“The most dangerous thing about Torchwood is Torchwood”

Well it’s two episodes in and what do I think?

I’ve enjoyed Torchwood inside, but am not sure whether this is me being a fan of Doctor Who, Russell T Davies or this sort of thing, or whether it is genuinely any good. What does strike me is how silly many of the criticisms are.

Torchwood is a different programme to Doctor Who. It is unashamedly niche, post watershed sci-fi. Where pre-watershed the swearwords would be edited out and replaced with “Flippin Hell” and the like, it doesn’t happen with torchwood. Many have said the swearing was shoe horned in, but I would say I barely noticed it.

There has been a fuss from parents who have “suddenly” learned (despite it being made clear way back that this would be niche and post watershed), that it’s unsuitable for their children, and grumbling that they’re having to tell their who mad offspring that they’re not allowed to watch it. These are the sort of parents who want others to say “no” so they don’t have to.
The BBC aren't telling parents what to do either, they're clearly letting them know what it is and letting them decide, however this didn't stop some loon at the Express going on about how the BBC was encouraging parents to let kids watch sex and violence. [1]
Torchwood in this respect is the show for the people who’ve grown up with Who and then complain the new programmes aim too much at the kiddies. It’s not more Doctor Who to fill the gap between seasons.

Likewise there has been a great fuss over the fact that Torchwood employees are not angelic cartoon heroes, but actually a bit dodgy. Torchwood blatantly don’t care about the world beyond their narrow clean up and cannibalise role, they’re not even as goody too shoed as The Doctor. Sato is quite uncaring and amoral, valuing the challenge above anything, and Owen, according to some interpretations, nearly commits date rape in episode 1 and is shown to have a violent streak in episode 3. Ianto seems to be a human sonic screwdriver, there to deliver witty lines, but also to explain why they’re not spending two thirds of every episode doing boring stuff. Jack is a driven man, the Doctor and Rose’s good influence is wearing thin, and the obvious façade is cracking. He doesn’t care that his team are dishonest, so long as they obey the ground rules and the job gets done.

So yes they’re dodgy characters, but thing is so what, this is post watershed, they don’t have to be role models for the kids. The rules don't apply and if they did there is no rule that says the central characters of Sci Fi must be whiter than white. It is signposted that this is a dangerous crowd Gwen is getting involved with, so these actions are not condoning or endorsing any form of immoral behaviour. The question is: Is she going to be their moral compass or become as corrupt as they are?

The Jury is out over Torchwood in my house, however if I do criticise it, it will be over what it is, not how it fails to be what it’s not supposed to be.

[1] Thanks to nutterwatch

How slow can you be?

Apologies to people who don't listen to Radio4.

Listened to Feedback on Friday lunch, and had to giggle.

Where do they get these people?

Lots of people were up in arms about the sensational storylines in the Archers, particularly the recent Sam and Ruth business. I don't know about the validity of those just complaining about the sensational aspects, but many were complaining about personality transplants, and things having happened virtually overnight with no build up. What have these people been listening to? One listener went on to complain that these things should be prepared for months in advance. Well unlike my father I'm no regular listener, but they were.

One thing the Archers doesn't do is fast paced story lines. Jack Woolly was slowly going senile for years. The Sam and Ruth storyline has been bubbling along in the background that even I as someone who listens when I happen to be in the car at the time have picked up on it.

Things don't suddenly happen in the Archers. Which makes me wonder how unperceptive you have to be to be surprised by plot twists like this one.

It's all due to come to a head the day before my birthday, the Archers' 1500000th episode. I may even tune in.

Off message

There's one niggling little detail of the punitive parking charges story I have a problem with. Green taxes- love them. You want big useless things- you pay for the privilege, no problem with that. There are ways of doing it though. Tiered road fund license- good idea so long as its not too disproportionate. Fuel duty, good idea also, can we get other countries not to set theirs so irresponsibly low though.

It's right that people are penalized for driving needlessly large vehicles. My problem is the notion that the council are charging for residents to use something that's already theirs. Bear with me I'll explain. The council do not (usually) own the street outside your house. They are just managing it for you, and the management charge is part of your council tax. It's perfectly fair that the additional administrative cost of a scheme to protect parking places for residents is passed on. But does it really cost more than a tenner to log a registration in a computer and issue a paper disk?

Borrowing from the best

Got to hand it to David Cameron, he knows a good idea when he sees one.

Two recent examples are him following not so hot on the heels of the Lib Dem webcasts with Webcameron. Essentially Webcameron is the ideas we pioneerd only with added spin and fakery.

The other being taking on our green tax agenda, only perhaps a bit more luke warmly. Still luke warm, saving energy, good for the planet y'know.

I'm the sort of person who supports the lib dems because I think they want to run things the way they should be run. My main desire is to see the world becoming as good a place as possible, so it's pleasing when others begin to "get it". OK I have nagging doubts that the substance of Cameron matches the style, but praise where praise is due.

Which shows that I too can nick a good idea...

Don't tell Mark and Lance

This evening I put on some washing. Not a white wash, not a dark wash. But a beige wash. This is mostly down to washing all my scout uniform shirts at once.

Rumours that I am looking for property on Mars are unfounded.

Look Down, Look Down!

In a forum one member breifly went by the name of Javert, the Jean Valjean's nemesis in Les Miserables. I've looked round and been really shocked at the lack of subtelty of understanding out there. Javert doggedly persues what he sees a s a fugitive from justice.

In doing this Javert is blinkered and unmerciful, but he is not, as some have described, a bad person. He is an honourable and good man and simply trying to do the right thing with a sense of honour and duty. It just so happens that he is misguided and mistaken about what the right thing is. There is no malice or sadism about the way he performs this. I don't see how this is a difficult concept.

Javert is a slave to the law. Valjean's mercy shows to him how mistaken he was, and how unmerciful his law is, and after a dilemma over being in debt to a criminal, and having spend 20 years persuing a lie, ends it all.

No connection

Since I started using the name, another Biscit arrived on the internet. They are an up and coming ISP. Having been working away in the background for a few years they have recently come to prominence as a big player, having completed aquisitions of rival companies including V21.

If you're looking for inside info on Biscit the ISP and consultancy, you're out of luck. You won't find it here. I know nothing you can't read in the digital press.

An announcement

The parents have been informed so now you can be.

Sarah and I got engaged last Saturday. We're very happy, but have a lot of planning to do.

A late laugh

Looking for something else entirely I ended up on YouTube, and remembered a blog entry by Will a couple of weeks back on his spoof of David Cameron's webcasts. So in I typed "webcameron". I was actually quite impressed, they are quite funny. Especially number 5, I probably missed most of the jokes in that because of the initial sight gag

OK probably less funny if you haven't heard of David Cameron's jumping on the politicians doing webcasts bandwagon started by the Lib Dems.

Also there's a very good message from Stephen Tall about the whole thing on his blog. More serious, but still very good.

However it's plain some less talented Internet users take a funny idea too far. Rob sums this latest development up in a nutshell.

Very Happy and Excited!

Oh such a lovely weekend.