Book reviews

ISIS: The State of Terror - review

Tommy Robinson: Enemy of the State - review

 

 

Friar Tuck and the Christmas Devil - review

Open letter to Stephen Nolan: can I have your job?

Dealing with different opinions - Nolan style

Hi Steve,


I was quite disappointed that you blocked me on Twitter, this week. Yes I was rather harsh in my criticisms but then I wasn’t abusive, and I surely can’t have said anything you haven’t heard before. After all, you are a talk show host on the BBC, no less. Truth be told, I envy you so much that I want your job.

You have it so much better than most of the world. Take the amount of people-juggling the rest of us have to do, for example. I’m a teacher in a private school, I have to walk a tightrope between expectant parents, management, students and the way that I actually think I should do my job. I swing too far in any direction, I have to answer to someone.  But you? You are not constrained by such petty, plebeian worries. You only have to answer to one party, and answer in the simplest terms possible. Nowhere was this more evident than those controversial couple of days on your radio show last week. Your behavior, your incessant pious judgments of your callers - you know, those people that actually pay the BBC licence fee - was utterly staggering. The was self-evident from the deluge of complainants that called you in response.

In almost any other industry or media company, you’d be hauled before management with a demand to explain how you managed to insult and anger so many customers in one arrogant swoop. Instead, you swatted away the indignant callers requesting you apologise to the elderly man you so righteously questioned on his moral right to have a view on migrants and flippantly told them to complain to the BBC instead of calling you, the person responsible. When you told one caller: “Complain to the BBC rather than calling me.”, the translation was clear to the world: “Go ***** yourself instead of calling me”.

Why take that approach? Simple, you know that as long as you are talking the right political line for the BBC, you will never, ever be punished or forced to apologise for your treatment of dissent. You’re as safe as Fort Knox in your job, and you know it. You degrade callers because you can.

Secondly, you don’t really need to do that much in your job. I know, people say teaching is not a real job either, but at the very least I need to have some idea of what I’m teaching and how I’m going to teach it each day, so there’s basic standards to follow. You on the other hand, apparently don’t actually need to explain your view or even to quiz the callers on theirs. All you need to do is talk about the headline of the day, let people call and then simply perform your own moral inquisition of their right to disagree with you.

On that “migrants” show, you asked one man: was he Christian? Did he consider himself a good Christian? Was he charitable in any way? Did he practise any form of charity? All that in response to the concerns  he voiced about the migrants inundating Europe, the topic he was actually invited to call in and share his feelings about. At one point you even claimed he said all migrants were paedophiles and terrorists when he actually said nothing of the sort. You didn’t actually address his or anyone’s concerns but then, why would you? You get paid anyhow. You’re Stephen Nolan, dammit! You’re big in Northern Ireland, I’m told.

Thirdly - and yeh, this is the no-brainer-  you’re on much more money than me. According to Jon Gaunt - who is in a position to have a good idea - you’re on the best part of three hundred grand a year, courtesy of the licence payers who call your show to be morally interrogated.  That’s the thought that crossed my mind when you asked another of those pesky: “I’m not sure we should let everyone in” type-callers the rather bizarre question: Are you sitting comfortably in your chair tonight?.

Well Stephen, I guess the same question isn’t necessary for you. Your chair is probably leather (or fake leather, I bet most BBC staff are PETA members) and replaced every year. But your odd line of debate was when I had my brainwave. Stephen, I have a halfway decent voice and face for radio myself, why don’t I take your job? No, seriously! Think about it: you could finally live that dream you put out on the airwaves last week. You could show the world how charitable you are by giving away your public-funded salary to anyone who shows up at our borders (no checks need, right?). You could show the fella from Swansea how Christian you are by letting the first lucky migrant into your home - I bet you have a bigger telly than me - at your own expense. And as for comfy chairs? I bet one of those fighting-age Syrians arriving on European shores is in need of a luxurious recliner right now.

Don’t worry Steve, I’ve got you covered. I’ll bring my own wooden stool and scrutinise the moral fibre of any cheeky Joe Public who “takes up the airwaves” while you’re out practising what you preach, and you know what? I’ll do it for half price. I’ll fleece licence-payers for the bargain sum of 150,000 per year.

Let me know what you think. You’ve gone a bit quiet lately. You blocked and ignored the Breitbart editor’s request for a debate with a neutral moderator and venue, and Gaunty says you went AWOL from your own show this week. Hey, maybe you beat me to that brainwave! But then you would, wouldn’t you? You always know best. That’s why you work for the BBC, where morality is checked at the door, and salaries on the way out.  Might there be room for one more in there?

That Boy in that Picture

goodreads.com

time.com

That image of the girl in Vietnam running from napalm still haunts the world today. It was one of the most cogent case of war’s horror being captured in a single frame. (Fewer people realise she has a book, however). As we ponder the newer generation of a snap that changed the world, can we consider if the father of the child that was tragically drowned could produce his own harrowing account of his life? Unlikely.

Abdullah Kurdi has suffered the greatest emotional pain a human can endure. It’s something I don’t know how or if I could cope with. Is there any way to discuss his loss without sounding hideously callous? We have to try, because the harrowing picture of the poor boy is transforming Europe and there is something not right.

Should anything happen to my own children, I think one of the first things I’d ask myself is: could I have stopped it? Kurdi could have. He was leaving Turkey, not Syria, where he’d lived for three years,  well away from war. He undertook a journey he surely knew was dangerous for reasons not entirely clear. At some point he claimed he wanted to go to England (not a nearer, safer country) to get his teeth fixed. This claim was later amplified to explain his teeth had been removed by torture. Why did he not mention this in the many interviews he sat? Surely something so terrible, so compelling a reason would be the first thing he tell the world? Instead it appeared later in an unsourced blog.


Why did his aunt lie? She claimed his appeal for asylum in Canada was rejected. In fact, it was never submitted, and she surely knew this. Again, this isn’t a small lapse of memory, it’s a deliberate attempt to mislead the world at a very crucial time over an incredibly emotive subject. Finally, was Abdullah Kurdi  a people smuggler as a reputable Australian newspaper has claimed?

These are exceptionally difficult queries to raise at a time when every European is competing with each other to show they have more compassion for young Aylan than the next person. As Brendon O'Neil says, it’s almost become a form of moral pornography. As such, it’s become the perfect political weapon for the left wing to push for more and more immigration. They were less (as in, non) vocal when Christian children were being beheaded in Iraq.

Are there genuine refugees, escaping from the mess that we created in Syria? Technically, no, not in England., A refugee seeks the nearest available safe haven. (Saudi Arabia have not taken migrants but have offered to build two hundred mosques in Germany).

Are there people who need and deserve our help? Yes , of course.  The true compassionate person would seek to help them, by avoiding the ISIS insurgents they have openly admitted to sending, by encouraging the separation of those who discard their passports, are taught to lie or who perhaps are men of a fighting age (57 percent), fleeing their country to enjoy the freedoms that our men of fighting age actually fought and died for.

Until we can reach some level of realism and pragmatism rather than seeking to indulge ourselves in cheap goodwill, we will only guarantee that further conflicts and a far wider spectrum of misery is guaranteed at some unspecified point in the future.

The image of Phan Thi Kim Phuc transformed the world, probably for the better. Twenty or thirty years from now, I’m not sure Abdullah Kurdi will view his own tragic loss, his circumstances or his (or his aunt’s) reactions as unavoidable. As a father, my heart goes out to him. As a rational person, I fear for the long term consequences of our despicable actions in Syria and the domino effect it has set in motion.

The BBC debate - round 4

This article was typed a few weeks ago, and then lost due to a computer problem. My apologies to Peter. Although written as an article, I feel it covers our debate points reasonably well.)

At this stage of my debate with Peter and his friends at saveourbbc.net , I want to go on record with a genuine expression of admiration. Firstly as Peter has been nothing but friendly and courteous to me during our communication and secondly as he and his group have stayed true to their beliefs at a difficult time.

Anyone can be amicable with someone who shares the same political vision. It's easy to rally to any cause which is the fashion of the day. To do either under adversarial circumstances, however, requires integrity and commitment.

It doesn't help when the cause you rally to seems intent on making life difficult, either. I know this from experience and I'm willing to bet that over the last fortnight or so, saveourbbc members have suffered those palm-against-forehead slapping moments of utter bafflement at the way the BBC has executed its political campaign to save itself.

It started - as so many moments of heartbreak do - with a letter. A group of BBC affiliates (actors, scriptwriters, etc.) allegedly took it upon themselves to pen a collective communique to the government, warning that "a diminished BBC is a diminished Britain”.

Does that seem like a remarkable spontaneous statement of admiration and value? It would, except that it was later revealed that several signatories had actually been approached by BBC Director Danny Cohen and asked to write. Not only does that put the “a diminished BBC is a diminished Britain" statement into its truly delusional, stunningly arrogant place, it also makes for a blatant breach of the BBC trust's code of conduct. The independent, impartial news body attempting to lobby government policy.

That may have been the biggest blow and certainly the greatest faux pas of Auntie's campaign, but it wasn't the most telling. That trophy was saved for an article in the Guardian (a very left wing paper with low circulation, the most subscribed to at licence-payer expense at the Beeb) by former comedian Lenny Henry. Henry - who has seen very low coverage for at least ten years and found little exposure outside BBC circles - actually pens his headline with a blasphemous comment before offered the warning: "No BBC, No me" without a hint of irony or comedy. In his missive, he reminisced on his BBC days before going on to argue: "No BBC, no Young Ones, No Blackadder" etc.

The article was telling not only for exposing yet another example of staggering self-importance but also for its logical flaws. Henry supposes that the late Rik Mayall and Adrian Edmonson (of classic comedy 'The Young Ones') would be unheard of but for Auntie, ditto for Blackadder, Rowan Atkinson, Stephen Fry and so on. In fact, all of said actors and shows have found fame through other channels, because their talent shines through. Henry on the other hand, has fared less well outside licence-fee funded exposure. His other argument in the article - that the BBC should encourage selection based on ethnic minority backgrounds - may be well intended, but I and perhaps others believe that talent and attitude should be a stronger basis of anyone's selection and licence-funding, rather than ethnicity.

What these two incidents really expose is a political body in its death throes. As a resident of South East Asia, I've followed the downfall of many a corrupt political body and I've noticed stages of the cycle. First comes flat denial of any wrongdoing, then self-promotion, then threats then self-pity.

Now whether the BBC is politically active or morally corrupt is something Peter and I may disagree on, but the similarity in Auntie's response is striking. With the news that the government will no longer subsidise free licence fees for pensioners now confirmed, Auntie is on the ropes with a 600 million hit, the responding jabs have at best failed to connect and at worst done further harm. It's not a good time to be in the BBC's corner but Peter and his friends clearly believe there is reason to fight on. For that, they deserve admiration and respect.

Hulk Hogan - pinned by PC

"Well let me tell you something racist, brother"

While many of us can relate the belief in Santa Claus as a benchmark of mental growth: from the unquestioning belief through to the doubt, to the epiphanic moment when it suddenly becomes clear, those of us who grew up in the eighties can relate to the showbusiness world of wrestling as a similar roadmap for coming of age. From admiration and wonder of the cartoon characters on stage (aka the ring), to the realisation of the script, to the knowledge of their real life personas and - in so many tragic cases - their early deaths brought around by the demands and temptations of their career.

Nowhere is the hazy mixture of show business, sleaze and star power more evident than the fate of wrestling's most famous figure: the world of "sports entertainment" (the new name for wrestling in some circles) reacted in shock last week when one of its most legendary figures, Terry "Hulk Hogan" Bollea, was banished from WWE  - wrestling's biggest business - for the shocking and disgusting attitude and slurs regarding black people he made on a leaked tape he tried hard to prevent being released to the public.

The shock in question however, was not due to the incredibly ignorant, arrogant and downright nasty attitude the 'Hulkster' displayed towards a certain skin colour, but due to the severity of his expulsion from WWE.

Let me explain why, and don’t worry, no enjoyment, respect or knowledge of wrestling is necessary here. WWE owner Vince McMahon and his family are legendary in their forgiveness for any wrestler that crosses them, provided their return boosts ticket sales for live shows. Performers who have crossed a McMahon and returned to the business include Bret Hart, who knocked Vince out in hotel room and declared he'd return "when Hell freezes over" , Matt Hardy, who wrote a blog criticising WWE's wellness (i.e. drug-checking) programme and Eric Bishoff, who was once creative director of rival wrestling firm WCW, and ordered to put WWE out of business.

Those are just three examples taken from numerous personnel who have been employed or re-employed by WWE after giving the ownership serious cause to despise them. Yet even before last month, Hulk Hogan may have given the greatest cause for banishment of all.

All the sourced, biographical evidence suggests that Hogan is not a philanthropist. In his early days as a in-ring character depicting a patriotic, honest and Christian American, the man behind the persona was - so numerous sources claimed any times - known for a very opposite approach to life. Colleagues have claimed Terry enjoyed "jerry juice" and a puff of a joint each day. His behavior became more erratic and monomaniacal over over the years. While the wrestling industry is known for politics and power plays, Hulkster's attitude approached egomanica at times. When he jumped ship to rival WCW, he became part of a clique known on and off stage as manipulative and cunning, designed to avoid giving younger, hungry performers a chance to shine. Eventually their actions helped put WCW - the business that awarded them multi-million dollar contracts - out of business. The contract payments were still honored.

It was then that - from an outsider's point of view - Hogan really began to change. Perhaps realising his best days were gone, Hulk began surviving on past glories and the immense nostalgia of wrestling fans. Sadly he choose to do that by putting himself over and above everyone else in the industry. Upstart federation TNA Impact awarded him a huge contract that Terry utilised to place himself at the centre of every storyline in the show, to the expense of all others. One storyline involved a biker gang "invading" the show every week, brutally injuring (in the scripted sense) all members of the roster, striking fear across the show. After several weeks of careful build up, the excitement ended with Hogan - a year shy of sixty at the time - walking the aisle and flooring each of the bikers - carefully depicted over the last months to appear vicious, dangerous and ruthless - one by one, with a single punch each.

If you're not a wrestling fan - I know many educated people hate the whole thing - I can only offer the analogy of a soap opera with a single, pointless, repeatedly ad-libbing character - appearing in every single story arc, denying other characters the chance to develop.

But again, if you're not keen on wrestling you could see this as part of the nonsense. Outside the business however, Terry's apparent outlook on life appeared little better. He appeared in a dull, pathetic sex tape with his friend’s wife in a clip so sad that one journalist described it as: "A reminder that celebrities can have boring, bad sex, too.". When not repeatedly taking rather strange pictures of his own daughter, Hogan may have been rushing to the defence of his son, who caused death by dangerous driving.

His pathological need to be the star, his frequent memory lapses and blasé attitude on stage, his private life and family misfortunes may never have completely caught up with him were it not for the final revelation: Hogan was disgustingly bigoted towards other races. That - and only that - caused the unthinkable. Arguably the most famous wrestler of all time was utterly outcast by the very federation where his legacy was crafted. Every mention of him was removed from the WWE web including his Hall of Fame refrence, his merchandise and his roster listing - a treatment last handed out to Chris Benoit, who murdered his own family.

While the offense police and the PC masses have joined forces to bring down good people in this world such as cancer-fighting doctors, benevolent programmers and bakers, they have finally managed to take down someone who - on the face of it all - probably deserved it.

Life is Strange - but not shallow

It would be easy to dismiss "Life is Strange" as a lazy, teenage-angst fueled piece of programming by creators Dotnod and an quick, inattentive session of play might even compound such a theory. But such a quick conclusion would be lazy in itself, for a longer play session will reveal a game with more to offer for players of any age group.

Yes, protagonist Max Caulfield is a cursing, confused student who (sort of) witnesses a potentially drug-related shooting in the washroom of her high-school. She then discovers she has some form of super-power which propels her on a journey, accompanied by a punk-rock rebel friend.

But this is not some "woe is me" session of putting the world to rights for Max. She is as thoughtful and insightful as she is confused. Her cursing isn't gratuitous, it's a manifestation of her own fears and stress. She displays empathy towards everyone, even her enemies and strictest teachers. She dwells on and ponders every experience and comment before arriving at her own conclusion, often expressing her ideas in photo-journalism or her paper diary that acts as a sort of "story so far" for the gamer. Max is switched on to her world and its people, not just a smartphone.

The well-made characters are not the only point of credit for the designers , however. Life is Strange has a deliberate ambiance of nostalgia, created by the visual and audio artistry that sit remarkably well with the underlying tones of tension, fear and lack of control over one's world. Supported by Max's own reminiscing (another factor that makes her different from the stereotype teen) the sentiment of deep calm and relaxation is thoughtfully crafted by a design crew that could have escaped with far less effort if they wanted.

There are other clues laid down for older players, Max's discovery of graffiti saying "Fire Walk with Me" is no mistake. The whole plot of LIS a missing teenage girl in a beautiful, secluded town full of different characters, each with their own dark secrets and a dashing of the supernatural will sound wholly familiar to David Lynch fans, this is almost a video game spin-off from Twin Peaks at times, and it's no bad thing.

Life is Strange may lack the emotional attachment or scope of Shenmue, it may lack the incredible visual power and cast of Mass Effect or the exquisite quality of voice acting found in Red Dead Redemption, yet it contains elements of all these classics and holds its own in each area. Given that this achievement was reached by a small studio who clearly strive for great things, it's no small feat. Life is Strange is well worth a try for gamers of any age and I look forward t seeing what Dotnod will throw at us next.

BBC debate, round one

Thanks to Peter from saveourbbc.net for agreeing to let me publish sections of our debate here. Here's round one.....
*****************************************************************
greg_sfc(2)

The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) must have key personnel and layers of management removed and the licence fee system should be scrapped or, at the very least, greatly reduced. To understand why this solution is necessary, it’s important to understand why the BBC has become too removed from its roots, too arrogant, too immoral and too bloated for softer solutions to save it.

At thirtysomething years of age, I’m just about old enough to remember the last golden days of the BBC. It was a time of great comedy, such as “Only Fools & Horses” which has spawned eternal comical moments, a time of quality sports coverage and – perhaps most importantly of all - news coverage that was breaking, accurate and admired across the world. The BBC truly was admired by media agencies across the world.
Fast forward to 2014 and that reputation is in tatters. The BBC may still have the occasional show of exceptional quality (‘Sherlock’ and ‘Dr Who’, etc.) but what’s left of its prestige is based on nostalgia and outdated information. The modern BBC is a monolith of arrogance, bias and greed.

To list the problems of the BBC in full would take too long, so let’s take one example that summarises its faults then quickly list other serious faults.

Sir Jimmy Savile was a tremendously popular character to the point of being a national British treasure. The ‘Beeb’ (an epithet for the BBC) were not solely responsible for his rise, but they were utterly instrumental to it. Savile rose to fame and fortune through association with the BBC in radio and televised form. I will assume readers are familiar with his remarkable career.

After Savile passed, serious allegations of sexual misconduct with underage girls snowballed into a full-blown scandal. The executives at the Beeb were accused of having prior knowledge of the allegations and failing to act on them. Despite denials, the serious allegations were covered in full in what appeared to be a remarkable act of self-investigation by the BBC’s ‘Panorama’ documentary team, which in turn discussed a previous documentary exposing Savile on another BBC documentary called ‘Newsnight’, which BBC management had decided should not air.

The outcome? Key journalists in both documentary teams have been for daring to discuss Savile. One has been fired, two have been moved to inactive posts and others accused of shoddy journalism. This is the modern face of the BBC. Licence-payers are funding management decisions to axe or isolate journalists who have exposed child abuse.

Other problems are legion. The ‘Beeb’ is governed by a panel trustees at the BBC Trust, by which it is duty-bound to be impartial in its news reporting. Indeed, impartiality has been a huge part of the reason for the BBC’s worldwide. Yet the modern BBC has not only strayed from its moral and professional bounds of impartiality, it has dived headlong into a pool of politcal bias and arrogance that has become so transparent that it is accepted almost universally amongst observers. Its own investigations have confirmed political bias, yet no changes have been made. Independent studies have confirmed the same and this year’s general election coverage by the Beeb was so dismissive of right wing parties that it became in danger of violating instructions from the government’s independent media monitor. The BBC have become so arrogant and self-assured in their political bias that, like FIFA, it could become the black hole that eventually secured their downfall.

The last point I wish to make in this opening round is the licence fee and the manner in which it is “secured”. Licence fee collecting for the BBC is outsourced to a group that have become so infamous for their methods, manner and shoddiness that whole websites have been set up to film, observe and report on them. In short, their letters are aggressive, some (but by no means all) of their collectors are deeply unpleasant or at least uniformed and misleading and the whole licence fee system has decayed from a fee which British citizens took pride in paying for a s great value to something akin to a shoddy cartel, sending out vaguely threatening yet somehow comical and unhelpful letters, backed up by obnoxious commercials.

This is just my first round of complaints with the BBC but the question at hand is: what future do we want?
My answer to the opening question again leads me to make a comparison with the executives at FIFA. We want fairness, value for money, respect for consumers and integrity. We can achieve these aims via two methods, but we need both methods to be implemented. Firstly, we must remove unnecessary or untrustworthy layers of management, including the Trustees panel which, I believe, have failed in their role. Secondly, we must remove the licence fee and allow the BBC to perform like all quality broadcasters: surviving (or not) on their merits, quality and appeal.

SaveOurBBC(4) 2 points I’d like us to take this debate point by point so I’m starting by addressing the questions about removing ‘key personnel and layers of management’. In fact, the executive and senior management of the BBC has been successfully culled during the last ten years. People and their posts like Mark Byford, Deputy Director General, and Caroline Thomson, Chief Operating Officer, are gone and not replaced. Gerald Main recently retired; originally he was ‘just’ Editor of BBC Essex; by the time he retired he was Editor of a number of BBC Local Radio Stations. This is an example of increasing the roles and responsibilities of posts making them more cost effective. As a result of these and other increased efficiencies, the BBC has already made savings of £480m and is on track to reach its target for savings of £1.5bn by the end of 2016. Inevitably there has been a lot of comment about executive pay and pay offs. There is no doubt that the BBC is a curious organisation. On the one hand it is a public organisation governed by a Royal Charter and seen as part of the establishment. On the other, it is the market maker in the media industry, an industrial sector which is highly commercial. It is also a major driver of the creative industries. It tends to be judged as a public body and the nature of the markets in which it operates is overlooked. We may well look later at why it is that the BBC gets such unbalanced coverage by others. For the time being I will just point out that the salaries and benefits of BBC executives, senior managers and talent have to be compared with those in the media and creative industries because that is where the BBC has to compete for its staff and performers. The salaries, packages and pay offs of BBC executives and staff and of its talented performers compare very favourably with those of similar people working for instance in other terrestrial broadcasters such as ITV, Channel 4 and Five, with those at Sky, BT, Virgin and Google and with those working in media groups including national newspapers and other operations. Generally BBC people receive 10%+ less than their peers working elsewhere because of the kudos of working for the BBC. So the BBC has already removed a lot of key executives and senior managers and has reduced layers of management. This is delivering huge savings and increased efficiencies whilst operating effectively in a highly competitive market. It also continues to provide good value by being able to undercut market remuneration packages. 10 days ago

Shenmue 3 Campaign Pitch : Crying over Consoles

Grown men moved to tears by a computer game that hasn’t even been made yet? It sounds pathetic at first hearing, even more pathetic than “Game of Thrones” viewers getting upset at fictional events depicted by actors (hold on...) or sports fans whose happiness is made or broken by a man kicking piece of leather around. Hmm, I think I better stop with these examples. My point is that although I did not cry at the announcement of Shenmue 3’s Kickstarter campaign at Sony’s E3 conference this week,I saw videos of people I know who did shed a tear or ten. And I get it.

To understand what makes Shenmue more than just a video game in the eyes of its fans – and for me to have a snowball in Hell’s chance of getting you to pledge – it’s important to understand a tiny bit of video-gaming history. Shenmue was released on the Sega Dreamcast, the most underrated games console of all time. There was something truly different about this game compared to other games of the era or even of today. Shenmue was 'open world' before such a thing even really existed. Protagonist  Ryo Hazuki wanders around back streets of Dobuita, down a moderate high street and, ahem, a warehouse area, hunting for information on the man whom he witnesses killing his father at the start of the game.

The premise may not sound awe-inspiring but Shenmue’s quality lies not just in its magnificent graphical scope – though it was surely the greatest of its time – but also in its depth and design. Characters were designed to display facial features and expressions that captured  human emotion in a way never seen before. Conversations with the inhabitants of  Yamanose, Dobuita or Yokosaka may be exciting, threatening, peaceful, useful or just irrelevant, but each one would be conveyed in the eyes of the speaker.

It’s not just the characters themselves that are painstakingly detailed, either. The areas of Yokoska that Hazuki explores are not random layouts from some battlefield engine or random DTP sequence, they are diligent renditions of actual areas of which the similarity between the game scenery – set in the eighties -  and the same locations still shine through today. Imagine the kind of brain-hurt that must have gone into that recreation, then factor in the next step introduced by designer Yu-Suzki: creating each inhabitant of the place and giving them a unique name, routine and dialogue.

Yes that’s right, Shenmue features a whole simulated section of a town that's so ridiculously deep it's hard to explain, Here's my best shot: today, fourteen years after the game’s release, you can visit a youtube page playing the theme music of a pizza shop in the high street. The comments on the page will reveal the shop, its owner and the dialogue that occurs within to be meaningless to the plot, yet years later, it’s still discussed. Therein lies part of Shenmue’s fascination: the attention to detail that somehow grew out of control and made the game the masterpiece it was. Sadly, it also made it a financial liability. Like so many magnum opuses of the world, its greatness was its downfall. 

All this epic scale only escalates in Shenmue 2, set in Hong Kong. Although the areas of HK are nothing like the same areas as I have visited so many times in person, they are still works of art that somehow juxtapose brilliantly with the many colourful, varied and highly entertaining characters that inhabit them. Again, such is the difficulty of implying the scale of this game – released well over ten years before the likes of Mass Effect or GTA V – that I haven’t yet even discussed much of the plot thus far. In (criminally) short:  from assassins to hot dog sellers, hot biker gals to elderly barbers, Hazuki will encounter deep, beautifully drawn, inspiring and gratifying characters from whom he will usually gain something to take him forward in his journey.

And what a journey it is. Across three countries (and counting) from warehouses to shopping malls to tiny Chinese villages, the teenage protagonist hunts his father’s killer and learns about life, relationships, martial arts, anger, forgiveness and justice as he moves along. It’s important to realise this is not another brawler interspaced with cut scenes or superficial posing that work as excuses for another fight  (though the fighting system is there, and superbly done). In fact, Shenmue is not really an action game. Ryo can spend as much time time hunting a lost cat, driving  forklift trucks or watching a deer as he does entering paid fights, chasing thieves or hunting mafia bosses. Each act has a meaning, even if it’s just kindness, admiration or patience for its own sake. It’s part of the journey, it’s part of Ryo’s development which in turn, is part of a gripping, emotional and visually beautiful quest with an unbelievable soundtrack to match. Even its few faults are somehow endearing. The English voice-over for one character has become legendary and just google "Shenmue sailors" to enjoy plenty of laughs.

You have probably already noticed that I struggle to explain what Shenmue is. There's a reason why: not to compare them, but imagine trying to describe a work of Pascal or the sound of FVO Dives and Lazarus without selling either hopelessly short. It's the same battle for me here, for Shenmue is indeed a great work of art. In age when most – but by no means all – games are about watching brains splatter or driving fast cars -  Shenmue offers something different. It’s immersive, it’s emotionally compelling and it’s breathtaking in ambition and scope. It also has the soundtrack to match all those adjectives. It’s…it’s art. And there, finally, I can pinpoint the reason the announcement of  a new chapter in the Shenmue drew some grown men to tears. 

Imagine being shown a masterful creation: a great painting, a song that somehow captured ten emotions inside you at the same time or a few pages of the greatest story you’ve ever heard. Now, imagine that halfway through experiencing that masterpiece, you were stopped. You couldn't finish the moving, gripping and powerful experience you'd undertaken. That’s how Shenmue fans felt when the third part in the series was canned for financial reasons all those years ago.

But some of them never gave up. They campaigned, lobbied and shouted for a follow–up ever since. Over the last fourteen years,  they’ve been ignored, hoaxed, mocked, mislead and just told they would never get what they were asking for so they may as well give up. A lot of them never believed it would happen but they kept fighting out of a tiny shred of hope. This week at E3, that hope was finally rewarded.

But here’s the rub: the financial history of Shenmue means that this time around, creator Yu-Suzuki is looking to raise funds via Kickstarter to cover development (Sony will cover marketing costs). The initial 2 million goal was smashed in a record-breaking nine hours – if you thought I was exaggerating the anticipation, I hope that answers you – but to deliver a game as great as its predecessors, the stretch goals need to be met by the dozen. We're aiming high.

And that’s why I’m writing this post.  I’ve never been any good at sales, and I’ve probably just written the worst attempt I've ever made at describing something. But if anything I've said snags your curiosity, if  you’re a young gamer looking for something incredible and different or someone just curious to try an immersive experience that in parts defies the very concept of computer gaming, then please, please do two things.

First get up to speed on Shenmue. I can't tell you to download Null Dc emulator (perfectly legal) and making a google search for online .iso files of the old games because technically, that would be illegal,  like downloading copyrighted music. However, you can experience the game by buying a Dreamcast/Xbox and the games on ebay, joining the Dojo, joining the hugely popular Facebook group of the game, and enjoying "Let's play Shenmue" on youtube.

Then, more importantly, get to the Kickstarter page and please, please, pledge! Remember, it's not a charity and you're not donating.  You get rewards including a copy of the game when it’s finally released.  You need a credit card. If you don't have one, try entropay.com. (And yes, if anyone wants to bargain, I'm here to help with proof reading, editing, lesson plans and anything else a teacher can offer.)

For now though, go discover what Shenmue is.You'll still have John Snow and your local sports team to cry over later. I know I will.

BBC debate

"The BBC have become so arrogant and self-assured in their political bias that, like FIFA, it could become the black hole that eventually secured their downfall."

This was round one of my debate with the "Save our BBC" campaign team over at the debate forum today. To be fair to the opposition, I completed my piece quicker than I would have liked and it hasn't come out brilliantly, but I think the major points have come across, which is what counts.

The voting will be interesting.

Rubbish, perverted footballers in "racist" shock

I've spent a while in Thailand, to put it mildly. Although I live outside Bangkok  (most foreigners seem to think Thailand has only four locations: Bangkok, Phuket, Pattaya and Chiang Mai) - I'm used to seeing tourists of all kind on a regular basis.Most of them are families or younger people on a gap year. Both types often fall in love with Thailand and return.

Then we have the sex tourist type, the sort that falls into the lure of what - and this is important - is a very small part of Bangkok and the bigger cities where the type of activity that these three Leicester players got involved in is possible. Sex tourists are usually not particularly nice people. Not just because of what they do but because they often start to believe their own delusions and actually manage to convince themselves they are David Beckham, just without the money, looks, charisma or talent.

That type of delusion is what leads them to behave the way these three young Leicester players did and yet what is so amazing is that nobody on either side seems to care. Of course the three females consented to do whatever they did in the hotel room, but I very much doubt they agreed to be abused about their appearance. For Thai women to be mocked, belittled and engage on video in what is - believe or not - technically still illegal in Thailand is apparently fine to overlook in the diverse and inclusive media of the UK. But make one stupid (and wrong) remark about "slit eyes", and your career is over.

That's right, the opening paragraphs in Sky News or the BBC did not read: "Players engage in private sex show"  or "Leicester reserves mock women's appearance on video". No, both openers included the word "racist" ahead of the word "abuse" or"sex tape"  in their description of the offence. Take note then, that what is important in the eyes of the moral guardians at the BBC is not that these women were verbally abused about their looks, etc. but that they were racially abused. Whichever player is found to have said 'slit eyes'- and rest assured, the BBC will find, name and shame the heretic - can see his career flushed away by his own poor eyesight. Thai people do not have 'slit eyes' , they are mostly rounded.

The good news of sorts for Leicester fans is that you need not worry about this damaging your support in Siam.The club shop is at the airport. I have never, ever seen a shirt being purchased there in all my times travelling in and out of Bangkok. I have never, ever seen a Thai person a Leicester shirt, either. Leicester are a club of loyal fans and a good footballing squad, but they have a long, long way to go before Newin, King Power and co. make inroads back home,