So another huge bricks and mortar chain goes bust, this time Toys R Us, or at least their UK operation. Around 106 stores look set to close within weeks, with a loss of over 3000 jobs.

So what happened? Well it looks like many different reasons, all fairly predictable in hindsight.

Toys R Us landed in the UK in 1985, scything the competition, including many small independent shops which simply couldn't compete with Toys R Us huge stores and buying power. And for about 15 years, their business model reigned pretty much supreme. The famous TV advert was rolled out every Christmas and thousands flocked to the giant stores, packed full of the latest, the strangest and the most classic toys. Many left with trollies full of purchases and it looked like the success would never end.

But around 2005, things began to change. The chain loaded itself with debt thanks to private equity companies and rivals such as Smyths and The Entertainer began to muscle in on their market. But much worse was the steady march of the internet, particularly a site called Amazon. It grew slowly at first, but by 2009 or so, people were beginning to shop seriously online. After this year, Toys R Us only turned a profit once more in the UK.

Rather than taking drastic action, the chain stood still. Their stores looked exactly the same as they had in the 80s and 90s, basically giant sheds with lots of toys, but no edge, no welcome and ultimately no hope. Debts mounted, rivals improved and Amazon boomed, yet Toys R Us stayed the same.

By 2017, things were critical. Too late, they experimented with smaller shops in more central locations. These seemed to work and began to outperform the out of town sheds. But the debt pile was too great and the recovery too small. The parent US company filed for bankruptcy in October 2017, while a rescue plan around the same time in the UK seemingly bought some breathing space. 26 stores were earmarked for closure and began running down. There was however hope for the rest.

But Christmas trading was bleak, down 9% on the previous year and a huge VAT bill was looming. Frantic attempts to find a buyer failed and on the last day of February 2018, faced with an impossible VAT bill of £15 million, the company admitted defeat and went into administration.

As of now, every store is having a closing down sale. I went to ours last night. The darkness and pouring rain were all too appropriate. The store had barely changed since my last visit several years ago. Perhaps a dozen people were half heartedly browsing and a few downcast staff milled around. The sale featured reductions of 20, 25 or at most 30%, even then probably still dearer than Amazon. I walked around and out again in less than five minutes, the 'see you soon' sign at the exit unbearably poignant.

It's always sad to see a shop closing, most of all for the staff, but there's something particularly heartbreaking about a toy shop. Even a soulless commercial enterprise like this one. It represents so many childhoods, so many memories. Even the TV ad will be sadly missed at Christmas.

Could things have been different? Undoubtedly yes. Less complacency, less debt, more and faster downsizing, more interactive customer experience. And yet these things may have only delayed the inevitable.

The public are changing. They don't shop as much. They don't hoard as much. They still buy but increasingly online. They need reasons to go out shopping. Cold warehouses, depressed staff, high prices and in many cases parking charges, all put people off. Why bother when a few clicks can see things delivered to your door the next day?

So can the high street survive? So many shops and chains are struggling under huge rents, huge council tax, increasing wages and overheads, all in the uncertain shadow of Brexit. Add to that cumbersome debts and the unstoppable power of the internet and the future looks bleak. Will physical shopping be something that parents tell their future kids about? A footnote in modern history? I certainly hope not.

Creationists at it again

In Belfast this week we're 'lucky' enough to have 'Creation Worldview Ministries' holding a seminar. Here's their opening blurb:

''At Creation Worldview Ministries we reintroduce fact and perspective into debates which have been dominated by pseudoscience and, thus, help to improve public understanding of the Bible's incredibly accurate perspective on the origins and history of our world.

In pursuit of this goal, Creation Worldview Ministries seeks to:
•Provide worldwide biblical and scientific seminars, university lectures, books, DVDs and CDs concerning the truths of biblical foundations, especially Biblical Scientific Creationism.

•Be a part of the revitalization of classical Christian intellectual activity for the preservation, promotion and propagation of a Christian Biblical Worldview.

• Expose the claims of junk, consensus and imaginary science.

•Be watchful for genuine discoveries which contribute to our greater understanding of our origins.

•Avoid herd-instinct science.''

'Herd-instinct' A term which could certainly never be levelled at religion of course.

'Pseudoscience' Yes indeed, how could the overwhelming consensus of the group who brought us air travel, heart transplants and the internet possibly compete with the writings of some anonymous goat herders who lived over 2000 years ago? How could the evidence of millions of fossils possibly trump the idea that the earth was made in a week by a big man in the sky?

'help to improve public understanding of the Bible's incredibly accurate perspective on the origins and history of our world.'

Erm accurate where exactly? Up until fairly recently, it was regarded by the Christian church as heretical to even suggest that the world wasn't flat or that the sun didn't revolve around our planet. The creation account(s) in Genesis are hugely vague and wonderfully fanciful, as befits all creation myths.

But the thing that really gets me is the way these creationists are more than happy to fly in a plane, recieve surgery or advertise their meetings on the internet. All these things and thousands more are the results of science, a discipline which, up to a century or so ago, was deliberately held back in many hugely important areas, by the church. Now that it's been allowed to improve and enrich our existence, science is just fine and dandy with creationists -- until it inconveniently challenges their myths.

Stupid Drunks

OK so I'm going to have a rant here because if I expressed this opinion on my Facebook page, I'd probably lose three quarters of my 'friends.'

Alcohol is a fact of life and has been for millenia. And like chocolate, big macs and Indian takeways, in moderation it's fine. But it isn't fine to eat three tins of Quality Street, throw up, eat some more, then boast about it the next day. Anyone listening would likely diagnose bulimia and advise you to get down to the doctors asap. But do the same with alcohol and you'll likely recieve the equivalent of a round of applause.

OK we all (myself included) did some binge drinking in our teens, but isn't it something like spots that you're supposed to grow out of? But instead of being encouraged to grow up, friends, work colleagues and even relatives are more likely to encourage you to keep getting pissed and falling over as if it were some kind of skillful achievement.

Why is this? And why is it largely confined to the British Isles? Why do the Brits and the Irish have to act like toddlers around alcohol? How come you can go to mainland Europe and see the locals having a civilised glass of wine with their meal and a beer in a roadside cafe? Beats me.

And why am I supposed to humour people on Facebook boasting about how hungover they are, how much they drank last night and how they're never going to do it again. Until next weekend.

So the A&Es continue to be clogged with drunken arseholes who have fallen over, the pavements continue to be covered with cans and vomit and the police continue to have to deal with stupid drunks acting like two year olds. And now the government is having to introduce a minimum price for alcohol because our nation of neandethals can't control themselves. It's sad. But there you go. Rant over.

Love & Aspergers

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.'

Florence & The Machine Belfast

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

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

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

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

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?

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

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

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

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

X-Factor

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

OMD / Simple Minds Odyssey Belfast

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

Little Boots in Belfast

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

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.