a screenplay that simply doesn't flow.

And WTAF with the bottles of Budweiser everywhere? Product placement fair enough but this is just ridiculous. Even when Gervais becomes a recluse with a drink problem, he's still surrounded by bottles of Bud. As the guy in the advert might say 'it's too sweet.'

(3 out of 10)

Pandas and People

2009-09-22T08:49:00.000-07:00

How cute are these guys? Cuddly eh? Well no not really, they'd likely claw you to pieces, but that's hardly the point.

The fact is that in a few years the only way you'll see a giant panda is via archive footage online. Why? Because their natural habitat has virtually disappeared and it isn't coming back.

This habitat destruction is of course necessary for the betterment of humanity, who have a seemingly infinite 'right to life' involving boundless expansion of territory and an insatiable demand for resources. Why let a few cuddly bear things get in the way? Or anything else for that matter.

After all, we were created in God's own image and given custody of planet earth, to do with as we see fit. Everything has a right to life as long as it's human.

Selfish? Not at all. It says in this here compendium of ancient manuscripts that we're the important ones. OK we were 'given' a breaktakingly beautiful planet with literally millions of creatures to share it with -- an ideal opportunity to demonstrate humanity's compassion you might think -- but since we obviously have the greatest need, everything else is disposable, including the planet's resources.

Let's cut the crap here -- humanity is merely the dominant animal on this tiny planet -- nothing more than a first rate parasite leeching off it's immediate habitat. Sooner rather than later, fuel, habitable areas and food resources are going to run out -- climate change or no climate change. The result will be a phenomenal, irreversible decimation in human numbers, and the subsequent rise of another scavenger, most likely the rat.

Will the earth stop turning? Will there be some mystical rapture or second coming? Will anything other than the remenants of humanity give a damn?

A one word answer will suffice.

This Song Says It All

2009-09-12T12:25:00.000-07:00

'There's a ghost in me, wants to say I'm sorry, doesn't mean I'm sorry.'

It says it all yet says nothing. The video bleeds loneliness and isolation -- it features people together yet apart, animals together as collective prey, endless roads and overwhelming beautiful despair.

500 Days Of Summer (One would be Enough)

2009-09-03T15:56:00.000-07:00

I do like a good rom-com -- '50 First Dates', 'Clueless', even 'Notting Hill' or 'Love Actually'. But unfortunately this isn't one.

A very slight tale of boy meets girl, boy falls in love with girl, girl marries someone else -- '500 Days of Summer' (the girl's name is Summer geddit?) has been hailed as a left-field box office smash and lauded by critics worldwide. It's 'Rotten Tomatoes' rating is a staggering 87%.
I fell asleep. Three times.

Every romantic comedy stands or falls on it's male & female leads being believable and emphathetic. Unfortunately neither worked for me. Tom (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is basically a rather sad whinge-fest whilst Summer (Zooey Deschanel) delivers a detached and unmemorable performance. Their relationship, for what there is of it, basically consists of a few oddball dates and some incredibly tame sex.

Laughs are few and far between and nothing really seems to work. I was left with the impression of the bare bones of a story crying out to be developed. The film also employs an annoying fast forward and rewind technique complete with unneccesary narration, just to pile on the annoyance.

For me though the real disappointment is Zooey Deschanel. Possessed of drop dead gorgeous eyes and a kooky manner of potentially Phoebe Boufet proportions, she should have been adorable. Instead we get a faxed-in personality-free performance
leaving us at a loss as to why Tom should have any particular long-term interest at all. And what's with the wardrobe? Awful awful clothes dear.

Tom's two long-suffering friends / work colleagues are subjected to constant whining which they take with good grace instead of telling our hero to either get a life or a blow-up doll.
The most sensible character is the little girl (Tom's sister?) who advises him not be such a pussy.

The sole remarkable moment is the explicit use of the f word in a 12A film -- something which would have guaranteed an 18 certificate just a few years ago.

Not great at all and even more disappointing as I'd been looking forward to this.

(3 out of 10).

TK Maxx -- How not to do it

2009-08-30T17:03:00.000-07:00

TK Maxx are one of those chain stores who by right simply shouldn't exist.

Their stock resembles a giant car boot sale, with random perfume bottles, buddha statues and mis-matched shoes. Their till service has to be experienced to be believed. Customers (including women) have grown beards whilst waiting for various knuckle trailing till staff to locate price tags, correct pricing errors and charge for crappy plastic bags advertising the wretched place.

Just dire -- yet they thrive whilst Woolworths closed down. Logic anyone?

Michael Jackson 1958 -- 2009

2009-06-27T04:54:00.000-07:00

Michael Jackson joins the lamentably long list of music icons who died long before their time.
Hendrix, Joplin, Strummer, Presley, Lennon, Holly, Cobain, Morrison to name but a few, all 'gone too soon.'

The exact circumstances of Jackson's untimely death have yet to be revealed, but already prescription drugs are being blamed, a factor in Elvis Presley's demise over 30 years ago.

Within minutes, the tasteless comments and jokes were flooding the internet and I'm not here to defend Michael Jackson's undoubtedly bizarre and ill-advised life style.

However what I will defend is his incredible musical legacy. A huge string of hit singles, four great (and one not so great) albums and a host of ground breaking live shows add up to one incredible career.

Thriller, Beat It, Billie Jean, Man in the Mirror, Leave Me Alone, Smooth Criminal, Jam, Earth Song, Bad -- you can't deny these are absolute classics and ultimately the music will be his legacy.

Thanks for the tunes Michael.

Meaning of Life

2009-05-19T17:37:00.001-07:00

see more Lolcats and funny pictures

Ultravox Belfast 2009

2009-05-04T02:49:00.000-07:00

I last saw Ultravox in Belfast way back in 1983 on the 'Quartet' tour. Twenty six years and much hair loss later, they returned, this time to the cosy surroundings of the showpiece Waterfront Hall.

Support act was basically some bloke with a guitar. He did a nice rendition of the Beatles 'Something in the way she moves' -- other than that the only memorable moment was when he thanked the hard-working crew and my friend John commented -- 'Yeah tough job -- there you go mate there's your guitar.'

About 9pm the lights went down and the great men strolled on stage in semi-darkness to wild applause. They launched straight into 'Astradyne', the sprawling instrumental opener to 'Vienna' and it immediately became clear that the band were as technically flawless as ever.
Image-wise, the appearance was let's face it, of four besuited bank managers on keyboards, drums and bass but damn were they good. Billy Currie wasted no time demonstrating his proficiency on the electric viola and Chris Cross, despite a tendency to apparently engage in pocket billiards for much of the set, played a mean bass when required.

So it was straight into the first vocal number -- a blistering rendition of the criminally under-rated 'Passing Strangers.' Bizarrely the weakest link appeared to be Midge himself -- he missed several cues and his vocal frequently seemed (to these ears at least) a little 'off' at times. Perhaps the tightness and consummate perfection of the band showed him up a little.
But that was a minor gripe as not only hit after hit but one classic album track after another flooded the auditorium.
I'm a huge fan of the 'Rage In Eden' album and not only did the two singles appear, but also the incredible 'We Stand Alone', the even more incredible 'Death In The Afternoon', the title track and 'Your Name (Has Slipped My Mind Again)' which dovetailed beautifully into 'Vienna.'

Midge encouraged everyone to get up and dance on 'One Small Day' -- many obliged, but everyone was on their feet for 'Dancing With Tears in my Eyes'. To be honest I didn't have a choice as a woman with a butt the size of Belfast stood up in front of me and created a total eclipse of the stage.

A rock heavy 'Hymn', a dark version of 'Mr.X' complete with creepy backdrop and a manic 'All Stood Still' were amongst the highlights.

The woeful 'U-Vox' album was thankfully ignored, but I did miss a couple of hits -- 'We Came To Dance' and 'Love's Great Adventure.'

Encores were 'Sleepwalk' and of course 'The Voice' which saw a thrilling reprise of the frantic drumming featured on the 'Monument' video from way back when.

SO good to see the fab four back together -- I really hope they stay together this time and if you get a chance to see them live, just go and tell them David sent you.

Set List:

Astradayne
Passing Strangers
We Stand Alone
Visions In Blue
The Thin Wall
Mr X
Reap The Wild Wind
Lament
Death in the Afternoon
Rage in Eden
All Stood Still
Your Name Has Slipped my Mind Again
Vienna
One Small Day
Dancing With Tears in my Eyes
Hymn
Sleepwalk (Encore)
The Voice (Encore)

Crank High Voltage Review

2009-04-20T07:20:00.000-07:00

Having an eight year old means watching pretty much every PG and U cert movie ever released. Which has its upsides -- 'Finding Nemo', 'The Incredibles' and also it's downsides -- pretty much everything else.

So it was nice to see a grown-up movie last night for a change. That's grown-up as in an 18 cert but not in any other sense.

I hadn't seen the first Crank movie and asked my brother-in-law if I might find the plot hard to follow as a result. He had a good laugh at that. Ten minutes in I kind of understood why.

Starring Jason Statham of 'Transporter' fame, 'Crank 2' bears certain similarities to those movies but appears to have ingested vast quantities of steroids and speed somewhere along the way.

Basically Statham's character (Chev Chevios) is a hitman who has his heart surgically removed and has to get it back before he dies. The end.

But in between there are 1001 great excuses for copious quantities of mindless violence, gratuitous sex and nudity, generous use of the F and C words, some nasty mutilation and several incredibly tasteless takes on tourettes and racial stereotypes.

So if that lot sounds a bit gross, I personally wouldn't bother, but if you fancy a laugh out loud, gross-out, knuckle-headed actioner where little old ladies get treated like 'his little whore' and a guy with tourettes attempts kung fu, then you've probably just landed in heaven.

Statham falls out a helicopter and survives, a girl gets hit murderously by a car and gets up and swears and a disembodied head even manages a few expletives, so it's fair to assume that events are not based on a true story.

But lots of things blow up, the body count could fill several morgues and there are more breasts on display than the average poultry processing plant can manage. And older viewers may be surprised to see not only Geri Halliwell but David Carradine making an appearance, both to no great effect, but it's just funny that they're in there.

Statham's body takes more punishment than all of Arnie & Van Damme's films combined and of course he's just fine (until the end anyway mwa ha ha), so don't fret about our hero queueing for hours in A&E like the rest of us.

Great soundtrack too though a few Velvet Acid Christ tunes could have added that extra little smidgeon of cinematic magic.

This is enjoyable, preposterously non-PC nonsense and great for escaping the harsh realities of well pretty much everything. Shocking to admit but I liked it.

The LOLZ Catz

2009-03-04T04:52:00.000-08:00

Well two months since my last post and I'm doing one about silly cat pictures.
WTF I hear you say. Or if you're over 30 what does WTF mean? Ask your kids.

But why not do one on silly cat pics? The LOLZ Catz are a new discovery for me which probably means they've been around for about 20 years. There are literally hundreds of these masterfully captioned pics around but I'm just including a few that genuinely made me LOL. I love cats and I love daft captions so this is just the ticket. And being me the first one is of a dog.

Don't worry Steve I'll get down to some serious posts soon. Probably. And Katie & Jackie I AM working on the fandom one -- not as if I don't have plenty of raw material lol.

2008

2009-01-01T04:44:00.000-08:00

A defiantly different year, 2008 was dominated by my unexpected passion for West End theatre, and for one protagonist in particular.

In January, at the end of a run of 27 shows, my daughter appeared on stage in the 'Wizard of Oz' alongside Liam Neeson, Jimmy Nesbitt and one Rachel Tucker. This was certainly a proud moment, but I had absolutely no idea what it would lead to.

Rachel of course was one of 10000 who auditioned for the BBC 'I'd Do Anything' series, beginning shortly after Oz ended.
I hadn't really watched any of the previous 'search for a West End star' shows, but given the Rachel connection, I thought I'd give this one a go.
Not everything went to plan for the Belfast lass, but she managed to reach the semi-final, where she gave the performance of a lifetime. The judges were on their feet, ALW was raving and a place in the final seemed assured. But of course that wasn't counting the public vote, and Rachel was unceremoniously dumped.

I wanted to do something -- anything -- that would prevent Rachel slipping back into obscurity. Having 'met' Andy on a forum, we set up the 'Rachel Tucker Fan Blog', which immediately, much to our surprise, attracted a sizeable and faithful audience. Perhaps the most important audience member was Rachel herself, who has contributed several articles.

The blog itself can't take any of the credit for Rachel's subsequent West End success, but I like to think we've helped to build her fanbase, publicise her PAs and generally celebrate her phenomenal talent.
I've noted with some alarm the actions and unwanted attentions of various fans of other theatrical celebrities, and have done my level best to make sure that this hasn't happened to Rachel, largely I hope successfully.
The fan/star relationship can be a complex and difficult one, something which I intend to do a post on in the near future. I do hope we've got it right in this case.

Running Rachel's blog has had several excellent perks. I've got to meet some wonderful people, attended four West End shows and discovered London.

First to the people -- I initially met Karen, Rachel's close friend, when we went to see her perform in Killarney in August. Karen is a real gem -- disarmingly and delightfully honest, funny and hugely talented. As is hubby Richard and future star Matthew.

Then there was Rachel's WWRY opening night in September, where I met Andy, Rosie, Katie, Jackie, Hannah, Jo, Liv and some of Rachel's family, all for the first time.

Andy is a really great guy -- friendly, thoughtful, modest and a joy to work with.
Rosie is a relentlessly upbeat person with an incredible sense of humour and an awesome knowledge of the West End.

Katie -- what can I say? Running Jessie's blog single-handedly is a tough job -- she has proved herself more than capable. She is single-minded and resilient, sensitive and thoughtful. She is a credit to her wonderful family, whom I have had the pleasure of meeting. Katie will go far and it is a priviledge to know her.

Jackie has been an absolute revelation -- we corresponded for some time -- same generation, Kate Bush fans, similar literary style and humour. We met at WWRY opening night and subsequently at ALNM. Jackie is charming, sincere, funny and just plain great.

And Rachel herself -- the whole package. Star quality, a heart of gold, wilfully ambitious and hard-working, she is simply an inspiration to everyone.

It's a testament to Rachel as a person that her fans on the blog have been literally queueing up to write virtual essays on how she influenced their year.

For everything Rachel has done and the people she has enabled me to meet, a big big thank you.

Also in showbiz, 2008 turned up an interesting bunch on X-Factor. The final may have been dull, but here are my two favourite acts, who came fourth and fifth.
Meet Ruth and Diana, pictured here in my living room. Possibly.

Happy New Year everyone!

End of the Road for Woolworths

2008-12-18T09:47:00.000-08:00

It's sad but certainly not unexpected. For the last year or so I've wandered into Woolworths and wondered what their reason for existence actually was. Pretty much everything they stocked could be bought more cheaply in Tesco and their displays and range seemed in search of a guiding hand.

Nevertheless the speed and timing (pre-Christmas) of the end were a shock and the loss of some 27000 jobs is a devestating blow.

For a forty something like myself, Woolies holds a special place in my formative years, particularly from a musical perspective. They were always great for cheap 7" singles, often reduced to 35p within minutes of dropping out of the charts and had a great selection of LPs and subsequently CDs. Laterally the writing has been on the wall with shrinking musical displays and more space devoted to DVDs, but nevertheless those of a certain age will lament the demise of a little part of our past.

Goodbye Woolies and thanks for the memories.

Jessie's Opening Night

2008-12-13T14:40:00.000-08:00

On 22nd November, I travelled to London to see Jessie's debut in 'A Little Night Music' in the Menier in Southwark.
Meeting up with Jackie and Katie, I had a wonderful evening and am here publishing Jackie's superb review, which sums up the evening better than I ever could:

Ever left the theatre and wanted to walk straight back in to see a production all over again? Exactly my feeling last year exiting the National Theatre after seeing 'War Horse' - visually and emotionally stunning,'a childrens story that reduces adults to tears'. Then came 'A Little Night Music' at the Menier Chocolate Factory, quite opposite in genre but as unforgettable and engaging. I can't imagine why I had not discovered this piece before, so rich one could relish this experience over again. I visit the theatre frequently but this was my first Sondheim show. I've never written a review either, so this is simply observation,and a combination of two incredible evenings.

There is nothing to compare with the joy and privilege of that opening night -celebrating Jessie's professional theatre(dress rehearsal)debut,in such a welcoming and intimate environment, in the very best of company with friends Katie, David and some familiar faces.

No, I don't hold a MCF season ticket! But later, when my other half walks through the door with two tickets for ALNM on my birthday, sacrificing tickets for England v's the All Blacks that same day - I dont turn it down ! (Safe in the knowledge I won't miss Jonny Wilkinson who's still injured...it beats last years offering -a trip to John Lewis to purchase a tumble dryer...another chance to see this production...a 'no brainer'.)

I'm familiar with the MCF, it's as delightful and endearing as the ALNM cast,the two perfectly matched. This was a first to see a Sondheim production in this special little space and I was smitten by the entire experience. Astonishingly, so was 'Mr Critical' who guffawed and sniggered throughout, exclaiming 'absolutely brilliant' by the interval - why bother with the West End and what a result. (better than an England,Hakka hammering and much warmer).

Not wishing to dwell on the past, but in a matter of months ,the blessing in disguise not winning IDA,and escape from the media circus, is born out by the sheer pace of development in Jessie, witnessed at the MCF,hopefully dispelling any doubts from the faithless,with performances surpassing her years in maturity and measuring up to her on stage colleagues, who are of the highest calibre.

At the flick of a lace hankerchief, Jessie takes us through the turmoil faced by the vain young bride Anne, her highs and lows,tears and laughter. Anne, a master at avoiding the subject of her husband's desires, whilst adoring the flattery of young Henrik's gaze, as he looks on like a forlorn labrador puppy. Notable is the extraordinary control over the accent we usually love to hear,this is surely a challenge itself-just watch it grow in confidence between now and March. The beautiful solo song 'Soon' reiterating Jessie's vocal ability. This convincing evidence of hard work and development is enough to inspire any young creative to persevere.

The plot,a jolly good romp and sensitive fairy tale, in my view must be 'experienced 'and not just read', a delicate mix of shades from Midsummer Nights Dream, A Country Wife, Fielding's Tom Jones and Woody Allen. Every part of the space is used,the beauty of such a tiny theatre, allows every gesture to be shared,and one rapidly engages with the characters with an intimacy no other venue provides. Virtually three hours on that opening night flew by.

Under Nunn's direction Jessie displays a range of emotions at every interaction and glance, through the impressively witty and rich and moving script. Comedy is difficult to do well, but the timing delivered works and Jessie as a natural 'expressive' shines. Look out for sarcasm and those sharp cutting comments, squeezed out at opportune moments, quick or it's gone - Mr Nunn & his skillful cast don't miss a trick.

Maureen Lipman (a favourite actress) playing an astute commanding Madame Armfeldt is superb. I loved her Joyce Grenville show previously and now playing a combination of my stern headmistress Sister Cuthbert with her devestating stare and sharp, worldly wise, great grandma, who lived to 100. Intimidating-yes.

In the second act, Hannah Waddingham with amazing stage presence,showed me what 'Send In The Clowns' really means.I have never engaged with this song until now (sorry. A highlight of the show and sublime, when in context and integral to the dialogue, bringing tears of sympathy for her vivacious character, Desiree.

Alexander Hanson is totally charming alongside Jessie. In the theatre scene the two characters sit among the audience. I found myself being greeted by 'good evening' from Fredrick as he and Anne sat next to me on the steps. 'Good evening to you ' I answered. The characters exchange comments, then sit momentarily frozen in time, mid applause...not a flicker, total professionalism, immensely impressive. Ann delivers a perfecty peevish and livid 'I want to go home!' and flounces her exit via the back row. A most excellent strop Jessie.

'Every Day A Little Death' sung by Jessie and Kelly is touching and sensitively played, the tears are real.

'A Weekend In The Country'...I love to see Jessie sing this cleverly crafted and tricky song. As expressive as ever, eyebrows in overdrive, she rapidly shifts between sarcasm, paranoia, jealousy, disgust, insecurity, anticipation, mischief,(she's good at mischief,very good)and steals laughter with one of the songs best lines. She seems in her element at the end of the first act.

Act two,or 'Babes in the Wood' as it could be renamed, sees the mismatched couples find their happiness with their rightful partners,with the help and freedom of the great outdoors.

The best came with the unexpected. Opening night had the cast taking a bow, but a week later,curtain calls were in order. As Jessie and Gabriel stepped forward,I was on my feet,a proud 'bravo', a most memorable standing ovation,and no one deserved this moment more than Jessie.
(I was already standing at Hyde park,so that doesnt count !). I noted my husband also on his feet in applause,he never does this...ever.

I can only imagine that perhaps this show and schedule is totally rewarding and exhiliaratng but tough, with much to learn between now and March. Jessie has risen admirably to the challenges faced since the distant days of IDA, and like the unassuming Charlie Bucket, young Ms Buckley has won the prize worth waiting for,on her own merit...the key to the gates of the Chocolate Factory. Thus becoming part of Nunn's unique production,and one of gravitas - a perfect role. It's called landing on your feet.

We await the press...

WWRY London Trip

2008-09-25T08:42:00.001-07:00

All the main details are on the Rachel blog, but 22nd September was Rachel's opening night in We Will Rock You and over a dozen of us made the trip to London to see her. And damn it was a brilliant day.

I travelled from Belfast with my brother-in-law who knows absolutely nothing about Rachel, IDA or WWRY. He just fancied a couple of days in London and I'm very glad I brought him as I haven't been in the city since well, quite a few years shall we say. We flew into Stansted and travelled by train to Liverpool Street. I was immediately stumped by the underground system and those mysterious Oyster cards people were waving about. Fortunately my brother-in-law was clued in and in no time at all we were all aboard the sardine tin, sorry tube and en route to Tottenham Court Road to check out the theatre. We arrived outside at 9.10am a mere ten hours early. Still it was an ideal opportunity to plan the route to the stage door.

Following an extortionately expensive breakfast in Oxford Street, we headed off to see the sights -- Buckingham Palace, Trafalgar Square, Downing Street all that stuff. Having located our Travel Lodge in Southwark, we parted ways. I met up with three delightful members of the Buckley Brigade for lunch and a very relaxing afternoon while my brother-in-law met up with a friend elsewhere.

At 6pm we arrived at the Dominion to try to guess who everyone was. Several other BB members had arrived, as well as Chris and Jo. Jo had been lucky enough to snap up Chris's spare ticket that very day and was even luckier to be sitting front row circle with the two most famous bloggers in the theatre. Talking of famous bloggers, where the heck was Andy? The guy had my tickets so I was rather hoping he would show up.

Several people came over to chat. They turned out to be Rachel's family and had some very nice things to say about the blog. Shucks.

Rosie and Eleanor arrived. I recognised Rosie immediately as we have exchanged enough Facebook messages to crash the average hard-drive. But just as I was about to go over for a chat, some bloke asked if I was David. I concurred and shook his hand asking him who he was. 'I'm Andy.' Ooops. I blame beer.

Andy was of course a great guy and we got on really well the entire evening.

We all went inside and headed to the bar. Well they called it a bar -- it looked more like a hole in a wall to me. But then they probably haven't been to Belfast where bars are done properly. Karen arrived with her hubby Richard, who turned out to be a really top guy with a great sense of humour. Team Tucker were understandably entranced to be in such close proximity to close friends of Rachel's and hung on their every word. Which is fair enough as I did too.

Then Jodie and Ashley wandered into the foyer. Several of us in TT had been wondering for weeks if any of the IDA girls would attend and if so who they might be. I honestly don't think anyone guessed correctly. Jodie was really down-to-earth and happy to chat and pose for photos with Rosie, Eleanor and Hannah amongst others.

Soon it was time for the performance and we found our seats. Being front row circle, we had a super view and the show started immediately. The first twenty minutes were entertaining but we needed something more. Then suddenly there was that classic Belfast accent wafting across the auditorium! Yes!!!! We were in the right place.

Rachel commanded the stage -- that's the only word for it. Her duet with Brit of 'I Want It All' was impressive but OMG -- 'No-One But You (Only The Good Die Young)' was something else. Far and away the highlight of the show, Rachel pulled this demanding number off effortlessly. I clapped till my hands were sore. Everything I had ever hoped for Rachel was encapsulated in that moment. Bliss.

The interval was welcome as someone had drunk a little too much. So after the joy of the queue for the loo (more toilets in the Dominion please thank you) I rejoined a stunned TT in the foyer. Karen looked close to tears. Everyone was just raving about Rachel.

Second half and there just wasn't enough Rachel. It was a great show and a lot of fun with super music, but we wanted more Rachel and we wanted it now. Every time she took the stage it was like she owned the place. Talk about a vocation. I've now seen Rachel perform six times in five different productions and every time she has exceeded my already huge expectations. Sorry I'm raving again. If you're a fan of Rachel you NEED to see WWRY. Several times.

Following the final curtain, we made our way out to the foyer and Andy and I met Rachel's sister Margaret and Aunt Susan. They were both just lovely and so appreciative of our efforts for Rachel. We had some photos taken and then a photo op with TT and Karen outside.

At this point Karen & Richard headed off to Rachel's family's hotel and the rest of us went to the stage door which I had checked out that morning. There were quite a few waiting, including Jodie & Ashley who once again posed for photos, including one with that lucky dog Chris Hawley. Nice one!

After a few false alarms, the stage door opened and there was Rachel with Guy -- a bloke who looked fit to burst with pride. Poor Rachel must have got a 'quer gunk' as we say in Belfast to be greeted by dozens of camera and a huge cheer. Bless her she had the patience of a saint, posing for photos (in some cases a second time -- you know who you are Rosie and Andy lol), signing autographs and chatting away. As always she couldn't have been nicer and finally left with Guy to meet her family and friends. TT parted ways and my brother-in-law confessed to being impressed with her performance, probably the ultimate accolade.

The next day we did more of the London thing -- I had to be abandoned in a cafe due to my legs ceasing to work -- hey Karen DID say London was tiring and she wasn't joking. I was also propositioned by a lady of the night during the day which was interesting but I politely declined. All part of the London experience I'm sure.

Back at the airport, we met Rachel's family in the departure lounge and as before they were just lovely people, rounding off an absolutely fabulous two days.

Before the flight I checked out the blog and was delighted with Rosie's and Karen's reviews, not to mention the ITN interview and stage footage.

I also want to say a special thank you to Rachel's family who were incredibly nice to me. It's very easy to see where Rachel gets her lovely nature from.

It was an absolutely brilliant couple of days and I'm going back in November for another helping.

Catherine

2008-09-09T14:49:00.000-07:00

Make an on-line slide show at www.OneTrueMedia.com

Matrix Trilogy - Sirenia - On The Wane

2008-09-06T03:25:00.001-07:00

Snow Patrol - Chasing Cars

2008-08-30T06:32:00.001-07:00

It's our 20th Wedding Anniversary this week and I just wanted to leave a little tribute to my beautiful, wonderful wife.

All that I am, all that I ever was
Is here in your perfect eyes
They're all I can see...

Legends Abba Tribute INEC Killarney

2008-08-25T05:22:00.001-07:00

Great closing performance of 'Waterloo.'
I filmed this from the dancefloor which wasn't easy.
See below for full account of the night.

Super Trouper -- Abba Legends Tribute Show Killarney

2008-08-25T05:02:00.001-07:00

A wee bit of footage from the show on Saturday. You can read a full account below.

Karen + The Abba Legends Show

2008-08-24T14:17:00.000-07:00

When Andy and I first started the blog, we had no contact whatsoever with Rachel or anyone who knew her. I reckoned that would need to change if we were going to move to the next level.

After a little research, I contacted Karen in early June. She had been running Rachel's main IDA Facebook Group and I reckoned that she must know a bit about Rachel to be in that role.

This turned out to be one of my best decisions, as Karen was not only a close friend of Rachel's, but also an excellent communicator and a passionate supporter.

Karen's contribution was invaluable, supplying advice, articles, info and photos.

But Karen is also a highly talented artist in her own right. She has performed in myriad theatre productions and possesses a beautiful voice. As well as writing and performing songs with hubby Richard, Karen regularly appears on stage as Abba's Agnetha in the Legends Tribute Show.

So when she mentioned that the show would be visiting the INEC Centre in Killarney, we decided to go and make a weekend of it.

Killarney was a brisk six hour drive, and we stayed in the Quality Inn, which really did live up to it's name. We got the best hotel room we've ever had and the food, kids entertainment and service were excellent.

We arrived late on Friday and had an early night. First thing on Saturday morning, Karen texted us with a lovely welcome message.

We went out for the day to Muckross House, a huge country estate on the outskirts of Killarney, featuring beautiful waterfalls, spacious grounds, an interactive farm (we even got to milk a cow!) and horse and trap rides. Despite the bizarre weather -- warm but constantly raining -- we had a great day.

Karen had arranged to meet us in the bar of the Gleneagles Hotel where the show was being held.

I must admit to being slightly nervous. Meeting someone who you've corresponded closely with can often be a strange experience. But I needn't have worried. Karen was a even nicer person in reality than online, and really easy to talk to.

We went into the ballroom at about 9pm and found a good table in front of the stage.

The show consisted of three tributes -- the Bee Gees, who were impressive particularly in the vocal department (you try singing falsetto for an hour) and Elvis, who spent much of his act in the audience, really getting the crowd going. Talking of the crowd, they were certainly a lively bunch, well up for a dance and by the time Abba took the stage at about 11.30 they were raring to go. The place was packed -- the hotel had to open another seating area to get everyone in, and it was soon obvious as to why.

Karen (Agnetha) and Amanda (Frida) looked absolutely fantastic. Bjorn and Benny did their best, but seriously was anyone actually looking at them?

Kicking off with the awesome intro of 'Gimmee Gimmee Gimmee', the girls immediately stole the show. They were having tremendous fun on stage and the audience were on their feet straightaway. I particularly liked the segue into Madonna's 'Hung Up', before a great rendition of 'Honey Honey', one of Abba's more neglected tracks.

Karen and Amanda conversed in adorable Swedish accents between songs and encouraged the rubbish dancers like me to do the 'finger dance; to the intro of 'Mamma Mia.'

Speaking of which, we saw the film in the cinema recently and as you'll see from my review below, I was very disappointed. Comparing Karen's show to the film was rather like comparing a Porsche to a moped. The tribute show was all about fun, authenticity and above all great voices -- Meryl Streep take note!

Karen's rendition of 'The Winner Takes It All', a tough test for any vocalist, was superb. Rachel described Karen's voice as wonderful -- she was spot on.

Fourteen Abba songs were shoe-horned into just over an hour, including 'Dancing Queen', 'Mamma Mia', 'Fernando', 'Super Trouper' and my personal favourite, the bittersweet 'Knowing Me Knowing You.'

I filmed part of the performance, a little of which I've included here.

The closing number was 'Waterloo' which I filmed from the dancefloor -- not easy when everyone is going crazy. You'll notice the stage invasions by various drunken eejits -- I particularly like the one where Karen shoves the bloke off stage.

After the performance, Karen met us again for another chat. She was just absolutely lovely -- I can't say anything too good about her.

We had a brilliant night -- my daughter was up dancing through Karen's entire set and already wants to know when we're going again.

It was a priviledge and a pleasure to meet Karen and I want to thank her so much for making us feel so welcome.

Why not give your ears a treat and listen to Karen's beautiful vocals? Here is a link to her Myspace page. My particular favourite is 'Too Dependent.'

KAREN SINGS

Vacances En France

2008-08-17T08:26:00.000-07:00

Our family faces a dilemma every year.

My personal idea of a holiday is good food, good wine and a lot of chilling out.

My family's idea of a holiday is twenty gos on the fastest rollercoaster in the biggest park, before climbing a mountain and abseiling back down.

So this year we thought we'd try a compromise.

Keycamp operate lots of holiday centres around France and to a large extent allow you to pace your own holiday.

We stayed in Chateau Des Ormes, in northern Brittany, an area renowned for it's seafood, wine and slightly dodgy weather.

Flying in to the tiny Rennes airport, we collected an Avis hire car. Things started badly for some of our fellow travellers when their car wouldn't start. I'm sure that one had been meant for us.

We tootled off up the road trying to concentrate on driving on the right while attempting to understand the local road signs.

Eventually we arrived at the campsite and were allocated a caravan -- one of those ones with walls so thin you need to be careful where you point in case your finger goes through.

I won't say there was a noise problem but one morning I woke up to the sound of someone farting outside. So far so charming.

The site had plenty of facilities for kids -- two great swimming pools, bungee trampolene, zipwire, scary looking obstacle course in the trees, horse riding, cycling, golf, tennis, you name it. All unfortunately not included in the price, but hey Mr.Wallet was here so no problem. Ahem.

We spent quite a bit of time off site, visiting the quaint little French town of Dol-De-Bretagne several times. Great little shops, restaurants and of course an internet cafe, one of life's little essentials.

The language barrier could be a problem -- I ended up with a large plate of ten shellfish covered in green garlic gloop. Despite the rather worrying sight of the proprietor's wee dog wandering in and out of the kitchen, I survived this meal intact.

It wasn't until later in the week that we found the ultimate gastronomic experience -- a restaurant called L'Auberge something. You can tell I was paying attention.

This place was a converted farmhouse complete with huge charcoal grill over an open fire and a large amount of local diners, always a good sign.

A nice bottle of Rose wine went down a treat along with a gorgeous helping of pikeperch, followed by creme brulee. If I'm ever given just one evening to live, this is where I want to spend it.

The pace of life tended to be laid-back -- fancy some shopping in the early afternoon? Sorry we're all closed for a two hour lunch break. Fancy some food while you're waiting? Sorry the restaurants are all full because the shop workers have all piled in at once. Or my particular favourite -- the restaurant that was closed for lunch.

Back to the campsite -- the kids club proved popular. We ended up going for lunch with one of the other families -- a brave single mum with three kids in tow. They came from the Isle Of Man so of course I had to ask if they knew Samantha Barks. And of course they did. So here is a photo of a girl who got to meet Samantha together with a girl who got to do 27 shows with Rachel. I'll let you decide who got the better deal.

Group Song Week 8: 'I'm Gonna Wash That Man...' (HQ)

2008-07-22T07:19:00.001-07:00

Being a huge fan of Rachel, I wasn't madly keen on the group performances, but they steadily improved throughout the contest as there were less girls to get in the way!
This one in particular is great fun.

Good Luck Karen !!!!!

2008-07-18T03:28:00.000-07:00

Good Luck Karen!!!!

Thinking Of You!!!!

Glitter Good Luck Graphics

Mamma Mia -- Two Out Of Three Ain't Bad

2008-07-17T14:47:00.000-07:00

The good folk tasked with transferring 'Mamma Mia' from stage to screen had two gigantic advantages.

Firstly the small matter of the soundtrack -- effectively the run of Abba's entire back catalogue, and secondly the use of the storyline -- a compotent if unremarkable tale of a bride-to-be inviting her three potential fathers to her wedding on a beautiful Greek island.

What could possibly go wrong?

Well there's the music. Benny and Bjorn penned some of the most glorious songs in the history of popular music. But they also had the huge advantage of having Agnetha and Frida's awesome pipes to sing them. So the film-makers needed to be damn sure they roped in some major vocal talent.

And for the first ten minutes or so, it looked very much that they had. The delightful rendition of 'Honey Honey' by the three girls set the scene beautifully, all fun and frolics on a tropical island, and I began to have high hopes.

But within minutes the wheels began to come off.

It would appear that the producers had the choice of big voices or big names. Sadly they opted for the latter.

Pierce Brosnan and Colin Firth may be great eye-candy for the ladies, but can they sing?

Well put it this way, your dad singing at your cousin's wedding probably wouldn't be any worse. Brosnan's mauling of 'SOS' was a horror to behold, and Firth's rendition of 'Our Last Summer' hovered precariously on the precipice of disaster.

Likewise, Meryl Streep, otherwise a fine actress, frequently floundered in the vocal department. 'The Winner Takes It All', the ultimate test for any Abba tribute, resembled nothing more than a train wreck but I confess to a misty eye during 'Slipping Through My Fingers', a song which has an unexpected poignancy now that I'm a parent.

The young girl playing Sophie positively shone on the rare occasions when she was allowed to burst into song, but the main focus bewilderingly appeared to be on the A-listers cringe-worthy karaoke.

It wasn't all awful -- Julie Walters rescued 'Take A Chance On Me' through her sheer manic joie-de-vivre and 'Money Money Money' held a certain charm, but for large sections of the film, it was embaressing hide behind the sofa time.

Which is a real shame because the narrative, the location and the awesome songs (many of which sound better today than in the 70s) are all present and correct. They just need someone to sing them.

Having said all that, if you can check-in your cringe-meter at the door, 'Mamma Mia' is a harmless and enjoyable piece of cinematic fluff.

Personally I'm now tempted to go and see the stage show for comparison, but I suspect I'm more likely to just give my 'Abba Gold' CD a whirl instead.

Rachel Fanvid - Dare You To Move

2008-07-06T07:18:00.001-07:00

I know I've posted this on the Fan Blog, but I just had to put it on my own blog as well! Just superb!

Rachel Tucker In The Park !!!!

2008-06-08T13:04:00.001-07:00

Wow! Today we got to meet Rachel Tucker from BBC's 'I'd Do Anything'!

Click on the 'Rachel Tucker Fan Blog' (top right) for all the details.

Rachel Tucker and Talent Show Shams

2008-05-25T16:12:00.000-07:00

Belfast lass Rachel Tucker was voted off 'I'd Do Anything' tonight, finishing in an ill-deserved fourth place.

I have to confess to having a small personal interest in Rachel, as my daughter was one of The Munchkins when Rachel played Dorothy in 'The Wizard Of Oz' last Christmas. By all accounts she is a lovely person and in my opinion, an extremely impressive actress and singer. Rachel even received a ringing endorsement from Liam Neeson, who saw her in the production in Belfast's Lyric Theatre.

Rachel was, in a way, on a hiding to nothing by entering the 'Nancy' contest in the first place. As the 'professional' actress, if she'd won, some would have cried fix, by losing, others might say she was beaten by amateurs. From a promotional viewpoint however, the show was absolutely invaluable.

In the event, her performances on the show ranged from solid to phenomenal. Her rendition of the Sugababes 'About You Know' was little short of awesome, and her 'Cabaret' simply blew the other three girls off the stage and even got a standing ovation from the panel, and more importantly, Andrew Lloyd-Webber himself. typically, the public reacted by voting her into the singoff, putting ALW in an impossible position. Had Rachel been tied with Jodie, I think the conclusion would have been obvious, but Samantha had garnered much praise from the panel and had not finished in the bottom two before. Andrew's decision, whilst harsh, was perhaps understandable in the circumstances.

It's true that, being a Belfast girl, Rachel came across as slightly reserved, less likely to garner the sympathy vote, but throughout the contest, her grit and professionalism shone through. Without a doubt, she deserved the part.

But this is TV land. And as the Welshman Rydian recently discovered, talent often isn't enough.
Of the three finalists, Samantha and Jessie come across as being plucky, but young and inexperienced, while Jodie comes across as the big-hearted northern lass who just might shade it at the end.

None can compete with Rachel in the vocal or acting stakes, but hey, this is showbiz. Anyone observing the music industry knows that a great voice and great songwriting can easily lose out to manufactured looks and a few gimmicks.

So if I were Rachel, I wouldn't feel too bad. Fourth out of twelve is no disgrace, and if the job offers don't come rolling in, I'll employ her myself.
As to whoever wins next Saturday, all I can say is good luck on trying to fill Rachel's shoes.

A final word for Richard Croxford, manager of Belfast's Lyric Theatre, who campaigned tirelessly for Rachel. He emailed and phoned all the Munchkins families, drummed up countless votes, and organised a great afternoon for all the kids to publicise Rachel's heroic efforts.

Rachel's early exit was a travesty, but I've no doubt her career will benefit and her talent will be appreciated by directors with their heads on their shoulders rather than in the clouds.

Check out this blog devoted entirely to Rachel!

(Link in top right hand corner).

Unheilig - Freiheit (das Video)

2008-05-24T02:17:00.001-07:00

Last.FM

2008-05-06T08:04:00.000-07:00

A few weeks ago, I tried to explain to somebody exactly what Last.FM is. Rather like peanut butter, it's actually quite a tough sell. You really need to try before you buy. Or in this case don't buy at all, as most of it's spanking-well free!

Basically, if you love music, you'll love Last.FM. If you're a chart nerd, a CD collector, an I-Pod owner or want to hear something other than the top 40 crap on the radio, you NEED Last.FM.

To begin on the site, simply download the software (takes just a few minutes), and tell it which genre of music you'd like to hear. This can be anything from death metal to Irish country. Immediately, the site will start playing tracks from your genre, complete with a biography and photo of each artist. With each track, you have the option to save to your 'loved tracks', 'tagged tracks' or simply skip to the next one.
You can also name an artist instead of genre and you'll be played dozens of other similar artists, with the same options as above for each track.
And the really clever part is that the more you play, the more accurate the site becomes at working out what you'd like to hear.

A small tweak enables you to channel all the tracks you listen to via your PC, CDs or I-Pod through Last.FM, further enhancing the site's understanding of your personal tastes.

I've already discovered a dozen great artists through the site, including Nightwish, Syntax, Covenant, Unheilig and Rotersand.

For the modest sum of £1.50 a month, you get to play your 'loved tracks' in rotation (basically your own personal jukebox), add comments on each track, join forums and have all your tracks filed into charts, showing the number of plays for each artist and song.

It's music heaven, and for the price of a couple of CDs a year, it's phenomenal value. Trust me, you'll love it.

Now why didn't I say all this to that bloke a few weeks ago....

Shaped Picture Discs!

2008-05-06T07:59:00.001-07:00

Hard to believe somebody took the time to do this, but here it is -- a gallery of 300+ vinyl shaped picture discs! Needless to say, most are from the 80s, but a few are surprisingly up to date.
Brings back a few memories of spectacular wall displays and discs wobbling all over your turntable! Enjoy!

http://rateyourmusic.com/list/monocle/shape_oddity__a_gallery_of_non_circular_discs/

Girls Aloud Belfast -- A Middle-Aged Perspective

2008-05-04T15:48:00.000-07:00

I'm sure there are hundreds of blog posts out there dedicated to these lovely ladies, but let's face it, what everyone wants are the thoughts of a man in his 40s, who's just seen them live.

After much pleading and pestering, I finally persauded my seven year old daughter to accompany me to Belfast's Odyssey Arena to see the show.
First impression was the massive discrepancy in scale compared to my other two gigs this year -- Gary Numan (approx 300 punters), Nightwish (approx 800), Girls Aloud (approx 6000!!!) AND they sold out three nights, making approx 18000 in Belfast alone. Impressive or what?

Second impression was the shocking poverty afflicting the young concert going ladies of Belfast. Most could barely afford a few scraps of clothing. Not that I'm complaining mind you.

So the next impression was the support acts. Yes acts. Three of them. Rather like visiting a restaurant and getting three starters -- generous but rather sickening.
First on was a group of lads called Billiam, whose name and performance came dangerously close to the word bilious. They sang a few nursery rhymes and jogged around the stage for about 20 minutes.

Next was a bloke called barely audible. I'm sure that was his name. Just as well he was on early, as he looked like he'd need to be up for school in the morning. To be honest, he wasn't bad. And he's on Myspace. Good luck in finding him.

Finally, a bunch of Girls Aloud wannabes came on. They called themselves the Saturdays, but by this performance, I reckon the wet Wednesdays might be more appropriate. At least one of their songs had the decency to use Yazoo's 1982 classic; 'Situation' as backing. I reckon this lot were booked to make Girls Aloud look even better when they finally came on. If they ever came on.

My daughter was getting a bit bored by now and was less than impressed with the Girls time-keeping. I was quietly praying that we'd seen the last of the support acts. To be honest, my farting farmyard impressions would have blown the rest of them off the stage.

The Saturdays thankfully departed and the lights went on. We were treated to a few pop videos, and then suddenly the show started. The curtains went back, and there were the girls, suspended in mid-air. This was going to be a classy show. None of your two torches and a disco ball here. We got fireworks and everything -- for the opening number!

Distance was a problem. Fifty four rows back does shrink your view a bit. Whereas you had to apologise for knocking Gary Numan off stage on the way to the loo, you really needed a pair of binoculars to ascertain that Girls Aloud actually were on stage. Fortunately there were a couple of big TV screens. And about a million little mobile phone screens.
I mean seriously what is the point of people doing this? 'Look I got 14 seconds of a blurry noise and somebody's head.' Woo-hoo.

Anyway, back to the show. The ladies were running through their repotoire in fine fashion. 'You can't escape my biology.' No we couldn't.
It quickly became apparent that Nadine and Nicola were doing a lot of carrying in the vocal department. Nadine seemed thrilled to be back 'home' and did some lovely inter-song banter. At least I assume it was lovely as we couldn't actually hear it.
But she looked nice and smiled a lot, so that was good enough for me.

I hadn't realised how many cover versions Girls Aloud had done. The Pointer Sister's 'Jump' was great -- better than the original in my book. But 'Walk This Way'? Well what can you say? They were game to give it a go.
Then there's Salt N Pepa's 'Push It', which relies almost entirely on it's funky little riff, so it's tough to mess up.
Particularly nice though, was the Pretenders' 'Stand By You', not only because it's a nice version, but also because the ladies felt sorry for us lonely folks at the back and came halfway down the hall via a nifty gantry, just to sing it for us. That was nice.

No expense was spared. Hunky male dancers, great slide show, fireworks, costume changes, you name it, they had it.

Highlights included 'Call The Shots', an astonishingly good track so deep into their career, 'Can't Speak French' and the encore; 'Something Kinda Ooh', which had just about everything thrown into it apart from Gordon Brown, which was a relief.

I have to say that the girl's figures did give me slight cause for concern. They really could go a few fish suppers. Come on ladies, a few curves wouldn't hurt!
And the vocals were frequently lost in the mix.

But hey, this was a spectacle, not a virtuoso vocal performance. And boy was it fun.
We got all the hits, all the fireworks and all the flaunting we could possibly want.
And it ain't easy to please a seven year old and a forty four year old, but tonight ladies, you managed it. Nice one.

Here's a picture of Girls Aloud on my sofa. All together now -- 'somethin' kinda ooh, jumpin' on my tube tube...'

More Daisies

2008-04-22T09:38:00.001-07:00

OK so my life's so sad that my next blog post is the same subject as the last one.

Well actually I did do quite a detailed Aspergers post, but I decided it was too personal for public consumption, so it's available by request only. That's got you intrigued eh?

Anyway, the second episode of 'Pushing Daisies' has confirmed what I suspected -- this series is exactly on my wavelength. Which may be worrying. But what the hell, somebody's got to like it.

At last a programme that's imaginative, quirky, romantic, fun and clever. Not to mention slightly challenging as far as keeping up with the plot is concerned.
There's no major violence, no swearing, no extreme nastiness and no gratuitous sex. Well none at all actually for obvious reasons.

I'd never had any time at all for Anna Friel before (I'm ashamed to say I never returned any of her calls), but now she's just the ticket.

Really great so far. I'll keep you updated.

Pushing Daisies

2008-04-14T16:03:00.000-07:00

Yet again it's left up to the Yanks to provide some decent entertainment. Even if they have nicked one of our actresses (sorry I know that everyone is an acTOR these days -- well exceuuuussseeeee me) to do it.

Anna Friel was previously best known for doing a lesbian kiss in ex-soap Brookside and a yawn-fest film called 'The Land Girls.' And some adverts for something girlie.

So far so crap. But in 'Pushing Daisies', she's really rather good. In much the same way that the ex-Eastenders 'Bionic Woman' girl isn't.

Anyway, the bloke who stars has the gift of bringing things back to life just by touching them. Which is great. But if he touches them a second time they die. Permanently. Which isn't. Especially if you're his mum.

Undeterred, he makes a tidy living by temporarily reviving murder victims for a pop quiz and then claiming the reward for finding their killers. Sneaky eh.

But having promised himself he wouldn't keep anyone permanently resurrected (the nearest person dies if he does) he is suddenly faced with his childhood sweetheart in a coffin (the delightful Miss Friel). It's not a tough choice to let the obnoxious undertaker meet his maker instead and keep his ex alive for future adventures with his business partner and gorgeous undead dog.

After just one episode I'm intrigued. The style is quirky adult fairy tale with a narrator. The leads are appealing and the plot frisky. Could go far.

But if you're brain dead, you may prefer Celebrity Mr & Mrs.

Cotton Wool Kids

2008-04-11T13:33:00.000-07:00

There was a quirky little programme on Channel 4 last night, called 'Cotton Wool Kids.'

It concerned the often obsessive behaviour of modern-day parents, some of who go to farcical lengths to protect their kids from their idea of danger.

By turns hilarious and heartbreaking, the voiceovers were kept to a minimum and the programme was largely narrated by the parents and their worried offspring.

We were treated to a little girl of about 6, who took us on a tour of her tiny back garden, pointing out all the hidden 'dangers', which included such deadly threats as a thistle and a slippery patch of grass.

Another girl told us how she was scared of rapists and yet another who was told to grow her nails long to scratch any would-be abductors.

Other terrifying dangers included teenagers, strangers, gang members and dogs.
One mother drove her kids into town, pointing out lone men and even lone women as potential kidnappers. The spectre of Madeline McCann was invoked constantly.

It was all a very far cry from the 'good old days' when kids could play in the woods or on the streets all day unmolested. Apparently.

The truth of course is rather different. Certainly roads are busier these days, and crime generally has risen, but abductions by strangers remain incredibly rare and gang attacks tend to be by definition amongst gangs.

Then I thought about how close this all was to home. Is it better to push your children out into the street amongst the other kids, let him/her take the knocks, the bitchiness and the rough and tumble, or is it better to keep them in with their Wii, DS and Playstation? Is it better to avoid the petty rows with other parents or chalk it all up to the rich experience of family life? And when is the best time to 'let go'?

I don't have the answers and somehow I doubt anyone else does either.

Addiction

2008-04-11T13:17:00.000-07:00

Have you ever got totally addicted to one track?

In my dim and distant past there's been XTC's 'Making Plans For Nigel', Tears For Fears 'Shout' and Gary Numan/Dramatis' 'Love Needs No Disguise' amongst others.

Now let me introduce you to 'Message' by an obscure band called Syntax.

Haunting, melancholy and strangely beautiful, there's something mysteriously indefinable about this track.

The video was probably made for about 50p, but I can particularly empathise with the last thirty seconds or so, where the guy is constantly fending off 'people', known or unknown.

I guess we all feel like that sometimes. Or is it just me?

Syntax ''Message''

2008-04-11T13:16:00.000-07:00

Crazier

2008-04-09T10:47:00.001-07:00

Rate Your Music

2008-04-05T12:51:00.000-07:00

Nightwish, belfast - Bye Bye Beautiful

2008-04-03T14:16:00.001-07:00

Nightwish Belfast

2008-04-02T16:56:00.000-07:00

Tonight marked Nightwish first concert date anywhere in Ireland, one of two local dates on their 40 date 'Dark Passion Play' tour.

The venue was Belfast's Mandela Hall, part of the Queen's University complex -- an intimate but still sizeable setting.

Things began rather unusually when we simply strolled in off the street without being asked for a ticket! So far so casual.

The support band were Pain, a compotent, indeed impressive bunch, who worked the crowd well. Unfortunately there was then a delay of almost an hour before the main act came on. Was it worth the wait?

Bouncing on stage to thunderous applause, the band kicked off with 'Bye Bye Beautiful', a two-fingered salute to their recently departed singer Tarja.

The band's sound was tight and highly compotent, with impressive acoustics from the small venue. But the question on everyone's lips was 'how does new vocalist Annette measure up?'

On the basis of tonight, Tarja can go get a day job. Annette may not possess the operatic pipes of her predecessor, but she more than makes up for it with her gutsy performances and boundless enthusiasm. She was an absolute joy to watch, throwing everything into every track, working the crowd, smiling incessantly and even bantering in surprisingly good English between songs.

Tuomas gave a polished and often intense keyboard performance, while Marco frequently stole the show with his anecdotes (some inaudible) and vodka drinking!

Compared to a lot of bands I've seen, Nightwish really knew how to work the crowd -- sprinting round the stage, joking, throwing plectrums and above all, really getting into it! This was top notch entertainment.

Most of the new album was performed, including the ambitious opener; 'The Poet And The Pendulum', (for some reason shoe-horned into the middle of the set) and three of the four singles (Eva was notably absent).
The biggest roars were reserved for the 'Once' tracks, particularly 'Dark Chest Of Wonders', 'Nemo' and the closing 'Wish I Had An Angel', every one superb.

Encores were the surprisingly intense; 'Seven Days To The Wolves', the classic 'Wishmaster' and the previously mentioned 'Angel'.

This was debatably my first metal concert, and a great experience it was, complete with head banging, crowd surfing and a couple of manic Chinese blokes pogoing on our toes! I'd definitely go back for another helping! An excellent night.

For anyone wondering if Nightwish can survive without Tarja, worry no more. On the basis of tonight's performance, they have a long, long career ahead of them.

Ashes To Ashes Finale

2008-03-27T16:13:00.000-07:00

Hmmmm. When I was a kid there was a TV series called the Banana Splits. It had various 'wacky' characters, who were all blokes in silly dog costumes, with names like Bungo and Fleagle. I haven't seen it for decades, but if I ever did, I'm sure it would look woeful.

The thing is, when this series ended back in the mid 70s, I almost felt like I'd lost a relative. You know the feeling you get when you finish a book you've really got into -- it's like an emptiness that suddenly these characters have gone from your life. That's rather how I felt at the end of the first series of 'Ashes To Ashes' tonight.
Never has a programme relied more on it's characters and less on it's plotline.

The final episode tied up no loose ends whatsoever. OK Alex's dad masterminded the carbomb that killed him and his wife, and was apparently intended to kill Alex too.
But she was unable to stop the event happening. Which is fair enough, as the first law of time travel (probably) states that you can't change the past, otherwise you'll endanger the future (witness a particularly memorable episode of the Simpsons when Homer alters the future by squashing a bug in the Jurassic.)
But then Alex contravenes the second law of time travel, which states that you cannot meet yourself.

And Alex remains rooted in 1981, still unable to be there for her daughter's birthday in 2008, while Gene, supposedly a detective, continues to not ask any pertinent questions whatsoever of our heroine.
Where did you come from? Why are you always talking about the future? And why have you only got two outfits?

Even more bizarrely, Gene & Alex have still failed to get jiggy, despite the first rule of TV drama that you must hop into bed within 12 hours of meeting.

So it's all very mysterious. But I just can't help watching.

The character of Gene Hunt is so hilariously likeable that a series of him painting his house would top the ratings. Keely Hawes may not be Oscar-winning material, but her portrayal of Alex Drake is strangely compelling in it's doe-eyed innocence.
And the supporting cast are absolute gems, providing some great one-liners; 'how dare a poofter (Tom Robinson) sing a song about cars -- that's a man thing'.

At it's heart, this drama is entirely character driven -- people watch to see Hunt & Drake's chemistry, to hear Hunt say all the stuff we've always wanted to and to guffaw at the rampant homophobia and sexism on display from the finest police force 1981 can offer.

A second series has been commissioned for 2009 and personally I'm looking forward to it.

The Mighty Boosh - Music In Cars

2008-03-24T14:56:00.001-07:00

The Wizard Of Oz

2008-03-14T08:29:00.000-07:00

Here it is: the precise moment when Jimmy Nesbitt, Brian Kennedy, Karen Rush, olivia Nash & some other bloke all got to share a stage with my daughter. Their claim to fame occurred during the finale of 'Glinda's Glitter Ball', the final show in Belfast's Lyric Theatre.

What an honour for these celebrities, and one they can treasure for years to come.

Ashes To Ashes

2008-03-06T14:47:00.000-08:00

Following on from the surprise TV hit series 'Life On Mars', the BBC decided to create a follow-up, set in 1981, complete with the best soundtrack in the world!

'Ashes To Ashes' may have lost Sam Tyler, but has replaced him with the foxy Alexandra Drake, a tempting foil for the ever un-PC Gene Hunt.
This time round, Gene gets to do handbrake turns in a smart red Audi, make leering remarks about Drake's bum and still collar the odd villain, despite having possibly the most inept cop duo since the Naked Gun helping him out.

OK so as a police drama it barely makes it out of the starting blocks, but hey who cares -- just listen to that soundtrack! Tubeway Army's 'Are 'Friends' Electric?', Simple Minds 'I Travel', Ultravox 'Vienna', Roxy Music, Soft Cell, Human League, XTC....I mean come on!

Will Alex make it back to 2008 and discover who shot her? Will Gene get her in the sack first? Can she save her snooty mum from getting blown up?
Who cares? With music like this accompanying, the series can go on for 50 years with my full permission.

Numan In Belfast

2008-03-04T02:39:00.000-08:00

Last year Gary Numan embarked on a small 'Telekon Tour', playing all the songs from the album plus associated B-Sides. Unfortunately this tour didn't include Belfast or Dublin.
This time round though, with 'Replicas' getting the same treatment, we were in luck, and Numan sold out the 'Spring and Airbrake' in Belfast's Ormeau Avenue.

I had previously seen the great man live for the first time in 2001 on the 'Pure' tour, when he played the Limelight, next door to last night's venue. That had been a superb show, if a little heavier than many had expected.
But this tour promised more of a return to his electro roots and has subsequently generated quite a buzz, with many shows selling out quickly.

I went with a couple of friends, one who had been a Numan fan for nearly 30 years, but had never seen him play live. We queued outside for about 15 minutes despite arriving slightly late. The crowd were, as you might expect, a diverse mixture of young goths, middle-aged blokes and curious students.
The venue could best be described as 'cosy', with an alarmingly small stage area.

The support band came on almost immediately. Fronted by a girl who looked rather like a young Saffron from Republica, they were a three piece who ran through a compotent if unremarkable set to polite applause. The hall was barely half full at this stage, but it was soon evident that everyone had been hanging around in the foyer and by the time the man himself took the stage at 9.40, there was something approaching a crush.

Numan's early 80s light shows are legendary and despite the 'compact and bijou' stage area, the light show was really quite impressive.
Numan strode on stage with the band and launched straight into 'Replicas'. The crowd were well up for it, chanting 'Numan! Numan!' between songs, as one classic after another filled the room.

The original 'Replicas' songs were interspersed with the 'out-take' tracks on the 20th anniversary remastered CD, and mighty fine many of them were. My personal favourite is 'We Have A Technical', a track featuring the intro of what later became 'I Die You Die' and was even covered by Blur's Damon Albarn for the tribute album.
Also present were the superb B-Sides 'We Are So Fragile' and 'Do You Need The Service'. The biggest roar of the night seemed to be for 'Down In The Park', still an intensely dark, claustrophobic track all these years later.

Numan has never been one to deliver speeches between tracks, and tonight was no exception. Apart from the odd 'thank you', his only spoken contribution was when he retook the stage, declaring that; 'we've done all the Replicas songs -- do you want something else?'
Yes we did, so we were treated to 'Cars', 'Everyday I Die' and a particularly intense rendering of 'A Prayer For The Unborn', possibly the best performance of the night in my opinion.

The others I was with had recently been to see Queens Of The Stone Age and Smashing Pumpkins, both in the Kings Hall, and complained about the terrible sound quality, something which plagued the venue back in the 80s.
Thankfully there was no such problem with Numan, the smaller venue being a major advantage.

The show was absolutely fantastic, possibly the best I've ever been to, and we're definitely up for the next tour.

Mournful Seafood

2008-03-03T04:55:00.000-08:00

Do you like what I did with the name of the restaurant there? Very clever. Or not.
Anyway, since it was mother's day and I'd heard good reports about Mourne Seafood in Dundrum, near Newcastle, I thought I'd push the boat out (there I'm at it again-such talent).

I'd booked a table for four and we were shown in. The place looked a trifle decrepit, though I assumed this was the 'rustic' look they were going for. The restaurant was quite small and the tables a little too close to each other, resulting in quite a high noise level.
We ordered drinks -- a couple of cokes and a bottle of sparkling water. We'd poured out two glasses before we realised that it was still water rather than sparkling. Not a great start.

Talking of starters, two of us went for these, while B wanted a dessert so he gave it a miss. C ordered the kids meal of sausage and chips which rather inconveniently arrived with the starters.
I had the toasted scallops with side salad and H went for the seafood chowder. Both were perfectly serviceable, but nothing special.

Having waited quite a while for the starters, we had another long wait for the mains. I visited the 'restroom', which was apparently unheated.
C continued to struggle through her kids meal. Not surprising really as the chips were so hard I nearly lost a filling when I tried one and the sausages were basic at best. Very poor indeed for £4.95.

The main courses were a revelation, though not unfortunately a good one.
B had ordered a steak, which he is something of a specialist in. He pronounced it to be the fattiest steak he had ever been served, together with more of the highly unappetising chips and no vegetables.
H had the seabass fillets, which were served frugally, to say the least. Two small servings on a large plate was just a joke.
At least my hake steak was a decent portion, even after removing 1000 bones, and it was nice tasty fish, though not as nice as I'd had in the Seasalt in Newcastle the previous year (for about half the price).

B ordered his dessert from a passing waiter while I was still eating, as we'd already been there nearly two hours and wanted to get going. Fifteen minutes later as the mains plates were being cleared, it still hadn't arrived, and he had to order again.

At least the chocolate cheesecake he had was worth the wait. He awarded it 9 out of 10 and didn't offer any of us a taste, so that was a thumbs up for the chef.

We had to ask for the bill twice, and it came to a hefty £65.50 for two starters, a dessert, three mains, a kids meal and a few soft drinks.

All in all, it was a case of 'never again.' I'd definitely recommend Frenchies in Clough or the Seasalt in Newcastle over this place.

Think Before You Say 'I Do'

2007-10-16T11:56:00.000-07:00

With absolutely no permission from David Vance's often excellent blog; 'A Tangled Web', here is an interesting piece:

''Al Azhar University in Egypt is regarded as the highest centre for Sunni learning in the world.
So it's interesting to read that a cleric at this university has decreed that any two people who act out an Islamic marriage on screen, effectively get married in real life. This poses a problem for any actress who is already married as it means she would be committing polygamy, legal for Muslim men but not Muslim women, and of course a previously unmarried actress would have to divorce her actor "husband" before she could marry in real life.''

So what can we learn from this? Well first of all we learn that organised religion has absolutely no place in the real world. The type of semantics illustrated above would disgrace a couple of five year olds in the school playground.

And secondly we learn that, nonsensical though this decree is, it probably isn't any dafter than edicts on contraception, abortion, circumcision, trans-substantiation, confession, homosexuality, evolutionary theory and stem-cell research, none of which are subjects which a bunch of clerics (usually frustrated bachelors) should even be discussing, never mind decreeing on.

2007-10-04T10:58:00.000-07:00

My Favourite Music

2007-09-23T15:32:00.000-07:00

http://rateyourmusic.com/collection/nodisguise/r5.0/1

Youtube Vs Viacom

2007-03-14T05:05:00.000-07:00

It's happening again -- corporate monster takes on internet behemoth.
Viacom (amongst others) aren't happy that Youtube are hosting clips of it's TV shows and music videos, and raking in advertising revenue in the process. So they've fired off a $1 billion lawsuit.
Surely it would be much more sensible for Youtube to introduce a nominal annual charge of say $20 US to allow full access and uploading of anything legal? That way they could placate the majors, keep a bit for themselves and still pull in some advertising.

There's also an advantage for the majors in that Youtube undoubtedly drives traffic in their direction. Take music videos for example. Youtube has proved an absolute treasure trove for music videos (vintage and current) and live clips dating right back to the 60s. It's a little slice of heaven for devoted fans and I'm positive it increases demand for live shows and back catalogue.
I doubt many would baulk at a small annual fee for the chance to watch material unavailable or hard to source elsewhere. Surely everyone's a winner here?

Unfortunately such a solution has yet to be reached and Viacom etc are attempting to put the genie back in the box in much the same way as the music industry attacked the likes of Napster a few years back. The future is now and working out a formula beneficial to all is surely preferable to messy courtroom battles where only the fat lawyers will come out smiling.

Strange Beliefs

2007-01-07T15:03:00.000-08:00

This is from today's Sunday Times:

''It asserts that 75m years ago an evil galactic warlord called Xenu rounded up 13.5 trillion beings from an overpopulated corner of the galaxy, flew them to Earth and dumped them in volcanoes and vaporised them with nuclear bombs. This scattered their radioactive souls, or thetans, which were then trapped and implanted with a number of false ideas — including the concepts of God, Christ and organised religion. These entities attached themselves to human beings and are at the root of our personal and global problems today. ''

So where does this rather strange idea originate? A script from the X-Files or Torchwood? Star Trek maybe?
Nope -- this is the core belief of scientology -- the world's fastest growing religion, which, despite it's name, has no connection with actual science. As of today, scientology has 120 000 members in the UK and over 10 million worldwide. To get that into perspective, that's the population of Ireland, north and south -- twice.

A further quote:

''Scientology has proved exceptionally robust and has grown steadily since its launch. In America it dominates entire towns and even in Britain some children have been brought up as Scientologists. What worries critics most is the religion’s secrecy and intolerance of dissent. Members who are critical of the church are declared “apostates” and are excommunicated and often cut off from family and friends who must “disconnect” from them. ''

The above paragraph sounds a lot more familiar. On this level, scientology begins to look more like 'normal' religions. Secrecy, fear of criticism, insularity, shunning of those who dare to question, all steming from the absurd idea that any one person can know more than another about 'belief.' In other words, the twisting of a religious ideal for the purpose of control over others.

Reading the first paragraph again, most non-scientologists would immediately dismiss this 'belief' as being lunacy. But is it?

50 million Mormons believe that a schizophrenic womaniser was able to translate the book of Mormon using magic glasses.
100 million Muslims believe that martyrdom results in the attentions of 50 virgins in the afterlife.
100 million Roman Catholics believe that bread and wine literally becomes the body of Christ.
30 million Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Christ returned to the earth in 1915 but appeared only to Jehovah's Witnesses.
100 million Buddhists believe that we are constantly reborn as a different animal until we reach a state of perfection.

Given this lot, does scientology really sound so daft? The only real difference is it's age.

So why do people believe this stuff? A major reason is irrational egotism, an inflated importance of the individual self. We really think that we're so important that we deserve not only a supernatural explanation for our existence, but an afterlife as well.

In the same paper today, I read that 35 million 'game birds' are bred in the UK each year, for the sole purpose of being shot for 'sport.' Presumably none of those birds are considered important enough to have any relevance in this great scheme called life. So perhaps someone can tell me why humanity has any greater relevance.
Other than a giant ego and an endless capacity for imagination, are we really any different?
Religious folk in particular appear determined to delude themselves that they're not really animals at all. Hello?

Read those beliefs above again and ask yourself if humanity is indeed the most intelligent creature on the planet.

Killing Joke - America

2007-01-06T16:12:00.001-08:00

Torchwood

2007-01-03T06:10:00.000-08:00

BBC sci-fi / crime series 'Torchwood' has just ended it's first series run of 13 episodes and seems ready for an appraisal.
Torchwood is an anagram of Doctor Who and has been marketed as an 'adult spin-off' of the veteran series.
I haven't personally watched Doctor Who since the days of Jon Pertwee and Tom Baker in the 70s, so I had little initial interest in Torchwood as a concept. It just happened to be on TV one night and I thought I'd give it a chance.
I found Episode one to be generally poor. The characters, other than Jack Harkness, seemed weak, the thin plot-line highly implausible and the special effects mediocre. The notion of Torchwood itself seemed to be a straightforward rip-off of 'The Men In Black' without the humour. Ho-hum.

The following week there was nothing else on worth watching so I gave it another go. This time the characters were growing and the plot was moving in an interesting direction. I made a point of watching the rest of the series, something which I very rarely do.

I should point out that Torchwood is far from perfect. Many of the plot-lines are frankly silly and two of the Torchwood team are surplus to acting requirements. The female character Tosh exhibits a range of emotion from highly stressed to panic-stricken while Iantob appears to be continually on the verge of bursting into tears. Both are continually upstaged by single episode characters, including the late Suzie and the female pilot who Owen falls for.
The other three team members take up the slack admirably, with Captain Jack oozing charisma and capability, 'new girl' Gwen exuding a fascinating mixture of vulnerability and toughness and wide-boy Owen strutting around like a member of 'The Hustle' team.

Torchwood was touted as having sex, swearing and violence. There's a lot less swearing than an average chat with Gordon Ramsay, and other than the slightly stomach-turning 'Countrycide' episode, there's little in the way of gore. On the sex side, we do get some results, mainly in the 'sexual orientation' department. All the team appear to have bi-sexual tendencies, which makes for some fun, and Gwen is happy to bed hop between Owen and her live-in boyfriend. None of the sex is any way graphic but it doesn't need to be.

This is essentially British sci-fi. It obviously has a reasonable budget, and several of the characters are highly empathetic, particularly Jack and Gwen. There are moments to make you laugh and others to make you wince and overall it's different enough to keep you interested, if rarely on the edge of your seat.

As with 'Lost', there is enough to keep you coming back for more, but there remains a general feeling of drift rather than tautness of script. The series finale is at times gripping, but spoiled somewhat by the 'King Kong' style appearance of Abbadon, a supposed demon mentioned in the biblical Revelations, a somewhat strange plot move given the decidedly atheistic tone of the production thus far. A character brought back to life maintains that there is 'nothing -- only blackness' and Jack attempts to dissaude a potential suicide with the same argument.

The overall feel of Torchwood is a curious mixture of dark nihilism and wry humour, and the series is entirely character driven. Take Jack, Gwen or Owen out of the equation and the whole thing collapses.
There is however tremendous potential in this concept and we must hope that the script writers can pull things together in series two. I for one am looking forward to it.

Randomness

2007-01-02T16:36:00.000-08:00

''Humans will believe in almost anything that denies the sheer randomness of existence.''

A quote from the character Jack Harkness in Torchwood.

And it's true. Religion, drugs, alcohol -- they're pretty widespread.

If an ant wanders across a pavement and someone steps on it, is that destiny? Or just a case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time?

If a person steps off a kerb and is struck by a bus, is that destiny? Or just a case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time?

Life is random. Everything in our own personal little worlds can change in a second. Or a year.
Nothing is pre-destined. No-one can see the future. No-one can or ever could prophesy with any accuracy events to come. And the search for meaning where there is none is a futile gesture.

Killing Joke - Sanity

2006-12-20T09:07:00.001-08:00

All across the scenes the statues crumble. We cherished the seconds, counted the days. And people move with lines across their faces. Embracing each other with a smile.

For sanity's sake, sanity's sake, sanity's sakeFor sanity's sake, sanity's sake, sanity's sake.

We'll remember distant times and places. We'll remember summer sun that yields. Shed our bodies heart and soul for love's sake. Civilizations wax and wane.

Innocence will fade away like Autumn. Likewise the dream of youth, the task. And we shall be at peace upon our parting. With the thoughts of loved ones in our hearts.

For sanity's sake, sanity's sake, sanity's sake. For sanity's sake, sanity's sake, sanity's sake.

So let the sunrise light up the distant shores. And we'll remember last days of Rome again.

Borat The Movie

2006-11-07T15:45:00.000-08:00

What can you say about this film? In it's opening week in the USA, it grossed over $26 million. Who says the Americans have no sense of humour?

Borat, for the uninitiated, is a character played by Sacha Baren Cohen, a Cambridge graduate whose previous crimes include the Ali G persona.

Borat purports to be a reporter from Kazikstan and the basic premise of the movie involves him being sent to the USA to do a documentary for the 'glorious nation of Kazikstan.'
The film opens with Borat giving us a tour of his home town, or to be more precise, his home street (actually filmed in Romania). He introduces the town rapist, the town mechanic, who is also the abortionist, his abusive wife and his mother (the oldest woman at 43). We are then treated to a local festival; 'the running of the Jew.'

If by this stage you have taken offence, it would be wise to head for the exit, as in terms of taste, it's all downhill from here on in.
Leaving his street in a battered car steered by a teenage boy and pulled along by a horse, Borat and his portly manager take a plane to America, where Borat proceeds to insult just about everyone, without meaning to of course.

His attempts at friendliness on the New York subway are both hilarious and shocking. The abuse he meets from fellow passengers simply by trying to shake hands says a lot for big city dwellers, and the 'accidental' release of a chicken from Borat's suitcase; 'careful he bite' is merely one of dozens of belly laughs throughout the movie.

Checking into a classy hotel, Borat begins to unpack in the lift, remarking what a lovely room he has been allocated. Upon reaching the actual room, he proceeds to wash his face in the toilet.
Yes it's that sort of film -- there's a lot of toilet humour.

He proceeds to outrage a group of feminists by asserting that 'it is proved women have brain the size of squirrel's' and shocks a driving instructor by attempting to drink a bottle of whisky whilst on the road.

Having discovered 'Baywatch' on the hotel TV, he falls in love with Pamela Anderson -- 'I wish to make love explosion on her stomach' and talks his manager into travelling to California, where Pamela lives.

Unable to afford a car, they embark on their journey in a decommisioned ice cream van, stopping along the way for encounters with a gay pride parade, a US senator somewhat shocked to be told he has just eaten cheese made from Borat's wife's breast milk and a gun store owner more than happy to recommend the best gun for 'shooting Jews.' It should be noted that Cohen himself is Jewish and the central premise of the film is to reveal hidden prejudices.

Not that they needed much revealing. An American hick at a rodeo expresses a strong preference for shooting homosexuals and Jews, whilst the assembled crowd at said rodeo are more than happy to cheer Borat's assertion that the US should bomb Iraq until not even a lizard is left alive. They only start boo-ing when he mangles the national anthem.

A visit to a dinner party at a Christian pastor's home proves particularly hilarious, Borat managing to insult the pastor's wife, mistake the word 'retired' for 'retard' and producing a bag of poo at the table. He rounds off a perfect evening by introducing a large black prostitute, at which point the good folk call the police.

A major row with his manager over the subject of 'Pamela' results in a naked tussle involving a lift full of hotel guests and a hall full of mortgage brokers having a meal. Borat's manager abandons him, leaving him with only a chicken and 17 cents for petrol. Even this generous allowance runs out quickly and he abandons the ice cream van for a crazy trip with some teenage frat boys who easily prove the most misoygnist and offensive characters in the film.

Borat winds up at a Pentecostalist Church, where the footage of the worshippers speaks entirely for itself. The sight of grown men shouting, babbling, falling over and crying is one of the most disturbing scenes in the film. Having been 'saved' and 'speaking in tongues', Borat gets a lift with the 'friends of Mr.Jesus' to Hollywood, where he is reunited with his manager and manages to track down Pamela. Having failed to persaude her to marry him by stuffing her into a sack, he returns home with his footage.

So what do we learn from Borat? Well first of all it's rib crushingly funny. But on other levels, it's both disturbing and philosophical. Borat himself is deliberately grotesque, a sexist racist with no grasp of basic decorum, yet he is likeable, an innocent abroad.
His encounters often reveal the truth behind the thin layer of 'civilised behaviour' and social etiquette, exposing the small-mindedness and grubby tribalism of the human condition.

It's rare to find a film that makes you laugh out loud yet makes you think as well. A triumph.

Harbour View Japanese Restaurant Belfast

2006-11-07T12:24:00.000-08:00

Our neighbour recommended this restaurant, so we thought we'd give it a go.
Tucked away near the Waterfront hall, the Harbour View has an absolutely stunning harbour view, so well done whoever thought the name up.
Attentiveness is the watchword in this establishment -- the moment you walk in you're greeted by two staff members who show you to comfortable chairs complete with er harbour view (sorry I'll stop that right now).
Menus are presented and jaws are dropped. Confusing? Expensive? You've come to the right place. How about a nice set meal for one? £50 OK for you sir? Sir? Hello?
Much scratching of heads later, we dived in with a tentative order. My wife and brother-in-law went for the woosy option -- chicken and steak respectively. Being one of approx.three people in Northern Ireland who appreciates sushi, I went for the 14 piece sushi plate with a Japanese side salad to start. Our six year old daughter just had to hope for the best as children's menus are not an option here.
We were shown to our table, which was unusual to say the least. It was more like a small private bar with seats arranged in a semi-circle round a large hot plate. Our chef was actually going to cook our food at the table. Just like Burger King. Not.
He was a large friendly Japanese gentleman, armed with a couple of knives and a spatula. The meal commenced with a juggling display which delighted our daughter. The chef threw an egg into the air, caught it on the spatula without cracking it and threw it again, this time onto the cooking surface. He chopped some garlic and commenced cooking, adding ingredients from the large plate of raw meats, noodles, rice, vegatables and fish he had brought. At least you were getting to see exactly what you were eating.
My side salad arrived -- more of a main course really -- delicious. Stuffed with salmon, prawns, avocados and lots of Japanese veg, it was mighty tasty and mighty filling.
The chicken, salmon, prawns and squid (!) were excellent and my sushi platter superb.
For the finale, the chef produced a bowl of fruit pieces and ice cream, which he proceeded to set on fire. It was delicious too.
A very different dining experience and highly recommended.
The total bill came to £78 which wasn't bad considering the initial menu shock, and the service was second to none. Great stuff.

Richard Dawkins The God Delusion

2006-11-07T01:58:00.000-08:00

I've just finished reading 'The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins, the surprise Autumn bestseller (over 50 thousand hardback copies sold in the UK in barely a month).
Needless to say, Mr.Dawkins comes up with few earth-shatteringly new arguments against the existence of a deity, but the sheer volume of his material, coupled with a deluge of scientific fact and a highly readable style prove to be a quite devestating combination against a subject that is, after all, an absurdly easy target.
Personally, I've never had a problem with anyone harbouring the notion of a deity within the privacy of their own brain, but unfortunately these ideas have had a tendency to escape into the real world, wreaking havoc, guilt, genocide, bigotry and intolerance.

'When one or two people have a delusion, it is classed as a mental illness -- when millions share a delusion, it's a religion. It doesn't make it any less of a delusion.'

I've just read in the Sunday Times of a wedding party in Baghdad literally blown apart by a car bomb. 23 entirely innocent people were murdered and dozens more injured in an act which defies any logic. Unless of course you factor in religious belief. The people targetted were Shi'ite Muslims -- their killers were almost certainly Sunni Muslims. It was an act depressingly familiar to the Northern Ireland experience -- terrorists claiming to represent the Roman Catholic community slaughtering innocent Protestants (and receiving a substantial electoral mandate) and vice versa.
So much for the idea that the religious somehow have high moral standards derived from God.

Dawkins stated that an argument frequently thrown at him is that non-believers can have 'no moral standards', as these are set down in the Bible or the Koran or whatever other holy book you fancy. Barbaric acts such as those above, which although carried out by a handful of fanatics, are tacitly supported within many devoutly religious communities, give the absolute lie to this statement. For any long-term conflict to exist, there is a necessity for complete demonisation of the 'other side'. Religious belief fosters this inherent notion of tribalism -- the 'safety in numbers', the 'we alone have the truth' idea. Imams and Christian preachers, as well as Sikhs and Hindus preach the absolute correctness of their own doctrine and the absolute errancy of all others. Then we throw up our hands in mock despair when Protestants and Roman Catholics, Sikhs and Hindus and Sunnis and Shi-ites clash in ever more bloody and dangerous conflicts.

Dawkins rightly criticises the western societal notion that religious leaders and their beliefs should be given creedence in the mainstream media and political spheres. Religious representatives are wheeled on to pontificate on such issues as stem cell research and euthanasia, whilst no-one thinks to ask the same questions of say, the local Star Trek fan club.
Somehow one group is more qualified to profess on moral issues than another -- deity believers are somehow better citizens than sceptics. But are they?

Non-believers do not commit any more crimes, large or small, than believers, and the court and prison statistics prove this beyond all doubt. Non-believers are not uniformly cruel, totalitarian, self-centred monsters devoid of a moral compass. We have the Fundamentalist Muslims and Christians for that.

Dawkins rails against the indoctrination of children into particular beliefs, at an age when they are entirely unable to give any subjective analysis of what is being thrown at them. The US docu-film; 'Jesus Camp' is one of the most terrifying films you are ever likely to see, because it's all true. Children as young as six really are being brainwashed into believing that they should be prepared to die for Christ, that evolutionary theory is evil, that all other religions are wrong and should be destroyed, that abortionists should be shot and bizarrely, that global warming is a lie.
Whilst this type of 'camp' is the extreme, the phenomenon of faith schools is no less harmful and divisive, and ostensibly secular countries allow this curious form of child abuse at their peril. Northern Ireland wouldn't be what it is today without faith schools, neither would 7/7 have had it's potential breeding ground of hatred.
The idea that children must automatically follow their parents' faith is a very strange one. Very few parents expect their children to follow their professions or eating habits -- that's something for the child to decide on as they grow up -- why should faith, particularly when there are so many valid (or invalid) choices available, be any different? At best, it's indoctrination, at worst it's child abuse.

Richard Dawkins is of course, a Darwinian scientist, a powerful supporter of evolutionary theory. He sets out a highly complicated subject in a readable and understandable manner, effortlessly blowing apart the fundamentalist Christian notion that evolution means that we all 'came from a rock' or that 'I'm not related to a monkey.' This blithe dismissal of a subject that most religionists know little or nothing about is every bit as insulting as stating that 'brain surgery is just messing about with a piece of meat', or (as a relative of my own seriously suggested) that a 'GPs job is nothing more than patting a patient's hand and giving out tablets.'
I personally don't pretend to know where we came from or where we're going, but I would be inclined to believe that evolution in some form is a more likely explanation than the simplistic burblings of creationism. The very fact that the religious right in America are pushing a spurious idea of 'intelligent design', which basically accepts that evolution has occured, but under 'God's guidance' is proof enough for me.

Dawkins states that the sight of a woman in a burka is 'one of the unhappiest sights on our streets today' and of course I would agree with him. What he doesn't acknowledge however, is that a large proportion of Muslim women, particularly in the west, wear these objects, and various variations of them, entirely of their own free will. Such badges of subjucation and delusion are testament to the awesome power of religious ideas to twist our perceptions of reality, to blur the lines between superstition and common sense. We may (in most cases) have been able to divest ourselves of the notions of astrology and witch burning, but the notion of a male deity who doesn't much like women remains steadfast.

Ultimately of course, it is impossible to talk anyone in or out of faith. Objective argument with a religious person is simply not possible, any more than it is possible to talk a child out of the notion of their 'imaginary friend', and indeed Dawkins includes that notion in his book. Ultimately the child must choose to retain or relinquish their imaginary friend, the difference of course being that an adult with an imaginary friend would be considered at best odd, at worst mentally ill, whereas an adult conversing with an invisible deity (inevitably a man) is considered perfectly normal.

Perhaps most depressingly of all, despite the extraordinary enlightenment on the human condition introduced through scientific progress in the last few centuries, organised religion is making a comeback. A highly dramatic, though statistically insignificant event -- 9/11, appears to have acted as a catalyst for the resurregence of religious tribal enmities. Suddenly Muslims are a dangerous fifth column of potential psychopaths, right-wing Christians are obsessive, moral jihadists in all but name and rational secularists are the scum of the earth.
Watching the downright terrifying recent Channel 4 documentary; 'The Doomsday Code', which revealed much of the USA (the most powerful nation on the planet) to be in full belief of such fanciful notions as angels, the 'end-times' and becoming 'rapture-ready', I was reminded of the line from Frankie Goes To Hollywood's 1984 hit 'Two Tribes' -- 'it's enough to make you wonder sometimes if you're on the right planet.'

Ultimately what Dawkins book proves beyond doubt is that man is a deluded animal. And woman is quite happy to go along with him.

More vicious attacks on religious belief than Dawkin's have (and will) be written, but his strength is in coming across as a decent, rational human being, the sort of person you would be delighted to have a chat with over a cup of coffee. Whether you might be as tempted to chat with an American Pentecostal preacher or a fundamentalist Imam is of course a matter of taste. But unlike the voices of radical and unquestioning belief, I'll let YOU decide.

Veils

2006-10-17T01:56:00.000-07:00

Abdula: 'Hey everyone guess what I've just invented?'

Everyone: 'Dunno. What?'

Abdula: 'It's called Islam right? And it's stuff that God says you have to do.'

Everyone: 'OK cool. What like eating loads of stuff and snogging?'

Abdula: 'Er no not exactly. Chandari you're a woman right?'

Chandari: 'Yes.'

Abdula: 'Well God says you have to cover up.'

Chandari: 'Eh? But I've got a dress on.'

Abdula: 'No no. God says he's very offended having to look at you and you need to cover up completely. And if you don't I get to beat you with a stick.'

Chandari: 'Sayed! Have you got that strait-jacket you invented? I think Abdula might need to try it out.'

Abdula: 'Less of your lip. My friend Ezekiel the Christian said if I'm going to invent a successful religion I need to subjugate women. In his church women have to shut up, cover their heads and make the tea.'

Chandari: 'So God invented women but he doesn't want them to be seen or heard?'

Abdula: 'You got it. And there's more. My friend John-Paul says that you can't use contraception and abortions are a complete no-no.'

Chandari: 'That's it. I'm out of here.'

Abdula: 'Oh come on Chandari. Everyone? Hello? Come back!'

In Praise Of Autumnwatch

2006-10-12T14:32:00.000-07:00

The great thing about UK TV these days is that there's so much of it. With a simple freeview digibox you can get 30 channels of junk instead of just five. But nestling in amongst the dross of 'Big Brother' and 'Emmerdale', you do still find the odd gem.

Enter 'Autumnwatch', a programme which looks like somebody made it up on the back of an envelope, and lavished a budget of £43 on it.

I'm old enough to remember when Bill Oddie was a third of anarchic 70s comedy team; 'The Goodies' (and who can forget Graeme's Garden's wooden performance of 'The Funky Gibbon' on TOTP?) and rather worryingly he looks exactly the same today as he did then.
The show consists of Bill making observations about British wildlife, humoured by his long-suffering lady co-presenter, with some contributions from various sidekicks shipped off to the Outer Hebrides to watch stags rutting and seals frolicking.

Doesn't sound like a good TV format? Maybe so, but by gum and ecky thump it works.

In this digital age of micro-celebrity and the global village, it's almost a shock to discover that there's a whole world out there that doesn't revolve around the minutiae of human existence. Rather like the Americans ignoring the world beyond their borders, most of humanity is blissfilly oblivious to the other occupants of the planet, and it's just great to see programmes like Autumnwatch attempting to redress the balance.

Migrating birds, swans, seal pups and roe deer, all portrayed in their natural habitat, tribal spats and all. It put me in mind of a cartoon I once saw of several giant seal-pups armed with cudgels swaggering into a kids dormitory after lights out, with the delightful caption; 'it's about time we culled these little gits.'

Autumnwatch is a great little programme and actually worth some of the licence fee. On the other hand, that useless prat Jonathan Ross, whose salary would keep Autumnwatch running all year round, would be the perfect subject for a BBC cull -- I'll take the first swing.

Humans? Who needs 'em?

Kent Hovind -- Charismatic Preacher or an Interesting Wacko

2006-10-12T10:44:00.000-07:00

''One world government is coming very soon. I think they are going to worship Lucifer. And I think there are not very many people who realise that the Catholics, and the Muslims and the Masons are all tied together at the top. It is just a few hundred people running all three organisations and they're all Satan worshippers. All of them - Luciferians - even George Bush is involved in that - worships Lucifer.
Truth Radio 11 July 2006 @ 14:40 (Tape 1)''

Where do you start with this one? The man is clearly delusional, paranoid and attention-seeking. He needs professional help.
His university 'degree' (why he calls himself Dr.) is a degree in Christian studies -- he has no scientific qualifications. He refuses to pay income tax because he is 'working for God' -- he does not however live in a tent on bread & water.
He advocates gun law (plenty of crazy quotes available), not to mention killing abortionist doctors and doing away with democracy.
If this man told me that it was raining I would have my doubts.

He is adept at trying to make sense from nonsense -- his idea for instance that Noah took two of every TYPE of animal rather than variety of animal into the ark is laughable -- but let's just say that we accept it for a moment. Noah was living in the middle east -- how did he manage to get penguins and sealions? How did he catch all those types of birds? How many cages did he have to build to seperate all the various species that would eat each other? How did he prevent disease? Where did all the excrement go? And where did all the flood-water go afterwards? That amount of evaporation needed would require a heatwave lasting years.

And if God was able to create all the hundreds of species of dogs (dingoes, wolves, Irish wolfhounds, corgis etc) from just two animals in only a few thousand years, this could only be described as evolution. Not that that actually happened of course.

Mr.Hovind's claim that there are dozens of 'flood myths' all over the world conveniently ignores the fact that most of them are completely different in content and were written / originated at wildly different times. There are also dozens of vampire and werewolf myths but he doesn't mention those conveniently.

Surely it's better to accept the flood myth as a biblical allegory, rather than insult everyone's intelligence by dressing it up as literal truth?

A fairly recent idea is that the bible is literally true. Even the Roman Catholic Church have never claimed this, as indeed have many branches of the Protestant church. And that's not surprising because it isn't literally true, and to try to prove that it is means tying yourself up in the sort of knots that Mr.Hovind finds himself in.

The bible quite simply can't be literally true for several reasons.
Firstly it was translated from Greek and Arabic. No translation is ever perfect and 10 translators, no matter how skilled, will always come up with 10 slightly different translations.
Secondly, many of the books included in the bible are of dubious date and origin. Many others were left out of the original 4th Century bible, as they were considered 'heretical' by early Christian scholars. Amongst these scholars was St.Eusebius, who had a less than glowing reputation for honesty. Some books were included in the Roman Catholic bible, but omitted from the Protestant one. Why should we suppose that the Protestant bible, after translations, interpretations, early church subterfuge & error & middle ages 'reformation' is the perfect article?

It simply isn't and never claimed to be. It was clearly written by ordinary men and is a mixture of ancient myths, lineages, archaic laws, conflicting accounts of the life of Jesus and various pronouncements and letters from Paul, topped off with a delusional almost psychedelic rant called Revelation.

As a snapshot of the life and beliefs of those writing it, it is a fascinating document. As a historical volume of the time, it leaves much to be desired. As an infallible book supposedly chronicling the word of God, it simply doesn't work. The very fact that there are so many branches of the Christian church, all differing on some point or other of doctrine, indicates that this could not be the pure word of God. If it were, it wouldn't be as vague or open to interpretation as it clearly is. Unfortunately for Christianity, it's all there is.

I suspect that Mr.Hovind will be consigned to the dustbin of history in a short time, dismissed as just another attention-seeking crackpot with wacky ideas.

My Top 100 Albums -- Surprisingly Most Are From The 80s

2006-10-12T10:42:00.000-07:00

Position
Artist
Title
1
KILLING JOKE
BRIGHTER THAN A THOUSAND SUNS
2
MARILLION
CLUTCHING AT STRAWS
3
PINK FLOYD
THE WALL
4
ULTRAVOX
RAGE IN EDEN
5
FISCHER-Z
RED SKIES OVER PARIDISE
6
SILENT RUNNING
SHADES OF LIBERTY
7
MARILLION
FUGAZI
8
BUGGLES
THE AGE OF PLASTIC
9
KATE BUSH
THE DREAMING
10
TALKING HEADS
REMAIN IN LIGHT
11
ENO & BYRNE
BUSH OF GHOSTS
12
SIMPLE MINDS
NEW GOLD DREAM
13
GARY NUMAN
THE PLEASURE PRINCIPLE
14
SIMPLE MINDS
SONS AND FASCINATION
15
KILLING JOKE
OUTSIDE THE GATE
16
GARY NUMAN
NEW MAN NUMAN
17
SISTERS OF MERCY
FLOOD LAND
18
ULTRAVOX
VIENNA
19
BUGGLES
ADVENTURES IN MODERN RECORDING
20
TALK TALK
IT'S MY LIFE
21
NEW MUSIK
FROM A TO B
22
KILLING JOKE
PANDEMONIUM
23
MARILLION
MISPLACED CHILDHOOD
24
FRANKIE GOES TO HOLLYWOOD
LIVERPOOL
25
ULTRAVOX
LAMENT
26
TALK TALK
THE PARTY'S OVER
27
KATE BUSH
NEVER FOR EVER
28
JAM
VERY BEST OF
29
TEARS FOR FEARS
THE HURTING
30
GENESIS
DUKE
31
PROPAGANDA
A SECRET WISH
32
TUBEWAY ARMY
REPLICAS
33
ABC
THE LEXICON OF LOVE
34
NEW MUSIK
WARP
35
HUMAN LEAGUE
TRAVELOGUE
36
NEW MUSIK
ANYWHERE
37
PETER GABRIEL
3
38
SISTERS OF MERCY
FIRST AND LAST AND ALWAYS
39
MERCURY REV
DESERTER'S SONGS
40
THOMAS DOLBY
THE GOLDEN AGE OF WIRELESS
41
VISAGE
VISAGE
42
BRUCE SPRINGSTEEN
THE RISING
43
GARY NUMAN
PURE
44
EWIGKEIT
BATTLE FURIES
45
KILLING JOKE
DEMOCRACY
46
A-HA
SCOUNDREL DAYS
47
FAITH NO MORE
ANGEL DUST
48
TALK TALK
THE COLOUR OF SPRING
49
ULTRAVOX
QUARTET
50
SISTERS OF MERCY
VISION THING
51
DIE KRUPPS
THE FINAL REMIXES
52
TEXAS
WHITE ON BLONDE
53
MADNESS
COMPLETE MADNESS
54
MANIC STREET PREACHERS
BEST OF
55
SOFT CELL
THE ART OF FALLING APART
56
BLUE NILE
A WALK ACROSS THE ROOF TOPS
57
PINK FLOYD
THE FINAL CUT
58
GENESIS
A TRICK OF THE TAIL
59
POLICE
GREATEST HITS
60
MINISTRY
TWITCH
61
GENESIS
AND THEN THERE WERE THREE
62
DANSE SOCIETY
HEAVEN IS WAITING
63
YELLO
STELLA
64
MARILLION
SCRIPT FOR A JESTER'S TEAR
65
MERRY
THOUGHTS PSYCHO CULT
66
TUBEWAY ARMY
TUBEWAY ARMY
67
U2
ZOOROPA
68
KILLING JOKE
NIGHT TIME
69
KATE BUSH
HOUNDS OF LOVE
70
VISAGE
THE ANVIL
71
DEF LEPPARD
HYSTERIA
72
ADVENTURES
THE SEA OF LOVE
73
POLICE
SYNCRONICITY
74
SISTERHOOD
GIFT
75
FUN BOY THREE
WAITING
76
MARIANNE FAITHFULL
A CHILD'S ADVENTURE
77
ERASURE
I SAY I SAY I SAY
78
MOBY
PLAY
79
ERASURE
THE INNOCENTS
80
GARY NUMAN
BERSERKER
81
DURAN DURAN
RIO
82
CHAMELEONS
WHAT DOES ANYTHING MEAN BASICALLY
83
WAS NOT WAS
WHAT UP DOG?
84
SHREIKBACK
OIL AND GOLD
85
YELLO
ONE SECOND
86
NEW ORDER
LOW LIFE
87
SHREIKBACK
JAM SCIENCE
88
ELO
DISCOVERY
89
KRAFTWERK
THE MAN MACHINE
90
SKIDS
THE ABSOLUTE GAME
91
ASIA
ALPHA
92
HUMAN LEAGUE
DARE
93
OMD
ARCHITECTURE AND MORALITY
94
SIMPLE MINDS
EMPIRES AND DANCE
95
TEARDROP EXPLODES
KILIMANJARO
96
FISCHER-Z
GOING DEAF FOR A LIVING
97
BLUE NILE
HATS
98
OMD
ORGANISATION
99
TEARS FOR FEARS
SONGS FROM BIG CHAIR
100
U2
THE UNFORGETTABLE FIRE

9/11 Conspiracy Theory

2006-10-12T10:36:00.000-07:00

When I worked at the local Sunday market, there was a bloke in the next aisle who operated off a van. He would gather a small crowd round him and then invite people to give him a £10 pound note. Hardly anyone did. One bloke who did was immediately rewarded with a portable TV – a second got a stereo system. The crowd started to get interested. A third person got a digital camera. ‘Who else will trust me with a tenner?’ shouted the bloke. Several dozen tenners were shoved at him and collected by his helper. Each person got a big package. Inside they found a pen or a minature radio, retailing for about £1. The bloke disappeared inside his van and a couple of bouncers made sure nobody complained too much.

This happened several times each Sunday, week after week, month after month. The people who got the ‘good stuff’ were all working for the guy in the van. He was raking in the cash. He’s now retired to somewhere sunny.

How did he do it? Well he certainly had the ‘gift of the gab’ all right, but that wasn’t it. He knew the basics of people’s personalities. Looking around at the people throwing away their tenners, they weren’t all ‘knuckle-dragging low-lifes’ – most of them were perfectly normal members of the public. What the guy in the van knew was that people would suspend disbelief in an attempt to get a bargain. Those people wanted to believe this wasn’t a scam. They wanted to believe they’d stumbled on something special, where they were going to get a £150 TV for a tenner.
I found the whole thing very entertaining and watched it regularly. I quite missed the guy when he left. He once said to me ‘ you’ll never go bust if you appeal to the stupid side of people’s natures.’

And he was absolutely right. Just look at the thousands of religious cults that are thriving all over the world. Look at the Indian caste system. Look at people buying lottery tickets every week. Look at the conspiracy theorists. Whoops.

Let’s have a look at the 9 / 11 conspiracy theory. Broadly speaking, this is what they reckon happened:

The US govt or it’s agents decided to carry out a massacre of it’s own citizens, for reasons best known to itself. It ‘dummied up’ several cruise-type missiles to look incredibly like passenger airliners and sent them, at different times, to three high-profile targets. The first one hit the north tower of the World Trade Centre at 8.46am – only one film had been released of it striking the building. The second one hit the south tower at 9.02am and was filmed by literally hundreds of cameras from various angles. The third one hit the Pentagon and caused a relatively small amount of damage. The two towers collapsed, due to controlled explosions in the lower floors. A third building WTC7, collapsed later that afternoon. A fourth missile, also looking very like an airliner was shot down over a field by US fighter jets. The End.

The gaping hole in all the above is two-fold. Firstly, there’s no evidence that this was anything other than a highly successful terrorist attack. Secondly, there’s absolutely no motive for the US administration to have done this.

Was it an isolated incident?
In terms of scale (so far) yes. But Al-Qaeda had already carried out several attacks on US interests and have carried out others since, equally as barbaric (7/7, Bali, Madrid), just smaller in scale.

Did Al-Qaeda have motive?
Yes. They have shown themselves more than willing to carry out suicide bombings before and since. They hate US foreign policy on Israel & the Middle East. They regard the US as a corrupt, aggressive super-power and would be happy to destroy it.
The hijackers mainly came from Saudi Arabia, where extreme Muslims regard the presence of US troops on Saudi soil, particularly female ones, as an insult to Islam and against the teachings of the Koran.

Did the US administration have motive?
Hardly. Since 9 / 11 they have attacked and invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. Neither aggression required 9 / 11 to be carried out. Neither have gained the US anything. They have in fact weakened it.

Carrying out the crazy scenario detailed above would have required incredible ingenuity, technical compotence, imagination and risk, all in front of the world’s media & the biggest audience ever. To achieve what? You tell me.

But the conspiracy theory makes for good fun reading, particularly in the US where it was a shock to many citizens to discover that the rest of the world actually existed, never mind could successfully attack them. The US is an insular state and many seek insular solutions.

The conspiracy idea, when looked at carefully, is every bit as much of a joke as the idea of people handing over their hard-earned tenners to a market trader in exchange for a 50p biro pen.

1980s Music

2006-10-12T09:54:00.000-07:00

OK call me an old fart. And I'm sure you will. But back in the 1980s, music was important.

Take 1981. There were three TV channels -- BBC1 which featured the Two Ronnies, the 9 o'clock News and the test card, BBC2 which featured the Open University and ITV which featured Coronation Street and lots of adverts.
Not even the most imaginative sci-fi writer had thought of the internet, computer games consisted of a ball pinging round a screen and pocket calculators were hi-tech and expensive. So expensive in fact that my dad paid £16.00 for mine one Christmas, and so hi-tech that Kraftwerk wrote a song about them.

In short, there was nothing to do. So when The Jam or Motorhead released a new single, it was genuinely exciting. And when Shakin' Stevens or Bucks Fizz released one, it wasn't.

There was nothing to beat the thrill of trekking to your local record shop and forking out £1.10 for your own personal choice of 7" single., complete with full colour picture sleeve, and (if you were really lucky) coloured vinyl. Then off home to play it to death, check out the B-Side, and wonder if the LP might be any good.

Nowadays of course, everyone under 25 downloads their music or copies it from their mate's CD in 60 seconds. Blank CDs retail for about 20p and when you're sick of the music on it, you throw it in the bin and forget about it.

In the 80s, 'home taping was killing music.' Actually it wasn't. You taped your mate's LP, wrote the track-listing on a crappy little inlay card and more often than not ended up buying the LP anyway.

But was music actually better in 1981? OK you had the New Romantics, Synth-Pop, The Jam, David Bowie's last decent year and some good quirky indie singles, but was it really any better than the Arctic Monkeys and the Scissor Sisters? Well no probably not, but the difference is that it was cherished. Balding blokes in their 40s still cherish their record collections, but kids nowadays just see it as downloading data and having a temporary background noise. And even when you look at the physical format of the CD, the supermarkets have turned them into baked beans. All the little record shops are closing, hit by downloading, copying, online sales and Tesco's selling chart product at below wholesale price.

But against all this, vinyl is making a comeback. Yes vinyl! That stuff that was declared dead and buried 15 years ago. Check E:Bay if you don't believe me. CDs that barely fetch a fiver are fetching over £30 for their vinyl equivalent. Why?

It's simple. The vinyl LP is a 'proper product'. It can't be downloaded or easily copied. It's a great big chunk of 'something' in your hands -- something that is both pleasant on the eye and the ear. Look at artistic LP covers like Genesis 'A Trick Of The Tail' or ELPs 'Brain Salad Surgery'. On CD they looked like postage stamps, on LP they were a work of art.

And the LP has that 'hands-on' feel to it. Rather than clicking a mouse or watching your CD disappear into a tray, the LP has to be manually cued, and turned over halfway through. And of course there's the whole 'warmth of sound' debate too.

So in some ways, the past is coming back. Kids are actually seeking out vinyl (sometimes by new artists, sometimes by old) and getting a kick out of owning real physical product. What this means for the future of the CD is of course less clear.

But one thing IS clear -- people of all ages still want music, and there's still room for all formats. Well apart from the 8 track cartridge. Whatever that was.

Are Religious People 'Crazy?'

2006-10-12T08:59:00.000-07:00

I formulated this reply in response to a question asked by one of the contributors on the 'Slugger O'Toole' blog.

Sadly I have had considerable experience of religious people down the years, and I can broadly group them in three sections:

1. The ‘learned it by rote’ brigade. Brought up with it, went to school with it. It’s second nature and not something you question or rave about. It’s just there. On the surface this group are fairly harmless. Many will refer to themselves as being ‘lapsed’. Underneath they’re deeply tribalist and feel that any attack on their faith is a personal attack on them. Whether or not they are regular attenders at mass, church or mosque, they remain indelibly stamped with their tribal marking.

2. The ‘late convert’ brigade. These people have generally had little or no experience of religion in their formative years, but ‘discover’ religious faith later in life through marriage, peer group or a life-changing event. They tend to over-compensate for their ‘former life’ by seeking to convert everyone in sight to their exciting new findings. This group tends to be more suggestible to extreme ideas.

3. The complete fanatic. Driven by an insatiable urge to ‘live’ their faith, these people are often relatively normal on first meeting, but tend to be obsessive to the point of mania in matters of religion. They refuse to acknowledge any other viewpoint, see their holy book as being infallible and impose their particular ‘moral code’ on their immediate family and anyone else within their sphere of influence. In my opinion, they represent the ultimate, perhaps logical conclusion of that strange phenomenon called religious belief.

Whether all religious people are ‘crazy’ is a highly debatable point. Having had regular experience of an individual with acute paranoid schziophrenia, I was struck by the similarities of the more bizarre psychological aspects of their condition with the unquestioning spiritual ideas of the religious. Obviously this is itself proves nothing, but several scientific studies have suggested that religious experiences can be induced by manipulating various parts of the brain, as indeed of course can mind-altering drugs.

None of this is intended to suggest that all religious people are ‘crazy’, but it is rather puzzling that ‘miracles’, prophets and intense religious experiences such as documented visions have almost entirely ceased since the early centuries AD. It must be remembered that a vivid dream in biblical times could be interpreted as a vision from God, a natural phenomenon such as a flood or earthquake was considered to be aimed at ‘sinful’ mankind rather than being a random occurence and that organised religion was a highly effective tool in controlling an often lawless and volatile population with promise of cake tomorrow for good behaviour today.

Rather like alcohol, religious belief is relatively harmless and can even be beneficial in small doses. However, when it begins to seep into government, schools and hospitals and forms itself into a world-view, as in violent Islam or fundamentalist Christianity, it becomes a malevolence that is closed to reason.

In my view, it is the duty of government to ensure that all religious belief is kept well away from the statute book, and that men, women and sexual minorities are given equal standing in all matters. Children should be allowed to be children, and the classroom is not the place for dispensing one-sided religious dogma. If the chosen ‘faith’ of the parents is really as strong as their church leaders would contend, there is nothing to be lost in providing all children with a well-rounded secular education and allowing them to experience religious ‘instruction’ outside school premises.

New England Goalkeeper Following Croatian Result

2006-10-12T08:48:00.000-07:00

England have announced the identity of their new goalkeeper for future fixtures. The challenging position has been awarded to a large cardboard box. Apparently the box has proved immensely successful in recent training sessions. It's secret is the ability to blow unpredictably across the goal mouth and has saved every shot that the best English strikers, plus Wayne Rooney, have tested it with.Manager Steve McLaren revealed that of 20 penalty shots from the English strikers, 10 had gone over the bar, 6 had gone wide, 3 had hit the post and the one on target was saved by the cardboard box 'no problem.'He refused to comment on reports that the original proto-type had been destroyed by Wayne Rooney when he lost his temper after failing to get anything past the box. 'Wayne very rarely gets anything into the box, never mind past it' said Stephen Gerrard, who wished to remain anonymous.FIFA have welcomed the move, pointing out that it will save a fortune in wages, make the game more competitive, and stop people complaining that there are too many foreigners in the premiership. 'We're using a Bovril box made in England' revealed McLaren, 'and the added bonus is that I'll be able to sleep in it when I get sacked next week.'FIFA also revealed that the box will have more charisma than the rest of the team put together and that there is no way for a ball to run over the boxes foot and into the goal, as 'boxes don't have feet.'In a seperate move, we can reveal that the application for the entire England team to join Northern Ireland has been turned down. 'None of them are good enough' said manager Lawrie Sanchez. 'If any of them played for Hartlepool reserves like our lads, we might consider it, but they're all in poncy clubs like Man U.'England's crisis deepened as David Beckham ruled out a return to the squad, revealing that his tears in the final world cup match against Portugal had been because 'I broke a nail' and 'one of those foreigners stood on my toe. I'm not going back never never never.'Former manager Sven Goran-Erikkson, speaking from his palace in the south of France, confirmed that the team's problem was 'they were a bunch of wimps and mummy's boys, not hard and street-tough like me.'England's next fixture is against San Marino reserves. Steve McLaren warned the nation that they should 'brace themselves for a heavy defeat.' The cardboard box was unavailable for comment as it was 'getting it's hair done.'