The worst day (in sports) ever...

Before I begin this entry, apologies for not posting anything recently, time has been a huge factor and other things have taken priority. But, it has allowed me to think of some more hugely exciting things to write about. I'll start those things one day.

As I have posted before, I've been watching NFL football for most of my life now, and have seen some great, awful and downright ugly moments during my viewing career.
But one moment, one game, one play will always live with me and never be forgotten for it's impact on a (then) young fan. After all, what do you do when your hero is destroyed in front of your very eyes?

In 1990, my team, the San Francisco 49ers were virtually unstoppable, and well on course to contend for their fifth Super Bowl championship, and third in a row. All that stood between them and a berth in the big game, were a team that had grown in rivalry over the last ten years, the New York Giants. No strangers to each other, each time the two teams met was like two trains meeting head on. Physical games, blowout games, tight defensive struggles - these two had developed a rivalry of truly bitter proportions.

The Giants, with their blue collar, hard hitting ethos, and San Francisco, cool, businesslike and almost cocky - and with much justification. Giants/49ers games were rarely pretty, but always eventful.

I'd had a dislike for the Giants since my first full season watching the NFL, and seeing them destroy my team in the 1986/87 playoffs. The Giants went on to win it all that year, and, to be fair, were the best team in the league. Seeing Jim Burt's clean hit on new hero Joe Montana and knocking him senseless though, certainly didn't endear me in any way to New York's men in blue...

Between then and 1990, the two teams had met another 4 times, with San Francisco winning each meeting. The rivalry was there, and you had the feeling that New York were due a win - but with the 49ers juggernaut at full speed, surely it wouldn't be this year, would it?

January 20th, 1991 is a date etched in my sporting memory forever. The game was a classic defensive struggle, nothing between the two teams and as hard hitting and physical as these two had ever been. (One thing of note from the above clip, Jim Burt was now a 49er, and squaring up with a lot of former teammates.) Coming into the fourth quarter, and with the score a taut, edgy 13-9 to San Francisco, the 49ers and Joe Montana were looking to drive downfield and hopefully build a bit of a cushion between them and the Giants.

I mentioned Jim Burt again, because he perhaps contributed to the Giants mentality in the last 15 minutes of play. A low hit on Giants quarterback Jeff Hostetler around the knees clearly hurt Hostetler, although he would play on. However, this didn't go unnoticed by the Giants defense, who from that point wanted revenge. And revenge meant there was only one person they were interesting in getting to...

On a third down play, Montana was forced to the outside whilst looking for a receiver downfield. Giants linebacker Lawrence Taylor tried to get to Montana, who slowed up in his run just long enough to make Taylor miss. However, unseen by Montana, defensive end Leonard Marshall had been battling and scrambling over to the right to get through the line , and, with Montana's back in his sights, launched his 288lb frame at the unaware, 195lb Montana. The results were devastating.

I'd seen Joe Montana hurt before, and he'd had injuries before. But this was different. I had a sickly feeling in the pit of my stomach, because I knew even then, that there was more to this hit than a piece of highlight film. My spirits rose as Joe slowly moved to a kneeling position. He was tough, frail looking maybe, but no-one ever questioned his toughness. Teammates and team physicians ran over. Joe was sitting again now, and concerns were growing - this looked more serious than first thought. It was a huge hit, but Joe would get up. Surely.

The faces on the 49er sideline seemed to say otherwise, they knew this was bad. Now, Joe was lying down again, and the team doctors were talking to him. In between replays of the hit, and pictures of Giants defenders celebrating on the sideline, Joe could be seen gesturing, nodding and breathing very heavily. Another replay. Then, Joe was getting up, supported by the doctors. But  this wasn't Joe Montana getting up. Ashen faced, clammy looking - Joe looked shellshocked. This wasn't Joe Cool. Joe Montana didn't break. But I was looking at Joe Montana, broken quarterback, and I really didn't like it. The game didn't matter anymore, because even if we'd have won, Joe wouldn't have been there. It was irrelevant. I wanted to know how Joe was. The game passed and the Giants won - but I don't remember much of the last few moments anyway. I was honestly distraught.

Back then, it was hard to find news on the NFL - obviously we had no internet, only magazines and newspapers to try and find out anything that was going on. Over the weeks, the news started to filter through. On that hit, Montana suffered a bruised sternum (I don't have much knowledge of sternums), a broken rib and what was termed 'a severe concussion'. Montana also had a broken finger, which he claimed Marshall deliberately snapped back as he was crushing Montana under him.

Joe Montana didn't play again until late 1992. It was the end of a glorious era in San Francisco - after the 1990 game many big names from the team moved on. Eventually, Joe did too. It was a time I had very little interest in the NFL. And it cemented my hatred of the New York Football Giants forever.

An NFL franchise in London? Yer 'avin' a larf, Guv'nor.

Back around 1986, I read an article about the growth of American Football in the United Kingdom. In the article, then San Diego Chargers quarterback Dan Fouts raved about the possibility of an NFL team based in London, citing only logistics as being a potential stumbling block. 

Back around October 2012, I read an article about the growth of American Football in the United Kingdom. In the article, current Patriots owner Robert Kraft raved about the possibility of an NFL team based in London, although with no immediate mention of potential stumbling blocks. 

Similar stories, 26 years apart. In 1986, British fans were at a frenzy; viewing figures on Channel 4 were still standing up well in the 4 years it had been on our screens, the Dallas Cowboys and Chicago Bears had enthralled an enthusiastic (and soggy) British crowd at Wembley Stadium (and that's the proper one, with twin towers...) and the NFL was unleashing a merchandise marketing offensive that was drawing in more and more young fans. Teams were appearing all over the green fields of the British Isles, and whilst the athletic standards were not by any means professional, no one could doubt the enthusiasm that the players played with. 

26 years on, and NFL in the UK is at a similar juncture to the one it was at in 1986. After a lull in following during the mid to late 90's (a lot due to less TV coverage here), the popularity has grown again to such a point that there is talk of basing a pro team in the UK. And for me, that sets alarm bells ringing. In 1986, as an excitable young NFL fan, it was a hugely exciting prospect. But as an older, marginally wiser if no less excitable fan, I can see more reasons to not see this happen than I would like.

Without getting into deep details, my personal view is that it's essentially a bad idea for many reasons. The obvious arguments are the logistics borne from the distance between certain teams, especially those on the West Coast. Whilst the distance from the East Coast to here is relatively similar to the distance between Eastern and Western America, there is still a lot of mileage to cover in a regular season. Some excellent arguments are written here, on the NFL-Ireland site: http://nfl-ireland.com/2012/10/nfl-international-series-london-lacking/. This also perhaps explains the situation better than I can write, and perhaps gives one of the better thought out reasonings of why a London franchise may not be the best thing for global expansion of the NFL. If a new team was to be created, that would mean for league parity another team would come into existence as well - and I feel that would dilute an already tight talent pool still further. When I started watching NFL there were 28 teams. At present there is 32 teams in the league. Would 34 be too many? I think so. 

So while UK fans are split into three probably fairly even camps, the No's, the Yes's and the Couldn't Care Lesses, how about the view from America? Let's take a look at some genuine comments I pulled from various Facebook threads around the time that Kraft paid a huge lip service to the notion. The question here was simply 'Should the NFL base a team in London?' 

Oh dear. American's aren't overly keen on the idea either, it would seem. A point about the second to last comment. I have seen numerous similar statements, that we should be given the pointless and uncompetitive jolly day out that is the Pro Bowl. Evidently, to some US fans, us UK fans would be quite happy with this. We stopped going to preseason games at Wembley a long time ago because they were clearly not competitive or meaningful enough. It's unlikely the British fan would tolerate something like the Pro Bowl.

Moving on, and some more words of wisdom.

The World League/NFL Europe also often crops up as an argument, and there is a point there to a certain degree. But again,  knowledgable fans were still feeling shortchanged in the skill stakes; and nothing was as good as watching real NFL teams that we were more used to seeing in the first place. The NFL should take heed that we are an incredibly fickle sports nation, and view change and development with pessimistic eyes. NFL Europe failed for us because there was little consistency from season to season. Players, teams and venues changed often and made it hard to build a solid fanbase. There was also much less coverage on TV.

I can understand some views that there are more deserving cities in the US alone that would be guaranteed to support and uphold their own NFL team. But what I can't understand is some fans who clearly don't want the NFL to work overseas because it's 'their' sport. You know, the sport that is a mutation of Rugby and Soccer(ball)? It is nothing but an American take on these games, and perhaps this should be remembered by some of them. I also disagree with the common notion that we don't like the NFL in this country anyway. It might still be a lower tier sport over here, but the generalisation that no-one likes it is something that many Americans are wrong about. Although, I have read numerous comments from the other side of the fence, with British people dismissing the NFL as a novelty sport (and the age old cries of padded men in motorcycle helmets of course) - and maybe herein lies another obstacle. There are clearly cultural differences at work here, as much as anything else. Whilst some of us choose to embrace this culture, it does go against the grain of the British stiff upper lip. The average British sports fan doesn't have much interest in the NFL, and the cross Atlantic distrust seems to operate both ways.

So, all in all there is still a stalemate. Whilst realistically, the idea of an International team is probably the wrong route to take, the subject will stay hot for a good while yet. In my eyes, if the NFL wants to up it's profile overseas, support the grassroots game. Grow the fanbase by really getting behind the amateurs who play in this country. Go back to flooding the marketplace with merchandise - we are still not seeing goods anywhere near like the volume we enjoyed 25 years ago. Whilst we get more TV coverage, the efforts still aren't enough to make it mainstream. The time difference means that a lot of TV coverage is purely for the hardcore, and without opening other avenues the sport will never flourish at the rate needed to sustain a team here. The arguments for not having a British franchise still clearly outweigh the positives that could come of it. I can't see it happening anytime soon, and to be honest, I don't think it's in the best interests of the sport to entertain it. The International Series every year is irrelevant, people will always attend, but should not be the yardstick used by the League to gauge favour amongst us. But, quotes such as potential London team names:

The London Limeys 
The South Bank Bear Baiters 
The Sex Pistols 
The Lost Empire 
The Snaggleteeth

The Wembley Willies

The London Tallywackers

The Great Brittan Gingivitis

The London Tea Sippers

And the general impression that Americans have of us:

Isn't England full of a bunch of guys that have a tea parties everyday? They don't seem like the type of guys who like a man's sport (football).   seem to open the culture gap even wider. Oh dear. Again.

Genuine quotes - take them as you will. Whilst not directly abusive, they do hint at some of the impressions we as 'Brits' seem to give out, and for some reason it really annoys me. I'm presuming that these people have never been over here. It's frustrating to read so many replies to articles that are along this same vein. I gave up trying to correct them. Whether they are the majority or the minority I can't say. But there is opposition nonetheless, and I do sympathise. I just wish that their claims were backed up with more reasoning.

Amazing to think that really, we are in a similar position to that all those years ago. If it was no more than a notion back then, what's changed today? The world is no smaller, the game is likely no more popular. The rise in interest is only comparable to the first wave of interest - it is not, in my opinion any stronger than that. Maybe the NFL could think of better ways to further it's following overseas; at the moment expansion is not the answer.

An announcement...

Today, I made a decision regarding my painting and where I'm heading with it. I've been thinking about it for a couple of weeks, and decided to go ahead with it today. I announced it on Facebook, where most of my art appears. Here's what I said, barely an hour ago.

I'm not taking any new commissions for paintings as from now. I will honour all my outstanding works and get them done for everyone, but I am not working to order anymore. I want to enjoy painting again, choosing what I want to do and I am sick to death of people messing me about, stalling, indecisive, and unreasonable expectations.
It was always in my own spare time, and I gave up a lot of that s

pare time this year because people always want things yesterday.

I don't have that time anymore. Any time I use for painting now will be for myself. My paintings will always be for sale, but I'll be picking what the subject will be in future. As from next year, I'll be working my way, and when I choose. It was never about money, because that's not what motivated me. It was about trying to please people, and I can't commit myself enough to doing that any longer. This is not me getting on my high horse, or rating myself highly, as I am fully aware of my skill level, it's just that it's so hard for me to do when it's not something that's full time.

I want to be able to concentrate on the scores of projects that I have put to one side, and so I've chose to abandon the one off commissions to allow me that little bit of time back so I can work on the new stuff. The last few weeks have convinced me it's time to start working for myself, and working to my strengths.

There's only a handful of clients I've had in the past that I'd be happy to work with again, and I'm sure you all know who you are. In fact, what has made me come to this decision has nothing to do with those friends of mine here that I have been dealing with for years. I thank all of you for your support and your past custom, and I know that some of you will be interested in what's coming in the near future.

I'm entering a new phase, direct sales, exhibitions and proper marketing. I really hope that I'll still have your continued and wonderful support. Trust me, it's for the best :-)

Now, this isn't meant to sound pretentious or anything like that, I'd just had a lot of messing about with my time and some of the expectations were nigh on an insult. 

As I have mentioned before, time really is a valuable commodity to me, and time is something that I have to really plan out. Doing 8 or 9 hour shifts of a weekend to get someone's painting of a dog done in time was never going to be fun. Choosing my own subjects means I can use my time better, I have no deadlines, no-one to please and nothing to stop me painting Joe Montana for the fiftieth time. 

It's more exciting for me. As it's never been about money, I've lost nothing. If I sell a couple of paintings along the way, great. If not, I'll finally be able to build up that portfolio. I might have an exhibition. I might produce a run of prints. I've never been able to do that because my production has always been dictated by the commissions I've undertook. I've always had to rush. I don't want to rush anymore. I don't want to shortchange anyone anymore. I want to paint or draw different things that I never had time for. I've got a lot more painting in me yet, and I want the next chapter to be the best. 

I think this might be the best decision I've made regarding my art in a long time. In fact, I know it is.

Random Irritations

Some random irritations I've noticed recently (mostly here on the internet but also in general conversation).

The saying 'going forward', as in, 'This is our plan, going forward'. It's cropping up everywhere, and is very much in as 'business speak'. Going forward, I hope this starts going backward. 

Apparently, some of the most irritating things on Facebook are based on people's photo sharing habits. Instagram photos are the biggest gripe; possibly we have had more than enough lomo styled photos lately. 

Baby photos rank highly as well. Not quite so sure about this one, as baby photos aren't particularly offensive. For me, there are far worse things to see on my newsfeed.

'Posed' photos are next. Mostly, we do pose for a photo - but this relates to such obviously posed photos, usually taken in front of the bathroom mirror or 'ladies room' out and about, and usually involve the taker staring at their phone rather than the mirror or whatever. The 'duckface' pose is a classic example here.

Holiday photos. Again, not too bad, as long as they're interesting and show where the person is. A half human/half lobster on a sunbed in Benidorm is not quite so.

Food photos. 32% of Facebook pet photo hates are pictures of a plate of food according to  the poll. Absolutely, some of the meals that I've seen posted have looked absolutely gross. Even if I see a favourite of mine, it never looks so nice when it's someone elses. How long before we see videoclips of same people actually eating their food? Can't wait for that!

One of my personal hates is 'vaguebooking'. Let me demonstrate with these examples of status updates.

'Sometimes I wonder why I bother'

'Some people need to get a life'

'Yeah, karma.'

Get to the point. Don't beat about the bush, say what you're thinking. Don't think our curiosity is all that piqued, because it isn't. If everyone ignored vague status updates, the world would be a better place.

Away from Facebook now, although there are PLENTY more irritations I could add, and on to these hugely irritating things:

Captchas. Prove you are indeed human by trying to type in sometimes completely unreadable words. Does upper and lowercase apply? What is an xerrestt anyway? In fact what are any of these?

Whilst I can appreciate the usage of a captcha, the practice of them is sometimes infuriating and over the top, especially if your eyes aren't the best.

One last irritation. Completely unimaginative stock photos. They're everywhere, even if you don't notice them at first.

Have a good weekend!

Arcade artwork (Part 1 of an occasional series)

Back to blogging after a few days hiatus; I just haven't had the time to write! In between doing other stuff, fixing stuff and falling out of lofts, my blogging has been on pause...So here is a blog that is not a moan, but a bit of fun today. Moaning service will be resumed tomorrow, I assure you. 

Back in the 70's and 80's, arcade machine manufacturers would attract arcade operators with flyers to advertise and promote the profit making probability of their latest games. No internet back then to sell their wares. Of course,being the 70's and 80's, some of the designs from these ads really hark back to another time. Some are questionable in their quality, some are questionable in their sales plug. All feature big hair.

Here's a taster batch, and I'll post more at probably highly irregular intervals.

Back To The Future pinball, with possibly the worst looky likeys never to ride a DeLorean.

"I haven't had this much fun since root canal surgery last March."

Pepper II - this woman clearly has no idea what she is doing, or playing. In fact I have no idea what she's playing either.

Gold Wings! Top Gun! Rip Off!

Left picture - 'I hate you...' Right picture - 'I love you, Stargate.'

Not only is the chap on the right wearing a leathery C-3P0 based outfit, it's also back to front. No wonder he's facepalming.

This is NOT the Mr.Do I envisaged when I played this as a kid.

Whatz in a name?

Grumpy post today. One of the things the riles me no end these days is this.

Or this.

Or, indeed, this.

Yes, it's the 'replace a perfectly good letter or word with an alternative of equal or higher Scrabble value' grumble. These are just three examples of a craze that started at some point when some marketing genius thought there logo could be made more 'punchy' by completely changing the spelling. Toys R Us. With a backwards R? Are we in Moscow?
It is ARE, surely. Toys Are Us. Even that doesn't make a whole load of sense.

For years, Heinz (z accepted here), have made their famous baked beans. Kids love them, adults love them and have done, as beans, for years. SO WHY OH WHY did they change the name? From an article in the Telegraph back in 2008:

Heinz baked beans become Heinz Beanz

Ever since 1886 they have been sold as baked beans.

By Laura Clout

1:53PM BST 11 Jul 2008

Comment

But now Heinz has decided to remove the word "baked" from the name on the label because the full title was "a bit of a mouthful to pronounce".

The product will remain the same, as will the distinctive turquoise tin, but the beans will now be pictured on the pack and they will be called Heinz Beanz.

The new-look cans, which still include the famous "57 varieties" phrase, go on sale in August.

John Alderman, marketing manager for the firm said: "Heinz Beanz have been powering the nation for over a hundred years and to say thank you to our loyal fans, we have given this iconic product a 21st century makeover".

Heinz, which has previously been criticised for the salt content of its baked beans sauce, claims to have reduced the salt added to the product by 30 per cent over the last five years.

The back of the new tin will highlight the nutritional benefits of the beans, which are high in fibre and protein and low in fat and sugar.

Four years ago Heinz changed the can logo for the first time in 76 years, changing the "s" in Heinz Beans to a "z".

Oh, please. Spare me. Baked Beans was 'a bit of a mouthful to pronounce'? Yes, I know the 'Z' made appearances in the 60's, but, you know, that was the 60's. It might have been excusable then. But to mask this labeling travesty as a '21st Century makeover' is a poor cop-out. If anything was to set off supermarket rage in the tinned foods aisle, this is it. 

And so to my last example, the Bratz Kidz video game. Two offences right from the start. Third strike has to be that this is aimed at kidS of a mostly young age who need to be seeing and reading the correct words. This riles me more than anything. It's unnecessary. It doesn't make the product any more appealing. Unbelievable.

This deliberate misspelling  appears everywhere now, and usually in ways that it just isn't needed or beneficial. We see it on TV shows, in the shops and on the interwebs. I can't truly understand what is gained from this. Is it more friendly? More 'down with the kids'? Not at all. 

Companies, it's not big and it's not clever. But you're not entirely to blame. As I write this, the truth dawned on me. Here's who's fault it all is...

Can you think of any good examples of this alphabet abuse? Let me know!

Can you draw this?..

Most requests I get for paintings, especially from people that might have used me before, are usually very considerate with their picture choice and requirements. and most of the paintings, I really enjoy putting together for these people. Sometimes however, you come across people who don't realise that it can be very hard working from a picture supplied that is around the size of a postage stamp on a computer screen, or beat a hasty retreat when I give a quote for a painting.

The poor reference picture given I can usually get around to a certain extent (unless it's really small or bad quality), but it's very hard sometimes to get people to understand just how much work and cost to myself it involves in giving even a small-ish painting. 

The prices I quote don't usually take much of this into consideration, as I am not a professional, it's not my full time job and it really is just to make a bit of pocket money which more often than not I use to buy more art materials.

One thing that people don't realise sometimes is that I work a normal job, sometimes 6 nights a week. That leaves me, sometimes, barely one full day a week that I can work on people's paintings. Sometimes on that day off, I don't have the time or even the desire to work on a painting - which really means that it might be a gap of two weeks between painting sessions. 

Working nights, by the time I get up in the afternoon, painting is the last thing I have time to do, although sometimes I might put a couple of hours in here and there during the week, I do not have a studio space to dash off to and nor is my equipment permanently set up. 

As I stated at the beginning, most people know this and are perfectly happy to wait as long as it takes, 'just 'til it's done', and to them I am very grateful. 

I try to do the best I can, and I try to use the best materials I can reasonably afford. I like to work with good equipment as in art, cheap materials show in the final work. I have work from even 5 or 6 years ago which shows how your materials make a difference.

Some of the requests are funny too. (Not funny at the time, when you have to say No as politely as possible!) Here's a couple of genuine questions.

"Can you draw this person, but how they would look in 15 years time?"

"Can you draw this person, but change their head to this person?"

"Can you draw this place that I only have an overhead map of, but draw it as if you're on the ground?"

I think I might have even said yes to one of them, but sometimes all I can think is that I'm not a magician, just a normal bloke who happens to do a bit of painting now and then. Ask a professional or established artist the same questions and see what kind of a price you get. 

I love painting as I always say, but sometimes I do wonder if people understand just what a sacrifice I make of my own time and money to get the work done. One day, maybe I'll be able to do it full time, and then I can pick and choose as I want - a lot of it is my own fault as I can't say no, and nor do I like asking for money. Especially when friends ask, I wish  could do them all for nothing. But, sadly, it's impossible. 

Maybe I should start running itemised receipts to show just what goes into each piece.

Anyway, I had a painting to finish this week, and thankfully it didn't take all that long to do as most of the hard work had been done a weekend or so previously. Not my usual subject, portraits (I usually concentrate on sports), but at least the picture supplied was clear and the timescale workable.

See you tomorrow!

A night to remember...

Occasionally in life, an event occurs that stays with you for the rest of your life. Today, I'd like to talk about a personal such occasion that has fascinated and stayed with me since it happened - not a life changing event or such, but something I will never forget nonetheless. To do this, we have to transport ourselves way back in time, all the way to 1978.

At the time, I lived in Margate, a time I remember as being very happy, with long sunny days and what seemed like an idyllic childhood. (Of course, as you get older, you tend to only remember the best parts). But on the night of January 11th, an event occurred that for some reason had such a profound effect on even such a youngster, that I still frequently  recall it.

A huge storm battered the South East of Kent that night, and caused widespread damage over a large area. I have memories of the carpets in our house lifting up, windows rattling in an alarming way and lashing rains. We lived in Hatfeild Road, Westbrook and were literally just a few yards from the seafront. The damage to the seafront was all too evident the next day, as Margate's main beach was literally buried under the wreckage of it's longstanding jetty. Seeing the beach the next day was a sight I have never forgotten.

Margate Jetty as it was, in it's heyday

Here's a brief history of the jetty, from the National Piers Society. 

According to Walvin's 'Beside the Seaside', claims for a landing jetty at Margate date back to 1800. In 1824, the Margate Pier Harbour Co. erected an 1100 foot wooden jetty called the 'Jarvis Landing Stage'. However, this was only accessible at low tides and needed regular repairs. On 4th November 1851, it was breached in two places by a storm. The Company commissioned a new 'jetty' (so called to distinguish it from Margate Pier Harbour wall) and work began in 1853 to the design of Eugenius Birch (his first pier).

It opened in 1855 (the first iron pier) but was not completed until 1857. In 1875/8, it was extended and a new octagonal pier-head and pavilion were added. On 24th November 1877, a drifting vessel caused £4,000 damage. Further additions were made in 1893 and 1900.In World War II, the jetty was used for troop and supply movements. Steamer services resumed after the War, ending in 1966.

The jetty closed in 1976 on safety grounds, and was virtually destroyed by a storm on 11th January 1978 that isolated the lifeboat station. 

Unfortunately, I don't think I ever ventured on to the jetty myself, as it was pretty much closed down from the time I moved to Margate. But this didn't prevent a real feeling of sadness as I saw it's shattered shell the next day. The pier had gone from the above, to this melancholy sight in a matter of hours. The lifeboat, still inside the boathouse, was stranded for two days before it was safe enough to be recovered.

Photograph courtesy of Paul Mellor

Margate's main sands were covered in wreckage, with people moving the large wooden beams and starting small fires all across the beach.

Photograph courtesy of Tony Withers

Photograph courtesy of Tony Withers

The above photographs are exactly how I remember the next day, and for a lot of people I think was probably quite a shock to wake up to. But the saddest part was what was left of the pier. The iconic lifeboat house, broken and twisted. The octagonal pavillion and boarding area sadly looking back, dismembered from it's well trodden walkways. Victorian architecture sprawled across the sand. The pier was 153 years old at the time, and it's life was ended overnight. 

The East Kent times issued a souvenir booklet showing photographs of some of the damage around Thanet. This is the cover, scanned in from my own copy.

 The pier wasn't the only victim to the vicious storm of course, much damage was caused all around the coastline, but to many the sight of the demolished pier was perhaps the most shocking. Of course, now there was the problem of a pier who's remains, which had been sitting on the sea bed for over 150 years, needed to be removed.
The actual buildings on the jetty extension and the upper part of the lifeboat house were burned (I think) quite shortly afterwards, but the structure and foundations still remained.
In the early 80's (again, I think!), demolition of the lifeboat launch slipway was attempted. 
Despite several attempts, the wreckage proved very difficult to budge. 

One of the attempts to demolish what was left of the lifeboat house with explosives. Photograph courtesy of Paul Mellor

The continued failed attempts to destroy the remains of the jetty made new as far afield as the United States. Here is an article from the Milwaukee Journal, March 1979:

Eventually, the lifeboat slipway was removed, but the main part of the wreck stayed stubbornly wedged for years afterwards, an unofficial landmark and a reminder of what once stood. It survived until 1998, when it was finally taken down for good. 

To most, I guess, it was nothing more than a decrepit old jetty and a blot on the seascape. But for me personally, it was a constant reminder all through my youth of one noisy, windy night in January 1978.

Many thanks to Tony Withers and Paul Mellor for the use of their fine photographs; I could have used so many more and it was hard to choose my favourites. Take a look at their photos on their Flickr pages:
Tony's page is here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/claritoneve/
Paul's page is here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/1yearoffwork/

Besides more photos from the storm aftermath, there's lots of other great pictures on their pages.

Tomorrow, I'll be talking moaning about the joys of being an artist.

26 seasons and counting...

Roughly twenty six years ago, (that would have made me thirteen), I stumbled across a new sport being broadcast on my little 15" Radio Rentals TV one Sunday afternoon. That sport was American Football, and although only half watching at first, my curiosity was piqued to such a point that by the end of the broadcast I knew I'd found something that interested me and enthralled me, even if I didn't have a clue what was going on.

From the highly edited highlight show that November night on Channel 4 onwards, I was totally hooked, and I still am today. 

Back then, coverage was minimal, but at least I could get a weekly fix and discover the sights and sounds of this complex yet fascinating game. 

I was drawn in by the colours, the speed and the physicality. 

The opening credits from Channel 4 in 1986

Almost immediately I began to learn all I could about NFL football, buying magazines, books and anything I could get my hands on so I could understand it better. As I learnt more, and saw more teams, I found myself completely immersed. 

Remember this kitchen appliance?

My favourite player from 1986, Joe Montana 

Aside from a couple of seasons where TV coverage was almost non existent, I have been just as enthusiastic every year since. I have ignored ribbing by friends and workmates about the length of time a game takes/players wearing excessive padding (to be fair, some of those 80's pads were HUGE (link), - and that was just the presenters) and all manner of little digs. But my love has been undiminished, and from September to February, my weekly ritual of game watching continues. Interesting to think though, how things were in 1986.

The average house price was £44,000

A gallon of petrol was £1.89 (or around 38p a litre)

A first class stamp was 18 pence

A Mars bar was 20p

A pint of milk was 25p

A... (Insert sound of needle sliding across a vinyl record here), OK, I'll stop.

'Gumball helmets' were all the rage at school!

Although these prices have been fairly consistent with inflation, to see them seems almost unthinkable. But I digress. As I sit here watching another week's NFL games, with the ability to watch them both on my television, my computer and my phone - all at the same time, I realise how far things move in such a relatively short space of time. 

From  one hour tape delayed highlight shows, to trying to tune my radio to the Armed Forces Radio in bed at 1am for a Monday night game, I've enjoyed every minute. And I love American Football as much as I did all of those 26 seasons ago...

Tomorrow, I'm going even further back in time, and the story of a rather stormy night...

A lazy Saturday...

Been running behind tonight as I had a stack of pictures that I had to scan in and some photos to edit for a future item, so as promised yesterday, this will be a shorter post. With no grumbling about anything.

We went for a walk this afternoon, and I snapped a couple of pictures; Autumn's definitely here.

All in all, a reasonably relaxing day today topped off by me sitting here listening to Tangerine Dream's Rubycon album while I write and catch up with some e-mails.

My daughter's just walked in with the Quality Street tin, so I'm off to mug her.

Until tomorrow, when I'm sure I'll have a grumble lined up...

The joys of working nights.

Having been working nights for a long time now, you would have thought that the body clock would be ticking along quite happily now, adjusted to the odd hours and even odder eating habits...or not.

Today featured interruptions, dog barking, getting up, dog crying, going back to bed, more dog barking and general thoughts of abandoning all attempts to sleep and just staying up. Some days are like that. Life carries on as normal because your's isn't. 

Here's my typical day's timeline, starting from when I leave for work at night.

9:40pm - leave for work to start at 10pm. The shift is 8 hours apart from the Sunday shift which starts at 1am Monday morning.

6:00am - finish work and go home (back by about 6:15.)

7:15am approx - into bed, and sleep.

2:30pm approx - get up.

Now, bear this in mind - I get up around half two, everyone's home by about 4pm from school etc and dinner's on. So my breakfast is dinner. In fact, in the week,I don't eat anything like a conventional breakfast. So I may get up and shortly afterwards be eating curry. Not normal at all.

From the time I get up, which is a whole 7 hours before I even leave for work, I have to do whatever most people do after a day at work, so my relaxing time comes before a full day's (night's) work. 

It's been suggested before now that I reverse this process, stay up in the morning, have dinner and treat the early morning as normal people treat their evenings. Then, go to bed late afternoon and get up fresh as a daisy and skip in to work after having a nice bowl of Coco-Pops.

Unfortunately, life is not like that - in my choice to work the unsociable hours (admittedly for the financial perks of those hours, and no early starts.), I can't disrupt everybody else's life. No-one in the house is going to want to get up to me cooking myself a curry, and nor are they going to be expected to tiptoe around the house for my benefit as I spend all afternoon and evening in bed. I'd never want that. 

The other problem comes at a weekend - you need to sleep Friday day after working all of Thursday night, but what happens when Friday night rolls around and you should go to bed to have a relatively normal Saturday and rest of the weekend? Often you lie there wide awake on the Friday night, leaving you tired all through Saturday. It's a vicious circle at times.

The night shift worker's drinking regime. And yes, that is my cup.

                    
On the plus side, when I do sleep in the day without incident, the quality of sleep is usually very good, and I do feel quite refreshed when I get up. It just scientifically isn't enough. Over the course of a week, a night shift worker can fall around 17 hours behind the average day worker in sleep gained.

The strange thing is, my body, after all this time, still shouts at me when I'm eating cheese rolls at two in the morning. It screams at me, 'This is not normal!', even now.

After a little research, all of this boils down to what's known as the circadian clock. Whilst there is no easy way to adapt yourself completely to night work, you obviously try to make the best of it. I've seen many people come and go on night shifts simply because they can't adjust their bodies to deal with such a switch in lifestyle. 

I wouldn't want to change the shift I work because I enjoy it as a whole, and have always been a little nocturnal, but it's also good to be aware of the issues that it brings with it.

I seem to have written more than I originally planned, so tomorrow I'll post something shorter, I promise.