Tuesday, March 21, 2006

London Stop The War March 18th March 2006







The BBC's coverage of this event was, as usual in these cases, disgraceful. I saw the 5pm programme on BBC News 24. There was a report of just a few seconds, ten minutes in, which didn't even mention all the other demonstrations around the world, let alone show any footage of them. And, of course, the usual uncritical repeating of the police `estimate' of 15,000 in attendance.

Complete crap, but BBC News is so far up Tony Blair's backside they can't even tell day from night any more. Perhaps it's time to find out what proportion of the licence fee goes to BBC News, and then withhold that amount from our payments. Let New Labour pay for BBC News - it's all just Downing Street spin.

Sunday, March 12, 2006

ID Cards Bill / Legislative & Regulatory Reform Bill

This is the text of a letter I wrote on the 10th March to my MP, Neil Gerrard (Labour, Walthamstow). I have not yet received any reply.

Dear Neil Gerrard,

I am deeply concerned about the continuing attacks this government is making on civil liberties and parliamentary democracy in this country.I was very angry to read today that the monstrous ID Card Bill is to return to the Commons on Monday in an attempt to force it through as soon as possible. This Bill will waste many billions of pounds and achieve nothing except to criminalise the whole population. I am sure I am amongst many who regard it as an outrage that I should have to be forcibly fingerprinted, and have DNA samples taken from me by force when I have committed no crime. If Blair imagines that if he gets this disgraceful measure through Parliament that is the end of the matter, then I predict he couldn't be more wrong. Once compulsion starts, co-operation will end.

However, even this appalling measure pales beside the breathtaking arrogance of the Legislative & Regulatory Reform Bill. I am sure there is no need to go over the potential effects of this measure with you. It appears to resemble nothing more than the Nazi Enabling Act of the 1930s which allowed Hitler to enact legislation without any vote. Any MP who supports this measure is a turkey voting for Christmas. Sadly, with some exceptions, the Parliamentary Labour Party appears to be full of turkeys.

Hasn't Blair done enough damage to the Labour Party? If he is allowed to get away with all this it won't just be the Labour Party out of power for a generation (as is likely now with all the lies and war crimes) but finished for good.I must ask you to do everything that you can to prevent these appalling measures from being enacted. If they are, don't ask the people of Walthamstow to vote Labour again.

Yours sincerely,

Grouchy.

Detention of `Road to Guantanamo' actors

This is a letter I wrote on the 20th February 2006 to my MP, Neil Gerrard (Labour, Walthamstow) about the appalling detention by Special Branch of the actors in Michael Winterbottom's new film on their return to this country from the Berlin Film Festival. I have only received an automated `out of office' reply (on 24th February).


Dear Neil Gerrard,

I am writing to express my serious concern at the latest abuse of anti-terrorist laws by state functionaries (who refused to identify themselves) with regard to the illegal detention of actors from the film The Road to Guantanamo when returning to this country from the Berlin International Film Festival.

The account by one of the actors, Riz Ahmed, is online. Every aspect of this is wrong and this kind of abuse is clearly only going to grow. Indeed it appears that the government is deliberately enacting legislation (e.g the ludicrous `glorification of terrorism' act which neither defines glorification nor terrorism) which is vague and nebulous so that these kinds of abuses of civil liberties will be even more likely to go unchecked.

I do not believe that these kinds of measures or the abuses they encourage have anything really to do with stopping terrorism. They are really designed to bully and intimidate domestic opponents to the government's criminal foreign policies. I would respectfully urge you to oppose these measures and abuses, and to do anything that you can to discover and publicise who illegally detained these people, and call publically for their disciplining for this appalling behaviour.

Yours sincerely,

Grouchy.

Menzies Campbell and Iraq

This is a letter to the Independent on Sunday in response to Campbell's article published 12th March 2006.

Dear Editor,

So now Menzies Campbell is playing the popular `Fantasy World Iraq` game (Independent on Sunday 12th March). He states that the invasion and three-year occupation have been a disaster. He wil get little argument about that from anyone except the warmongers and their ever-dwindling band of apologists. However, he then goes on to claim that `an immediate withdrawal of coalition forces would precipitate even greater violence' than exists now.

He claims that coalition forces are only perceived as occupiers. But the perception is completely accurate for that is what they are. We all know the invasion had nothing to do with (non-existent) WMD; we all know that it had nothing to do with `bringing democracy' to the region. It is very well-known that the neo-cons had it planned as part of their strategy for US control of the Middle East - first Iraq, then Syria, and finally Iran (as we will see in a few weeks' time). The idea is firstly to ensure strategic control of Middle East oil; secondly, to open up the region to further penetration and control of the economy by US corporations; and finally to ensure that the ensuing US client states all support Israel in its continuing theft of Palestinian lands.

To this end the Americans are building a number of extremely large, extremely well-defended permanent bases. They have absolutely no intention of leaving Iraq in the foreseeable future. In the extremely unlikely event of an Iraqi government calling for them to leave, they would simply destabilise and replace the government. The supposedly-democratic Iraqi administration is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Washington plc. The Iraqi `security forces' are completely dominated by the US military and do not have the equipment or the logistical ability to operate independently. This calls into question just who is behind the current death squad phenomenon. Could they operate without at least the tolerance of the Americans? After all, the USA has used this tactic before in Central America, and some neo-cons were openly calling for the same strategy to be utilised in Iraq.

So Menzies Campbell's claim that coalition forces are preventing violence is therefore utterly specious. The permanent presence of US (and other) forces have quite understandably brought the armed resistance into being. This will inevitably continue and grow for so long as the occupation continues. While we can have no certain idea of what will follow if, as they should, all occupiers were to withdraw immediately, we can be sure of what will happen if they continue to stay. The occupation must end immediately. The failure of the Liberal Democrats to support this shows how hollow their claim is to be a radical force in British politics. Any difference betwen them and the other two main parties is paper-thin.

Yours faithfully,

Grouchy.

Letter to the Walthamstow Guardian

A slightly edited version of this letter was published in the Walthamstow Guardian edition dated 9th March 2006 (the letters page is not online).

Dear Editor,

Kevin Lord's list (Letters 23/01/06) of New Labour's attacks on our civil liberties is sadly incomplete. Yes, we have bogus anti-terror laws (under which the rock star Morrissey has just been interviewed by Special Branch for calling President Bush `a terrorist'). Yes, we have the ludicrous ID card scheme which will cost billions of pounds and achieve nothing, except to criminalise us all by forcing us to submit to fingerprinting and DNA testing, or suffer a massive fine or imprisonment.

However, he didn't mention the little-known `Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill'. This bill virtually abolishes Parliament. Ministers will be granted wide-ranging powers which will not be subject to Parliamentary control. For example, Ministers will be allowed to summarily introduce any new laws they like apart from new criminal offences with a maximum of more than two years imprisonment, and new taxation measures. Apart from that they will have carte blanche and Parliament will have no right to vote to refuse them.

You don't believe me? The explanatory notes that accompany the Bill explain that Ministers `can amend, repeal or replace legislation in any way that an Act of Parliament may do' - all without any vote in Parliament. If this measure goes through we might as well be living in Mussolini's Italy. You can kiss goodbye to any freedoms that you hold dear. Bear this in mind when you vote in the local elections. Only a massive rejection of New Labour at every level can put a stop to these attacks on our liberties.

It is vital to vote in May, and it is vital to vote for freedom and democracy, which means it is essential to vote against New Labour.

Yours faithfully,

Grouchy.

Saturday, March 11, 2006

A weekend in Granada, Spain









The pictures are of the Alhambra, a unique complex of Moorish palaces in Granada (there are some more pictures on my Flickr photostream).

I went to Granada for the weekend with my Spanish class recently. It is very easy to get to nowadays as you can fly direct from Stansted by Ryanair. The flight takes two and a half hours. Granada Airport is only 10 miles outside the city, and you can travel in quite quickly by bus or taxi. It is also fairly cheap - I paid £76 for return flights including insurance.

I would recommend the trip, especially if you want to practise your Spanish, as we did. There is nothing quite like trying to order dinner in a restaurant, or buying things in a shop, or asking for directions in the street to practise all your basic Spanish knowledge (and crappy pronunciation in our case). The Alhambra is a must to visit. Make sure you book in advance, and that you arrive on time (or they won't let you in). Allow at least three or four hours for a proper visit (and take food and drink with you - you'll need it!).

I didn't really have much chance to look round the rest of the city, although I do recommend that you visit the Albaicin area - I'll post some pictures here soon. If you are into salsa, there are good bars you can visit to practise your dancing. As I don't dance I had to make do with watching - which wasn't too painful. If you decide to visit around this time of year, take some warm clothes. It was bloody freezing first thing on Sunday, although it warmed up a bit when the sun came out.

Adios amigos - hasta luega.

Sunday, January 01, 2006

More commentariat idiocy

It's not that significant, but it is typical.

British politics and the media that comment on it are trapped in a permanent spiral of putrefying idiocy. Politicians are - with rare exceptions - liars. We all know about Bliar and Iraq, of course. And it's hard not to suppress a snigger - or a groan, depending on your mood - when Cameron starts referring to Gandhi (and don't get me started on that single braincelled creature `Lord' Geldof). But is it too much to expect that those newspaper columnists who are extremely well-paid to pore over their pronouncements and interpret them for us should filter them for some kind of truth?

Don't be stupid, of course it is! Here's a supreme idiot for you - Andrew Rawnsley in today's Observer, on Blair's exit strategy - "But he is bound to be tempted to look for 'tops', which could include the withdrawal of British troops from an Iraq which is clearly on the path to improvement". Clearly on the path to improvement. Yes, the idiot really did say that. When did he last go to Iraq? Here's a letter from a Baghdad resident to George W.Bush (the Butcher of Fallujah). Who knows more about the situation in Iraq - someone who lives there or a `journalist' (i.e. paid propagandist) who sits on his fat overpaid arse in London and repeats whatever some Blairite lackey feeds him?

Is there a single newspaper commentator who isn't simply an echo of the liars of the British political class? Rags like the Observer - and their braindead propagandists - are simply a complete waste of time. You'd get more truth from the Beano.

Monday, December 26, 2005

Blair's evil twin `worried about gun crime'

Apparently, Sir Ian Blair, the well-known liar about the police murder of Jean Charles de Menezes at Stockwell tube station on 22 July 2005, is worried about rising gun crime - not including, of course, the murder of de Menezes which is currently undergoing multiple coats of whitewash on Blair's behalf. So we Londoners are to be treated to an increase in the numbers of de Menezes' murderers - up to 200 extra armed police apparently, even before the official whitewash is out.

So who gets it next - me, you, a friend or relative of mine or yours, or most likely a total stranger (so that's alright then). Of course Blair, and his evil twin our war criminal prime minister couldn't care less how many innocents the police shoot (how many have died in Iraq now?) as long as there's no publicity. (By the way, you'd better carry some ID if you want to be identified). Or as long as they can claim that he or she `vaulted the barrier' or `was wearing unseasonal clothing', and not get found out about it.

Even if there is publicity they can always rely on official cover-ups, and our complacent `free press'. How long have the investigators into de Menezes' murder been sitting on their spotty arses now waiting for the heat to die down so they can issue their official cover-up and Cur Ian Blair can claim vindication for the casual murder of an innocent on behalf of Tony Blair's policy of licking the arse of the Butcher of Fallujah (George W.Bush if you have to ask, but I'm sure you don't)? How long does it take to establish the truth about state-sanctioned murder (the answer - forever, if necessary).

Then again, they can always rely on the good-old BBC, sustained by our licence-fees to feed us lies on the evil twins behalf. Jean Charles de Menezes was `mistakenly killed' if you believe BBC Newsroom South-East, or whatever their Blairite propaganda broadcasts are called these days. If Emily Maitliss is going to read such barefaced lies straightfaced to camera surely she should be smeared in the blood of the kill, how else are the boys in blue really going to enjoy their work. Let's not be shamefaced about it. After all, he's just the first of many, we have to get used to these things. Who knows, you may be next. And if you won't get off your fat arse to complain aboout the murder of the innocent Mr de Menezes, who's going to complain about yours? Not the BBC, that's for sure (or the `Independent' Police Complaints Commission).

We are ruled by scum, and nobody gives a toss.

Thursday, September 29, 2005

Zarqawi Number 2 Ejected from Labour Conference



In breaking news, the victorious Coalition has dealt a massive blow to the Iraqi insurgency by locating, ejecting and subsequently detaining Zarqawi's number 2 under the Terrorism Act.

This evil man had the nerve to attend the New Labour rally at a secret location (Nuremberg) and heckle the great Foreign Secretary Heinrich Straw. Fortunately our great leader had the presence of mind to set a number of fat thugs on the vicious 82 year old and bodily throw him out, where our wonderful policemen immediately detained him as a suspected terrorist.

SO PERISH ALL ENEMIES OF THE THOUSAND YEAR NEW LABOUR REICH!

Wednesday, September 28, 2005

New Labour Assault 82 Year Old Man

So much for Tony Blair's `respect agenda'! It seems `respect' doesn't have to be extended to anyone who disagrees with New Labour. An 82 year old man - apparently a veteran Labour Party member of over 50 years - who heckled the odious Jack Straw about Iraq at the Party Conference, was manhandled out by a fat New Labour thug (a David Aaronovich lookalike).

AND THE POLICE HELD HIM UNDER THE PREVENTION OF TERRORISM ACT (according to BBC-TV News)!!!!!!!! No doubt that ignoramus Charles Clarke is even now signing the order for his house arrest. And as he apparently came to this country as a fugitive from the Nazis, he can expect to be deported to Germany in due course.

So perish all who glorify terrorism by maligning honest New Labour ministers.

You really couldn't make it up. What did we ever do to deserve this government of war criminal scum.

Sunday, September 25, 2005

Stop The War March London 24/9/05 post 2






There were some very good speakers in Hyde Park. Several people spoke for Military Families Against the War; and there was Tony Benn, Jeremy Corbyn, Scottish MSP Colin Fox, and two brave young women from the Jean Charles de Menezes campaign - justice4jean.com. There was Bianca Jagger, Brian Eno, Tariq Ali, John Rees, Lindsey German, an Iraqi doctor, an Iraqi author, Tom Hayden, Gate Gourmet workers, and an excellent speech from John Pilger. My apologies to those speakers I missed for not listing them here.

Stop The War March London 24/9/05






I went on the march and took some photos, examples above. At a guess there were more than 10,000 on the march (as we know the police estimates are always ridiculously low for political reasons), but less than 100,000. Okay, that leaves a lot of room for guesswork but I only just scraped Maths O-Level, don't ask me to count to 100,000!

Sunday, August 28, 2005

Abbey Gardens, Bury St Edmunds

I now have a Flickr photostream. I'm not promising anything particularly interesting, but if you want to, take a look.

Thursday, August 18, 2005

The Blairs Have No Integrity

Another unpublished letter to the shitty Guardian, sent 17/8/05.

Dear Editor,

Thanks to a fine piece of reporting by ITV News (putting BBC News to shame) we now know there was as much truth to Ian Blair's account of how the police came to shoot Mr de Menezes at Stockwell tube station, as there was to Tony Blair's account as to why British troops invaded Iraq.

If either Blair had an ounce of integrity their resignations would already have been announced. As neither does, we can look forward to continuing British government support for war crimes in Iraq, together with further innocents shot by the Metropolitan Police.

How wonderful it is to live in a `modern democracy' (where the will of the people can be safely ignored).

Yours faithfully,

Grouchy.

Thursday, August 11, 2005

Guardian Blairite Garbage

Text of an unpublished (of course) letter to the Blairite Guardian on 10th August 2005:

Dear Editor,

John Lloyd's opinion piece in today's Guardian employed what has come to be standard Blairite dishonesty, saying that in The Guardian `These pages have been host to several pieces arguing, in essence, that we British had it coming (it being terrorist attacks by those acting in the name of extreme Islamism').

What a load of rubbish. What articles is Lloyd referring to? There has not been a single one. What Lloyd is doing is following The Great Leader's dishonesty in claiming that explanation = justification. And we all know why Blair did that. Because British foreign policy has landed us in this current mess. Naturally, Lloyd attempts to cover this up.

Feeble effort, 0 out of 10, must try harder. What about telling the truth for a change?

Yours faithfully,

Grouchy.

Tuesday, August 09, 2005

TV Review - Hollywood UK:British cinema in the sixties****

Hollywood UK Episode Two: Making It In London BBC4 8th August 2005
This is the 2nd of 5 episodes from the series originally broadcast on BBC2 in 1993.
And so we come to `Swinging London'. Did it really exist - as famously declared by Time magazine in April 1966 - or was it just a media construct? A clip of an interview with Julie Christie (from Peter Whitehead's important Tonite Let's All Make Love in London - uncredited by the BBC) from 1966 or 67 shows her saying about the 60s, `A good time is much easier had by all than ever before'. Certainly true by comparison with the 1950s, but it was much truer for `the beautiful people' that Terence Stamp discusses moving amongst here, than for the general population. All the same, something was happening, as evidenced by the films discussed.
Presenter Richard Lester looks at these films - Darling (1965), A Hard Day's Night (1964), The Pleasure Girls (1965), The Knack (1965), Georgy Girl (1966), Morgan: A Suitable Case for Treatment (1966), Alfie (1966), Far From the Madding Crowd (1967), and Poor Cow (1967).
Darling is used to set the scene. In contrast to the gritty northern materialism of the `kitchen-sink' films of the first programme in the series (see previous review), we now have glamour with a capital G, as personified by Julie Christie. Her character, Diana Scott, is an ambitious attractive young woman who is determined to lead her own life. She wants to be economically and sexually independent. Her fascination with powerful men leads her to move up the social ladder from man to man until she finally marries an Italian prince. But it ends in tears with the character isolated and alone in an Italian castle. According to writer Frederic Raphael, the 60s saw a presumption that what was previously considered as `bad behaviour' should be accepted as the norm. So the script for Darling, in displaying Diana Scott's bad behaviour, was a social comment intended to suggest that a better society was needed - in Raphael's words, `i.e. God help us, a socialist one' (this comment says a lot more about Raphael than socialism).
A Hard Day's Night, a `documentary-style' film about a day in the life of The Beatles has been famously described by film critic Andrew Sarris as `the Citizen Kane of jukebox movies'. Yet, as revealed here by United Artists executive David Picker, the film was only made because UA would get a soundtrack album out of it. In fact the film cost only £190,000 to produce (presumably making it one of the most profitable films of all time). Writer Alun Owen tailored the on-screen characters to the Beatles own personalities, enabling fresh lively performances which captivated audiences across the world. The programme takes in the difference between the `realism' of this film and the `let's do the show right here' showbizzy nature of the Cliff Richard precedents, The Young Ones (1961) and Summer Holiday (1962), which director Richard Lester was able to react against.
The Pleasure Girls' fairly realistic depiction of life in London for girls who had just moved there - involving flatmates, independence and boyfriends - is contrasted with Lester's ownThe Knack, a more stylised film about young people in the capital. The latter utilised a high-key photographic style - thus rendering more of an advertising-shoot look - and a kind of Greek Chorus of elderly people commenting on the antics of the younger generation. Lester admits to have used every trick he could think of in the film. All this makes it something of a microcosm of early swinging London. `The knack', by the way, is the ability to pull women. The full title of the film is The Knack...and how to get it.
Georgy Girl explored the other side of this question as Georgy, played by Lynn Redgrave, was frustrated and unable to get what she wanted sexually. Georgy, homely and warm-hearted, shares a flat with her polar opposite, sexy but cold-hearted Meredith, played by Charlotte Rampling. Meredith's boyfriend is Jos, played by Alan Bates. Meredith gets pregnant, has the baby, but doesn't want it. Georgy solves her problem by marrying her old guardian - James Mason - so that she can adopt her friend's baby. How very different from the home life of our own dear Queen.
Morgan: A Suitable Case for Treatment is a very idiosyncratic film, being a re-working of a David Mercer play screened by the BBC in 1962. Mercer's own breakdown and experience of psychoanalysis appears to inform his understanding of Morgan, played by David Warner. A familiar Mercer theme, described as `social alienation masquerading as madness' is at the core of the film. Class differences between working class Morgan and his upper-middle class wife Leonie, played by Vanessa Redgrave, make them incompatible. Their frustration at this makes them resort to games and fantasies. Morgan's mental association with Guy the gorilla makes for some memorable scenes, as for instance when Morgan speeds away from the camera on a motorbike, dressed in a smouldering gorilla suit. A communist motif also runs through the film as Morgan's mother, played by Irene Handl, is a card-carrying member who regards her son as a class traitor. At the end of the film, as Morgan works in the garden of the mental home where he has been sent, and Leonie visits him to tell him she is carrying his child, the pull-out shows us the flowers growing in the shape of a hammer and sickle. The film embodied the psychological theories of R.D.Laing - an important 60s figure - who is shown here commenting on the film.
And so to a more conventional film which was one of the biggest commercial successes of the decade - Alfie. The least conventional aspect of the film was the way that the main character, played by Michael Caine, addressed the camera directly about the merits or demerits of the succession of `birds' that he pulled. The film epitomised male attitudes (Caine comments that all his friends lived like Alfie at the time) while amusing and charming the audience. It wasn't all light-hearted though, with a strong performance as a backstreet abortionist by Denholm Elliott. It contained a number of fine performances amongst Alfie's conquests, including those of Millicent Martin, Jane Asher, Shelley Winters (the `older woman'), and Shirley Anne Field. But, of course, all good things must come to an end, and after contracting TB Alfie finally reflects on the shallow nature of his existence.
According to Richard Lester, Far From The Madding Crowd demonstrated the limits to `Swinging London' - it didn't translate to Thomas Hardy's Wessex. The film, starring Julie Christie, Terence Stamp, Alan Bates, and Peter Finch was not a commercial success, especially in the USA. John Schlesinger's adaptation of the novel focussed on how a young woman could inherit her uncle's farm, then keep it and run it herself without alliances with, or ownership by, any of her three male suitors. Somehow Nic Roeg's cinematography seemed to outshine the principal actors.
The final film featured here, Poor Cow, pointed in a new direction. Directed by Ken Loach, who came from directing television plays for the BBC, it "had a realism about it I hadn't encountered before" according to Terence Stamp. Stamp also recounts how the producer, Joseph Janni, begged him not drive to the shoots in his new Rolls-Royce, because Loach "was a communist and would hate it". Loach complains that he was required to carry a huge crew for the film's production which swamped what he was trying to do. As Stamp says, the film shoot was not structured in the traditional way, with a master shot followed by medium, close-up and reverse close-up shots. Instead, Loach utilised big master shots which continued until the film ran out. He also used a lot of non-actors in his films. Of course, Loach was to continue and develop this style throughout his career.
Lester summarises the `Swinging London' period as "honeymoon years in which pleasure and personal fulfilment could be pursued as ends in themselves [but which] were bound to lead to some kind of burnout. Filmmakers like Ken Loach had already sensed it was time for a rediscovery of the minutiae of people's lives". So the next episode of the series moves on to `issue films', including some of the most important films of the decade.

Sunday, August 07, 2005

Tuesday, August 02, 2005

TV Review - Hollywood UK:British cinema in the sixties****

Hollywood UK Episode One: Northern Lights BBC4 1st August 2005

This series of five programmes fronted by the late lamented Richard Lester (director of the Beatles films, amongst numerous others) is currently being re-run on Monday nights on BBC4. It was first shown in 1993 and well deserves to be aired again. It is an overview of the British film industry in the 1960s. `British film industry', I hear you cry, `I didn't know we had one'.

Well, we used to. As Lester says in his introduction, while there were only two British films in production at the start of 1993, there were 76 in 1967. A statistic which demonstrates the scale of film production in the sixties, when as Lester says, `Hollywood film studios were tripping over each other to shoot their pictures in London'.

For this series, the 1960s actually begin in 1958, with the release of Room at the Top. This first episode of the series concentrates on what came to be (rather dismissively) termed as the `kitchen sink' films - working-class dramas based in the north of England. So the main films discussed after Room at the Top are Look Back in Anger (1959), Saturday Night & Sunday Morning (1960), A Taste of Honey (1961), Whistle Down the Wind (1961), A Kind of Loving (1962), This Sporting Life (1963), and Billy Liar (1963).

These films were a considerable departure from the nature of previous British films which tended to be dominated by public school types. As producer/director Karel Reisz says, `It was time to make films about what's outside the drawing room'. So Room at the Top was adapted from John Braine's novel which included `an unprecedented amount of sexual frankness'. The Censor gave the film an `X' certificate (to be seen by adults only), which the producers seized on in their marketing efforts. The story of an ambitious working class lad who manages to marry into money, but causes the death of his mistress - his real love - it left the drawing-room far behind in favour of the bedroom, and the protagonist's clashes with his `social superiors'. Strong stuff. Look Back in Anger is really included here because of its importance as a play rather than as a film, so I will discuss it no further.

Saturday Night & Sunday Morning - in my opinion one of the best films here - sees an outstanding performance from Albert Finney as Arthur Seaton, lathe operator in a factory. We first see him at the lathe as the end of work on Friday afternoon approaches. As he produces widgets and puts them in a box we hear him counting them on the soundtrack - nine `undred n fifty-three, nine `undred n fifty-four, nine `undred n fifty-bloody-five. He then thinks about the weekend, `What I'm out for is a good time, all the rest is propaganda'. Arthur is a tough working class young man who hates the thought of being shackled - whether at work or by any woman. `Don't let the bastards grind you down' is his motto. Gritty, it is, and a must-see.

A Taste of Honey dwells on the changing sexual mores of the times. A teenage girl played by Rita Tushingham, falls pregnant by a sailor, who moves on. She then forms a relationship with a supportive gay man - advanced subject matter for 1961. Whistle Down the Wind was a vehicle for child star Hayley Mills, and for my money is the only film discussed here of little importance (ironic that the BBC should have chosen this film to show after the programme - the weakest of the bunch). A Kind of Loving is very redolent of the times. Alan Bates stars as the man trapped in an unhappy marriage after a shotgun wedding - a situation that is probably unthinkable now when something like a third (if I remember correctly) of weddings end in divorce.

This Sporting Life came at a time when audiences were tiring of `kitchen sink' films. Decidedly downbeat it was not a box-office success. However, it contained outstanding performances with Richard Harris as a tough rugby league player going into a steep decline, and Rachel Roberts (also in Saturday Night & Sunday Morning) as the woman he loves. Of this group of films, Billy Liar begins to point in a new direction. It is the story of a young Bradford lad who is something of a Walter Mitty character. He deals with the tedium of daily life by inhabiting a rich fantasy world. The film depicts a fine comic interplay between its characters. But Billy is really a bit of a sad character. When the magnificent Julie Christie character asks him to go to London with her he contrives to miss the train. (Julie, Julie, why didn't you ask me. I wouldn't have let you down. Okay, so I was only ten at the time, but you could have mothered me).

A fine start to a fascinating decade then, but the best is yet to come. Tune in to the other four episodes to find out what happens next. The series does a fine job as an overview of the most important British films of the decade, but sadly there is little room for analysis. Why was it that the sixties saw an amazing upsurge, not just in film, but also in popular music, fashion (and fashion photography), and the creative arts in general in this country? And why did it die away? There are a number of factors, but no space here to discuss it. If I have the time to review the other programmes in this series I may return to this question.

Interviewees in the first episode - Michael Caine, Julie Christie, Roman Polanski, John Osborne, Sir John Woolf, Karel Reisz, Alan Sillitoe, Peter Yates, Rita Tushingham, Paul Danquah, Murray Melvin, Bryan Forbes, Keith Waterhouse & Willis Hall, John Schlesinger, Joseph Janni, Lindsay Anderson, David Storey, Richard Harris, and Tom Courtenay (not bad, eh!). And from the archives, John Trevelyan, Tony Richardson, and Albert Finney.

US Suicide Bomber Shock!!!

During the last-ever episode of Enterprise on Sky One tonight, one of the American characters, Trip, blew himself up to kill some alien invaders in his ship. This was portrayed as heroic and brave.

Don't those terrorist-commie-pinko bastards in Hollywood know that suicide bombing can never be justified under any circumstances? Don't they listen to our leader, the Great Poodle of Downing Street, who proclaimed this just last week? What do they mean by spreading this terrorist propaganda on our screens?

In future, instead of blowing themselves up to defeat invaders, characters must drop cluster bombs from 30,000 feet. We know that's okay because the Great Poodle has already done that himself - in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq.

If this happens again I will be demanding a witch hunt - `terrorist-commie-pinko suicide bombers out of Hollywood'. Has a ring to it, don't you think?

USA Planning War Against Iran

It seems that the Washington crazies are planning to use any further 9/11 style attack on the US to launch nuclear strikes on Iran. Of course, as with Iraq, any Iranian involvement in such an attack would be irrelevant.

No doubt the Great Poodle of Downing Street would rush to support any such war crimes. Well, in for a penny in for a pound, eh? When you are already guilty of causing the deaths of thousands and thousands of innocent civilians what's a few hundred thousand more?

We have to get the war criminals out of government on both sides of the Atlantic or all we face is unending mass murder, and terrorism in response.