Internships at Theatres

I have recently been passing a cursory eye over internship positions in London theatres in an effort to expand my horizons and get a bit more experience in different areas of the theatre.

This week I have looked at two internship positions at two well known London theatres.  I do not qualify for one of these because i do not live in a certain area of London and I do not qualify for the other because I am not on the dole.

Lets start with the first one. This was for a well known (and internationally renowned) theatre.  It was for a well known series of artistic programmes they run for creatives from all over the world.  I could only apply for this job if I lived in the borough in which the theatre was based.

In relation to the second theatre, this paid internship was only applicable for me to apply for if I was on jobseeker's allowance as part of some sort of "arts jobs" programme.  As someone who already has experience in working in theatres and wishes to learn more this is a bit of a kick in the teeth.

I understand the reasons for both of the above.  At the end of the day it is about funding.  One of the jobs will be through the apprenticeship scheme of the local council, and the other is from some sort of government initiative to get unemployed people some well needed experience.  Both jobs were listed as 10-16k pro rata, which is decent for an internship.

However... (without becoming "daily mail" about it).... both jobs discriminate against sections of society.  One discriminates against people who do not live within a mile of the theatre and the other against people who have a job, and in my opinion both are wrong to do so.

The fact that the theatre which requires you to live in its local borough is an internationally recognised theatre (complete with broadway transfers) seems hypocritical to me.  Its not a case of me being annoyed I cant apply for this (Its not an area I'm interested in), Its more a case of the guidelines to get funding.  I guess alot of people would see it as positive discrimination, but at the end of the day any sort of discrimination based on where someone comes from or lives is, in my eyes, completely wrong.

As for the other position which is only open to those on the dole.... I find it absolutely incredible that this job could quite possibly go to someone who is simply claiming jobseekers as they are waiting for a job in the arts to crop up (as insinuated by the name of the scheme that is supporting this job).  Without sounding right wing, in my opinion, if you cant get a job that you want or are qualified for, you should still work.  This may be a minimum wage job in something completely unrelated.... but the fact that someone is on jobseekers, or perhaps can afford to not work in a job they don't want to, should have no bearing on whether they should qualify for the job.

I guess both of these theatres have to add these stipulations so they can keep the internships running by accessing funding they possibly once received from different sources.  But to disqualify genuine candidates from a job because of where they live or the fact that they are currently in paid work is in my opinion discriminatory and morally corrupt.  The organisations involved are arguably putting two applicants out of a career in the arts because of these reasons.   To someone who believes that the arts is an all-inclusive sector that genuinely can change opinions and influence the bigger picture, this is a blow. In a way I find it slightly hypocritical of the ethos of producing theatres.

I don't know the ins and outs of these decisions, and I suppose I never will.  But in a way I am disappointed that two of London's big theaters, known for producing work from around the world and for pushing boundaries, would allow themselves to be so constrained by other restrictions.

Me, Ulster Bank, What they're doing wrong, and what we can do

I am (like many Ulster Bank customers) livid.  Below I shall tell you of my experience of this whole technical issue, followed by what Ulster Bank should be doing, but aren't, and how this has made the situation WORSE.

I have had no access to my account via my card for nearly 2 weeks now.  Payments have not entered my account.  I am currently owed in excess of £800.  I noticed today that around £400 worth of random transactions have left my account, all of random amounts and listed as a debit card transaction.  This is interesting as I currently can not use my card.
Being based in England, I was told that I could withdraw money by speaking to the staff at Natwest, Ulster Banks affiliate.  This is quite simply, partly true.  The first branch I entered, I was told that they couldn't do anything for me.  In the second branch, I had to escalate this query up to the assistant manager of the branch, who was able to help me (because she used some INITIATIVE.... something that has been lost throughout this debacle)  The problem is that I do not have the time to spend an hour (or more on that occasion) in a bank to take money out.  I have lost earnings because of this, have had to get cover for shifts etc. and borrow money from work and friends, which is stressful and humiliating.
More to the point, that £400 of activity I mentioned earlier currently cannot be investigated as the fraud team (which i believe is the same for Natwest, RBS and Ulster Bank) cannot access my account.  So they then decide to put me through to the Visa Dispute Team, as "they might have access"  The problem being, every time I am transferred to them I am put on hold for minutes and then the line goes dead, as if i'd got to the end of a waiting system and been cut off.  Then I phone Ulster Bank and ask for the number for the dispute team. So far I have been given 3 different phone numbers, none of which work. I am fed up.

From a PR point of view, Ulster Bank have handled this whole thing appallingly.  They have released statements to customers through the media, and there is an update message when you log in to your anytime banking online.  I have had no access to my account for 2 weeks and have had not so much as an email or letter, addressed to me apologising.  Just a few moments ago, I phoned the "helpline number" which is mentioned in the press releases.  This was simply a recorded statement of what I already knew.  What is the point of a helpline where you get no help? At least have the person talking in the statement be the head of the bank, or someone high up as opposed to a nameless voice.   As far as I am aware, Ulster Bank have not had an actual person on television or on the radio giving their point of view or statements (I may be wrong) but are simply making press releases.  This is cowardly and shameful.  We are not actually being told exactly what is going on or why it is taking so long to fix, just a few general terms such as "backlog" and "technical problems"   RULE NUMBER ONE OF CUSTOMER SERVICES ---- Tell your customers exactly what is going on.  We are not all technical genius, but at least put it in layman's terms for goodness sake.

According to the FSA, it is every customers right to have access to their account.  Well, I quite simply, don't have access.  I have also lost earnings and no doubt my phone bill will be through the roof due to the 0845 numbers that Ulster Bank employ.  I shall be demanding all of this, plus compensation.  It has got to the stage where this has become ridiculous.  It is no good shouting at people in a bank or on the phone, and I cant seem to speak to anyone, and Ulster Bank don't seem to have anyone appearing in person.  Hence why I have felt it appropriate to make my anger public. There are plenty of people who are no doubt in the same position I am in.  So I am attacking them online through this blog.  You should too.  Or share this one.  It might not make the problems be sorted any faster, but it will at least teach the honchos a thing or two about customer service.


***** Since I wrote this, apparently there has been a representative on NI local news.   Is this really good enough 2 weeks after it happened?  I know my my money will eventually come in, and that the fraud on my account will be sorted.  But that does not stop the whole thing from becoming ultra frustrating.******

One Off Dramas, Sky Arts' Playhouse Presents and A Challenge to Terrestrial Channels

Sky Arts have recently broadcast the first 2 episodes of their "Playhouse Presents" series.  In case its managed to escape you, this series is made up of 10 short one-off dramas, not longer than half an hour.  Each tells a completely different story and star the cream of the British acting crop, including David Tennant, Sheila Hancock, Olivia Williams and Russell Tovey to name but a few. The first two stories have been of a high standard, both having their own unique styles, narratively and visually.  It has been a while since a broadcaster has had the bravery to commission one off programming in this nature and Sky Arts should be commended for doing so.
The last programme I can think of that comes close is perhaps the fantastic Jimmy McGovern's award winning "The Street".  This was slightly different, however, in that there was some minor overlap of characters in each story, but proved that critics and audiences alike enjoy seeing drama that isn't necessarily about cliffhangers or catching every episode to follow the narrative.  Which begs the question, why aren't there more short (i.e. an hour or less) dramas on television?
Perhaps the money men are worried that they may not be able to sell the series on to the other english speaking networks across the world?  Or because of how expensive it is to make with purse strings tightening?  If that is the case, then surely it is better to invest money in storytellers and actors that can create a piece of drama that can be sold abroad, instead of reality shows and quiz shows?  It saddens me to see the amount of mediocre series imported from America on our television screens.  Surely it would be more profitable to make our own series, which can then be sold around the world?  It seems to all come down to risk vs reward.
The other problem with less of these short one-off dramas in modern television schedules is that it leaves a small hole in the nurturing of talent.  The BBC's "Play for Today" helped many playwrights make the step between the stage and screen, many of whom went on to work on some of our most loved television programmes.  Not to mention the amount of young actors that made their first television appearances as part of the show, such as Kenneth Brannagh.
In 2006, the BBC announced it would be looking into a series called "The Evening Play", although nothing has come of this.  Kevin Spacey spoke out in 2008, saying he would like to see something like "Play for Today" return.
Sky Arts may be beginning that trend.  The Gauntlet has been laid down.  Its up to the terrestrial channels to follow suit.

Chelsea, Barcelona and Di Matteo

Sure, it wasn't pretty, and yes, perhaps to stand a decent chance at the Nou Camp, it would have been beneficial for Chelsea to score another goal.  But the fact is that tactically that was an incredibly professional performance from Chelsea this evening.
They didn't press against Barcelona, the way we have seen so many teams do to no effect in the past.  This only serves to open up key space in the middle of the field, and if there's one thing you don't want to give to the Catalans giants, it's space.   Instead, when defending, Chelsea opted to put men behind the ball, in two clear lines that were well drilled and organised, forcing mistakes and improving the chance for interceptions. They weren't afraid to let Barcelona have the ball.  More to the point, this meant that when the Blues did get the ball back, they had people around with wish to pass to and, barring the last 10 minutes, didn't have to resort to hoofing it up the field and thereby lose possession.
A few times, as Barcelona changed their formation (as they often do), Chelsea responded with similar shape changes of their own, which , coupled with the gargantuan effort their players put in, meant that the Catalan threat was neutralized to the point that Messi ended up playing so deep he barely had a say in the game.
John Obi Mikel had perhaps the best game I've seen him play.  He worked tirelessly to win the ball, and link up with the players around him, showing an intelligence and awareness above his form this season. Credit where it's due, he has been playing better under Di Matteo, but tonight's performance shows that he may yet have a bright future ahead of him.
Which brings me to Matteo. Modest, Unassuming Roberto.  No doubt after such a victory, the speculation over his future at Chelsea will increase.  There is no doubt he is a talented manager.  In my opinion he was sacked early by West Brom, as they were playing quality stuff, but as we all know, football is a results business.  He hasn't had that problem at Chelsea.
The problem he will have however, is the patience of the owner.  Like it or not, Chelsea have some major rebuilding to do.  They have a first team that probably has more players in their 30's than 20's.  He has done a fantastic job this season and deserves the praise that he is receiving.  Whatever happens with the second leg of the semi-final, in my opinion Di Matteo should say, "Thanks, but no thanks", and with his head held high, relinquish the manager's position, much like Hiddink did. Of course, before that, there's still the small matter of an F.A. Cup Final and Barcelona away to attend to....