Celtic have just gone down 3-0 to Man Utd in the Champions League.  Now, although I'll freely admit that Man Utd were the better team (when a single one of their players costs almost as much as our entire first eleven how can they not be?) the first two goals, as the replays showed, shouldn't have stood.  Even the biased "I-Want-To-Get-Down-On-My-Knees-And-Blow-Wayne-Rooney" commentator confirmed this.  Oddly enough, going in at half time 1-0 down and then seeing that lead extended to 2-0 just minutes into the second half can have an effect on a team's morale.  And this is exactly what happened.  After the second goal Celtic's heads went down.  It was simply another case of "Celtic-Playing-Away-From-Home-In-Europe".  That must get to them after a while, and it certainly showed tonight.

The fact that we didn't have any in form strikers playing didn't help either, but that's an entirely different story...

This isn't sour grapes - Man Utd were classier - but I resent the fact that these two goals were given.  Psychology plays as much of a part in football as does skill

On the plus side we fielded six Scots which I keep telling myself can only be good for the national team, but we'll wait and see...

At present I'm feeling: fucked off with crap officials

On Friday I got the Force Unleashed for my Wii.  I've almost finished it (as games go it's disapointingly short) and I've got mixed feelings about it.

Part of me really, really likes it.   After all, what's not to like?  You run around doing Jedi stuff, swinging your Wiimote like a lightsabre and throwing stormtroopers through walls.  All very cool.  In fact, I played the first level and was completely in love.  You get to play as Darth Vader and spend the whole time beating up wookies before putting an errant Jedi to death!

Quality.

After this I played the first level as Vader's apprentice and that was also very cool.

However, the more I played the more I began to notice things that were very, very wrong with it.  Whoever designed the levels clearly wasn't speaking to the guy who was in charge of coding the camera that follows the character around over his shoulder.  At times, in particular on the levels that feature long, winding corridors, the camera gets positioned in such a way that you can't actually see the enemy or what is going on.  You then spend a few seconds trying to readjust the camera (or else running around in circles) and your enemies will doubtlessly take advantage of this to pummel you until you find out where the are again!  In fact, sometimes the screen becomes so busy and so confusing that you end up just swinging the Wiimote randomly and firing off powers in the hope of hitting something!  On the more open levels this isn't so much of a problem, but where things get claustrophobic it can be very, very frustating...

...not half as frustrating, however, as some of the "boss" battles (not the Jedi battles - these are a lot of fun).  Several of these (the bull rancor battle springs to mind)  are so heniously unbalanced that you spend the entire time running around, trying to avoid the exploding scenery and sporadically firing off lightening in the hope of somehow damaging the ruddy thing rather than watching its attack patterns, looking for a weakness and moving in for the kill as is the tradition for levels such as these.  In addition these battles tend to get rather samey.  The first time you see a lone Jedi taking on an AT-ST is cool - the third or fourth time it happens it is just dull.

Finally, visually it looks fairly ropey at points.  While the Wii obviously doesn't have the graphical capabilities of the PS3 or the 360 there are some really good looking titles out there for it that show what it is capable of.  Why is it then that Force Unleashed looks more like a PS2 game than a Wii game?  In particular I was really let down at the moment that the apprentice brings down a Star Destroyer using the force.  On other consoles it looks amazing (as one of the game's big set pieces it should!) but on the Wii it's fairly lack lustre.  Yes, as I've said I know the Wii's not in the same league as the other two big consoles, but when you consider that some of the aspects of Force Unleashed (the main character in cut scenes in particular) look great why couldn't the same care be applied to other aspects of the game (especially the big sequences)?

Aside from these flaws though, it is a very enjoyable game.  Like I mentioned previously the more open areas don't suffer from the wonky camera problems and apart from the frustrating boss battles the rest of the gameplay is a lot of fun.  Storming Imperial facilities with your awesome Jedi skillz is a really great experience and the Jedi battles are great.

However, I can see this being a trade in title rather than a keeper.

If you don't have it I'd recommend renting it - it's fairly short and the story's worth playing through if you're a Star Wars fan - because it's not a game I'd see having much replay value.  Even the two player mode, whilst fine for the occasional bit of fun, isn't worth the price.

At present I'm feeling: disappointed

Last night Kirsty did something that absolutely astounded me. Forgive me if I'm coming across like an overly proud father, but I feel the need to blog this because it completely amazed me.

It was story time and I asked her what story she wanted. As expected she asked for her current favourite - Hairy Maclary's Caterwaul Caper - which is a completely brilliant book.  Anyway, as I was reading it I noticed that she was mouthing along to most of the words and in some sections pre-empting me.  I've got a pretty good memory and this seems to have been passed along to the wee one, so I wasn't too surprised.

What DID surprise me though was, after we'd finished with Hairy Maclary, when she picked up her copy of Each Peach Pear Plum and said "Daddy, you be a tiny baby who can't read and I'll read this to you."

Naturally, I played along.  Who wouldn't want to be a tiny baby who can't read, after all?

Yes - I did make baby sounds...

Anyway, she proceeded to go through the whole book and "read" each page perfectly.  Now, of course she can't read - she's two and a half for goodness sake!  However, being two and a half and being able to commit a 32 page book to memory is pretty damn amazing!  She got it all spot on - not a word out of place - and even turned all the pages at the correct point.  I was absolutely flabbergasted!

Anyway, I thought I'd share :)

At present I'm feeling: proud

I know we've got a global, economic meltdown on the horizon, but I've decided to do something good for children in need. So, click on the wee thingy below and sponsor me!

At present I'm feeling: charitable

Footballers that leave clubs to go to another club (usually for the money) and then come back to the club they left, score a goal and then kiss the badge on their shirt.

Fuck off you mercenary wankers.

Next up, clubs that are mug enough to resign players that gave them two fingers in the first place...

At present I'm feeling: aggravated

Last week I had the misfortune to be subjected to the Eurovision dance contest. It wasn't all bad admittedly - the commentators bitter, scathing remarks about eastern bloc next-door-neighbor voting were very funny, and Poland and Lithuania's entries were...er...aesthetically pleasing…

*coughs*

Annnnnyway… This year it was hosted in Glasgow. Which made me wonder if the organizers had actually done any research about the city before deciding what would happen. Case in point - as part of the half-time entertainment they had opera singer Lesley Garret belting out a couple of numbers.

One of which was "You'll Never Walk Alone".

For those of you unfamiliar with Glasgow, "You'll Never Walk Alone", while a lovely song, is sung by Celtic fans at the beginning of every game (and usually at the end when we lose horribly).

Which probably means that a sizable part of Glasgow's population (the evil half mind you ;)) would have been spitting blood at the screen at that point.

I should also point to, those of you unfamiliar with Glasgow that is has a slight, ever-so-minor issue with sectarian disagreements. For example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sectarianism_in_Glasgow

Yes - it gets its own Wikipedia entry...

However, my lovely wife made a very good point which was that the sort of person to watch the Eurovision dance contest is probably not the kind to go around wearing an orange sash, banging a big drum, screaming “NO SURRENDER!” and nailing Catholics to trees.

Which is fair comment. I really can't imagine William Boyne of the Govanhill League of Protestant Decency marching down to his local, barging in and bellowing, "Have you seen what's happened? The fenians have only gone and compromised the Eurovision Dance Competition!"

At present I'm feeling: cheerful

Yesterday scientists performed an experiment with potential awe inspiring results. If all the hype is to be believed this might even have the potential to unlock the secrets of life, the universe and everything.

So why is it that six newspapers carried, as front page news, the fact that Victoria Beckham got a new hair cut (oh and a seventh had some Two-Big-Brother-Contestants-Get-It-On nonsense)? Yes, tabloids are meant to cater to the lowest common denominator but have IQs really dropped that much that the majority of the British public would rather know about some non-entity's hair cut (because, regardless of how rich she is and what she's done in the past, currently she's famous purely for the fact that she's married to David Beckham)?

It's a sad, sad state of affairs.

When I take over it's going to be VERY different...

At present I'm feeling: grrr

I'm sitting watching "Stealth" at the moment, which is complete and under blokey nonsense about a robot plane that goes bad.

However, it begs the question, how many films out there WOULDN'T be improved by having a robot plane (going bad optional) in them?

At present I'm feeling: tired

Those of you without kids will probably be thinking "What?"

"Angels of Jarm" is a kids cartoon that runs on Channel 5 on a Sunday morning (it may be on at other times too but that's the only day I am forced to watch it) about, you guessed it, angels.

Basically, a bunch of angels watch over a fictional town called Jarm and sort out any problems that occur. It's one of these programmes that tries to teach kids that everyone's the same regardless of ethnicity or religion (although it handly teaches these lessons through a construct of Abrahamic relgion...)

It's not too heavy handed which is nice (unlike some of the "ecological" programmes out there for kiddies - two year olds are NOT interested in recycling so stop forcing it down their throats!) and Kirsty seems to like it which is the main thing (I'm usually too asleep to pay it much attention). However, this weekend's episode made me laugh.

There's trouble at the Jarm nursery. One little boy has food that's different from everyone else and the other kids are kicking up a stink about it. So, one of the angels flies down and sorts out the whole mess. She explains why he has different food (because of his religion) and that everyone there has something special and different because of what they believe in (the wee Hindu boy doesn't have a beef burger like the others, the little Buddhist girl has a veggie burger etc). Eventually one little girl (who isn't wearing any religious paraphenalia) turns to the angel and says "I don't believe in any religion so I don't have anything special" to which the angel said something along the lines of "Well, you don't like tomato sauce so you don't have any whilst everyone else does so you're special too." Yes, even godless athiests are special too...

Now while this seemed a bit of a cop out, something else struck me. The kid's standing talking to an honest-to-goodness angel and she says she doesn't believe???? The angel has wings, a halo and came down from Heaven on a rainbow! How cynical are kids these days????

Personally I think it would have been more amusing if the angel had turned to her and said "Die unbeliever!" and turned her into a pillar of salt or smote her with a fiery sword. I bet the kids would have loved it too.

Although I don't think that would have been quite so kiddy friendly...

At present I'm feeling: happy

Title says it all!

And "he he he" to the smug Aussies who were banging on about how many they were going to win before the start of the games (you know who you are)!

At present I'm feeling: chipper

Those of you who know me well will probably, at one point or another, been subjected to one of my rants about that "favourite" film of mine, Braveheart.

While I'm all for freedom of artistic expression, there really, really, really, REALLY should be some kind of law applied to films that claim to be historical.

As I write this, I've got this piece of cinematic excrement on in the background (quite why I started watching it is beyond me - I've seen it only once and it infuriated the f*** out of me) and the amount of historical inaccuracies thrown up so far is shocking.  I'm a bit of a history anorak and know this specific period, so what annoys me most of all is the fact that the majority of the viewers will probably take what is shown on screen as fact. 

Whopping lies told so far include:

BRAVEHEART:  In 1280 Edward I of England (who is an evil pagan apparently) invited all the Scottish nobles to a meeting and killed a great deal of them. 
HISTORY: In 1280 King Alexander III has been happily ruling Scotland for over thirty years.  His reign has been a time of peace and prosperity.  In fact, Scotland and England have been at peace for a good many years at this point.

BRAVEHEART: William Wallace, the grubby son of a farmer, happily capers through the hills and glens of the Highlands.
HISTORY: Sir William Wallace was a landowner and a member of the House of Stuart.  He was from Elderslie in Renfrewshire that's in the Lowlands.

BRAVEHEART: Everyone in Scotland wears kilts.
HISTORY: The origin of kilts is unclear but it's generally accepted that they weren't around till at least the 16th century. 

BRAVEHEART: Edward I's effeminate son is wedded to a French Princess.
HISTORY: Alexander III's granddaughter Margaret, maid of Norway, was betrothed to Edward II in 1290.  Princess Isabella of France was married to Edward II in 1308.  That's three years after Wallace's death.  And she was a teenager at the time.  In 1297 when the action of the film is set (presumably - although it's never made clear; why bother with fact, eh?) she'd have been about three.  Thanks for making Wallace a nonce Mr Gibson!

BRAVEHEART: The evil English nobles have the right of prima nocte - that is they're allowed to take the virginity of the local peasant girls - over their Scottish lands.
HISTORY: Not such right was ever afforded English lords.

BRAVEHEART: The Scottish army is made up of crazy men from the hills, wearing kilts and blue face makeup.  Most of them are armed with sticks and farm implements.  Oh and they live in mudhuts.  The English by contrast wear armour with heraldic devices, ride horses and are armed with swords, bows and lances.  The Scottish nobles are crazy kilted hill men on horses.
HISTORY: The Scottish armies of the time were armed and armoured in roughly a similar manner to their English counterparts.  In fact, Scottish soldiers were often valued for their professionalism and Scottish mercenaries saw service during many of the conflicts of the period.  The King of France even hard a Guard d'Ecosse (I think that's what it was called) as his personal bodyguard.  I think this was several decades outwith this period but it goes to show that the Scots had a long standing military tradition. 
Charming as I'm sure the notion of an army of "noble savages" is, the Scottish armies of the time liked to entrust their protection to more than woad and lots of yelling.  Believe it or not we'd discovered metalworking, horseriding and fletching by then...  Oh and there's no historical record of people painting their faces blue.  At least, not until professional football internationals started ;)

BRAVEHEART: Scotland has laboured under a hundred years of English tyranny. 
HISTORY: Up until 1296 Scotland and England had had over 100 years of peace.  The whole reason for the English invasion in 1296 came down to politics.  Here's a wee bit more detail... 
Following the death of Queen Margaret in 1290 the nobles of Scotland had asked Edward I to arbitrate the claims of various nobles to the throne.  This was probably quite a wise move because as any student of Scottish history knows the only people that Scots seem to enjoy fighting more than the English are the Scots...  We've got civil war down to a fine art... 
Anyway, Edward I sees a good chance to make Scotland a feudal dependency of England and tries to get the Scottish nobles to agree to him as overlord of Scotland.  They don't agree to this (their argument being that as there was no King none of them would be worthy enough to presume to speak for the nation) but a lot of them agree to have him as their overlord.  There's much tooing and froing and he judges John Balliol's case to be strongest and he is crowned King.  Edward then makes it quite clear that King John is his vassal. 
As can be imagined this is REALLY popular with the Scottish nobles.  Edward even goes so far as to demand that John provide Scottish troops for an invasion of France.  Balliol negotiates a treaty with King Philip IV of France (a treaty that would later on be known as the Auld Alliance) and Edward gets a bit shirty (mainly because the treaty agrees that if either Scotland or France is invaded by England the other party will invade England).  English troops start mobilizing, Scottish troops do likewise.  Screaming and bleeding ensues.
The Scottish nobles surrendered to Edward in 1296, but a rebellion led by Wallace and de Moray broke out in 1297 which resulted in the English being repulsed and the north of England invaded.  It all went pear shaped in late 1298 at the Battle of Falkirk but Scotland remained free.  A truce was agreed in 1302 but quickly fell apart and the fighting resumes in 1304 and the Scottish nobles all but surrender - only a few carry on the struggle, mainly because they're after the throne. 
Wallace was captured and executed in 1305.  Robert Bruce and John Comyn (the two remaining claimants to the throne of Scotland) quarrelled in 1306 and Bruce killed Comyn for informing Edward I of Bruce's plans for continued resistance.  I'm pretty sure
the killing took place on holy ground and Bruce was excommunicated for it but I could be misremembering here.  Thankfully for Bruce proof came to light that Comyn was planning to sell him and the country down the river so the bad PR was undone. 
His campaign didn't get off to the best of starts but by 1307 things began to look up and Bruce generally had the upper hand over the English from that point on.  Edward I died in 1307 without fulfilling his ambition of seeing Scotland subdued.

So - in short, rather than the "evil empire vs the good peace loving hill folks" story that is portrayed by Mr Gibson, the conflict was one of politics and greed, driven by the ambitions of the ruling classes. 

Pretty much like most others that have occured throughout history...

BRAVEHEART: The Battle of Stirling takes place in a field. 
HISTORY: The Battle of Stirling BRIDGE is notable for including a BRIDGE.  During the battle, as the English were crossing the bridge the Scots managed to outflank and trap a large body of men on the bridge and forcing them to fight as little as three abreast.  Engineers then collapsed the bridge from below causing massive casualties.  Wild crazy hill men with sappers?  Wow.

BRAVEHEART: People dribble on about "the clans" a lot.
HISTORY: The clan system is a Highland device.  The social groups who would have had lands, titles etc at stake in the Scottish Wars of Independence would have been the Great Lowland families that were organised in a similar manner to their English counterparts - that is based upon burghs and a feudal system.  Until the 19th century and the romantic revival of all things Highland none of these families would have had a tartan.  However, it's entirely likely that the terms "clan" and "family" were used interchangeably throughout history.  Despite this, the actual system of clans with their chieftans, tartans and bagpipes (which this piece of cinematic tat seems so fond of) is a purely Highland creation and would have played little or no part in the war with England. 

BRAVEHEART: Scottish nobles live in slightly larger than normal mudhuts.  Everyone in Scotland lives in a village.
HISTORY: The nobles lived in castles.  Made of stone believe it or not.  We also had some (gasp!) cities.  With stone buildings!  Fancy that.

BRAVEHEART: If you can't find someone who can do a Scottish accent Irish is an equally good substitute.  Failing that just have someone do an English accent and roll their "r's" a lot.
HISTORY: Seriously Mel, just f*** off!

BRAVEHEART: William Wallace got the future queen of England up the duff.
HISTORY: See the above "Wallace isn't a nonce" point.

BRAVEHEART: Edward I was a murdering psychopath who happily hung women and children, fired upon his own men, used "lesser races" as cannon fodder, and got all Darth Vader on people who displeased him.
HISTORY: Yes, he had imperialistic designs upon Scotland but I doubt he was any worse than most of the other rulers at the time (see the remark above about Robert the Bruce killing John Comyn on holy ground).

BRAVEHEART: Edward II was an effeminate gay.
HISTORY: There is nothing historically to support this.

BRAVEHEART: Robert the Bruce's father was a leper.
HISTORY: He wasn't.  I think Mel just wanted some shadowy, disfigured Emperor-From-Star-Wars type figure manipulating things behind the scenes.

BRAVEHEART: Robert the Bruce betrayed William Wallace to the English.
HISTORY: John de Mendith betrayed William Wallace to the English.

BRAVEHEART: For the crime of high treason William Wallace is sent before some strange Inquisitor types, paraded through London on the back of a horse, subjected to some "stretching", a stint on the rack before being disembowled.  Edward I dies at the same time in a scene of poignant irony.  After letting him yell "freeeeeeeeeeedom" the English kindly put him out of his misery.
HISTORY: Not quite as pretty I'm afraid.  William was hung drawn and quartered.  Not a nice way to go.  Wallace died in 1305.  Edward I died in 1307.

BRAVEHEART: Robert the Bruce turns up to Bannockburn in 1314 with the intention of surrendering to the English but has an attack of conscience, realizes that he wants to be just as popular as Wallace was, wins the army round to his side with a few choice words (I'm still not sure why he turned up to a battle with an army that he wasn't sure would fight for him) and fights like a "warrior poet" (Mr Gibson's words - not mine!).  The English are vanquished and everyone lives happily ever after.  With terrible accents.
HISTORY: Things were going pretty well for the Bruce by 1314 and although he was outnumbered, superior tactics won the day.  And rather than having hordes of unwashed hill people armed with dry grass fighting his corner he actually had proper soldiers.  Including, if some recent research is to be believed, a company of Knights Templar fleeing persecution in France.  Presumably they got woaded up for the occasion ;)  However, as important a victory as Bannockburn was, Scotland didn't fully manage to shake off imperialistic English designs until 1328 when Edward III signed the treaty of Edinburgh-Northampton, recognised Scotland as a separate kingdom, gave up any claims and allowed David (Robert's son) to marry his daughter. 


Grr. 

Why do I loathe this film so much?  Am I really that much of a historical pedant?  Well, clearly the answer to that last point is yes, but that's not the reason I hate this piece of tripe so much.  I dislike it because, all heroic sentiment aside, it presents Scotland as a backward, pre-iron age shit-hole.  Is this the nation that pioneered state education in the 1600s?  Is this the country that has produced an inordinate amount of ground breaking discoveries - made all the more astounding by its tiny population?  Is this the place that gave birth to the modern notion of Capitalism?  Or is this the sort of place that only concerns itself with the shortbread tin image that our tourist board likes to pimp to travellers from abroad?  Packaging that up with demonizing the English (look at the flagrant human rights abuses!  oh aren't they bad!) and you've got something that's bound to sell well abroad...

I also loathe the fact that the Scottish popular press has grasped this film with both hands and embraced it as some wonderful historical artifact - something that we should be proud of.  Far be it from them to do a bit of research and actually take a look at the what actually went on in the past of our nation that we can really take pride in.  That wouldn't sell nearly as well as some Holywood-produced piece of tat the plays almost as fast an easy with the facts as U3571did.  Let's have some studio somewhere tell us what really happened, shall we?

I also resent the fact that this film stirs up the sort of cheap, anti-English sentiment that so many Scots with chips on their shoulder love to revel in.  "Look at the evil English!  Look at all the trouble they caused seven hundred years ago!  See?  The fact that I'm bitter and resentful has a solid basis in historical fact!"  These are the same people who will bang on about how unique their cultural identity is without actually looking at the fact that the only identity they possess is the fact that they define themselves in terms of NOT being English.   Ask them why they're so anti English and they'll look at you as if you're stupid.  "They're ENGLISH - that's why I don't like them!"  Substitute the word "black" for "English" and you know exactly what sort of mindset you're dealing with...

As a Scot who lives and works in England, has English friends, an English wife and a daughter who is half English I feel that I'm pretty well qualified to make the point that essentially the English are no different from the Scots.  So I get saddened when I go back to Scotland and hear people rumble on about "the bloody English" and there are murmerings of the Union breaking apart.

Why can't these people let go of the past and just move on happily?

Answer - popular culture like Braveheart.  The one thing that the small minded need is something to hang their prejudices on, and this sort of bullshit is right up their alley.

Perhaps they should take a look at our national anthem, Flower of Scotland - beloved of nationalists everywhere, which is about Bannockburn.  The first two verses are about how great it was to win our freedom.  The third verse begins "Those days are past now, and in the past they shall remain". 

Maybe they should listen to that next time rather than solely awaiting the chance to cry "BAS-TARDS!" when "King Edward's army" is mentioned...

Ranted enough - time for bed.

At present I'm feeling: aggravated

In Milton Keynes there is an area known as “The Theatre District”, so called because…well, you can guess, can’t you?  In said district there is an area that is covered over by a large dome, reminiscent of the Royal Albert Hall.

My daughter has discovered that if you stand under the big dome, especially near the centre (helpfully marked by a circle) your voice BECOMES A LOT LOUDER THAN NORMAL!!!!!!!!!

Yes, she’s discovered acoustics.   

Yesterday afternoon we were passing under the dome and Kirsty asked if she could be let loose to sing (those weren’t her exact words but it was the gist of what she want).  We dutifully obliged and off she scampered to the centre spot.

She’s got a lovely wee singing voice, and, unlike some of her relatives, can hold a tune.  I’m sure that if it so took her fancy she could take to the big stage at La Scala in years to come.

However, you can imagine the amusement of passersby as a small pink-clad figure with a mass of blonde curls leapt around underneath the dome, yelling the theme song to the kdis’ TV show “Mio Mao” while appearing slightly startled at just how loud her voice had become.

For those of you who have never had the pleasure of “Mio Mao” here’s a link to the theme song (or rather, it’s the sound track of a whole episode so you just have to listen to the first thirty seconds or so to get the gist of it).  Be warned.  This tune WILL stick in your head.

Forever.

And ever.

My daughter, it appears, has mastered the art of guilting me out...  Picture the following scene.  It's just after tea time and Kirsty has got it into her head that a fun new game will be to take all her magnetic numbers and letters off of the fridge and throw them on the floor.  Obviously, this isn't quite as fun for mummy and daddy.  The following exchange ensues:

IAIN: Kirsty.  Stop it.

Kirsty, awed by the parental authority resonant in Daddy's voice carries on throwing letters and numbers.

IAIN: Kirsty!  I said stop it!

More letters and numbers are chucked on the floor.

IAIN: Kirsty.  Pick...those...up...now.

Kirsty turns to Daddy with a worried look on her face.

KIRSTY: Stop being so mean to me Daddy!  I'm only two!

Kirsty runs to Mummy and throws her arms round her legs, sobbing and wailing as she does.

KIRSTY: Muuuuuuumeeeeeeeee.  Cuuuuuuuuuuuuudle!  Daddy's being mean to me!

---

Thankfully, Mummy is made of sterner stuff than Daddy who was ready to start picking up the letters himself...

At present I'm feeling: happy

Hello.

I've not posted for ages.

And I'm about to rant about one of my "favourite" subjects.

First of all, well done to the Netherlands for a cracking win over Italy.  Watching two of the giants of world football going at it hammer and tongs in Euro 2008 was a pleasure.

What wasn't so pleasurable was the fact that ITV seem unable to go for more than a few minutes without mentioning England or English clubs.  After just over one minute twenty we'd had three mentions.  I gave up counting after ten mentions in eight minutes...

Later on we had the commentators mention that "lately there's been a lot of talk of the amount of foreigners in our game".

No.

Not "our game".

ENGLAND'S game.

For a show that is broadcast to the whole UK this is just ignorance of the highest order.

And to cap it all we had an interview with the England manager at the end.  Yes, he's Italian, but how about interviewing the Italian manager?

Now, quite apart from the fact that this irks most people who aren't English watching it (do you really wonder why we don't support you?) it is also astonishingly ignorant.  I go back to my previous point - we've got two giants of football playing, yet these fuckheads fele the need to blather on about a country that weren't good enough to get there in the first place!  

In addition to all of this there's also the endless daily bleating from various programmes about how crap and unjust it is that England didn't make it.

Scotland didn't make it.

Wales didn't make it.

Northern Ireland didn't make it.

We've got over it.  DEAL WITH IT!  

YOU-WEREN'T-GOOD-ENOUGH

You don't have a God given right to be in the tournament.

It wouldn't be so bad if these programmes were shown only in England - in your own region it's fine to yabber on about your own country - but they're showing this crap across the whole of the United Kingdom!

Are the English really that simple that they can only relate to something if it is explained to them in terms of England?  I really don't think so but the ignorance displayed by these commentators is staggering.

Still, roll on tomorrow when we find out how many references to England can be crammed into a game between Spain and Russia..

At present I'm feeling: raging

Well, it's been aaaaaages since I've posted, but I thought I'd pop something on here to mark my beautiful daughter's second birthday.

Happy birthday Kirsty!

At present I'm feeling: happy

For those of you who may not be aware (shame on you!) Celtic last night played, and beat, AC Milan (reigining European Champions) in Glasgow.  Unfortunately the victory was marred slightly by some daft ned running onto the pitch and tapping the AC keeper, a Brazillian by the name of Dida, on the shoulder.  Thankfully, said ned has since given himself up and the club has banned him for life.  However, Dida decided to make a meal of the whole proceedings.  Open being tapped on the shoulder the keeper pursued the ned for a couple of yards before collapsing theatrically to the ground, and rolling around clutching his...er...face.  He was then strechered off (!!!) clutching an ice pack to his face.

This morning my dad was flying out to the States, and while waiting at the airport who should he see but Clarence Seedorf (AC's Milan's rather talented Dutch midfielder) and Dida (the aforementioned rolling-around-on-the-ground-oh-my-face-my-face Brazillian).  Dad being dad decided to wander over to them to have a chat.

Seedorf, one of the greats of the game, was a complete gent and seemed happy to have a conversation.  My dad expressed his admiration for Seedorf's ability as a player, and for the AC side as a whole - saying that he always looked forward to seeing Celtic play against them.  Seedorf agreed, saying that he always looked forward to coming to Parkhead because of the atmosphere there.  My dad then pointed out that, while he didn't approve at all of the fan's invasion of the pitch (after all, being a retired police officer he hates seeing things like that happen), he thought Dida's behaviour was disgraceful.

Seedorf laughed at this and nodded his agreement but Dida decided to display that he did understand some English by promptly telling my dad to "Fuck off".

This, naturally, was like a red rag to a bull, and my dad proceeded to tell Dida exactly what he thought of him and and his play acting, pointed out that his face looked remarkably good for someone who had gone down like he had been shot, and, through the use of colourful venacular, made it clear just exactly how welcome Dida was in Glasgow.

Seedorf, through much guffawing, gladly offered to translate.  Apparently he doesn't approve of play-acting either.

Score one for the good guys.

At present I'm feeling: amused

Well, it certainly seems that way.  Could the end of the world be nigh?

First, Scotland win IN France taking us up to the giddy heights of fourteenth in the world.

Then Rangers go to Lyon and spank them 3-0 in their own back yard.

And then an understrength Celtic beat AC Milan, the current European Champions, 2-1.

What's more, the majority of players in each side were Scottish...

The end is nigh! 

The stars are right!

I'm scared.

At present I'm feeling: ecstatic

It's been AAAAAAGES since I've posted.

Blame Facebook.

It's evil and consumes too much time, so poor old Livejournal has suffered.

Suffice it to say, I'm still alive and still very happy.

Work's going well, I'm still married to a smart, gorgeous woman and my daughter continues to be The Best Thing Ever (TM).

So, for those of you who nicely asked "Are you still there?" yes, I am and everything's good!

At present I'm feeling: happy

I guess it's hard to make the family happy when your descendant's party trick was uniting Germany...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/news/2007/07/04/db0402.xml

At present I'm feeling: still hurting

For the past couple of days there has been a lot of news footage of one of BAAs baggage handlers who got involved with restraining the terrorists that tried to attack Glasgow airport on Saturday.  It appears that there is an internet campaign going to buy BAA's answer to Jack Bauer 1000 pints.  Go on, buy him one :)

I'm still incredibly proud of the fact that ordinary people in my home town were willing to show a complete lack of respect for international terrorism :)

Still, with its reputation, Glasgow was a pretty stupid target, eh?

At present I'm feeling: proud