broken britain cancel culture

now then

most of this (if not all) will, i appreciate, seem like a whine. well, that or a moan, groan or what have you. ultimately, though, one can easily dismiss pretty much anything said (ever) in such a way. someone will always say "oh there's worse thing" or similar, look you see. but, on i go. 

this all relates to what most would describe as the absolute sh!tshow that is the state of trains here in England, or if you will the United Kingdom at large. overpriced and unreliable are the two main words you will hear to describe them from anyone you are brave enough to ask. in respect of the former, well, indeed, it is more expensive, with many instances to prove just how we get fleeced. from memory i can recall one person worked out it was cheaper to fly (as in on a f*****g aeroplane) from Manchester to Spain and then from Spain to London than it was to get a train from Manchester to London (innit). but no, of course such a ludicrous highlighting of the situation changed nothing. my concern here, anyway, is the latter part. the "unreliable" thing. 

pictured above, in an unusual just "normal" image mode, is a train i caught. this was the first of its kind i got on a regular journey in several months which was (more or less) on time. as in it was not delayed, cancelled outright or ran "a bit" (like to one station) and then got cancelled. for context in terms of my weekly (at least attempted) use of this service it actually ran and ran on time once (one time) in just north of 40 (forty) instances. off the top of my head i believe it has in that time been cancelled entirely at least five (5) times, possibly more. not really good enough in respect of public transport for a supposed leading country, is it? especially not when other public transport (buses) don't do the route i need to use on a sunday. 

i think what irked me more than having to shell out for a taxi (well, one of them uber things which, even when i throw in a decent tip, is £10 south of a regular taxi yet 4 times the cost of a train) is the absolutely pathetic nature of the cancellation notice. that's for you to see in the below image, one of them screenshot things what i gone done to work out, and it kind of illustrates what an absolute bag of sh!t bunch of cowards them what are somehow in charge of the trains really are. 

yes, i am sure you saw what they did there. i did too, eventually. that's just brilliant, isn't it? an entire service gets cancelled because one (1) person did not turn up for work. obviously they stick that out purely to divert your anger. the idea is that you stand there cursing and swearing the one person who did not turn up to do the job they are paid very well to do. meanwhile the real issue is that, apparently, them what run the trains are so completely and utterly f*****g incompetent at it that it just takes all of one absence to cause the service to be cancelled. normally i am against this kind of thinking but now i have reached the point where i take the view of the sooner we have fully automated trains the better. get rid of the staff that keep demanding more money for less ("fewer") work, let the machines do their thing. anything for a reliable service that lets me see my (known) children once a week, thanks. 

car? indeed getting one again would kind of solve the issue of needing to rely on public transport. however it just strikes me as (to be blunt) stupid to throw myself onto the crippling debt pile this country seems to crave for the sake of a weekly journey. it would be quite boring to go through all the astronomical costs of a car, which is quite the statement considering just how dull stuff on here i do is. some do suggest that the perpetual destruction of public transport is all deliberate, for more cars on the road means more revenue. no, then. already i meet the train people more than half way, what with the peculiar hours the service i need runs. 

reasonably, one might think, i should have been refunded for a ticket for a service that, ultimately, did not exist. alas (as pictured above) no, not to be. due to the "improved" ticket pricing system refunds for services are no longer given unless you took insurance out. more on that in a bit, since yes going forward (rather than backward) i at least looked at that one. 

beggars belief, really. we are in a world of "consumer rights" and what have you, with some fairly staunch levels of protection for us, the members of the public paying for goods and services. yet it would seem the train people (and i suppose this is a bit like them what do the water) can just take money off of us, not do their jobs and not have to give it back. whilst getting tax money. 

so, for the next ticket i decided to look at what, exactly, insurance would involve. as you can see above, the cost of insurance for my ticket would be (hang on just using a calculator) an extra 38% to pay (yes i know it is low price ticket). great. and even then it would be a refund "for certain circumstances", and a fee to pay on the refund. not really viable, is it? especially not when they exclude the train you wanted that was cancelled from a refund, saying that you could have used the ticket on a later (and impractical to take) train. 

oddly this is not the only time i have encountered just what a con some of this "insurance" business is. for those interested (strange but thank you) here is a link to the perplexing complexities of taking out insurance on concert tickets. for those not inclined to read that but still want to know, basically never ever, under any circumstances, take insurance on concert tickets as you are just giving someone money for no reason whatsoever. 

every now and then, of course, the trains do actually run as they should. and i can use it as a reason, or point of departure, to take a selfie with the eldest of my (known) children, showcasing how usure i am of which way to look with a phone thing on selfie mode. 

very much so, dear reader, would be my (fairly obvious) answer to if public transport should once again be a public owned concern. it is f*****g stupid that buses and trains run on a minimal service to maximise profits for the owners whilst they still claim government (as in our) money. using a bus to go and see my (known) children would be class, but of course the buses do not run the route i need on sundays or public holidays as it is "not economically viable". that kind of misses the point that public transport isn't meant to be about profit. 

be excellent to each other!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

player days of boba fett

greetings

over here (England, or if you will the UK, look you see) we have about a hundred (give or take) free to air television stations. well, maybe less ("fewer"), but still, a lot more than the 3 and then 4 what i grew up with. usually, or invariably, there's a variable (to be kind) level of quality to what each of them elects to screen. every now and then, mind, you stumble on a gem. well, if not a gem, then something or other of note, or partial interest. yes, this is going somewhere. 

it has now come to pass that, more often than not, at 10pm each evening i shall tune into one particular channel, the one called (i think) Together TV. why would i do such? because that's the time, and so far in my experience it is daily, they broadcast some "classic" 70s example of British (if we are honest) smut. yes, a bit of cheeky, rude, saucy cinema. extraordinarily tame by the standards of today of course, but as it happens that is what i kind of prefer. not that i am against any such filth. 

whereas they only have half a dozen (or if you like 6) or so such films that they rotate generally i will sit and watch whichever one is on for half an hour or so before retiring to bed for the evening. and why not, for seeing some very pleasant, lovely nudies prior to going to sleep is most agreeable. difficult to say which, exactly, of the ones they constantly show is my favourite. ultimately kind of a tie between one called Au Pair Girls and the one this blog post is about, Can You Keep It Up For A Week, as they, from what i can tell, have the most nudies in them. actually likely Au Pair Girls, as you get loads of full tilt nudies from the start, whereas you have to wait a bit for some "plot" stuff with this Can You Keep It Up For A Week one. 

somehow it took me a lot longer (as it were) to work out who(m), exactly, was the (male) lead star of this particular film. which is, as the below picture confirms, is Jeremy Bulloch. as in the Jeremy Bulloch. yes, that one. he who was, for those of us there at the time, Boba Fett. once again, yes, that Boba Fett, as in the one out of Star Wars. whereas for those comfortable in the 21st century it is now so that Temuera Morrison is Boba Fett (and a damned good one), for those of us who kind of prefer to linger in the 20th century (for it was better), it shall always be known that Jeremy Bulloch was he. 

not, in retrospect, too much of a surprise that i didn't immediately clock it was him. usually i don't see the credits of Can You Keep It Up For A Week for i know there are no nudies on offer so i nip outside momentarily for a cigarette (sorry). also, famously, Boba Fett (as a 20th century concern) always kept his bucket like helmet thing on, so it's not like you (or one) would recognise him. being as honest as i possibly can, it's also not him (appreciating he is the ostensible protagonist) that i watch the film for. 

plot? yes, there is one. i paid vague attention to it once. from what i recall it's that the fiancé of the Jeremy Bulloch character (nope, no idea on the name) refuses to get married unless Jeremy can keep hold of a job for at least one (1) week. much of the film seems to be the plight of Jeremy trying to do this, but somehow end up losing the job prior to seven days due to some sort of indiscretion, the nature of which is him ending up in quite a (very enjoyable looking) compromising sexual situation that in some way or other displeases his (brief) employer. 

honestly i had never bothered to look at the other films what Jeremy Bulloch had been in. yes, as is widely known his presentation of Boba Fett made him the third best character in Star Wars, just behind Lando and Lobot. but still, not interesting enough to see what else he had been in. now that i think, though, i really need to see what actor played Lobot and see what other films they gone done, on the off chance i have missed out on some other saucy filth. 

quite the insight into the casting decisions George Lucas made, this. or at the least the casting choices made in regards of English (or British) actors playing characters what face you never see. famously David Prowse got cast as Darth Vader based on being in A Clockwork Orange, a film which doesn't immediately suggest "space dude with laser sword", but there was no flaw in the Lucas view of "good enough for Kubrick is good enough for me". presumably, or maybe, George Lucas sat and watched Can You Keep It Up For A Week, possibly enjoyed aspects of it like i did, but he also saw the lead actor and said "you know what, he would be quite class with a bucket on his head and a missile firing jet pack on his back". this has been proven as a categorically excellent view. 

leaving aside the Jeremy Bulloch aspect for now and alarm bells rang when i once got more than half an hour or so into the film and was confronted with Richard O'Sullivan. as in yes, the Richard O'Sullivan. who, to be fair, is there right from the start of Au Pair Girls, but i had no idea he had done more than one of these "saucy" films. for my generation (born in the 70s) Richard O'Sullivan was the darling of early evening family (by 70s standards) entertainment, featuring in stuff like Man About The House, Robin's Nest and of course Dick Turpin. i had no idea at all that, and presumably our parents knew, initially the idea was to market Richard O'Sullivan as a "British John Holmes", or if you like Dirk Diggler. well, at least as far as the prudish "none of that sort of thing" sorts at the BBFC would allow, with nudies and intimacy being things they did not believe the British public should be allowed to see. 

for his role in this one (in Au Pair Girls he is just the understandably quite randy son of a wealthy business owner) he seems to play an effete hairdresser or something. think it might be a hairdresser, but the emphasis is very much on the effete part there. yes, oh yes, it is so that Richard O'Sullivan and Jeremy Bulloch do share a scene. an image of it is below, and it appears to be the point in our history at which things like "gender fluid" and "non-binary" were invented. 

just done a bit of research (unusual i know) and as it turns out this was the last film role Richard O'Sullivan did. i wonder if it was due to him feeling he had reached a peak, or zenith, and from a cinematic point of view he felt this was the way to leave his legacy. or just that he wanted to concentrate on his television career, and anyway around that time (early to mid 70s) someone thought it was a good idea to start casting Robin Askwith in this kind of role for that sort of thing. anyway, as at the time this will appear on the internet thing it is close to christmas, no doubt as usual at least one newspaper will run a story on how the much beloved Richard O'Sullivan lives in a lovely retirement home which is kind of exclusive for famous types and celebrities. 

do i recommend Can You Keep It Up For A Week? well, that's tricky. if we take as a given that the only reason i have frequently watched first half hour (or forty or so minutes) of it is the nudies, well, that's up to you to decide if that is also what you want from a film. admittedly when i have paid attention to the other parts it does seem light heartedly amusing watching, mostly from the perspective of the numerous absurd ways it turns out that Jeremy ends up in a (somewhat) compromising position. 

yet some caution is required, and not just on the off chance you are upset by even more revealing images that the carefully captured one above. if you watched, say, Empire Strikes Back and went "i really liked the way that one actor just stood around with a bucket on his head not doing much" and wished to see him (Jeremy Bulloch) do more of the same, this probably isn't what you are after. 

certainly a temptation exists to do a (sort of) quasi companion piece to this post and share more thoughts on that other film, Au Pair Girls, but Jeremy Bulloch isn't in it. maybe if i see there's a significant level of interest in this i will do one, but at this stage no plan for it.

be excellent to each other!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

daring double down delight

hello there 

looking back (rather than forward) it does strike me that there are "phases" of various things being focused on here. focused on or obsessed over, i suppose, for the line between those definitions is quite abstract, look you see. one such thing, for i did a bit of research here prior (rather than after) to writing this, would be KFC. 

a bit of a warning that this might get a bit "link heavy", if that is the right term. not really intended as a shameless (or shame free) plug, for all will be to my own blog, but rather just "handy" for anyone who is for some reason interested in all of this. moving on, then, and in regards of previous KFC moments here there was of course that time i did meticulous research to establish that The King, Elvis Presley was likely alive and well in China based on the number of branches of KFC (and Cadillac dealerships) there. which my friend Mike went and researched, with inconclusive results.

perhaps of greater (as in actual) relevance here is the occasional thing off of KFC called the double down. this is something i have determined to be one of the best, greatest and most important things ever to exist. effectively, for those unaware, it is something that started as an April Fool's "joke", but was clearly a bit of cheeky, opportunistic marketing to see if it would work (verk) or be popular. the idea was that KFC "did" a chicken burger, but in a bit of a "f*** you, bread" move, they replaced the bun with another two (2) chicken fillets. 

sadly, or alas, they have never gone full tilt with the idea. as and when KFC have made the double down available what one gets is the two fillets, but not a chicken burger in the middle. disappointing, of course, but here we are. for more along the lines of "here we are", well, behold this link festival. by no means is this a conclusive (or comprehensive) list of the double down featuring here before, but here we go. all you Grant enthusiasts can rejoice, as to start with here is he (Grant) trying one of them over in the wonders of New Zealand way back in 2011, which is further away than you might think. unless i missed one i believe it was only in 2013 i got to try a double down for the first time, as detailed right here. immediately prior to this post (at least as far as i can tell) the last time i encountered a double down was five years ago. yes, i have found an extraordinary number of words to write here. 

it, as you can see above, has returned once again. by it i do (indeed) mean the double down, and i suppose it would be fair to say it has "kind of" returned, since inexplicably you can only get a variation of it that is a "zinger". really would prefer just regular fillets, thanks, but for whatever reason (my guess would be slanted, wonky or dubious market research) KFC in the UK is obsessed with making as many items as it possibly can the "zinger" ones. so yes, as you can see above and below, i went right ahead and took the decision, or dare, to go and try one again. 

not an easy decision to make, dear reader, and one that i wrestled with for some time. i am, after all, living a different life in a radically different world. for those unaware (and i would entirely understand anyone having little interest in my plight) i have had quite the medical odyssey this year. with my proclivity being to post on nearly everything what i experience, the start of it all can be found by clicking here and the most recent post on the subject is here. quite likely there are links in the latter to highlight all the progress.

for those not inclined to look at the links there, well, medically i should be avoiding things like KFC, or any such (similar) take away food. to be fair, i indeed had done sone. my visit to KFC to once again indulge the delights of the double down was the first time i had been to a "take away" or if you like fast food place (to eat, at least, i have stopped for coffee) since that initial episode where i really, really thought that this was how it ended, that i was to be no more, that i would not be here writing this. 

oddly (perhaps) i have not missed such dining options. whereas i didn't really ever have what one would call a healthy or well balanced diet it's not that i was frequently eating things like this. wouldn't really be able to put an exact figure on it, but from what i can remember before the "episode", well, i believe my take away intake was limited to a weekly KFC treat, usually to mark returning to my lodgings in my place of exile after a week of verk in that there London (innit). all things considered, i figured i was due something akin to a "treat", and ultimately went for it. 

how was it? since there is every chance someone might have clicked on this for a "review", i suppose some time had best be spent doing such. disappointing, really. the packaging they are doing is awful, with the poorly constructed double down sticking to the box which is awkward to open. for taste, well, not bad as such, but what a needless, convoluted mess it was to eat pretty much distracted from any appreciation for a sense of flavour. 

maybe, if they are just going to do it for the sake of it, KFC should stop reviving the double down. the joke element of it dissipated quite some time ago and the novelty factor has been erased by a combination of poor presentation and the insistence on doing them only as a "zinger". still, when they first came along, yes, they were wonderful. 

be excellent to each other!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

of four new christmas tapes

ho ho ho pop pickers

well, yes. strictly this is about eight new christmas tapes (discs, look you see), for one of the sets contains five (5) of them. but four new "albums" procured on tape (disc) ahead of the festive season it is. so of course i have every intention of, for want of a better word, showcasing them here.

fear not, not that i believe anyone would, for i shall still be playing my usual christmas tape collection, which includes a Barbra Streisand one, a couple from The King, Elvis Presley, a most excellent set from Chas & Dave and of course a serviceable collection of agreeable songs by Mr Sinatra. there shall also be the traditional playing of the b-side of the 12" (so to speak) of The Power Of Love off of Frankie Goes To Hollywood, so that i may hear their christmas wishes.  these new tapes i just happened to see on my travels and felt an obligation to get them. 

pictured above, they are, in the not particularly satisfactory mode of "psychedelic". really disappointed with this "app". for clarity, then, these new ones are Elvis Christmas off of (ostensibly) The King, Elvis Presley, 80s Christmas Party off of several people, 100 Greatest Christmas off of a number of people, with some artists (artistes if you will) appearing a few times, and then A Christmas Gift For You from no less than Phil Spector. indeed, that one. 

saying i am not sure how interested anyone shall be in this lot feels kind of like stating the obvious, for i never know what here will be of interest, either at all or to anyone. but you are here now, and as this is one of the few internet things not to have adverts, well, read on. and why not. 

who is it that could tell me a more fitting place to start than with The King, Elvis Presley? this, for provenance, is a tape (you know) which caught my eye down the market. essentially it features His vocals from songs that are now somehow copyright / royalty free (public domain, i think, is the term) but dubbed over some new music off of the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra. however, rather than chancers releasing it this is an official thing off of His estate, and for good measure features some lovely liner notes off of Priscilla Presley. can't really argue for £1.

but is it any good? of course, for it is He, The King, Elvis Presley. a nice "mix it up" of the two (2) other christmas branded tapes of His what i already have. if you are wondering what the highlights of this tape are, the answer is all of it.

perhaps the most interesting aspect of this one is the memories it jogged. in younger, arguably more innocent times (say south of 10) i took it as "Royal" anything meant it existed mostly (or maybe even exclusively) to serve the Royal family. had i any concept of what a "Royal Philharmonic Orchestra" was at that age i would likely have assumed they existed to play music for the Royal family as and when they wished to hear it. like, for instance, if P[TEXT REMOVED ON LEGAL ADVICE] invited renowned friend of the elite Sir J[TEXT REMOVED ON LEGAL ADVICE] over, along with some [TEXT REMOVED ON LEGAL ADVICE] and they wanted to cover themselves, for a laugh, in tinfoil and pretend to be G[TEXT REMOVED ON LEGAL ADVICE] then they may have commanded them over to play some of his classic songs, such as [TEXT REMOVED ON LEGAL ADVICE] but obviously not the Led Zeppelin one. 

quite frankly the above pictured 80s Christmas Party very nearly didn't get bought, even though it was all of a modest 50p in a charity shop. why not? because of the bewildering number of songs which are neither christmas themed nor the sort of thing one would play at a "christmas party". as in things like Digging Your Scene off of Blow Monkeys is on there. there's also Pass The Dutchie off of Musical Youth on there, which brings to mind presently my chum Spiros is busy trying to claim he was the original lead singer for that band before they changed direction. if we are honest anyone that plays Nothing's Gonna Stop Us Now off of Starship at any sort of party wants their f*****g head kicked in, they really do. 

but then, being thorough, i noticed what the very last (actual last) track on the set was. at this point i went yes, i don't actually have that on tape (or disc), let me put up with the drivel on it so that i may have a decent copy of that boss tune. yes, some video, here is a snippet for your pleasure. 

might be that i have no need to clarify this, but also i do. the origins of the sample you are hearing are all down below, but the above is indeed Christmas In Hollis off of Run DMC. should the importance or relevance of this need expanding on, this is the song what Argyle is playing in the limo in Die Hard. no, i am not going to get into that "is Die Hard a christmas film" thing, rather just celebrate how that magnificent film brought this outstanding tune to as wider audience. 

yes, ok, on the plus side this tape (disc) does also feature that Peace On Earth thing off of David Bowie and Bing Crosby which, oddly, i am not certain i had a copy of. but it also has Spandau Ballet on. even when giving money to charity one has to be careful of what they are knowingly procuring. 

this one may well be one of the most curious, if not controversial, purchases what i have ever made. again it was from a charity shop for 50p. so we have arrived at A Christmas Gift For You, which as the cover says is from Phil Spector. indeed it may well be that this ends up focusing on him rather than the music contained on the tape (disc). 

briefly leaving aside that side of this tape (disc) and what youf  have here is a truly stunning set of classic christmas songs off of some great artists. doing three or so songs each are Darlene Love, The Ronnettes, Bob B Soxx & The Blue Jeans and The Crystals. sheer vibrant, beautiful, passionate takes of some well known songs. with the sound, of course, being as great as it is because of the of the greatest record producers of all time was behind it. you even get a poster of him dressed as Father Christmas...

yeah, Phil Spector. if you were unaware of his fate, well, he died in prison a few years ago, and he was in prison for the not inconsiderable crime of murder. generally when someone famous does something like that they get shunned, quietly erased (or airbrushed) and quietly forgotten about. bit difficult to do that with Phil Spector, though, due to the incredible records he produced. and the least of those is most certainly not a Beatles album. presumably an awful lot of mental gymnastics goes on, with people deciding (or declaring) that he was "only" the producer and so it is all right to play the songs. 

he has certainly not been the only casual beneficiary of such double standards, and another christmas themed song comes to mind as being the thing that rescued someone. when you consider what, exactly, Boy George went to prison for (here) one can be left baffled as to why he has not been "cancelled" or whatever they call it these days, but remains positively celebrated. laughably a BBC interview, i think by Chris Evans (the sh!t British one), brushed it all off as him being "quite conflicted". maybe if he had done what he did to a woman rather than another man it might have been different, but also the prospect of not being able to play Band Aid ever again conveniently saved him from being blotted out. 

finally, then, a large five tape (disc) one hundred song set claiming to be the Greatest Christmas one, even if it is the 100 greatest cheapest to license songs. and a few songs which do not immediately scream christmas, such as the (admittedly superb) cover of Somewhere Only We Know off of Lily Allen. 

it is mostly done on the cheap, featuring as it does covers of I Believe In Father Chistmas and Frankie's not intended as a christmas song but f*** it here we are The Power Of Love rather than the originals. still, you get some Kylie, some (reasonably rare to appear on compilations) Pet Shop Boys and, of  course, Sir Cliff. the two main draws for me buying this down the market were the presence of 2000 Miles off of The Pretenders, and this one (the video below) which may sound familiar if you have already played the video above. 

what you are hearing there is the magnificence of Back Door Santa off of the very sexually aware Clarence Carter, dear reader. indeed this is the song that Run DMC sampled extensively for their one. and why not, for sampling done to create something new isn't that bad, so long as it's creative and makes a genuinely new dynamic listening experience. so yeah, i love both songs equally and am delighted that my christmas soundtrack shall feature both. 

as usual i will say it's highly unlikely anyone shall be all that interested what i listen to this christmas as i sit alone in my place of exile, lonely and longing to be not alone but knowing that will not change. that said, you never know, some of you may well have picked up a few tips on what tapes to get so as to get your very own groove on over the festive period. 

be excellent to each other!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

tissues

greetings

so yes, i would agree this is not the (singularly) most exciting purchase i have ever made and duly gone done showcased it here. but here is where we are, look you see. and where this is would be that, as the title more or less alludes to, i have procured (bought) some tissues. 

not just any tissues, by the way, but Batman ones. well, packets of tissues which have images and what have you of that celebrated character on them. i shall (of course) speculate on exactly how that makes them what kind of tissues as this goes on, most probably. 

why did i purchase some new tissues? as in, why tissues as such, without delving into the specifics of type. perhaps this is stating the obvious, but i was in need of some for my current stockpile of small packets of them moves ever closer to being depleted. it is with some sadness that one of the packets Mum gave me on my New Zealand odyssey has now been finished. knowing usually you can get ten packets of 10 (ten) tissues for an agreeable price (usually £1 flat) off the tops i went, where i found these, but also only eight (8) packs of 10 (ten) for that very same price. 

my use for tissues? especially a "compact" packet designed to take around as you are out and about? fairly (or reasonably) conventional, i suppose. at the time of writing it is (very much) the time of sniffles, where autumn rushes to be winter, with the treacherous wind causing many a runny nose desperately in need of being wiped. rain (and ultimately snow) comes with this, so it's also quite handy to have someone to clean ones spectacles (glasses) with, so as to see. basically there's a couple of good reasons to have some tissues with you and not all that much in the way of an argument against having some with you. 

i cannot, at the (great) risk of being condemned as "not a proper fan", immediately recall any instance where Batman made extensive, important or prominent use of tissues. this i put forward as a sort of kind of philosophical question in regards of are they really "Batman tissues" or are they not just tissues which happen to have Batman on them. maybe there was a tissues related incident in one episode of the much loved 60s series starring Adam West as Batman, but i can't think of it. doubtful that there was any significant tissue action in any of the 80s to present day films, but i am happy to be corrected. nothing at all about Tim Burton says "tissues", though. and for all his renowned, celebrated p!ssing about, one would be hard pressed to consider any moment in any film where Christopher Nolan kicks off and insisted that tissues were crucial to any particular scene. 

good question, that. well, it is a good question if you were asking why, in this packet, i only got eight packets instead of the standard, conventional ten. yes, each pack has ten (10) tissues in, but usually it would be ten packs of ten, not eight of ten as is here. shrinkonomics is my "most likely" guess, which is that thing where they reduce the quantity (and sometimes quality) of an item so as to still be able to sell it for the same price in the face of rising production (and distribution) costs. other than that, yet possibly related, is that maybe they had to reduce the number of tissue packets so as to be able to afford the licensing costs for Batman yet still sell the product for £1. which begs the question exactly how many more tissues than usual they planned to sell purely because of the pictures on the packets. 

do i have any tissue stories? not really. i can recall an interview with Charlie Watts (i think it was in Q magazine) where he got asked all sorts of arbitrary questions. rather surprised he indulged it. anyway, i can only recall (or remember) two of them. they asked him who the last person he punched was, which he replied that he certainly wasn't going to tell them that and intimated that they may get the answer quite soon if they asked any more questions of that nature. also they asked what he had in his pockets and he said some tissues, qualifying it with "anything else would ruin the line of your suit". not entirely sure what that means, but it has stuck with me. 

right, pretty sure that's all i can possibly write (or tell) on this subject. in truth i didn't think i would have as much to say about it as i somehow found. there is very little likelihood of me documenting any actual use i make of these tissues, unless it is something really spectacular. although if that happened then i would reasonably expect it to be on the news anyway. 

be excellent to each other!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

volleyball

heya

indeed this is (yet) another post on the subject of cigarettes, look you see, despite the title not making too much of what one may call immediate sense. but it shall, i think. for some reason i feel compelled to put a warning of sorts when addressing this subject, perhaps from a sense of the imaginary pressure of society. so, on that note, smoking cigarettes is quite bad for you, you should not do it, if you do smoke then it would be wise to seek assistance in quitting, etc, etc, blah, blah, blah. 

for non-smokers i imagine (if not presume) it's the case they take as a given that a "cigarette is a cigarette" and thus do not trouble themselves with how one may be different from another. there are, as it happens, significant (or "cignificant" for fun) differences, with of course Marlboro being the finest of the best, in particular my most beloved "red". over the years i have tried many different types, some of which have been documented here and are with thanks to my mate Spiros getting them as he travelled around the world. 

rare has it been that i have wished to try one specific type of cigarette, with my longing forever being just to be in a position where i could smoke Marlboro red all day every day. but there was one cigarette that i always craved to try and had - up to now - eluded me. the desire for them was based purely on the name of them, and so at last (and to make sense of the title here) i managed to get some Top Gun cigarettes.

over the last few years i had seen, with great interest, discarded, empty packets of them, dropped like litter. well, not like, i suppose, actual. mostly this was down in that there London (innit). obviously the name intrigued me and i was determined to find some. i made discrete (discreet?) enquires in shops down in London that looked like they may have been able to supply them, but alas none either had them or were simply not prepared to sell them to me. with respect to the latter, that would be of course because they are bootleg, counterfeit or what have you. essentially "illegal", and as a seller of such i would imagine you have to be cautious in business on the off chance the buyer is trying to catch you out. 

most happy day, then, when i had an encounter with a young lady who(m) happened to be smoking some of them. this was closer to home, and certain elements of the encounter are most decidedly not appropriate to share here. the important thing is that she was able to take me to the place where she procured them, and so yes i (very much) was able to get some for myself. 

how are they? unexpectedly good. as in really good. sometimes these "not official" cigarettes are a rough or bad experience, but not the case with these Top Gun ones. all of the packaging and styling suggested they would be "light" and indeed they are, but pleasantly so. very satisfactory indeed. so much so that i have noted when i am "on" these i appear to be smoking less (or "fewer") a day than would be the normal, if yes you allow that i should possibly not be smoking any at all. presumably these have something or other in them that leave my system sate and not craving so many. 

time, of course, for the usual what you will call it here. cost of these is £5 a packet, which is roughly, or somewhere around, a third (33%) of the cost of "legal" cigarettes here in the UK. a price which is not so far off what "legal" cigarettes should cost, except for the ludicrous increased taxes over the last ten or so years. more on that, if interested, can be found here. 

some time around when this is getting "published" online we will have the joys of a budget being issued by our much beloved government. it is widely expected to be one which shall "tank" or otherwise destroy the economy, but all the same we are stood around just watching it, with some apologists claiming that "at least it is not the previous government", as if that in itself makes it all better. one can have little doubt that "legal" cigarettes will get absolutely hammered with an even higher tax. as things stand a journalist who(m) smokes recently did an article where they worked out people purchasing these legal cigarettes are paying over £9,000 a year for doing so. 

you will never, ever stop the supply of anything "illegal", illicit or bootleg. there shall forever exist people all too eager to profit from such a market, for it is the kind of thing which has created and stimulated "economic activity" ever since the time humans foolishly opted for this way of structuring how the world works. what you can do, though, is significantly curtail the demand for such. of late the BBC has been going large on the "illegal cigarette" trade, with articles such as this one. they are determined to focus just on the one side, which is the supply. in that article they explicitly show the cause of the demand - the cost of "legal" cigarettes - but decline to comment on that, never mind suggest that might be the problem. 

no, i am not (as has been commented before) particularly happy, thrilled or delighted to be in some way or another "funding" criminal activity. but also i am not going to allow the implication of this being highlighted stop me. should the government of the day (any day) be all that bothered about the presumed lost tax revenue (which is reasonably all they care for) or the trade in so-called "illegal" cigarettes then it is entirely within their remit and/or power to quell the demand for such, all simply by returning to a "punitive but sensible" level of taxation on cigarettes they sell in shops. it's not that hard for them to say "we made an error" (or "we f****d up") thinking we could exploit smokers in this way, to acknowledge they have created the market for illicit cigarettes and address it in a sensible way. the somewhat token, arbitrary measures being taken to "stop illegal cigarette sales" are just a huge waste of resources; both the "war on drugs" and "war on terror" will be "won" first, and we know precisely how well they are going. 

far be it from me to argue with the idea (or suggestion) that i should "just" quit. i am, after all, partially educated, and thus (or so) know that smoking is not good for me. however, i happen to enjoy it. there's also the fear (or concern) of what i would do to fill the void left, and what psychological, if not physiological, ch-ch-ch-changes would come. psychosomatic, i think is the word i was looking for there. anyway, yes i finally got some Top Gun cigarettes and they are totes ace. 

be excellent to each other!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

laundry

hello there

well, as kind of vaguely suggested in the most recent post what i gone done about a car wash i suspect a post on the subject of going to a laundry is "due" here. and so here it is, look you see. not that there is all that much what comes to mind to write of, what with the first post i did on this kind of thing being reasonably comprehensive. and yes, i note in that post i wasn't sure exactly how frequently i would be heading to a laundry. often enough to do posts here on a regular basis (or fairly regular) it turns out, although no, that's not the reason for going. 

to recap for regulars, or to tell for those new here (welcome), it is so that in my lodgings in my place of exile that drying bedding (after washing it) isn't really practical. nowhere to hang it, as it were. as an agreement i had in place with certain people i know to do it for me apparently got cancelled if not denied ever existing i simply took to using a local laundry service (a laundrette, if you will) to do it every now and then. 

by chance rather than choice i had a (relatively) free weekend on (or during) which i had the time to go up to the laundry. it was so that both of my (known) children were not going to be around on the day i would usually visit them, so a rare (and sad) instance of not seeing them for a week. so up i got early one day, mindful of the politics i was warned of concerning later visits, and off i went. 

for some needless padding with words here, yes, there is a video, and also yes, it is below. i went right ahead and use that "VHS" app what i have to make the video that you are most certainly welcome to watch. with no real reason for it other than just because, i did indeed use that "video wall" filter, or setting, or whatever the right term is. 

as for the "politics" i mentioned earlier, well, on one later in the day visit to the laundry (i am not going to link to it, feel free to search it yourself) a fellow patron said that if you go later in the day then usually there's some drama around the tumble dryers. it is supposed to be that people (like moi) who(m) are there to use the washing machines get "first dibs" on the dryers, or priority use. however, human nature being what it is, some turn up just to use the dryers and disregard such guidelines. up to now no, i have not experienced this directly. perhaps on a future visit. 

since i arrived not long after the laundry (or laundrette) opened i did have the place mostly to myself. actually entirely for a bit, as the proprietor felt he could trust me and, without a word, disappeared for half an hour or so. it was only after i had finished the washing part and commenced using one of the tumble dryers that someone else arrived. quite a nice lady, too, and we had a pleasant enough chat. she rather liked just watching the laundry whirling around, finding it soothing. i agreed, saying it was the same principle (principal?) as watching fish in a tank. also mentioned that i brought a book to read, which i did, and she said that she may do similar on her next visit. 

costs for this visit? a neat £10, since prices have not, over the course of the year, increased. i used one of the smaller washing machines, which was £5.50, and then £4.50 was spent on 45 minutes of the tumble dryer. my suspicion is that i could have saved £1 on the tumble dryer, for sporadic checks gave every indication that 30 minutes or so was enough, but why not make sure, and besides i was enjoying the mixture of incidental conversation and reading. 

echoing an earlier comment (just now) and going off to the laundry is a peculiarly if not singularly kind of therapeutic thing. it is rather nice, in this curious century, to have an instance where you are sat doing something and yet have no distractions. a moment to pause, if you will. 

be excellent to each other!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

pleasuredome

welcome

ok, this is a bit after the day of release when it came out, but then again my copy didn't arrive on that day either. also, as will become clear, being "a bit late" is somewhat fitting with all of this, look you see. with regards to "what" it (or this) is, that would be what they have called the 40th anniversary (!) edition of the album Welcome To The Pleasuredome off of Frankie Goes To Hollywood, released 41 years to the day that the original was unleashed. 

having done this blog for north (i think) of twenty years and further having used it to express my enthusiasm for various passions i am not all that sure there is anything else i can possibly say about one of the stronger of those, which is indeed Frankie. let me have a go. but, in a kind of short way for those who(m) are for some reason interested but also in a rush, this latest release is very much worth getting, for the extras (even on the modest set i opted for) are really good. 

i looked at the seven tape (disc) version of Welcome To The Pleasuredome they announced and saw that it offered rather good value for just south of £100, but went "no". mostly this was, in an oddly grown up moment, a financial thing, for i felt i could not justify such an outlay for discs that would not get played all that often. evidence for this was indulging the more expensive than that for (considerably) less (or if you will fewer) in it Ziggy Stardust box set last year (here). 

but also a sense of "enough". declare (or accuse) me of not being a "proper fan" if you will, but i have somehow reached a stage i never thought i would - one where i go "you know what, all these variations of the Frankie songs i have here are enough, i am not longing for more". which is also a strange throwback to the Flaunt It off of Sigue Sigue Sputnink box set i bought a few years ago. much to the surprise of teenage (and 20s) year old me it turned out 50 (!) year old me now felt yes, actually, there was such a thing as just too many remixes of Love Missile F1-11. 

yet a more modestly priced two tape (disc) version was wafted about. it had a much more agreeable price and a surprisingly generous track list. you got the album (again) plus a selection of the extras, with the extras striking me as being the most interesting of stuff on offer in the massive set. this is not far off what happened for the (i think 20th) anniversary edition of Achtung Baby off of U2. from memory the lavish box set involved you having to buy some Bono sunglasses, one of the discs was simply the Zooropa album and another was just instrumentals. indeed the two tape (disc) version of that sits on my shelf, for like this Welcome To The Pleasuredome set the extras there were superb on it. 

prior to delving into the extras, then, the album itself. here is "just" the pretty much same version of the album that has been re-re-re-rereleased goodness knows how many times. as in when my copy only turned up in the post on the Monday after the Friday release it wasn't that much of an issue, as in an emergency i am sure i could have played any of the 328 copies of it i already have. whereas i wasn't in all that much of a rush to hear it again, i did indeed play this latest version of it. 

quite likely the best, most honest review of the album is that it is gloriously, mind-blowingly, eccentrically and delightfully underwhelming. yes, i anticipate being exiled from the Frankie community for that, but still. objectively the vocals on the well known tracks are bewilderingly flat here. a slightly different version of Relax here just doesn't sound like it should and the record contains the least interesting version of Two Tribes ever. one can't but help note, with the passing of time, just how many covers are included on the album. sure, there is the epic take of Born To Run, but also there's a variation of War which is less Frankie, more a Ronald Reagan impersonator waffling on. still, that whole side of the original record dedicated to the magnificence of Welcome To The Pleasuredome remains an electric eclectic joy, and Only Star In Heaven was, is and always will be a truly brilliant song. 

my coins were invested mostly in the curiosity of the second tape (disc), then, and not a single one of however many coins i spent was wasted. this cross section of the rare and the unreleased are truly amazing, and well worth the purchase. part of me regrets not buying the full tilt version for yet more extras. whilst i reserve the right to buy it at some point, i am aware than if i did (or do) then i will not play the separate discs as much as this one disc is getting a spin. 

for the most part (or indeed mostly) tape (disc) two is "Frankie and Frankie only". previous special editions of Welcome To The Pleasuredome have, for the most part (or mostly) simply featured record label ZTT endorsed extras what have basically been bits of tape found ranging from "interesting" to simply being Trevor Horn going "what happens if i press this button". to this day a myth rages that Frankie were "not a proper (or real) band", that they did nothing, played nothing. absolutely it is true that Trevor Horn wove unbelievable magic and created (arguably) era defining music with what he did, but equally it is true this would only have been possible with the amazing, raw songs the band brought. 

just two versions of Relax feature here. first up is the (reasonably) widely heard "in heaven" demo, and heard mostly via their legendary, incendiary appearance on The Tube. new to me was a "rough mix" from September 1983, which must have been mere weeks before the classic version the entire world knows got unleashed. it has an ultra funk bass that is almost a p!ss take of a song which wasn't even famous yet. my area of fascination are the extra lyrics here. i had wondered where, exactly, all of the lyrics on the 16 minute Sex Mix of the song came from, and here's the source. 

you also get as close as you are likely to in regards of a "live" Frankie release, here in the form of two soundchecks from the Europe A Go Go session. other than that i think there's a live take of Relax which crops up here and there, certainly a tape (actual) of it came free with the Commodore 64 game. yes, some release feature a "live" Born To Run, but it's simply the studio take with some crowd overdubs. as for the remainder of the tracks, well, really play for yourself. i can assure you that this particular disc shall not be straying far from my stereo any time soon. 

exactly how many more times, i wonder, with the sadly sparse Frankie Goes To Hollywood tapes be in some way repackaged. still missing from any official release is their infamous take on Slave To The Rhythm, which the band in a rare moment of unity are adamant will never see light of day, or any proper live recordings. what kind of market would exist for either is not likely to be large. but, yes, if they release more stuff with Frankie on it, i will probably invest. 

to be stolen or bought. 

insurance

greetings

unfortunately this is, no matter how i try and word it, going to all sound like a whine. or a complaint, or a woe, oh, poor, poor, pitiful me thing, look you see. i cannot (and thus will not) blame anyone but moi, yet all the same i thought it would be worth throwing out (onto the internet) the answer to a question. with that question being "is it worth getting ticket insurance", or something like that. perhaps it gets worded like "is it worth getting ticket protection". in either instance, the answer is resoundingly no. 

i was due to be at another concert next weekend. rather a special one, more so because i was taking a dear friend who(m) really, really wished to go. alas they have become medically incapacitated, although that sounds rather dramatic, and they cannot attend. briefly i considered going alone, for that is how i do go to most gigs after all, but ultimately went "no", the real joy of this one was how much it meant to my friend. so, i elected to cancel. 

this, i assumed, would not be a problem. we do live in an era of (usually good) consumer rights, with all protected and the ways in which companies can f*** you over being rather limited. except, of course, in respect of concert tickets, as is widely known. still, i purchased something called "refund protection", which i took as a kind of insurance, so took it as a given cancelling would not be an issue. certainly i had no issues with cancelling either the train tickets or the hotel. 

how wrong i was on that. if you have ever tried to get a refund on concert tickets you probably know all of this. but let me make something clear - no, i absolutely did not read the "terms and conditions", partially as i didn't expect to need to use the "insurance" but mostly (and let us be honest) like everyone else it is a case of "do i f***" read such on the internet, no one does. 

weirdly specific and very (tres) limited are the conditions in which they, them, the ticket insurance people will (or shall) let you cancel and get a refund. essentially there are four (4) reasons why they just might honour a refund. these are you are dead (if you send a death certificate), you have been called up for active military service (if you provide your call up papers), if you are at a certain stage of pregnancy (and send medical evidence of this) or if your doctor says you can't attend on medical grounds (if the doctor fills out a form for you and signs it). silly me thinking that if i bought "ticket protection" it would be what is said on the box'

concert ticket sales, as is widely known, is the only "legal" business left which seems to have precisely zero regulation, control, scruples or morals. i need not bring up the Oasis "dynamic pricing" debacle, but i just have. the mind boggles at what, exactly (in the above image), "processing fee" and "fulfilment fee" are. but yes, i merrily ticked "refund protection" for £5. quite tempting at such a relatively low price, and you tend to think "rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it", when in reality all that happens is someone says "thank you very much for giving me five quid for no reason". 

my thinking is that they should outlaw this one. it is little more than a lazy and dishonest way of raking in yet more money for nothing, but again yes, no, i did not read the "terms and conditions". surely, in this era of "consumer protection", the only four (4) deemed "valid" reasons for cancelling are ones that you would expect they refund for anyway, irrespective of "insurance". what's the alternative? saying to someone oh, you are dead? that's a shame, but f*** you, you can get someone to bring your corpse, or if too late ashes, to the concert. 

no, i am not going off on some crusade with the absolute tw@ts that offer this "protection" because i knowingly did not read the terms and conditions. far enough. instead i have listed the tickets on one of them "authorised resale" sites, at a vastly reduced cost, in the hope that a genuine fan picks them up and has a boss time. the money i have already written off, so a nominal fee felt fair. 

doubtful that i shall be selecting any form of ticket "insurance" or "protection" for any other gigs that take my fancy, thanks. they fleece us music lovers six different ways as it is. perhaps i have been the only one stupid enough to tick this option on purchases anyway. if not, well, for what my experience is worth, i would suggest you absolutely do not select any sort of ticket "insurance" or "protection", because doing so sees you spend money on that which does not exist. 

be excellent to each other!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

eleven

heya

ok, so a slightly different from the usual post for the minute of Nigel Tufnel on the hour of Nigel Tufnel on the day of Nigel Tufnel of the month of Nigel Tufnel, look you see. it is not, after all, every year one gets a brand new Spinal Tap release (in this instance a film), and so, well, today seemed to be the most appropriate day to comment on it. and why not. 

perhaps this is stating the obvious but surely all who went into making Spinal Tap II The End Continues knew there was no chance of topping the original. leaving aside the magnificence of the first one (for clarity This Is Spinal Tap) over the last 40 years (!!!) it's stature has grown out of any sense of perspective, so many lines and moments have become not cultural references but cultural definitions, assuming that is a more elevated term for it. you would think, or hope, they had some sense that the best outcome here would be akin to Blade Runner 2049 - made as good as it could possibly be, yet ultimately just proving that no further film was required, there was no more story to tell. 

merrily it is so that Tap 2 ticks the right boxes in this sense. actually, the more time passes after i watched it, the more i consider some moments from it and find them funnier than i did whilst watching. on watching the film my thoughts were more of being "entertained in an agreeable way" rather than battling riotous fits of laughter. certainly the memories linger, or grow. 

getting "negative waves" out the way is to look at what the film (at least for me) gets so spectacularly wrong. that would be, alas "crossing into the real world". the original was in an entirely fictitious universe, resplendent with fabricated rival bands and wonderful created album reviews. having, and the trailers show this so i am assuming no spoiler warnings needed, the very much real Paul McCartney and Elton John turn up and speak about the band is distracting. i "get" the appeal of the celebrity cameos they have, and you don't get all that much bigger than them two, yet it is their presence which provides, oddly, the weakest parts of the film. 

which is a huge shame, as equally this was used as a strength. obviously (if not infamously) Spinal Tap have had some issues with drummers. the scenes of the band trying to coerce very real and rather famous drummers to join them are true comedy gold. 

in regards of the rest, well, it's as charming, madcap, surreal and funny as you would hope. the look at what the band have been up to, in and away from music, is priceless. as usual i am mindful of spoilers and such, but still, having Derek Smalls run a glue museum is just so "yeah", on the button, absurdly making sense. for that matter so is David St Hubbins making jingles for corporate hold music. 

my favourite bits were some (very close to) blink and you will miss them "where are they now" interviews with some of the peripheral characters. that term feels somewhat demeaning to Jeanine, but still, her bit is brilliant. delighted to see Artie Fufkin once more, but if you want an example of sheer comedy genius achieved within just a few words, that would be the catch up with Bobbi Flekman. 

from all the concerns i had about how the film might go wrong, it was that we could not (sadly) have a return of Ian Faith. credit absolute for the character Hope Faith (Ian's daughter), superbly played by Kerry Godliman. she was truly wonderfully brilliant. 

despite not purposefully (or deliberately) setting out to do so, one of the main things this film does is reflect exactly how our definition of "rock and roll" has changed. one has to remember that in the original the band, somewhere in their 30s, were seen as "past it", dinosaurs, their admittedly initially dim light fading fast. and they are here, 40 years on from that, still playing. like an awful lot of the supposed past it rock dinosaurs the band was meant to be a loving, heartfelt pastiche of. 

realistically i shall not be around in 40 or so years to confirm this one but it just doesn't feel likely that this one will become quite so culturally defining as the original. which, perhaps, isn't really all that much of an issue. enjoying it for what it is means to have a most agreeable 90 or so minutes of entertainment which rarely dips or causes you to lose attention. 

quite unlikely, i know, but if any of you have clicked on this asking "is Spinal Tap 2 worth watching" then the answer is, happily, yes. 

be excellent to each other!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!