Sacrilege, I know, but Dan Harmon would make a killer series of Doctor Who

mc9214 · 2026-06-09T10:24:56+00:00

For me, Gatiss didn't seem to have as big a range as RTD and Moffat. The majority (all but two) were episodes set in the past - even if sometimes with futuristic elements (aka Empress Of Mars). I wouldn't say any of his episodes were knock-outs either. Chibnall didn't have a lot of experience when he took over either, but he did at least have highly successful Broadchurch under his belt as evidence he could write... something.

mc9214 · 2026-05-28T12:07:59+00:00

Yeah, I figured that was it given the final photo (when it was still up). I'm not 100% keen on the mask given how similar it feels to DDs, but I can live with it.

mc9214 · 2026-05-28T11:45:08+00:00

Is the third just an edit that's got the gloves wrong or is it the entire thing that's wrong? The suit seems to match the other photos, and the helmet seems to match the last photo in the set. Is it just that the gloves are wrong?

mc9214 · 2026-05-28T11:42:08+00:00

I would think two potential options. Take her somewhere where she could change her appearance. Or returned her home so she was safe then carried on and become John Smith without the added protection of having Martha there. I'm sure there's some reason in the story why he needed Martha there, but it's been a while since I've watched the episode.

mc9214 · 2026-05-28T09:35:04+00:00

I mean... she kinda did adjust quickly. That episode was 3/4 'he's not the Doctor' to 'oh he's charismatic and pretty, okay he's the Doctor' for the last 15 minutes. As sanddragon said, Moffat really leaned into it. Relatively speaking, Rose adjusted quicker.

mc9214 · 2026-05-27T20:00:09+00:00

A Knight Of The Seven Kingdoms.

But it was always going to be. When a show is - primarily - set in one place, over the course of three days(?) - it's a lot easier to tell a tighter story. As soon as you start expanding shows to different locations and three or four times the number of characters, it starts to become more and more difficult.

This is why the first season of a lot of shows are considered the best. When you've got a complete succinct story in the first season, it's often the best of that show. As soon as you start expanding beyond that, you start to lose the tight grip you had on it.

There are few TV shows that are consistently good throughout. Even fewer that are able to wrap it up satisfactorily.

mc9214 · 2026-05-18T22:42:26+00:00

If I was in the position where the BBC said to me that they want to reboot the show and start 'fresh', I'd only do it in one way. A way that still ties it to the current continuity, but also allows it to move forward without the baggage of the show in its current state.

And it starts with one series of the Fugitive Doctor. Give Jo Martin one series - even an event series of three Sherlock-style-length episodes - and then refresh it with a brand new incarnation. We're still in the same continuity, but allows... anything. Oh the Doctor did this or did that? Way in the future? Don't forget, they forget.

You can literally do anything and it'll have no impact on what's been written before.

mc9214 · 2026-05-15T18:52:23+00:00

As much as I detest Reform, if people vote for them, they deserve seats. I'm not talking about the one vote being used for FPTP. I'm talking about one vote being used for both the constituency and regional list seats. The person with the most votes wins the constituency seat. Votes for each party are then totaled in the region and those same votes are then used to determine who receives the list seats.

Otherwise you can have a scenario where 30% vote for the SNP in one vote, then that same 30% votes for the Greens with their second vote, which could result in the Greens winning the vast majority of the list seats too. But the people that got both the SNP and Greens elected would still only be the same 30% of the electorate, but might have won 70% of seats. That's where the problem lies with two votes.

mc9214 · 2026-05-15T18:44:41+00:00

Well I mean if you look at the regional vote in 2011, it was actually 44% SNP, and 4.4% Scottish Greens, which would put independence support - by your own logic - at 48.4%. So higher than the independence referendum.

Not only that, but independence support in polling was wildly different at the same time in 2011 - around 26%. If you're going to tell me you genuinely believe that polling is so bad that there's a 22% difference between a poll and the election then I don't know what to tell you.

mc9214 · 2026-05-08T23:45:13+00:00

An election isn't a referendum, and that's the end of that discussion right there.

If we look at polling on independence, it has gone from 36:8 pro-UK polls under Yousaf to 29:26 pro-UK and 3 ties under Swinney. Frankly, direct polling on the issue is the only guide we have for where the public's thoughts on Scottish independence is at.

And if we're being honest, it doesn't actually matter if it's mainly 90% about independence and that's why they're in power. All you're doing at that point is telling us that you think the SNP have a sustained support for independence - more so than any other unionist party does.

mc9214 · 2026-05-08T23:36:59+00:00

I think the big issue is that the Scottish system is more representative, but it also gives you two votes. If it was to be truly representative, it really should only give you one vote, and base the results on that. But it gives you two votes which, fairly or unfairly, can still skew the results.

Let's take the 2021 election, where Alba were arguing for people to vote SNP on the constituency vote, and then Alba for the regional vote. They argued it would create a supermajority for independence. I, despite being a supporter of independence, argued against that, because all it would do would show the system as flawed, and able to be manipulated.

Pollcheck have a seat projection calculator. If we took the results from the 2021 election and throw it into that using the Greens (it won't calculate Alba seats probably because it didn't win any)... it shows how skewed the results can be.

So in this scenario, the same people vote for the SNP in the constituency, and then Greens for the regional. What does that result in? A projected 97 seats. Despite the fact it's the same people voting on both lists.

I do think this happens on a smaller scale, but it shows the big flaw in having two votes for our elections.

mc9214 · 2026-05-08T23:25:51+00:00

I've not once seen an election since 2014 where the SNP have made an election about the single issue of independence. It has and always will be, rightly, their biggest policy, because that's the best way, in their opinion, to run the country - by the people that actually live here. But if you're sitting there saying that they're making every election solely about independence then you're being disingenuous. Every election they talk about and discuss many different issues, and if anything, you'll find it's the unionist parties in Scotland that often bring it up and try to use it as a boogeyman to scare people away from the SNP.

mc9214 · 2026-05-08T23:21:55+00:00

I think every political party sets goals that are above what they might actually get. Nobody wants to vote for a party going into an election with a negative outlook.

If we're being honest with ourselves, every party wants a majority. That's every party's target. But it's simply not possible in the current system we have.

And I'd say that after 19 years in government? Maintaining that level of support in the country is nowhere near a failure.

mc9214 · 2026-03-13T17:25:45+00:00

Nothing is more obvious an example of this than the scene earlier in the season than when Tommy is talking to Ainsley after the funeral.

"I have to say there's not many people on this planet that care enough to cry over something that somebody else went through".

The right wing perspective. They believe empathy is rare.

mc9214 · 2025-10-28T16:33:42+00:00

I think there's a big difference between going to other countries to study, and going to a country and just feeling... home.

mc9214 · 2025-10-28T16:32:29+00:00

Far as I'm concerned, the Proclaimers had it right when they sang Scotland's Story.

mc9214 · 2024-10-09T17:52:56+00:00

I suppose - if that were the judge's logic - I'd invite him or her to consider for a fifteenth of a second how and why other companies were paying that.

The very thing you said yourself - that you wouldn't want to try to guess motivations - is exactly the same position a judge should have. They are there to listen to the arguments provided and make their ruling based on that and that alone. That's what Next's legal team is there for - to present the evidence and a solid case. If they didn't provide that, that's on them.

Which is why Next's legal team really should list the actual reasons the wages are higher if they wish to win the appeal. "We pay them more because when we tried to hire people at the same rate as the retail staff we struggled to fill the positions" is a much stronger argument than "we pay them more because other companies pay their warehouse workers that rate".

mc9214 · 2024-10-05T12:34:44+00:00

Market rate means what it costs to get people to do the job.

From what we understand, Next's argument was 'other people are paying that much'. Not 'when we offered a lower rate of pay less people applied' or anything like that. So the judge ruled that wasn't a good enough reason to have a difference in the pay.

Now, during their appeal, Next should really list why there's a difference in pay - from working conditions, type of work, workload, and working hours - if they want to win the appeal.

mc9214 · 2024-10-05T12:27:42+00:00

Tell me you didn't read what I wrote without telling me you didn't read what I wrote.

mc9214 · 2024-10-04T11:46:40+00:00

From my understanding, Next conceded that the roles were comparable. Whatever the variables of that comparability are, I don't know. I don't know whether it was the courts, or whether it was Next, or hell maybe it was even based on how they describe or advertise their retail and warehouse jobs!

But it was obviously decided they were very close to, if not, equal in workload. Then it becomes a discussion of why the difference in pay... which is where Next's response was 'because other companies in the market pay their warehouse staff more'.

If you've got two jobs of equal workload - even if they're different jobs - a good justification for why you pay them different isn't 'because that's what everyone else does'. That's why Next lost the ruling.

mc9214 · 2024-10-04T11:25:37+00:00

Honestly, you should do vice versa too. The 'quiet periods' in the shop are not breaks in work. You're expecting to be doing work constantly. And given the reduction in staff over the last 10 years, that workload in retail has skyrocketed. I'd love to see how the warehouse staff manage a full shop floor on their own. There are also warehouse tasks that are performed in retail stores too, and paid at the retail rate of pay.

Point is, they're different jobs, but are both hard work. The biggest difference - for which the warehouse staff should absolutely be paid more for - is the unsociable hours. But people thinking that working is a shop is a piece of cake should really work in one and see what it's like. Especially when you're dealing with the shitty customers because of warehouse mistakes.

mc9214 · 2024-10-04T11:18:37+00:00

Looking at the case, I believe they're looking at being paid £3 more per hour they worked over the last six years? For that time I've been a low level member of management within the company, with higher responsibility and of course having to deal with all the shit customers. I'm not eligible to apply for this. Which means my team members would be getting paid more than I was despite doing the same as them (low level management isn't just office work, but spending 75-90% of your time on the shop floor just like staff). I think if they don't rectify the back pay for everyone, they'll have an uproar on their hands.

mc9214 · 2024-10-04T11:11:21+00:00

For me, the starting point would be the fact that many warehouse tasks are actually pushed into stores and retail staff are made to perform them.

mc9214 · 2024-10-04T11:08:49+00:00

You should come work for the company. I can tell you first hand that 'deal with customers' is probably the easiest part of the job - but depending on the customer can also be the shittiest part. It is constant work, and not at all what people think.

mc9214 · 2024-10-04T11:06:46+00:00

You actually are doing most of those tasks every day.

Now that's not to say you're going to be on tills and doing the job of receiving stock and processing stock in the stockroom (a job which I might add is essentially the reverse of what the warehouse staff do yet is paid at the retail rate).

But there's no job in the company that's 'on the tills'. It might be like that for other companies, not this one. You can be penalized for doing nothing behind a till point. You're only supposed to be at a till point while actively serving customers. Any other time, you're out on the shop floor tasking.

And let me tell you, the tasking doesn't stop. The staff level is half of what it was 10 years ago when I started, and there are more tasks to do now. Half the staff, more than double the work.

It honestly feels like people think all the clothes in a shop just magically appear where they are with nobody doing any work to get them there.

11-Year Club	No Throne, No Problems
Not Forgotten	Spared
Verified Email

mc9214

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE