portsmouth traffic cone

ahoy

of late my travels have taken me, contextually if not comparatively, far. most (if not all) of these have been for matters of verk, look you see, yet still travel remains travel. whatever that might mean. moving on, then, and yes i appreciate this is something that the title gave one of interest any clue about, i have visited portsmouth. 

it would be the case that all (if not most) would associate the place they call (or know as) portsmouth with more water based, or if you like sea (ocean, even) forms of transporter. there is, after all, a clue in the name. but yes, indeed, they do have more regular, land based forms of transport. such as cars. and bikes. quite a lot of bikes, presumably, for their roads in my (limited) experience had more space marked out for bikes than actual cars. not that i saw many cycling, but then i wasn't looking. 

going further on "this is right there in the title", yes, i can confirm that the place that is portsmouth does indeed have traffic cones. it's the case, however, that they seem to use them a bit differently. 

should you be of a mind to do so, then yes, i suppose you could play "spot the traffic cone" with the above picture. or only picture on this post. please, feel free to do so. that said, i am pretty sure it wouldn't be that difficult to spot it, what with the faded orange and murky white colour of it. 

dumping, or artistically placing, traffic cones is hardly a unique matter for portsmouth. quite often it is one will see them put in different, sometimes interesting places across the whole nation. this is not the appropriate forum for me to declare if i have ever engaged in such, but thanks for asking. still, some of you may find it interesting where someone in portsmouth elected (or opted) to put this one. 

no, nothing really much else to add to this subject. 

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

just south of four quid on some streisand tapes

howdy pop pickers

well, it feels like a little while since i wrote of the wonders of barbs here. probably, at a guess, the last time i did so was when she gone done that quite smart walls album, on (or in) which she laid down what she felt was wrong with the world. or america, which to her is pretty much same difference, look you see. it is not that i have abandoned barbs since then, i just have not had reason to write of her wonders. 

until, of course, now. some patience, and it feels perpetual seeking, has seen me procure, or get, not one, and not as many as three, but 2 (two) albums off of streisand. at a cost, as the title goes, of a cumulative if not of actual terms amount lower than four pounds (sterling). this isn't to say barbs should be bought purely on the cheap, but if you can in this day and age, do. 

just which tapes (discs) of streisand did i obtain? well, one is close to being "new" or at least her most recent, whereas another is one from many a year ago that i wasn't immediately aware of. both, it is worth noting, were new to me, and thus so were "new" overall. 

of the two, then, the most "new" (or recently released), as pictured here in the greater good and glory of course of Commodore 64 mode, is Release Me 2. i am reasonably sure, actually pretty certain, it got released late last year, possibly for the christmas (or thanksgiving, if american) market. the other appears to be called Live Concert At The Forum, and is a mere fifty (50) years old, being recorded as it was in 1972. 

perhaps the most curious thing of these two albums is that both feature some sort of shenanigans related to puppets. well, muppets specifically. i think specifically. we shall see as we go, or will do if you keep reading that is, but is it that "seasame street" does or does not fall into the realm, or expanded universe to use the terminology of today, of the world of the muppets? for some reason i can recall Big Bird turning up in one (perhaps the first) muppets film, at the least. 

anyway, a vague, kind of sort of look at each of these records. but yes, the cheapest which is the oldest turns out to be the best, if you are in a rush and cannot be bothered to read further. 

there was a great deal of hoo ha and fuss when Release Me 2 got released, whenever that was exactly. as per earlier comments, i am sure it was "late" 2021. barbs herself went off to promote it. well, no, of course not went off as such, for barbs does not move unless she wishes. rather, then, she granted brief interviews with people, presumably on the tacit agreement that most of the interview would be spent with barbs being told how wonderful she is and that she is the best, and barbs being unassuming and modest with this whilst agreeing with some enthusiasm. 

generally yes, then, i suppose i am a bit thick and don't learn lessons in any immediate way, but with barbs releases of late i have learned to be patience. for some reason, and i would suspect this is more by decree of barbs than by optimism of the record label, whenever she has a new record out somewhere around thirty million (or billion) copies get pressed. this generally exceeds the level of demand for any form of barbra streisand record. 

my learning, then, is to wait a little bit when she releases a record. unless there's a birthday or something, and i can suggest it to someone as a potential gift. with so many copies pressed, and normally the price being ridiculously above the standard for a tape (disc) on release, just wait a few months and you can normally pick it up new and cheap. so, some six or seven months after it came out, i was able to get it "new and sealed" for south of £3.70 off the virtual car boot of the internet. 

just what is Release Me 2? well, it seems that during "lockdown" for the plague barbs went through her own personal vault of recordings to see if there were any tunes worth sellotaping together to make a rudimentary album out of. apparently, according to her, there was. so what you get is basically ten songs recorded over the last 60 (!) years, running for just a bit over thirty minutes. and let me stress that the running length of an album is no guide to quality; most of the albums of The Beatles were around this length too. but believe me this is no Beatles record. 

it's kind of an ok (or all right) collection of songs, but the problem is there's no real consistent feel, theme or vibe. which is what happens when you have a compilation of this nature. a greatest hits, for example, might feature no thematic link, but there's usually an outstanding pop "hook" on each. to borrow an infamous Monty Python bootleg (or sorts) title, this appears to have been all hastily cobbled together. 

any stand out, or outstanding, moments? well, from what i recall (and my memory does struggle with things as recent as last year) there was a lot of fuss about Sweet Forgiveness, with this being punted as a variation on whatever a "single" is these days. i would say yeah, that comes close to being classic barbs. overall, though, it is a collection of random songs which are not bad, and also a "duet" with no less than kermit. that's kermit the frog out of muppets, and not kermit out of Black Grape. had this tape (disc) featured barbs doing a duet with that kermit, or any member of Black Grape, this review would be very different. ultimately, this will not get played much. but the packaging and linear notes are beautiful.

considerably better, then, is Live At The Forum. well, no, it does not have quite so much in the way of beautiful packaging, but does have some interetsing linear notes. for provenance, and to balance the cost, i spent all of 19p on this in a charity shop. likely 20p, as i would have advised them to keep the penny offered in response to the twenty pence coin presented. 

live albums are always a "risk" purchase. yes, even at the price paid. sure, there are some absolute classic, great live albums, with the greatest of all (ever) being The Who Live At Leeds. closely followed by Frampton Comes Alive. most, though, are poor recordings, or overdubbed in the studio so much that they are barely "live" any more. happily, and surprisingly, this is brilliant. i mean, wow. what a lovely, wonderful, clean and frankly crisp (hello, Faye) sounding recording. add to this a superb selection of songs and the fun bits of barbs speaking and, well, i have played this a few times already. 

what one gets here is perhaps not what one would expect of barbs. a very, very brief review of the record, and one that would be a tremendous selling point for any re-issue, is that this is the sound of barbs getting stoned on stage and singing sesame street songs. yes. no, really. a wonderful moment in the record is when barbs is busy with a joint and says to the audience "what do you mean it's not legal". i am not sure if this is a general observation, or just barbs wondering why anyone would trouble her with trivialities such as laws that she has always been well above and beyond the reach of. 

the linear notes say that this concert, but not necessarily the Live At The Forum album, were all done as a fundraiser for someone or other that barbs expressed a wish to be president. on the same bill were James Taylor and Carole King, and yes i do wonder if their sets were recorded too. anyway, one may wonder why, exactly, they didn't just let barbs pick whoever she wanted to be president and let them crack on. this was an idea for many years, but was only ever put in place once, when she selected that bill clinton fellow. it did not go well, and barbs appeared to get bored of it all not long after. 

overall, it is nothing short of difficult to select a highlight from Live At The Forum, except for the bit where she gets stoned and sings sesame street songs. this is a really, really good listening experience, a sheer wonder to have on the stereo. what you hear here is what makes so many people rush to the black market to sell their own liver, kidney or whatever so as to get tickets to be able to see her. or rather hear her, if someone has also had to sell an eye or two to get the tickets. 

exactly how likely is it that barbs shall release more recordings in the not too distant future? i have no idea, but i would suspect, if given to speculation, that it is quite likely. as things stand, there are already more recordings of barbra streisand in existence than it is possible to listen to in one lifetime. this is true in particular when you stick to just listening to classic recordings on repeat. 

actually no, f***, you know what, recently i have picked up three (3) barbs tapes (discs), and spent more than £4 on doing so. somewhere of late i found a copy of Love Songs on disc (not tape) in a charity shop, and bought it, even though i have the vinyl. presently i am not sure where i have put it, though, and it is not like i am going to go back and edit all of this to incorporate it. 

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

swan sleeping so softly

hi there

mostly just one of those posts i do every now and then to say hello, yes, for better or worse i still roam the planet, look you see. but, that said, one or two may find this interesting. at best, that many. 

recently i had reason to be outside, during my time of exile, near a body of water. for the most part, or indeed mostly, all was as i recalled it to be. except i saw that one swan was, i think, asleep. motionless, at the least, and appearing to be not quite so awake. 

not the best picture ever, i concede, but i did all that "zoom" thing so as to remove (most) distractions from the view. at the least i would take it as a given that you can see the swan is in what i believe, from previous observations, to be a sleeping position. one would suggest it is perhaps not the most comfortable way to sleep, but then i don't sleep on a water bed, or if you like bed of water. also my neck is nowhere near as long, and seldom is it when asleep that i have to be mindful of feathers. 

if any of you reading this are enthusiastic (or interested) in short, really shaky videos, then have i got a treat for you. behold, then, a short shaky video of a swan sleeping (presumably), with in fairness a nice reflection of a bird or two on the calm of the water. 

when the subject of swans has come up here in the past (rather than the future) the question, or debate, over whether or not the reigning monarch of our nation, at time of writing HMQE2, really does own all swans. there is, presumably, no need to do so again. 

right, well, that's that. 

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

making a bad decision worse

heya

i suppose that it would be fair to say that i have a track record for being lured. most recently, that i can recall at the least, was when i tried something what claimed to be coffee, on the advice of someone that yes, i would call a friend, look you see. and now that i have looked back (rather than forward) on that one, a pattern is forming. the pattern is white chocolate. 

someone that i would likely refer to as a friend, but for diplomacy am content with the description of very good colleague, recently made a recommendation to me. that, or this recommendation, was to purchase and (predictably) eat some of the "limited edition" white snickers on the go. presumably these words circulated around in my mind when i saw them in a shop. 

the main problem, or quarrel, perhaps dilemma, here is that we are talking about snickers. it is decidedly so, it is an accepted fact, that snickers are complete and utter sh!t. but it was not always so. no, they were a reasonably decent (if still consequentially substandard) alternate to a mars bar when they had a proper name, namely marathon. in the great rush to americanise as much of our culture and our ways as possible, though, they have devolved to being "snickers". if this is the kind of sh!t they are prone to eating over there, well, little wonder they always seem so angry and have such proclivity for random acts of gun related violence. 

but still, i figured yes, let me honour someone i call a friend, even if they would not speak so, and try them, for they seemed to believe they were ace. also, they were quite cheap, considering the cost, or price, of just about everything these days. once i got laughed out of an economics class, by a little p!sspot of a lib dem councillor teacher, for pointing out love remained free. no, as i have found out over the years, it is not. well, moving on. 

a look at the contents, or ingredients for you. in the picture above. perhaps the only point of departureof interest here is the (mass) debate over if "white chocolate" is in fact a chocolate or not. should you do your own research on this, the answer is no it isn't "technically". why not? going on what i read it is because it contains a "cocoa paste" rather than actual cocoa. yet it gets branded as "white chocolate" so they can use that as its name rather than saying it is a "chocolate what is white". well, whatever, really, as it happens i am partial to white chocolate, no matter what it actually is. so there was some hope that i might "not hate" these fancy new snickers bars. 

now that i think on, with some aspects of the above in mind, i suppose that this means cocaine isn't strictly speaking a chocolate either, then. as far as i am aware that has some sort of cocoa in it, but i am really not too familiar with it all. that nice Grandmaster Flash (and, possibly, the Furious Five) did a smart song on how cocaine was quite naughty, so there. but, then again, if Grandmaster Flash (and entourage) had been eating snickers (and similar tripe) it would be little wonder that they were very angry. 

just what is it with americans shoving f*****g peanuts in everything, anyway? i mean essentially a snickers is a substandard mars bar with peanuts shoved in. not the first time they have done this. we British gifted to the world the jam sandwich, and what do the americans do? of course, they go "woo hoo" and "yee haa" or whatever it is they say and they shove peanut butter in it. please, no, make no mistake i do quite like peanuts (and cashews, and them shell ones, pistachio or something), but there is a time and place for it. 

how is, or are, for the purposes of some sort of review, the (these) snickers white? as it happens, the white chocolate (or whatever it is) element is most agreeable, but fundamentally one is left, by and large, distressed and disappointed that they have eaten a snickers, for it is not a proper chocolate bar. 

right, that's really more than i thought i would say on the subject. absolutely no idea how anyone would have stumbled on this post, or my (yes, ad free) corner of the internet, but welcome, and hope you aren't bored by what you find. should this have alerted any of you to the fact that "snickers white" exists and is a thing, albeit limited edition, do err on caution with what you do with this knowledge. 

up to now i have declined to breach the subject of these snickers things with the person who suggested them to me. it seems, or feels, inappropriate to do so. clearly they are all rather enamoured and quite excited by them. let them roam free with such visions. 

enough for now, then. more as and when i think of something to say. 

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

radio go go

g'day

just now, or if you like in a few weeks (at time of publication, look you see), it shall be that one of those things described as being "the end of an era" shall come to pass. despite the fact that he is not leaving radio entire, not even the station he is at home at, no more will it be that Steve Wright does his afternoon show. a "new direction" change has come, and so the unassuming, modest presenter of Steve Wright Presents Steve Wright's The Big Show, Part of Steve Wright Presents Steve Wright In The Afternoon, Hosted By Steve Wright, Featuring Steve Wright. every now and then he only played a jingle or reminder that you were listening to Steve Wright three or four times every five minutes, so focused was he on the actual show, and not just that it was him doing it. 

reasons exist for the removal of Steve Wright, no doubt. i would have little or no clue what they are. for what they are not, well, as his show remained one of the most listened to on the radio, i think one can safely put aside any idea of the vocal crowd "demanding" he be fired for the last few years had anything to do with it. so far as i am aware, since the dawn or advent of "social media" virtually every DJ has had the pleasure of a campaign against them or calling for them to be dismissed. my guess would be "age", added with perhaps he wishes to break away (rumours persist of a serious illness, but he is famously private), but likely it is all down to budget. 

the notion, or idea, of it being budget related certainly seem quite likely when you consider the replacement lined up. one would have thought lots of DJs vied or applied for the prestigious afternoon slot on Radio 2, many of them good, great, excellent or likely to be popular. but maybe none of them applied, for instead they for some reason decided that Scott Mills was the best replacement. deciding that he is in some way or another an adequate way forward feels like a bit of an insult to the outgoing Steve Wright. a worse choice could possibly have been made, mindful of the fact that they still employ Jo Wiley. 

my first encounter with this Scott Mills fellow was a while or so ago, maybe a year or two. it was not good. he was foisted on us as a stand in for Ken Bruce, and very quickly it became clear he was well and truly out of his depth. after giving him reasonable chance to get at least competent, it became clear that i, and many others, would just have to do without Pop Master whilst he made terrible attempt after horrible go at trying to at least read out one half of a question correctly. 

i had assumed, on the basis of the above, that this Scott Mills was some sort of "new talent" that they were bringing in, hoping to fashion him as a new presenter of note. so yes, i was horrified and aghast to learn that he had somehow managed a career of north of two decades doing radio stuff. based on how he does it now, i surely shudder to think how bad he was when just starting out. 

let it not be said that i am all negative on this. of course a huge plus of him having a permanent afternoon show is, presumably (let us pray) he will never, ever, never, ever again ruin Pop Master for us normal people. further, he is only getting two (2) hours, with Sara Cox - an actual, proper DJ - getting an extra hour each day. 

presumably, though (and to go back a bit), the decision to relieve Steve Wright of duties was with budget in mind. at present the bbc are facing a significant budget "cut", at least according to what they say. all to do with the licence fee being frozen, which is a hit, but yet they seem.....reluctant to talk of how much money they rake in from commercial ventures with products that the licence payer here in the UK apparently fund. getting some of the cost of having a Steve Wright on the books will help. 

and by the same margin, getting staff already on the books to do more for their money will help. hence us being treated to things like someone what does traffic updates to a minimum requirement level on the radio now also appearing on other shows, be it hosting things he is woefully not up to, or as a celebrity on basically every variation of a "celebrity" version of a show. even a dancing one, i believe. 

yet they seem reluctant to cut the biggest earner, who also appears to do the absolute least in return for the significant coins paid out. indeed, i speak of he. for some reason he gets paid in excess of one million pounds (not a typo) to sit there, introduce some goals and then ask other people what they thought of it. not really value for money. and their old argument that they have to pay "market rates" is a thing of the past, especially as this one routinely does the same job for other channels. 

no, i am not really all that @rsed about whatever silly or sensible things he says on social media, but i believe there are some who very much are. presumably they can't sack him as they fear as being seen to pandering to "the mob". also, they say sacking him "wouldn't make much of a budget change". but yes it would, it would free up around a million, i believe. one really, really doubts that people tune in to see whatever goals have been scored just because he hosts it, after all. clinging on to people "for the principle of it" did not do Boris any good. 

for me, the departure of Steve Wright is another few threads of a safety blanket gone. sure, true, maybe i have not listened to him so frequently, but there was a reassurance that he was there, that things were as i had always (or mostly) known them to be. many will, of course, feel their own blanket is in place, since this Scott Mills will be to them what Steve Wright was to me. and of course there were those who felt so for whoever was there before "Wrighty". 

will i be giving Scott Mills a chance? unlikely. his proclivity is to play many really, really crap songs, and for some reason his style is based on a "dramatic pause", or if you like silence, is a quite good idea on the medium of radio. it isn't. 

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

lynx variations under review

hello there

one would have reasonably thought that, at my age, i would have "settled" on a particular type of deodorant. a choice of satisfaction made, and one to stick by for the remainder of my days, however many that may be, look you see. but, no, i still go ahead and experiment. well, it gives me something to compose words about here. 

the most recent adventure into the world of "different" (from what i would usually get) deodorants, or body spray as they are now often branded, did not go well. it was off to some french concern i went, and left as soon as i could. mostly, or for the most part, i have stuck with one that i both liked and seemed to work, for my aunty (no, the other one) also quite liked it. every now and then, though, i see one going cheap, or on special (which is going cheap), or they don't have my preference in. 

which is how come i have recently tried not just one, and not as many as three, but two (2) different types, or variations, of lynx of late. lynx as it is called here; axe is how it gets branded in certain areas. i appreciate the oddly international nature of my surprising audience, let it be noted. 

it does feel, in a very real sense, that no major corporate is ever prepared to learn from acts of folly like, for instance, all that "new coke" business of the eighties. recent similar acts of stupidity have seen someone decide to call opal fruits "starburst" and marathon bars "snickers". the mantra of if something is not broken do not fix it has gone. which, presumably, is why lynx keep messing about with different scents. how bad is it that they do this? well, have you ever had a smell of their marmite one? or their leather and cookies one? yeah, give it a go. 

not actually sure that these are new, for unless i am mistaken they are not branded as such, or as any sort of "limited or special" edition things. quite sure they had one called "attract" on the go anyway, although for the life of me i don't remember it being "attract for men". brave of them to use such a quaint and old fashioned gender, i suppose, in this brave era of fluidity or what have you.

don't recall the exact provenance (or cost) of these two, to be honest. i suspect it was a supermarket, or maybe even the chain store of chemists what is not boots. for cost i would reasonably expect it to have been around £1.50 or even £2.00 a can, for that is the usual price at which my brain seems to say yeah, go on, get them, no, they will be better than the last ones they did, probably. 

how do they smell? well, to start with the (at first, at least) best, the 'epic fresh' one isn't half bad. that's reasonably impressive in itself, as the advertised content (or scent), being grapefruit (grailfrit) and "tropical" (rather than urban, or domestic) pineapple are effectively describing the smell of lilt. so quite a shock when the scent (at first) was rather nice, and not simply akin to pouring a can of lilt over your head. less sticky too, presumably. after a few moments, though, the scent goes.....strange. it becomes rather like you would imagine chloroform, as depicted in films (and certain tv shows) smells, sort of appealing and then knocks you out. i don't think i knocked myself or anyone else out when i had it on, but in truth i was not paying attention, so maybe. so far as i am aware that chloroform doesn't actually smell of anything, but if it did then it would probably be this.

reluctantly, then, 'attract for him'. dark pomegranate and sandalwood is what the tin promises. and what, according to lynx / axe, does this smell of ? why, of course, the go to for virtually all deodorant brands on the go here in England (and the wider UK). musky. no, not just a musky musk, or the standard extract of skunk p!ss musk that is so common, but much worse. 

giving the matter some consideration, here's the best way i can describe the scent of this attract for him. do you recall that one class bit in Rambo First Blood Part II? yes, there were indeed a lot of class bits, but that bit where the keep Rambo neck deep (if that's right) in rat infested swamp water, then tie him to a stripped down spring mattress and electrocute him (on instruction of Steven Berkoff, i seem to recall) quite a great deal? undoubtedly Rambo, during these moments, relieved and soiled himself. mostly, then, this deodorant smells how you would imagine Rambo's trousers would smell after they had been laid out in the Vietnamese sun to dry a bit for a couple of days after that particular incident. 

from the two (2) i dare say it is fairly obvious to conclude that i might buy the epic fresh one again at some point, as it is nowhere near as bad as it could be. the only reason i can think of that i would purchase the other is the unlikely scenario where i had to purchase a gift of some description for someone that i considered to be a complete and utter d!ckhead. indeed, now that i have written that, i have formulated a rudimentary shortlist of people i would then purchase it for. now is not the time to disclose the names on it. 

yes, to state what i always state in such reviews, i am quite aware of me not being the target market, or demographic, for lynx (axe). it is marketed for, or at, feral teenagers, seeking any and all enhancements to improve their chances of engaging in breeding like activities, or related interventions. all other brands, alas, have aerosol cans that i find disagreeable, and a scent much worse. 

unlikely as this is to be the case, my hope is that might insights here have been of some value to someone out there somewhere. 

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

baffled by adverts

hi

every now and then i (quite) like to play a game or two on my camera what has, ostensibly, a phone welded to it. or, if you prefer, my phone what has a camera welded to it, look you see. this is reasonably if not fairly normal in the modern world, with many others doing so. as point of fact, i suppose, doing this makes me not quite so distracted from the present day as i often believe to be. 

generally, yes, i stick with the "free" games, thanks. but if this is a confession, then yes, once in a while, i think no more than 3 (three) times, i have bought "tokens" or credit or what have you to get past some levels or stages what proved tricky. aside from that, these games i play do rake in a great deal of money. quite a chunk of it, presumably, is off of the adverts they show in between goes, or levels. or present to you to get a "boost" to have another go. 

one theory, of a conspiracy nature, is that your phone (with camera welded, etc) is "always listening", and you can observe yourself getting adverts on websites or in games relating to what you have held conversations about. certainly i have noticed so. that said, my search history on the web appears not to inspire much in the way of selecting adverts to show me, for in games i am rarely, if ever, presented with ads for nuns, midgets, dwarfs (dwarves), middle aged bored british housewives or c0ck p!lls. in fact, and of course, it is the most frequent choice of adverts i get which has prompted this post. that and having nothing else better to write of, momentarily. 

a few months ago i would have been bombarded with the above advert three or four times a day, or however frequently i played a game. it's for something called clawee, which is apparently an online, or virtual (if you will) "claw machine" game. you know, them ones where you guide a claw like thing to pick up a prize, with the claw being too week or the prize being too heavy to ever win. up front, i must apologise for failing to grab a screenshot of the first "claw" player in the ad, a chubby central american, possibly mexican, looking kid who appeared to be either transitioning or otherwise coming to terms with and accepting a most peculiar sexuality. 

i do indeed understand the basic concepts of advertising; that ads exist to make whatever is being promoted highly desirable, attractive and what not so as to inspire an aspiration to obtain. but, well, really? whereas i am impressed with the sleek advert, in particular the delivery dude with bona fide classic "turkey teeth", is it really so there's a monumental number of people out there who play on these machines in order to get, usually, rudimentary stuffed teddy bear like toys? 

the most obvious, or overt, question about these "apps" i am being presented with adverts for is that of whether they are scams. in truth i have no firm idea, for i have not installed them and would not do so. highly likely, i would speculate, that there is a "catch". to state the obvious, they must in some way make more money off whatever it does than they spend running and advertising it, unless it is some insane corporate fronting it as a tax loss. more curious things have happened. 

currently i seem to be getting 2 (two) variations of an advert for something called mistplay of late. this one suggests that you can earn money simply by playing games off of your phone. what i like about this advert is the surreal nature. in either (or both) example i have seen, they have one (1) actress playing two roles, and all in conversation with each other. or herself. they kind of angle and present it to create a sense that maybe it's two different people. actually, a rather clever bit of film making and overall really wasted on an advert for something which certainly seems to be too good to be real. 

doing a google search on either of these is fascinating. mostly results for clawee come up with it being a scam, a ruse, and a "waste of money", which suggests no it isn't free. not so mistplay. a search on that comes up with a whole lot of virtually identically worded "reviews", all on official sounding sites with the site owner details being kept private, praising it. hmn.

how, then, do apps or games like this make money? i am guessing via you needing to pay "postage" for whatever they offer, or you having to make "in app purchases" and so on. certainly it won't be the old fashioned, earlier part of this century way of simple data harvesting. ever since people have carried smart phones, or installed all seeing, all listening, forever recording devices from amazon, google, apple and whoever in their homes, they have no need to harvest no more, the crops come to them. oh, well, if these ads mean i can play the odd game for free, so be it. 

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

proportional perspective

greetings

in just a few weeks (three, i believe) of this being published the UK shall have a new prime minister. or, for some, and not incorrectly, yet another prime minister. for a nation that tends to base itself on a level of stability, this shall be the fourth (4th) prime minister in 8 (eight) years, look you see. sure, certain reasons may exist for the sudden shift to frequent change - like, for instance, entirely the wrong person getting the job in at least one instance - but, still. 

something of an age old, if not ancient, argument (or "narrative") has become increasingly louder during these changes. that is of a voice which says "not my prime minister". apparently they voted for neither the party nor the person coming to be prime minister, and thus they "wash their hands" of them, or something. certainly, indeed, a lot of this is just silly nonsense which would be discarded, but is now amplified by all of this "social media" stuff, in which people believe their voice is the only one which should be heard; that they alone are guardians of "critical thinking". weirdly, they tend to speak of their "free speech" whilst denouncing all others who serve to exert the same. 

leaving aside the fringe lunatics, no matter how loud they may be, i figured that i would at least look at, or consider, some of the more compelling arguments they put forward why, exactly, it is not "their" prime minister. usually such leads down the path marked "proportional representation".

for clarity, here in the UK we have what they call a "first past the post" system. our government is made up of 650 representative seats, 649 of which are contested at elections (the role of speaker of the house, impartial before and apparently after Bercow, is normally uncontested). so, the nation is divided into 650 areas called constituencies, with those eligible and registered to do so invited to vote for one of the people standing for election. usually these are dominated by representatives of the two biggest, in terms of membership and finance, parties, Labour and the Conservatives. essentially or effectively it is who gets the most votes wins. 

a long running (or standing) argument is that this is unfair, or even "undemocratic", for so many votes get described as "wasted" or "lost". this, apparently, would not be so under proportional representation, where each and every vote nationally would count. so, i decided to do a little exercise. exactly how different would the last four (4) elections be had this much vaunted (by some) proportional representation been in place?

using the most basic or purest form of proportional representation possible, i applied the percentage of votes to the number of seats in parliament, momentarily taking it as 650 actual rather than the 649 real term ones on the go. and here is a graphic of the boss spreadsheet thing i made. do bear in mind, then, that with both the current as-is system and this proportional representation theory, a single party would require 326 seats so as to command a "majority" and govern as they wished. 

hmn. assuming that "all things remained equal", we would have had to have a "coalition" government after each election, and not just the one which happened in 2010. one that not too many recall fondly, or would argue existed as a boss ace number one example of what makes the potential for proportional representation agreeable. with the exception of 2019 and, very much in particular, 2015, it is not really so that so-called (and i absolutely do not mean this disrespectfully) "minority parties" have all that a radical change in the number of seats they ended up with. quite an interesting quirk, that said, is what happens to the Scottish Nationalist number of seats when one awards them as a percentage of voting population instead of constituencies. let me let the numbers speak for themselves. 

much of my view against proportional representation is that i quite like a local MP, who(m) i and the regional, provincial electorate can hold to account. under 'pr', it would presumably be the parties and or their leaders who pick the MPs based on votes. just take a moment to think what a parliament full of people picked exclusively by Johnson, Corbyn, Cameron, May (God forbid), Sturgeon, Starmer, etc would look like. quite unlikely to represent the majority of the nation any greater than the current system allows for, or puts in place. by the way, Starmer is left out of the collage of pictures partially because i forgot him, but mostly as he has not "fought" an election as such as yet. 

yet that 2015 election stands out. advocates of proportional representation would say look, see how the Greens should have had 25 seats, not one. but they are oddly quiet about the small matter of how UKIP would have had 81 (that's eighty one) seats, instead of the 1 (one) they got. if we take the broad political leanings of each party, with proportional representation it is rather (highly) likely we would have ended up with a Conservative-UK coalition government. loathe as i may be to generalise, but i am not sure, indeed uncertain, that this is the sort of thing those who most loudly advocate proportional representation have dreams of being in place. 

of course some who would still argue for proportional representation probably have something not quite as simplistic as what i have presented in mind. undoubtedly they have a model for "how much" votes count for, with the calculations likely based on outcomes that would see who they wished to be in power turn out to be the winners. rather like that time they let Ed Sheridan (or whoever) rewrite the rules for the single chart, and then changed them again after he had got what he wanted. 

generally, then, i would suggest that all voting systems have distinct flaws. at least they do in use in truly democratic countries, like ours, where one is free to voice a view and/or be critical. perhaps if i had gone further back and looked at even more previous elections the changes would have said more to me, but i doubt this to be so. at the very least this "first past the post" tends to give a clear(ish) winner, sometimes good sometimes bad. 

to be honest, yes, no, one should not speak of politics or religion in polite company, for those subjects tend to cause polite ways to part. a ghost whispers in my ear, carried by a wild wind, saying that one should not also speak of weather. let me dispel that ghost, though, for if we cut that from chat our nation would be oh so very silent. but, if anything here as been of interest - even or perhaps especially if this strikes you as something to dismiss as rubbish - nice one. 

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

quite nearly all of now twelve (12)

howdy pop pickers

so, it has happened again. another re-release of an 80s Now That's What I Call Music has happened. in this instance it is a very nearly complete re-issue of volume 12 (twelve), look you see, with just the one song absent from the original release. and, it should be pointed out, this was released on compact disc, in full, at the time. so f*** knows what has happened to "licensing" and all that to corrupt this. 

ostensibly this volume covers the "first half" of 1988. it was an era of conflicting emotions for me, with some strange days and decisions made which perhaps should not have been. but never mind that, that's my concern. for the casual pop fan, inexplicably coming here for information, a distinct overlap of events. i don't rightly now if this happened before or happens again, but as far as i can see the time periods of the previous volume, imaginatively titled 11, and this cross streams. well, i think so. eleven (11) covered a lot of the end of 87 and the first steps (couple of months) into 88, and yet here on 12 (twelve) we have a song or two from very early 88, certainly I Think We're Alone Now off of Tiffany. does it matter? perhaps not. 

whatever memories or association i have with this time, and let's just say "the first six months of 88", i am not entirely convinced i recall these songs in context of those dates, and certainly i don't remember it all being so, well, bereft of outstanding stuff as this set suggests. 

make no mistake, and be under no illusion. it is simply not so that Now 12 is a complete write off. i am not convinced, to play on words, that there are as many as 12 great songs on it, but when it's good on here it is really, really excellent. 

for the particularly outstanding here, and in no order beyond how they come up on the tapes (discs), there's Everyday Is Like Sunday off of Morrissey, the brilliant Mary's Prayer off of Danny Wilson, I Want You Back off of Bananarama and Theme From S'Express by S'Express. beyond being a completist and a compulsive shopper, the latter was probably what secured purchase here, for i wasn't sure if i even had the single version of that tune on tape (disc) in the collection. somewhere i have a CD single but unsure if the "original" was contained. got it now, so matters not. oh, also Love Changes (Everything) off of Climie Fisher, which was, and is, a well decent pop song, nice one lads. 

cover versions seem to be a trifle dominant on this set. the whole thing kicks off with Wet Wet Wet, or as some would say (not me) them twats Wet Wet Wet, with their charity single chart topping cover of With A Little Help From My Friends. strangely does not hold up as well as i remember from the time. oh, sure, yes, possibly better vocals than The Beatles original, but for me and the many i suspect the definitive take is the Joe Cocker one. elsewhere there's an, if we are honest, inspired take on Pink Cadillac by Natalie Cole, and Maxi Priest's go at Wild World is lovely. 

not so much joy with the rest, really. a lot of it is "oh, they had more than one or two hits?" material, with largely forgotten (by the masses, not hardcore fans) tunes off of them twats (that is me saying it) Johnny Hates Jazz, T'Pau and that twat (very much me saying it) Jermaine Stewart. for the latter, i believe or think this is the third time (by this stage) he had appeared on a Now set, and i can really, really only ever remember having to endure that f***** awful song about "cherry wine" or whatever off of him. not heard the one on here before and i promise i shall not hear it again. 

that makes for an open confession, of sorts. i have played this set once, and i am not at all sure it shall ever get played again. but this is true for nearly all of them so far, with the exception of Now That's What I Call Music 4. it, that one (here) very much remains an all time favourite, and regularly gets played. all other volumes, well, not so much if at all after purchase. 

going back to (that twat) Jermaine Stewart, ill advised are those who use these Now sets to evaluate or determine what was "class" in the 80s. i appreciate it is all down to licensing, availability of the songs, etc, but still. he features, yet (say) no Depeche Mode, and nowhere near as much Frankie or Duran as had charted by the point of 12 being released. 

several (perhaps many) others will have spoken of the "wrong" versions of songs featuring here, for on these compact disc issues (for the first time) and re-issues (like this) they go for a different edit than what appeared on the original records and tapes. the only time i have full tilt noticed this was, i think on 3, where they used the standard 7" off Two Tribes rather than the picture disc. in terms of the "we have come to expect this" omission here, just the one - a "special 1988 remix" that i do not remember at all of In The Air Tonight off Phil Collins. don't have a clue why not included here, or what the remix was for. doubt it was Miami Vice related, as the song featured in the first series, a few years earlier. being an undisputed, no questions asked classic, a bit of a shame. 

by contrast, a surprise inclusion here is Doctorin' The Tardis (yes, no g, Steve Wright fans) off of a lot of what went on to be KLF, and i think Yazz is on there (or was that Doctorin' The House). not so long ago - oddly i think again 3 - they dropped a Gary Glitter song (and i don't remember him having any hits at all in the 80s) for "sensitive" reasons. yet it is OK to have his heavily sampled song here, and sure enough there is his writing credit (and presumably royalties) in the linear notes. dear me, double standards, who would have thought such would ever exist. 

quite a cosmopolitan mix, looking at the tracklist. near enough to every genre on the go gets something of a look in, and how lovely to see Iron Maiden on. their inclusion here (Can I Play With Madness) is a good song, and i am informed their most successful ever single, but i suspect all would cite their earlier stuff as their best. not that there is "bad" Maiden, before i get my head kicked in. 

yes, oddly and strangely this was just £7.99 down HMV. suspiciously with the cellophane missing from the disc, but no matter. i am used to them charging an extra £1 or so for discs, a premium added no doubt for the prestige of being allowed to use them. just for the sake of having it yes i might have paid whatever price they had on it, but i shall tell them not of this and i encourage you to do the same. 

apt, perhaps, that i am as conflicted in mind by the tracklist here as i am with thoughts of the time it covers. mostly, i think, i get really, really distracted by the unmitigated, relentless drivel and sh!t included here. no, not just Jermaine Stewart, who i think i have called a twat enough for now. the Elton John one, for instance, is so bad - especially just a few years after Nikita - that it was a wonder his career did't get buried by it. have no member of Derek B or Bad Young Brother at all, and it's really a truly f****** awful number, hideous and criminal sample of Prince on it. wonder if this is what that former Mr Zoe Ball sampled for one tune, Rockafellar whatever? sorry, but also do not recall anyone at all ever actually liking Scritti Politti (or whatever) and here they are again showing why that is so. 

enough, now, i do believe (or think). any or all songs not mentioned or called out, well, assume as them being "yeah" or "meh" or forgettable. but then, you know, dig what you dig. will they push on with these re-issues? if so. shall it be just 80s, or will they step into 90s reissues? should time remaining give me the option of learning, i will learn. 

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

 

the man who squats behind the man who works the soft machine

hello there

well, a word of caution, i suppose. this is one of those posts what goes into the sometimes (but not always) murky realm of the gentleman's restroom facility. public toilets, look you see. for men. and indeed sometimes for me who like men. should you have no interest in such (and you would not be wrong to express no interest) you may wish to depart now. 

so, on my extensive travels i get to go and use a fair few number of restrooms set aside for members of the gentry. interestingly, i suppose, in this "fluid" brave new world no, i have not encountered such set up as a free for all; for the use of anyone no matter what gender they have decided they are momentarily. weird, as the news sometimes make it sound as though all such facilities are now so. 

most, but not all, restroom facilities of this nature (for the gentry) tend to have vending machines. in fact, as i recall it, the only restroom facilities not to have vending machines are the ones in McDonalds. now that i think, this is quite strange, as Spiros once told me (unsolicited) that several of his top ten short term but mutually beneficial friendships with other men have happened in bathrooms at McDonalds. at least four, if i recall his words right, but i was trying not to pay attention. 

i had an unusual instance of being alone in such a facility, hence me being able to take a picture, in the greater good and glory of Commodore 64 mode. and video, below. errr, not that i was looking for a fellow gent to engage in a short term, mutually beneficial relationship with. such is best left, i think, to my chum Spiros. 

for reason you may well see below (if you click on the video) (yes, we've got a video), i was quite drawn to this machine. also a bit perplexed by it, really. ostensibly it offers things what a gent might wish for when meeting a like minded gent there, specifically prophylactics (rubber johnnies) and them things that i can only describe as c0ck pills. the thing is, though, such a wide and versatile range within one vending machine. oh, undoubtedly they are all the same things in each packet, with just different branding and what have you on the packets. 

a couple of you may, for whatever reason, wish to know the economics of these machines. costs to patrons, that is. well, from what i could observe (and i stand to be corrected) each item carries a price of £3 each, with payment in £1 coins only. i think, on the latter. anyway, the video. 

drawing me in to this particular machine, then, was the sensational lighting display you can see in that video above. not sure if others have it on, to be honest. quite a marketing draw, but then i would have thought the items for sale pretty much sold themselves to any gents in, well, need.

to see if there was any actual, discernible difference between the different types of pills on offer, i went right ahead and asked the only chap i knew who would have had any experience, which is Spiros. he gave quite an answer, and of course most of it is frankly impossible to repeat here. but, relevant to the question, he said he wasn't at all sure, for he simply always did a good handful of all of them, decking a few cans to wash them down. 

of little or no actual use, i appreciate, this has been. but, there you have it. 

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

comfort zone reading

hello reader

yes, i know you saw what i did there. and i, too, saw you seeing what i did there. but enough of such, for it is time to just get on with things, look you see. 

it is so that i've read another couple of books. two, to be precise. which is not just one (1), or quite so many as 3 (three), but yet that said i do seem to be flying through the one i commenced reading after completing the second of these 2 (two). or something like that. 

rather as is the usual, or still the same, here, a look at the two books what i most recently read, followed by some general, brief, sort of "that will do" comments on each. after that them *** SPOILERS *** are quite possible, but i shall do what i can to avoid. yet in the case of one of them it might be tricky. 

yes, The Man Who Died Twice is indeed by TTOOOP, and is the follow up to the magnificent Thursday Murder Club. more of the same, as it happens, so if you enjoyed the first then absolutely yes on this one, but i suspect all interested (in the immediate time of publishing this) will have read it by now. on to The Crusader's Cross, which is a relatively recent one off of Scott Mariani, which of course means the latest in Ben Hope adventures. below average, at best, and that is being kind. also, if you have the slightest interested in reading it, do not read the back cover blurb thing. 

let me continue, then. or we shall, if you keep reading. and a reminder of that spoiler thing.

beginning where i began with these two (or started) is to first look at The Man Who Died Twice by, of course, TTOOOP. except it seems i can no longer or no more refer to him as The Tall One Out Of Pointless, for he has retired or resigned from that. well, sort of. he is going to do the "celebrity" version of it. my choices seem to be to refer to him as either The Tall One Formerly Out Of Pointless (TTOFOOP) or The Tall One Out Of Pointless Celebrities (TTOOOPC). neither are ones that i care for, as they are not acronyms as such. and i don't like that other gameshow what he does. 

some have suggested i simply use his real, or given, name. that feels like cheating, now. hang on i could call him The Brother Out Of The One Out Of Suede What Isn't Brett (TBOOTOOOSWIB), but no. anyway, i have followed his entire career (more or less) with great interest, all the way back to the 80s (or was it the 90s) when he started off as a backing dancer for that nice Sonia lass (see here). whereas i have no familiarity or association with him at all, and nor would i solicit such beyond being someone who simply buys and reads his books, i do now feel at a stage where using his actual name (which yes, i have done here before) would seem quite silly. almost as silly as holding  extended conversation on the subject, and a conversation mostly with myself. 

provenance of my copy of The Man Who Died Twice? i am certain it was Tesco, and probably at a slight reduction of fee, likely from being a card carrying club member. without doubt i can tell you that i did not purchase it at Morrison's, as for some reason they are reluctant to stock it. quite strange. i have been in branches, or if you like chapters, of Morrison's in the north east and the south east of England, and even one or two in Wales. none of them have it on the shelf. very strange, considering it was always going to be a big seller. indeed i am curious as to why they are not stocking it, but no, not to the extent of researching or asking questions. 

oh, yes, the actual novel. as in plot, what's it about, etc. mostly more of the same from Thursday Murder Club, with slight differences, more insight into the past of each of the characters, that sort of thing. effectively a very real, spot on continuation of the first novel. which, i suspect, many like me were hoping for with precision. and so it is delivered. 

flaws and faults? plenty of them, in particular with regards to how credible the necessary suspension of disbelief (or what have you) is required when tackling any fiction. often contrived plausibility is stretched beyond any point of recognition (rather like this sentence), but you know what? it really doesn't matter. all escapist, enjoyable fun. which is precisely what one would want from these novels. and this is coming from someone who set out intent on not enjoying the first.  

the same, alas, cannot be said or extended to The Crusader's Cross off of Scott Mariani. here we are, then, with the i don't even know what number any more adventure of Ben Hope, the ex IRA, former kidnap saver and perpetual magnet for all sorts of bother. i think two of these now come out a year, and if i am not mistaken this one came along late 2021. mostly i set about reading it when the next one was on the shelves. 

almost certain this came off of Tesco, where i probably spent £3.00 to get it, but had to buy a copy of some newspaper or other for that price to be valid, with whatever newspaper it was going straight into recycling, thanks. not sure in these instances which is supposed to be getting the sales boost, the book or the paper. anyway, that's what i have done for years, as and when they have had a decent book on the go. 

go on then, what's the plot of this one? well, wouldn't you know, Ben Hope has opted for a little "down time" over Christmas. also, he's found an old church what was buried in his land, and has injured himself during the excavations, or what it is that them archaeologist types do. sure enough he finds a really valuable relic (clue in the title of the novel), and also a gang decide to hit his training facility so as to get arms to sell on the black market. 

normally, or usually, there isn't too much of a surprise as to what happens in a Ben Hope adventure, but at least there's the element of thrill and enjoyment in reading it. sadly not so in this one, as i made the ill mistake of reading the back blurb, or text. yes, there is a picture of it below, and if you can read it but for some reason want to read the book, please don't. the three or so paragraphs of it more or less cover all of what happens in all of the first 200 pages, and there's south of 400 in the novel. so it all became a bit of a chore to read, really. as in i finished Man Who Died Twice in a week or so, this took over a month. indeed i was avoiding it, but thought i had better get it over and done with. 

unfortunately, or regrettably, the fun has once again gone from reading these novels. the last time this happened i can't remember specifically, but i very nearly gave up on them. however, along came one called The Forgotten Holocaust, which was brilliant, and compelled me to read on. being fair, the ones after that retained a high quality and remained enjoyable. last few, not so much. from memory we have had some silly one about a gold treasure in Scotland and a vague covid cash-in. now this one, which really does feel all colour by numbers. oh yes, there was a devil worship (or similar) one too. 

sure, i could say that i am simply going to stop reading these novels of Scott Mariani, but i suspect that would be untruthful. even now, when i haven't particularly enjoyed the last two. or three. well, i have already bought the next one. let me see, maybe i shall call it quits if it is as below average, and by that i mean as poor, as this one. 

my speculative guess would be that 98.9% of people who had any interest in reading these novels shall have done so already, and that the balance of percentage would likely not be encouraged to do so on the basis of what i said. oh. well, i have written all of that now. many thanks if you read it. 

back, then, i go to a novel i am really, really enjoying. and shall no doubt write of when i am done with it, and whatever i read after it. 

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