"TOO MANY WHITE PEOPLE..."

Seen the latest?  Just where do these people come from?  A BBC Radio 5 Live presenter, one Nihal Arthanayake by name (nope, never heard of him before), has claimed that working in an "overwhelmingly white" environment is affecting his mental health.  I'd venture that he clearly had issues in that department to start with if this is an example of the way he thinks.  "It's really affecting me that I walk in and all I see is white people" he witters, in his best self-righteous, sense of entitlement, not to mention racist manner.  Racist?  Yes!  Were I to say that my mental health is affected when I walk down the street (or anywhere else) and all I see is black people, I'd be accused of being a racist, so it's exactly the same thing here.  He goes on... "The hardest thing is to walk into a room, look around and nobody looks like you."  Presumably, he made the decision to work at the BBC, so if he resents his working environment (i.e. too many white people), then maybe he should seek a different job where the environment is more to his liking.

Don't know about you, but I'm fed up with this kind of thing.  He'll have family and friends who are predominantly of the same ethnicity as himself, which should fulfil his seeming 'need' to be surrounded by his own kind - so what's the problem with working among 'whitey' for a few hours?  There shouldn't be one.  On the one hand, people such as him are always saying that colour shouldn't be an issue, and on the other, they're always trying to make colour an issue.  It's double-standards, pure and simple.  Perhaps he's just trying to increase his own promotion opportunities at the BBC by playing the race card, because given the woke culture which currently envelops society, there'll now be people falling over themselves to select only ethnic minorities for positions in various areas of employment.  That's not how it should work; people should be chosen on merit, not the colour of their skin, but that's what Arthanayake is essentially calling for.

Give me strength.  He should be identified as the racist he clearly is and told to give us all a break from this sort of 'anti-white' agenda that appears to be on the increase with each new passing day.  Anyone brave enough to make a comment, or are you too scared in case someone calls you a racist for agreeing with me?  And feel free to comment even if you disagree with me.

POT-LUCK MIGHTY WORLD OF MARVEL COVER GALLERY - PART THREE-B... (Updated)

Copyright MARVEL COMICS

Almost eight-and-a-half years back, I published two 'Pot-Luck' cover galleries of some issues of The Mighty World Of Marvel, which you've probably forgotten about after all this time (if you even saw them, that is).  I meant to do a third part but never got around to it, so I thought I'd remedy that little oversight right now.  I think some of the covers on show here appeared previously on the blog as I acquired them and two of them appeared in a post about Anniversary issues, though this is the first time that all six of them have shared the same blog post.  The sixth cover adorned the very last issue of MWOM (under that appellation) before it was revamped and renamed Marvel Comic (keeping the same numbering) the following week.

Incidentally, if you did see the other two related posts at the time, I've now added to them with new replacements acquired since 2015, so why not check them out?!  They can be seen here and here.  What with my previous posts about early issues of MWOM, plus the three 'Pot-Luck' ones, I've now shared the covers of every issue I own of this esteemed UK title from the '70s.  Go on - leave a comment and let me know what you think.

******

Oops!  I got it wrong - would you believe it?  (Whaddya mean "Yeah!")  I did do a part three, which I've just found on the blog, but it only had four covers on it.  This one's got six, so you're getting something extra this time 'round.  My memory's getting worse - just what am I like, eh?  

SO (I repeat), WHAT ARE YOUR CONDITIONS?

My very own, almost-pristine, FANTASTIC Annual for 1968

Regarding my vast collection of various Annuals, not all of them are anywhere near almost brand-new condition, with others having obvious tell-tale signs of wear (and thus age) about them.  With Annuals, as with anything I collect, I tend to take what I can get when I can get it, and replace it later if a better condition one comes along, depending on price obviously.  As an aside, I've still got my copy of BEEB #1 that I bought down in Southsea/Portsmouth in 1985, but I noticed one on eBay a while back in mint condition, still with original free gift.  It sold for something like £2.50, but then up popped another one for sale at the ridiculous price of £40. (Maybe it's the one that cost £2.50, and the buyer was trying to make a tidy profit by selling it on right away.)  That's why I'm cautious (sometimes) about paying big bucks for something, because s*d's law says that a cheaper, better one will come along eventually. (Though in the case of Beeb #1, it happened in reverse on this occasion.)

I notice that when I'm lucky enough to buy an old item in pristine condition, especially when it's something I had new as a kid, that particular period seems not so far away, whereas if the item displays signs of age, then the period seems much further back in time.  Unless, of course, I acquired the original object from a jumble sale and it already looked old, in which case, because the replacement looks no worse than the original did when I first got it, that time doesn't seem so far removed as it otherwise would.  (Anyone following that, or am I far too obscure?)  It would be great to have everything I own looking as if it were brand-new, but at times I just have to settle for what my funds allow for.  Sometimes, a better-condition item will come along and I'll pass, because the not-so-good one has been in my possession for so many years that I've come to accept its imperfections and am exceedingly loath to part with it.  Admittedly, there have been occasions when I've bought another, better one and just kept both.

So what's your view on this if you're an eager collector of old items you had in your youth?  Is condition paramount to you, or not so important?  And, like me, does a replacement's condition influence your impression of how long ago you had the original?  If any of the above makes any sense to you, feel free to record your thoughts, theories and fancies in the comments section.

A CATALOGUE OF CHILDHOOD EVENTS...

Copyright relevant and respective owners

I find it strange (and sad) that many of the pastimes of childhood are now almost exclusively the pursuits of adult collectors.  Take Corgi Toys as an example.  Back in the '60s and '70s, Corgi (and Dinky, and Matchbox) were regularly churning out dozens of diecast models for kids to buy with their pocket-money (or Birthday and Christmas money for the more pricey items).  However, nowadays it seems that such things (like Airfix model kits, etc.,) are primarily produced for the more 'mature' buyer.

Action Man, who, perhaps surprisingly, is still available, even has an advisory on the box saying that it's not for children, but for adult collectors.  Eh?  Did ol' AM suddenly become a health risk to kids after several decades of being perfectly safe and acceptable?  Strike a light!  Maybe it's just a manufacturer's ploy to charge more for things.

Anyway, I have a couple of official reproductions of Corgi catalogues (available from the Corgi Model Club) for 1966 and '69, so I thought I'd take you on a short journey back into the past to remind you of some of the great diecast toys that were once available to kids the length and breadth of Britain (and beyond).  If only more toyshops still sold such playthings, perhaps children would be allowed to remain children for just a little bit longer than they do today.

Childhood - a time of enchantment that seems to get shorter with each new generation.  Sad, isn't it?  I'm glad that I'm still a big kid.  Anyway, enjoy the pretty piccies and feel free to gleefully reminisce in the comments section about the toys that you once owned.

Strictly speaking, the D.B.5 ejector seat isn't operated by 'remote control'

Loads of TV and movie tie-ins featured in this catalogue

BABE Of The DAY - LYNDA CARTER...

It's Lynda Carter in her pre-Wonder Woman

days, though clearly still a wonder in the natural beauty

 stakes.  We (well, you) are definitely not worthy.

The BATMAN As He SHOULD Be - A DETECTIVE...

Copyright DC COMICS

Look at that great Bernie Wrightson cover above, which I saw on Baggsey's Super Stuff in the Bronze Age blog last week.  It reminded me that I bought this comic back in the day so I simply had to own it again.  Straight onto eBay for me and before you could say how handsome I am, I'd bought myself a replacement copy to add to my collection.  It arrived yesterday and I promptly read the two self-contained tales within.  What a joy not to have to acquire the next issue to see how the stories concluded, but to have them all done and dusted in one comic.

I reckon comics should return to the format of self-contained stories, with only the occasional two-or-three-part tale every few months.  And I also think that The Batman should be restored to being a crime-fighting detective instead of a barely-repressed psycho who might go off the deep end at any moment.  Comics were fun back then, an element which is all too sadly missing from the medium nowadays.  What say ye all, Crivvies - are you with me?  Let your thoughts be known to your fellows in our captivating comments section.  (Any time you're ready, chaps.) 

MARVEL TALES STARRING SPIDER-MAN '80s COVER GALLERY OMNIBUS...

Copyright MARVEL COMICS

Back in the '80s Marvel Tales was a great wee mag.  The reason being it started reprinting the Lee/Ditko Spider-Man strips in sequence from the very beginning - along with covers - which made it a very nice catch indeed.  Sure, some covers were slightly amended (even flipped) to accommodate the barcode box, but that would've gone largely unnoticed unless one owned the original '60s mags to compare them against.  A mere 41 issues later the saga was complete - or around three-and-a-half years, time-wise - with the series then continuing with the Lee/Romita strips (covers not shown here) without missing a beat.

The title was first published in 1964 and came to an end in 1994 after 30 years - not a bad run for a reprint mag, and one that many a failed new series would've envied.  Anyway, I've shown all these covers in several blog posts some years ago, but now it's time for the 'omnibus edition' so that you can see them all together in one place.  All you have to do is look and enjoy - though a comment would be appreciated should you feel so compelled.  Did you buy this comic back in the day?  Do you still have them?  Or were you injudicious enough not to have bothered buying them when you could?  (There you go - that's given you plenty to work with - get typing!)

And remember - click on images to enlarge, the click again for optimum size.