Friday, January 30, 2026

Experimental Cookery 2026: Malaysian Chicken

Our first Experimental Cookery of the year comes from the Hairy Bikers "Great Curries" - a book I love in theory but have made depressingly little actual use of. This one has a lengthy ingredient list, almost all of which then get chopped up and turned into the curry paste before the others are added.

Some years ago, I took a cookery class (with work!) which led to me purchasing a small food processor that I use only for curry pastes. Or, at least, I do in theory - I've used it on a total of two days for a total of three things (with this representing the second day of use). So it was good to have a pretext for making use of this again.

Anyway, the meal was quick and easy to prepare: gather the ingredients, chop and then blend the ones for the paste, then cook that along with some spices to make the base of the curry. Add the chicken, then the vegetables, and simmer.

The results were very nice, but extremely hot (that will be the 10 chillis in the sauce). But the potatoes were a nice touch, and I'm sure we'll have this again.

One thing I think I would do differently would be to use either chicken thighs or chicken drumsticks, rather that getting chicken legs and breaking them up - I'm far from convinced the mixture added anything to the overall meal and I didn't enjoy that bit of the task.

The other thing that I'm inclined to do, time permitting, is to start making up some of these curry pastes in advance and freezing them - that then should make a lot of future meal prep a lot easier when the time comes. Of course, that "time permitting" is always a big question...

Thursday, January 29, 2026

To the Moon!

A couple of days ago I learned that NASA are in the process of putting together a crewed mission back to the Moon - the intent this time is simply to orbit and then come back, rather than landing, but presumably that's a next step towards returning there.

I'm rather surprised by the lack of media attention on this one, and equally glad that America has brought their space programme back online in a big way. And, much as I don't like giving him credit, that it one of the definite good things of Trump's presidency - returning to the Moon, with a view to setting up an actual Moonbase, and longer term looking to Mars is the sort of big, bold strategy that we just haven't had for some decades.

It's also worth noting that all of this, especially Mars, is one of Elon Musk's particular obsessions as well. And it's easy to mock, but he is actually right - on a universal scale human life is incredibly vulnerable. It's only a matter of time before something happens to render the Earth uninhabitable (for us), so for the species to survive long-term we really do have to become first multi-planetary and then multi-stellar.

Of course, that "matter of time" may well be measured in centuries or millennia, so perhaps it's not the most urgent thing. But given the other things they're working on, it may be no bad thing to keep Trump and Musk focused on the skies...

Friday, January 23, 2026

That Rarest of Things

Somehow, the Guardian managed to publish that rarest of things: an actually astute article on Scottish and Welsh independence in a unionist-leaning paper. It takes as its central thesis that it's likely that the upcoming Scottish and Welsh elections are predicted to lead to pro-independence majorities, while the largest party in the Northern Ireland Assembly is already in favour of leaving the UK. It then argues that this should serve as a major wake-up call to Westminster that things need to be done differently.

It won't, of course, but never mind.

Probably the key statement, though, and one that seems to have sailed blissfully behind the commentators (who are rehearsing the usual pro- and anti-independence talking points), is this: "This doesn’t work for Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland, but it also doesn’t work for many parts of England." (emphasis mine)

That is, the UK fundamentally isn't working for any part of the UK.

I've spoken about this before, more than a decade ago, and it's even more true now: for a very long time, voters in the UK have had the choice of a Labour (or Labour-led) government, or a Tory (or Tory-led) government. Worse, the Labour and Tory parties actually agree on the vast majority of their policies, disagreeing in a fairly narrow range of areas and on some implementation details.

This has manifested itself in a massively-unpopular Tory government getting voted out and replaced with a Labour landslide that has collapsed to even worse levels of unpopularity in an unprecedentedly short period of time.

Look to the future and the next election has one of three possible outcomes: either Labour somehow manage to turn this around and get a second term and we get more of the same (as far as I can see this is the least-worst option, but I really can't see it happening), or the Tories somehow manage to recover in the polls and come back into power and we get more of the same, or (horror of horrors) we end up with a Reform government, probably elected on a fairly narrow subset of the electorate.

That's a horrifying prospect, and it's probably just as horrifying for a great many people in England, just as it is in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.

The only real difference? Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland have (at least in theory) the option of leaving the UK. England don't have that option - in theory, they could eject the rest of us, but that still leaves them with the same broken Westminster system of government.

So what is the solution?

The answer to that is actually the same, whether the question is now to stop the rise of Reform or countering the pro-independence parties in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland: make the UK actually work for the people of the UK.

That includes, but is not limited to, a better voting system, a better caliber of MPs (of all parties), an end to the cozy consensus that leads to all our parties agreeing on almost everything. And it mean finding a way to improve the economy... but not just "the economy" (which typically measures things that are only important to the very rich) but the economy as it is felt by regular people - jobs, wages, inflation (especially food inflation)... we need to find a way to end the dependence of so many on food banks (it's good that they're there, but they should also be a mark of shame for a supposedly-rich country).

And all of which needs done before the next election. Which means two things: firstly, the timescale is absurdly unrealistic such that it's almost certainly too late.

Secondly, it means that only Labour can stop Reform. Not as an election slogan (which is almost certainly will be), but because they're currently the only ones with the power to actually do anything.

Tuesday, January 20, 2026

My Most-read Book

I very rarely read a novel twice, and even less often read one three times: I've read "The Lord of the Rings" on two occasions, the "Red Dwarf" novels at least twice each (and mostly three times), and "Good Omens" three times, but that's about it.

Until yesterday I'd never read a novel four times, but "The Hobbit" has broken new ground in that regard. (Actually, nearly five times - we were studying it in first year at high school, got as far as the death of Smaug, and then the teacher left and the new guy had no interest in concluding it.)

I still don't think this really qualifies it as my favourite book of all time, which remains "Good Omens", though I doubt I'll ever read that again at this point.

Anyway, this is all prelude to another re-read of "The Lord of the Rings" coming later this year - I purchased a good quality hardback set of the books late last year and am keen to revisit them.

#3: "The Hobbit", by J.R.R. Tolkien

Thursday, January 15, 2026

Fawlty Towers: The Play

For his birthday, we bought my father tickets to the "Fawlty Towers" play, and yesterday was the day for going to see it. This involved a comedy of errors as I managed to miss my stop (there seems to be one advertised that doesn't actually exist) and get another train back, but then on to the show.

There's actually not all that much to say about it - it's an adaptation of three of the episodes of the TV series, woven together into a combined show, with some new material. The characters are all present and correct, and uncannily like their TV personas.

The performances, and the production as a whole are great, with the caveat that you've probably seen all of it before - indeed, some of the reviews have noted an odd phenomenon whereby the audiences will laugh before the corresponding joke. A comedy of anticipation, if you will.

The one bit that's new is the very end of the show, which fits in with the general chaos that has gone before while not quite matching any of the actual shows. And... it's fine, but it's also the weakest part of the show. Not that they could have done any better, given the number of moving parts.

Basically, it's recommended for fans of the TV show. If you didn't like the show, you almost certainly won't like this any more. And if you haven't seen the show, it's probably not for you - it's a particular type of retro comedy that they just don't make any more... but maybe watch a bit of the show and see what you think? (It's not like it's hard to get ahold of these days.)

Plus, on the way home I was able to finish my second book of the year, so that was nice, too.

#2: "The City of Mist", by Carlos Ruiz Zafón

Monday, January 12, 2026

Two Films

I'm not terribly happy with my previous post, so thought I'd add something about two things we watched that I did very much enjoy:

Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire

This was really an odd one, and again didn't end in the best possible way. But the lead up to that end was really good fun. (And the ending was also unambiguously a good thing, so that's a win!) The highlight, for me, was the bringing together of the old and the new casts for that finale - the use of the original Ghostbusters was very sparing, and wisely so, but it all worked well. I do hope they may another sequel... though I'd be inclined at that point to retire the originals.

The Roses

On a completely different note, "The Roses" on Disney+ was an amusing look at a disintegrating relationship, with Benedict Cumberbatch and Olivia Coleman in fine form. I don't have much to say about this film, except to recommend it - it was well worth the couple of hours spent watching it. (Which is also why it doesn't get a whole post to itself!)

The War Between the Land and the Sea

So, RTD's "Doctor Who" spin-off show. UNIT get thrust into the middle of a tense diplomatic situation between humanity and the newly-reemerged Homo Aqua (formerly the Sea Devils).

I mostly enjoyed this, and thought in particular that it had three and a half really good episodes out of five. Sadly, the episode and a half that weren't good were pretty awful, and they were also the last episode and a half of the show. Endings are hard, I guess.

I should note at this point that the material I enjoyed I enjoyed despite some glaring flaws - RTD persists in writing an agenda with a show wrapped around it (rather than a show with an agenda), and frankly it's all very predictable. Plus, he does just love his "every phone in the world does something at the same time" thing, which is frankly just daft.

But the central conceit is good, the characters are well drawn, the effects are surprisingly great, and it is genuinely thought-provoking. Good stuff.

And then it all goes horribly wrong: our hero and his Homo Aqua counterpart suddenly turn into a doomed Romeo & Juliet forbidden love, all the various factions start running around shouting at each other even where that makes no sense... and then we get to a climax that is incredibly troubling. I don't think the show meant to be pro-genocide, but that was the impression I got.

So, do I recommend it? Sadly, not really. Given a better ending, yeah, it would have been good. As it is, it just doesn't work for me.

Tuesday, January 06, 2026

Celtic's Management Woes 2026 (January)

This season of Scottish football has been utterly mental. A month ago, Wilfried Nancy had just lost his first game in charge, prompting a meltdown amongst some sections of the Celtic fanbase. Yesterday, having lost six out of eight games, he was sacked, bringing to an end a fairly dismal management failure.

(I still maintain, as I said last month, that it was absurd to demand his sacking after only one game. However, it did become clear that he wasn't the man for the job - it seemed that almost every manager in Scotland had the beating of him, by seeing what he did in the first half, tweaking their system to suit, and watching the collapse. That inability to counter changes made by others was a fatal flaw.)

And so we're back to Martin O'Neill, this time to the end of the season. It will be very interesting to see how that plays out - on the face of it, going back to the safe pair of hands should be a good step (and it was certainly a necessary step; with the transfer window rapidly running out, Celtic couldn't dither over getting someone in). However, it's worth noting that the five league matches that O'Neill faced before were actually easier, at least on paper, than those faced by Nancy, and it's also worth noting that this transfer window is enormously important - does O'Neill still have the eye for a good player that will allow Celtic to emerge stronger from this window than they go in, and indeed stronger than Hearts, Rangers, and even Motherwell?

Ultimately, I think this is a positive move by Celtic on all fronts - it clearly wasn't working under Nancy and was highly unlikely to get any better, so taking decisive action was right; and appointing O'Neill was the best available option for the rest of the season. It certainly makes things interesting for the run-in!


Monday, January 05, 2026

Stranger Things

Some years ago we took out a Netflix subscription. At the time, this was largely motivated by "Star Trek: Discovery", which was on its second season at the time. (I'd purchased the first season on blu-ray, making it probably the last TV series I purchased.) However, there were then several other things we took the opportunity to watch: "Lost in Space", "Cobra Kai"...

And "Stranger Things".

"Stranger Things" came to its end at New Years, with LC and I watching the finale in the evening of the first. And it's fine - in my opinion it's not one of the all-time classic finales, but neither is it a total disaster like some others I could mention ("Game of Thrones", "How I Met Your Mother"...).

That said, I'm afraid to say that the final season wasn't really worth the wait - over the years since it started "Stranger Things" went from a must-watch show to being something that was just there. We were always going to watch the final season to see how it ended, and indeed watched it right away... but partly because we were already between shows.

And that's more or less that. Our new show is the "Doctor Who" spin-off "The War Between the Land and the Sea" - more on that once we're done.

Thursday, January 01, 2026

Books of the Year 2025

Here's the list of books for this year:

  1. "Machines Like Me", by Ian McEwan
  2. "The Ultimate Discworld Companion", by Terry Pratchett and Stephen Briggs
  3. "So You Want to be a Game Master", by Justin Alexander
  4. "The Maps of Middle Earth", by J.R.R. Tolkien
  5. "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban", by J.K. Rowling *
  6. "Nero", by Conn Iggulden
  7. "The Labyrinth of the Spirits", by Carlos Ruiz Zafon
  8. "A Stroke of the Pen", by Terry Pratchett
  9. "Hercule Poirot's Silent Night", by Sophie Hannah
  10. "The Phoenix Project", by Gene Kim, Kevin Behr, and George Spafford
  11.  "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire", by J.K. Rowling *
  12. "Hera", by Jennifer Saint
  13. "La Belle Sauvage", by Philip Pullman
  14. "Mary: or, the Birth of Frankenstein", by Anne Eekhout
  15. "Assassin's Apprentice", by Robin Hobb
  16.  "Dragons of Deceit", by Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman
  17.  "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix", by J.K. Rowling *
  18. “Tower of Fools”, by Andrzej Sapkowski
  19. “Dragons of Fate”, by Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman
  20.  "Odyssey", by Stephen Fry
  21. "1984: Julia", by Sandra Newman
  22. "Dragons of Eternity", by Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman
  23. "Harry Potter and the Half-blood Prince", by J.K. Rowling *
  24.  "The Running Grave", by Robert Galbraith
  25. "Defiant", by Brandon Sanderson
  26. "Aim to Misbehave", by Rosiee Thor
  27. "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows", by J.K. Rowling *
  28. "Warriors of God", by Andrzej Sapkowski
  29. "Skyward Flight", by Brandon Sanderson and Janci Patterson
  30. "Light Perpetual", by Andrzej Sapkowski
  31. "Crystal of Storms", by Rhianna Pratchett

My target for the year was 30 books, so that has been exceeded.

The list of books includes five rereads (Harry Potter), and five books for Funsize - the same five Harry Potter novels in each case. There were no RPG-related books this year, although "Crystal of Storms" is a Fighting Fantasy gamebook, which is RPG-adjacent.

This year's best book was "Mary: or, the Birth of Frankenstein" by Anne Eekhout, with "Hera" by Jennifer Saint as a close second. The weakest book(s) of the year is a joint award to the three Dragonlance novels - it hurts me to say this, given how much enjoyment I've had from Dragonlance over the years, but these really didn't work for me at all.

As might be expected, the backlog of unread books has shrunk significantly over this year. My hope would be to clear it entirely by this time next year, but I guess we'll see.

Wednesday, December 31, 2025

My Year in 2025

So, how has 2025 as a whole been?

My Year in... Blogging 

This year has seen me return to regular blogging, which is a good thing. This is the 120th post on the blog for the year, so that's a success. This year also saw me completely miss the 20th anniversary of this blog, which is... weird.

The Imaginarium remains on indefinite hiatus. I have more to say on the topic of gaming more generally.

All in all, I'm happy with that. In 2026 I would like to just see more of the same. Though there is a part of me that is considering a refresh of the blog - the current theme has been in place for a very long time, so maybe it's time for a change?

My Year in... Work

This has been a banner year in many ways, though somewhat frustrating in parts. It has also been a really hard year in many ways. So, successful, but I'm also very glad for the rest!

My Year in... Health

Nothing to report here - it's basically been fine.

My weight continues to be an issue, and one that really needs to be addressed. That said, I said exactly that last year and ended up getting nowhere...

My Year in... Gaming

It's funny how something can be such a huge part of your life for so long, and then it just stops, and then... it turns out you just don't miss it that much. I haven't done any gaming this year, I haven't been planning any campaigns, or writing anything, I haven't purchased any (physical) products or backed any Kickstarters. (I have purchased a small number of classic PDFs, but that barely counts - I'm completing a couple of 'sets'.)

I have no plans for any of this to change in 2026. Indeed, it is very likely that this segment won't even appear in the wrap-up for next year.

My Year in... Band

Band continues to be something of a disappointment. It just about does what I wanted it to do, but it's not particularly fulfilling. I may need to think on this some more - the current arrangements are unlikely to hold.

(On the other hand, the very last practice of the year was really good, so maybe there is some hope? If we can pick up in 2026 where we left off this year, I think I'd actually be happy with that.)

My Year in... Resolutions

As always, the wrap-up of annual goals, and setting of goals for next year, are handled in another post. The headline is that this year has been mostly positive.

My Year in... Travel

This year had two meaningful trips: to France for a week in the Summer, and to London for a couple of days with work. These were enjoyable enough, and in particular it was good to see the Sun in Summer! That said, I'd hope that next year sees a bit more travel to various places.

Also, there is now A Plan, but that's one for the future...

My Year in... the Church

This has been a tricky year. A few months ago I made to mistake of being persuaded to take over as convenor of one of the committees, which started well and then became hugely stressful. I'm now rather concerned for the future.

I also allowed myself to be drawn into a "Growing Young" initiative within the church, which I remain convinced is both the right thing and indeed absolutely essential for the church going forward... I just don't want to be the person doing it. But we'll see what happens with all of this in 2026.

You'll note, however, that the topic of this subsection has changed from "My Year in... Faith". And there's a reason for that - the last several months have very much been about attending church and being involved in the church, and I've been feeling something of a falling away in terms of faith. I have some thoughts on that for 2026, but I'd very much like to switch the title back for next year.

My Year in... Money

Another odd one. On the one hand, this is robustly healthy, and is all generally good. On the other hand, I now find myself obsessing over a spreadsheet that basically doesn't change day to day, which is odd. That's a good thing insofar as it's better than reverting to just ignoring it, but on the other hand it doesn't actually achieve anything.

My Year in... Love

I said last year that one of the good things was that Surprise! and Funsize had adopted a more settled sleep routine, which meant I was a bit better rested. Please excuse me while I go have a darkly cynical chuckle to myself.

My Year... Overall

This has been a really good year - even the negatives have generally been about things feeling flat, rather than anything truly bad. If 2026 is as good as this year has been, it looks to be really good indeed.

As always, this will be my final post of the year. I hope 2025 has been good for you, and I hope that the start of 2026 finds you happy and well, and looking forward to even better times ahead!

End of Year Update on Goals

As part of the end-of-year wrap-up, here is the closing update on my goals for the year:

  • Books: My target for the year was fairly modest, set to the same 30 books as last year. Unlike last year, however, I actually achieved this target - see the separate post (tomorrow) for the full rundown.
  • Weight: This goal has been failed. There has been a very small amount of progress made, but nowhere near enough.
  • Church Website: This has fallen by the wayside. I now have something approaching a plan for the website, but need to dedicate some time to making it happen. I do also need to get some information with which to populate the page. Ultimately, though, this goal was not completed.
  • Career: This goal seemed to just naturally fall into place midway through the year. That was really great, and served to fix an awful lot of things. Good stuff!
  • Redecoration: We had the windows replaced in July, which served to complete this goal. However, as a side-effect of that we found there was a need to fix some of the paintwork in the upstairs bathroom and didn't have the matching colour. This therefore led to us redecorating that room, thus leading to this goal being done and then some.
  • Blogging:  I didn't set a formal blogging goal. If I had, I would have achieved it - this is the 119th post for the year, with one more scheduled for later today.
  • Home Automation: This is another funny one - I didn't set a goal as such, but did have something in mind. In the event, that "something" was abandoned, as I think has been the rest of any automation plans, at least for now. I'm a little surprised by that, but not particularly disappointed.

So the final tally is three goals done, and two failed. Of the "non-goals", one was completed and the other abandoned (not failed). So I think we can assume a final score of 5-2 in favour, which can be considered pretty good overall.

As for goals for next year, I only have three:

  • Books: The target for next year is a little more ambitious than this year: 36 books, or an average of 3 per month.
  • Weight: This really needs addressed. The target is the same as this year: to lose 20 pounds in 2026.
  • Church Website: This also carries over from last year - I want to get the website renovation done.

I've once again decided not to set a goal for Blogging, but will keep track of progress through the year. If I do hit the nominal target of 120 posts, I'll promote this to a proper goal in 2027.

#30: "Light Perpetual", by Andrzej Sapkowski
#31: "Crystal of Storms", by Rhianna Pratchett

Wednesday, December 17, 2025

Wee Guys

LC has a group of friends who have (mostly) stuck together since her school days, and each year we get together for a meal in the run up to Christmas. As can be expected, most of the original group were girls (now women, of course), and although there are a few partners now there are still twice as many women as men. Additionally, the families now number six children between them (one 17 year old, and the rest Funsize's age and below), with Surprise! being the only small boy among them.

All of which may seem odd context, but is fairly important to what I'm getting at. So, to recap: there was Surprise!, one teen, and three older men present.

Anyway, as the meal was winding down, I noticed that there came a point where Funsize had rushed off to play with the other girls, and LC was with most of her friends at one of the tables, leaving myself, one of the other men, and Surprise! at a second table. I was on one side of the table, with Surprise! and C on the other.

Anyway, C and I were chatting, and as we did so I gradually noticed that Surprise! was occasionally glancing across at C, and then carefully mirroring him - as C moved his arms or adjusted his posture, Surprise! did the same things.

This very closely matches the experience when he's with his cousins: despite being the youngest of five boys, Surprise! always wants to get involved as best he can in the games, and very much takes his cue from the older, bigger boys. (And, finally, it's worth noting that he fairly idolizes his childminder's son - another older boy.)

It's hardly an epiphany, but: wee guys look up to bigger boys as their guide for how to act.

And that doesn't really change - whether formally or informally, men seek out those they perceive as successful in whatever milieu they want to thrive, try to identify the behaviours that those role models exhibit, and copy those.

That, unfortunately, creates something of a problem, because positive male role models have become rather thin on the ground: our politicians are a fairly unimpressive bunch (not to mention being mired in various scandals along the way), religion has lost almost all its sway (not to mention being mired in various scandals along the way), our civic authorities are viewed with skepticism at best (not to mention being mired in various scandals along the way), and our media and sports stars often seem more interested in the trappings of fame than in providing good examples (not to mention being mired in various scandals along the way).

It's also the case that a great many boys are now being raised by single mothers. (At this point I need to stress that is in no way a criticism or a value judgement; just a statement of fact.) And our education system is run by women, and increasingly for women.

All of which adds up to an awful lot of wee guys having no positive male role models who they can look up to.

And that's why the likes of Andrew Tate and Jordan Peterson are so dangerous. Because wee guys will look up to bigger boys as their guide for how to act, and if they have no positive male role models, they will look up to negative ones.

So, what is to be done?

Well, firstly, we men need to up our game. Whether we like it or not, we are the role models for the next generation - there isn't anyone else. So it's important to be aware that at any time, any one of us may find ourselves being observed, looked up to, and copied. You may find that you are the role model, so be a good one.

But society has a part to play as well:

  • We need to see an end to the casual misandry that has wormed its way into much of our media - particularly egregious examples are the blithering idiot that is Daddy Pig and the oh-so-funny 'jokes' in Doctor Who. The mainstream media no longer make equivalent jokes about women, and that's a good thing; they need to stop the reverse.
  • And I'm afraid there's a degree of casual misandry in our education system at all. A few months ago, I was fairly horrified to see our local university holding a 'debate' with the topic "We submit that masculinity is inherently toxic". Again, reverse the sexes and there would have been outrage; it absolutely would not have been allowed. This needs to stop. (Indeed, if I never again hear the word 'toxic' being used in reference to people, it would be too soon.)
  • We need to stop viewing initiatives and groups aimed at men, and even those aimed exclusively at men with suspicion - very often, the moment any such group or initiative is started it is immediately the subject of a pile-on from accusations of misogyny, or demands that it be 'inclusive'. But women-only groups are accepted and celebrated.
  • Perhaps most important of all: we need to stop demanding perfection from role models. I've spoken about this before, in the context of politics - absolutely nobody is perfect, so if you tear down and drive out any largely-positive-but-flawed role model for falling short of perfection, the alternative isn't perfect exemplars; it's the ones who you can't tear down, whether because they're too powerful, too entrenched, or they just don't care. In politics if you can't tolerate Tim Farron the alternative isn't a better Tim Farron, it's Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage. In role models, if you're going to tear down anyone who is less than perfect, you'll be left with Andrew Tate.
  • Much as I have agreeing with Tory blowhard politicians, the ones who periodically lobby for a Minister for Men and Boys are right - the specific problems of boys falling into addiction and crime, of them taking their own lives, and of them falling under the sway of the Tates and Petersons of this world probably need a dedicated person in government to focus on them.

Why does all this matter?

Society has long taken the view that there is such a thing as "male privilege" - that women have been disadvantaged in society simply by virtue of their sex while men are not. And there's historically a great deal of truth in that. But it is emphatically not true for the current generation of young men and boys, who are struggling in a great many ways. If the goal is equality, there is a great deal to be done - and not all of it in the direction that you'd expect.

But maybe you don't care. Maybe you're of the view that men had it all their own way for centuries, and now it's time for payback.

Okay, fair enough. But consider this: none of those young men and boys who are struggling is entirely isolated. Every one of us is connected to a web of other people: families, friends, colleagues, acquaintances, 50% of whom are women and girls.

So when a boy goes off the rails and spirals into the manosphere and misogyny, the women and girls around them suffer. When a boy is driven to despair and falls into addiction or suicide, the women and girls around them suffer.

The bottom line is that if we fix the problems being faced by the current generation of young men and boys (and, yes, the problems being faced by the current generation of young women and girls - I'm not blind to these; they're just not my topic for today), then we all of us benefit, and all of us will be the happier for it.

Which should be obvious, but presumably isn't.

Monday, December 15, 2025

Suddenly...

Firstly, many congratulations to St Mirren on winning the League Cup. A few weeks ago the match seemed to be something of a formality as Celtic strolled to the first step in yet another treble (at least potentially), and then suddenly it didn't.

In fact, it turns out that their winning the match was very much not a shock. They played extremely well, but the usual rule that "you need to play extremely well and need them to have an off day and need a lot of luck to boot" didn't apply - Celtic just haven't been their usual selves all season, and so a really good performance by St Mirren was enough.

Which leads me to the surprising realization that, suddenly, it looks like we might be looking at the first season since the 50's when neither Celtic nor Rangers pick up any silverware.

The thing is, this year we're at a point where they are no shock results: anyone can beat anyone else (well, apart from poor Livingston...).

In terms of the league, that means there are no false positions: Hearts are deservedly in the lead, Celtic are deservedly behind them - not far, but a little, and then Motherwell, Rangers, and Hibs are deservedly a bit further back. By the end of the season, the best team overall will be in the lead... and at the moment, that's Hearts.

For the cups, it's a matter of putting together a run of a few games, but crucially the right few games. There are a whole load of teams that you could see doing that: Hearts, Celtic, Motherwell, Rangers, or Hibs easily. Aberdeen could come good and retain their Scottish Cup, or St Mirren could readily do the double.

In a world where anyone can beat anyone, though, Celtic are probably the favourites... but it's also the case that it's more likely to be someone other than Celtic than it is to be them. (And the same for Rangers, and I suspect more likely even for them together.)

But while I said that this is a year that there are no shock results, I suspect there is one: specifically, if neither Rangers nor Celtic win something, that I'm sure would be a shock.

(Of course, there's a transfer window coming up fast, and the smart money is on both Celtic and Rangers strengthening. But it is worth noting that Celtic have come out of all of the last three transfer windows than they went in, and they're going into this one with their best player wanting away. Meanwhile, Rangers have managed to spend a huge amount of money on a team of duds. So while I expect both clubs to recruit, I'm by no means convinced they'll strengthen.)

It's going to be fun!

Voyage's End

Some time ago I found myself in a Star Trek-ky mood. I think it was probably at one of the points where we had a Paramount+ subscription, but where I'd watched all the latest shows. And so I made the mistake of starting a rewatch of "Voyager".

The reason I chose "Voyager" shouldn't be a huge mystery: as I've mentioned on the blog before (albeit a long time ago), I lost track of it after the end of the fifth season, making it the only one of the middle run of Trek TV I never finished. (I've also never seen all of TOS, and never seen any of TAS, but I'm afraid I have no great enthusiasm for those.)

Of course, one might very well question why I went for a rewatch, rather than just jumping back in at the sixth season. Certainly, I'm now wondering just that...

(The reason, incidentally, is that it's been so long that I wanted to see if my previous impressions still held. And, for the most part they do - I find myself somewhat kinder of some aspects of the show, but also struck by how many of the characters are unlikeable, or just dull, and how much wasted potential there is in the show. Also, I've just reached the middle of the third season, and hit a run of really, really bad episodes.)

So "Voyager" has been my recent go-to for a brainless show to kind-of watch when I have nothing much else to do. Which has been going okay.

Except that last week Netflix let it be known that it will be leaving in a couple of weeks. Meaning that if I really push myself, I may manage to get to somewhere early in the fourth season - just after the introduction of Seven of Nine, and the beginning of the show's painful obsession with all things Borg. I might, just about, reach the "Year of Hell" episodes that mark the halfway point of the whole (and also the very "best" episodes of the show).

And then it will be gone, just as surely as it was before. Typical.

(I daresay that at some point we'll take out Paramount+ for another couple of months, presumably when "Strange New Worlds" returns. At which point I may race through some more of "Voyager". Or maybe not.)

My Pettiest Annoyance with "Stranger Things"

We watched the first set of episodes of "Stranger Things 5" when they were released a few things ago. To be honest, I wasn't as keen as I previously would have been - the very long delays between seasons has largely blunted my enthusiasm for what had once been must-watch TV. (George RR. Martin may want to take note...) In the event, the episodes were mostly very good, and nicely set up a race to the finish. So I'm pretty happy with that.

But...

There is one thing that rather annoyed me. Though be warned, it's absurdly petty...

In one of the episodes, Mike gives Will a pep talk, likening Will to his D&D character, "Will the Wise". However, he later notes that Will isn't really a wizard like his character, but rather a sorcerer because his magic is innate rather than learned.

Which is a nice, clever D&D reference that will sail over the heads of those unfamiliar with the game, but serve as a nice little "Easter Egg" for those of us who are.

Here's the thing, though: "Stranger Things 5" is set in 1987, when the current edition of the game was 1st Edition. Indeed, the books for this edition have been showcased in "Stranger Things" over the years - it's very clearly the edition they have been playing.

The sorcerer class was introduced to the game in Third Edition, which was published in 2000. Until that point, the distinction between wizards and sorcerers was no different than in plain English - they're one and the same thing.

So that clever little reference is, I'm afraid, an anachronism.

As I said, it's a very petty annoyance!

#29: "Skyward Flight", by Brandon Sanderson and Janci Patterson

Friday, December 12, 2025

Punitive

A few days ago we received a card from the Royal Mail saying someone had sent us something and failed to attach postage - if we wanted it, there was a charge to pay. Of course, there was no indication of what the thing actually was, so...

Anyway, I ended up paying the fee and arranging for a redelivery for yesterday. The item therefore arrived this morning.

Anyway, it turns out to be a Christmas card, and it looks like a straightforward mistake. At a guess, they wrote a whole bunch, stuck stamps on them, checked them, managed to miss one, and then posted them. (I hope that's it, and not that they completely forgot to stamp all of them!) No big deal; it happens.

Except for one thing: the charge to receive this item was £5. The item in question was just a card, which would be £1.70 for first class delivery or 87p for second class (both of which are already outrageous, but that's another rant). That's a mark-up of between 3 and 6 times the regular cost, which frankly seems punitive - especially since this was not, in fact, our mistake.

Given that the postal worker in question had to visit twice (once for the original card and another for the revised delivery), I would have thought a fee of double the original might be reasonable, but surely no more than that?

All of which amounts to nothing, of course. Royal Mail are now a private company responsible for their own charging patterns, and if we don't like it we get to go to the (non-existent) competition. That's the joys of privatization for you. Oh well.

Just one thing though: please do remember to stamp your cards before sending!

Monday, December 08, 2025

Celtic's Management Woes 2025, part two

Just kidding.

Back when Brendan Rodgers left Celtic and they appointed Martin O'Neill as interim boss, I thought that was an inspired move - O'Neill is the only living Celtic manager who can be placed in the same quality bracket as Rodgers, and so he was the safest of safe pairs of hands. And so it worked out - eight matches, seven wins, and an all-around improvement in their form was the result.

But it was only ever going to be an interim appointment. Martin O'Neill wasn't going to take the job long-term, which meant that a permanent manager needed to be found. And while there was no rush, it needed to be done in time for the new guy to assess the squad in good time before the January transfer window opened. All of which meant that they had reached the point where it really had to be done.

And that in turn meant that Wilfried Nancy was always going to face a baptism of fire - the fixture list in December is absolutely packed, so he was always going to have a match within a couple of days of arriving, and a 'crucial' match within a week at absolute most. This week, with a top-table clash, a must-win European match, and then a cup final, is perhaps more crazy than most... but only a little.

So the first match was always going to be difficult.

Additionally, given that Nancy was hired, at least in part, because he has a very clear, distinct style, he needs to assess the squad not just in general but also in terms of how they fit that style - if that's why he's here, that's what he's going to play, so he needs to players for it. He basically needed to make the change right away, and accept that it led to a rough start.

So the first match was always going to be difficult.

The outcome of that match was not what would have been wanted by Celtic, but the immediate knee-jerk response by their fans has been quite a thing to behold.

But the harsh reality of things is this: Martin O'Neill is gone. It was fantastic to see him in action once again, and he left Celtic in a much better place that he found it, but he's gone now. Time to stop looking back and move onwards: Wilfried Nancy is the manager now, for better or worse, and he needs the support to actually give him at least a little time to get bedded in.

Of course, maybe it really won't work, and he'll have to be removed. But the time for that is 4-5 months after he arrives, not 4-5 days.

(And, actually, the more important thing is what happens in January. Celtic have had a couple of remarkably poor transfer windows, and can't afford another. So the key determinant of the destination of the title is really about who Celtic bring in, rather than the identity of the man bringing them in.)


Family Tickets

Last week I read an article in the Guardian about family tickets, and in particular a perceived unfairness faced by single parents (as the tickets are generally "two adults and two children", or sometimes "one adult and three" children - most single parents of course have one, and less commonly two, children and so are ineligible).

I am, obviously, not a single parent. However, LC regularly has preparations for her work that she needs to do at the weekend, and which is best done without the distractions of children in the house. The consequence of this is that I frequently take Funsize and Surpise! out to various places and so have noted exactly this same issue. (Naturally, as a lone father who is, gasp, taking care of his own children!, I am routinely hailed as an absolute hero when out on these trips. So it's not quite the same.)

For any businesses who are keen to do something about this, I have a suggestion to make. I should stress that I'm personally not particularly bothered either way, since not getting a discount isn't a big deal to me. But I can well see that for a single parent, it might be the difference between something being affordable or not.

My suggestion is simply this: pitch your "family ticket" as "one adult and one child", but also offer a discount on additional tickets bought along with that ticket - the price works out the same, but is then much more flexible. Of course, it's not quite as simple as a fixed 2+2 family ticket, but that's the price of flexibility.

Or just offer "10% off for multiple tickets bought together" - that's close to working out at the same thing anyway, and much easier...

#28: "Warriors of God", by Andrzej Sapkowski

Monday, December 01, 2025

Race to the End

It's hard to believe that we're into December already. Unfortunately, November saw something of a slip on multiple fronts, meaning that goals that I thought were definitely going to conclude easily within time are now at risk - in theory, I'm still right on target with these goals, but the progress over the last few weeks suggests it may be a struggle.

So the race is on - can I complete three books this month (with two well in progress)? Can I manage a further nine blog posts (after this one)? Will I find time to update the church website?

And, ultimately, do these things necessarily matter all that much?