We went on a Friday evening, so we got to enjoy an after-show party as well as the show.
Naturally we lost each other in the first part of the show; the cast and ushers deliberately separate you to add to the sense of discombobulation and to make you wander around in a less-than linear way.
I managed to find my way to the bar a fair bit quicker than Janie did and ran into Richard Russell (who I used to see regularly at Lambton Place back then) and his entourage. Janie eventually joined us; she had met Richard before, not all that long before in fact, at the Cafe Anglais. She wondered afterwards if “that man is everywhere”; turned out soon enough that he was!
Then a bit more wandering around; I wanted to make sure I’d seen all the action from the earlier part of the show. Then the ushers started to steward us into the more climatic scenes and then to the finale and party, where we ran into Richard and Co. again. They stuck around longer than we did. The live band were very good; I remember them playing Swing Swing Swing with great verve.
Unusually, we took Phillie to the theatre with us on this occasion. It must have been a long prearranged thing; I think Tony was doing one of his long business trips in the far east, so we had Phillie to stay for the weekend and it was planned far enough in advance for us to book a good Cottesloe production for us all to see.
This was a very good play/production. Funny, thought-provoking and very well acted. Great cast; not least Stanley Townsend, Olivia Williams and Dominic Rowan. Thea Sharrock, who had impressed us so much directing at the Gate, was starting to get higher profile gigs; this being an early example of one of those.
Phillie, bless her, unaccustomed as she was to the theatre, was a bit “west-end theatre-ish” at first, talking as if she was in her living room watching TV, until Janie gave her “the look” a couple of times. I think Phillie enjoyed that theatre trip very much.
I’m pretty sure this was the occasion that, afterwards, we went on to Zinc Bar and Grill in Heddon Street. Now gone, I believe, a couple of reviews of that Conran place survive:
Anyway, Phillie really enjoyed herself that evening – she got quite tipsy at Zinc, as was her wont by then, but the important thing was that she had a good time.
Barbat Credit to Galassi at the English language Wikipedia CC BY-SA 3.0
It was a bit of a social whirl early that week, with two work-related evenings Monday and Tuesday, then an interesting concert Wednesday.
Monday 4 February PEFC Evening at the House of Lord’s
This was a dinner organised by the Programme For the Endorsement of Forestry Certification Schemes (PEFC) about the world’s forest resources. In truth, I don’t remember all that much about the evening. We (Z/Yen and an expert panel) were doing a governance review with PEFC at the time. This event coincided neatly with a day in London with the governance review panel, most of whom attended the dinner in the evening.
I have a vague feeling that Zac Goldsmith might have been the guest speaker for this one, or perhaps I am getting confused with a different evening at the Palace of Westminster. Anyway, my e-mail trail suggests that the evening was a great success.
Tuesday 5 February Monique Gore Evening at the Kiwi Kitchen
This was a fun informal works outing organised by Monique ahead of a relatively long holiday in her native New Zealand. We went to the Kiwi Kitchen on the North End Road – sadly now closed. It was a fun place and I recall the food being pretty good too. The only on-line Trip Advisor review that I can find (most have been closed down along with the restaurant) says:
“Perfect food, wonderful value for money”
Reviewed 17 April 2009
Following a trip to New Zealand in January, we were missing the flavours of NZ and since we were in London decided to try out this restaurant. What an absolute gem!!
The food is cooked to perfection and the portion sizes are more than adequate – if you decide to go I would suggest taking a very large appetite!…
My abiding memory was that we had a large contingent of the Z/Yen crowd, not least the UNISON team. Coincidentally, the restaurant had a Kiwi Sauvignon Blanc named Unison on the wine list, which I decided we simply had to choose to mark the occasion. It was pretty good wine too.
I wonder whether Monique took any pictures that evening – she often did – if so, I’ll subsequently up one or two of them if she is good enough to provide them.
Wednesday 6 February – Homayoun Shajarian & Dastan Ensemble at Cadogan Hall
Janie and I were keen to try this Persian classical music, so we made an unusual decision to see a concert on a Wednesday evening (Janie treats patients at home on Wednesdays, so is a reluctant traveller into central London for the evening on a Wednesday).
This concert was worth the trip, not least to see/hear unusual instruments such a the barbat and tar (lute-type instruments), kamancheh (a spiky fiddle), tanbak, dayereh, daf, dammam & kuzeh (percussion instruments).
The Dastan Ensemble – click here for website – are a leading ensemble in their field. A fair chunk of London’s Iranian community turned out for this concert, plus a sizeable minority of interested folk like ourselves. Not all of the audience was reverent in the way a European audience would be for classical music; for example quite a few people moved around or made noise during pieces. Similarly, the ensemble had little sense of London concert timing etiquette, performing several encores and thus keeping us at the hall till well after 10:00 if I recall correctly.
We won’t be rushing to see Persian classical again in a hurry; it didn’t float our boat to the same extent as Indian classical (for example) does. But we were both glad to have tried it, even in the middle of a busy week.
This was a really good play/production. It was only on at the Royal Court for a short while – so we felt we’d got ourselves hot tickets for this one. Unusually for a David Hare, this one had started in New York 15 months before.
Janie is a very good-hearted sort, as evidenced by her diary entries for this afternoon – listing a whole load of stuff to take over to my mum’s house that afternoon for our “half-holiday” and evening with mum. A busman’s half-holiday in Janie’s case, with chiropody equipment and massage oils listed.
In short, Janie will have given a great deal of care and attention to mum’s feet and shanks when we visited her at Woodfield Avenue that afternoon, ahead of dinner at Newton’s in Clapham.
Newton’s had been recommended by John and Lily Hogan, who were keen on that place. To be fair, it had good reviews back then and writing more than 10 years later (January 2019), although renamed 33 Abbeville now, still seems to be well regarded by the locals.
We were also attracted to the place by the offering of slow-cooked lamb shanks; a dish we all like(d) and don’t often see on modern restaurant menus.
Unfortunately, the care and attention that Janie gave to my mother’s feet and shanks did not appear to be replicated in those served to us at Newton’s. Our guess is that the shanks we were served had not been cooked for anything like long enough, making the central purpose of our visit more than a little disappointing.
At that stage of her life, mum found it difficult to keep her disappointment to herself…
…and at that stage of long, hard-working weeks, Janie and I were not in the very best of moods for awkwardness either, so I don’t think the visit ended quite as well as it should have done.
We did not return to Newton’s to ascertain whether our poor meal there was a one-off problem – quite possibly it was but we were none of us “second chance” types for restaurants – especially mum.
This picture actually four year’s later at Noddyland, taken by Kim or Janie
We wanted to visit Charlie in Cambridge before she finished her law degree at Girton. January of her final year was leaving it almost as late as would be feasible. We had a pretty full itinerary of short trips March/April and Charlie had finals to start thinking about.
We booked the Felix for the last weekend of January, went and had a good time.
We had a wander around Cambridge on the Saturday and saw some interesting things, the most memorable of which was the Pepys Library. We went with Charlie and some of her friends to a comedy show after dinner on Saturday. Sub-Footlights, had its moments. But for some reason no photos from those bits. Oh well.
This was the first Docklands finance lecture that Michael organised for Gresham College. In theory this was the 2007 one, but it took place in early 2008.
At that time, we were having a shocking run at the Hampstead – so much so that we started to lose faith in the place – revived of course when the Edward Hall era turned the place around.
We stuck it out, if I remember correctly, hoping for a more interesting second half. Marginally more interesting but in truth the play really was a lemon.
It was a Friday evening, so it was stronger meat than we would normally choose for the end of the working week. Still, we were really taken by these plays and this production of them. The reviews we can still find tend to agree with us:
My role on the British Computer Society (BCS) Ethics Panel resulted in me leading the debate at one of the tables at this Thought Leadership event at the Royal Society.
I was lucky enough to have Onora O’Neill on my table; not only an absolutely brilliant mind for such a discussion but also delightful company.
The idea was that I simply take hand-written notes and then Penny Duquenoy, who ran the secretariat of our group, would produce a write up.
But a few days after the event Penny e-mailed me to say that she couldn’t read my hand-writing at all, so could I provide her with some typed notes. My handwriting illegible – who knew?
Several days of too-ing and fro-ing ensued in an attempt to get my hand-written notes back to me. Eventually they came and I then submitted the following notes, which paid careful heed to the Chatham House rule so I feel perfectly at liberty to reproduce them here. The topic of this debate is all too relevant as I write 11 years later and for sure will remain relevant for some time to come.
BCS THOUGHT LEADERSHIP DISCUSSION ON SHARING HUMAN DATA – TABLE ONE NOTES
• Concern that we do not have privacy legislation in the UK, we have data protection legislation which is not the same thing. We have incoherent case law on privacy and a resulting inconsistency between case law and statute law. • Principles such as “proportionality” and “need to know” are extremely hard to interpret and we don’t even have formal mechanisms on how to interpret these concepts. • Discussed the example of patient identifiers at some length – the pros and the cons (as outlined in the introductory talks). • Discussed “lazy data sharing” – i.e. many of the problems we experience are connected with human error, laziness etc., not information systems themselves. • Discussed the principle of autonomy, how that differs from privacy etc. • Discussed the relative merits of “opt out” and “opt in” schemes. Concerns about complexity in both cases – i.e. concerns that both practitioners and subjects struggle to understand such schemes. Opt out often simpler in many ways, but concerns about direct and/or indirect discrimination against those who opt out. US examples cited. • DNA database discussed at length as an example with many facets. Should everybody be on the DNA database (avoids the discrimination risk). But then how much DNA information could/should reasonably be held to ensure benefits while minimising the risk of misuse. Worried about lack of safeguards, wrongful use of information, over-abstraction (e.g. to the extent that such DNA evidence would be inadmissible in court). • Discussed Prüm Treaty and its implications for sharing DNA information. Also discussed Passenger Name Record proposal (EU). • Should each citizen have a unique chip implant at birth? This led on to discussion of ID cards. • Concern about too much stricture. People like multiple identities without necessarily using same for serious crime, fraud or mischief. Several “close to home” examples were discussed; these are mercifully protected by the Chatham House Rule and the fact that I did not write them down at the time.
Re that last point, it’s not exactly a breach of the Chatham House rule for me to state that I explained my use of Ged Ladd as a benign second identity for the purposes of fun stuff and for communicating with nephews and nieces who, at that time, might have found corresponding with uncles and aunts on (e.g.) Facebook a little embarrassing.
I don’t think it breaches the Chatham House rule for me to reveal that, once I self-outed such use, that more than half the other people at the table admitted that they too, for various benign reasons, use second identities on line for some purposes. Fascinating.
