It’s now two and a half months until the Euro 2016 football championships kick off in France and it looks like the media frenzy building up the England football team has already started. This has followed the same pattern for much of the last 50 years since the England team actually won anything (which my Scottish compatriots will never hesitate to point out was due to home advantage and a dodgy linesman). This time they are buoyed by what was a very impressive friendly win Berlin against Germany (although also aided by a dodgy linesman) but for once I can understand the excitement but probably not for the same reasons.
The biggest problem that the England team seems to face is players who do not really want to play. These seem to come in two varieties: either they are always but *always* injured when it comes to an international friendly match that falls mid-season or they are fêted in the media as remarkable talents and expect to play and be picked whenever there is a match in the offing. The classic example of this was a few years ago when we were promised a golden generation of footballing talent. It turned out that this “golden generation” were, in fact, a bunch of egotistical journeymen who were constantly found wanting against even the most mediocre of opposition.
This is where I start to have a great deal of sympathy with a lot of my rugby and cricket loving friends. In these sports, playing for the national side is the absolute pinnacle of players’ careers and they would never treat an international match as a sideshow, irritation or merely a promotional vehicle for their media careers: at least they wouldn’t do that if they ever wanted to play for their country again. In the past week we have had the usual array of last minute injuries and withdrawals from the England football squad. What we were eventually left with was a fairly inexperienced team of players from the less fashionable clubs playing with absolute passion and joy for the chance to represent their national team against the reigning World champions in one of the world’s great sporting arenas. Regardless of the result it made for a fantastic spectacle for the armchair fan at home.
In a few weeks’ time the national coaches will have to pick their squads for the Euros and I hope that Roy Hodgson takes note. When he picks players who really want to be there when their country needs them rather than when it suits them they actually play rather well. Above all, they actually play as a team rather than a group of disparate prima donnas ambling around the pitch expecting the entire universe to revolve about their whims. From what I saw with England's victory last night there is ample enough talent to blow the last few golden cobwebs away.
Sunday, 27 March 2016
Monday, 21 March 2016
An Evening with Katy Manning
This week I was able to take my Doctor Who fandom on another trip around the country with tickets for a show in Liverpool’s St George’s Hall entitled “An Evening With Katy Manning”. As might be expected this featured the actress Katy Manning who played Jo Grant in the series alongside Jon Pertwee in the early 1970s. She was actually the Doctor’s assistant when I first watched the show so I was quite looking forward to the night and it turns out that she is quite the raconteur.
In true Jo Grant style she managed to make the entrance from the wrong door and proceeded to greet the waiting audience. As I was sitting at the end of the row, I received a rather big hug from her which I have to say was a rather nice surprise. I’ve seen quite a few shows over the years and I can safely say that I have never received a cuddle from the artist in question, although as I have previously seen one-man shows from the likes of Frankie Boyle and Jerry Sadowitz this is probably no bad thing. One of my friends suggested that I would never wash that shirt again although I can safely say that, as I later spilt beer on it, it is currently residing in the washing basket.
The format of the evening consisted of Katy telling a series of anecdotes from her life going back to her time in school hanging out with classmate Liza Minelli and also about her father, sports writer JL Manning who brought attention to the perils of doping in sport as far back as 1967 following the death of a rider in the Tour de France. Naturally, many of the anecdotes were about her time on Doctor Who but also related to her extreme myopia which lead both to comic accidents on set and also an incident on stage when she spent a scene talking to a standard lamp having mistaken it for her lead actor.
After meeting with fans during the interval the second part of the show consisted of questions from the audience as well as clips from her career, including her first TV appearance on “Softly, Softly”; a clip from an arts and crafts programme which she presented whilst trying to look enthusiastic about onion printing; and also a rather harrowing performance as a drug addict on the police drama series “Target” which demonstrates her real dramatic range and must be about as far removed from the ditzy Jo as one could imagine.
Overall, it was a highly enjoyable night in a stunning environment (Liverpool’s St George’s Hall is an architecturally astonishing building). I’ve seen a few similar shows to this, often at the Edinburgh festival, and I hope that Katy Manning considers this sort of thing again. She has both a warm and funny personality and her anecdotes are comic and engaging. And giving audience members a hug is always a bonus!
In true Jo Grant style she managed to make the entrance from the wrong door and proceeded to greet the waiting audience. As I was sitting at the end of the row, I received a rather big hug from her which I have to say was a rather nice surprise. I’ve seen quite a few shows over the years and I can safely say that I have never received a cuddle from the artist in question, although as I have previously seen one-man shows from the likes of Frankie Boyle and Jerry Sadowitz this is probably no bad thing. One of my friends suggested that I would never wash that shirt again although I can safely say that, as I later spilt beer on it, it is currently residing in the washing basket.
The format of the evening consisted of Katy telling a series of anecdotes from her life going back to her time in school hanging out with classmate Liza Minelli and also about her father, sports writer JL Manning who brought attention to the perils of doping in sport as far back as 1967 following the death of a rider in the Tour de France. Naturally, many of the anecdotes were about her time on Doctor Who but also related to her extreme myopia which lead both to comic accidents on set and also an incident on stage when she spent a scene talking to a standard lamp having mistaken it for her lead actor.
After meeting with fans during the interval the second part of the show consisted of questions from the audience as well as clips from her career, including her first TV appearance on “Softly, Softly”; a clip from an arts and crafts programme which she presented whilst trying to look enthusiastic about onion printing; and also a rather harrowing performance as a drug addict on the police drama series “Target” which demonstrates her real dramatic range and must be about as far removed from the ditzy Jo as one could imagine.
Overall, it was a highly enjoyable night in a stunning environment (Liverpool’s St George’s Hall is an architecturally astonishing building). I’ve seen a few similar shows to this, often at the Edinburgh festival, and I hope that Katy Manning considers this sort of thing again. She has both a warm and funny personality and her anecdotes are comic and engaging. And giving audience members a hug is always a bonus!
Sunday, 13 March 2016
Hair Do
I had the pleasure of taking my daughter along to the hair dressers yesterday. I’ve taken the boys on many occasions but then boys are easy. Our local barbers is run by a group of Turkish lads (although I think one of them is actually Syrian) and the only instruction required is to tell them a number from 1 to 6 and hair magically disappears. Hair dressing for women is a far more complicated affair with perms to make straight hair curly; straitening to make curly hair strait; various bleaches to make hair appear white and dyes to make it dark as well as a whole array of washing, drying and chemical treatments to render a natural head of hair into something resembling nylon. Essentially, women’s hairdressing involves buggering about.
I asked my daughter what she wanted and, being eight years old, she had a very good idea that she wanted her fringe cut so it didn’t get in her eyes when playing football. This seemed to be a fairly reasonable request but aside from that there was no indication as to what hair style she wanted. This doesn’t help me because as far as I am aware there are essentially three women’s hair styles: long, short and buggered about. I am aware that there have been some popular styles over the years such as Purdy from The Avengers, which was a sort of short hairstyle; the Rachel from Friends hairstyle which was a longer one; and the Amy Winehouse Beehive, which was a buggered about one; however, I couldn’t imagine any of this on my daughter.
Anyway, after some discussion we determined that what she really wanted was a “Bob” which turns out to be a sort of 1920’s short cut and actually looks very nice on her. It also passes the not getting in her eyes whilst playing football test so she seems very happy with it. I dread to think what she will want in her teenage years when she has to explain “the science bit” to me.
I asked my daughter what she wanted and, being eight years old, she had a very good idea that she wanted her fringe cut so it didn’t get in her eyes when playing football. This seemed to be a fairly reasonable request but aside from that there was no indication as to what hair style she wanted. This doesn’t help me because as far as I am aware there are essentially three women’s hair styles: long, short and buggered about. I am aware that there have been some popular styles over the years such as Purdy from The Avengers, which was a sort of short hairstyle; the Rachel from Friends hairstyle which was a longer one; and the Amy Winehouse Beehive, which was a buggered about one; however, I couldn’t imagine any of this on my daughter.
Anyway, after some discussion we determined that what she really wanted was a “Bob” which turns out to be a sort of 1920’s short cut and actually looks very nice on her. It also passes the not getting in her eyes whilst playing football test so she seems very happy with it. I dread to think what she will want in her teenage years when she has to explain “the science bit” to me.
Sunday, 6 March 2016
Ad Blocking
I was quite amused this week to be accused of mafia tactics by John Whittingdale, the Culture Minister. In fact what he was alluding to is the various internet ad-blocking firms that offer software to end-users to block out unwanted advertising and then requesting a fee from content providers for whitelisting them. I actually have some sympathy for newspapers and the like who rely on advertising for much of their online revenue. However, stopping revenue isn’t why I use ad-blockers.
I block ads for the most part because they render my computer unusable. Often this results in the browser crashing, which is annoying, or freezing the session which is particularly irritating when it is obvious that the clicked on link is of no interest whatsoever. In the worst case I had to rebuild a Linux computer that had been wrecked after being crashed by animated advertising whilst applying updates but the final straw was when a seemingly respectable publisher tried to install malware on my PC. I actually have my security settings enabled to stop that but it is likely to catch others out.
For the most part I don’t mind advertising. I tend to ignore it and may become irritated if it is repetitious but it tends not to bother me and I am prepared to put up with it given that I am usually getting something for free off the back of it. I can put up with leaflets shoved through my front door but if someone was to fly post all over my windows I would be a tad irritated. If they then chose to force me to read their handiwork I would become somewhat annoyed and if they then spray painted slogans all over my house I would be tempted to rip their arms out of their sockets and bludgeon them to death with the soggy end.
What John Whittingdale seemed to miss (although what he alluded to in the lesser parts of his remarks) is that ad-blockers are not a protection racket as such but protection from a racket. The ad-blocking software that I use allows the end user to whitelist sites at their own discretion and I have done this on several that I use regularly. I don't block adverts on the Guardian's website because they politely asked me not to. That’s fair enough as I read quite a few of their stories and, whilst they do have a fair bit of advertising, it doesn’t cause me too many problems. Of course this is all based on unlimited fast broadband access. I could imagine that mobile users paying by the megabyte might have a different view.
What I would really prefer is a code of practice that would differentiate between reasonable advertising to fund free content and the unreasonable tactics of some advertisers to force their messages and malware on an unsuspecting public. Ultimately, everyone has the right to free speech, but we also have the right not to listen.
I block ads for the most part because they render my computer unusable. Often this results in the browser crashing, which is annoying, or freezing the session which is particularly irritating when it is obvious that the clicked on link is of no interest whatsoever. In the worst case I had to rebuild a Linux computer that had been wrecked after being crashed by animated advertising whilst applying updates but the final straw was when a seemingly respectable publisher tried to install malware on my PC. I actually have my security settings enabled to stop that but it is likely to catch others out.
For the most part I don’t mind advertising. I tend to ignore it and may become irritated if it is repetitious but it tends not to bother me and I am prepared to put up with it given that I am usually getting something for free off the back of it. I can put up with leaflets shoved through my front door but if someone was to fly post all over my windows I would be a tad irritated. If they then chose to force me to read their handiwork I would become somewhat annoyed and if they then spray painted slogans all over my house I would be tempted to rip their arms out of their sockets and bludgeon them to death with the soggy end.
What John Whittingdale seemed to miss (although what he alluded to in the lesser parts of his remarks) is that ad-blockers are not a protection racket as such but protection from a racket. The ad-blocking software that I use allows the end user to whitelist sites at their own discretion and I have done this on several that I use regularly. I don't block adverts on the Guardian's website because they politely asked me not to. That’s fair enough as I read quite a few of their stories and, whilst they do have a fair bit of advertising, it doesn’t cause me too many problems. Of course this is all based on unlimited fast broadband access. I could imagine that mobile users paying by the megabyte might have a different view.
What I would really prefer is a code of practice that would differentiate between reasonable advertising to fund free content and the unreasonable tactics of some advertisers to force their messages and malware on an unsuspecting public. Ultimately, everyone has the right to free speech, but we also have the right not to listen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
