Tuesday, 27 January 2015

Bang goes the Oscar

Star: During his  interview, Cumberbatch (pictured in Sherlock) hit out at the lack of opportunities for black UK actors, saying they have a far better chance of success if they go to Hollywood rather than stay in Britain

Since when was 'coloured' a term of offence ? Nobody told me about it. As far as I know it's not on the statutes and Cucumberpatch won't be getting a visit from the police here or in the US. Why not ? Because he's said nothing wrong and not broken any 'hate' law.

The snide classes just love to create their little traps and crimes that put everyone else in the wrong.

The control of language (much less thought) is deeply oppressive and stifling.

In Luvvy Land Cucumberpatch has probably committed an Oscar forfeiting sin. Why not stitch zips in white people's mouths ? We'll never offend anyone again - oh, hang on...  we'll always be in the wrong !  Where there is no offence one will always be created.

PS - If someone from the in-crowd such as Cucumberpatch can commit such a faux pas how can an ordinary old person possibly be blamed for it ?

PPS - Had Cucumberpatch used the term 'people of color' in America then that would have been OK. The mind boggles.

Friday, 23 January 2015


I wouldn't describe this as a 'thriller' but it does get you on the edge of your seat. The basic theme is really really mundane but somehow Tom Hardy (under great direction) has turned a mere car journey with mobile phone into something very special indeed.

Ivan Locke is a building site manager trying desperately to hold the project, and his life, together. The film is about pressure. Pressure undoubtedly brought on by modern communication. It is rending to see how much pressure some people are under. There is a spanner in the works but to tell you that now would spoil the story.

Before we add Ivan's little complication his life is manic enough. I started working life in the construction industry in the biggest city in the world and saw for myself how much pressure site managers (actually known as site agents) are under.  The greatest pressure can be traffic and access in an already busy area; the organisation of road closures to enable bulk deliveries and cranes and the pressure of meeting tight schedules to avoid contract penalties (the dreaded loss of company profit) and to ensure that trades do not end up getting in the way of each other on site and that materials are ready and safe. Get it wrong once and you get bollocked REALLY badly (nothing like in offices - these are roughty-toughty building sites) twice ?  Well... job, house, mortgage ... even marriage ? Forget it.  All gone in a thrice.

Sound boring ?

Well I think Ivan Locke just became my super hero. And there was not one bit of Hollywood crash-bang-wallop or CGI in site ('scuse the pun)

A must see.

Wednesday, 21 January 2015

Email to Professor Brian Greene (author and documentary maker)

Is E-K's Time-Sausage theory about to become mainstream ?

Dear Professor Greene, 

Having watched your documentary on Quantum Mechanics (most enjoyable) I have an idea:

What if every possible outcome on the macro (human) scale is not played out in parallel universes but is actually played out simultaneously in this universe - an infinite number of parallel histories within this realm ? The observer can only see his own history as an infinite number of futures branch off in every plausible direction. We accept that there is Spacetime - why not Metime ?  (Me-time - where Me is not the same person from moment to moment just as Space is not the same space from moment to moment.)

This would (I think) explain the slit experiment where observation seems to fix a locationally vague particle to a definite coordinate. It seems preposterous that just looking at something could affect its position. 

I posit the following instead:

By the time the observer sees the particle its position is already historic (the time the light takes to travel to the sensor and the data to the observer's eye) therefore the observer has not affected the position of the particle but 'selected' the historic position from which to view the particle - the same observer (but in another branch of history, a micro-milli-second apart) would see the particle in a different place, one which would accord to an aggregate of probable outcomes. 

Each observer (the same person, only different because they follow different histories - in the same way as space is identified by its location in time as well as geography) is unaware of the other as the histories take different branches and become closed to each other. 

Would there be too many observers (every sentient being in the Universe) fixing the position of too many things ?  Well this would at least give us some idea of the scale of infinity and the infinite number of outcomes and 'coincidences' that are needed to bring us to the perfect picture of 'Now'. 

Entangled particles (large distances apart) are observed to spin in unison - choosing the position of spin of one, therefore, does not need distance to be a problem in determining the position of spin of the other as it is the history from which to view that is being chosen (not the state of the particle and the corresponding state of its distant anti-particle) and history applies to the whole universe and not to close proximity. The effect of choosing history rather than position is, of course, instantaneous (infinitely faster than the speed of light) regardless of distance. 

Everything that can happen does happen at the sub-atomic scale... what if the same is so for the macro scale in this very universe, only that we are too close up to 'reality' (whatever that may be !) to see it ?  Would a gigantic observer (a universe sized person, of the same scale to us as we are to sub atomic particles) see us behaving in quantum ways and not as we see ourselves ?

I apologise if I have missed something which explains/discounts this in your book, The Fabric of the Cosmos - I enjoyed this work very much too. 

Kind regards

Kevin -----


PS, I gather you must get lots of fan mail. I promise not to write uninvited again. Please don't feel the need to write back but I would like to know if I've been of help. 

Monday, 12 January 2015

The Theory of Everything

I was so moved by the Stephen Hawking film that I couldn't speak for at least ten minutes after it had finished. I had to get myself out of the cinema pretty quickly.

I've read all of his books over and over so it probably won't have the same effect on you if you're not a fan, though the end of the film was pretty merciless in its direction so it might. I'd never thought of wheelchair bound Hawking as a healthy young man - very similar looking to one of my boys in fact. The disease must have been devastating for his parents to witness.

This is worthy of many Oscars and one of them for what has to be the best (BEST !) male performance in cinematic history.

See it at the pictures if you can. Not because it needs a big screen but because it deserves one.

Saturday, 10 January 2015

A week of terror in Europe and Ukip gets it in the neck ?

The Graham Norton show turned on Ukip last night - totally out of the blue. How did that happen ?

This sort of thing happens a lot. It's bad enough on political shows, but chat shows ?

Is it in guests' contracts to include a dig at Ukip during every appearances on the BBC ? Or is it just fashionalbe in luvvie cirlces ?

Will I Am

Watch this:


I've loved this sweet sweet guy for years. I've been running up hill and down dale to his genius on my ipod (Black Eyed Peas) for donkey's.

And he's absolutely right.

If you love your own race too much then all you have left is room for discrimination.

(Joanna Lumley ends up convinced by him too)

Thursday, 8 January 2015

Charlie Hebdo killings

Let's get one thing clear. Religions represent their peoples and when people are represented in groups then their issues become political, their influence political - their aims political.

Nothing they say, therefore, should be beyond mockery in free society.

Now one political/religious movement has the ultimate protection from mockery - throughout Europe and possibly throughout western civilisation.

This gives them a huge advantage over everyone else and their political reach can grow unmolested by the most potent political opponent of all - the satirist. All the tough talk about freedom of speech doesn't amount to a hill of beans and people will never feel able to speak freely about Islam again. Especially as terrorists have shown that they will kill those who offend them in pin-point assassinations.

This puts other groups - who must endure the poke of the satirist's sharp pencil - at a democratic disadvantage.

The likes of Ian Hislop's Private Eye won't be taking the rise out of Islam. In fact they never did and fell into line long ago after the fatwah was issued against Salman Rushdie - they were nowhere near as irreverent or rebellious as they purported to be and nowhere near as honest and gallant in their trade as those brave guardians of free speech lost at Charlie Hebdo in Paris yesterday.

British satirists pretend to be 'edgy' and relevant by attacking soft targets in Britain -  the HIGNFY show's stock in trade is to mock provably peaceful and law-abiding UKIP, doubtless to help their ailing chums in the Tory and Labour parties and in order to justify their own huge fees.

"But we mock everyone."

No. You don't mock everyone.

The outer parameters of satirical comedy were established in Paris yesterday. The era of boundary pushing humour has hit a brick wall unless the likes of Hislop are prepared to cross the red line drawn on the floor of the offices of Charlie Hebdo.

Otherwise they migh consider shutting up altogether.

EDIT:  I'd have been more impressed if those free speech protesters in Paris had displayed the offending cartoons rather than Jes Suis Charlie posters. They are already censuring themselves in fear of reprisal. The 'fight' for democracy is over before it's started.