Never admit to anything personal, codify & render general

Over the course of my life I have seen a few things which would shatter frailer minds. But I still never thought I'd see Sir Ian McKellen dressed as Britannia, still less that this would be deemed suitable entertainment for children. ( Read more... )

I know a mixed-race gay who wore a Nazi uniform to a fancy dress party. This is a non-issue. Should anyone who wears a Viking costume apologise to Anglo-Saxons? Should anyone who wears a cat costume apologise to mice? Should William, who apparently went as a lion, apologise to survivors of lion attacks? It is a fancy dress party. If he'd worn it on a state occasion, then yes, that would have been inappropriate. Though still fairly funny.

Meanwhile, as Harry is pilloried for dressing up, the Burglar's Charter is renewed.

Irrelevantly to any of which, Oxford is to take a scientific approach to martyrdom. "Oxford University scientists will carry out experiments on hundreds of people in a bid to understand how the brain works during states of consciousness.
One aspect of the two-year study will involve followers of both religious and secular beliefs being burnt to see if they can handle more pain than others.
Some volunteers will be shown religious symbols such as crucifixes and images of the Virgin Mary during the tests."
Latimer & Ridley, thou shouldst be living at this hour.

Only the first paragraph returns to today's hot topic, so feel free to skip that

And the Standard's idea that Harry should quit the Army - are they unaware of the Coldstream Guard's annual fancy dress ball, at which the regiment's role at Waterloo is commemorated and some of them dress as Napoleon or other historical adversaries? Anyone arguing that it's historical distance which excuses such things should bear in mind that this year one Guardman dressed as Osama bin Laden.

I love the idea of personal prosperity for all. In fact, I'd imagine that everybody does; it makes motherhood and apple pie look like controversial issues. Certainly I'm not going to come out against Blair's intent here. But might I ask how exactly Mr Blair proposes to deliver them, and why he hasn't managed to do so over the last eight years? Because cynic that I am, I suspect that he's just found another fun new buzzword like the Third Way or stakeholding.

David Thomson is famous for his Biographical Dictionary of Film. He also wrote Rosebud, a biography of Orson Welles which was not exactly fictionalised, but used such brilliant devices as another voice which offered, in italics, the thoughts a biographer tries to suppress, or can't quite put down but wishes he could, and which would sometimes converse with the main authorial voice. It's probably my favourite film book. He has now written a book which explains, from the absolute basics, how Hollywood works. I just grabbed a review copy from upstairs. This is going to be fun.