Another One Bites the Dust
When they came to power in 1997 New Labour promised they would be making radical changes to the house buying/selling process. This was based around the principle of the so-called "Seller's Pack" which would include details and searches on the property. The idea behind this was to put all the information on a place together and thus make buying more straightforward. A brilliant idea that would actually benefit millions of ordinary people, especially the bit relating to surveys.
As you no doubt know every potential buyer of a property is currently required to hire their own surveyor to examine the property. Not too bad if the place is fixed-price and you know the sale is going through. Not so good if you lose the sale due to not being given any clue what the other prospective buyers are offering. Last time I was house-hunting I had to pay for three of the damn things before I finally got a place.
Of course, this system is great for one group of people. The surveyors. Since it is not unusual for the estate agencies or mortgage lenders to 'recommend' a surveyor it is possible the same surveyor will get multiple requests for one property. A property for which they may well have done the initial valuation survey. Somehow, I doubt if they'll be doing repeated surveys so they're getting repeatedly paid for the work.
So the eminently sensible idea was to make the seller responsible for the survey and make the report available to all prospective buyers, not only cutting the cost of house-hunting at a stroke but helping the decision-making process, too. One of the houses I missed out on was down to its being sold whilst I was awaiting a survey report on it. Besides, I don't see why I should need to pay £100 plus to find out something that might make me not want to buy.
So, finally, this long-awaited piece of legislation is about to become law. Without the clause regarding surveys.
Yes, Tony & his cronies have once again caved in to pressure from business and corporate lobbying saying that was a bad idea. The groups who make money on this think that cutting the number of surveys on any one property is bad for the public. Wonder why they think that, eh?
Remember, these are the people whose services you are compelled to use when buying a property, at least if you want a mortgage. Once you've paid their fees you have absolutely no legal redress if the information they provide is entirely wrong and you end up with a place that's riddled with dry rot and hasn't been re-wired since the 1940's. These are the people whose incomes our dear premiere has chosen to protect.
The mortgage lenders had a hand in it too. They said they'd still want their own surveys done for "security". Apparently it would be too easy for a homeowner to fake a survey or somesuch. Nothing to do with their cosy commission arrangement with the surveyors, then.
If ever any evidence were required that New Labour couldn't give a stuff about ordinary people and their needs then betraying this promise must be it.
Sunday, July 30, 2006
Thursday, July 27, 2006
Thanks for auditioning, we'll call you - Yahoo! News
Thanks for auditioning, we'll call you - Yahoo! News
A cautionary tale for directors and producers treat actors like shit.
A cautionary tale for directors and producers treat actors like shit.
Wednesday, July 19, 2006
Review: Cars
Review: Cars
Have you seen Doc Hollywood? You’ve seen this, then.
There’s no escaping that this is a direct take on that story, but it’s done with Pixar’s usual flair, love and attention to detail. The humour is a little weaker than we’re used to, the animation is as splendid as always. The characterisation and voice talents are superb. Who’d have believed that you could care this much for hunks of tin?
Pixar really do show the way in how digital techniques should be used. I’ve long ranted about how digital characters don’t seem to truly interact with their environments or with other characters whether digital or not. In Pixar films it just doesn’t seem to matter.
As yet digital characters don’t work properly. Even the wonderful Gollum is just not quite there yet. As close as I’ve seen, but still not quite touching everything. Take these characters out of a situation where it matters and the difficulty with them vanishes, especially when they’re not human. We’re really good at picking up on visual clues from one another. A surprisingly large amount of our communication relies on visual signals and the digital characters don’t send them. When the character is a car, a monster or a toy you can accept their absence because they’re not human.
Cars is by no means Pixar’s finest hour but it’s a lot better than most of the other drivel being passed off as entertainment.
Have you seen Doc Hollywood? You’ve seen this, then.
There’s no escaping that this is a direct take on that story, but it’s done with Pixar’s usual flair, love and attention to detail. The humour is a little weaker than we’re used to, the animation is as splendid as always. The characterisation and voice talents are superb. Who’d have believed that you could care this much for hunks of tin?
Pixar really do show the way in how digital techniques should be used. I’ve long ranted about how digital characters don’t seem to truly interact with their environments or with other characters whether digital or not. In Pixar films it just doesn’t seem to matter.
As yet digital characters don’t work properly. Even the wonderful Gollum is just not quite there yet. As close as I’ve seen, but still not quite touching everything. Take these characters out of a situation where it matters and the difficulty with them vanishes, especially when they’re not human. We’re really good at picking up on visual clues from one another. A surprisingly large amount of our communication relies on visual signals and the digital characters don’t send them. When the character is a car, a monster or a toy you can accept their absence because they’re not human.
Cars is by no means Pixar’s finest hour but it’s a lot better than most of the other drivel being passed off as entertainment.
Review: Superman Returns
Review: Superman Returns
The effects are good. The acting’s not bad, especially Brandon Routh but the story sucks and you’ll believe a turkey can fly.
Actually, it should be called Superman Reruns because, frankly, it’s nothing more than cobbled together bits of the first movies and a lot of Lois & Clark thrown in for good measure.
Superman is a truly heroic character. He has immense super-powers, but – in celluloid at least – he’s never been truly challenged. I mean, the guy’s indestructible, has x-ray & heat vision, he can fly, he has super-hearing, he’s unbelievably strong and fast. What does he get as an arch-villain nemesis? A bald bloke.
The Chris Reeve movies had some degree of an excuse. Cinematic technology hadn’t yet caught up with the scope of the comics. This can no longer hide behind that. To reduce this story to yet another whinge about how Superman & Lois Lane can’t get it on is a pathetic cop out.
That’s bad enough, but it’s too long, too waffly and just plain dull. The sense of humour is absent, the sense of wonder is minimal and the attempts to make Mr Routh look as much as possible like Mr Reeve are pathetic. Not only is it insulting to the actor to hint that no-one can surpass Reeve’s performance but it’s insulting to the audience to assume we couldn’t accept someone making the role their own. If it’s true that they digitally altered Mr Routh to make him look even more like the late Mr Reeve then it’s a truly shameful act on behalf of the producers and director. Not to mention a little worrying about how likely they will be to stop looking for new talent once digital technology actually allows them to ‘resurrect’ dead stars.
A lot has been made of the messianic aspects of Superman’s character. I see him as a wonderful analogy for America itself. Although it acts for what it sees as the right reasons, it is essentially a bully using its overwhelming might to enforce its world view. Take away what makes it powerful and it’s pretty useless. Superman’s the same. Alright, his reasons are clearer, but ultimately he’s a bully and a coward without his powers. Look at the previous movie, number 2 where he surrendered his powers to be with Lois. He got beaten up by a jock at a truck-stop and when he couldn’t win he ran away. When he got his powers back, instead of taking his lumps as a lesson in humility he goes back and beats the guy up. Yeah, real hero.
If you go to see this film you will believe a turkey can fly. (Thanks to Ian Cairns for the last joke.)
The effects are good. The acting’s not bad, especially Brandon Routh but the story sucks and you’ll believe a turkey can fly.
Actually, it should be called Superman Reruns because, frankly, it’s nothing more than cobbled together bits of the first movies and a lot of Lois & Clark thrown in for good measure.
Superman is a truly heroic character. He has immense super-powers, but – in celluloid at least – he’s never been truly challenged. I mean, the guy’s indestructible, has x-ray & heat vision, he can fly, he has super-hearing, he’s unbelievably strong and fast. What does he get as an arch-villain nemesis? A bald bloke.
The Chris Reeve movies had some degree of an excuse. Cinematic technology hadn’t yet caught up with the scope of the comics. This can no longer hide behind that. To reduce this story to yet another whinge about how Superman & Lois Lane can’t get it on is a pathetic cop out.
That’s bad enough, but it’s too long, too waffly and just plain dull. The sense of humour is absent, the sense of wonder is minimal and the attempts to make Mr Routh look as much as possible like Mr Reeve are pathetic. Not only is it insulting to the actor to hint that no-one can surpass Reeve’s performance but it’s insulting to the audience to assume we couldn’t accept someone making the role their own. If it’s true that they digitally altered Mr Routh to make him look even more like the late Mr Reeve then it’s a truly shameful act on behalf of the producers and director. Not to mention a little worrying about how likely they will be to stop looking for new talent once digital technology actually allows them to ‘resurrect’ dead stars.
A lot has been made of the messianic aspects of Superman’s character. I see him as a wonderful analogy for America itself. Although it acts for what it sees as the right reasons, it is essentially a bully using its overwhelming might to enforce its world view. Take away what makes it powerful and it’s pretty useless. Superman’s the same. Alright, his reasons are clearer, but ultimately he’s a bully and a coward without his powers. Look at the previous movie, number 2 where he surrendered his powers to be with Lois. He got beaten up by a jock at a truck-stop and when he couldn’t win he ran away. When he got his powers back, instead of taking his lumps as a lesson in humility he goes back and beats the guy up. Yeah, real hero.
If you go to see this film you will believe a turkey can fly. (Thanks to Ian Cairns for the last joke.)
No More Noddy
No More Noddy
Do you think someone’s had a wee word with Jack Straw about how stupid he used to look sitting on the front bench behind Tony or whichever crony was speaking and nodding away like a plastic mutt in the back of a car?
I do.
Since he’s had his style makeover and bought contact lenses he really has packed it in. But you can see he’s having to work hard not to…
Do you think someone’s had a wee word with Jack Straw about how stupid he used to look sitting on the front bench behind Tony or whichever crony was speaking and nodding away like a plastic mutt in the back of a car?
I do.
Since he’s had his style makeover and bought contact lenses he really has packed it in. But you can see he’s having to work hard not to…
Wednesday, July 12, 2006
THE BOOTS ON THE OTHER FOOT
THE BOOT’S ON THE OTHER FOOT
I’ve been watching the increasing bitchiness of the English towards Scotland since the advent of devolution and I am actually rather worried by the increase in resentment, bigotry and racism it seems to have provoked in our southern neighbours. The recent nonsense about the World Cup is bringing it to the fore, especially in the media who have, as usual, been reporting it all from an entirely Sassenach point of view.
Of course, now that I’ve said that it will be assumed that I am the kind of parochial Scot that they portray us all to be, but isn’t that exactly the point? I make no bones about being a nationalist. I became a nationalist almost as a direct result of the ‘British’ media’s bias against my nation and years of listening to the English use the words ‘British’ and ‘English’ as synonyms. I first recall really noticing it during an Olympic games in the 70s when any English athlete’s success was hailed as a success for England whilst Scots, Welsh & Irish successes were for Britain. Remember the humiliating footage we were all subjected to after out football fans’ celebration at Wembley? Yes, it was out of order but all it was was a pitch invasion that resulted in some broken goalposts and a bit of missing turf. The constant use of the images and the language used to describe the jubilant fans was so vitriolic it instilled a sense of national shame in Scotland so deep that it actually had the effect of seriously inhibiting the spread of football hooliganism in Scotland.
Surely that’s a good thing? Well, yes. Of course it is, but it was not the media’s intention. They were enjoying portraying Scots as a barbarian horde of thugs, vandals and outright scum. Where is that vitriol when their fans’ behaviour results in running street battles, riots and even deaths? The media then always seem to find a way to portray the trouble as poor English boys defending themselves from Johnny-foreigner and his corrupt English-hating police.
And so to the current series of games. Scots have never supported England in any competition. Many have tried to pass it off as a bit of light-hearted banter, but it’s much more deep-seated than that. Our neighbours have spent centuries attempting to subsume, destroy and belittle our country, our people, our culture and our heritage. In school, after I began to notice the media’s bias towards the south, I began to notice the cultural and historical subversion Scots were suffering. Our national heroes were portrayed as usurpers, murderers and outlaws. ‘British’ history covers such topics as the Magna Carta, the Battle of Hastings, the Wars of the Roses and the English Civil War (which was actually a British civil war but never mind) and even today Scottish children can tell you all about these things. They all happened before there was a Union but you’d be forgiven for thinking that we were a part of them since the dawn of time and our kings were traitors fighting against their lawful monarchs. Teach Scottish children about the formation of Scotland by Kenneth MacAlpin from Alba? The truth about Macbeth? The Declaration of Arbroath? James Graham? When Bannockburn took place and why it was important? The Scottish Enlightenment? Of course not. Why is it that the exploits of the English national teams are on the national news, but those from the other countries in the Union barely rate a mention? Surely England’s results should be in regional broadcasts? Mentioned nationally, certainly, but at the same level Scotland’s football results are and then looked in more depth in the regional broadcasts. Because, despite the average Englishman’s perception of the country, England is one region of four in the Union and should be treated as such.
So, of course, we harbour some resentment towards them. However, it is resentment towards them as a nation, not as individuals. Someone, somewhere has made the decision to stir up English resentment towards Scotland and this series of games has been the spurtle they’re using. Throw in the oft-repeated claims of over-subsidisation and the spurious sophistry of the so-called West Lothian Question and you can whip up the Sun & Star-reading sections of the English masses to a level of hatred that allows some down South to pave the way to enhancing their own political power. It’s also being used as a justification for the racism coming from much more important and worrying quarters than some football fans getting beaten up by the kind of brain-dead thug who was, frankly, just looking for someone to pick a fight with anyway. Mr Blair says that our attitude is a disgrace and that we should always be ready to support our neighbours. Oh aye? Let’s see the English support France sometime, then. Actually, as Scotland historically had closer political ties with France than with England maybe we’re not wrong in choosing to support them over England. We did in several wars after all. Were the death threats against Andy Murray for being Scottish and not supporting England ever reported as racist? Don’t be silly, they were made by English people and they can’t be racist against Scots. The Racial Equality Commission has said so repeatedly in statements where they have refused to support Scots in claims of race discrimination. What about the Scots who have been attacked in England just because of their accents during the world cup? Where are the reports about that on the national news? Oh, that’s right; it’s not happening, is it?
Politicians like the Conservative David Davies talking about restricting the rights of Scottish MPs to vote in the British parliament, of reducing our representation in that national body and saying that it is against the British Constitution (when did we get one of those, by the way?) for a Scot to be Prime Minister of Britain, this is real racism and far more serious than us not supporting your national football team. Take one of these English MPs’ statements and substitute the word Asian or Muslim or Black for Scottish and see how they sound then. Yet our politicians are fighting a losing battle in trying to justify our non-support of them in this tournament rather than pointing out and combating this blatant racism. Why? The aforementioned centuries of being told how inferior we are has made a deep psychological scar on our national psyche. We actually believe we’re not good enough so we defend ourselves and apologise for having the temerity to want to take control of our own affairs and to have a reasonable say in the governing of the whole country. Any actual defence of the position of nationalism is jumped upon and portrayed as a defence of racism.
The West Lothian Question which is being used as such a motivation for this resentment towards, and restriction of, Scotland’s political position is not the great conundrum it’s made out to be. Yes; it is unfair that Scots MPs get to vote on English matters. Just like its been unfair that English MPs who outnumber all the other nations’ MPs by a huge margin have been doing to the rest of us for the entire existence of the Union. During the last Tory government they packed the Scottish debates with English MPs to force their measures on us despite having been almost completely voted out of our country. We’ve had centuries of their policies being forced on us and the only time the votes of Scots MPs have influenced an English matter is when it has been a close vote between the English MPs. We just don’t have enough MPs to create more than the slightest influence on English policy. Resentment at the high-handed way the Tories forced their policies on Scotland despite having absolutely no mandate to do so helped to fuel the demands for devolution. (Isn’t it odd that it’s those same Tories who are now whining about Scotland’s Westminster MPs?) All we really got out of Devolution was essentially another toon cooncil, but there’s hope for the future. There is only one reason why Scots MPs should continue to have a vote on English matters. The English have chosen not to have regional assemblies to take control of them.
Why should this be so? Only one region has had a vote on gaining its own assembly and it was overwhelmingly rejected? Given this resentment towards Scotland why should they refuse the chance to take that fictional control away from Scots?
Simple: most English people already believe they have an English parliament.
It comes back to that basic failure to comprehend the difference between England and Britain, a form of blindness the English share only with foreigners who at least have the excuse of having always been told by the English that the two are the same thing. The shameful thing is that the English believe this so deeply that they cannot see the genuine and justified anger and resentment it causes the rest of us in the Union. From the constant referral to things like the Queen of England, the English Parliament and English money, none of which exist, through the forcing of English agendas and attitudes on the rest of us each one causes us to move away from them.
Please do go ahead and take control of your own education and health policies. Please do it in such a way that the fictional notion that Scots are somehow already controlling these matters and causing all the failures in these areas is completely dispelled. A word of warning, though; If you do it by making the Scots, Welsh and Irish (the others must eventually be included in these proscriptions as only talking about Scotland makes the race issue much clearer at the moment) second class members of the British Parliament you will simply make the Independence movements stronger.
Actually, go ahead and do it your way, Mr Davies. I want to be independent.
I’ve been watching the increasing bitchiness of the English towards Scotland since the advent of devolution and I am actually rather worried by the increase in resentment, bigotry and racism it seems to have provoked in our southern neighbours. The recent nonsense about the World Cup is bringing it to the fore, especially in the media who have, as usual, been reporting it all from an entirely Sassenach point of view.
Of course, now that I’ve said that it will be assumed that I am the kind of parochial Scot that they portray us all to be, but isn’t that exactly the point? I make no bones about being a nationalist. I became a nationalist almost as a direct result of the ‘British’ media’s bias against my nation and years of listening to the English use the words ‘British’ and ‘English’ as synonyms. I first recall really noticing it during an Olympic games in the 70s when any English athlete’s success was hailed as a success for England whilst Scots, Welsh & Irish successes were for Britain. Remember the humiliating footage we were all subjected to after out football fans’ celebration at Wembley? Yes, it was out of order but all it was was a pitch invasion that resulted in some broken goalposts and a bit of missing turf. The constant use of the images and the language used to describe the jubilant fans was so vitriolic it instilled a sense of national shame in Scotland so deep that it actually had the effect of seriously inhibiting the spread of football hooliganism in Scotland.
Surely that’s a good thing? Well, yes. Of course it is, but it was not the media’s intention. They were enjoying portraying Scots as a barbarian horde of thugs, vandals and outright scum. Where is that vitriol when their fans’ behaviour results in running street battles, riots and even deaths? The media then always seem to find a way to portray the trouble as poor English boys defending themselves from Johnny-foreigner and his corrupt English-hating police.
And so to the current series of games. Scots have never supported England in any competition. Many have tried to pass it off as a bit of light-hearted banter, but it’s much more deep-seated than that. Our neighbours have spent centuries attempting to subsume, destroy and belittle our country, our people, our culture and our heritage. In school, after I began to notice the media’s bias towards the south, I began to notice the cultural and historical subversion Scots were suffering. Our national heroes were portrayed as usurpers, murderers and outlaws. ‘British’ history covers such topics as the Magna Carta, the Battle of Hastings, the Wars of the Roses and the English Civil War (which was actually a British civil war but never mind) and even today Scottish children can tell you all about these things. They all happened before there was a Union but you’d be forgiven for thinking that we were a part of them since the dawn of time and our kings were traitors fighting against their lawful monarchs. Teach Scottish children about the formation of Scotland by Kenneth MacAlpin from Alba? The truth about Macbeth? The Declaration of Arbroath? James Graham? When Bannockburn took place and why it was important? The Scottish Enlightenment? Of course not. Why is it that the exploits of the English national teams are on the national news, but those from the other countries in the Union barely rate a mention? Surely England’s results should be in regional broadcasts? Mentioned nationally, certainly, but at the same level Scotland’s football results are and then looked in more depth in the regional broadcasts. Because, despite the average Englishman’s perception of the country, England is one region of four in the Union and should be treated as such.
So, of course, we harbour some resentment towards them. However, it is resentment towards them as a nation, not as individuals. Someone, somewhere has made the decision to stir up English resentment towards Scotland and this series of games has been the spurtle they’re using. Throw in the oft-repeated claims of over-subsidisation and the spurious sophistry of the so-called West Lothian Question and you can whip up the Sun & Star-reading sections of the English masses to a level of hatred that allows some down South to pave the way to enhancing their own political power. It’s also being used as a justification for the racism coming from much more important and worrying quarters than some football fans getting beaten up by the kind of brain-dead thug who was, frankly, just looking for someone to pick a fight with anyway. Mr Blair says that our attitude is a disgrace and that we should always be ready to support our neighbours. Oh aye? Let’s see the English support France sometime, then. Actually, as Scotland historically had closer political ties with France than with England maybe we’re not wrong in choosing to support them over England. We did in several wars after all. Were the death threats against Andy Murray for being Scottish and not supporting England ever reported as racist? Don’t be silly, they were made by English people and they can’t be racist against Scots. The Racial Equality Commission has said so repeatedly in statements where they have refused to support Scots in claims of race discrimination. What about the Scots who have been attacked in England just because of their accents during the world cup? Where are the reports about that on the national news? Oh, that’s right; it’s not happening, is it?
Politicians like the Conservative David Davies talking about restricting the rights of Scottish MPs to vote in the British parliament, of reducing our representation in that national body and saying that it is against the British Constitution (when did we get one of those, by the way?) for a Scot to be Prime Minister of Britain, this is real racism and far more serious than us not supporting your national football team. Take one of these English MPs’ statements and substitute the word Asian or Muslim or Black for Scottish and see how they sound then. Yet our politicians are fighting a losing battle in trying to justify our non-support of them in this tournament rather than pointing out and combating this blatant racism. Why? The aforementioned centuries of being told how inferior we are has made a deep psychological scar on our national psyche. We actually believe we’re not good enough so we defend ourselves and apologise for having the temerity to want to take control of our own affairs and to have a reasonable say in the governing of the whole country. Any actual defence of the position of nationalism is jumped upon and portrayed as a defence of racism.
The West Lothian Question which is being used as such a motivation for this resentment towards, and restriction of, Scotland’s political position is not the great conundrum it’s made out to be. Yes; it is unfair that Scots MPs get to vote on English matters. Just like its been unfair that English MPs who outnumber all the other nations’ MPs by a huge margin have been doing to the rest of us for the entire existence of the Union. During the last Tory government they packed the Scottish debates with English MPs to force their measures on us despite having been almost completely voted out of our country. We’ve had centuries of their policies being forced on us and the only time the votes of Scots MPs have influenced an English matter is when it has been a close vote between the English MPs. We just don’t have enough MPs to create more than the slightest influence on English policy. Resentment at the high-handed way the Tories forced their policies on Scotland despite having absolutely no mandate to do so helped to fuel the demands for devolution. (Isn’t it odd that it’s those same Tories who are now whining about Scotland’s Westminster MPs?) All we really got out of Devolution was essentially another toon cooncil, but there’s hope for the future. There is only one reason why Scots MPs should continue to have a vote on English matters. The English have chosen not to have regional assemblies to take control of them.
Why should this be so? Only one region has had a vote on gaining its own assembly and it was overwhelmingly rejected? Given this resentment towards Scotland why should they refuse the chance to take that fictional control away from Scots?
Simple: most English people already believe they have an English parliament.
It comes back to that basic failure to comprehend the difference between England and Britain, a form of blindness the English share only with foreigners who at least have the excuse of having always been told by the English that the two are the same thing. The shameful thing is that the English believe this so deeply that they cannot see the genuine and justified anger and resentment it causes the rest of us in the Union. From the constant referral to things like the Queen of England, the English Parliament and English money, none of which exist, through the forcing of English agendas and attitudes on the rest of us each one causes us to move away from them.
Please do go ahead and take control of your own education and health policies. Please do it in such a way that the fictional notion that Scots are somehow already controlling these matters and causing all the failures in these areas is completely dispelled. A word of warning, though; If you do it by making the Scots, Welsh and Irish (the others must eventually be included in these proscriptions as only talking about Scotland makes the race issue much clearer at the moment) second class members of the British Parliament you will simply make the Independence movements stronger.
Actually, go ahead and do it your way, Mr Davies. I want to be independent.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
