TV21 (NEW SERIES) #105 (LAST ISSUE)...

Copyright relevant owner

Well, I suppose I'd better do a post on comics before you forget what this site's supposed to be about and decide to bail out on me.  I couldn't blame you if you did, 'cos some of my recent posts make for tedious reading, but it's cathartic for me and my chief way of addressing certain injustices perpetrated against me.

Anyway, TV21 #105 was the final issue of the 'New Series' direction of what had once been known as TV Century 21, which first appeared on newsagents' counters in January 1965 (cover-dated 2065).  It had switched from its original title to simply TV21 with #155 in December (cover-dated January) 1968, and by the time of New Series #105 on September 1971, contained no Gerry Anderson-based strips, having been gradually phased out over the preceding months.

What's easily forgotten is that TV21 fearured a number of Marvel strips, Spider-Man and Silver Surfer among them.  They didn't survive into the combined issue of Valiant & TV21 the following week and were hastily brought to unsatisfactory conclusions with this issue.  Around a year and two weeks later, Marvel strips were resurrected in The Mighty World Of Marvel #1, and it's amzing just how many people now forget Marvel characters had still been appearing in a UK comic only 12 and-a-half months previously.

So, here are a few pages to remind you of Marvel's last stand in a UK comic by a British publisher, before 'official' Marvel took up the reins.  Alan Class, of course, was still publishing his UK reprints, but they were monthly as opposed to weekly, and Class didn't resize and rearrange the strips in the way Odhams and IPC did.

Comments most welcome, Crivs.  And don't forget to click on images to enlarge, then click again for optimum size.  You don't wanna strain your eyes, do ya?!

Note the Surfer strip doesn't distinguish between the motivations of The Inhumans and Maximus

and his followers, giving the misleading impression that both groups are as bad as one another 

The ending of this strips uses a random selection of panels to draw things to a close.  Note they've

neglected to remove Spidey's 'Spider Sense' wiggly lines, even though he's in no danger

The first combined issue

SOCIAL WORKER ZONE? Huh! More Like The TWILIGHT ZONE - (Or The PHANTOM ZONE)...

Okay, seeing as how Ash Walmsley introduced him into the discussion in his letter to me, now let's talk about social worker Martin Gourlay.  When I first met him, he didn't strike me as willing to be particularly helpful, though, eventually, he appeared to come round to my way of thinking on a couple of issues and managed to get the Home to do likewise.  Namely, ensuring my mother's door was shut at all times so that she wasn't subject to the gaze of visitors or other residents when she might not have been fully dressed, or lying in her bed.  I wanted my mother's privacy and dignity to be preserved, not have her open to public scrutiny or intrusion when she wasn't very presentable (and even when she was).

The other thing was to get the Home to prepare my mother for bed by 10 p.m. as I had originally stipulated when she first went into the place.  Staff were in the habit of letting her sit up until whenever time she wanted to, because some numpty of an alleged 'senior carer' decided that as my mother sometimes went to bed early of her own accord, she was then therefore perfectly capable of going to bed at 10 p.m.  This led to my mother sitting up extremely late, resulting in her being too tired to get up at the allotted time in the morning.  I'd visit in the evening, only to find her still in bed and unresponsive because she was half-asleep.  (Sometimes she was in a deep sleep, and I'd sit with her for a while and then come home.)

It occurs to me now that perhaps he only assisted me in this in order to keep me happy so I had less to complain about, which in turn kept the Care Home happy.  However, staff continued to leave my mother's door wide open (or not close it when they saw it was open as they'd been instructed to do).  I'll give you more details on that at another time.  Like I said in a previous post, I had been trying to get my mother moved elsewhere, but Mr. Gourlay always hit me with the same spiel.  "I'd advise against that as it wouldn't be in her best interests" he'd say, though as the relative with POA and a certificate of incapacity, that should have been my decision.

Given recent comments of his, it appears he effectively sabotaged my efforts to have my mother moved by informing Homes I applied to I was always moaning and complaining, inevitably resulting in them not wanting her.  And how absurd is it for someone to visit my mother to evaluate her, then decide she seemed happy enough where she was?  (Perhaps influenced by Mr. Gourlay's input?)  As I said before, my mother would've been happy anywhere as she didn't know where she was to begin with.  (She sometimes thinks I live there and asks me what room I'm in.)  Moving her to another Care Home would've had no more (if any) adverse effect on her than moving her to another part of the building, which has already been done.  As she is deemed unfit to make decisions for herself (aside from minor things like what colour of cardigan she'd like to wear, and what she wants to eat), that decision fell within my purview.

(Also, he said that seeing faces of new staff might be disorientating for her, though there's new staff in the place all the time, they don't keep anyone for long.  And I doubt my mother recognises any long-term staff anyway.  Nothing but feeble and unconvincing excuses to avoid moving her.  No Care Home wants residents removed due to families not being happy with them as it looks bad, and it seems to me Mr. Gourlay is far more concerned with what Care Homes want than what families want.) 

When I was 'phoning through a list of lawyers, one told me she had the same problem as I had, but in reverse.  Social Work wanted to take her mother into care, whereas she wanted her mother to stay at home and be looked after - as did her mother.  That's the thing about social workers - they impose themselves into your life and try and take over, making decisions that should lie within the province of families or individuals themselves.  His boss returns from holiday on August 10th; I'm then going to see if I can have him replaced as my mother's allocated social worker with someone else.  Even if the Home reverses its ban on me, how can I ever go into the place again, with staff holding the upper hand and being in a position of being able to make any accusations against me they like and be believed?  It would be an untenable situation.

Given recent remarks of his, he seems to be siding with Meadowbrook and its employees on this one, without letting me know precisely what I'm supposed to have said (something about sitting on my knee) and who said it, thereby denying me the ability to hold her to account (in a legal way) for it.  I've used the line "Well, sit on my knee and tell me what you want for Christmas" around a dozen times in response to people telling me I look like Santa over the last couple of months (with no negative reaction), and I have a dim memory of saying, in response to a comment about there not being enough room to swing a cat in my mother's room, something like "I know - if you wanted to sit down, it'd have to be on my knee, 'cos you're not getting my chair."  Sexual harassment?  My perfectly formed and finely-chiselled @rse!

Whichever it was, there was no sexual intent behind it, and all lawyers I've spoken to are incredulous about it.  (As are various women I'm friendly with.)  Knowing the precise words and the identity of my accuser would assist me in having a clearer recollection and help cut through my brain fog.  How do I even know my accuser is the person I spoke to?  She may have heard a colleague laughing about my remark and appropriated it for her own sinister ends.  Meadowbrook doesn't care, as it provides them with ammunition against me.

That's why, whichever one it was, I suspect it's been seized upon in a blatant attempt to 'bring me to heel', in order to discredit my claims and complaints about some of the staff, and to deter me from making their many lapses public (as I threatened to do), out of fear that their (false) allegations of 'sexual impropriety' against me also become known.  A scare tactic in other words.  Or maybe even just to get their own back on me for making formal complaints about some of them.  Hey, it could even be both, as neither possibilities are mutually exclusive.

Wish me well, Crivvies - and this isn't the end of this story - it's only the beginning.

******

Update: I've now been informed the 'incident' doesn't relate to either of the two possibilities I suggested (they did occur, but I can't remember who was involved in the first one, and there were a dozen or more separate individuals in the second) so that makes whatever it was (my knee still features in the allegation, oddly) a definite fabrication.  It's either Meadowbrook trying to frighten me off from revealing any more of their shortcomings, or vengeful staff seeking payback for me complaining about them.  Maybe even both.  I'm determined to get to the bottom of it.

The 'MYSTERY' Of The MISSING SLIPPERS...

Okay, still on the subject of Meadowbank Care Home, which used to be known as Whitehills Care Home, let's talk about the litttle matter of theft that goes on within the place.  Money (£10 in one case) has been stolen from my mother's purse within her room on two separate occasions, unopened bottles of Lucozade regularly went missing, and her footwear has now gone 'walkabout' at least six times.  Perhaps I should say five-and-a-half times, because in one instamce, it was 'only' one item of footwear.  On that occasion it was a slipper, and I'm still slightly baffled as to how a single slipper can disappear without the other one going missing at the same time.  Maybe they fell out, eh?  So, to date, that's three and-a-half pairs of slippers and two pairs of shoes that have 'mysteriously' vanished.

At the time, I was still in the unenviable position of having to make regular complaints about the place; windows being left open on cold winter nights with no heating on, and - get this - staff continually placing my mother's footwear on the top shelf of the wardrobe out of sight and reach of my mother - or under a duvet on the bottom of the wardrobe where they couldn't be seen.  I remind you that my mother has Alzheimer's, so if something is out of sight, it's also out of mind, yet no matter how many times I politely pointed this out, it still persisted.  Surely this constitutes a striking example of stupidity if nothing else does?  I eventually wrote on a whiteboard a note requesting that staff refrain from putting her shoes and slippers in the wardrobe.  Did it make a blind bit of difference?  Did it 'eck as like!

One evening I mentioned to a member of staff who came into the room that this was still happening, despite the neatly printed sign requesting it desist.  I indicated the sign to her (it was above the radiator at the side of my mother's armchair) and she looked at it and said "How long has that beem there?"  "About a year" I replied.  "Rubbish" she said, "I've never seen it before!"  "That's more a reflection on your powers of observation - or lack of them - than it is on the sign's visibility" I responded.  How could anyone come into a room over the course of a year and not see a clearly visible sign?  The short answer is that quite a number of staff in the place walk about like farts in a trance and don't pay attention to what's going on around them.  And too many of them are, in my opinion based on experience, simply stupid.

Incidentally, these are all documented facts, preserved in emails I sent to management and which I still have to this day.  Regarding the missing footwear, I'm convinced they were purloined out of spite by a disgruntled staff member with a grudge against me because I regularly complained about lots of things.  Well, wouldn't you if it were your mother?  If ever a search was implemented of other residents' rooms (or anywhere else) to see if some befuddled biddy had decided to 'adopt' them, there was never any sign of them.  As Sherlock Holmes said, "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth!"  A simple matter of logic, which, unfortunately, isn't much in evidence at Meadowbrook.  If none of the residents had removed the footwear, then it must've been a member of staff.

My mother hadn't been in the Home long when she mentioned one day her watch was missing.  I searched the room, sliding my hands down the sides and back of her armchair and under any items which might be obscuring sight of it.  No, definitely missing so I reported it to staff.  A few days later I received a 'phone call informing me the watch had been found down the side of her armchair.  Not possible.  That's one instance where another resident had clearly made off with it and it had been discovered in her room.  The Home obviously didn't want me thinking there were any light-fingered old ladies around who were attracted to glittery things they might take a liking to.  Not theft exactly, but 'appropriation' by a confused and unfortunate individual.  However, it showed me that staff were prepared to lie in order to protect the Home's reputation.

(Oh, here's another one I just remembered.  As I arrived one night, I noticed that someone had peed all over the floor outside the reception office.  It didn't appear to have been noticed [no yellow signs around it] so I brought it to a member of staff's attention.  She looked at it and then said "No, it's just cold tea."  Cold tea my @rse - I know pee when I see [and smell] it.) 

And then there's the matter of the toilet seat.  You've already seen the photos.  Whenever I noticed excrement on the seat, I drew it the staff's attention as I was leaving, and they said they'd clean it.  On my next visit I could see that although it had been wiped, it hadn't been wiped thoroughly and the seat or porcelain under it still had traces of schect on view.  When I compared the photos I took, it was obvious from the 'pattern' it was the same as on my previous visit.  This catalogue of past events, along with more recent ones, explains why some staff, possibly at the urging of the 'higher ups', are trying to blacken my name with ludicrous allegations and bully me into silence.  Anyway, I'm getting tired so I'm off to my scratcher.  More true and documented stories about the failings of Whitehills/Meadowbrook coming soon - and that's a promise.

(Don't worry, Martin, your turn in the spotlight is also coming soon.)

NEWSFLASH! Healthcare Company BANS SON From VISITING His 104 YEAR-OLD MOTHER (Who Has ALZHEIMER'S And CANCER) For Telling The TRUTH About Them - While They Tell LIES About HIM To Do It...

Copyright relevant owner

The following letter was sent to me by Ash Walmsley, Operations Manager, Enhance Healthcare.  It speaks for itself really.  They don't like the absolute truth I wrote about them and have 'spat the dummy', accusing me of slander (when they actually meant libel, as I wrote about them, not spoke about them) and banned me from visiting my mother.  It's a clear case of them 'punishing' me for blowing the whistle on them.  In what way is this in my mother's best interests?  Just shows you they're full of shite.  I told the absolute truth, whereas they resorted to lies, fabrications, and distortions in order to blacken my name and discredit my complaints about them.  So I ask again - would you send one of your ailing relatives into their care?

Incidentally, I went to my local police office today to make some enquiries and was told there doesn't appear to be any complaint about me registered in their system.  Earlier, I also contacted the Care Commission, a well-known team of solicitors, and the Office of Public Guardianship.  I'll keep you informed of developments - if you're interested. 

Enhance Healthcare, eh?  If only they would enhance it, there wouldn't be a problem.

Comments most welcome.

Re: Meadowbrook - Immediate Suspension of Visiting Rights

Dear Mr. Robson,

I am writing to you formally on behalf of Meadowbrook and Enhance Healthcare regarding the decision to suspend your visiting rights to the home, effective immediately.

Further to our previous corredpondence dated 23 July 2026, there continues to be an escalation of similar conduct per previous correspondence.  You have continued to engage in inappropriate and slanderous communications regarding the service and its staff.  (He means libelous, which would only be the case if they're untrue - which they're not.)

This ongoing conduct has had a significant impact of the wellbeing of Meadowbrook as a service: on the staff who deliver care day to day, on the wider atmosphere within the home, and, by extension, on the residents who depend on a stable and settled environment.  Enhance Healthcare has a duty to protect the wellbeing of everyone connected to the service, and we are no longer able to reconcile that duty with continued visits from you under the current circumstances.  (In other words, they don't like the truth getting out about them.)

As previously noted in our correspondence of 23 July 2026, our Zero Tolerance Policy  (I also operate a zero tolerance policy - in that I won't put up with shit) and Sexual Harassment Policy (Same again - I don't like to be harassed by false complaints of a sexual nature) both apply to this situation, and the relevant provisions of each were set out for you at that time, further reiterated by communications had with Mrs. Robson's allocated social worker, Martin Gourlay.  Given the cumulative impact of concerns outlined above, and in line with policies previously referenced, you are hereby banned from visiting Meadowbrook with immediate effect from the date of this letter.  (Actually, they banned me because I said that those who make false allegations of this nature are scum.  Anyone disagree?)

This ban reflects both the seriousness with which we view it and our responsibility to protect the wellbeing of the service.  (Their reputaion is what they actually mean).  Should any further inappropriate conduct (Like complaining about incompetence) towards the service or its staff occur, whether in person, in writing, or otherwise, the matter will be referred to our legal team.  (Go ahead, make my day!)

We understand this is a difficult letter to receive.  Any concerns you wish to raise going forward should be directed to Martin Gourlay, Social Worker, who can support communication between yourself and the service.  Enhance Healthcare and Meadowbrook always endeavour to work alongside families (My @rse) and external partners to provide the best possible care and to close any gaps where they arise, however at this point we feel the relationship has broken down beyond repair.  (As Corporal Jones used to say on Dad's Army - "They don't like it up 'em!) 

Yours sincerely,

Ash Walmsley

Operations Manager

Enhance Healthcare

A HORROR STORY THAT IS TRULY TERRIFYING...

Looking for a good Care Home for an ailing or infirm relative?  Then I'd strongly advise against using Meadowbrook (formerly known as Whitehills) in East Kilbride if you're the obstinate, hard-to-please kind of person who has the temerity to expect your loved one to be looked after properly and have a nice clean room to reside in.  And if you're the sort who complains when your expectations aren't met, then tough - what do you expect for your money?

Below are just a few photos of my mother's room over the last couple of years up to the present day.  Before I started recording the state of the place, my mother very often had dirty plates and cups left on top of her bed, hours after she had been 'fed and watered'.  She was scared to move in case she dislodged them onto the floor, so had to wait until a member of staff could be @rsed to come into her room and remove them.

Previously, she was left overnight with no toilet roll or paper towels, as when I was leaving at the end of my visit, I alerted the staff who told me there was none on the premises due to a late delivery.  I complained about this to, I think, the Care Inspectorate (or maybe the local council), who sent someone up to check (weeks later) and because everything seemed all right then, my complaint wasn't upheld.

I've got dozens more photos of similar instances to those below, and I may well show them in the future.  Meadowbrook are now playing dirty by making spurious allegations about my conduct in order to silence me, but it won't work.  I suspect that some staff have decided to seek revenge against me for making formal complaints about them or their colleagues, hence spurious claims like the following.

"Over recent weeks, staff have reported repeated instances of intimidating behaviour, inappropriate physical conduct, and inappropriate comments directed against them.  These incidents have caused genuine distress to those involved and have, in specific instances, been referred to Police Scotland given the nature and severity of the behaviours described."

That being the case (and aside from the fact that they're imaginary), why was I completely unaware of any of this until now, only learning of these alleged incidents from an email I received three days ago?  I have received quite a few emails from this individual over several weeks in response to my own complaints, and none of this was ever alluded to.  More to the point, why did none of the staff mention any of this when it was supposed to have happened?  No one ever displayed or expressed any discomfit or concern to me about my 'behaviour' (or speech) at any time.  And why would I even reveal any of this to anyone if it were true, or in case any of you might believe it to be true, unless I was blameless?  The Home has cameras all over the place, so it would be relatively easy for them to check footage and see if there was any evidence of such behaviour on my part.  And why haven't the police been in touch with me if I've been reported to them - 'given the nature and severity of the behaviours described'?

Well, it's obvious (to me at least) that this is an insidious ploy to intimidate me and make me think twice about following up my stated intentions of seeking legal redress against them and once more contacting the media.  (The local paper published an article about my unhappiness with them around three years ago, but the Home wouldn't respond.)  They think I'll want to avoid any potential personal embarrassment about the nature of these claims which would come to light if I make my case public.  In short, if I blow the whistle on them about documented and photographed instances of inferior standards of care, they'll reveal their manufactured and alleged instances of inappropriate behaviour about me.

Here's the thing, though.  I have never touched any member of staff in any manner, nor physically or verbally (and definitely not sexually) threatened or assaulted any of them either.  It's all complete and utter bollocks, so I'm certainly not going to be embarrassed about things I haven't done.  Have I complained in a robust and forthright manner about staff not doing their job to an acceptable standard?  Yes.  Have I expressed ire and frustration about some staff being seemingly incapable and inept?  Sure have, as is my right as someone with Power of Attorney and a Certificate of Incapacity in regard to my mother.  I expect the very best care for her and I make no apologies about it.

I also suspect that if complaints have actually been made about me, some staff might be seeking revenge on behalf of their colleagues who I've formally complained about, in order to discredit me and give Meadowbrook the means by which to deny me access to my mother, as has been threatened in the email I recently received.  Perhaps you consider my suspicions fanciful and far-fetched?  I remember watching a TV expose on Care Homes a few years back (Panorama maybe?) and there was secretly filmed footage of managers telling staff not to worry about complaints about them, as they 'had their back'.  This sort of thing happens more often than you might realise, sadly.  It's a pure disgrace.  (I'm also left to wonder how anyone could find an old disabled guy who can hardly walk and suffers from near constant fatigue the slightest bit intimidating.  I think in their desire to 'do me down', they've over-egged the pudding.)

As I said somewhere on another post, perhaps in reply to a comment, I've been trying to get my mother moved to another Care Home for around two years or more.  As regards the one she currently resides in, I had no choice in the matter, nor was I told that The Evening Times (a Glasgow newspaper) ran an expose on many serious infractions in regard to care a few years back.  Why are relatives not informed by social workers who decide on these placements, about any negative aspects of them which might elicit a refusal by relatives to have their loved ones placed in Care Homes with poor reputations?

The social worker involved in my mother's case, though helpful in a few instances in having the Care Home observe my wishes, never seemed to want to move my mother as, he claimed, it wouldn't be in her best interests.  I'd say that was my call, not his, wouldn't you?  I repeatedly expressed my wishes to him over the last week or ten days, and his most recent response was to say that he'd have to inform any potential Home of the unproven allegations against me, and my continual complaining about my mother's current placement.  You couldn't more effectively influence a Care Home into declining to give accommodation to someone's relative if you tried, could you?  (Yet relatives aren't informed by the Social Work Department about things they should know in relation to a Care Home's performance.)  To me, he seems determined to deny my mother, in what is probably the last stages of her life, the right to live them out in a (hopefully) better place which has more respect for her relatives.

As I have now been threatened (under false pretences) with being banned from my mother's current Home unless I bite my tongue in the future, I think it's completely unacceptable to expect me to continue visiting the place with the risk of lying and conspiring staff and management holding the 'civilian' equivalent of the Sword of Damocles over me.  Far better to start again with no preconceived notions (or fabricated accusations in their case) on either side.  My mother doesn't know where she is, she doesn't recognise most of the staff (or understand them due to impenetrable accents - nor do I, actually) and she's been moved from one side of the building to another, with no discernible negative effect on her.

If she were to be moved to another Home, she wouldn't even be aware of it, and if she were, she'd merely assume she'd been moved to a new room in another side of the same building.  That's what I'd tell her anyway.  Then I could visit without the stress and anxiety of possibly being labelled a violent thug or a seedy pervert.  I'll tell you one thing - if she passes away without being moved, I will dedicate myself to exposing Meadowbrook and Enhance - and social workers - as the lying, dishonourable bastards that they are.  And that's a promise!  Now take a look at these photos and ask yourselves this - would you place any of your relatives in such a place?  Comments welcome!   

Incidentally, though this photo is virtually identical to the one above, it
was taken a full week later, as the dates on the SD Memory card confirm.
The floor hadn't been cleaned in a week, possibly longer.  Shocking!

BABE Of The DAY - SANTA's LITTLE HELPER...

Yeah, I know it's too early for a yuletide pic, but

this  hot babe remarked on my resemblance to Santa

due to my Buster Meryfield-type beard.  "Well, sit on

my knee and you can tell me what you want for Christmas"

I quipped.  "Ho ho ho" she responded and we both laughed.

Just as well she's not some nippy feminist determined to

paint me in a bad light, isn't it?  What am I saying?

Such twisted women don't exist - do they?

NOBODY SEEMS TO 'CARE'...

Okay, continuing on the same theme, when my mother first went into care, the Home said it offered all sorts of extra services, like supplying newspapers (at a price) and sundry other things.  Then it changed its mind and said it couldn't obtain newspapers so I would have to find another option.  That option appeared in the guise of a seemingly helpful staff member who lived across the road from the Home.  She said she visited the newsagent's before work every morning and it would be no bother to get my mother's paper at the same time.  She even dropped into work for a while on her days off, and said she would bring in a newspaper then, too.

This went on for a while until management advised me at a care review that it wasn't a good idea.  I told the staff member I'd find another way of procuring newspapers, but she said "Nah, don't worry about that, I'll continue to get her papers, 'cos I do what I like, I don't listen to them!"  How nice, I thought, so on top of the £50 per month I'd been giving her for the papers, I started giving the woman a gratuity of £20 each month (£70 in total) and she carried on getting them.  Then, over several vists, I noticed my mother didn't always get a paper and expressed to another member of staff my concern, who must've mentioned it to the other woman.

(I should perhaps explain that my mother has a memory retention span of around 15-20 seconds.  Often, when she gets to the end of a newspaper, she goes right back to the beginning and starts again.  However, reading a paper had been part of her daily routine back home and become a habit, which I was trying to maintain for the sake of consistency.)

Next time I visited, the 'paper lady' came into my mother's room and said she'd forgotten to get a paper last time, so she'd bought a TV mag to make up for it.  Price of TV mag?  Around 45 pence, compared to the cost of around £1.30 for a paper.  This happened a few times, and I became concerned about not all the money I supplied for newspapers being spent as it should.  I mentioned this to the woman, who told me to get the papers myself then, which I'd been considering doing anyway.  However, she still owed my mother two papers as I'd given her the money for them a month in advance.  I was visiting my mother the night after she should've been supplied with the two papers (one a daily, one a weekly), but they were nowhere in sight.

What was in sight, though, were various newspapers from several prior visits, as they hadn't been thrown out.  Why would two papers from only the day before be absent when older ones were still there?  The woman claimed she'd given them to other staff to give to my mother, and even mentioned a 'witness'.  When speaking to the person later, her response was "Witness?  I wasn't even there!"  So, here's a bit of interactive participation for you.  What do you call a person who doesn't spend all the money she's been given for newspapers on newspapers, and then lies about it?  Other lies were that I hadn't given her the £70 one month, and only given her £60 the month before - total nonsense of course.  Anyway,  Crivs, over to you...

Lorraine Miller

WOULD YOU 'CARE' TO READ THIS TRUE TALE?

Let me tell you a story - a true story.  This took place just over two years ago and involves a staff member who works at the Care Home my 104 year-old mother currently resides in.  I was leaving one night when I noticed there were no bedsheets or duvets on my mother's bed.  Spotting a staff member at the end of the corridor, I said "Excuse me..." in a perfectly polite way.  Her eyelids flickered, indicating she had heard me but decided not to answer.  "Excuse me" I said again, "there's no bedsheets on my mother's bed."  Her response?  "Nothing' to do wi' me, I've just started my shift - I don't know what happens through the day" (though she should be informed at the handover) she said, without even looking in my direction.  Her tone was contemptuous, and her manner seemed to suggest that I was out of order even speaking to her.

"If I don't tell you, you won't know," I replied, only to be met with a brusque "Ah'll pass it on!"  I told her I didn't like her tone and I reported her the next day.  Because I couldn't supply her name (didn't know it), my complaint was only partially upheld, though as only two or three staff were on in my mother's wing that night, it should've been easy to determine who the offending party was.  Remember when I told you on a previous occasion about finding my mother fully dressed, slumped asleep in her armchair in front of the TV (which was still on, as was the room light) at 1 a.m. in the morning?  (I'd gone up to check on something.)  I also complained about that, and their response was to start locking the outer doors, clearly to prevent me from making any further early morning discoveries of neglect and incompetence.  These doors had never been locked before in the two years my mother had been a resident so you can draw your own conclusions.  (The inner doors had a keypad entry system to which I had the code.)  When I asked this woman why the doors were suddenly being locked, she sarcastically replied "Cuz Ah fancied a change!"

This Care Home has an inability to replace my mother's hearing aid batteries on a regular basis, often leaving her deaf for hours at a time.  Sometimes I would ask this woman to replace them and she'd make the excuse that she had something else to do first.  This happened at least a couple of times.  An hour later, it was time for me to leave, without being able to communicate with my mother as the staff member had apparently disappeared off the face of the earth.  When I asked other members, they said they'd go and get the other woman to do it, but again, there was no show.  This happened several times, and I had no alternative but to depart when my visit was over without being able to speak with my mother.  It was clear to me that the woman was simply being spiteful to get back at me for complaining about her.

A few months back, I arrived and saw her through the windowed inner doors, lolling against the wall while checking her mobile 'phone.  I could hear someone from down the corridor, repeatedly calling "Hello, hello, hello..." so this woman must've heard her too.  When she looked up from her mobile and saw me, she walked off in the opposite direction from the source of the voice, presumably to avoid me.  Once inside, I soon learned that it was my mother, standing at her door and calling for assistance (I hadn't recognised her voice at first), only to be ignored by this particular staff member.  (This was documented in an email at the time.)  You couldn't make it up, could you?  Management, though, seem determined to protect their staff at the expense of the residents and their relatives and I'm made to feel I'm the problem, not their staff. 

And now there have been other developments, which I'll share at a later date.

Janette Beckinridge

FREE BEANO COMIC AT TG JONES...

Copyright D.C. THOMSON & Co., Ltd

Was in my local TG Jones a couple of days ago and noticed that they have free copies of The Beano available at the checkout counters, so I nabbed a couple.  Who knows, maybe this issue will become a collecters' item classic in the years to come.  Grab one now the next time you're in (if there are any left) as you don't get much that's free these days.

BABE Of The DAY - POWER GIRL...

Copyright DC COMICS

Drool!  Slobber!  ('Scuse me, I'm eating

a large roll and sausage at the moment.)  Now

what can I say about a babe like Power Girl?

How about "Drool!  Slobber!"?  That'll surely

  cover it, wouldn't you say, Crivvies?

A TRIO Of TITANIC FACSIMILE EDITIONS...

Images copyright relevant and respective owners 

Here's a trio of goodies you may be interested in, o exalted Crivs, two from Marvel and one from DC.  First is The Silver Surfer #5 Facsimile Edition, which I don't really need as I own all 18 original issues, but these facsimiles really float my boat.  Disappointingly, 5 'Continued After Next Page' lines are missing from the first half of the mag, though they suddenly appear in the latter half.  Most of you won't care about 'trivial' things like that, but I feel their omission detracts from the authentic 'feel' of the period.  Issues 6 & 7 are already ordered and paid for, so I'm wishing my life away until their release date.  Marvel are only reprinting the first 7, but I hope they may decide to do the remaining 11 issues before too long.  What about the rest of you, effendis - you been buying this 'limited series'?

Next, Amazing Spider-Man #14, guest starring The Hulk, though it's the debut of The Green Goblin that really makes this one a 'must have'.  Thankfully, the 'Continued After Next Page' taglines are all present so I have nothing much to complain about.  Aside, that is, from wishing Marvel would place the barcode on the back cover (like DC now does) and use the same paper as the Distinguished Competition.  No, I'm not talking about loo paper, I mean the paper the comics are printed on.

Finally, Batman #156, featuring a character called The Ant-Man, a few years before Marvel's hero of the same name made his first appearance.  I remember seeing this cover reproduced in Batman From the '30s To The '70s back in 1972 (in a shop named W. & R. Holmes), so it's finally good to read the contents, a mere 54 years later.  (If you live long enough, everything will eventually come your way.)  Okay, Crivs, any of these three titles grab you by the short and curlies, and if so, is there one you really can't resist?  Tell your fellow readers in the comments section, then rush out and buy it.  In fact, buy all three!

CAPTAIN AMERICA'S BICENTENNIAL BATTLES...

Copyright MARVEL COMICS

If you can remember the long hot summer of 1976 then, like me, you're positively ancient.  There was a heatwave that year and I recall seeing waves of steam rising from the tarmacadam roads like a tangible force.  Jack 'King' Kirby had returned to Marvel only the year before after a five year stint at DC, and in '76 he had two new Marvel Treasury Specials on sale.  Namely, Captain America's Bicentennial Battles and 2001: A Space Odyssey.  The two currently in my collection are replacements I acquired a good number of years ago and one glance at them returns me to those days of the mid-'70s in a heartbeat.

It's said you can get too much of a good thing, but I've never let that deter me from buying different printings of the same comics.  Facsimiles, True Believers, collected editions, etc., are a magnetic lure to me I find nigh-impossible to resist.  That's why I recently forked out for a new printing (well, 2021) of Cap's Bicentenial Battles Treasury, plus a Cap America collected volume (2005) containing the same titanic tale (as well as a few other Cap reprints).  The TS is almost the same dimensions as the original, though on better paper, with a deluxe overlapping cover.

The book is around the same dimensions as a standard comic mag (but with more pages obviously) and also contains CA #s 201-205, again on superior paper.  Whoever was responsible for compiling the credits for the front of the book had clearly never heard of Barry Smith, as, presumably having referred to the credits on the tale's splash page where Barry is listed only as B. Smith, appears to have taken a guess and rendered his name as Bob Smith.  (I wonder what Barry would say if he ever finds out.)  Thing is, because the original '76 Treasury is a peculiar size, being presented in a smaller format leaves too large a margin below each page.

The original 1976 Treasury Special

The 'new' Treasury is a very handsome affair and if you're a Captain America or Jack Kirby fan, it's definitely one you should consider adding to your collection - even if you already own its original incarnation as it also features Marvel's Bicentennial Calendar in the back (one month per page).  And just to be complete, below is the cover to Kirby's other '76 Treasury Special - 2001: A Space Odyssey.  If you once had either (or both) of these two publications (or still have them), share your thoughts about them in our comments section.

Copyright relevant owner

******

Afterthought: I re-read my replacement '76 Bicentennial Battles a good number of years ago, so didn't really recall too much about the story.   I therefore started to read my 2021 edition not long after it arrived, but had to do it in instalments as it didn't really grab me.  After some reflection (and in seeming contradiction to what I wrote above), I realised the story isn't actually up to much, being Kirby's 'promotional propaganda pamphlet' for America in its 200th year.  It's mostly a dry read where nothing of significance ever really happens and it's a bit of a plod up to the end of the 'happy-ever-after' tale.

It's at times like this you realise just how much Jack needed Stan Lee to give the dialogue some 'oomph'.  JK tends to tell a tale with captions instead of dialogue, both of which are often stilted and unnatural sounding.  Art-wise, even the Smith-inked pages have a few dodgy panels among the better ones, which are only better because of Smith.  Reading this again made me realise I was immersing myself in memories of my own lost youth of 50 years ago, rather than any literary merit in the way the tale was written, which it doesn't really have.  A series of meaningless random encounters doth not a story make.

However, it's by Kirby, from a time when I thought he could do no wrong, so I'm still glad to have it.  You could say it's a portal into the past as opposed to a great read, but that's good enough for me.  I'm assuming the new edition didn't sell very well as a lot of them available via eBay are remaindered copies - even ones still safely ensconced in their shrink-wrap.  Interestingly, the '70s Fireside Silver Surfer book by Jack & Stan was likewise heavily remaindered, indicating that the King's reign was finally at an end.  

BORN TO BE BLUE - MEL TORME...

BABE Of The DAY - KELLY BROOK...

Lovely Kelly Brook has my brekkie

all ready and waiting as I drag myself out

of bed and down the stairs.  What a great

way to start the day, don't you think?

(Part Two) "...LIKE A WOMAN SCORNED..."

Okay, so where were we?  Let me give you some background on the woman I was telling you about in part one.  She wasn't too popular with other staff, considering herself to be the boss's 'favourite', and she often tried to 'lord it' over them, with not much resistance due to her perceived status.  Indeed, rumours were rife she and her boss were having or had once had an affair, though truth to tell, I never saw any evidence of it, but a lot of staff believed it to be true and had stories to tell.  I almost wish it were true, as then I'd have another means by which to expose her for the deceitful individual she is, but I'm not one to make accusations unless I know they're 100% true and accurate.  However, they both certainly appeared to be close.

Anyway, to recap, we'd mended our fences 'til she offended me again and I once more decided to have nothing to do with her, so simply behaved as though she didn't exist.  I continued my established daily routine of a few years, posting work to London in late afternoon and then visiting the foodcourt in the town's shopping centre for a cup of tea, sometimes a meal, and a read of my newspaper.  I started to notice I was getting dirty looks from some people and was stunned to eventually learn she was insinuating that I was stalking her, and using my letter from several weeks before as alleged 'proof'.

Bear in mind she'd made no such suggestions about my letter at the time - the very letter which led to our 'reconciliation' and us getting along amicably until her re-offence.  No, it was weeks (perhaps months) later that she sought to reinterpret my letter in support of her claim, even though I was studiously ignoring her very existence at that stage.  I didn't know her address, nor her 'phone number, had never expressed interest in her, and was doing nothing in my daily routine I hadn't done for years.  So how can you be stalking someone when you don't talk to or look at them, and pay no attention to them?  Truth is, she was simply trying to make my life difficult to intimidate me into staying away from the foodcourt and show me she called all the shots (in her mind).

Once, as I was sitting having a cuppa in the foodcourt, she walked through, looked around to ensure she was unobserved, scowled at me, and then drew her finger across her throat in a slashing manner.  Not exactly ladylike or even normal behaviour, is it?  But there's more.  A local druggie told me (while asking me for 'spare change') she'd approached him and asked how much he'd take for 'sorting me out'.  He's now dead, but at least he was smart enough (just) not to entertain the notion.  He'd have come off second best if he had.

Sounds almost unbelievable, doesn't it?  However, I can assure you it's all 100% true.  So what was in my letter that could be distorted after the fact to fit her malicious agenda?  Here, let me quote some relevant extracts, which I can do verbatim (Susan's real name aside) as I made a copy before passing it on to her via her daughter.

"...without meaning to be rude to you, Susan is unequivically the only woman on the planet who I care talks to me or not."

"Anyway, Susan suggests that I apologise again, and her wish is my command.  In fact, if she commanded, I would get down on my knees in the foodcourt and kiss your feet."

"However, that said, I shall continue to assume you want nothing to do with me unless you yourself indicate otherwise."

I just this moment dug out my copy of the letter to refer to for this post, but I'd forgotten I'd previously passed her a brief note (in the company of her boss, who read it first), saying the following: "To be honest, I don't actually give a sh*t if you speak to me again or not (and I'm sure you care even less) but for (boss's name) sake, I'm going to try and accomplish what you wouldn't let me do last time, and apologise (for ignoring her apology).

The smarter among you will have sussed another reason for my letter was I knew she'd more than likely show it to Susan, who I hoped would be touched by what a lot I thought of her.  How could she not be, given how much I was prepared to 'humble' myself if she so commanded?  Okay, admittedly I was indulging in humorous hyperbole - kissing anyone's feet was definitely not a statement of intent, nor a declaration of ambition (or even a remote possibility), merely a convenient tongue-in-cheek way of indicating the high regard in which I held Susan.

Like I said, initially the letter mended fences, with no sly insinuations at the time.  No, they came several weeks later, after the fences got broken again.  And that's important to remember, so I'll reiterate it: she made no spurious insinuations until after I fell out with her for a second time.  Eventually, most of the security guards wised-up and warned this woman about her behaviour and false claims.  One of her staff later apologised to me and admitted he'd been manipulated (his own word) into corroborating her outlandish claims about me.  She never made an 'official' complaint, it was all sly suggestion and sinister insinuation, and the head of the shopping centre later told me she'd done this sort of thing before.

There's so much more to tell, and maybe I will at a later date, but for the moment, suffice to say I eventually went to the police and had a lawyer's letter sent to her, saying that unless she desisted from her false claims, I'd pursue legal redress with the full rigour of the law.  It's important to emphasise she never thought she was being stalked for one second, it was simply a malicious, spiteful lie designed to create trouble for me.  And it did.  For example, fighting off three guys who attacked me in the food court on a day when the security cameras were turned off due to being repaired or replaced.  Now I wonder who could've tipped them off about that?

However, at the end of the day I was vindicated and I derive a certain degree of satisfaction from that, though I'd prefer to have avoided the situation altogether.  She was exposed as a bit of a nutter who enjoyed playing the victim, and she later advised one of her young staff who claimed an admirer was stalking her, not to say that as it could rebound on the girl as it had on her.  (She told this to [or was overheard by] someone who worked nearby, who told me.)  I suspect she still portrays herself as a victim now and again, though she'll be careful with whom she does it.  Rest assured, if I ever hear even a whisper of her repeating her false and discredited claims about me, I'll be suing her for defamation of character.

So, Crivvies, anything like that ever happen to you, and if so, how did you deal with it?  Reveal all in the comments section - if you're brave enough.