- Laurie 'snubbed' after US success. Hugh Laurie who plays Dr Gregory House seems to have been shut out of job opportunities in his native Britain.
- Why is this happening to the best from Britain?. It has happened to Minnie Drive as well some fifteen years ago. Does anyone remember Chatsky at the Almeida theatre in March and April 1993 where its hero "tells the truth and is branded a lunatic?"
- Being rich 'should be celebrated'. It doesn't matter how the wealth was accumulated as long as its there, huh? Sorry folks, I'd rather be broke and honest, thank you very much. What happens to those who speak the truth like Chatsky?
- Gordon Brown committed to entrepreneur activity? Nonsense. Greed, glory and power? Yes. This is the back hander, back door government. What is it really doing?
- Grim prospect for economic growth. It's far worse than grim. The growth star is going to flame out.
- 'borrow to get ourselves out of this'. Borrow and spend. Where will it end?
1. Laurie 'snubbed' after US success. Having commented upon House, recently this added item appeared yesterday about Hugh Laurie who plays the part of Dr House. Why is it that success has a negative impact on Britains in their homeland? What is it about the British who reject those who go overseas and achieve success?
BBC News Tuesday, 11 March 2008, 10:36 GMT
Laurie 'snubbed' after US success
 Hugh Laurie has won two Golden Globes for his role in House |
Actor Hugh Laurie has said Britain has turned its back on him since he became a success in US TV serial House.
The award-winning star told the Radio Times the hours on the show are "relentless" and he has not been offered any work in his home country.
"The door slammed behind me, and that's it. There's a notion that I've sold out," said the performer.
Laurie added that he would "love to do anything" with Stephen Fry again, his former Jeeves and Wooster co-star.
Laurie 'snubbed' after US success
2. Why is this happening to the best from Britain?. This has happened to Minnie Driver too as I describe below. Does anyone remember Chatsky at the Almeida theatre in March and April 1993 or its short tour afterwards?
And, now I get to tell my Minnie Driver story such as it is. Somewhere around April 1993 I went up the Almeida Theatre in Islington to see its current production. Whatever they were doing was worth seeing. I considered this the best theatre in London which did about six weeks of a play before moving onto the next one during the season. It's a small theatre seating about 300. Jonathan Kent and Ian Mcdiarmid as joint artistic directors made this small theatre what it was attracting talent from all over the world to work at equity minimum producing years of astonishing theatre from 1990 to 2001.
The play at that time was Chatsky with Colin Firth, Jemma Redgrave, Dinsdale Landon, Minnie Driver along with a very large cast. I had no idea what Chatsky was all about which is another good reason to have seen whatever the Almeida was producing in order to learn. I now see that this Russian play is billed as "the Russian Hamlet." This production was the world premiere of a new verse translation by Anthony Burgess. "The briefest of summaries: the hero of the play, Chatsky, tells the truth and is branded a lunatic."
Usually, I go to the theatre somewhat early to have something to eat/drink and read the programme thoroughly. In the case of Chatsky this turned out to be rewarding to learn what this production was all about. The Almeida has a small bar with a bit of food available and tables in a small room between the bar itself and the theatre. As I eventually later learned, the "stage door" as it was is in the passage next to the theatre entrance, but I never thought it to be such. It led down into the basement where all the actors shared whatever small space was available. It was indeed quite small all around, but this only contributed to its intimacy, quality and extraordinary productions.
On this particular April 1993 evening, I got my programme along with my ticket at the box office, a glass of white wine at the bar and settled at one of the tables by the front window in the small room. There were only three other people in this room sitting at a table facing me whom I thought to be other theatre goers doing as I was doing a bit before the performance. Only after the performance began did I realise that these three had been Minnie Driver, Jemma Redgrave and Colin Firth. I did not recognise them and had no idea who they were. Had I known, I would have sat somewhere else completely out of sight.
As it was, they went on jabbering away about whatever while I concentrated on reading the programme thoroughly while enjoying my glass of wine. I might have had a snack as well. It was only after the performance began when I saw an actress with this huge head of hair start speaking the first lines from a chair on the left side of the stage, did I realise that this was Minnie Driver who played the role of the maid. She was stunningly good throughout the play. Naturally, after that I also recognised Colin Firth and Jemma Redgrave. I was stunned that I had not recognised them and had in some sense invaded their private space before the performance to my great regret. If I had only known . . . but then this was the Almeida and very, very small as noted.
Minnie Drive was so good that I made a point of looking up her name again in the programme afterwards noting that this was her first London stage appearance. I thought that certainly she was on her way to success with that talent and ability. I enjoyed Jonathan Kent's production of Chatsky so much that I sent him a letter saying so and noting that he was able to not only bring in established talent but could also identify those who were quite gifted when they were just starting. At least that is the way I felt about what was happening at the Almeida. They did some spectacular productions in those days, and it was a marvellous theatre during a very rough financial time in the early 1990s in London.
Although I kept waiting to see Minnie Driver appear somewhere once again which I felt was bound to happen, she apparently never did on this side of the Atlantic. Not that she hasn't been back to do some interesting work here, for the most part she has lived and worked in the US. When I went looking for information about Chatsky on the Internet, I found something about it that was connected with a Colin Firth appreciation web site. Out of the six major newspaper reviews about Chatsky on this web site only one of them, The Sunday Times, mentioned Minnie Driver noting that her performance was excellent.
It's a terrible shame that she was not recognised for her talent at that time. I suspect that one of the great problems with the theatre as opposed to cinema revolves around the fact that unless a play runs for a long time or the reviews include rave notices, a stunning talent like Minnie Driver can be overlooked.
Another example is Diana Rigg's performance in Medea at the Almeida again directed by Jonathan Kent. It had closed after its six weeks or so in production in September/October 1992 when she won the Evening Standard's Best Actress award. It was not possible to go and see her in her smashing portrayal of Medea. The following autumn in 1993 her role in Medea did come to the West End for four months before she went to New York in the winter of 1994 and won the Tony award for Best Actress there as well. So, it's easy to see how an outstanding talent can go unseen or a newcomer can go unnoticed.
The great problem is why should someone be ostracised in Britain for success across the Atlantic?
---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Subject: "Laurie 'snubbed' after US success" Why is this happening to the best from Britain?
Date: Tuesday 11 March 2008 14:03
From: Gary D Chance
To: e24@bbc.co.uk, news24@bbc.co.uk
It's a shame that really talented people migrate to the US, become successful and then are criticised/ostracised in their native UK.
I'm a dedicated fan of "House" and Hugh Laurie which surprises me since generally I don't think that television programming like this has had much to offer, but "House" is an exception, and Hugh Laurie makes it happen along with the writers and other cast members. "House" is a thoroughly delightful, enjoyable, outrageous [and outrageously funny] and even educational programme
What's happened to creativity in this country including the BBC? Remember "Doctor in the House?" That was a marvellous series along with many others that just don't exist today. Why is UK talent left "fronting QI?"
The same thing happened to Minnie Driver. She was sensational in her first London appearance in a play, "Chatsky," at the Almeida in 1993. She then disappeared off the radar until resurfacing in the US. More recently she has said in an interview that she could not find work in the UK for a year and went abroad where the work was. She too has been criticised for going to the US where she has become successful.
I was pleased to see him approaching the Baftas and being interviewed on News24 recently because I had locked into "House." I must admit that I was surprised to see him without a cane and not limping as he came up the red carpet. Shows you how we are conditioned by the characters these actors create. He said that he was a private person which is understandable.
It's too bad that he could not continue to do well in this country, but I think you have to look deeper into the creative process and what is getting into production to discover why the best are going where the work is. The quality of "House" is outstanding. More power to him for doing it.
3. Being rich 'should be celebrated'. For the last decade this government has allowed surveillance technology to be used 24/7 indefinitely against enterprise activity to ensure that nothing gets done. This surveillance technology was and is in the hands of those ho-hopers whose only ability is violence against children and other defenceless people especially those made defenceless by surveillance technology. This is what this government really means by the so-called "entrepreneur." It is destructive behaviour carried out in the community to ensure that no one succeeds at anything. Thus, the bullying no-hopers crush everyone else.
BBC News Wednesday, 12 March 2008, 08:18 GMT
Being rich 'should be celebrated'
 There should be no cap on success, Mr Hutton says |
The UK should "celebrate the fact that people can be enormously successful in this country", Business Secretary John Hutton has said.
In a speech he argued that "more millionaires" are needed, calling freedom to get rich "a good thing".
The goal that "no-one should be left behind" should not mean no-one can get ahead, he said.
But the Tories called the comments a "weak attempt" to appeal to an "exasperated business community".
Mr Hutton's Progress lecture came on the eve of the Budget and as ministers announced plans for an "enterprise academy".
. . .
"We want more millionaires in Britain not less. Our overarching goal that no-one should get left behind must not become translated into a stultifying sense that no-one should be allowed to get ahead."For the Conservatives, shadow business secretary Alan Duncan said: "This is a weak attempt by Labour to soothe an increasingly exasperated business community.
"John Hutton waxes lyrical about his 'instincts' for aspiration and wealth-creation, but the irony is that over the last nine months his government has gone to great lengths to stifle British enterprise."
Being rich 'should be celebrated'
4. Gordon Brown committed to entrepreneur activity?. Be careful when speaking the truth. Like Chatsky it can result in being dubbed a lunatic especially by this Labour government's apparatchiks. It is necessary to get Gordon Brown and his cabinet ministers to define exactly what they mean by "entrepreneur."
In my direct experience it means the no-hopers feeding of the productive using surveillance technology as a weapon to bully and destroy human and entrepreneurial activity so that the no-hopers without any ability, training, education or experience can effectively use violence to destroy those whom they do not like and rise up as king/queen of the dog pile.
It also means that those elected as directors and Chair of the Lancaster West Estate can exploit their position at the expense of thousands of people to construct 38 business units at a cost of over £1 million while neglecting the tenants whom they are supposed to serve by properly managing the 900 or so residential units. Using surveillance technology in a violently abusive manner against anyone like me who addresses the real problems by speaking the truth results in my being labelled as "potty," "psychotic" and other equally nonsensically infantile name calling epithets.
The antisocial and criminal elements carry out this activity serving the interest of the so-called "entrepreneur" who seeks to make money at the expense of everyone else without providing standards with respect to safety and health. At a tenant management Annual General Meeting, the local MP, Karen Buck, ended her speech with a call to arms: ". . . and everyone can be rich." Well, we've seen what this Labour party government means by that with its Cash for Honours and having to provide cash for secondary school applications and acceptance at a school of the parents' choice.
If you've got the dosh, you'll get the posh.
---------- Forwarded Message ---------
Subject: Gordon Brown committed to entrepreneur activity? Nonsense.
Date: Tuesday 11 March 2008 08:45
From: Gary D Chance
To: news24@bbc.cos.uk
Why has my enterprise activity been destroyed for the last decade by this government's abuse of surveillance technology against me 24/7?
This Prime Minister and this government has not stopped this activity which is displayed by its own actions that it has nothing to do with the entrepreneur and individual business activity in this country.
This is a prime example of this government and its Prime Minister speaking one thing but doing exactly the opposite.
It is frightening when the truth is known, but you do not report the whole truth do you?
When the full truth about this government, enterprise activity of all kinds will shrink and disappear out of fear.
No one will be able to function with any trust and confidence that there is privacy and confidentiality in this country. It just does not exist.
When it is wiped out in one instance like this for a decade without stopping it despite all my reporting, it is wiped out everywhere.
What do you think will cause the next depression?
5. Grim prospect for economic growth. It's even worse than anyone begins to imagine. By glossing over everything for so long, it will all come undone at the same time. Image management has its day of reckoning just as did Enron, World.com and their ilk. The UK government is the Enron of governments skating faster and faster to keep from breaking through the thin ice. Anyone government who uses surveillance technology indefinitely against people and enterprise activity as has occurred to me for almost a decade is destined to bring about a massive collapse. Any organisation or government who cannot assimilate a critical evaluation properly and tries to squash it will come a cropper.
BBC News Wednesday, 12 March 2008, 14:24 GMT
Grim prospect for economic growth
| By Steve Schifferes Economics reporter, BBC News |
 | READ THE BUDGET IN FULL  |
The UK economy is facing its biggest slowdown since Labour came to power - and the biggest rise in public borrowing, the chancellor has said.
Chancellor Alistair Darling warned that economic growth in 2008 and 2009 would be slower than the government expected.
He cut his growth forecast for 2008 to 1.75%-2.25%, well below the 2.5%-3% predicted in last year's Budget.
And he warned public borrowing would rise to £43bn next year, rather than falling to £36bn as he had hoped.
. . .
What is not in doubt is that the slowing economy has had a significant effect on government borrowing.
Mr Darling said the budget gap would rise sharply from £38bn this year to £43bn next year, and would still be at £38bn in 2009-10.
This is a sharp change from assumptions made just six months ago in the pre-Budget report, when borrowing was predicted to fall to £36bn, and £13bn worse than the Budget prediction just one year ago.
The rise in borrowing means that it will take longer for the government's finances to return to surplus, and meet its fiscal rules.
The chancellor said this meant that fiscal policy "will support" the economic recovery by running a bigger deficit in order to underpin spending and keep the economy ticking over.
Grim prospect for economic growth
6. 'borrow to get ourselves out of this'. The government's borrowing during the forthcoming downturn will make it all the worse. It is caught between a Northern Rock and a very hard other place. This government will sink, sink, sink while the horrified population watches. Any government who uses surveillance technology indefinitely against anyone is a government that has no legitimacy in democratic terms. It is a totalitarian government, and such governments invariably collapse.
---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Subject: "We're going to borrow to get ourselves out of this . . ." said [a BBC commentator] commenting on what the government (Chancellor) has indicated he's doing.
Date: Wednesday 12 March 2008 14:40
From: Gary D Chance
To: news24@bbc.co.uk
He noted that there was an acknowledgement from the government of the world economic risk scenario, but he went on to note that the government has not indicated how this might effect the UK.
Instead, the government has tried to back foot the opposition by "borrowing" through the economic problems whatever they might be.
Therefore, the government will be squeezing the private sector out of the capital markets.
Therefore, the government's demand for borrowed funds will put upward pressure on interest rates.
Thereore, the government will be inflationary by sustaining its spending and not cutting spending.
The brunt of the blow from the economic risk will be borne by the private sector which will suffer, suffer, suffer.
The government, however, will have excellent macro numbers to absolve itself of the problems.
'It's you lot who are going to have big problems, but we will be able to go to the voters with a glossy macro scenario,' the government will be saying.
Will it work for the government's re-election?
I think not. The opposition will have the decimated private sector to vote out this Labour government and vote in the next.