Monday, 28 July 2014


Never having been one to shy away from controversy, I
confront lies head on, not ignore them in the hope they'll go away.
Not for me the fear that someone might read them and believe them
to be true.  That's the insidious nature of lies - the liar doesn't have to
prove them, simply plant them and allow them to take root.   And let's
be honest - if it's lies about someone we're not too keen on, we're some-
times far too ready to think there might be some truth behind them.  And
let's face it, with my frank and forthright opinions on the state of British
comics and the deterioration in the quality of some of the content, I'm
hardly Mr. Popular.  There are people out there who are only too
willing (and eager) to believe the worst about me.  After all, I've
committed the heinous crime of not being overly-impressed
by what they do.

Recently, artist DAVID LEACH decided to thrust himself to
the forefront and comment on my post about the falsehoods being
perpetuated about me on the blog (and elsewhere) of one of his pals
and fellow cartoonists in the comics industry (such as it is these days).
You'll have heard the old saying about not suffering fools gladly - well, I
don't suffer them at all, and instead of pandering to his over-inflated ego
(which dwarfs by far any degree of talent he may have), I gave him short
shrift.  In a petulant, huffy fit, he retaliated by indulging in a catalogue of
outrageous lies, which he knows aren't true, but are designed purely
to insult me and damage my reputation as a former professional
lettering artist (and loveable human being).

You can read them in the comments section of this post.
That a professional comics contributor should resort to such fla-
grant fabrications in an attempt to damage the credibility and reputa-
tion of someone like myself - who is renowned for being meek and mild,
humble and modest, self-effacing and introverted  (okay, I admit I might be
stretching credulity with that part) - perfectly illustrates the kind of devious
manipulation in which certain egocentric people are prepared to indulge in
order to deride those whom they perceive to be their enemies.  I find it
ironic that, under the pretence of condemning abusive and insulting
comments on other people's blogs, he indulges in the exact same
sort of behaviour himself.  And what's worse, lies through
his fat @rse while doing so.

After all, if there were any truth to his claims, it would be far
easier not to publish them and thereby avoid the ensuing hassle.  I,
however, prefer to demonstrate just what these people are like - warts
and all.  And isn't it strange how the few individuals who attempt to shout
me down by spreading falsehoods and distortions are all friends with one
another?  I somehow very much doubt that it's merely a coincidence.
What do you call those who gang up to harass someone else?
Ah, that's right - bullies.

They should've picked on someone who's easily intimidated. 

Sunday, 27 July 2014


Good news, lads.  I never really watched the programme,
but if I understand things correctly, there's nine of her.  Put
your names in a hat and I'll pick eight of you from amongst
them.  (All bribes gratefully considered.)

Saturday, 26 July 2014



Now here's a blast from the past - the opening titles of
FOLLYFOOT, a popular TV series from the '70s.  Nice
to see that DESMOND LLEWELYN got a bit of regular
work between the JAMES BOND movies.


How do you measure success?  Is it by comparing your
achievements to the accomplishments of others, or against the
fulfilment of your own ambitions?  And when it comes to judging
the success of others, it's probably pretty pointless using your own
aspirations as the standard by which to do so, because they simply
may not have been aiming at the same target - nor shooting the
same kind of arrows in order to hit whatever target
they were aiming for.

I once freelanced for IPC's top-selling boys title, 2000 A.D.
I had my name in print, people requesting my autograph, and -
best of all - money!  Was I success?  Well, in one way, yes - but in
another way, not really.  I'd never had any particular ambition to
work for 2000 A.D. per se, only to work in comics in some way.
The fact that I started my 15 year career on the most popular
adventure comic in the country was merely a bonus.

Was I any more of a 'success' than the lad whose first job
was as a shelf-stacker in Sainsbury's and who then worked his
way up to the position of store manager?  Well, no, not really. Is
he any more of a success than me?  How do you measure it?  It may
never have been his ambition to work in a supermarket, but it was
mine to work in comics - and I achieved that.  (Interestingly, back
in 1988, MARVEL U.K. contacted me to offer me work - I
never had to approach them.  That's being a failure?)

If you're happy (or content) with your achievements in
life, then, in a very real sense, you're a success.  Whether you're
a biscuit salesman or banker, if you've attained the goals you set
for yourself then that's an accomplishment.  (Unless your ambition
was to be a failure - now there's an interesting paradox.)  Remember,
you can't be said to have failed at something you've never tried (after
all, you've got to be in a race to win or lose it), so don't ever waste
a second paying heed to those smug, self-satisfied types who
regard their own personal career situation as some
kind of 'international standard'.

Deep down inside, they're extremely insecure people who
need to feel that they've done better in life than anyone else
  in order to feel good about themselves.  Sad but true. 

Friday, 25 July 2014


Yes, I know, I know - LYNDA's already made an
appearance on BABE OF THE DAY, but how could
I refuse when she asked to be on again?  Could you say
no to Lynda?  (Behave - you know what I mean.)


           Me                                                     The other guy

Once again, I unfortunately find myself placed in the position of
having to address a certain controversial matter that I imagine most
of you won't have much interest in - might even be bored by, in fact.
I've dealt with the subject before, but the individual concerned seems
determined to pick at the scab by constantly adding, subtracting and
altering the details of his provocative and misleading remarks in an
malicious attempt to malign my name and impugn my good charac-
ter.  Such an attack cannot go unanswered, but if you prefer to
skip such posts, I completely understand.


I guess his hits must be down. Why else would he be trying to stir
things up again by posting such a blatant lie on his Blog?  What am I
talking about?  You remember me telling you about a comics forum I'd
joined a good while back and then resigned from on account of a hand-
ful of people who resented my membership doing their best to
create controversy around me? 

I grew weary of certain members being allowed to say anything
they liked either to or about me without the moderators calling them
to account, so I resigned from the forum.  My resignation, as far as I'm
aware, is still there for everyone to see.  After I'd resigned, one particular
moderator somewhat impotently banned me for - are you ready for this? -
leaving the forum.  Yup, that was my 'crime' - I'd left the forum.  The
site owner subsequently invited me to rejoin, but I declined because I
couldn't be bothered having to deal with the handful of @rseholes
who clearly regarded the site as their own personal playground
and didn't want to share it with me.  No big loss.

Got that?  So what do you call someone who completely ignores
the facts of the case (even 'though he's aware of them) and continues
to claim that I was banned from this forum because of my 'behaviour'? 
I'll tell you - a big fat feckin' liar, that's what!  This is a guy who has taken
frequent pops at me in the comments section of his Blog (without explicitly
naming me, but making it obvious to whom he was referring), prompting
me to respond on my Blog in humorous, mocking fashion of his childish,
obsessional behaviour.   When these responses to his provocation had
eventually served their purpose, in the fullness of time I removed some
of them because they were no longer topical.  Once, in a fit of one-
sided generosity, I removed a few of them to give the guy a
break and wipe the slate clean. 

But guess what? He's now claiming that I removed them in
order to 'play down' my 'aggression', thereby suggesting that he has
some kind of 'special insight' into my motives.  Let me tell you about
aggression:  This is the guy who once issued a thinly-veiled 'come and
have a go if you think you're hard enough' challenge to me on some-
one else's blog, and has been accused of being a bit of a bully on the very
forum he claims I was banned from.  (And from which, according to the
site owner, was himself once temporarily banned.)  He has been banned
from at least two Blogs that I know of, the owner of one of them being
informed that a warning would be issued to this person by his Internet
Service Provider for his behaviour.  (Whether it was or not I have
no way of knowing, but I hardly expect him to admit to it.
After all, he is a liar, remember.)

And now, as far as I can see, he's at it again in his best sly,
sleekit, sh*t-stirring fashion.  I've not long been alerted to the fact
that he's currently claiming to be the victim of 'trolling'.  (That usually
means that someone has ventured to offer an opinion contrary to his own.)
 I've previously mentioned here that I find such designations childish and
immature, and the first resort of the emotionally insecure who can't handle
any kind of dissent to their own rigidly-held opinions.  Well, guess what?
In two seemingly casual, throwaway sentences - "If you don't like the
phrase, stop doing it.  It's cowardly and it's childish and it's
not welcome here" - he appears to be pointing the finger in my
direction - without actually naming anyone of course, and thus
allowing him to deny having anyone in particular in mind.

He's done this before on quite a few occasions - it seems
to be a pattern of his.  He makes remarks that readily apply to a
specific circumstance or person, but does so in such a way that allows
him to deny it when challenged.  Then he levels accusations of paranoia
at whoever's calling him to account, hiding behind the fact that no names
were mentioned, even 'though it's fairly obvious just who or what his
comments or accusations were levelled at.  He's fooling no one of
course, apart from himself and a few sycophants, but it allows
him to evade accountability for his outrageous statements.

What he perhaps doesn't realise is that I restored most of my
previous posts about him quite some time back (in response to his
continued attacks on me on various Blogs, forums and Twitter sites),
long before he'd mentioned I'd deleted them.  Any that I didn't restore
was simply down to me not keeping them on account of them being no
longer topical, not because I was trying to conceal them for any reason.
In his typically obsessed way, he claims to have archived these posts,
so, if he'd be kind enough to supply me with copies of any he can't
find on my Blog, I'd be more than happy to re-post them.

To be completely honest with you, I find it utterly disgraceful
that a 'full-time professional comics contributor' should indulge in
such outrageously provocative and disingenuous behaviour, but he
obviously has problems of some kind.  In the meantime, kindly re-
member - I've given you nothing but cold, hard facts - whereas
he continues to deal in lies, distortions and insinuations.

Hardly the behaviour of someone you can trust, I'd say.


UPDATE:  In light of ridiculous claims on the man's blog,
note that all I've done is report the fact that he's revised the lies
about me on his site, and pointed out that he seems to be alluding
to me in his post about abusive emails - yet this he constitutes as
an attack on him.  He seems to miss the point that if he didn't
post lies about me and attribute motives to me of his own
invention, there'd be no need for me to comment on it.

Thursday, 24 July 2014


plus quite a few dreams of mine.  I don't know about the TV
programmes, but in my 'productions', she won an award -
and now she's made BABE OF THE DAY!  Is
there no end to her stunning talents?


Here's k.d. lang with a classic track that she more
than does full justice to.  So sit back and relax and let
her dulcet tones envelop your lug'oles.


REG PARLETT was one of the greats!  Anyone who knows any-
thing about the history of British comics art would never even consider
disputing that simple, incontrovertible fact for a second.  Anything and
everything he drew was imbued with a spontaneity and deftness of line
that was effective, pleasing on the eye, funny, and seemingly (and no
doubt deceptively) easily accomplished.

What we have here is an episode of RENT-A-GHOST LTD.,
from the March 17th 1973 issue of BUSTER.  Each panel has been
scanned from the original art, and - thanks to IRMANTAS from the
wonderful KAZOOP blog - I can show the published page to allow
you to do a direct comparison, enabling you  to appreciate Reg
Parlett's artwork at its finest!

And, to my eyes, that's mighty fine indeed!

Wednesday, 23 July 2014


I first became aware of LYNDSAY MARSHALL in an
excellent programme called GARROW'S LAW a few years
back.  The above pic is a still from another programme she
was in, although I haven't actually seen it.  Still, what does
that matter?  She's still a babe!


By now, if you've seen the other three posts in this run and are
really serious about collecting classic comicbooks, you'll want to add
these issues to your collection.  (Assuming that you don't already have
them, naturally.)  Don't know where to start?  Panic ye not, O DC disciple.
available in an Omnibus Edition which should be available at your local
comicbook store.  (Why not give FORBIDDEN PLANET a try?) 
You might even be able to pick up the previous two volumes of
the DC ARCHIVES books which featured the tales.

Interestingly, the Challs mag was still running when Jack Kirby
returned to DC in 1970, but was cancelled shortly afterwards.  A hand-
ful of reprint issues were subsequently published in the early '70s, and the
series was later revived for a short time, but not until after JK had departed
DC. There seems to be debate over who actually created and wrote the strip;
some sources credit Jack Kirby alone, others attribute it to Jack and DAVE
WOOD.  There always seems to be controversy around 'The King'.  JOE
SIMON claimed to have created CAPTAIN AMERICA on his own,
Jack claimed to have been solely responsible for every good thing at
MARVEL, and even his best-known '50s DC work has a cloud
of uncertainty over who did what.  Pattern or coincidence?

 Meanwhile, it's poor ol' STAN LEE who carries the can for
being a 'glory-hog'.  Hardly seems fair to me, I gotta say!


Captain's log - should've flushed it away, the dirty
buggah!  But enough of such levity!  We gather here today
to admire the womanly charms of NICHELLE NICHOLS.
Just think - WILLIAM SHATNER got to snog her - and
was paid for it, the jammy rascal.   I'd have volunteered to
do it for nowt - even 'though I was only ten at the time.

Tuesday, 22 July 2014


Welcome back!  Couldn't keep away, could you?  And who can
possibly blame you when there's some classic comicbook art by both
FANTASTIC FOUR was a terrific MARVEL U.K. weekly periodical
which filled us in on the then-relatively recent adventures of the Fab
Four (no, Melvin, not THE BEATLES) , plus super classic stories
from the early '60s.  Who could ask for more for a mere 10 pence?

I suppose it's a shame that all these titanic tales weren't in colour,
but British readers were used to the majority of their regular weeklies
being mainly in black and white.  On the plus side (as I noted last time),
Marvel had finally managed to master the use of ZIPATONE (that's the
U.S. equivalent of LETRASET) so that the grey tones didn't obscure
the detail on the art, as had once been the case with previous titles.

Anyway, that's enough waffle from me.  I now unleash upon you
highlights from another three issues of  The Complete Fantastic Four.
More CFF still to come, frantic ones - be sure not to miss them!


MY PARTNER THE GHOST was the American title for
broadcast in the States in the '70s.  The theme tune by EDWIN
ASTLEY is a belter, but so also is the DAVID ARNOLD theme
(sung by NINA PERSSON) from the 2000-'01 BBC remake.
Here's the latter in all its ghostly glory to send a shiver of
pleasure down your spine.


Now we're into the good stuff.  WALLY WOOD takes JACK
KIRBY's superb storytelling prowess to even greater levels with his
sublime delineation of DC COMICS' CHALLENGERS OF THE
UNKNOWN.  "Greater than the sum of its parts" is a bit of a cliche,
but never was it more true than when Kirby and Wood were com-
bined on the art duties of this iconic comicbook from the '50s.

ROYER were (and I know we'll get some stick over the inclusion of
VC's name there), no one ever enhanced Kirby's art better than Wally
Wood  did - bar none.  (ALFREDO ALCALA did a great job inking
JK's pencils on DESTROYER DUCK, and had Jack been at the top
of his game at the time, the results would've been comparable to his
Wood-inked  Challs pages.  They almost were - but not quite.)

Anyway, that's my opinion on the matter.  Feel perfectly free
to disagree in the comments section - or even just say what your
favourite Challengers cover is.  Go on - be the first!