|
dippy
|
read my profile
sign my guestbook
Country: United Kingdom
Gender: Female
Expertise: Obsessive compulsive internet use, politics, perpetual studenthood, being right.
Message: message me
Member Since:
3/19/2002
|
|
SubscriptionsSites I Read
|
|
|
|
| As ever, real life has gotten in the way of my resolution to blog more often. Work, and general stuff has taken over the last couple of months, but I find myself compelled to write today because I'm trying to sort out my head on some issues. For the first time in my working life I'm in the position that many people find themselves in at the moment - facing the possibility of redundancy at worst and reduced hours at best.
I work in the voluntary sector, where there is always a threat of the next year's money not being available, but this week, we have found out that funding that should have been in place from April this year has been cut, and no-one bothered to tell us. So it really hasn't been the best of weeks, trying to work out how we can keep delivering a service and keep all our staff, and waiting for news all the time. I'm hopeful but not overly optimistic that we can get through this without losing people but it remains to be seen. So this week's story about British Airways asking staff to work for nothing really pissed me off - not the concept per se, but the fact that their Chief Executive is leading the charge by working for nothing for a month himself, and therefore forgoing his salary of £61,000. That's £61,000 a month by the way - more than double the average annual wage for the UK, and almost 20 times the amount someone on Jobseekers Allowance would get.
In my A Level Economics course, we were taught that those who generate the most money earn the most - not necessarily right, but an argument which is used to justify the difference between say a nurse, and a professional footballer. So what should the right wage be for a man in charge of a company which just reported losses of £401m and expects low paid workers to volunteer to work for free? | | |
| I got preview tickets tonight to see State of Play, and since it was a preview I thought I would blog about it and get my tuppence worth in. The film is based on a BBC TV Series which first aired in 2003 - a political thriller with a side serving of journalistic process. I loved the original, and was keen to see how the film version turned out, so I'm pleased to say it was an excellent adaption. The TV series was in six parts, so the plot has been condensed considerably to make a two hour film.
Prior to seeing this film, I did have some issues with the casting, principally with Russell Crowe. I haven't seen a film of his since Gladiator (2000), and whilst I loved some of his earlier work (particularly L.A Confidential) he has become one of those actors whose public persona overshadowed his acting work. However he was very good in this (despite some hair issues which I can overlook) and was well served by the script and an excellent supporting cast. In terms of making a comparison with the original, the film had some definite strengths in the corporate corruption plot (in the original it was some rather ill defined issue around oil companies, in the film it is the very topical issue of military contractors), and a stroke of genius bit of casting in replacing Bill Nighy's snarky British editor with a very on form Helen Mirren. The cast overall was a key factor in making me want to see both versions - the original had John Simm, David Morrissey, James McAvoy, Kelly Mcdonald, Marc Warren and the redoubtable Mr Nighy; this time around, we get Russell Crowe, Ben Affleck, Rachel McAdams, Jason Batemen, Robin Wright Penn and Ms Mirren, and there is little to compare in the quality of the cast and the acting. The script for the film is also very good - the original was scripted by Paul Abbott, who serves as an Executive Producer on the film, but does not get a scripting credit; however the script is very much in the same vein as the source material.
For the sake of comparision, the film omits one key character, and addresses one key plot point in a different, but equally effective way, but having seen the original has little impact on the enjoyment of the film (aside from a tendency to know what to expect, obviously). Overall I would definitely recommend this film - I was lucky enough to get to see it for free, but it's definitely worth the price of admission for an entertaining and thought provoking thriller. | | |
| It's been a really long time since I posted anything here - 4 years or thereabouts. I had actually forgotten this site existed, until I was cleaning out old bookmarks earlier today. I have no desire to summarize the last four years of my life for the benefit of my (currently non-existent readership) but I do want to start writing for myself again, so will endeavour to work up to a regular posting schedule, and reconnect with anyone who is still around from my last tenure here on Xanga. | | |
| I'm guilty of neglect here..a month between posts! And to think, that last year I renewed my premium to encourage me to be a bit more active..
So, a belated Happy New Year to everyone, hope you had a good break (if you had one). I had a whole week off between Christmas and New Year, and I'm still emerging from the stupor that resulted. I did very little for me - I read a lot, watched TV (got Freeview for Christmas, and yes, more channels does mean more things you don't want to watch) and saw no-one for almost a whole week. The week after New Year, I came back to work, but so many people were still on holiday that no-one did anything, and we're all somewhat in shock about the requirement to actually work this week..
| | |
| Anybody know a good cure for hiccups? I'm in pain here! | | |
|
|
News from Guardian Unlimited UK
|
|
|
