The Boys

I've been watching "The Boys" for some years now, and it has just come to an end. Sadly, this is not a glowing recommendation.

I really enjoyed the first few seasons of the show - it was something new, it was well made, and in both Vought and Homelander they had some pretty compelling villains. Unfortunately, somewhere in the fourth season (or maybe the fifth) it took a wrong turn.

The fifth and final season, then, was a massive step down in quality, on a par with "Game of Thrones" - it all suddenly seemed very small and mundane, the things that had seemed fun and edgy were mostly just dumb and repetitive (notably Soldier Boy), and frankly it all just became a slog through to the end.

In particular, it really seems that the creators had a massive axe to grind - Homelander became a thinly-veiled stand-in for Donald Trump... but a caricature of what a particularly mad subset of the American Left think Trump is. (I don't really understand their need to do that - Trump has flaws enough without having to invent them. This was just silly.)

I was also fairly deeply offended by the "Homelander thinks he's God" plotline in the final season. Not because of the villain's latest insanity, which was to be expected. But the show was then populated with a multitude of caricatures of what the American Left think modern, and especially American, Christianity represents - the only good Christian character was portrayed as abandoning her faith, while all the others were a cavalcade of liars, hypocrites, and general shits. Not one was actually willing to stand up and condemn what was going on. (And, again, this where the "Homelander = Trump" parody fails. Because while there is a distinct lack of public condemnation of Trump from America's religious right, it's also important to note that Trump has, in fact, not claimed to be God.)

Anyway, the finale was slightly better than the rest, and the final resting place was as it all should be. So there's that, at least. Mostly, though, I'm just glad it's done.

Also of note, while this season was airing the news was broken that the spin-off, "Gen-V", had been cancelled. On one hand, this was disappointing - that was a show I was enjoying. On the other hand, it means that this is a really good off-ramp from that universe, and since I have no desire to get sucked into their prequel, "Vought Rising", I'll be taking that opportunity.

Oh well. A shame, but not a disaster, I suppose.

#15: "The Silmarillion", by J.R.R. Tolkien

It Happened Again

Speaking of endings...

Saturday should have been one of the most glorious days in the history of Scottish football. We'd had the most fascinating season of my lifetime, and entered the final week with two games to go and one point between the top two teams, with both having difficult games ahead. Hearts then won their midweek game, while Celtic struggled in theirs... only to be given a controversial penalty at the last minute to win the match.

I didn't see the footage at the time, but have since, and while the video is truly bizarre, it does also appear to be a legitimate penalty. I'm not sure what the Motherwell player thinks he is doing, but somehow it does seem he contrives to put his hand on the ball when simply heading it would have been easier. And, of course, the same rules apply in the first minute and the last minute of the game...

And so we went into the final game with Celtic playing Hearts in a league decided. This, of course, basically never happens: almost every year someone has won the league some weeks before (almost always Celtic), and in the rare occasions when it is undecided it is usually between Celtic and Rangers who are not allowed to play each other on the last day (for fear of crowd trouble). So to have a title decider you need two unlikely things to happen at once.

Anyway, we kicked off in glorious sunshine, and what turned out to be a really interesting game ensued: Hearts were the better first half, and scored a deserved goal. They were then somewhat unfortunate to concede a penalty, and an equaliser, just before half time. But then in the second half Celtic were the better team... without quite ever getting there. Then, about five minutes from time came the decisive blow, as Celtic scored again.

This led to Hearts having to push hard for another goal that would win them the title. And, in turn, this left them vulnerable at the back, and so with 30 seconds to go Celtic had an opening, surged forward, and scored into an open goal.

What should have happened then is that the game restarted, they played another thirty seconds or so, and the match ended with a well-fought and deserved Celtic win. A real shame for Hearts, but Celtic came into form at just the right time, and the season plays to the very last whistle of the very last match.

What actually happened, though, is that there was another pitch invasion, in a repeat of the disgraceful scenes from the Scottish Cup quarter-final.

A few things before I go on: the SPFL and the match referee are claiming that the match was ended. This is not the case. The final whistle had not blown before the pitch invasion started, and play did not resume thereafter. That's an abandonment. I understand why that happened, and I also understand why they're claiming otherwise (as an abandonment creates all sorts of complications, especially with Celtic having been declared champions), but details really matter.

Ultimately, two things, though:

• Playing those last few seconds wouldn't have made any difference to the outcome. Celtic were indeed the best team on the day, and at the end of the season the league table doesn't lie - they were, just, the best team across the season.
• There must be a proper sanction applied for this, and it must be of a footballing nature. Deduct points for next season, or close a stand, or something. Not a fine, because that's meaningless.

And if the SPFL or SFA won't address this, the Scottish government and the police must. Enough is enough - I'd suggest a statement that if it happens again, the police will no longer attend home matches of the club involved, meaning they can't complete those fixtures. Put them on notice: sort it out, or we'll put you out of business.

(And, yes, it was Celtic fans this time. But this hasn't even been the only horrifying incident associated with Scottish football this week, and it wasn't Celtic fans who were responsible for the other.)

And so the curtain comes down on another Scottish league season, what should have been the very best this millennium. Congratulations to Celtic on a deserved championship. You disgust me.

Good Omens 3

"Good Omens" is perhaps my favourite book, and certainly one of the ones I have read most often. The first season of "Good Omens" is likewise really solid; about as good an adaptation as is at all possible for the material. The second season, "Good Omens 2" is likewise good, though not as good, but leaves the series in a really good place for a stellar third season.

Instead, we get a single 100-minute episode to wrap up the story. The reason for this is nothing at all to do with the cast, the crew, the funding, or anything like that - it's all entirely down Neil Gaiman and his well-publicised issues.

Which is really unfortunate, because it has utterly destroyed this final episode. There's a load of good material here, and the interplay between the main two characters remains the highlight of the show. But it's all far too truncated, with ideas being thrown onto the screen and then rushed through, time and again. And it doesn't help that the while thing is inevitably marred by the off-screen stuff.

The consequence is that this is probably as good a finale for the series as was possible... but it leaves me wishing that they'd just stopped after the first season.

So:

• If you've watched the first two seasons, you'll probably want to watch this to see how it ends up. Try to temper your expectations.
• If you've only watched the first season, or you're just starting, I'd recommend stopping after the first season. Sadly.
• If you haven't watched any of it, I'd be inclined to stay away. But maybe that's just me. In any case, I wouldn't watch beyond the first season.

All of which is a sad way to end things.

About "The Worst Witch"

My record of books read today adds "The Worst Witch Saves the Day", which is the fifth book in that series. I have not previously recorded the previous volumes. So, what's going on?

The answer to that is that each night for the last several years I read to one or both of Funsize and Surprise!. The plan was that Funsize and I would finish the "Harry Potter" series and then LC and I would switch, and I'd read to Surprise! while she read to Funsize. It seemed like a good idea, but has met with a certain amount of resistance.

Anyway, in addition to my reading to Funsize, for a while we had an arrangement where she read to me - a few pages a day, which quickly builds up. We seem to have moved beyond that, as she's now reading more and more books at school so doesn't need the practice in the same way.

The first such book she read was "The Worst Witch", which was then followed by "The Worst Witch Strikes Again", and then "A Bad Spell for the Worst Witch". She then started the fourth book in the series, "The Worst Witch All at Sea" before we completed "Harry Potter", and I then finished it off.

We've now started book six, "The Worst Witch to the Rescue", and will no doubt complete the sequence at some point. Meanwhile, Surprise! and I are most of the way through the "Thomas the Tank Engine" stories, which are fun to revisit, after which I think we'll be tackling "Winnie the Pooh".

#15: "The Worst Witch Saves the Day", by Jill Murphy (a book for Funsize)

Rangers Management Woes 2026 (part one?)

The Scottish title race is now suddenly down from a three-horse race to two-horse. And Celtic are probably now favourites - unless they happen to drop points to Motherwell on Wednesday, they'll go into the final match knowing a win will secure the title and will thus probably get that win.

But the big losers out of this are Rangers, who were looking strong a few short weeks ago, then collapsed to three defeats out of three. And, frankly, it is by no means certain that the pain is finished - they may yet lose to Hibs and/or Falkirk. They've also lost out on Champions League football next year, and may even find themselves looking at the Conference League (depending on the Scottish Cup result).

This all leaves Danny Röhl in a sticky position: suddenly he's gone from being the hero of the hour to hearing a clamour of Rangers fans wanting him gone.

My thoughts?

Well, first up, the last few games have been pretty much disastrous. And he has indeed been largely to blame. But prior to that he was doing a decent job, and there are hints that given time things could improve. Perhaps.

And, of course, there's an awful lot of the blame that needs to go to the players who have, frankly, been shocking.

Ultimately, I don't have a specific conclusion on his position at this time. In some ways, it's a shame that the rumours about the Wolfsburg job had no merit: that would have allowed for a very clean exit with plenty of plausible deniability on all sides. Oh well.

I think the Rangers upper management need to make a choice: either pull the trigger now and replace him, or decide to stick with him.

But whichever way they go, they really should make a commitment that the manager they start next season will be the same manager they end next season with. Rangers can't keep replacing managers every six months, not just because it's very expensive but because it's a reset back to the start of the project every time. They need to make a commitment and then see it through.

The other thing I'll note is that both Rangers and Celtic seem to have serious problems with their scouting systems - they're spending huge amounts of money, and really not getting the benefits they should from it. Hearts and Motherwell have much smaller budgets, and have been flying high this season. And, of course, when Rangers and Celtic enter European competition they find themselves up against teams that again have much smaller budgets, against teams against who they should (on paper) have no real problem with. And yet they struggle again and again.

I think the issue here is that they're operating as though they're English clubs (which I think also find themselves underperforming relative to the money they pay out). The difference is that English clubs are swimming in money, so when they pay over the odds they still get top-tier players; Rangers and Celtic are not, and so they're paying over the odds for, frankly, fairly mediocre players. In terms of money paid out, they've very much punching below their weight.

So, for Rangers, they need to make a decision and then maybe find a new manager. Celtic need to find a new manager (Martin O'Neill has been fantastic, but he's surely not going to go on for another season?). And both of them should look to their scouting systems, and become a lot more efficient.

Well, Thank Goodness That's Over

The Scottish elections are finally done. Thank goodness!

Unfortunately, it was a fairly unedifying choice. There were a huge array of no-hope micro-parties, but of those actually able to win at least one seat the choices were grim: evil, very evil, mostly useless, almost completely useless, completely useless, and legitimately insane.

Even before it all kicked off, there were really only two questions of interest:

• Would the SNP somehow get a majority? The odds were spectacularly against it, but stranger things have happened, and if it had happened then the consequences could have been interesting.
• Just how many seats would Reform win, and at whose expense?

In the event, the answer to the first was the expected "no". In fact, the SNP lost both seats and vote share. We've ended up with a mostly-balanced parliament otherwise, with a nominal pro-independence majority, but with the minority SNP government able to pass legislation if they can gain support from any other party.

The answer to the other question was a fairly depressing 17, though these came almost entirely at the expense of the Tories. So not great, but not seismic. (It's perhaps worth noting that I don't approve of the other parties now closing ranks to try to isolate Reform in the chamber. Firstly because I think it will be counter-productive - people voted Reform largely in protest at our MSPs refusing to listen to them; doubling down on this will only strengthen Reform. Secondly, though, is that those people who voted Reform are entitled to representation. I don't like how they've voted, but that is beside the point.)

Anyway, the upshot of this is that everything will basically carry on as they have been: the SNP will form a minority government, Swinney will ask for an independence referendum for form's sake, Starmer will say "no", and then we'll have five years of not much happening. And then we go again.

(Incidentally, Starmer has significant justification for that "no" - the SNP made clear that an SNP single-party majority would be the mandate for a referendum, and they didn't get that; in fact they lost both seats and vote share. But, of course, that entire argument is nonsense - in a representative democracy the mandate for something is that a majority of elected representatives vote for it. The real justification is rather more stark: the constitution is a reserved matter, and Starmer says "no". How you square that against the right of Scottish, and Welsh, people for self-determination is a topic for another day.)

One last thought: In the Scottish election Labour once again lost both seats and vote share. It is deeply unpopular here. In Wales, Labour have lost control of the Senedd for the first time ever. Labour have never had any presence in Northern Ireland (where, again, a party in favour of leaving the UK is in government). And in England Labour have just taken a major kicking due to their huge unpopularity.  There's no part of the UK where Labour are actually popular. And yet, Labour have a huge majority in the Commons, a consequence of a voting system that doesn't really work. That's not a good situation to be in in a representative democracy - in what sense does parliament represent the wishes of the people?

#14: "Our Lady of Mysterious Ailments", by T.L. Huchu

Experimental Cookery 2026: All-in-One Lamb Dhansak

This one comes from the Hairy Bikers "Great Curries". It was dead easy to put together, but did have a couple of long steps - an hour in the oven followed by another 45 minutes in the oven. But, as noted, the oven did all the work there, so once it was settled I was able to go off and do other things.

The end result was very nice - it's quite different from the other lamb curries we've had, not carrying anything like the same heat, but had a nice combination of lamb, lentils, and butternut squash. All in all, that's a win - we'll have this again.

But there's not really anything more to say about it than that.

#13: "The Return of the King", by J.R.R. Tolkien

Young Sherlock

I don't have much to say about this one. I very much enjoyed it - I wasn't so keen in the final episode, which seemed to rush an awful lot of things through to a conclusion, but everything leading up to that point was really good.

All in all, I'm looking forward to the next season. This one gets an unalloyed recommendation.

(Though it's still in my usual category: if you're subscribed to Prime, it's worth the watch; it's probably not worth the subscription all by itself.)

Dear Political Parties...

Yesterday I received an election communication from Reform. Amusingly, it came in an envelope - I can only assume they were worried that if they sent these things out without they would somehow get 'lost' along the way.

Anyway...

At the outset, I need to note that there is no world in which I was ever going to vote for Reform, so I barely glanced at the card before dropping it in the "to shred" pile. But that glance was enough to catch my eye.

Because the headline on the thing was something along the lines of "only Reform can stop the SNP". In other words, exactly the same claim every other party is making - you need to vote for us, not because of any virtue we might claim or any policy we have to propose, but because you want to stop them (whoever "them" are).

It's hard to think of a more dispiriting approach to politics. Every party, it seems, has given up on actually arguing why we should vote for them. Instead, they're all more concerned about stopping the other guy.

I suppose that makes sense. In terms of policy, none of the big four have any meaningful differences. Labour and the SNP, in particular, are functionally identical - the only difference is on the topic of independence, where Labour are opposed (of course), and the SNP are in favour (in the same way as I'm in favour of becoming a billionaire - it's never going to happen, I have no power to make it happen, and I'm not going to take any meaningful action to make it happen). Basically, Labour just want to do exactly the same things in exactly the same way, but somehow better and with different names on all the people. The Lib Dems are slightly different, but not so you'd actually notice, while the Tories are slightly different in the other direction - mostly wanting all the same stuff but with lower taxes that they won't deliver.

Since there's so little between them, and essentially no difference in terms of the quality of their candidates (or, really, the lack thereof), I can well understand why they're just focusing on stopping one another - it's all they have.

But Reform are actually proposing something that's actually different. It's awful, hateful nonsense, of course, but it does in theory mean they have something to advocate. And yet they choose exactly the same pointless attack - only we (a party who have never won a seat in a Holyrood election) can stop the SNP (who will almost inevitably form the next government).

In fact, the only party that I give any credit in this utter mess of an election are the Greens, who at least are proposing some actual policies and suggesting any reason why we should actually vote for them. It's just a shame that they're utterly insane... but even that's a step up from hateful. So, small mercies, I guess.

(The summary for those who can't be bothered to read the preceding: stop telling us we should vote against the other lot. Tell us why we should vote for you. And if you've got nothing, go away and have a long think about why that is, and then change it.)

Bad Boys: Ride or Die

This is an interesting one, because it really should be an awful film, and yet somehow manages to be pretty okay.

As I mentioned in my review for "Bad Boys For Life", I think the first "Bad Boys" film is actually a very good action film, the second has aged really badly, and the third is better than it really should be - and, indeed, is better than the second.

The fourth film really shouldn't work, not least because the premise is that their beloved captain is being framed for crimes he didn't commit and they have to help him... except that he died in the third film. So that's weak to start with.

Still, I suppose the premise of a film doesn't actually need to be stellar - especially a dumb action film, it's really just about kicking off the action and then you go from there. And the action in this one, while being exactly what you'd expect from this type of film and nothing more, is still well handled.

The upshot of all of that is that "Bad Boys: Ride or Die" is somehow a step up on the okay-ish "Bad Boys For Life", and a big step up from "Bad Boys 2". It's not as good as the first film, but that's not a surprise.

(This does mean that "Bad Boys" is now joining "Mission: Impossible" and "The Fast and The Furious" in being a series that seems to be getting better as it goes on - and, in all three cases, after a very weak second instalment. Though I think they may have left it a bit too late between the second and third films for it to have the legs for a long run, unless they can find a way to pass the torch on.)

Anyway, as regards this film my recommendation is the same as for the third: if you enjoyed "Bad Boys" you'll probably enjoy this; if you didn't you almost certainly won't. And if you have a subscription to the appropriate service (currently Netflix - I don't know if that's their permanent home) then it's worth a watch. But, as always, I wouldn't subscribe just for this.