Arise Sir Christopher !

This is more like it ! Over recent years the honours system in the U.K. (Knighthoods etc.) has become a bit of a joke, after all in a system where Jeffrey Archer is a Lord, the whole thing becomes devalued. And then there are the transparently populist awards of gongs to celebrities who have often done pretty much bugger all to earn them. Winning a gold medal is impressive, but to my mind it doesn't justify a knighthood when you consider that it took Churchill 70 years and winning World War II to get one.

But now, Christopher Lee has been knighted, and about bloody time too. He's 87 years old now, still in full-time work and more popular than ever. First becoming famous as Dracula in the 50's and 60's, he later went on to be one of the best Bond villains (Scaramanga), a genuinely sinister preacher in 'The Wicker Man', has been a stalwart of Tim Burton films for years and lately managed to star in both Star Wars and Lord of the Rings. He's always been one of my favourite actors and I'm delighted that he's got this honour, which for once is thoroughly deserved. And how appropriate that on Halloween, we can wish him all the best.

Does The Future Of Film Really Revolve Around Glowing Ping Pong Balls ?

This lady is prepped for a motion capture performance. That means that her movements, as mapped by the little balls, will be stored in a computer as a 'performance'. CG artists will then take that data and put whatever appearance they want on both her and her surroundings. Beowulf, Polar Express and the forthcoming Avatar all use this technology. And as much as I love special effects, this does concern me somewhat.

These CG films do look a little fake, no matter how spectacular they can be, and the actors that have been digitised can come across as zombie-like and rather sinister. This effect gets more pronounced as you see a familiar face in amongst the graphics, almost as if the actor has been sucked, Tron style, into a computer and is being forced to perform like a monkey every time you turn on the TV.

I also think it's always when too many effects get involved that story tends to get neglected in favour of pretty pictures. It really doesn't matter how many pixels you are throwing around that screen, if the story sucks the audience will have either left or fallen asleep before that finale you are so proud of. And then there's the oft mentioned prospect of bringing back dead movie stars to appear in films again. Except no-one seems to explain where the voice, personality and acting will come from. I've been an advocate of techie things on this blog for as long as it's been here, but one thing I do draw the line at is a gadget being used for no other reason than it's cool. So when Jim Carrey inevitably mugs and overacts his way through 'A Christmas Carol' which itself seems to have received the action flick treatment, I wonder if people will be thrilled by it, or whether they would have preferred a straight adaptation of a story that is, let's face it, already perfect.

Prepare For The Next Boom, But Keep That Noose Handy

On this day, the day that America leaves recession, I want to make a prediction that I'm sure will come true. Being a little older does give you certain advantages, you see patterns repeat themselves and history too. And this has not been my first recession. A year ago the media was full of doom and gloom and frankly, scaremongering. Because this hasn't been their first recession either, and they should have known better.

I confidently predict that no lessons at all will be learnt from the fiasco. Because you see, once the money starts rolling in once more, people will have real short memories. Governments too because they can ride the wave of the strong economy, take undeserved credit for it and claim that it's all a result of their policies. Odd then that during a recession they don't take the blame, if their policies are so important to the whole thing.

Regulation will either not happen, or will be tame. People will be so relieved that they can start spending again that they will forget the hard times and go credit crazy. Sub prime mortgages will reappear as will dodgy credit, and before you know it we'll be in an economic boom once more, perhaps bigger than ever before. The stock market will soar, lots of people will get filthy rich and we will all collectively put our fingers in our ears and say 'la la la la'. And then, a few years down the line, we will crash again, even deeper than before and even more people will suffer. If we don't learn from our mistakes we are doomed to repeat them. Watch this space.

I Nearly Slipped, But Then I Glanced Into The Abyss Once More And Climbed Back Up

Last night I re-activated my Twitter account. Quite why I cannot say, but all of a sudden it seemed to be the best idea in the world to do so. And Twitter, despite warnings when you leave, make it really easy to rejoin, in fact they even retain your old followers. So there I was, sitting expectantly in front of my screen, thinking that 6 months away would make me cool, and that I'd be welcomed back with a deafening roar. And then Twitter popped back onto the screen.

You know that feeling you get when you go back to your parents house and your old bedroom after being away ? How it all seems so rooted in the past, so small and faintly ridiculous ? It was just like that. Suddenly I saw the latest comments of people that I'd been following previously and they hadn't changed a bit. Sadly.

I quickly realised that this world, where once I felt so at ease, was now a foreign place to me. Where previously I'd seen a great purpose to be had from stating every random thought that came into my mind, now it just seemed plain stupid. Within 5 minutes of re-activating my account I had deleted it once more, hoping that no-one had noticed that I'd been there at all as I'd tiptoed away in shame. I realised that I'd been right all along. Twitter is pointless, self-indulgent and encourages egotism. It really doesn't matter what people are eating for dinner all over the world, what they did today or who they fancy. If ever we want to listen to endless trivia we only need listen to our own thoughts, they are just the same as reading Twitter but at least they aren't published on a world wide scale.

Twitter is naval gazing take to its apotheosis, where people kid themselves that their innermost thoughts are of interest to anyone but themselves. And where celebrities demonstrate how painfully ordinary, tedious and unremarkable they really are. None of us should go on it, it only shows us up. And it also proves that there are some limits to the internet culture that we're all so proud of. When time is wasted this elaborately and on such a grand scale, it really is time to switch off the damn computer, go out into the fresh air and see some real damn people !

Star Trek, Bananas and The Number '666'

A few months ago I decided that it would be nice to re-watch the series 'Star Trek : The Next Generation'. Three months and 178 episodes later, I have taken to mainlining Picard and co. like a junkie chases the dragon. Except my dragon is a popular science-fiction show which aired between 1987 and 1994. Now it's finished and I am in withdrawal, oh sure there are always the movies, but they aren't the same. They won't talk about the time Data got lost in the Holodeck or when Geordie got a pretend girlfriend or when we all had to close our eyes and pretend Riker was a ladykiller.

How long is it before I start looking online at Starfleet uniforms, how long before I start reading the appallingly bad novelisations, and how long before I start saying 'Make it So' in everyday life ?

During this time I have also developed an unhealthy interest in bananas. Right now I have 9 of them (yes 9 !!) sitting in my freezer, stripped, segmented and plastic bagged. Why, well because I use them to make the smoothies that have already destroyed a blender (it turns out that frozen bananas are harder than diamond). But when you blend these babies, mixed with milk, honey and Nesquik, they make for a drink so satisfying (and healthyish) that you'll never want another McDonalds thick shake again. Today frozen bananas, tomorrow the world !!

And finally the number '666'. The number of the beast in Revelations, often associated with the Devil, but more likely to refer to the Antichrist. I know these things, I've seen the Omen films multiple times. What I also know is that the concept of Hell is mentioned sparsely in the Bible, and that most of our ideas about it come from fiction, such as Dante's 'Inferno', Goethe's 'Faust' and Brendan Fraser's 'Bedazzled'. So the next time that you condemn some group of people as 'going to Hell' perhaps because they like to touch each other's bottoms be prepared for them to fire a witty retort back at you about the hazy concept of Hell in the New Testament and the fact that the fear of such a place was routinely used to control the populace. That'll tell you. Nowadays of course we just tell people that we'll take their credit cards away and they run off screaming. But as I noted that my last post brought me up to '666' in total I thought I should do another one quickly, just in case Sam Neill was right in 'Omen 3 : The Not Very Good One'.

Did you want to know any of this stuff, well if you did I would suggest lying down in a darkened room and humming to yourself for some time. Just make sure it isn't the Star Trek music. I had these random thoughts floating around in the toilet bowl of my mind and I needed to flush them. That I've used the rest of you as the effluent pipe I can only apologise for.

Cheryl Cole In Number One Not Really Shock At All

This young lady is called Cheryl Cole. She is a member of a pop group that was formed on a TV talent show. That group has had a few years of success and she is now a judge on the X-Factor. Last week she sang her debut single on the show in front of 13 million TV viewers. Today it is number one in the charts.

Miss Cole, unusually for a modern famous person, seems quite nice. She's got a very strong geordie accent (that's from Newcastle in northern England) and despite the fact that she's married to a footballer and has been voted this year's sexiest woman in the world, she seems fairly normal. But that doesn't detract from the fact that her single was unmemorable, the performance over produced and faintly ridiculous and that she seems to be hoping to copy Kylie Minogue. Who in turn seems to have spent much of her career trying to copy Madonna.

But of course she was featured centre stage on the most popular show in Britain, and not only that, Simon Cowell commanded his nation (and let's face it, he could probably raise an army these days) to make her number one. And duly they did. Let's be honest, he made Robson and Jerome number one, so getting the nation's sweetheart, Cheryl Cole there was easy by comparison. In fact, given his inexplicable Midas touch I imagine he could put Heinrich Himmler in a boy band and still sell some records.

Anyway, the point I am badly labouring here is simply that we live in an age where marketing is much more important than quality. These days rather than improve things we merely re-brand them and pretend they are something else. Rather than fixing stuff, we decide that it'd be much easier to try and fool the general public. Thus marketing, PR and advertising are what governments now turn to to win elections, not policies. Barack Obama was young, handsome, dynamic, and looks good in shades. Do we remember what his policies were ? I can't and I followed the election like a nutter. 'New Labour' came to power by pretending they weren't at all like those nasty 'Labour' people. And so on.

Now I know I'm being a cynical old grump about this and that many people just accept it. But when you see what Ben Elton called the 'reality gap' between what you've been sold and what you've ended up with then we see the danger. As for Miss Cole's performance I remember nothing about the song, the words, its name or what it was about. I do remember however a lot of dancers, expensive costumes, special effects and a top that revealed Miss Cole's bosoms. Oh hang on, maybe that was the point ? LOOK AT THE TITS AND IGNORE THE SONG !! If so, then they succeeded.

'They've Used A Stand In For Some Of The More Visible Shots'

That line is actually from a Monty Python sketch where an unscrupulous film maker is trying to sell a Marilyn Monroe film that was shot after she was cremated. Poor taste yes, but also very funny. But who would have thought that it would possibly come true only a few years later ?

Michael Jackson is dead, but that hasn't stopped his tour going ahead in a rather bizarre way. Sony pictures are releasing a film of the rehearsal footage taken the day before he died. They've apparently inter cut this with some of the videos that were due to be used in the show along with some backstage footage. Well, it's all backstage footage isn't it but you know what I mean.

Now the more enquiring of you may wonder how an early dress rehearsal, where Jackson was still learning the show, getting fit and easing himself back into performing, could be worthy of release. You might also wonder what Jackson himself, a renowned perfectionist, would have thought of the idea. Not much I imagine. Add to that the fact that he was allegedly 'blocking out' many of the moves, which means he was walking through the show but not going full out. And finally you may add into the shame bucket that his father and sister are accusing Sony of using a stand in for some of the shots. A man in Essex has claimed that he was the stand in in question and that he was filmed for some long shots etc. Sony have so far declined to comment.

Not only is the very concept of this film in poor taste, given that we will be watching a man with less than a day to live, but it seems that there is more than a whiff of 'bolting a load of crap together and hoping it works'. The release schedule is also curious, less than 6 months after the death of Jackson, the movie is out next week, but only for 2 weeks. This is odd, but it smacks of getting all the heartbroken Jackson fans to see it before they've had a chance to tell one another not to bother, and also of getting the DVD out in time for Christmas. And all this while Michael Jackson is barely cold. Are they scared that if they wait longer, our goldfish-like attention spans will move onto something else, or is it simply that they need to recoup some money out of this fiasco even if it means putting out a shoddy product ? Well, to be fair the trailer is rather good, and who knows, maybe the film will be too, but it doesn't look that likely at this stage does it ? Not that that will affect the box office of course, and as we all know, these days that is the one and only measure of quality that anyone cares about.

The Ultimate Ego Trip Or A Genuine Case Of Charity ?

I don't know about you, but when I hear that Obama is meeting with Bono, it really pisses me off. The U.K. Prime Minister can't get access to Barack but the lead singer of U2 can ? Similarly, last month the US Pres flew all the way to Copenhagen, with er Oprah Winfrey, to unsuccessfully pitch for the Olympic Games. I wonder if Chicago would have stood a better chance if these celebs had all stayed away ? And now we have Madonna all over the news because she's donating some money to found a school in Malawi. It seems that celebrities are no longer contented to just be famous for what they do, they now all seem to have 'Gandhi' complexes too.

Of course it's churlish to criticise them isn't it ? After all they're doing it for charity and therefore that makes them bulletproof. But of course along the way, media coverage is always immense and the positive publicity generated is huge. It seems to me that a celebrity will often 'do good' just so long as a camera is watching. Now I don't mean to argue that they shouldn't donate money to charity, on the contrary, with their incomes they should probably give more than they do. But what I object to is the way that so many of them make sure we all know about it. No anonymous, behind the scenes good works here, everything has to be on the 6 o' clock news.

What pisses me off is that tens of thousands of volunteers, all over the world, give their time and often their lives to help those less fortunate than themselves. And yet it seems that some celebs want to hijack the credit those people have accrued and take it for themselves. When some pampered star goes to a developing country for a day (presumably surrounded by bodyguards) we're all supposed to think they're wonderful. Well I don't, I just think that they're on a colossal ego trip and with an eye on that new album or film that's coming out soon. If these people really wanted to help, wouldn't they just quietly donate a few millions and let the experts spend it ? Of course no doubt there are celebrities that do do that. We don't know who they are of course, and that's rather the point. But am I being harsh, overly cynical ? Views please.

It Seems That The Money, Unlike the Fake Blood, Has Now Bled Dry

The term 'torture porn' is a very odd one indeed. The dictionary definition of pornography is 'printed or visual material intended to stimulate sexual excitement'. Given the wide variety of nouns this word is now paired with, perhaps the word 'sexual' can be deleted from that definition, but the rest surely remains. So what we are left with in this case is the concept that watching people get tortured is not only entertaining but stimulating for some people. Disturbing ?

I wonder what it says about us as a society that not only have we become desensitised to screen violence but that we now actively enjoy it ? The 'Saw' films - the sixth of which is just out - are nothing more than a set of flimsy excuses to watch people tortured, degraded and often killed. Similarly the 'Hostel' films fulfil a similar purpose. There's little suspense, no hero as such and hardly any plotting. It's just, as they say, 'torture porn'. I've seen two or three of these films and found them to be stomach churning, tedious and ultimately pointless. But that's not to say I don't like scary films.

'The Shining', 'Wolf Creek' and The Orphanage' are just three examples of horror films that I have loved, and that have given me nightmares. But then they had stories, and acting and plots. They were films. What the 'Saw' and 'Hostel' things seem to be are experiences, rather like a theme park ride, a grisly ghost train where you see a living chamber of horrors for seemingly no other reason than a cheap thrill. Of course Tussauds in London has a very scary Chamber of Horrors, and so it's not just our generation that likes a bit of titillation or the occasional head on a spike. You might also argue that films like 'Silence of the Lambs' are entertaining as they allow us to get close to serial killers without the risk. Plus the 'Penny Dreadful' papers in early 19th Century London that produced myths like 'Sweeney Todd' are obvious progenitors to all this. So why do I feel those older examples have more value than their modern counterparts ? Oh yes that's it, money.

The Saw films have been made for one single reason, they've always made lots of money. No artistic value or worth is needed if that is the only criterion. Many films are made on the same principle, which is why a third 'Transformers' film is being made, not because it will be any good, but because it will be very profitable. But when I look back at the likes of 'Sweeney Todd' I see a fascinating character, an intriguing portrait of 18th Century London, and at its heart it's a cracking good tale. But 'Saw' has no redeeming features, and I can't see it being re-made in 150 years time can you ? And now it seems the general public have also tired of it, as the box office has dried up, and it's heart seems to have gone. Torn out and eaten in a macabre way ? Er well no, just quietly expired on a profit and loss account. Ah well, if you live by the dollar, so you die by it too. I shan't be shedding any tears.

Microsoft Can Kiss My Arse

This week sees the launch of Microsoft's latest operating system, the imaginatively titled '7'. I wonder how many millions they spent coming to that decision ? I've been very critical of Microsoft's products on this blog, because I feel that they have taken advantage of their near monopoly by releasing a string of sloppy, badly written and over priced garbage. Those of us that remember the horrors of Windows 95 and 98 should not be surprised at this, and the less said about 2000 the better.

But with XP, the OS that I still use, they did something that most of us felt was beyond them, they created a decent piece of software. And while it is far from perfect it's a damn sight better than what went before. And XP started to help restore their reputation. Until of course the disaster that was Vista. Suddenly they were actively forcing people (Halo 2 anyone ?) to upgrade to something that was incompatible with the majority of their software and peripherals. This might have been a recoverable position if the OS itself wasn't so appalling. I have Vista running right now, on a laptop beside me, and it has just crashed for the third time today. It's slow, unstable and insultingly inept. And even though it does little else but update itself, it never ever gets any better !!!

So now we have Windows 7, a piece of software that MS are rightly worried about. Most of its vast success over the years can be attributed to Windows, and if people stop using that then MS are well and truly screwed. And now they have competition, Google have an OS out soon, the Mac OS is streets better than Windows and always has been, but most dangerous of all, cloud computing is on the near horizon and could make all OS software obsolete. For those of you who don't know, cloud computing is the concept of using the internet to use all your software, to do e-mail and to store all your data. Your home computer will be nothing more than a terminal to log into the web, which in turn will take care of your storage, processing power and everything else. Thus it won't really matter what software is on your machine, only which website you direct it to.

Google already operate partly in this way, and they are due to take it forward, but that's perhaps a year or two in the future. Until then we will still need to choose an OS for home. And I for one will not be choosing Windows 7, even if it's the improvement over Vista that they say it is. Why ? Simple, because what Win 7 effectively seems to be is the version of Vista that we should have had to start with. It looks and sounds the same as Vista, and despite a lot of new features, it seems to be disturbingly similar to its hated predecessor. What I suspect Win 7 is, is a giant patch that will bring Vista up to the level of the competition. So why is it being priced as a new piece of software because I think it should be given away free to all Vista users as an apology ? Well because of course MS would go bust if they did that. But I shan't be buying it thanks. Unless I win it in a competition I shall stick with XP until either the end of time or the moment that I can afford to buy a Mac (although I'm not sure which of those events will occur first). In the meantime Microsoft, pucker up, I'm presenting my buttocks to you right now.

Here's Why Nick Griffin Must Be Allowed On Question Time

I live in a country which until 34 years ago was controlled by a fascist dictator. My wife had to do the fascist salute at school when she was 5, and she remembers tanks rolling through the streets of Valencia just after Franco died. That was in 1975, the year that the 'Generalissimo' died. 6 years later there was an attempted coup by factions loyal to Franco and his beliefs. It failed. But all this history has given Spain a unique standpoint as regards far right politics. Of course both Germany and Italy lived under such regimes too, but for much less time. Spain had a fascist leader for 36 years, and they haven't forgotten it.

Nowadays the country is the very opposite of far right. A socialist party governs, the laws are libertarian and people are embracing and cherishing a freedom that was denied them for so long. There are no banks of CCTV cameras here, no culture of secrecy at the summit of political life, and when any freedoms are threatened the people are keen to resist. You can see why. But it is just because they have seen the dark side, that this country so values fundamental freedoms and rights. And perhaps this is why in Britain we don't seem to mind the systematic erosion of civil liberties that has taken place over the last few years.

During my time as a criminal lawyer, I counted dozens of new Criminal Justice Acts come into force. And over the years I have seen some pretty scary measures become law. The ending of the right to silence for accused persons, the ability of the government to take and keep your DNA on any arrest, terrorism measures which have allowed the police to keep suspects in custody for 7 days and then longer without charge and worst of all the ability to keep people in prison indefinitely who are suspected of terrorist affiliations but never charged nor brought before a court. We are told that we need these measures to make us safe. The government attempts and often succeeds in frightening us into going along with these things on the basis of 'national security', or more plainly 'the boogie man'.

When I was a defence lawyer people always asked me the same questions, 'how can you do what you do, how can you sleep at night, don't you have a family of your own ?'. The problem with these questions is that they demonstrate a fundamental ignorance of how the legal system is supposed to work. Before the state takes away someone's liberty and potentially destroys their life, don't you think that we should be sure that they're guilty ? Of course it's hard to watch serious criminals afforded protections that they don't deserve, but those safeguards are there for everyone, and they protect us all. And you cannot decide who does and who doesn't get that protection because to do so would pre-empt the trial process. When I see a murderer go down I want him to get life, not 25 years, but a full life sentence. To my mind that doesn't happen nearly enough. But I also want to make sure that he's guilty, and the only way to do that is to ensure that the trial process is as fair as it can be, no matter how scummy the defendant is.

Perhaps it's because we in the U.K. have enjoyed freedom for so long that we don't seem to be scared when it ebbs away. And that is what it is doing, slowly but surely. Some of the things I mentioned above are signs of that, others are the intimidatory way that people are treated and threatened by the state for certain infringements. And yet people continue to be relaxed about all this stuff, as if it'll all turn out alright in the end, and a type of good natured apathy results. Perhaps this is why two far right politicians have been elected to the European parliament. Does everybody in the U.K. consider the message this sends out to the rest of Europe, especially to countries like Spain, Italy and Germany ? And what does it say of us, the nation that stood alone against the Nazis for 18 months in 1940 and 1941 ? What have we turned into, and why don't more people care ?

I suspect it's because we've never lived under a fascist regime. But now we've elected people that have those tendencies and we've sent them to the European parliament to represent our country. And as elected representatives they deserve their platform. They got in fair and square, voted in by people demoralised and distrustful of the status quo. They should not be banned nor censored. Why ? Simple, because we need to confront what we've done, shine a public light on it, and allow it to burn away brightly and shame us all. Let the BNP go on Question Time, and when the drivel inevitably starts to be spoken, perhaps we'll start to realise that what we've allowed to happen is unforgivable. And whether we voted for them or not doesn't matter, we're all culpable.

And anybody who thinks the BNP are a bunch of crackpots who couldn't possibly be a threat to anyone clearly doesn't know their history. Adolf Hitler and his inner circle started off the same way, a walking joke that no-one took seriously. Heinrich Himmler was a chicken farmer, Hitler himself a failed painter. But they stuck around, and from their faintly ridiculous beginnings they started to make gains, started to get a few people elected. Then when the crisis in Germany took hold, more people looked to them because they offered some hope, certain radical ideas that posited a new approach to things. Founded in 1919, by 1933 they formed a government and they weren't a joke anymore. And the bunch of losers, nutters and crackpots that they represented now had the largest country in Europe at their disposal, and we all know how that turned out.

Now I'm not saying that history will repeat itself, nor that you can directly compare the BNP to the Nazi party. The conditions that allowed the latter to take power are almost certainly not going to ever be repeated, certainly not in the U.K.. But we need to see the danger, even if this time round it is of a different nature and form. Either way, it's time to wake up and look at our creation and be rightly ashamed. "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing" Edmund Burke (attrib).

Is This The Device That Makes The iPhone Its Bitch ?

Oh it´s all so confusing. One minute you think you have a handle on technology and then before you know it everything has changed. Now for anyone interested in gadgets, the horror of upgrading has become a necessary evil, but things are just getting silly now. Most electronics companies update their product range 4 times a year, and every time they do so they make everything that has come before appear to be obsolete.

This is something of an issue unless you are the sort of person that has so much money that they can literally go into the street, set fire to bundles of notes and laugh until they choke. For the rest of us, this kind of tech is a substantial outlay and we can´t really afford to get it wrong. Apple, with their iPhone have proved how incredibly lucrative the smartphone market can be, and so lots of other companies have now started to produce serious competition.

The HTC Hero (pictured above) has just won gadget and phone of the year. It does many of the things that the Apple phone does, but does them rather better. And while it lacks the apps that the market leader has, that too is apparently changing. Not only that, but Blackberry and Palm also have new phones out that dramatically close the gap on the iPhone. So what´s a boy to do ? After all, you can be assured that whatever you spend and no matter how cutting edge you are, it´ll all be out of date before you´ve even taken the damn thing out of the box. The world of mobile phones is going through a period of immense change and I feel as if I should just hide under the table until the storm subsides. At this rate I´ll just end up buying nothing at all under the principle of ´it´s my ball and I´m taking it home´.

Is There Anything Better Than A Book ?

I'll be the first to admit that I'm an electronics whore. I'm the kind of man who can spend an unnerving amount of time perving over a catalogue of gadgetry, and without even the need to buy anything. It's just circuit board porn as far as I'm concerned. I lust after the new inventions that come out and wonder how we ever coped without GPS and tea-making facilities in our mobile phones. But it seems that even I have my limits.

Mr. Soanes has been mulling over the purchase of one of those new Kindle or Sony reader things, which allow you to read books on a special hand-held 'paper-like' screen. The Sony PSP is introducing a reader function soon which allows you to do a similar thing. I should be moist at the very prospect. After all they involve the net, screens, buttons and lights. And yet I find myself left cold by these toys.

I have a colossal amount of proper books sitting just to my left as I type this. And other than the pleasure of reading them, the value of ownership is very important to me. I like the weight of a book in my hands, the cover art, the smell of the pages and the way it looks when it's put back on the shelf after I've finished with it. Once you own a book you need nothing else other than a pair of eyes and some light. There are no battery issues, or upgrade problems nor technical drawbacks. The book is a perfect piece of technology that I don't believe can ever be improved upon.

If we ever get to the stage where we just download books to a gadget, I think we will lose something. A fitting analogy would be the transition from LP to MP3. When I was younger I had a collection of vinyl, with great art, and a wonderful feel to it. Often they came in gatefold format and you felt an actual affection for these inanimate objects. Now, in the days where your record collection amounts to a bunch of files on a hard disk, I can't help feeling that something has been lost along the way, and I hope that a similar fate doesn't befall books. To me one of life's great pleasures is to be had whilst sitting in a comfy chair, with a book in one hand and a cuppa in the other. And I realise that whilst I love computers and the internet rather more than is strictly healthy, some pieces of technology were perfected long before the word 'byte' had even been invented.

And Here's Why You Should Never Meet Your Heroes

For those that don't know, the gentleman pictured to the left is Roman Polanski. Mr. Polanski has just been arrested in Switzerland on a 30 year old warrant from the U.S. which pertains to a case in which he pleaded guilty and then skipped the country. In the intervening time Mr. Polanski has lived in France, who refuse to extradite him to America, and has avoided any countries that may feel differently. However, recently he went to Switzerland and was unexpectedly nabbed.

The outcry amongst certain parts of the artistic community has been loud and proud. Various famous people have said that the arrest shouldn't have happened, that the case should have been forgotten about and that he should go free. But unfortunately for Roman, the criminal law doesn't work like that. It isn't possible to just 'forget' certain cases due to the passage of time or the fame of the accused. And in all the complaints I've seen about this arrest, nowhere have I seen anybody mention the original case which involved sex with a 13 year old girl, who had allegedly been plied with drugs and drink. And this brings me to the topic of this post, namely the tendency people have to confuse the professional with the human being. I have a great deal of respect for Polanski as a director, with masterpieces like 'Chinatown' and 'Rosemary's Baby' to his credit. It also must be borne in mind that he went through an unimaginable trauma when his pregnant girlfriend Sharon Tate was murdered by the Manson family.

No doubt the psychiatric evaluation that the court ordered him to undergo would have been revealing and helpful to him, but it was at about that time that he ran away to Europe. And the truth is that he pleaded guilty to the offence, so it's not as if he was contesting his guilt. So what are we left with ? Basically a very famous, very talented man who has slept with a child. Should he be excused from this simply because it was a long time ago ? I don't see why, because that would just imply that if you evade the authorities long enough you get a free pass. So should he be exonerated because he happens to be 76 years old ? Well he's still able enough to be working, travelling around and generally engaging with life. So no, not really.

Would a host of famous people be leaping to the defence of any old 76 year old ? No, so we can only assume that the argument is 'he's famous for God's sake so let it go !'. Not to say that this defence hasn't indirectly worked before, but it isn't exactly settled law. And if that's the argument, then I have to say, it isn't good enough. The case is so old because he's effectively been on the run for 30 years, and that accounts for his advanced age too. As for the rest of it, like I said above, it really doesn't do to confuse Roman Polanski the film director with Roman Polanski the man. That will only lead to severe disappointment. The law in this case will probably take its course, something that would by now be a distant memory had he stuck around to face the music in 1978.

Have I Been Lied To About 'Drugs' ?

On an early visit to Spain, I noticed a pleasant looking green plant growing in a pot on someone's terrace. I inspected it more closely and then noted with some shock that those leaves looked mighty familiar. At the time I was a criminal lawyer and I'd seen hundreds of photographs of cannabis plants. I stepped back in amazement and asked the owner of the place if the plant was what I thought it was. It was.

The emotion that it stirred most in me was an odd one, fear. I realised subsequently that all of my life I have been conditioned to be afraid of even being around a real life 'drug'. Even in court cases I had handled the druggy exhibits with caution, worried somehow that mere contact with them would get me into trouble. In the U.K. mere possession of any drug is an offence, and any criminal record is employment death. In Spain things are different. Over here it seems, you are allowed to grow and smoke cannabis in your home, in moderation of course.

This is an unthinkable concept for British people, and Americans as I understand it, that you could be allowed to smoke drugs in your own house. As such, I know people here that regularly use cannabis, and they have jobs, families and mortgages. They aren't rampaging loonies nor dangerous drop outs nor day dreaming hippies. They're just like me. This is rather at odds with the propaganda that I have grown up with, but the conditioning goes deep, because on Saturday night when somebody produced a small bag of the stuff in someone's home, I was unwilling to even touch it. After checking the law, and being convinced that stormtroopers wouldn't come crashing through the door as soon as I even picked up the bag, I inspected the stuff. In all honesty it was something of a disappointment, as it resembled and smelt just like parsley.

Later on, a couple of people smoked it in my presence, and the smoke in the atmosphere had no discernible effect on me. After a while I adjusted to the situation and started to feel rather privileged, that I could sit there quite calmly, knowing that nobody was doing anything wrong. Adults were doing as they pleased, and no harm was being done. And as far as I could see the stuff had no adverse side effects on anybody, but this was no real surprise. In all my time as a criminal lawyer, I can tell you that in about 75% of violent cases the abuse of alcohol was somehow involved. I can't remember a single instance where cannabis was an issue. Alcohol is legal of course, and taxed. The same applies to cigarettes. Both of these latter things kill us in droves, indeed nearly 9000 Britons died alcohol related deaths in 2007, and worldwide 5 million people die a year due to tobacco use. That's 14,000 per day. In the U.K. in 2007, 19 people are recorded as dying from cannabis use. So why are alcohol and tobacco legal, and cannabis a controlled drug ?

It doesn't make any sense to me, having now seen the stuff up close and used in my presence. So exactly what is going on here. Is it a historical legacy, in that cigarettes and alcohol have become socially acceptable in a way that drugs never have ? Well what's socially acceptable about that level of death every year ? And merely because something is currently allowed, it doesn't mean it must always be. Mind bogglingly, heroin was legal in the U.K. until 1956, indeed it was even prescribed by GPs ! Now it is equated with the Devil himself, and offences concerning it nearly always result in heavy prison terms. But which position is right ? Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating the legalisation of class 'A' drugs, because I've seen first hand the damage they can do and people these days are much more aware of how to abuse these things than in the 50's, but as for cannabis just what is the justification for demonising it, those who use it and in so doing blotting their copybooks for life ? Many times I've seen people go to jail for using cannabis, and in the same court seen people released for burglary. Which is the greater evil ? Clearly something is wrong here, and perhaps it's about time we all broke the conditioning and thought seriously and intelligently about what should and what shouldn't be legal.

Blog-a-Doodle-Do

I have noted a worrying trend within the blogging community in the last year or so. I used to read quite a few of the things, some of the writers I knew and others I didn't. But there was always plenty of interesting stuff to read out there. At its heart, blogging is the province of the amateur writer, a route to publication for those that otherwise get ignored. And it's intoxicating stuff. You write something, it gets published worldwide immediately and if a few people actually read it, it can be quite pleasing.

Trouble is, people seem to be getting bored of blogs. Several people I used to follow have now either stopped posting completely or have got interested in other things like Facebook or the dreaded Twitter. In other quarters blogging has been adopted by professional writers to plug their work, by old fashioned print media to appear relevant and by highly motivated political activists who seem to have garnered a lot of attention for themselves. Sadly, this all leaves the humble 'amateur writer' blog in a minority. I now see people winning awards for blogs I've never heard of, and when I have visited them, the writing has left me cold.

Legislation is starting to emerge, saying that if you endorse a product you must by law disclose whether you've received payment from the company that makes it. I don't know what saddens me more, the fact that people are doing this so much that laws need to be passed, or that companies are that shameless. And when governments start to legislate the internet, it's the beginning of the end. Up to now the net has been pretty free and ungoverned. And on the whole that has made it a good place to be. But recently there have been a number of attacks on that freedom. A man was prosecuted in the UK earlier this year for a public order offence because of something written on a blog. Another was forced to reveal his identity because he was in the police force and was saying negative things about his employers. He was later disciplined. So much for freedom of speech. And just this last week a court summons was served on Twitter for someone who was otherwise untraceable. I'd have loved to have heard counsel explain that one to a judge.

I suppose what I want to say in this post is that I fear that the world of blogging is being slowly destroyed. But you see that only makes me want to do it all the more. Does anyone actually read these political blogs, except for the mentally uncertain ? And when the BBC says 'read our sports blog' does anybody really believe it's a proper blog rather than a journalist sat at the same desk that he knocks out his normal copy at ? So I plan to carry on as long as I can, precisely because I'm not fervently right/left wing, an employee of a huge news organisation who thinks they can fool the public or a published writer trying to work the fact that they have a new book out into every sentence. I'm just a normal bloke, sat in his spare bedroom, tapping away on an ancient Dell computer. To me, that's what blogging ought to be about.

Florence Part 2 - No More Words, Just Photos

The Plot Thickens

I thought it was about time to update you all on my current status vis a vis the purchase of an Apple Mac computer. Earlier this year I publicly pleasured myself on the subject, and objectified all things Apple into near grail-like importance. But things have moved on a little since then. And as matters currently stand I am still an MS Windows user.

First off, I had a little economic downturn of my own, which thankfully seems to be over now. But it made me reconsider how I wanted to spend €1000 and whether an Apple laptop was the best way of doing it. I then asked myself some tough questions, shined a torch in my face and got to the meat of why I wanted a laptop at all. The rather surprising answer was, I didn't.

When I looked at it, what I really wanted was a means of staying online when I was out. Partly for fun, and partly for work as I receive a certain amount of stuff via e-mail. What I couldn't envisage, was me sitting in a coffee shop or on a tube train tapping away at a computer. I'd be scared of a) getting mugged and b) looking like a pretentious arse. Also I live in Spain, and whilst we have wi-fi hotspots, there aren't nearly as many as other countries, and I'd thus be forced to get my Mac out in MacDonalds (presumably after clearing the congealed mayo from the plastic table) or in Starbucks (only of course, when wearing sufficient amounts of linen and a goatee beard). And when I thought about it I just couldn't see me doing any real writing or translation stuck in the middle of the city. So the Macbook got cancelled.

Now, I've fixed on the iPhone. It'll allow me to get my e-mails, do a limited amount of typing, see the web and play with lots of toys whilst out and about. Other phones are available but they seem to break into two camps, Blackberrys and phones trying to be Blackberrys, and iPhones and phones trying to be iPhones. I'm not a Blackberry kind of guy. I don't wear a suit for work, I have a semi-permanent beard, I like the arts and I don't drive a company car. And so if I'm going touchy screeny I'll buy the best. Oh yes a Samsung may do all the same things as an iPhone, and technically that's true. But then you can say that a Mondeo does all the same things as a Ferrarri, but I know which one I'd prefer.

However, during my researches I became convinced that the Mac's OS and general coolness appealed to me greatly. And given that I no longer play games on the PC (the PC games market being deader than corduroy) I can focus on what I do use it for i.e. writing, interneting, and watching video content. The new 24inch iMac does all these things wonderfully, and with a grace and power that makes me quiver ever so slightly. That's not to say that Windows is totally dead for me. The new Windows 7 is supposedly a great improvement over Vista (not difficult) and the new touch screen tech is fun and clever, although having played with it a bit earlier today I wonder how long before the novelty and your fingertips wear off. But I've settled on an iMac for now, and that is what I shall lust after hereinafter. But first the phone. The moment I heard you could get an app that makes it sound like a light sabre was the moment that Apple made a sale.

Positively Shocking

Oh God, he's going to go on about blu-ray again isn't he ? He's going to froth on about image quality and pixels and in the process he's going to sound like the saddest little nerd outside of a White Dwarf clearance sale. Well, I was going to until I just saw that previous sentence, now I feel embarrassed. And there are some features of blu-ray that aren't so good, namely the price, the cost of the equipment needed to watch it and the fact that many transfers onto the format are rubbishy cash-ins. There's also the prospect that you'll be tempted to re-buy certain films that you've already bought several times before, just to see them in high def, and the latest 'ultimate, must have, blah blah' special edition. There's something dishonest about releasing blu-ray films in a basic version, and then 18 months later re-releasing a special edition which contains the elements that should have been present on the original. When film companies do this sort of stuff they can't bleat when people choose to download their product instead. Serves them right I say.

But some releases get it right first time, and don't try to con the consumer. The Bond blu-ray discs are superb, with fabulous image transfers and stacks of extras in HD. While they may well be released again, anyone having bought these versions won't feel hard done by. I have only one, 'From Russia With Love' and can tell you that it's the best HD transfer I've ever seen, and this from a film that is now 46 years old. It also kills the lie that older films can't be transferred too well, and that's why they're so awful. Further to this, the new Wizard of Oz blu-ray is supposedly phenomenal and that movie is no less than 70 years old. One may ask why then that the recent release of 'Gladiator' (9 years old) was so poor. In a word, laziness. And it's that type of thing that kills off new formats, pisses off consumers and leads to a backlash. So, when something decent does come along, it's only right that it should get the credit it deserves and should be bought by the bucket load.

Sophie Scholl

The above is the name of a young woman who resisted the Nazis during the war. There are many examples of such in the history books, but Ms. Scholl was different to many of those in that she was German, and attending University in Munich in 1943 when events came to a head. I must confess that I am quite a student of the Second World War and yet hers was a story that I was unfamiliar with. And now I know the details I feel a little ashamed about that.

The story was made into a film three times, most recently in the Oscar nominated 2005 version pictured to the left and which I saw for the first time earlier this week. I shan't go into many details of the plot as it's best to discover it for yourselves, but I would urge everyone reading this blog to see it. This is for two reasons, firstly because it is an excellent, thoughtful and beautifully made film. In these days where Transformers 2 is the highest grossing film of the year it's nice to be reminded of how subtle, intelligent and moving cinema can still be. But secondly and most importantly, this is a story that needs to be told, re-told and remembered.

Sophie Scholl and her brother deserve to be remembered as heroes, and very brave ones at that. And we must also never forget the unspeakable cruelty of the Nazi regime, even to its own citizens. It disturbs me when I see that the Nazis have almost become comedy villains, with silly voices and funny goose steps. This film will remind you of what cold hearted, dead eyed monsters they were. This isn't a period of history that any of us would want to repeat, and that's why it must be remembered so accurately.