Below the Line Challenge

There's an online 'challenge' website all about living "below the line" - basically its purpose it to raise awareness (and money) for the people of the world who are forced to live on financial resources that are considered less than a living wage. It's been endorsed by a number of celebtrities, and on social media, and I think it first came to my attention after the appearance of Jack Monroe on the BBC one morning.

I've tried out a number of her recipes, and bought her book; but I also fancied seeing how hard the actual challenge would be.

The challenge itself is to live for five days on £5. There are additional rules (for example, that's £1 a day for five days; not spend £5 on Monday and enable that food to last for a week; not buying a lettuce for 30p, then saying you'll only have 6 leaves, so that's 2p - what you buy you have to pay for out of the fiver).

So as I wasn't going to ask for sponsorship, or sign up to the site, I thought I'd relax the rules a little, but stay within the ethos of the challenge - if I would, on "week 2" have used the rest of the food (i.e. it would be viable to use, and practical) then I could take a percentage of that. An obvious example is a bag of rice - a 1Kg bag costs 40p, so I could use half of that in the week, and take only 20p from my budget. This seems a reasonable compromise to me, and something I could do were I genuinely living on that level of income.

The focus of my ideas came from simple food, made with basic ingredients. I decided to go for goods I could get from the local Tesco superstore, and at their 'everyday' level it's remarkable how cheap some items are.

Here is the budget I put together, and the meal plan for the week:

I had already started making my own bread, so calculated I could make a half-tin loaf, and some rolls for less than it would cost to buy (and the flour, salt, and yeast could work on the budget, and be used in later weeks); and although the mince would take up a lot of the budget, it could give me my main meal for the full five days. At the time the milk price wars were happening, so I could buy 4 pints of milk, freeze 2 pints, and use 2 pints in the week ... a week without tea is beyond contemplation. This would give me porridge (with milk!) for breakfast, and with the beans and tomatoes some breakfast options.

When I was a child, the *only* thing I ate for lunch was banana sandwiches, so I knew I'd be okay with that for five days.

On 'Day One' I found out that my yeast had gone off, so my bread didn't rise. Luckily I went to the local shop and they had some 'use by' today rolls for 20p which meant I had bread for those days, and I then made some more bread (with fresh yeast) for the remainder of the week. This was one of those unlucky breaks, but if that were really my budget I'd have to make do with un-risen bread (which is yucky).

I was lucky in that there was no 'everyday' herbs when I ordered the food, so I received 'normal'(!) herbs for the same price - although not sure of the variance in dried herbs.

The chilli I made was simple, and nice. Without any real chillis available, or anything with heat to add, I put in the 10g of spices I could utilise. It was still fairly bland, but not the worst chilli I've eaten, and by day 2 it had improved. The chips (Tesco 3-way cook chips) were nice enough. I'd eked out the 2 eggs I was permitted, to use part of one as a binding agent for the burger I made on the Thursday evening. Again with a few herbs, and 1/4 of the onion I'd not used in either the bolognaise or chilli, it was a decent burger (which I've made a few times since). Only by Day 5 was it really down to 'anything that was left'. Hence this was the sight that greeted me on Friday evening:

Yummy!

In addition to the 'cheats' above I also didn't count the small amounts of salt and pepper I added to some foods. But I avoided alcohol or pub trips in the five days, as this was meant to be a full budget for those days.

What I did realise was that cutting things up smaller seemed to make them go further (finally chopped onions were the order of the day), and food was rarely put in the bin ... every scrap was eaten.

Life on £1/day was hard (I was hungry), and not very healthy (bananas were the only fruit, and vitamins restricted to that tin of beans, and tin of tomatoes). I went to bed most days with my stomach rumbling, and in a week lost 3lb - imagine that for week after week. 

Maybe something you'd like to try some time; not something I think you'd like to live with. But we have the choice of course. Many don't.

Penny Dreadful - A Review

'Penny Dreadful' is a silly, sordid, mess of a Victorian monster mash-up ... and I love it!

*** no spoilers ***

This Showtime/Sky co-production aired earlier in the year on Sky Atlantic. Even though I was a Sky subscriber at the time, I eschewed Sky Atlantic as it seemed another of Sky's tawdry attempts to isolate re-sellers by placing premier shows on their new channel. I ain't playin' yo stinkin' games Mr Murdoch. Also it seemed all too much blood and gore for my liking ... or maybe it was just the wrong time. In any case, I've only just decided to tuck into the first series, and was very much surprised - pleasantly at that.

The show's first season (it looks like there will be a second) is 8 episodes, each around an hour's viewing time. The setting is Victorian London ... the London of Holmes, Jack the Ripper, and swirling fog, despair, and debauchery. A theme familiar to viewers of the departed 'Ripper Street'. 

"Are you flossing regularly?"

Into this world we are introduced to a collection of familiar, yet mysterious, characters; literary figures of the times - an adventurer, a medium, a surgeon of dubious practices, a seemingly immortal young man, and their various associated characters. Named after the sordid, sensationalist novellas (costing only a penny of course) of the time, 'Penny Dreadful' mashes up these characters' familiar stories into an exuberant, Gothic, visual feast which although not likely to gain any mainstream awards, delivers well in style, excitement, and traditional horror themes.

Technically the show is excellent. The set designs lavish and bold; the camera-work precise without being overly flamboyant. At times the sound was slightly muddy, but this is a minor grumble. This is a show that looks good ... the opening credits give you a good idea of what visually is to come:

The cast is largely well-known and do good work with a script that overall succeeds at handling the outlandish storyline within the confines of the times. Timothy Dalton heads the 'heroes' (such a term though is ill-fitting for any character as they are all essentially dark-hearted people, struggling - often literally - with internal demons) as Sir Malcolm Murray, the African adventurer, who cares more for his fame than his family; a broken, arrogant, egotist who is the focus of the group. He brings to his employment a young doctor (who has his own agenda, and demons) played by Harry Treadaway; an American sharp-shooting showman, Josh Hartnett; a friend of his daughter, the spiritualist Vanessa Ives, played by Eva Green; and Mallory's own "man-servant" from his African expeditions, Sembene, played by Danny Sapani.

Additional regular characters are played by Billie Piper (a dying consumptive), Rory Kinnear, and Reeve Carney as Dorian Gray. The latter is worth singling out, as the role of a fey 'pretty-boy' can be hard to play with any veracity, yet Carney brings unexpected depth and nuance to the role.

Without doubt though, this is Eva Green's show. She excels as the enigmatic Miss Ives, letting slip only hints of the torment she has imprisoned within. It's a compelling, magnetic, and alluring performance, offering many opportunities to toy with the other characters and viewer. It's not completely without flaw, but the camera draws you to her in every scene, and she fizzes with restrained emotion. The memorable scenes come from her.

There are also lovely cameo performances from Alun Armstrong and David Warner; any show with David Warner can't be all bad.

I'm not sure where the show can go; whether is will eventually limp to obscurity or suffer an early, unfinished, demise, but when I compare this to, say, 'The Strain' it's far superior in all elements.

"I hate flocked wallpaper. How many times do I have to tell you?"

I've deliberately tried to avoid much precision in plot details. However this is a mash-up story, with plot-lines less interwoven and more running parallel for each main character. Sometimes bumping into one another, but the eccentricity and enthusiasm of the story is part of the joy. It's like one of those old Univeral 'House of Dracula'/'House of Frankenstein' movies from the 40s but more so. Everything thrown into a pot of extraordinary characters, and left to bubble over. It is blood and gore, and sordid excess, and fleshy bits, but it also plays it wonderfully straight and genuinely. Marvellous.

Scottish Independence Referendum

"I believe in a Scotland free from Westminster interference."

"I believe in Scotland becoming a democratic, self-governing country..."

"I believe that Scotland is good enough to be an independent nation, trading and building harmonious relations with the rest of the world"

What has the Scottish Independence referendum got to do with the rest of Britain? Well, a lot as 'Scotland' is currently a country that is a part of my nation, so I am affected by its future.

But it's not my place to say how the Scottish people should vote - that's their choice, but I do think they need to be weighing the right factors when making this decision, and appreciate its importance.

Is it important? Hell, yes.

Referendums come along very infrequently in the UK (maybe they'll be every other week in 'free-Scotland' ... who knows) and it's not as though there will be another one on this matter next year, or a year later. Or even 5 years. Or 15. This decision will be a commitment for the next 50 years. So decisions should be based on that sort of time-scale, not purely on what's happening now, and for you. The consideration needs to be about what the UK and Scotland will look like in 10 years time; under different governments, and in different political, social, and economic climates. This isn't about "today"; it's about many tomorrows.

Nor should it be seen as a typical political choice. Here, the SNP have been canny in trying to make it look like a choice between Westminster and Holyrood (it is) but dressed it as 'Tories' or 'SNP' (which it's not). It's not, because this current Tory government ends next year (even if they are returned, it won't be this government) and the SNP won't be the same SNP in 2025 as it is in 2014. This is a long-term decision, so don't base it on what is happening today in either place. It's not about that.

Promises, promises.

To steal a line or two from young Mr McAvoy ... don't base your decision on whether you think you'll be better or worse off after independence. Politicians always promise the Earth and deliver dirt - pre-election promises soon forgotten post-acceptance. Will you be better off with an independent Scotland? No-one really knows. There's speculation, threats, predictions, forecasts, and hot-air. But don't think independent Scotland will suddenly become a land of milk and honey. Life just isn't like that. If the complaint is that "if we're 'Better Together' then why aren't we?", then if it's better to be ruled by the SNP, why isn't it better now? With devolved powers, how much has life changed for you?

Promises are made and broken. This is political life. That won't change whether you're in Britain or out of it. So don't let "I'll be better off voting this way" sway you. We're always being told "you'll be better off if you vote for me" - it's rarely true; frequently false. Don't let promises influence your vote.

Make your Decision

If you can't trust politicians(!) then what can you do?  Vote for what you believe in. If you truly believe that staying within a united Britain is the way forward, then vote 'No'; if you think a separate Scotland is for you, then vote 'Yes'. Do it for those reasons; do it for your own reasons; do what you think is right for your nation.

From my own point of view, Great Britain is a nation made better by its parts; by their separate identities, joined in a union. This is a nation that has been together through hard times, great triumphs, divisive issues, and amazing human achievement, for over four hundred years England and Scotland have been united. That's the level of decision we are now looking at.

And those opening quotes? Well, they're not from me. I took them from here (with very small amendments) - if these words sound familiar, then we can apply them as much for this referendum as we can for the idea of a United Kingdom out of Europe ... it's the same argument (although that union is backed by only 40 years of history).

We are all governed by a group of people distant from us; ideologically, geographically; politically; ... but if we want to split Scotland from Great Britain for *those* reasons, then the Scottish Islanders can say just the same about Holyrood. Let's give them the independence they want too. And then the Highlanders ... what does the City of Edinburgh know about those people? In fact Glasgow would be better on its own too? Maybe your district? Your street? You? Let's make as many divisions as we can. I've heard every man is an island.

Or something like that.

A Post not about Depression

Depression is suddenly in the news again, following the tragic death of Robin Williams. Here, I'll not be talking about depression.

It's not something I talk about. For reasons I'll not state. That's how it is for me.

A lot of reaction to the death has focussed on the health issues he had, centred around addiction and depression, and there has been a lot in social media about depression and what is, and isn't, the right way to support sufferers.

I'd just like to say that we need to consider this illness along the same lines as cancer is now viewed. We don't think of cancer as being one illness, with one treatment, but rather as an umbrella term for a range of illnesses. This is why we don't talk about a "wonder-drug" to cure cancer, but drugs that are effective against certain forms of cancer. No single, silver bullet.

Depression is a term used to cover a range of illnesses. Treatment that works perfectly well for one person, will not work for another. Causes in one patient will be different to the causes in another. Even sufferers will not be able to say whether their treatment will work in another ... having it doesn't make you an expert on anyone else's. Each illness is separate, and unique to the sufferer.

It's insidious and clever, and knows how to counter the tools you develop to fight it off. It's like playing chess against an opponent that can read your mind.

Do not preach your solutions to others. They might work, they might not, but it carries no more validity than "cheer up", and no less. The treatment is unique to the condition. 

All you can do is offer support, and the form of that support will be set by the patient, and your relationship to them. There's no blueprint to follow, like there's no blueprint for friendship. No prescriptive advice - you know how to treat your friends without needing the words of strangers.

For Pebz!

Here is a vine:



See?

Whitby Pubs

One of the things I used to do, but kept to myself, was to indicate the best pubs in places that I've visited. So as you're all really really interested in my opinion on this crucial aspect of modern-day life, I thought I'd share.

Firstly, let's clarify what makes a good pub - the beer.

Okay, having gone through that list let's cover the aspects that might discourage a recommendation:

• loud music
• neon signage
• lots of huge TV screens
• young people
• even younger people (i.e. children)
• chrome fittings
• shabby furnishings
• poor service
• a lack of beer

There are quite a number of pubs in Whitby, some of which I don't think I'd re-visit. A few along the harbour-side (whale-bone side) are okay, but are either too "family-friendly" (Pier Inn), or are too difficult to get into without having to step over a drunk (The Jolly Sailors). Or the Buck Inn - which ticks a number of items in the list above.  So, avoid those in general. There are many; we can be picky.

Stepping across the swing bridge, towards the Abbey, immediately on your right is the Dolphin. This have recently been refurbished and has been much improved. It offers a decent selection of beers; and a good collection of food. Slightly better than what I'd call simple 'pub grub' and well worth one or two visits. Service was fine, if not stunning. The views out towards the bridge and west bank are also a bonus. Busy in high season.

The Dolphin

Further into the cobbled streets of Whitby there are two pubs at the end of the main road, close to the 199 steps: the Board Inn and the Duke of York.

The Duke of York is very popular due to the views across the harbour from a number of the tables. Again, this has had a couple of minor alterations in recent years to expand capacity, and there's a fairly obvious nautical theme. Furnishings are pleasant, staff friendly and efficient. The meals are fine, and the beer is good. If you can get in, then one of the nicer pubs in Whitby, and not resting on its laurels.

(there are no decent pictures of the Duke of York ... certainly the interior shown on their website is pre-alterations)

Next door (and don't accidentally exit the Duke of York for a swift tab, then return to the wrong venue) is the Board Inn. Slightly ignored in favour of its neighbour this is a decent, simple, local pub. Cheap pub grub and nicely kept beer, usually with a few different Theakston's on. You won't go in here and feel disappointed, if it's not exactly a 'wow'.

The Board Inn (on right is Duke of York ... it's that close!)

One other pub of note is The Shambles - up the steps near to the cobbled square 50m from the Board Inn. A nice selection of fairly well-kept beer, and okay food but mainly of note for seating offering views across the harbour. Good if a little soulless - not quite a pub, as you'll understand if you go. There are at least another five pubs on this side of the harbour, all within 10 minutes' walk ... plenty of choice!


Returning to the whale-bone side of the town there are a few more pubs worth a mention.

The Wetherspoons in Whitby (The Angel Hotel) is on the corner, just passed where the leisure boats are booked. Although nothing special (beer isn't great, and I'd avoid the food) it's enormous inside, and has one of the fewer outside seating areas which is a sun trap. You can sit and have a pleasant coffee with great views across to the Abbey up on the hill. Coffee and a bacon cob though, is about as far as you ought to sensibly go in terms of food and drink.

Going past the Wetherspoons, continuing towards the train station, you'll find the Station Inn. This has always been one of the better pubs in Whitby, and still is. Good selection of beers, pork pies to eat, and a couple of lovely big fires if you're visiting in the colder months. Busy at times (especially on quiz nights) but if you have the time to spare, a place for a lazy afternoon to slip by.

Station Inn

And finally, on the corner as you going up past the church you'll find the Little Angel. One of only a few pubs in Whitby to show sport on TV, but not in an obtrusive way. The beer is good, and although there's not really a food selection beyond a few sandwiches at lunchtime, it's where to go if you need a fix of sport. Bar staff friendly, and it's an easy, casual atmosphere.

The Little Angel

So that's my set of recommendations for pubs in Whitby. A set of at least half a dozen to busy yourself with. Enjoy!

Remember: beer - it'll never let you down.

Sherlock 3.02 - Review

Last night's Sherlock was so utterly disappointing that I feel I need to put down what was so wrong just to get over it.

I have no problems with a show based loosely upon Conan Doyle's great detective, but this show, from the outset, has chosen to show *the* Holmes, re-set to today's world, albeit with the obvious difference that the fictional detective was never created (one assumes ... or people in this world are strangely taciturn on the matter).

So, within this set-up, Sherlock needs to be the modern-day Sherlock Holmes, and for the most part the earlier series stuck to that remit. We had updated, yet still recognisable, Holmes stories, with a believable detective and comrade. This however, isn't what we've seen recently. We now have some inconsistent, dimwitted everyday man, with baffling legal connections, and confusing mind slips.

The 'plot' such as it was, took too long to be introduced, flitted around, then climaxed in disappointment. There was no wit, no flair, and no enjoyment. The issue here is that the BBC seem so pleased with the commercial success that they've lost control of Moffat's creation. Or they've forced out an extra series when the storylines weren't ready, just to fill the schedule and keep the pounds rolling in. It's no coincidence that many series start to suffer when writer/director start to take on producing roles - when there's no balancing voice stepping back and saying "hey, are you sure this is good enough?" I find it hard to believe that a producer would have let this rubbish be created had the commercial aspect not been already guaranteed by previous success.

Some of the more crass parts of the storyline (if we'll gloss over the excruciating early minutes that were clearly filler to hit the 90 minute mark)

The Murderer. Operating from some sense of righteous vengeance after the death of army personnel, seeks to kill the commanding officer who is held accountable. Yet, as part of his plan he "rehearses" the murder on an innocent guard? If he's out for revenge, how can his sense of justice let him murder an innocent, just to ensure his own safety? This makes no sense. Was the guard culpable as well?  Did we find this out, and I snoozed through it (possibly)

The Guard's (attempted) Murder. On finding the soldier bleeding to death in the shower, the soldier heads for the commanding officer declaring the soldier dead? He doesn't seek medical attention from the army's own doctor? Call an ambulance? No - he acts in a completely unbelievable manner, and with remarkable timing runs in to Watson, who is present at the exact moment of the guard's death. And then Watson calls Sherlock 'nurse' - yes, at the moment you're trying to save someone's life, it's important to make a little side joke about your relative positions at this moment. Quite apart from Sherlock's now apparent lack of knowledge about the human body, even though it's been demonstrated on several occasions that Sherlock has detailed knowledge of human anatomy

Obvious Clues. Leaving aside the fact the Sherlock then drops this murder puzzle for no apparent reason ("too tough; can't solve it" ... which is odd given that he was recounting this tale at the wedding, from a blog post Watson had written - we saw the web page - but apparently none of the guests are big fans of Watson's blog as evidently none had heard of either of the cases Holmes related) so leaving that aside, then the two items (Watson's middle name; that Watson would be attending a wedding) which reveal the killer connection were very, very obvious. To me at the time of watching; yet not to Sherlock when they happened? Conan Doyle made Holmes a brilliant detective - beyond what any man could hope to achieve. Yet suddenly this detective is missing such obvious clues? When did he become a dunderhead? It's established in flashback that Sherlock has searched for weeks/months for Watson's middle-name, so he'd be especially attuned to hearing that very middle name from someone else, and yet he completely misses it. Huh?

Photographer. The whole section of un-masking the photographer as the killer was illogical. Why bother looking through the man's photographs? They had no bearing on anything, other than to add (undramatic) pause. Surely we'd all figured out it was the photographer by that time? And why did it need to be the photographer? Because "no-one notices them, and they can slip in a needle to the wedding in their photography case"? But, the intended victim had brought a handgun with him ... surely that's more of a weapon than the murderer had? And a sword maybe?  This wasn't a high security event. Nobody was strip-searched at the door, or had their suitcases examined. The murderer could just have easily have walked in off the street; been already at the hotel; been a waiter; any number of less elaborate pretexts would have been sufficient. Sherlock's whole speech about the advantages leant by being a photographer were spurious. Anyone present had the means and opportunity. Just poison him next time you dolt, ring reception and ask for the room number, catch him on the way to or from the wedding, ... endless other options.

The Murder method. Well, it was kind of silly. Wouldn't such a small puncture wound heal in a few hours? Would blood gush out of such a small hole? Wouldn't you know you'd been stabbed?

Pass Key. Seriously, if someone is in a hotel room in mortal danger, ask reception to open the door. It saves having to kick it in, or negotiate with a potential suicide.

Stag night. Watson has no friends but Sherlock. And fortunately London bars are pretty lax on letting you walk into their bars with large glass beakers. Yes - you can do that in any bar in London. Walk in and walk out with glass. No problem.

And a few others (there are many more) ...

• pointless opening scenes to show that Lestrade trusts Sherlock too much. Sledge-hammer plot point. No nuance.
• Sherlock not understanding he was being asked to be best man. An obvious and unfunny joke, at odds with the actual character.
• Sherlock prepping wedding guests to be nice. Holmes wouldn't have an interest in such frippery; it was inconsistent with both previous Sherlock episodes, and with the Holmes character.
• Sherlock being sentimental to the point of nausea; no-one saying "hang on a sec pal, this is about the happy couple, not you" (the tedious wedding speech where Mary wasn't even mentioned, other than as an adjunct to Watson)

Almost the only moments of merit came from Freeman's Watson, who seemed to be acting in an altogether different, and better, television programme. Maybe in that other programme, Mary would exist for some reason other than as an excuse to set a story at a wedding. If you're going to introduce a new character, actually give her something to do. Seriously underused. 

Someone needs to take Moffat et al aside and say, "come on chaps, we know you're very successful right now, but you have to try a little harder. Cumberbatch swishing a coat might thrill the same people who scream at One Direction, but you ought to be aiming a little higher than that."  This is Holmes dammit ... if you want to make just any old programme, then choose a different central character.