superman

now then

on a practical level i would suggest that there's little (if any) point to me writing a review of a film which has, for the last three weeks (or close enough, look you see), been reviewed and (rightly) praised on just about every "internet" thing to exist. that the film - and as the title suggests, it is the most recent at time of writing (2025) Superman - is also heading to that magical "one billion dollars" in terms of money made suggests my views are not really needed to encourage anyone to see it. more likely, then, this will be all the usual sentimental hygiene waffle which comes whenever a nostalgia thread gets pulled. 

for what it is worth, and all spoiler free, i am delighted to say that this new Superman film really is as good as the positive reviews have said. i had some doubts about watching it, and there's one scene early on that makes you go "oh no not all dark and broody again", but am i glad i did. there is a temptation to go and see it again, to be honest, but perhaps best i save pennies for when the video (disc) comes out. 

this may all well be more about moi than the actual film, then. and, indeed, a return to a familiar named cinema in a familiar place. which is also the first time i have been to a cinema outside of London (innit) for a good few years. buckle up if you read on, but if possible rather go and see Superman than spend any more time reading this. 

my decision to see Superman was kind of spontaneous and unexpectedly driven by the absolutely dire state of our public transport system. i had tinkered with the idea of seeing it on the Sunday afternoon it opened, thinking i could hop off the train i take back to my lodgings in my place of exile after seeing my (known) sons. yet i was feeling somewhat shagged out (so to speak) from the night before, and wasn't sure i was awake enough to enjoy or appreciate it. then of course it was so that the train people elected to "terminate" my train at the stop i would need to depart at for the cinema anyway, which i took as a sign of fate intervening. 

i also, inexplicably, tried mental gymnastics to find reason not to see it. there was no way, after all, that any Lex Luthor would be as good as the Gene Hackman one, with his (outstanding) performance all the fresher in mind after we recently lost this cinema great. as much as i enjoyed Superman Returns (if we are allowed to say that due to the presence of one actor) and thought Man Of Steel was brilliant, just how dull Batman vs Superman was (mostly due to Ben Affleck but still) felt like a "danger will robinson" sort of warning. yet the trailer and snippets for this new one looked good. 

drawing closer to going (prior to the train termination forcing the issue) i delved into thoughts on what made Superman so special for me. it was the wonder of taping the first (Christopher Reeve) one off the tele on that fancy "video" machine Mum and Dad got that led to it being watched loads of times. the second film held an air of mystery as we, for some reason, never had the video of it. forever shall i cherish the third one for memories of going to some "fleapit" like cinema to watch it with my family whilst on holiday. so yes, it was a feeling i sought, not a film. unlikely that i would get that all alone at a cinema, you would think.

an assumption i made was that a mid-afternoon Sunday showing would be a straightforward film ticket to get. these days the "big crowds" are there for the Thursday to Saturday on opening weekend. plus things like the Wimbledon men's final (tennis) was on, and it was a (vague) summer afternoon. not so, and as it turned out i got the last ticket available. which, like the train thing, was possibly something one could interpret as a "sign" that i was meant to go and see it. 

cost of my ticket? £9, which is "standard", no discounts, specials, memberships or anything like that. and that is quite a statement about me taking as a given that the "half price" Tuesday fee of £7.50 at the Ealing Project seemed reasonable. rather likely you have worked this out from the above image, but indeed this was at the Odeon, which has fairly recently been re-instated down town. get ready for some more sentimental hygiene, then. 

depending on what came out when this will have been the first time i had been to the Odeon in town since Terminator 2, the silence of the lambs or the obscenity that was Godfather Part III in the early 90s. fond memories of the place in the 80s, though, going to see Top Gun 6 times, A View To A Kill at least 4 times and, best of all, going to see Cannonball Run II with my brother. the latter was "best" as we made it before it got "pulled" after three days, can't remember if it was because of poor attendance figures or "audience behaviour". memories, again, then. 

yes, i am sure i will mention something about the film eventually. but first, a "wow" on what a just plain, regular seat is in this new Odeon. all the chairs are them "recliner" ones, and i got disproportionately excited (possibly an age thing) when i saw each and every chair had a retractable table thing. a table much more better than ones you get on planes. 

in regards of "concessions" i believe i got "upsold". their smallest sizes are listed as "regular", so i just ordered a regular popcorn and regular coke zero, since normal (or as some call it "full fat") coke is now a bit of a no-no thanks to my medical adventures. when i ordered the nice lady asked if when i said regular did i in fact mean "medium" as a lot of people were getting confused by the names they had given them. in the interests of just getting my order and heading to the film i said "yeah ok". so the middle size of each came in at £11.95. 

right, then, the film. the only "negative" i have is, as mentioned earlier, a scene quite early in the film, some really, really "low ball" spoilers are possible here. a scene happens when Lois Lane interviews Superman. gone is all the charm of the similar scene in the first Christopher Reeve one. it's a monotonous, miserable and darkly lit scene. my reaction was "oh, for f**k's sake, not more subverting expectations a la Last Jedi please". merrily, it is ludicrously out of tone of the remainder of the film. quite surprised, to be honest, that they didn't go and extensively trim, if not cut entirely, that scene. 

this film was one of the most thrilling, engaging and emotionally involving ones i have seen for quite some time. as many, many critics, reviews and what have you have said, it's just a brilliant, joyful film. with another possible spoiler warning for you, yes, to an extent Krypto "steals the show", for he is a joy and most memorable, but the entire (if you will ensemble) cast are magnificent. who(m)ever it is playing the titular Superman was excellent. that he is "actual Superman" for around 80% of the time, instead of messing about as Clark Kent, was a win. Lois Lane, Ms Tecmaker (spelling, sorry), Jimmy Olsen were perfect, and the "Justice Gang", with particular emphasis on Mr Terrific (who i had never heard of) were great fun. special, and unexpected, praise for Nicholas Hoult as Lex Luthor. for some reason i was expecting not to be impressed by him, yet he was really outstanding. 

with regards to the "twists" and slight changes to the established "Superman lore", well, they have been documented all over, and i won't go into detail here. all of them seemed plausible within the realm of this fictional world, to be honest. no "blasphemy" or anything like that. mostly i am thankful they trusted us in the audience enough to just start off with Superman instead of giving us yet another "origins" story.

let me (more or less) end this here, then. i don't think i can say much more than Superman really was a beautiful cinema experience, bravo to all involved making it. quite likely this shall end up being my favourite film of the year, as much as i am looking forward to the patent nonsense of Naked Gun. 

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

i was there

howdy pop pickers

generally, or usually, i have (at least attempted) to steer away from the "me me moi me me" approach to things on this blog. these things are often derided as a vanity thing, look you see, but then again what is one supposed to write of in a thing ostensibly for themselves other than themselves? fondly i can recall, several years ago, Private Eye slating an autobiography - won't say who(m) exactly as they have some legal issues momentarily - because it was "too much about themselves". indeed the next issue saw them decent enough to print some responses suggesting (or stating) that surely writing about yourself was the entire point of an autobiography. 

well, that got a bit side-tracked. the reaoson for this post, and the quasi defence of it above, is that somehow it is so that i have kind of ended up on not just one, certainly not as many as three, but two (2) recordings released this year. so yes, this is a bit of "indulgence" or showing off. 

starting with the "appearance" which is chronologically first if the second of these two what i am sort of on, that would be a quite class new Suede tape (disc). the tape (disc) comes gratis with the September 2025 edition of Mojo, ostensibly featuring the late (and great) Brian Wilson on the cover, although a limited variation edition with Suede on it is also available. 

for a "free" disc (with a magazine that costs just south of £7) it's remarkably generous. no, one does not get any of the "big" hits, but you certainly get some huge fan favourites, in particular the ostensible titular tune off of the set, Outsiders. 

not wishing to bore you with all of the track details (sorry if that's why you are here) there's a quite impressive three (3) tracks from their, at time of writing (2025), imminent new album. first off there's a demo of the "single" Disintegrate, which i think got sent out as an mp3 when you ordered the album. at the end there's Criminal Ways, and so far as i am aware this is the debut of anyone hearing it. but, also, in between them, there's a live recording of Antidepressants, which is the titular song off of the new album. so far as i am aware (incidentally) this is the first time that one of their albums has the name of one of the songs on it. 

despite the misprint on the actual disc cover (which states it is live from Manchester in 2023, before they wrote it), as you can see above it's from their gig last year (2024) at Alexandra Palace. part of the joint tour they did with the Manic Street Preachers and, indeed, one of the two gigs on this tour i went to. yes, of course i am providing a link to to that right here. 

i elected, or opted, to stand a bit further back for this particular gig, so as to enjoy it with two really good friends. rather unlikely that you can actually hear me on this recording from the gig, as i suspect the sound engineer will have focused on capturing the band rather than some north of fifty (!) gentleman waving his arms about shouting "Brett, i am over here Brett, you can touch me if you want" or something like that. still, an excellent memento of a gig i was at, especially when, as you will find out if you do click on that link, my awful phone captured pretty bad video and images.  

more chance exists, if you (for some reason) wanted it, of hearing me on the next one. which is the rather brilliant KillerStar doing, as an encore, a sterling cover of Children Of The Revolution. 

considering just how Bowie infused (inspired and devoted too) the band are many are somewhat surprised that they don't do a cover of one of his songs. i guess that would feel or seem to obvious, but also which one? taking on a great tune from one of Bowie's friends, heroes and inspirations makes sense, as does how the groove generally fits in with the band's own distinct tone. 

the band have, over on that facebook thing, said this was recorded on the second night of their residency at the legendary 100 Club earlier this year. yes, the one (as this link can show you) i was at, one what is increasingly looking like my last ever night in that there London (innit). not sure i am in all that much of a rush to go back. 

as to if you can actually hear me on this one, well, i was totes part of the chorus shouting for "one more song", but not sure the most prominent voice on the recording is mine. should you wish to find out, may i suggest that for little more than US$1 or just over £1 in real money, you visit this site and buy a download of it in whatever format you care. yes, i know paying for music is a concept as scary as it is odd in this strange new world, but if we don't support bands like this we shall lose them forever. 

right, i think that's enough of me at worst showing off, at best highlighting two amazing bands and the quality music they make. dig what you dig.

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

eight tapes

greetings

well, no, strictly speaking not eight tapes, look you see. it would be correct to say eight discs, for that is how many i gone watched and will write (badly) of here. no, eight films would not be right, for one of them wasn't a motion picture as such. yes, even though it was moving images. 

as ever with this sort of post i would suggest that a ***SPOILER WARNING*** is very much in place just after the next (and first) image, listing the titles. should you wish to remain unaware of what goes on in any of these tapes (discs) then it is quite likely best you read no further. but, that said, you have my every assurance that the spoilers for Friday 13th 4 are totes worth it and may well inspire you to watch the film. or not. 

no particular order is used here and, rather unhelpfully, also they are not going to be shown in the order what they are in that image above. sorry for that. except there is some slight order, for the first one is one that i referenced (i think) towards the end of my last post on this subject. 

it is so that the film The Entity has lurked around in my mind for 40 odd years without me ever getting around to watching it. the box for it down the video shop always looked vaguely interesting, but not enough to rent. from memory one friend at school, can't recall who sorry, did see it and was well impressed, but also reviewed it in a way that suggested if i watched it then it would be a bit like that time (and remember i was young) i watched An American Werewolf In London after being told i was not allowed to and subsequently having nightmares for weeks. 

plot? a young lady (Barbra Hershey) is living a fairly routine life when all of a sudden she starts becoming a victim of brutal, horrifying, violating attacks. bad enough in itself, but it seems they are attacks of a paranormal, invisible "entity" type. her plight is made all the worse, then, for on top of these highly distressing attacks few seem to believe her story. 

this was actually rather good. at times it felt this was a borderline "let's do Exorcist but mix in something like I Spit On Your Grave", but they generally swerved away from this being outright exploitative trash. Barbra Hershey is excellent, as is Ron Silver as the "doctor" (or what have you) trying to determine if this is real or not. absolutely boss soundtrack, too. not a film for all, since the subject of the attacks - ghosts or not - isn't comfortable viewing, but well worth watching. 

one night i was home, or place of exile, feeling a bit out of sorts. i considered what fifteen year old me would have done alone with a video. the answer was not erotica, thank you, but that i would have very much watched some class horror, with particular emphasis on trash the BBFC cut or banned.

which is how i ended up watching Friday 13th Part 3 (at the cinema in 3D no less) and Friday 13th Part 4, the one rather misleadingly dubbed "the final chapter". didn't really like the first two, with the original being rather boring and the second just some bloke with a sack on his head going about, mostly, with an axe. 

part three was also, as confirmed by watching it again, really rubbish. leaving aside how dire the 3D effects look in a flatter 2D, effectively this is a bunch of kids you take a dislike to immediately getting killed in a variety of ways. also very little nudity, and what there is is "tastefully" filmed so as not to show anything for long. the only decent aspects of this one are that Jason got his iconic ice hockey mask in it and there was some different ways in which people got killed. 

quite rare for the 4th film in a series to be the "best" but that is precisely what Friday 13th Part 4 is. yes, admittedly, it gets that status purely as it has the most nudity of any of the films, but still. this one has a relatively decent plot, is extremely well paced, class killing scenes and some actual, proper, decent acting. best of the latter is easily Crispin Glover. 

up above this writing should be a brief video showcasing Crispin Glover's bonkers spastic dancing in the film. this in itself would make it class, but you also get to see the (then) young actor be all dorky and shy, use sexual swear words, do a sex, this dancing and, let me remind you of the spoiler warning, also eventually get (briefly) crucified. calling this the crowning glory of Crispin Glover's career feels like a bit of an understatement. think it will have only been a year or so after this that he did Back To The Future, improbably playing Michael J Fox's dad. 

speaking of fifteen (or so) year old me, i finally (or if you will eventually) got around to watching one of them "oh yeah that looks good" films. i saw the trailer for Deadly Pursuit, released in some countries as Shoot To Kill, about a dozen times at the cinema. this was, of course, when cinema was a cheap and easy to access form of entertainment, and not the life consequence decision is bizarrely is today. for some reason i never got round to seeing it, or renting the video. 

happy days, then, when i saw it for sale down on my preferred tape (and disc) seller at the market. all sorts of nostalgia kicked in and so i bought it. which was hurdle one, the second (and final) hurdle being to use what time i have to sit and watch it. 

my brother was delighted to see that i had found a copy of the video (disc) and also knacked me for not having watched it before, stating that it was really good. he was right, which is kind of peculiar since his general stance on cinema is that Convoy is the greatest film ever made. this was an excellent thriller, with the big plus that the "baddie" is really well hidden and not ruined by any spoilers in the trailer. both Sidney Poitier and Tom Berenger were class, and shout out for a then relatively unknown Kirsty Alley being really good too. won't give any plot details, but worth a watch. 

random time. i randomly went into a shop where i randomly found myself as it looked a bit interesting. they didn't really specialise in tapes (discs) or what have you, but had a few on the shelf. one of them was a film called Zombie Women Of Satan 2, which looked most decidedly English made but also most decidedly sans any official BBFC certification or what have you. on asking for the price i was told £5, so went sure, why not. 

there was some trepidation about putting this video (disc) on, as everything about it said it was home made. which would usually mean poor quality picture, terrible sound and awful camerawork. not so, as it happens. really well made and, surprisingly, exceptionally funny. well, if you have a vaguely dark sense of humour i suppose. 

i had not seen the first film, true, but it didn't feel like i missed out. could follow it just fine, and besides the cover promised this was "boobier", so likely i would enjoy this more than the first anyway. certainly it was so that there was a fair bit of (topless only, but still) female nudies, which was agreeable on top of the ridiculous humour on the show. quite surprising just how much nudies, really, as the whole cast seems to be off of (why aye man) Newcastle, a city renowned for quite prudish, Victorian to Jane Austen levels of disdain for displays of flesh. not all that many people within my limited social circle i could suggest this film too, but all the same i enjoyed it. 

since we are (and i am never far away from it with my choice in film) on the subject of nudies, i have clocked that "world cinema", or foreign language films, tend to sail through the draconian ways of the BBFC. usually they would censor anything with nudies, but they appear to take as a given that anything in a foreign language is "artistic" and don't cut it. yes, i appreciate that one can access all sorts of curious, gruesome and exotic "nudies" on the internet, but i do like a proper video (disc) and also enjoy getting such things that the BBFC appear to have either overlooked or applied a double standard to.

not surely exactly, but i would suspect that i purchased these two on "special offer" off of Fopp whilst down in that there London (innit). possible also one from HMV on Oxford Street, but likely Fopp, since they appear to specialise in the more, um, esoteric sort of film. if that is the right word. yes, both were bought in the hope that significant, copious nudies were present, but if there was a decent story then that would be a welcome plus. 

perhaps this will sound mean, but all the same Ecstasy (or as the credits show A Thought Of Ecstasy, which implies the BBFC let the full tilt version through) highlights what makes directors like David Lynch and. vaguely in terms of some of the subject of the film, Stanley Kubrick more celebrated (or to be frank superior) to others. all that is needed for a cinema masterpiece is here, but this is woefully dull due to how poorly it was made. alas, just filming some desolate area of the desert does not make it poignant or meaningful. you know you have an issue when the large amount of nudies, and close up full on penetrative "action" (usually a big no no for our censors), is just dull. quite the shame, really a lost chance of making a remarkable motion picture. film students should watch it just to learn what to avoid so as not to f*** up a really good set of material. 

a fair bit of money (less than £50, but still) has been spent to learn that the Shameless video (disc) label is one gigantic con. there's about 5 or 6 of their discs (tapes) what i have bought now, all with the promise of them being sleazy, controversial and (most importantly) laced with nudies. more often than not they have turned out to be bland, mostly fully clothed, dull C or D grade films. sadly Top Sensation continues this trend, and i think it will be the last one i buy off of them. 

from what i could tell the "plot" of Top Sensations was that two grifters were conning some wealthy lady out of a lot of money on the basis they would help her son "overcome his shyness" towards ladies. it appears to be famous for a scene where a lady has an "intimate moment" with a goat, which is both quite a European cinema thing and not the sort of thing i would imagine anyone wishes to watch, or at the least would not admit to such an ambition. there's a vaguely amusing scene where some peasant farmer is caught (ahem) entertaining himself in some bushes as he watches two topless ladies sunbathe on a yacht (he seems more than the audience), otherwise dull and forgettable. 

last up is You Gotta See This, to which my immediate reaction is "no, you don't". it's a 40 minute or so compilation of "sporting mishaps" and, of course (i would not have bought it off the market otherwise) moments of nudies. were we in the era of video, then this is a video you would pass around mates at school, or possibly watch as a gang with takeaways. 

on the plus side of this video (disc) the nudies are mostly agreeable, as in all of the female ones are and the male ones they didn't have to include. would have been nice to have a couple of streakers, but this appears to be American. and none more American than with the "backyard wrestling", featuring some keen types going at each other with cheese graters and fire. yes, at the same time. they, oddly,, are not the most retarded people in the video; that will be the various skateboarders and "rollerbladers" or whatever who(m) try to rind (or "grind") railings, bannisters and what have you some considerable distance up from ground level. results of this are somewhat enjoyable but mostly predictable. 

yes, i do indeed have a huge pile of classic, or well regarded films here to watch. but instead i have indeed just watched all of this lot with some spare time. mostly just dig what you dig, and rather watch stuff what appeals rather than worry about what other say you should. especially nudies. 

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

not seeing the fire for the smoke

hello there

indeed this is (yet) another post on the subject of cigarettes. as would be the standard, or perhaps expected, for such a disclaimer that smoking (cigarettes) is, on balance, quite bad for you and you should either not start the habit or otherwise seek assistance in quitting. well, that or cut down. so no, this is not an endorsement of smoking, no matter how much i enjoy it, look you see. rather, or if you prefer instead, this is some "filling in the blanks" on a recent news article. 

them over at the BBC have gone done an article they claim is "in depth" on the problem, or if you will "scourge", of illicit (or bootleg, counterfeit, illegal, what have you) cigarettes being sold in the UK. yes, indeed i do have the link, you are most welcome to click here to go and read it. being fair they do feature a lot of precise information, yet they fail to join the dots. that or they are too afraid, or are simply not allowed, to state the obvious issue. 

above is an image to illustrate what they neglect to point out, no matter how obvious it is. that's three standard cartons (or sleeves) of 10 (ten) packs of cigarettes. each pack has twenty in it, so that 20 x 10 x 3 which comes in at 600 cigarettes. i procured these off of what i would like to call an independent retailer, one who(m) i consider myself to have a good working relationship with. had i walked into a so called "proper" shop and used the same money to purchase government approved (as in taxed) ones then i would only have been able to purchase 1 (one) of these cartons. 

yes, i get it. a "sin tax" is applied on cigarettes, under the pretence of "encouraging people to quit for economic reasons" but done because they can get away with it. most impressive has been their campaign to have people believe that "the world is only evil or bad because of cigarettes". over the last ten or so years, though, this "sin tax" has spiralled out of control. which is exactly why the more independent sale of cigarettes are soaring. 

quite a bit of maths (or "math" if American) is going to feature here to illustrate some points. let's look at this tax business first. going off of memory a packet of 20 cigarettes back in 1990 cost you around £2. think it was a bit less, but no matter. by 2015 this was up to £5.50. this £3.50 increase over 25 years works out at more or less a 14p per year (or per annum) increase, so a packet in the shops here in 2025 should, with that admittedly gung ho economies of scale applied, cost around £6.90. round that up to £7 if you like, or even £8. doesn't matter, for the actual cost here and now is well north of £15. 

every year i purchase but one (1) packet of "legal" cigarettes. this is a pack of Marlboro Red, and done so on my birthday so as to honour Gran, who would get me such each year. yes, probably silly, but i am certain your family has something that would seem just as odd. anyway, on this instance a packet of Marlboro Red cost me £16.45. illustrated above is that i can with ease get two packets and have some change for the precise same money. 

with a warning that the next picture you shall see (unless you scroll fast) is a selfie, here's a breakdown of the cost of a packet of Marlboro in the UK right now. surprisingly the actual taxes and what have you were well hidden, but i found the information. some "reverse engineering" was required and i did indeed make use of a calculator. so, if you go to a "regular" shop and buy a pack, here's that breakdown.

actual retail price £5.40

16.5% sin tax on retail price £1.07

SUB TOTAL £6.47

another sin tax added £6.69

VAT £3.29

Sale Price £16.45

take the VAT out if you like, which is a given on any "legally" purchased item, and still the random application of taxes triples the price. so far as i can tell this peculiar £6.69 one is the one that has cropped up over the last ten years and really ramped up the price. 

but yet they seem "surprised" that smokers are seeking alternative cigarettes, with prices on the independent market usually being around £5. if you get lucky you can find slightly cheaper, and as you may have worked out these Eastern European Marlboro cost a bit more. that someone can get them smuggled in here and still make a profit at that price is most impressive. 

from what i can ascertain our succession of beloved governments spectacularly failed to factor in the idea that people might turn to the "black market" (if it still gets called that) rather than simply quit smoking or, as they would have preferred, paid the ever higher prices. apparently, going on that article, they are going to throw £100 million at "tackling" this "illegal" cigarette market. good luck with that. 

bit more mathematics for you above. a very good friend kindly purchased a packet of Benson & Hedges for me, which was a lovely gift. the cost of them is £18. why they cost more than Marlboro i know not, but anyway. above is the three (3) packets of Manchester i can get for that, plus change. 

certainly i am aware that my purchase of these independently distributed cigarettes is likely "funding terrorism" or crime syndicates. up to now i have heard that the money off of these goes to institutions such as Chinese Triads (a new addition to the list), Hamas (or whatever), Al Qaeda (if they exist), the IRA (provisional or real, same difference) and funding the Russian war effort. does this bother me? yes, but not enough to stop. i am not preventing more acceptable "rivals", such as Ukraine or who(m)ever it is Hamas is angry with, flooding the market with their own cheap cigarettes. also i am not stopping our government from, you know, reducing the taxes which have inspired the proliferation of the more independently sold ones. 

mild humour exists in the warning that these "independent" cigarettes might or could have harmful things in them like asbestos, rat droppings, human waste, unspecified chemicals and what have you. oh right. so does that mean the heavily taxed cigarettes are in some what healthier and more better for you?if so, why is there such a significant sin tax on them?

no government, of course, is going to reduce tax on cigarettes. back in the Brexit vote thing if they could have got away with it all they needed do was say "we shall reduce the price of cigarettes to that of other EU countries like Spain and Greece" and they would easily have bought enough votes to get what they wanted. so far as i am aware not even that Farage bloke has suggested he would stop either victimising or exploiting smokers. hey ho, so long as the criminal or underground network somehow manages to evade whatever the government wastes money on trying to stop them i should be all right.

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

trying to throw your arms around the world

howdy pop pickers

blimey. forty years ago today, then. well, 40 years ago at the time this got published, look you see. quite likely a lot further (or longer) back in time (or history) when you read this. oh, as for "what", i mean Live Aid, which i feel an unusual respectful need to use actual, proper capital letters for the name of. 

just what is it i am going to write (yes, poorly, no doubt) about? mostly memories of the day. these will, of course, all be informed by what has happened since. if you are looking for an accurate or exhaustive history of the day, i would suggest this is not that. simply the tale of a, what, 12 year old boy quite impressed that it seemed everyone in the world was just watching bands play music for a day. 

forgive, if you will, any "historical accuracies" or such. again, this is an attempt at capturing memories, yes possibly before they slip away from the maze of my mind forever. 

and the lesson today is how to die

maybe just a little history, then. according to the legend, Bob Geldof was so emotionally distraught at the news footage of the famine in Ethiopia that he put a jar in his kitchen, insisting anyone who visited him donate to charity to help. his aim was (if i recall right) to raise £50 (more than you might think in terms of 1984) and was surprised at just how fast he hit that target. surprised and inspired to do more, which of course he did with his mate Midge Ure in terms of a song, and then going full tilt global with the idea of Live Aid. 

you are welcome to dismiss this as sentimental, hyperbole or what have you, but change in the world really, really can (and often does) start with one person. anyone doubting this, i give you Mr Geldof. 

what a f*****g start

sure, ok, the actual first "act" as such was a (i believe royal) brass band playing. but the bit what everyone remembers is the inspired decision to kick it all off with Status Quo doing Rockin All Over The World. 

could have backfired, i suppose. at some point someone will have gone "isn't that going to be a bit naff or obvious" or even "cringe" before the word got used to describe anything remotely embarrassing. no, it was absolutely perfect. remembering this was a time when music stars were if not strictly speaking aloof in a negative way they were "mysterious", distant and not in the public eye all the time, as it so often feels they are now. Quo kind of bucked that, as they always appeared open, down to earth, would make time for absolutely anyone and, most importantly, were dedicated to everyone having a good time all the time. we were tuned in for something important and serious, but they said we were all going to have fun whilst doing something. 

my then favourites were on surprisingly early

i got to spend a good deal of that afternoon not watching Live Aid, as it happens, since they were kind enough to put a lot of my "top vibes" on at the start. without looking it all up i seem to recall that The Style Council and Adam Ant were the first ones on. think it was around the time Paul Young decided to open with Do They Know Its Christmas that i opted to take my bike out and see mates. it just felt wrong watching him do it not so much in July but without the other artists. 

quite a lot has been said of Adam Ant and Live Aid, probably a post here or there from me on the subject. he did seem to get quite hard done by, as it was his time they cut away at when more and more artists joined the bill. exactly what happened is unconfirmed, but he has spoken of his regret at "doing what Bob told him to" which was just his latest single rather than a classic hit. as much as he is loved, cherished and admired to this day, it was that Live Aid marked his last day as a true a-list star. 

snowman melting from the inside

to state the obvious Live Aid was "global", with the main concerts being London (innit) and Philadelphia. something forgotten is other countries also held gigs. due to the joys of time difference the one in Australia, featuring someone (remember this was 1985) called INXS, happened "the day before" in proper time. 

yet a surprise came in the middle of the day. we got shown footage of a band called Autograph (me neither) playing live from the Soviet Union. huh. this was all very much "business end" of the cold war, and we were all taught things like rock and pop were "banned" there, and that those in power blocked or manipulated world news to give it a pro-communist slant. it turned out that the Russians were just normal, actual people not too different from us, then. amazing how media, news and leaders can blind you from reality. 

actually, it was excellent

never in my days did i think i would ever write a defence of Phil f*****g Collins, yet here i am doing precisely that. sentiment or age has got the better of me, maybe. 

of all the Live Aid "things", time and revisionism has not been kind to this one. for those unaware, Phil, who was easily at least one of the biggest stars of 1985, decided he was going to play the same song at both of the major Live Aid gigs, playing early at Wembley and then taking Concorde over the Atlantic to play in Philadelphia. as an aside he also played with Sting at Wembley and an in all but name reformed Led Zeppelin in Philadelphia. 

people have since dismissed this as a prime example of all wrong with 80s excess, that such a move was callous, self-centred and entirely inappropriate when the day was supposed to be helping the poor. well, i am telling you now, such a retrospective view is (and i am no fan of his) utter bullsh!t. it was an excellent, amazing thing to do. now that i think, between this, No Jacket Required and the extraordinary Invisible Touch album off of Genesis, i really miss this Phil Collins. 

ascendency 

it would, i imagine (or assume), be difficult for anyone post 1987, or 1988, to think of U2 as anything but a huge, massive group. they really weren't in 1985. they had managed a couple of hits, in particular Pride which is on the Now That's What I Call Music 4 tapes i love so much, but were not, say, Duran Duran, Wham or Frankie Goes To Hollywood big. hence them being "shoved on" early in the afternoon, and hence me being quite surprised to see U2 flags in the crowd. 

getting all carried away would be to say that here, at Live Aid, is where U2 "started" their path to becoming (arguably) the biggest band in the world, but it certainly feels like it was a huge step in that direction. with the day being all catchy pop songs and limited time it was certainly a bold move for them to unleash Bad on a (fairly) global audience, what with the song clocking in at north of six minutes. from what i remember Dad bought the album (on record, or vinyl if you prefer the term) The Unforgettable Fire not long after Live Aid. it was not the usual sort of tape he would get. 

safe to say that the U2 set was one of the "most" iconic moments, in particular of course Bono jumping into the crowd and the lengthy hug he gave a lady, to the confusion (and frustration) of the rest of the band. perhaps it was all of this, their involvement in Band Aid and then Live Aid, that gave them the confidence and courage to bear their souls and give everything they had to The Joshua Tree. after that album, yes, the rest is indeed an ongoing history. speaking of iconic.......

crowning glory 

describing any gig as "the greatest in history" is a bit misleading. who decides that, with what criteria and how many concerts had they been to so as to declare such a thing. that said, the 20 or so minute set what Queen did at Live Aid regularly gets described as "the best ever", and if we are honest it is actually really f*****g difficult to immediately suggest one that tops it. 

this was a performance no one saw coming, it really did feel like it came out of f*****g nowhere. of course Queen were great, but there was a sense they were "past it" and no longer headliner stuff. that's why, perhaps, they were shoved on early evening, before the "big" acts. 

on instances when i consider the life i have had the Queen performance comes to mind. for some reason all of us - me, Mum, Dad, Richard and Gillian - were all watching it together. we certainly hadn't watched all of the day together, i think mostly i watched on a portable tele in my room. probably around tea time, or dinner time (if posh), likely we were all waiting for The Who. i can vividly remember all of us being spellbound (or whatever) by the performance. every now and then i glanced at Dad and saw how much he was loving it. that twenty or so minutes shall forever be a "happy place" for me. should i ever end up in a coma (more likely than i would like to think) or in some vegetable state, then i can only hope my mind takes me there, leaving me to reside in that memory until i expire. or come out of it. 

it's only rock and roll

certain bits of Live Aid became famous for perhaps not the best of reasons. for a start you don't find the performance of A View To A Kill on the official videos (discs) box set with good reason, for Duran Duran kindly requested it be dropped. one of the biggest selling points for the gig was The Who agreeing to perform at it. 

unfortunately if you were not at Wembley you didn't get to see a significant chunk of this highly anticipated performance. i can remember us all sat in the lounge watching it, watch the band start and then watched as the picture on the tele froze, just before cutting away to an apology for some technical issues. a generator or something had blown, apparently. 

when coverage resumed it turned out they were doing songs that, at the time, i wasn't really familiar with. at that stage all i knew of them was Tommy, and even then the Ken Russell film of it what Mum and Dad had taped (on actual video) and thought was quite class to let us kids watch. so, no, then, i likely did not appreciate this as much as i should have. 

in regards of the other reunion, i would suggest that i had no idea who or what a Led Zeppelin was at this stage of 1985. might have had some vague idea that a version of one of their songs was used as the theme for Top Of The Pops for a bit, but that would be it. don't think i even watched any of their set from Philadelphia, sorry. 

do i really even like this David Bowie bloke?

at this stage my devotion to Bowie was (very much) in its infancy. i shall not link yet again, but scattered all over this blog are tales of the Tonight tape i "borrowed" out of Dad's car (yes, still have it right here with me) and i liked what i heard. well, Blue Jean and Loving The Alien. so yes, i was fairly excited about seeing him live at Live Aid. 

perhaps anticipating the sense of entitlement more commonly associated with this century i eagerly anticipated his performance, reasonably expecting Blue Jean at the least, possibly Loving The Alien too. well, they were his most recent singles. instead we (i?) got "heroes", which i was aware of, Modern Love, which had the least interesting video off of the Let's Dance album and, i think TVC something that i had never heard of. oh. 

for a "not to be" moment, the original idea was for Bowie and Jagger to do Dancing In The Street as a live duet. alas, they tested it, and the broadcast technology at the time meant the delay between London and Philadelphia was so significant it was just not possible. wonder if our "lightning fast" communication technology of today would allow for such a thing, you would think so. no matter, and for those interested, Dancing In The Street was class, and yes i have indeed previously taken to task some harsh criticism of it. 

the American version

got quite bored of it really, then tired. from what i remember i was asleep before most of the favourites i had hoped to seen had played, and i hadn't thought to set a video off recording it. 

coverage of the American Live Aid in the UK was really bad. it had that gaudy, faded colour to it and the sound wasn't so good. just as well they didn't try that Atlantic duet, then. i think i can sort of remember at least seeing Phil Collins, and also have a vague memory of being disappointed that Madonna didn't do any of what i considered to be her "hits". 

end of the London set

it more or less finished on time, nearly everything went as planned and the finale performance was one of those great moments. no, despite rumours and mythology , there was no "Beatles" reunion, Ringo and George did not "sneak on" to join Paul at the end. nice to think that they would have, if anyone had thought to suggest it before the gig. 

could this ever happen again?

a question to which the obvious (or immediate) answer is "no" but actually i think "yes". no matter what i think of the sorry state of modern music there are still some huge, major acts out there, and in terms of popularity or audience reach reasonably on a par with what there was in 1985. mostly it's a shame that, 40 years on, there are likely causes that would need this kind of thing. is this the world we created, indeed. 

doubtful that many causes would have the general (it was not overwhelming, with some American acts in particular kicking off against it all) support Live Aid did. we live in a decidedly divisive world, and as the fiasco around the 40th anniversary of Band Aid showed, there are certain acts that will be critical of anything (charity or otherwise) if it helps promote them instead. whereas one would hope there is never, ever another incident like it again, in the modern world it would be that Manchester concert which was closest in spirit, community and giving to what Live Aid was. 

ultimately, or in the end, the only thing to remember is something Mr Geldof said. i don't recall the exact words, but it was along the lines of if you participated that day, if you contributed whatever you could, then someone got to live as a result of that. just because you can't throw your arms around the world doesn't mean you shouldn't try. 

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

just why

greetings

unfortunately yes, then, this post is a return to the somewhat murky and often unpleasant world which is of lynx deodorant. or axe, depending on where you are in the world. possibly not deodorant but rather fragrance, look you see, for they appear to have dropped that word off of the branding. it may, however, please you to know that no, this is post has nothing at all to do with their utterly bonkers decision to make some sort of spray specifically (if not explicitly) for ones private parts. perhaps if we all just ignore that one then it shall go away. 

instead, then, this is quite the moan and (or) groan about an old favourite of theirs which, for some reason, they have opted to rebrand. generally yes, i am of an age where "if it isn't broken don't fix it" appears to be quality guidance. that said, if you must change something, then be entirely sure, if not certain, that you are totes doing it for the better. not sure they have gone done that. 

yes, as in no, you are not wrong. they have indeed gone right ahead and changed the branding for gold, the one really, really no questions asked decent "fragrance" (or whatever) that they made. i have little doubt that some "branding executive" got paid a (large) six figure some to conjure up this hideous new look and goodness knows how much more was spent producing it. at least, as a small mercy, it still smells the same, just now looks awful. exactly how "bad" were sales that they felt the need to do this to their own product to try and boost income? 

sadly i have met, or rather encountered, the sort of retarded neanderthal (i think that's the modern day politically correct terminology) this will appeal to. full well can i recall it. i was enjoying a cigarette in the designated smoking area outside a hotel (down in that there London) when i was joined, unsolicited by the way, by the single biggest d!ckhead or (if you prefer) bellend you could wish to see. he was smoking some lightweight cigarette, holding it between thumb and forefinger like he had presumably watched De Niro do in a snippet of GoodFellas, had patchy bum fluff red facial hear, wore a glitzy, gaudy baseball cap with "king" or "icon" or other such rubbish in shiny letters on it and had a couple of clearly cheap gold necklaces over his horrendous tracksuit. to complete the look he appeared to be forever fidgeting, which i took as a side effect of the microscopic elements of cocaine in his heavily stepped on baby power. also produced so much phlegm it is a miracle (or pity) he had not drowned himself. this momentary presence was almost enough to make me (at least) consider quitting smoking so as not to be associated with such trash, yet this is exactly what sort this new branding of lynx gold appears to be the target market for. 

of course i am still going to use this product because, as mentioned and as a mercy, it still smells good, with it being just about the only one of theirs that is not overtly all musk. no, hang on, now i look properly it does still say deodorant on the tin, just quote small at the bottom. this, of course, i shall have to reconsider if i encounter an further dregs of humanity like the one described, only starting to carry a familiar scent to them. 

there are indeed a lot more important things (and all that) going on in the world that outweigh my plight in just wishing for some normal (smelling and looking) deodorant. i have, however, always taken it as a given that anyone reading this was, like me writing it, looking for a brief break from it all. 

VAGUELY INTERESTING UPDATE

no sooner (well a bit later) had i gone done writing this and i walked into a shop to find the "classic" design cans being sold. and you know what, now that i look at them, they're not all that much better than the new look, i suppose. still, way better. 

economics fans may be interested in this bit. these cans, the 150ml (whatever that means) variation, were priced (presumably to clear) at £1.95. at the same time the "new style" 250ml cans were on offer at a coin cost of £8 for 4. as you can see (my most recent koala purchase for scale) i purchased 8 cans of the £1.95. ones. let me get the calculator out. for £15.60 i got 1,200ml of lynx gold (in comparatively proper looking tins) instead of paying £16 for "just" 1,000ml. quite the case of less is more. 

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

quite hasty praise

hello there

not so long ago i got, well, if not all excited then a bit carried away believing that them what do the apple stuff (technology, not fruit, look you see) actually deserved some credit. this was in relation to an early model of the ipod, details of which can be found via clicking here, which remained armed and fully operational after several years of being laid dormant. fear not, for this is no tale of overt woe, as the device still works. it is just, of course, that at heart (or essentially) apple does wish it were french. 

having grown somewhat tired of the existing vibes on the device when i fired it up (see that link for the music what i had on it) i decided to change a few songs. my plan was to just take out one or two songs and replace them. in terms of replacement music the kind of vague idea (or intention) was to simply use some of the songs what i had bought off of itunes, since they were mine (in theory) to do what i wished with. 

my first step into what i (foolishly) assumed would be a world of quickly changing a few songs on the ipod was to remove one or two already on it. yes, indeed, If I Can Dream off of The King, Elvis Presley had been selected for such, as i remain at a loss to explain why on earth i ever added it. did this go well at all? not really, not really, no. 

no matter what i right clicked, left clicked, double clicked or highlighted it was simply not so that the apple software had any interest in letting me remove any tracks. i had authorised the pc, it was all logged in and what have you, but no. vaguely i could recall a reasonably similar scenario the last time i attempted to do this, having a sense that the only way the f*****g thing was going to allow me to change one or two songs was via doing a "factory reset" and thus changing all  the songs. great. 

for some reason i thought it would have been a good idea to show off the weight of this ipod in the previous post. i simply forgot to weight it, meaning (of course) no picture to add. this has been rectified with the above image, then. cannot think of who(m) this may be of interest to, but there you go. 

right, where was i. oh yes, the simple task of removing and adding songs. once the ipod had gone through the "restore factory settings" thing, which (to be fair) didn't take that long, off i went to my library on that itunes software. the intention was to download a few of my purchase and add them on. before it would let me download any of my purchased a thing flashed up (surprisingly in english, not sure at this stage why they don't put it all in french) saying i had to agree to the new "terms and conditions" before i could download them. not entirely unreasonable, except every time i clicked on the button to go and glance at them (momentarily) and just blindly click ok the whole f*****g thing just kept f*****g crashing. great. 

doubtful that to many of you shall be all that interested in what i have playing as i go out and about on strolls, or the occasional train ride (when the trains are running and not being french). on the off chance that one or two of you are interested, here you go. 

pretty decent mix, i oh so modestly say. mostly i am annoyed that i have momentarily "lost" some favourites from the Starstruck soundtrack. infamously this magnificent set of songs has never been released on compact disc or as a "digital download" (that i doubt apple would let me download anyway). i have no doubt that i have the mp3 files on a hard drive somewhere. just not sure where, exactly. 

to just sort of load the device (the ipod) up and get on with it "for now", all of these songs are mostly from purchases i made where the people paid have a decidedly non-apple (or if you like non-french) approach and let me download them again. beyond that it's songs which were on rather more easily accessible external drive things which took my fancy. will for the most part let the songs speak for themselves (if you can be bothered to read through them), except to say that Disintegrate off of Suede, played via this device sans audio limiter, just gets better and better the louder you play it. i very much encourage you to test this. 

otherwise, all remains (surprisingly) good with this quasi resurrected device. i did have concerns that the battery may have deteriorated over the years, which not even me at my most annoyed with them could i really blame on apple. not so, merrily, for it seems to be holding out just fine. i use this for at least thirty minutes to a whole hour (or close enough) each day. the battery test light has remained on green and i have had no need to charge it for a couple of weeks. unlike other apple things. 

well, that's that. unless there's some unexpected clamour (or similar demand) for me to share the details of any further changes i make to what's on it i am not sure there's all that much more i will have to say abut this ipod. things do change, mind. 

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

reading eventually returns

greetings reader

well after a somewhat unexpected pause in such it is so that me (moi) and reading is once again a thing. there are indeed reasons (or a reason, look you see) for the delay in posts on this subject, but i have every confidence i will be referencing that as i go. or we go, if you keep reading.

as would be (reasonably) usual, then, a look at the two (2) novels what i have most recently gone done read, followed by a "spoiler free" overview. from there on one of them rather exciting spoiler warning things should be considered as existing. but, as usual, i would imagine the overwhelming majority of people with an interest in either would already have read them, and there's not that many inclined to go read something on my suggestion. 

from the left (if i have got that right) it's a return to the world of a "proper" and real time tale of Charlie Parker in The Instruments Of Darkness by John Connolly. this one was mostly all right, which is a worrying thing to say when usually the are breathtakingly brilliant reads. and then it was on to what i believe (or think) is going to be the final posthumous novel from Michael Crichton (completed, it says here, by James Patterson), Eruption. not a bad novel, per se (if that means what i think), but one has the sense that the much missed Mr Crichton didn't get round to finishing it off with good reason. 

once again, for the dozen or so people who will read this (and my thanks for doing so), you are given every caution that a **SPOILER WARNING** is here for you to note or ignore. should for some reason you have an interest in my reading habits, indeed these two did skip merrily over a rather large pile of books what i have here to read. 

it would, following on from that last paragraph in a neat if somewhat unexpected bit of linear writing, be usual for me to go ahead and read any John Connolly novel as soon as i can after getting it. there was to be no exception for this one, The Instruments Of Darkness, although a delay did happen. yes, provenance fans, my place of purchase was Tesco, and from what i recall i didn't even wait for it to be "book of the week" or anything like that, paying a straight (or flat) £6 immediately to get my hands on it. 

plot? a lady is accused of murdering her son, despite no (to be blunt) corpse (or body) and somewhat scant evidence (more on that in a bit). her lawyer is entirely convinced of her innocence, and so enlists haunted (to put it mildly) private detective Charlie Parker to help him work the case to prove her innocence. doing so sets them against public opinion, a prosecutor and law enforcement agents set on getting her convicted for purely political reasons and an apparent malevolent force hiding in plain sight. unexpected help comes in the form of someone who shares Parker's gift or curse for having the troubled deceased communicate with them.......

hmn. my reading of this novel was, alas, interrupted for a bit due to that medical intervention where i suspected i might end up no more. i did indeed (for now) live, and was eventually able to resume reading this novel. not sure if that affected, or otherwise tempered, my reading of it. certainly i would have liked to read it without any unpleasant medical interlude, but there we go. 

his novel had all the key features of a classic Charlie Parker novel, just assembled in a way that was dangerously close to "colour by numbers". by no means is this any sort of insult, but at times it felt a bit too much like Connolly was trying to be "a bit Stephen King" with the structure. this i felt mostly when it all went off on a tangent with quite a lot of pages dedicated to a back story of a side (but important all the same) character, which is kind of what King does. undoubtedly Mr King was a profound influence on Mr Connolly, of course, for it cannot be accident he based the protagonist of so many of his novels in Maine. 

my main irk, or disappointment, with this novel was the flimsy, patently obviously false bit of evidence which was grounds to arrest the mother. appreciating something was needed to push the political agenda on the go in it (and move the plot along) it was so obviously misleading that it became a distraction. also there was Louis and Angel turning up towards the end purely, it seems, to shoot some people. that is what they do, after all, sure, but it felt like having them there was a "do i have to put them in" moment from the author, or a misguided idea of "fan service". still, a decent enough read, and nowhere near being close to a big massive "f*** you reader" from the author as, say, The Year Of The Locust turned out to be. 

above is an image i threw together on the off chance i search my own blog (doubtful but still) for something like "what John Connolly novel will be in paperback 2026". there was indeed a temptation to pick this hardback up, but rather let me wait. also that new Stephen King one looks quite class, and so will likely get that next year too. if, of course, i make it to 2026. such things i no longer take as a given. 

yet another immediate purchase next, then, in the form of Eruption off of the late (and great) Michael Crichton. happily, for provenance, this was one of them Tesco book of the week things, so cost £4.50. after the somewhat dark realms of John Connolly i fancied a change of pace, and so yes this skipped ahead of the dozen or so novels i have sat here to read. 

plot? scientists monitoring seismic (which i think is the fancy or posh way of saying volcanic) activity become aware that a big massive huge eruption is about to happen in Hawaii. this is rather bad in itself, but gets made a good deal worse when it turns out that the US military has something hidden on the island which will get hit the worst, and the consequences could be the end of life on a global level........

fairly standard, if (sadly) possibly for the last time, stuff off of Michael Crichton, then. by that i do indeed mean that this is mostly humans vs science vs technology vs nature. nearly all of his novels can be broken down as that, i suppose, except maybe Disclosure, which in retrospect brilliantly (and frighteningly) predicted just how much impact all that (at the time) new "anonymous electronic messaging" stuff would have on the world. one doesn't really need me to point out that Jurassic Park was his crowning glory in terms of this theme. no, alas, this isn't even close to that. 

the problem here, oddly, is that a volcano erupting being at the centre of a plot is quite dull. no, hear me out. it doesn't give much of a sense of tension or drama, does it? what else can you do with a volcanic eruption except get the f*** out of the way of the lava and try to keep the lava away from things that it would be quite bad if it hit. running away from lava holds only a finite amount of interest and can only be done a finite time. proof of this was them two "big budget" films, i think late 90s or early 00s, on a similar subject which didn't make as much money as hoped. 

yet it's not a bad read at all, really. whilst not as riveting or exciting as one may have hoped, there's still a fair bit going on. scientists vs eccentric billionaire and annoying tv personalities, for instance, was enjoyable enough. also the bits when some went "woo hoo, volcano erupting, let us fly over it, what could go wrong". in regards of how it all ends, and you were given a spoiler warning, well, Michael Crichton was always rather fond of that "nature finds a way" line......

both of these novels have (or had) what i call the "100 page syndrome". it's that feeling one gets when there seems to be a fair bit to cover (or wrap up) yet only a hundred or so pages of the novel remain. you fear that it will either be a "to be continued...." thing, which i always feel like short changes readers (there is no law on how long a novel may be), or it's all going to get finished off in a hurry. with both novels it was more in the area of the latter. again, though, i would not say i regret reading either. 

well, as ever (or usual) with posts like this i have not much else to add except to say if any of this was of some use, or passing interest, to any of you, so much the better. many thanks indeed for taking the time to read, or to just have a gander at the pictures. 

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