SFA Vs. SRU

SFA Vs. SRU

 

Many people know me as a fan of Rugby and to a slightly lesser extent Football. As a kid I loved football and followed it with passion, as I got older and into my early 20s I felt that I was more of a Rugby fan then a Football fan. A big reason was not so much in the games but how each sport was run.

I have never been a "Die Hard" team follower and could not care less if a team wins or not. It is fun and as long as it is entertaining I am happy. So as a kid I never really supported a football or rugby team. I more supported the national sides. Something I still do today and will pretty much always do. But my interest has moved as I get older due to how both organisations are run.

Scottish Football Association

The SFA are the big boys in Scottish Football. They run the national team and also the FA Cup. The money that comes into the SFA is from all areas of the international team And SFA Cup. All sponsorship and ticket sales is done buy them.

When the SFA makes all this money they are expected to spend this on areas that need attention in the sport. Mainly youth football and the training youngsters for the future. But the SFA spend practically nothing on this area at all. Some small junior tournaments and a chosen few get to be trained for a few weeks via professionals.

The SFA are also the employer of all referees in Scotland. And assign them to the designated games and leagues. Anyone who has seen a game here will know most of the refs are useless. Again the SFA don't spend any money on this area. And in fact it was not long ago the referees were going to go on strike due to payments being very low.

Gordon Smith was appointed Chief executive in 2007 and instantly wanted to make changes. As he was an experienced player, spectator, manager, agent and also a TV pundit, many regarded his experience to be what was needed for the job. But three years later he left, he blamed the SFA for not letting him change anything and accused them of being too stubborn. He is right the SFA has done nothing to change the shape of Scottish football in years and is still just sitting back making money.

The money machine generates 30 million pounds a year and after wages where is the money going? The new chief executive Stewart Regan was employed after Smith. His background is in business and that is why he was taken on. Where he gains knowledge in sport is by running Yorkshire County Cricket Club. A club who have lost millions due to poor ticket sales. But he did help the English Championship "re brand" to what you have today. The same league with a new sponsor is not a success. 

SFA are to promote football to people and the best way to do this is to have a good TV deal. They did have a good deal with a PPV company in SKY TV and Setanta Sports. If you can't get the channels like me or if you just don't want to spend nearly £500 a year extra to watch a few games then you lose out. Also a great way to show the game is to get it to more people say the BBC or ITV. SFA took the extra money over the promotion of the game. Where is the money going to?

Scottish Rugby Union

Both sports have a similar background but in Scotland are run totally different. The SRU unlike SFA do promote and back the playing of rugby very well. Youth teams and leagues are paid for by them and professional coaches are used to get the best from the kids. Teaching in schools is regular as is free tickets and days out playing touch rugby (Kids version of the game).

The four leagues in Scotland are run by the SRU as is the international teams. The money that the SRU makes is more than the SFA but the SRU makes sure it never makes a profit and puts the money right back into the sport.

The SRU runs the Scotland international team and the other Scotland teams like Scotland A, U21 and U18. They also own and run the two professional teams in Scotland. This is a big plus for sport as the governing body running a professional club is a great set up as the money can then be dispensed fairly.

The sort of set up that they have is unique to the sport. The pro players in Scotland are assigned to a armature team as well. They are expected to play for the club team whenever they can or give coaching and advise when free. Another thing that helps to keep the game genuine is the introduction of a wage cap on the players. No more than £120,000 a year. And even that amount has only been paid out a few times. The wage cap is something that has come into French Rugby this season and soon you will see a big change in the game in France.

Ticket prices and TV deals are very important to the teams in Scotland. The TV for the Six Nations is via the BBC. This means all 5.5 million homes in Scotland can see the games. The SRU make money and get a great advertisement for the sport for 8 weeks a year. Ticket prices are kept as low as can be. The lowest in the sport, £15 to see Edinburgh or Glasgow compared to when I was in Dublin it was 70 Euros!

Any Spare Change?

The two companies are set up to do the same thing but one is far smaller in peoples eyes than the other. Rugby is a dieing sport in Scotland due to the game turning Pro in 1995 many people turned there backs on it. But now the game has evolved into a much better sport and can draw the crowds Internationally. Football has always been the dominant sport in Scotland and deservedly so. 

But where are the SFA spending all the money? They have only to pay the players and keep a few projects going. It was not that long ago the footballers played for free on international duty. I just can't help but feel ripped off when paying money for a ticket for the footie.

Some of My Favorite Stand-ups

"There was once this woman..."

Rich Hall  

By far my favorite stand up, he has been going for so long I can't even imagine stand-up comedy without him. I just love how he can improvise so much of a show and still be very funny even when he messes it up. On top of being an improvised legend he is also one of the best at topical as well. No hold barred on America as well has given him a great career in the UK. He recently done the Stand Up For the Week on channel Four and was by far the best on many of the shows. His routines make you think and also second guess his topics. He has also done stand up as a musician in the role of Otis Lee Crenshaw. With that character he won the Perrier Award and went on a hugely successful tour. The Otis character builds on his skills of improvisation and mixed with the music really makes him a great all round stand up. 

Ricky Grover

Many people may not know him as his stint on the comedy circuit was never too large but he was very good when out in the clubs. He takes on the role of a rather overweight and scared person who seems to have the mind of a bullied child. Backed up with some great lines and a great persona he has the audience in his hands within minutes. He also done another character who was a bouncer, this one was again on the circuit and done well due to his experience before.

Lee Evans

So many people love him and know him as he is a star of TV now. Before Lee worked the men's clubs for years. His stage show for many is an act and they think he is playing the role of a childlike adult. But he is not, Lee Evans is pretty much as real as it gets. With some TV time in stand-up he went on to do some TV roles and after a few false starts made it big. He also done some films as well, acting in Hollywood but his comedy is the place he shines and in his TV roles he still plays the kid like adult but at times he does do well. His stage show is like no other. He can be topical, slapstick, musical and role playing all in one night. Not only that but he is one of very few who don't repeat old material. He writes a brand new two hour show every year. And I feel he deserves his success on stage as he was the first stand up to play Wembley arena.

Stuart Lee

The 41^st best stand up in the world, we all know he should be higher but so many people just will not get him as his comedy is for a select few. He was on TV for years performing in sketch shows but after a break he has went back to the format he is best at. One of the few comics that know the physiology of playing in front of a room of people that well they can have the show include spots of solitude as comedy. He did a show for BBC 2 that was stunning and really gave his comedy a new stage to show the country. He for years survived on tours and self-funded DVD releases but I think his art is now ready for the nation.

Jack Dee

Jack for many people is a kind of old school stand up, he has been in the business as long as I can remember. Remarkably he was going to quit as his show did not go down well. Before his stage presence now he was far more positive on stage. He took advice from someone to go on stage and be himself and his stand-up act flourished. His demeanor on stage is so dour and provides for us the moaner old man of comedy. For over 20 years on stage and on TV he still is on the box even now doing stand-up. Many see him as only a deadpan comic but his jokes and stories are easily identified by anyone who has had a bad day. He co-wrote the Lead Balloon TV show that is just a bit close to his own self to call.

Jo Brand

The UK stand up gigs across the country consists of mainly working men's clubs (Or it did in the 80s). Jo Brand was billed as an overweight lesbian would play the clubs as the name The Sea Monster. To do this you must be mad or very good. She has been on many TV shows over the years and will always stand out due to her comic talent. After coming through the alt comedy of the 80s she has had great success in keeping her show fresh and fun. A woman who said in a British Legion "men are fantastic – as a concept" has the guts to not take any crap from anyone. One of the best at putting down her hecklers and can use that as part of the show if she wants.

Bill Hicks

Most people know Hicks and I find he is a love or hate comedian. I think he was great at what he does and also I feel he was capable of far more. Bill started as a teenager and never really changed his act at all over the years. It may have got angrier in later years but it was always compelling to listen to his shows on CD. You do get many people who are fan boys of him and ok he was good, great even but he was not the best ever. I think his alcohol problem really messed up his career as he for years drank heavily and never achieved much success in those years. Move to the UK and he was a big name and rightfully so.

Ross Noble

I love a comic that can go out and do proper stand-up. As in improvising a good bit of a show. This man only improvises his set as it seems. He is a great stand-up and one that many people will never really get. Due to the topics and the way he provides the laughs he is seen by many as very unfunny. But that is alt comedy for you and he is right up there with the best. I have seen him live and it is remarkable how he can stay on stage for 3 hours or more. One of is live DVD shows the audience start to leave due to the buses stopping at 11.

Billy Connolly

You have to have him on a list as he at some point was the best in the world. Five years before alternative comedy was started he was doing alt stand up in Glasgow. No mother in-law jokes or one liners his show was made up of original story telling with a knowledge of his audience would get what he says due to him having a similar upbringing. He was very popular in Scotland but even bigger in England where they got him on the spot and also one of a very small number of comedy people to make it in America.

Lee Mack

This guy is one of the few that could have existed before alt comedy came in. His stand-up is well rehearsed but he can at any time go off on his own and ad lib much of his set. He mixes quirky one livers with jokes and storytelling to get his giggles. His DVD from 2008 is one of the very best made and I can watch it over and over so many times as it is just so good.

I have so many more to write about like Tim Vine, Frankie Boyle, Dave Allen, Reginald D Hunter, Phil Kay, Al Murray, Mark Thomas and many more I could not bore you as unlike me you probably have some work to do.

Films that changed the world

Ok the title of the blog is a bit out but some films have changed countries in a big way. Film has a chance to show the worlds problems in a different way to TV or newspapers 

Some films over the last 20 years have really changed the country they were made in. It starts with independent films as they more than most have nothing to lose when portraying a country or city. Due to lack of money or even interest they have made the film and got it on the big screen. Once on the screen it then will be subjected to the review of the world's media.

When a review is made it will tell the reader where it was made and what it is about. This at times is a story in its self. A few films I like that have showcased the problems of the country to the world had a massive impact on the country on a political status. When a film does well financially it is a success but the following few films I will detail were not just a cash generator they seem to hit on the worlds media and political minds and help to make changes that live on even now. It is easy to place documentaries in this list but I have chosen feature films that have been made in the last 20 years. Enjoy.

Trainspotting (Scotland 1996)

As a Scot it was pretty much a must see film. But to me it was more a documentary, I am not stupid I know drugs exist and I know where they take em and all that. But this film had a massive impact in the whole of the UK. It was at its release talked about in parliament and even talk of banning it as it glorified drugs. But it did do one thing very well and that was to embarrass Scotland around the world. Forever Scotland was the kilt wearing haggis eating nation with a colourful football support and the shortcake tin image. Not anymore, we have a big drug and alcohol problem that has existed for years and was always brushed aside. Also the housing shown in the film was a real wake up call to the UK. Some of the scenes were deliberately shot in Glasgow as the slums were so bad in Glasgow. The reality is Edinburgh bore the brunt of blame in the state of the housing shown in the film. But it was not just Edinburgh but the whole of Scotland that needed to be changed. More money was then put into changing the boarded up slums and at times demolishing them completely. It did help and at times worked well, some streets were no go areas and now are populated with people again. The drug side of the film has been addressed but that will never change in this country. Scotland has a greater per-head use of heroin, ecstasy and cocaine in this country than almost any other. And even on a list of worst countries in the world for taking drugs Scotland is fifth after Iran, Costa Rica, Russia, Afghanistan and Mauritius. So still work to be done then.

Bus 174 (Brazil 2002)

This was a true story and so true it was shown by the news channels live on TV in Brazil. On June 12th, 2000, a bus full of passengers was kidnapped in Rio de Janeiro in broad daylight. This is more of a documentary as it does have real footage of the incident and includes many people who were held hostage on the bus. Ok this is not a big film with a plot or anything but some of the hostages felt they were in the middle of a prank or a move for TV. Brazil has a TV culture much like what Japan has with mocking people on live TV as the big shows. So when hundreds of cameras turn up the hostages get a feeling of it may be a scam. The hostage taker even at one point shouts out a window about it being "real shit". The man who took them hostage was a local man who had lived on the streets and slums of the city from boyhood. The film focuses on Sandro do Nascimentoand his childhood of growing up and also gets the hostages to talk about this as well. What this film shows more than anything else is the utter uselessness of the police. They stand aside the whole time and do nothing, as if they just don't care. The police did say that they would have used force if the cameras were not present but that would have resulted in the deaths of many of the passengers. With the police being so corrupt and badly trained they have no skills in this type of crime and that is what is on show in the film. You see this at the end when the criminal is talked into surrendering and a police officer tries to shoot him and misses only to kill a passenger instead. Even Sandro do Nascimento was killed but only later on when the police threw him into a van. His official death was caused by asphyxiation (aye right). The officers who took him into custody were charged with murder; after jury trial they were found not guilty. The shooting of the woman was recorded as accidental.

With the incident making headlines only in Brazil the film was a worldwide hit in independent cinemas. The world asked questions and Brazil had to hang its head in shame. They have been doing what they can to stop corruption and the city does have more help for street kids. The film really does show what the city was capable of.

City of God (Brazil 2002)

Back to Rio de Janeiro again and this time a film that was adapted from a book. The film shows what life is like for kids in a slum on the outskirts of the city. Most of the cast were from real-life favelas and only one actor was a professional. Most people would know the slums of the city were full of crime and not a very nice place to live. Life is hard and no jobs means most live in utter poverty. Again most people know poverty attracts crime and again drug problems are rife in the slum. What shocked people about this film were the crimes the kids commit, murder is the big one and with a very young boy shooting as if he has a toy gun. Again the police are shown in a bad light and the part of the film that shows how the police treat the street kids is a real nasty piece of work. But true. After the film the world took notice as the film was nominated for four Academy Awards and was awarded many awards in other countries. The reality then hits many people as the police do go out and shoot kids in the street, thinking they are cleaning the city of criminals. The film touches on this and done more than any charity could have done in bringing this to the news rooms of the world. Again after the film many charities and countries show their disgust at the killing of the orphan children. The government did react and have done so very well. Winning the 2016 Olympic Games shows how far the city has come in under a decade. More police stations were introduced in a way they were more like community centres so that the locals get more involved in the policing of the city. Murders are down by half from when City of God was made. Kids can now play in the street where before it was the kids who ruled the street.

District 9 and Invictus (South Africa 2008)

After Nelson Mandela was released from prison it was a huge day for the country. People really thought the country would change and hoped that Mandela was the man to do so. In 1994 he became the first democratically elected South African president. The country had elected him to help change the fortunes of the country. For many years people had an idea that South Africa was a changed nation, it was in many aspects like the way black and white people learned to live together peacefully. Finally everyone came to agree on a majority rule constitution. This constitution states that racial discrimination it is against the law. Black people were given back the vote and the country was opened up to the world again after the end of apartheid. The film District 9 was a bad blow to the country as it really showed the slums have not changed in nearly 20 years. A well-made film that depicts aliens landing in South Africa only to be treated like second class citizens. Forced to live in shanty towns on the outskirts of the city. It is a huge wake up call to the government of South Africa and it was the first time people really started to question Rolihlahla Mandelas and Thabo Mvuyelwa Mbeki time as Presidents of the country. The questions are rightfully asked and the country still has a shameful excessive amount of people in poverty. At about the same time as District 9 a film Invictus was out in some parts of the world. A film about the country's rugby team winning the World Cup in 1995. Black South Africans would never have supported the country's rugby team as they were looked on as everything that was bad about the white rule. The people united to support the team and then they went on to win the tournament with the captain giving an interview at the end of the match went like this,

"Francois, fantastic support from 63,000 South Africans here today?" TV anchor-man David van der Sandt said straight after the Boks had beaten the mighty All Blacks in the final. Without missing a beat, Pienaar replied: "David, we didn't have the support of 63,000 South Africans today, we had the support of 42 million South Africans."

Both films portray the country in a very different light and I do think both will do something to change the fortunes of many. Rugby in South Africa is getting more popular throughout the whole country and only time will tell if the government will do anything to get rid of the shanty towns.

Slumdog Millionaire (India 2009)

Danny Boyle is a fantastic director and has made some iconic films. One is Trainspotting this is his other ground breaking film. I was not all that impressed with this film but the world loved it. A huge international hit that has put the eyes firmly on India and the slums that the film was set. Not much of a story here but it does show the corruption in the police department and mostly on the lives of the people living in the slums. This film surprised India more than most as it was a very low budget film made by a The European Union. The sweat houses and slums of India have been shown to an international audience that had no clue they existed in a country that has been growing so well. America took to the film very well and again a whole new audience to witness the realities of the slums of India. Shocked people around the world donated money to help the kids who stared in the film. The kids in the film were not from wealth families but children who grew up in the slums. I hope this film does for India what City of God done for Brazil.

Supersize Me (USA 2004)

Directed by and starring Morgan Spurlock this film is a documentary but unlike may other is focused on the maker of the film. For once the director is the subject of the film and in this he decides to eat junk food for 28 days and see what the outcome was. To many people who know know a good bit about what they eat it is not much of a film. Many people who don't know what is contained in their food were shocked. Some fast food had such a high amount of fat, salt and sugar it even shocked the knowledgeable viewer. The guinea pig (Spurlock) was subject to sleepless nights and stomach pains. He was told not to do the experiment by his doctor but went ahead anyhow. In the end it was a great documentary that shows how bad eating fast food on a regular basis can be. In reality and not too long after the film some food chains started to reduce the about of fat/salt in the food. It was also a big shock to people in the UK as the country has a similar outlook on fast food as America. It has influenced the politicians to the point the food chains may have to advertise on the menu the details of what is contained in the meal and its calorie content. This is a real big change for the stores and one that would put of many people buying the meals as much. The film was a big hit and was seen around the world many millions and also quickly shown on the TV to an even better effect. The documentary did have a real impact on people and the companies selling the food. More laws and regulations were introduced to show people what exactly they are eating. I has helped some for now but it will take 15-20 years to see the real change. 

Guitars being mass produced 

As many people know I am a big fan of music. I love to talk and mingle with fans of music as we have an appreciation of each other's love of fine music.

But I have most of my adult life heard the term "music was better years ago" from many people.

OK I do agree bands back in the day were very good and also incredibly talented and individual. But why come out with such a bold statement that pretty much wipes any music made after a certain point as being inferior?

Take a popular band like the Beatles, a hugely influential and praised band. To compare them with a band today and say they are way better is just ignorant and factually wrong. Much of the time people say that with no evidence or even any real understanding of music.

After the introduction of the Fender and Gibson guitars to the world, modern music changed and done it very fast. Everyone could then buy a mass produced guitar and learn to play via books and professional lessons. The 78 rpm record was a huge hit and enabled people to hear more music than ever before. No longer limited to the radio people could now experiment and evolve modern music in a really fast way.

Bands in the 50s and 60s were making music that had never been made due to the introduction of personal amplifiers and also when playing gigs the artist could use a PA to fill the room with music. No longer just a noise in the corner of a pub but a full on experience.

Music has and always will evolve it is up to the individual to listen and get it. Nothing wrong with disliking something but don't say that it is not as good as years ago if you never listen to new music.

Bands have been getting better and this is due to many things. One is as stated the mass manufacture of instruments. Made cheap and in high quality in places like Korea and China people can now buy an acoustic guitar for £30. Before the factories it was made by a skilled craftsman and you were charged a premium for this. Same as drums and even onto the components that make up the band like amps, PA and microphones.

Also the ease people can learn the music; I have done the old trick of playing an LP and slowing it down with your finger so you can hear better what is being played. To learn is made easier with books, magazines and the internet.

Again to get new music is so easy now, you don't have to trail record shops to buy expensive imports. The internet has it all, cheap and fast and also free. My Space has bands hosted with a live stream of the recorded music (So no chance of saying you can't hear new music). Cd and cassette tapes are easily copied and exchanged with bands demos and compilation albums favorite by many to spread the new bands and artists.

Live shows are now a normal thing to attend and more so new band nights. In the 50s and 60s bands did not have the chance to play a tour like you can now due to a lack of music venues and problems with logistics. It is so easy to see bands now and it is common place to do this with other bands on the line up so get in early as you may see the next big thing playing a 20 min set with no sound check. Fuck you even get a free CD at many gigs these days.

Recording techniques have changed as well, albums in the 70s were made on two or four track recording studios. Now it is pretty much as many as you want. Stereo was the big thing and it was great and still is but bands now have to record the music to go out on different formats and in digital where the band really has to sound good as mistakes can be heard very easily (As are mixing mistakes). Back in the day recording was so easy, play as a band and isolate one player for recording. Some albums were recorded and mixed in a few days. Now it is a big task, technology does make it harder due to more complex equipment and set up. Studio time for an album can be months for many artists.

Music was good years ago but it does get better and more experimental. I would never listen to new music if it was just all the same all the time.  

On Earth, the dumb keep getting dumber

If a zombie can learn...

Something I find hard to understand is people who just can't seem to learn anything new. I mean we live in a society where every child has the chance to attend school for up to twelve years and in that time you will constantly learn and develop new skills and improve on others.

I constantly get people asking stupid questions where they could have easily answered themselves with a little bit of research. Well I say research how about a Google search for a start. Nothing wrong with asking a question but don't ask something that is so easy or is very obvious that you clearly show that you have no knowledge or understanding due to being lazy and not reading or even thinking.

I work with many skilled people most have many years of learning in university. But after the 4 years or more of uni I get such stupid questions. I was once asked why the sound on the computer does not work. No speakers on the computer is the answer. Can you photocopy this black and white picture into colour? Sake!

People seem to take school and college/uni and after all that just shut down the learning area of the brain. Why? Lazy? Or just stupid, in reality many people are very stupid but can be good at school work. I really never found school that great for me. I did like some subjects but most were just so badly taught. I like history, computers and music all three are not what is really taught in school as an important subject. Maths, English and Sciences are the main ones and the ones the jobs market want.

A great film out in the 80's Day of the Dead by George A Romero tells the story of a post-apocalyptic earth where people are outnumbered by zombies and the plot is around a US military base that is in an old WW2 bunker. The mission is to assist in the research of curing the zombies. But the scientist that is present is looking into changing the zombie behaviour. He is looking into stopping the zombies from wanting to eat humans. He has to learn what makes the zombies tick and after working with them finds a zombie Bub who learns how to do certain things. If a zombie can learn does that mean much of the world is beneath a zombie?

I may just be getting old but everything is getting simpler, computers are a great example. I remember the old commodores where you had to learn a computer language to programme it. Or even use the machine for basic things. Now it is so simple, point and click, people still can't do that.

Flat pack furniture is a great example; many people struggle to use this. It has a great wee leaflet with it that shows you in pictures and simple text what to do. Take screw A (with a picture of screw a) and place in plank of wood C (Plank C has a letter 'C' on it). Fuck sake kids' stuff.

The Sun and all tabloid newspapers are guilty of dumbing down to a point they are used in schools in Africa to teach 6 and 7 year olds English. Yes if you read the Sun you have the same reading ability of an African seven year old. Ok the Sun has nice pictures and page three but I don't need a picture of a car on fire to show me what a car looks like when it is on fire. I remember the fire on the channel tunnel years ago when the sun reported it they had a graphic that shows France and England and a wee tunnel with a fire symbol in the middle. That took up a page with a small caption at the bottom on the story.

It is an old one but the exams in schools are getting easy, I have seen some of them and I am shocked. But it is not just schools. I went back to college a few years ago and done a computer aided design course. I was looking into the electronics course I done ten years previous. To my shock it was now only 14 hours a week course. Not the 36 hours I done just ten years ago, I did ask and was told it was due to money. But I really think it is due to people failing the course as I was the only person in three years to pass it in 2000.

Why is ignorance celebrated? As a former manager I was in the position of hiring (and firing) people to work in my lab. All I seemed to get was people who went out of their way to be stupid. And even to the point I could not train them in anything. Most of the work in the lab is very simple but you can go on and learn a lot, it is a technical job and requires a quick sense of problem solving. So it is no way a boring job but they just don't want to learn. I found most of the people who wanted to learn would do so and also enjoy it. The ones that don't want to learn would just stay in the same area of the lab and do the same thing. And they are happy to do so, why? I will never know. I bumped into a former workmate a few weeks ago and found he is still in the same job ten years later and doing the same task. He has not learned a thing. The job is near impossible to not learn anything, time alone would teach you something but not with this guy. But he seems happy to be daft and never learn.

I always remember a Bill Hicks show where he tells the story of a waffle waitress asking him "why do you read?" and I see this happening more and more. OK I am not a huge reader but I do read far more than most and again it is now how much you read but the quality of the text. I well written book can teach you things and without you knowing it as well. But people constantly buy the book about some idiot on Big Brother or a footballers autobiography.

Television is guilty of dumbing down as well, it is now at a point that much of what is on is a soap opera or some lame quiz show. Even back in the day looking up on the TV guide and picking out a show to watch and then going to the TV at the time it is on has been lost. Not much of a skill but it did use the power of buying a TV guide and reading it, telling the time and not missing the show. TV on demand means people can miss things due to being so fucking stupid that they can catch up on the brain numbing shows later.

I wonder if people are just turning into drummers all over the country. Great test, give people a card with P.T.O. in the corner on both sides and see what they do.

To Inform, Educate and Entertain?

The last few years have seen a huge backlash against the BBC and I really feel it is not in our best interest to dilute or remove the BBC.

The Charter was set in 2007 to show that the corporation exists to serve the public interest and to promote its public purposes. All other TV stations or TV channels in the UK are here only to make as much money as they can.

Sky, ITV and Channel 4 exist as a money making TV channel and will show adverts when and where they can to make as much money for themselves. For many years this has been done with no problems but the downturn has hit them really bad.

Back in the 80's Channel 4 was set up to give the people of this country a fourth and alternative channel for people of an age group of about 18-35. They done this very well and never seemed to get too greedy in doing so. But now with the advent of Freeview and even Sky and Cable TV they were forced to switch the way the company runs or face going bust.

Now ITV has been forced to change the way it funds the TV shows. More adverts and more repeats is the way forward for them. Also constant competitions to win money or a holiday after answering a simple question like "what channel is this" to gain entry.

The other big broadcaster is SKY TV, who exists mainly as a channel that shows Football. Also the only other company that charges for its content but unlike the BBC they are showing adverts at every possible time. Why pay for a TV service that shows adverts?

Sky generates three times as much money as the BBC but never seem to make much new TV. With far more channels they can if they wanted put the BBC out of business. They have the films, sport and the cash to get whatever star they want to front the channel. The reason why they don't is the owner. Murdock uses the channel as a money making company and will use any means to have the cash flood in. No money is spent on talent, new shows, radio or even on making new films. All they have is football and they charge a premium for this. The rest of the tv schedule is taken up with smaller channels who at times only make a few new shows themselves.

The BBC runs on a third of the budget of Sky but have 8 TV channels that all show new content. Many radio channels with no adverts and also the internet page, BBC Worldwide, Interactive, BBC Films and much more.

Every effort is made to make money in the BBC as well by selling shows to other companies. Dr Who was made in Wales once sold pays for itself. And with DVD and other tie-ins makes a profit, this goes back into the BBC. And is why the licence fee is a fraction of the cost of Sky.

 

To Inform

This is done by the BBC 24 and BBC 4 and the many documentaries and affiliation with the Open University. This does not make money and is made to a very tight budget. But for many it gives great value on the licence fee. Many TV shows would never exist without the BBC like Coast, Mapman, Battlefield Britain and all give the public a chance to learn in a way that is entertaining and factual.

The news in the UK is pretty much done by ITN (Rupert Murdock). So the News on the BBC is not against Sky or ITN but just it is an alternative and only reports news that is confirmed as factually right. The BBC has the biggest reach of any news broadcaster in the world with BBC World News having correspondents in more than 200 countries.

To Educate

BBC has two channels for children and has always had programing for kids on the corporation. One area that is important to keep adverts away from kids is on children's TV. As the adverts can pretty much brain wash a kid into wanting a product.

Commercial TV has for years been a great area to make money in the children's area as the game manufacturers will pay well to get the latest toy on the screen between the cartoons. But cartoons are not a great source of information for or teaching for kids. Cheap cartoons are not the best children's TV and the BBC again tries to make as many real shows as they can. Blue Peter is one that has survived the years and is a great way to show how none commercial children's TV can teach and inform kids of all ages. Out with the BBC it was for years a free for all with a cartoon and adverts showing just about anything that will appeal to kids. America has a better system in the commercial set up with the Children's Television Workshop a Worldwide American non-profit organization that works to make the best shows for kids. Sesame Street rings a bell?

Entertain

The one area all other channels should be able to do well in is Entertainment shows. Much like the Saturday night live shows ITV was once the best at this. But now they have a Saturday night much like the BBC was 15 years ago. Saturday Night Takeaway is just Noels House Party and when Parkinson was on ITV again a show stolen from the BBC. Again the BBC gets abuse over the shows years ago and it is now staple viewing on the other channel.

 

The BBC take the stance if it IS popular and does well in the ratings they will keep a show and have done with shows like Strictly Come Dancing. Other channels like Channel 4 have used the Fly on the Wall type of show to fill in, like Big Brother. But at the end of the day we all like to watch telly that is for us all from time to time.

The BBC is funded by us and we have a big say in the shows that are on the channels. Many people complain and something does happen. At times it is just a bit over the top. Like the Jonathan Ross incident. If it was on another channel no one would have bothered and if they did the penalties would have been nothing to what the BBC done. Again they feel they have to act on the public opinion.

Sky has a turnover of£ 5,359m for only television. The BBC total operating amount is £3237 (For TV, Radio, Internet, BBC Worldwide etc.) and a TV only spending of £1443m

So for £1443m you get the 8 channels on the BBC for £5359 with Sky you get Football and films.

The advertising is something I hate; I struggle to watch TV on commercial channels due to the number of adverts, in one hour you can now show six sections of adverts of three minutes. And each show has a sponsor and now product placement is introduced expect the writers of shows to include a story about something that uses a brand name. This is where the BBC comes into its own and leaves the rest behind. A debate about using adverts on the BBC has existed for years and rightfully the corporation refuses to let them on. The adverts just have way to much an influence on what is on TV.

Now don't get me wrong the BBC does do things wrong and I do feel many of the people working at the company get paid too much. But in all the negatives we have outweigh too much of the positives. The company is run to make shows for us in the UK and they do it with the best in the business. Many people choose to stay at the Beeb as it is a good company to work for and feel the can be more creative in doing so.

The company has over the years been at the forefront of technology, wide screen to internet. Much of what you see in TV has been invented by the BBC or they have mastered it. Even the way the shows are made can be so different, look at the Apprentice for a great well shot reality show. It is done so well it feels like a story. The interactive side is so good and it again is all included in the one price.

Many people around the world look at the BBC and wish they have it in their own country. The BBC logo is synonymous with quality and the news side is recognised as balanced and factual. Something no other production company has.

Every year a questionnaire as put out to the public and the say that they don't want to pay for the BBC. But also they say that they like the BBC and statistically it is watched by more people than the others and also people comment on the shows they want to keep.  You can't have a service like this and not pay! People of the UK are so dumb and do not know that they have it so good. 

At one point the BBC will not get the fee it deserves and when it does it is ready. They own parts of many channels around the world. Dave in the UK is 50% owned by them as an experiment on the future of the company (Will repeats on commercial TV make money?). Also many other avenues are being looked into. The BBC will exist when the government scraps the fee but it will be more on a PPV level. And I hope it will never have adverts when this happens. 

For now 8 TV channels, radio, news, interactive, online and everything else for 35p a day. Not bad.

 

I have still to try Sangria

As my title may suggest I have never been to Spain ever in my life. But I booked up a weekend in Barcelona with a mate and headed over for a holiday.

Many people I know in Scotland have been to Spain and some people I know will only travel to the same resort every year for a holiday. The UK has a great TV show called Benidorm. It is a sit com set in and around a holiday resort in Benidorm. For me the show is at times very truthful in its portrayal of the UK holiday maker going abroad for sun. Basically many British when going abroad don’t research where they are going, so when they get to the resort they want it to be like the UK. Benidorm is full of McDonald's and chip shops as the majority of the travelers are from the UK. This is something I always hated about a holiday to a resort and I have never done it and never will. The stigma of the Benidorm package holiday has lasted my whole life and even goes out with Spain, Greece, Portugal, Egypt and many more countries I have had a mental block on going to due to the British holiday maker demanding UK food and customs.

I as many people know love to travel and when I do I want to get away from anything I have when at home. That includes computers (much of my working time is at a PC), TV, eating much of the UK diet and the most important one the BRITISH PEOPLE.

I have went to Barcelona mainly as the architecture is so well documented and as an Cad Tech(Computer Aided Designer) I have a big interest in architecture. My first visual occurrence was the airport itself, a big grey building with electric doors. That is the same here but a 75 minute bus ride and I am right in the centre of Barcelona, just out of the bus station is the Arc de triomphe a stunning piece of architecture that gives your eyes a real great start to the trip. Walking about the streets trying to find our hostel was a bit tricky due to the map only detailing one street out of four but the sights of the old Gothic Quarter are stunning. I am carrying a very heavy bag containing my belongings for the weekend and the sun is very hot but I find myself walking around the gothic structures in a circle as they are so stunning.

We make it to the hostel and the two people who own and run the place greet us. I sent an e mail to the place a few days previous about the ash cloud possibly delaying or even stopping the trip. The person who serves us Catalina is very helpful and provides us with a great map and then goes on to give us hints and tips on where to go and how to get to the sights. She leads us to our room and shows the hostels facilities. We have a shower room and a balcony in this hostel, a real bonus and something I have never had. The place is a bit noisy at night but I was expecting that as we are seconds away from La Ramblas. The street is the only let down of the trip as it is nothing but a tourist market with beggars and people offering drugs, sex and well just about anything you want. We quickly nip to a pub and decide to stay away from the street and head out to more pubs frequented by more locals. We do this and find the locals very friendly and polite, few more beers and we head back to an Irish bar near the hostel to end the night with a few pints.

Next morning we get up and first thing we need is food, hostel recommends the place at the end of the road as they are quick and cheap and they are showing the Rugby for me to get a quick update. We plan to head up to the Nou Camp via the train. A ten trip ticket is only 9 Euros and excellent value, even more so after we use the service. The metro service is so clean and tidy, very little graffiti and quick service. The station has no timetable as the run every five minutes 24 hour a day. The train is clean and safe to use, plenty of cameras and also well lit. As the transport is so good the city seems to have more room for people to walk; now it does have many cars but it just feels like many few than I am used to.

Why in Glasgow we can't open up all the old underground tunnels and extend the Underground service is beyond me. It would give Glasgow so much more in the future and I am sure people would love it.

We get off at the appropriate station to see the football stadium and make our way up to it on foot. Temperature is over 30 degrees but we make it and pay the money to get in. I have no huge desire to see the stadium but Madman is really into seeing it so I go along with it. But standing on the pitch side right behind the goal is a fun experience as is sitting in the commentary booths. The area we are in has not got much to see more a living space for people so we head back to the hostel for a rest.

Out for some food and a nice we place that does tapas is our destination. I ask for more seafood tapas as we are right on the coast. We are served some nice food and a few beers before we check out a couple of bars, again mixing with more Spanish to avoid the bulldog crew

Madman is adamant about watching the football, I really couldn't care less. A pointless tournament that is only about money and nothing else, I decide to go along with it and try and enjoy myself. Again in an Irish bar but the place is packed with German women, who do look very good, so at least a small change from pubs in Glasgow where they are frequented by men. Two hours later the game is over and we head out of the pub.

I then start talking to some American guy in a bar, he speaks Spanish due to his family coming from Mexico so is known in the bar well. He asks why I am not in an Irish bar, I say due to them not having any Irish in them. He does seem kind of confused by my reply so I invite him to the one we were in last night. He instantly gets what we mean as the place is crammed with stag and hen nights and men in football tops shouting and being very drunken. Madman wanders off as he hates Americans (Much like he hates everyone else). We finish the night by smoking a joint on the La Ramblas and chatting to some local students about music.

Sunday is more a day for me and I have decided to do what I want to do today. As I have said I love architecture and I will devote almost all of the day to his. First up is the Sagrada Família‎ as you come out of the train station it is right there in front of you and on first look is not that amazing. But as you walk around it the detail and craftsmanship is amazing. Many people believe the church is still built on the plans made by Gaudí but that is not true, many of the plans and drawings are lost and even what was built was damaged during the civil war. You can see a patchwork style of building in the project. Also as a Cadtech I can see the areas designed with computers, computer designed buildings do look unique and it does seem to blend in. Gaudí was far more ahead than he will ever know.

More walking about and then to Park Güell again designed by Gaudí, it is a hard task to reach the park up a very steep hill in the sun but I make my target and so much worthwhile. The view is stunning and really takes your breath away. The park is a real surprise to me design wise as it has a feel of Britain about its design, and much like many parks in the UK it follows a similar set up. But I read the park was going to be a development site for houses but was scrapped due to lack of interest by purchasers. This is something really good as the park is so much better than some buildings and homes only the rich could buy. You get a great park for use and see the city with for free. I really do recommend the view over Barcelona, a sight that tells you every building has a story.

Now time for a quick read of me book to rest my feet and then onto the gig. Jason and the Scorchers are playing the last date of the European tour tonight. I had booked the holiday and paid for everything but when checking the bands website noticed a few extra dates. He last one was in Spain, and yes it ties in when I am over and why not go to see em again three weeks after seeing them in Glasgow. No ticket may be a problem but I will pop down and see what I can do. I get to the venue where I am told that it has sold out. Fuck. I was looking forward to the gig big style as the band really are amazing and they may not tour or make a new album for 14 years again. I explain that I am Scottish (Hey it has worked before) and travelled over for the gig. Ok a wee lie but it works she says 22 Euros and I happily pay, I am given a ticket that looks more like a jacket ticket stub. I hand it to the door man who looks says something in Spanish. The woman at the counter shouts over at him and he then shakes his head and lets me in. Great I am in, I am now up for a drink. I notice no people are really drinking at the gig only a few people have a glass. I order a beer and am given what I would say is under half a pint of beer for 7 Euros. Fuckin heck! Right I see why nobody is drinking, I only have one more during the show. The sound is fucking great in here and very loud as well. In the UK the sound levels have to be under a certain amount to curb people damaging their hearing. It is a load of bollocks as a few hours a week won't do anything to your hearing. The band play a stormer and I leave to meet Madman for a few beers before going to bed.

I was really taken back by my trip as I did expect the whole tourist city aspect to have been more so. But once you get out the main streets and into the little pubs with the locals they are very friendly and welcoming. A great few days away and I would have happily have stayed longer but due to low wages and much less sleep than is healthy for you I come home. I would happily go to Spain again but never to a resort with the tourists.