It Was 20 Years Ago...

The interesting thing about tidying up the house is that some things show up that had long been forgotten about. In my wardrobe draw, full of old pairs of spectacles and a broken watch, were some envelopes containing photos from a few years ago. One, in particular, caught my attention. It was from the Liverpool based photo processors, Max Spielmann. Inside were photos that I took at Anfield on 28th April 1990. The match was not the most memorable - it was a 2-1 victory against QPR. However, it was notable in that it clinched the league title for a record 18th time. Little was I to know, but that would be the last time that Liverpool would win the league for at least 20 years.

I had moved away from Liverpool a few years earlier and I didn't manage to get to that many games - for any club. I worked in Newcastle and would occasionally go to St James Park - or occasionally to my friend's flat whose high rise apartment overlooked the pitch. I had caught Liverpool at Roker Park when they were playing Sunderland and managed to get odd tickets from my uncle who was a season ticket holder at Anfield. The QPR match was one such occasion and I took the opportunity to try out a compact Pentax camera which I had recently bought. The ticket was for the main stand towards the Anfield Road end. As you can see from the pictures, the Kemlyn Road stand had yet to be extended.

Liverpool played towards the Kop in the first half with Ian Rush grabbing a goal in front of the still all-standing Kop, cancelling out an earlier QPR goal. I recall that many fans were half-listening to transistor radios as the title also depended on the result of Aston Villa who were playing at the same time. At 1-1 the title could have gone either way when a penalty was awarded to Liverpool at the Anfield Road end. John Barnes stepped up to take the shot and I waited, camera in hand, to click at the precise moment. Barnes scored, sending the keeper (David Seaman, I think) the wrong way, although in my picture it looks like it was going wide! That was the goal that clinched the title - captured at the exact moment the ball was about to cross the line. It was the end of a remarkably successful period for the Reds which stretched back to the mid 1970's. No-one could have imagined that, 20 years on, we would still be waiting for a 19th title.

I took a few pictures of the celebrations - this is probably the best but still shows up the limitations of the little 35mm camera. I have often thought that the game has moved away from the community in recent years. The current Liverpool side has only two regular local players, Gerrard and Carragher, with the rest being drawn from far and wide, often with unpronounceable names, but it wasn't that much different then. Of the 13 players who took part, only two were what I would regard as local and within the clubs natural catchment area: Rush, from Flint, and McMahon, from the city itself. There were 3 English players in addition to McMahon: Burrows, Venison and Barnes (a Jamaican-born England international); 4 Scots: Nicol, Hansen, Gillespie and Houghton (although playing internationally for Ireland); 2 Scandinavians: Molby and Hysen; an Israeli, Rosenthal; and Zimbabwean, Grobbelaar.

It's difficult to say why Liverpool have failed to win the title since. Money to compete with other clubs has certainly has been an issue but there has been more money spent on players in the last 10 years than during the rest of the club's history - even if they haven't been able to play Fantasy Football with real players. They have come close to the title on a couple of occasions although this season has been a horrible disappointment from day one. Maybe that is a matter of expectation as Fulham have had a similar season and the fans seem delighted with their performance. The joint chairmanship of the last few years hasn't helped but the current financial uncertainty is making things worse. As I write the club are still in the Europa League so they could salvage something for the fans. However, it is uncertain as to how many of the star players and coaching staff will be around for next season.

If new owners can have some kind of long term plan then I can see a upturn in fortunes for the club - they just have to remember that there are 45,000 people in the stadium each week who would gladly put on that red shirt for free.

BBC Apologise

Apparently, the BBC have apologised for the Norton promo last night. The BBC often promotes programmes in this way but the corporation has acknowledged that in this case the scheduling was inappropriate.

Fair enough. Now they just have to fix the awful new title music:

The Time of Norton

Well that's more like it! Weeping Angels, River Song, an opening sequence that was straight out of classic James Bond and possibly the most intensely claustrophobic episode of Who since it's 1970's heyday. And what do the fan forums say about it - apparently they were livid about the appearance of Graham Norton. Did I miss something? I checked my recording and apparently I did - for once one of those "Except for viewers in Scotland" items appears to have gone my way. What I did miss was this:



That's pretty appalling. I'm sick of these things on Channel Five but they are a minority commercial channel so I do appreciate that they have to fight for their audience to make a profit - and at least they have far fewer adverts than German parent channel RTL. But I pay a TV licence and surely this means that the BBC can stand aloof of such tacky items and, moreover, show some respect for both their audience and programme makers. Charlie Brooker's take on it was "Why don’t the BBC just wipe s*** all over the screen during the final scene of Dr. Who next week?" Fair comment.

Anyway, I'll reserve judgement on The Time of Angels two parter until next week but this has been my favourite of the series so far. The musical score was still too loud but the pacing was far better than last week's Dalek wizzathon. Steven Moffat has drawn on the best bits from his Blink and Silence in the Library episodes and created something altogether more urgent and threatening. However, I think the tone is about right as Raymond loved it and claimed not to be too frightened - he went to bed with the lights off so I think that was fair enough. I did have to briefly explain quantum uncertainty to Nina but aside from that I think she loved it too. Although, given a staring contest between a stone statue and Amy Pond, my money would be on the Scottish redhead every time.

So a good end to a rather mixed week, what with dead freezers and sorting through old photos - but more of that later...

What A Pity They Can't All Lose

It's General Election time and so far I have six candidates. I have yet to decide which is the least objectionable of them. The seat, Stirling, is currently held by Labour and is being presented as a Labour-Conservative two horse race (despite the fact that the SNP won it at Holyrood). The problem is that I don't want either of them.

The Labour Party's abandonment of the ordinary working people is bad enough but I don't even like the incumbent MP. Over the past few years I have written to her twice - one letter was ignored and the other was replied to with a glib stating of the party line after the vote had been done and dusted. That's not representation - I don't expect an MP to change their views as such but I expect a reasoned response and not just plain cowardice. Why on Earth would I want some lobby fodder as my local MP? There are a few good guys left in the Labour party but they are largely ignored by the leadership or regarded as an annoyance. I'm not that fussed on Gordon Brown either but he did go up somewhat in my estimation when I discovered that he wrote, personally, to the families of dead servicemen. However, I think he has been in power too long - he won't admit to past mistakes and there are too many that need fixing. The other thing is whether he will remain as leader. This is the party that elected Harriet Harman as deputy leader - an unashamed, wailing misandronist and quite possibly the worst person in the country.

I have never voted Conservative although there are Conservative MP's whose views I value - even if I don't agree with them. Unfortunately, none of them are in the running for high office. I dislike Cameron. It's not just that he has one of those faces that you could punch repeatedly but he reminds me of Tony Blair which does him no favours. Is he going to turn out to be a brown paper bag merchant or a mass killer? His opponents are using the "toff" card against him but, as far as I am concerned, his family and upbringing should have no baring on whether he is fit to lead the country. What worries me is who is pulling his strings. I don't think he, or any other candidate, is telling the truth about what they will do. I am convinced that the VAT rate will go up regardless of who gets in but I'd have more respect for them if they were honest before hand. What really worries me is what damage he could do to the fabric of this country. Murdoch's papers (and others) are supporting him and they will want their pound of flesh. I suspect this will be to destroy the BBC and damage any publicly funded arts to allow a private, monopolistic media shitefest.

Away from the big two we have the SNP. They have been in charge at Holyrood for a while now and they have made a reasonably decent stab at government. Not that they have done everything to my taste but they have been generally honest (as far as I can tell) and have tried to promote their particular brand of civic nationalism. The problem with Westminster is it is a parliament that they don't fundamentally believe in. They may be able to get a few concessions from the main parties but, as they (rightly) refuse to vote on English-only matters, I can't see them being first choice for a coalition partner. I could also see them being bought quite cheaply by the offer of an independence vote. Maybe that would be no bad thing but I'd rather have a more positive representation for my MP. Having said that, the SNP probably have most chance of stopping the other two getting in.

The Liberals always seem to make a habit of offering an inoffensive middle ground. I'm not entirely against that as most things are best in moderation. I think I voted for them in 2005 - mainly because I liked the ginger bloke. Unfortunately, he is ancient history now. I was actually surprised by the latest incumbent, Nick Clegg. He came across as quite eloquent on the TV debate, although I don't think I would recognise him if I saw him in the street. I do like Vince Cable - he is actually my brother's constituency MP and is a good stick by all accounts. Whether he would be given a ministerial role is another matter but he does seem to be reasonably well respected. Unfortunately, with our first past the post system I feel a Lib Dem vote here would be pissing in the wind. At least it would be more constructive than just writing "none of the above" on the voting slip.

There are two other candidates. The Greens always appeal to me on a certain level until I see their policies. They should be the one party that is guided by logical and scientific principles but they have dogmatic lines on things like GM foods, organic farming, nuclear power and so on. They have an image of being sandal-wearing, beardy-weirdy hippies and I think the image is probably justly earned. The other party standing are UKIP who would like to present themselves as progressive civic nationalists. Unfortunately, after Nigel Farage's display in the European Parliament, I have a feeling that they are much more xenophobic than they would publicly have us believe. His ad hominem attack on Herman Van Rompuy and description of Belgium as a "non-country" were just beyond the pale. I really don't want an embarrassment like that representing this country.

So that's the miserable choice I'm left with. I don't believe in not voting as it sends the wrong message to the shysters. I suppose I'm hoping for a hung parliament. However, I believe that rather than "hung" a wicker man would provide much more entertainment.

Victory of the Daleks

After 45 minutes of Victory of the Daleks my first reaction was "What the Hell was THAT?" I ended up watching it again this morning, mainly as the recorder had cocked up and failed to record CSI, and it is actually much better than I thought although I'm still left with two major annoyances.

There have been many attempts to build a science fiction story around World War II. Usually, this involves a cunning Nazi plot to build a super-weapon by utilising some supernatural force or a secret Nazi technology involving space rockets or delta winged stealth planes - some of these even have a basis in fact. However, Mark Gattis has chosen none other than Churchill to be the prime mover for extra-terrestrial technology. I've enjoyed Gattis's previous stories for Who although his one acting stint in the show was dire - not his fault, mind, it was just an awful script. For this story he has gone for the old trick of plundering a 1960's story, The Power of the Daleks, and throwing in a couple of other ideas - but more of that later.

The problem with the Daleks is that they are remarkably one dimensional. They hate everyone, want to take over the universe and enjoy exterminating every other living thing in the process. That's it. To make a Dalek story interesting it needs to involve character development of the regular cast and the plot kept simple. Since the series returned this was most effective in the story Dalek with Christopher Eccleston's Doctor somewhat losing it in the face of a single, stranded, lone Dalek. For the first 10 minutes of Victory Matt Smith really kept up with this - and then it all went a bit bonkers.

In fact, this is where it got much better with the second viewing and it proved my two annoyances. Firstly, there was far too much happening in this episode. This could have been a nicely paced two parter allowing the story to unfold at an even stride and to let the major plot devices establish themselves before the next crash-bang-whollop. Secondly, the sound mix was back to RTD overkill with needless musical score drowning out the actors' words. Amongst this the Daleks were cunningly tricking The Doctor into triggering the Daleks' regeneration into Technicolor pepper pots that reminded me more than ever of the old Peter Cushing Dalek films and reminded Nina that they can now sell five times as many Dalek toys.

I thought the sub-plot involving Bill Patterson's character would have made a great episode in itself. This had more than a little similarity to Philip K Dick's story Impostor which was later turned into a mostly forgotten but still worth seeing film staring Gary Sinise. In fact, like The Next Doctor's David Morrissey, this was a much more interesting idea. I also noticed various homages to other science fiction works including the attack on the alien saucer from Independence Day and a wholloping great take on Dan Dare with the space going Spitfires - even the lead pilot was called Danny Boy although that may have been for a Where Eagles Dare reference. Mind you, what were the propellers doing outside the atmosphere?

One mention should go to the set of the War Rooms, which were ably recreated, not in London, but actually in my old university building in Cardiff. It looks like they have repainted it since I managed to blow up one of the laboratories although that may have been done for the show. They didn't show the library which is just as well as the librarian was a bit of an old dragon and I still have a book on quantum mechanics which is nearly 25 years overdue.

Raymond enjoyed the episode and I think using iconic villains like the Daleks does draw the younger viewer in, but he did notice the crack in time at the end and picked up on the fact that Amy did not know what a Dalek is. These story arc items have been fairly heavily signposted in this series which I think may do well in engaging the younger or more casual viewer. Nina also noticed that there have been prominently displayed Union flags throughout the series. Whether this is coincidence or not remains to be seen. We also had the customary Scottish reference. I had wondered whether an English audience would get the Scottish humour and, judging by David Baddiel's comments on Charlie Brooker's show, I'm not sure that they do.

However, I think Matt Smith has definitely established himself as The Doctor for me now. There are elements of the other actors in there but he has a style of his own which, on occasion, can be decidedly camp. The "Don't mess with me sweetheart" comment to the Dalek was classic - it's almost what I would imagine a Johnny Depp Doctor would be like. Nina still thinks he is a bit ugly but, following the Easter Island comment on Brooker's show, she thinks there may be a decent Who story to explain how those statues got there.

Anyway, next week it's a Steven Moffat two parter with Weeping Angels and River Song. I'm looking forward to it - as long as they take their time and turn the bloody orchestra down.

Billions and Billions

I've just finished reading Billions and Billions - Carl Sagan's last book before he died from myelodysplasia. It is a collection of essays written in three sections. The first is the wonder of numbers and reminded me of his TV series Cosmos from which the title is taken - except it wasn't. US TV host Johnny Carson had an ongoing skit in which he would mimic Sagan's unique emphasis of the word "billions" with the phrase "Billions and Billions". Sagan never said it, but the public associated him with the phrase - this book's title is a homage to that particular misappropriated catchphrase. As well as chapters on the awe inspiring magnitude of the universe, one interesting essay, entitled "Monday Night Hunters", suggests a hypothesis that sports fans are following an evolutionary urge to be part of the tribe by following the hunt - even though they take no part in it. It's an interesting idea and one that might explain the hoards of glory hunting football fans.

The second set of essays tackle the environment - particularly the issues of ozone depletion and global warming. In the thirteen years since the book was published ozone has come to be seen as less of an issue, partly due to the success of the Montréal accord, which would have pleased Sagan as an example of mankind getting it right. However, the plight of greenhouse gas emissions is probably worse then he could have imagined and it is surprising how many of his predictions have come to pass. He also mentions the risk of global nuclear warfare. This has probably lessened although the risk of individual weapons being used has, no doubt, increased. Sagan was at the forefront of the concept of a Nuclear Winter so this fear must have remained with him to the end.

The third section contains essays on social issues, world peace and a very well written chapter on abortion - where he tries to use scientific rationale to inform the debate from both a Pro-Life and Pro-Choice perspective. It's quite illuminating in it's own right and worth reading even if the rest of the book doesn't appeal. However, the third section of the book is rather disjointed with some earlier essays being reiterated and some old newspaper articles being reproduced - including an illuminating essay which appeared in both US and Soviet magazines. However, his last essay, "In the Valley of the Shadow", is very personal and proves both inspirational and heart-breaking as Sagan muses on his own mortality and struggle with illness. Written from a humanist perspective it is a wake up call to those who suggest that there are no atheists in foxholes.

The book closes with a chapter written by Carl's wife, Ann Druyan, after his death and closes the circle of essays. It is, understandably, somewhat mixed in places but Billions and Billions is a great read and a good introduction to the work of one of the 20th Centuries most popular science writers.

The Beast Below

Week two of Matt Smith's Doctor and I think I'm liking him more. He's definitely his own man but I think I can spot his liking for Patrick Troughton - there's something of the mad genius about him. I also feel there is more of a hint of HG Wells' time traveller to the character - no bad thing in my book. Amy Pond is growing on me as well. Last week we were being introduced to the characters but now I feel we know a little more about them and how they will react.

I had heard very little about this episode before hand and I was a little worried that it may be a bit on the scary side for the kids. I needn't have worried, it was perfectly family friendly fare and Raymond loved it, as ever. On the face of it this was a rather slight story and followed phase two of the Russell T Davies plan for introducing new characters - a romp in the modern day, off to the far future and then a historical episode. However, I did feel that this was much more like a 1980's Who than RTD silliness. I'm not sure whether that is a good thing or not - there was a period just after Colin Baker took over the lead that there were some appalling scripts. At least I couldn't accuse Moffat of that - the story did make sense and the timing with the General Election was priceless.

There seemed to be many homages to other Sci-Fi and Fantasy works here. Amy in her nightie was very Arthur Dent, various Star Wars references - the beast in the asteroid, Leah's message to Obiwan, falling into the garbage chute - and the Space Whale was more Pratchett than Pratchett. Another ongoing theme of this series is the Scottish references. I think this is maybe the new "gay agenda" but I do wonder if the largely English audience for Doctor Who would get the self-deprecating humour - I'd hope so.

One thing that has occurred to me about Steven Moffat's writing is that he doesn't do evil, as such. His alien characters may have their own agenda but they aren't wicked for the sake of it. In fact, he can make his alien presence entirely benevolent, such as the Star Whale or The Empty Child, whilst giving the impression that they are an immediate threat to mankind whereas the real menace is the human race itself. This is quite a pleasing trend as it is lazy to reduce Sci-Fi to goodies vs. baddies with rockets and lasers. I have also noticed that Moffat writes beautifully for children. Child actors often come across as precocious, mainly because they have been written as if they were adults, but Moffat's children are really natural. I'm assuming that he looks to his own kids for inspiration.

So, overall a highly enjoyable evenings entertainment, although maybe not quite as memorable as episode one. The Daleks are back next week, which should prove interesting - let's hope so as they have been pretty lame since Christopher Eccleston's last sparring with them.

Swimming

I used to go swimming regularly. When I lived in Glasgow my flat was right next to a swimming pool and I would go swimming every morning before going to work. As a bonus, the water and showers were a damn sight more hygienic than those in the tenement block I lived in. It also kept me really fit. When I moved away I was lucky enough to have a gym at my workplace. That also kept me fit and managed to get me away from my desk at lunchtime. Now I've moved office again and don't have any such luxuries so I thought it would be a good idea to go swimming on my way home.

My father was a very keen swimmer and he encouraged us to all learn to swim at a young age. We would go along to a swimming club at the Guinea Gap swimming pool which was quite unusual for an indoor swimming pool in that is was a saltwater pool. At the time, there was one major international hero of the swimming world, American swimmer Mark Spitz, who had won an incredible seven gold medals at the Munich Olympics. I can distinctly recall Mark appearing in the Guinness book of records will all seven medals hanging around his remarkably toned body.

The one thing I love about swimming is that it is a very low impact sport. It's difficult to injure oneself except, perhaps, by doing the butterfly - which is essentially just drowning at velocity. I tend to stick to a good pace of breaststroke, which nicely controls breathing rate, mixed with the odd lane of crawl which gets the heart going. However, the feeling I get when leaving the pool is an almost euphoric sense of lightness. It's wonderful. Somehow, I feel that splashing up and down the lanes for an hour has countered years of beer and curry abuse. I feel like I should have a wonderful toned physique like the youthful Mr Spitz himself.

Then I catch my reflection in the mirror next to the showers. That Mark Spitz has really let himself go.

Just What the Doctor Ordered

We've watched the first episode of the new Doctor Who and what do we think? Well, the general consensus seems to be that he's too young, looks a bit funny and no-one has ever heard of him. Also, I wasn't that fussed about the whole giant robot thing - it looks like Sarah Jane and the usual UNIT cast are merely coasting but I did like the Harry character. Oh, hang on, that was Tom Baker wasn't it. I know that when my Doctor, a somewhat sprightly white haired old man, changed into a younger quirkier version it took me a few episodes to like the new Doctor and this was the position we found ourselves in last night as my son, Raymond (age: 8), myself (age: middle) and wife, Nina (age: classified), settled down to watch the new series of Doctor Who.

The first episode of a new series is always hard to judge. More often than not, there are new characters to introduce and the story is usually a McGuffin to allow the new cast to establish themselves. This is something that Russell T Davies was very good at - so how would Steven Moffat cope? I think the answer is surprisingly well. The story in The Eleventh Hour was slight but it did stand out in it's own right. However, the whole feel of the show has shifted - not dramatically, but sufficiently to make it quite clear that a new crew is in charge.

First of all, there was the new title sequence. Visually, this is a progression of the time tunnel used for the last 5 years and is now suitably enhanced with lightening flashes and a blue tinge hinting at the classic 1970's opening titles. But what have they done to the title music? Delia Derbyshire's original musique concrète version from the 1960's still sounds other-worldly and Murray Gold's orchestral treatment of this for the last 5 years has been the closest anyone has come to match it. The new version sounds like a pale imitation of this - what were they thinking?

But on to the episode. The opening ten minutes were wonderful as our quirky new Doctor introduced himself to a young Amy - a fantastic performance from Caitlin Blackwood. Some great one-liners flew between the two as the Doctor tried to find something he liked the taste of, including the classic "You're Scottish, fry something!". That was about the most post-regeneration trauma we had from the Doctor - quite refreshing as, usually, he spends his first episode moping about feeling sorry for himself.

12 years on and Amy is now a kiss-o-gram. I wasn't quite sure whether I liked the character at first but we then discover that Amy has layers - a traumatised orphan haunted by the strange memory of The Raggedy Doctor and something unpleasant hiding behind the bedroom door. This is wonderful dark fairytale stuff. I noticed a quote from Steven Moffat saying that he wanted to aim for a Tim Burton feel to the show and I think he is achieving this - and no bad thing either. I also felt the setting of a quiet English village was harking back to the shows 70's heyday.

The monster itself was a rather derivative thing - part eel part Ridley Scott's Alien. However, I thought the alien Atraxi guard with it's enormous eye was a great piece of dark fantasy. Nina noticed that the whole plot had a strong nod towards Douglas Adams and I think there was a good deal borrowed from the first Hitchhiker's story. As ever, money was saved by having the monster morph into human (and canine) form but the muddling of the voices was a useful device to make this believable.

The supporting cast were of the highest quality, as ever, but I did think that Annette Crosbie and Olivia Coleman were criminally underused. It was nice to see Sir Patrick Moore getting a cameo appearance. I'm wondering if he has ever been on before - well, better late than never. I can't quite tell how Amy's extended family fit in. Jeff and Rory appear to have some romantic interest with her but I'm not sure whether Annette Crosbie is meant to be a relative (two Scots in the same village? I didn't think she was the Aunt.) This is one area where I think Russell T Davies may have done better.

So what of Matt Smith? First of all, panic over. He IS the Doctor. Whatever he did in his audition that made Steven Moffat take notice it was obviously the right choice. I had hoped for someone markedly different from David Tennant - I had my hopes up by the rumours that a much older man or a black actor had been cast in the role but I needn't have worried. Matt Smith is going to make this part his own. He is quirky but quite natural with it and, as he has been allowed to use his own accent, he can worry about just how he is going to portray this strange bizarre man that we all know and love.

Karen Gillan took a little longer to grow on me. I was so enchanted by Caitlin Blackwood that I was a little disappointed when the older Amy showed up. But there is more to the character and her performance than meets the eye. I was also pleased that they let Karen keep her Inverness accent. I thought Raymond would like this but I don't think he noticed that she had an accent - possibly given that it isn't a million miles away from his own she just sounds "normal" to him. I also approved of the short skirts that Karen was wearing but that's another story!

So, all in all I was delighted. Raymond says it was OK - it's still not his Doctor. Nina enjoyed the episode but thinks Matt is "a bit ugly". I'm sure he will grow on them. Doctor Who had started to become a bit stale over the last year so a new writer and a new cast is just what the Doctor ordered.