Phone-ins and Constant Ad-Breaks. The Price of Modern TV.

It wasn't that long ago that if you watched an hour long programme on ITV, that you'd expect to see about three advert breaks of around three minutes long. Now though, watch an hour and a half of The X-Factor or I'm a Celebrity on a Saturday night and you can expect to sit through six advert breaks with around twenty five minutes worth of ads in total. That's to say out of ninety minutes show time, twenty five minutes or nearly a third is adverts. But it's not only far longer and far more frequent ad-breaks you have to sit through whilst watching your favourite programme nowadays. Add in recaps, previews, phone-in competitions and all the rest, the amount of actual programme you get for your well-earned time is even less.

Almost every live programme on ITV for instance has a phone-in competition which the presenters will relentelessly plug at every ad-break. If gambling was supposed to be something discouraged then no-one's told ITV. These simple phone calls will cost at least a pound a time. And the odds of winning the prize are very, very slim indeed. A pound may not seem a lot but when you have people phoning up more than once to these competitions or entering two or three a week then it all adds up. Not to metion the profit the TV channel is making from these phone calls.

Because you have hundreds of thousands trying to win that one prize. That one prize. Yes, it may be a good prize, a holiday or car or whatever. But if you have one hundred thousand people phoning up, then your odds of winning are one hundred thousand to one. You may as well go down the bookies with your pound and stick it on a reasonably priced horse. At least you have a fair chance of winning some money back.

And the reason you have around one hundred thousand people entering is because these ABC phone-in quizzes they set are ridiculously easy by anyone's standards. It's usually along the lines of 'What's the capital of England?' Is it A- Norwich. B- London or C- Britney Spiers. Or it could be asking what's the name of the planet we live on? A -Earth. B – Jupiter or C – Britney Spiers. The question is deliberatly as easy as possible because the object is to get as many people phoning up as possible. Another unfortunate consequence of this is you'll have people who are not the brightest getting excited, phoning up immediately because they know the capital of England isn't Britney Spiers and they're fairly sure, not certain, but fairly sure they aren't living on Jupiter.

When I say 'not the brightest' people by the way I don't mean that in a disparaging way. I could say the most vulnerable. But it's no doubt, those in these hard times who can't afford to lose their money gambling who will do so. The most desperate. And the actual cost of the call is easily lost in the excited spiel of the voiceover. True, the price of the phone call is shown on screen as well. As well as the fact you can enter online for free a lot of the time. But of course the miniscule print at the bottom of the screen is almost impossible to read.
Daybreak, This Morming or Loose Women are but three daytime programmes which not only have phone-in competitions but at least a two or three minute segment shown every fifteen minutes to get you to gamble your money away by making a simple phone call. Only then can you watch the adverts and see what you can buy with any money you have left.

It's certainly not just ITV who does this. Cable TV channels are even worse for adverts. It seems that whatever commercial channel you're on, the adverts aren't built around the TV programmme anymore but the other way around.

Of course, adverts bring in revenue for the TV channel and are a necessary evil. And understandably perhaps, with ITV's recent record debts they have obviously decided to squeeze out every last commercial drop of value in each programme they show. And to be fair ITV's debts are now coming down, slowly but surely. In fact, the way things are going it's only a matter of time before they turn things completely around. They are a commercial organisation and are there to make money.

It seems however one of the main aims of any commercial TV programme nowadays is to get you not only to spend your time in front of the TV but to get you to spend your money as well. Yet the morals of the phone-in competitions alongside the ever expanding ad breaks mean that making money seems to be the overwhelming priority over making entertaining programmes. The balance between ads, phon-in and actual programme content is just about tolerable at this time. But any more swing towards making profit instead of just making programmes may mean that could change sooner rather than later.

Hostgator promo code

The X Factor and the Nice Factor.

It was good to see Little Mix win the X-Factor. They emerged I feel as the best vocalists which is always a good sign to see in the winners of a singing contest. But they also seemed to be genuinely nice girls too. And during the course of the series being a nice person also seemed to be an important part of having the X-Factor.

I mean it could be said that Misha B was one of the best vocalists in the contest as well. But even before the bullying allegations came along, Misha B didn't come across as likeable. Misha B may be a nice person in real life but she appeared otherwise under the media spotlight. And certainly one reason people didn't vote for her was that, rightly or wrongly, she didn't appear to have a likeable personality.

On the other hand, although it's good for getting votes, some people may say too many nice people on one show is not necessarily good for viewing figures. And sure enough, viewing figures for the final between the nice Marcus Collins and the even nicer Little Mix and was down by about four million viewers on last year. It seems in the same way the public like to cheer or indeed vote for the good, they like a baddie to boo just as much.

Nevertheless, that's what I liked about this years X-Factor overall this year. Being a good person did seem to be a factor in whether an act was popular or not with the public. You may think this is obvious. But in many other reality TV shows nowadays, being a good person can be something which appears to be frowned upon, mocked even. Being a nice person is for losers. Many could learn however that apart from having talent, you don't have to be ruthless, self-centred and arrogant to be a success. That like Little Mix, having talent and being nice with it, in other words having a likeable personality, can be an essential part of having the X-Factor.

Life in Modern Britain. Playing By the Rules.

You do your best. You go to work. Pay your taxes. Play by the rules because you believe it's the right thing to do. You believe it's the right thing to do because you're a good,honest,hard-working person. You know the difference between right and wrong. And yet, every day it seems there's more and more obstacles put in your way. Taxes go up. Food prices go up. Electricity goes up. Gas goes up. Fuel goes up. The only thing which doesn't go up is your bleedin' wages. 

And as time goes on, more and more you begin to ask yourself just who the hell are you really working for? Yourself? Your family? Or in reality is it more the government you're working for? Or the banks? Or the company shareholders who live the life of Riley on the back of the hard slog you put in every day? 

And then you read the papers or watch the news and it's the murderers, rapists and everyday thugs of this world who appear to be the only ones who are being looked after. Whilst those in power abuse the system for their own benefit. Politicians and their expenses. Bankers and their bonuses. Company directors and their million pound pay-offs. And all the time you're just struggling to survive. Trying to live an honest, decent life.

But the fact is you haven't time to think about the unfairness of the world because you have to get up tomorrow at 6:30 am to go to work. To go on a daily commute on an overpriced, over-crowded bus or train or travel on a jam packed road in a car that you know, if things continue as they are at least, you won't be able to afford much longer.

Nevertheless you do your best. Because it's all you can do. Because you have a family to feed. A mortgage to pay. But more and more through no fault of your own your life is like a silent scream. Because no-one's listening to the honest, genuine people like yourself. So you go to work. Pay your taxes. Play by the rules. Because you believe it's the right thing to do. And that's what I thought. Once. But not any more. Not any more.

Universal guides help us realise our destiny.

The aim of our life here on Earth is to find our own destiny. In simple terms that destiny is to be happy. We can only truly be happy once we realise who we are and why we were born on this earth. By realising that there's a God (whatever God means to yourself) and that we're part of creation.

That doesn't mean we can't be happy until that we find our ultimate destiny. Happiness on Earth, in the real world, can mean finding your true love, having financial security, a fulfilling career or just living a peaceful, spiritual life. Whatever happiness means to you in the long-term and in the short term, then that is your destiny in life. It is the aim of your Universal Guide to help you find that destiny. To help you find that happiness.

Universal guides are all around us. It may not seem like it but trust me, they're there. Usually you can't see them, feel them, hear them. They're totally invisible if you're just going about your daily business and if you are spiritually unaware.

In some respects, it is natural to go through our own lives unaware of guides helping us along in our daily lives. This is because we're in the material world and they're in a non-material world. Not to mention the fact we can be so preoccupied by the problems of our individual lives to be aware of anything else. Yet, universal guides can still influence our lives in the subtlest of ways.

Take coincidence for instance. You may think that the little coincidences which happen in your life are just that. Nothing more than chance. But the fact you met your true love or found the perfect house or became who you are in general has been aided by your guides. Ultimately you are the one who did this, who created your own style of life. But your guides influence events as best they can, if they think it would be helpful to you.

Having said that, they can't just flick a switch and make everything all right with yourself. Make you win the lottery or find your soul-mate. They need your help. Your help is the willingness to change your life for the better. Which is why so often a positive attitude can end in positive results.

So we each have our own individual guide. Other people may call them your spirit guide or your guardian angel and these are as good as any terms. However, I prefer the term universal guide rather than spirit or angel because to guide is what they do. I use the word universal because you mustn't just think of them in terms of Earth but as in everywhere, all-existence.

These guides are part of creation, of the Universe and everything in it. The whole aim of these guides is to help guide you in the right direction. The right direction is towards you fulfilling your destiny as seen before. So what happens if we don't find our destiny? Then we live a variation of the same life over and over again until we do.

You can find evidence of living this same life all around you. To take just one example, the fact we can sometimes take an instant like or dislike to someone for no apparent reason. We just have an in-built love or hate we can't explain. It can be because we have had a bad experience with this person in our past lives. What we're actually doing is remembering the future of our past lives. And in turn feeling what's going to happen in our present life. This is partly what intuition is. We somehow know in the future that we're going to have a good or bad experience.

This is no more true than when you meet your soul-mate. It is an overwhelming feeling which hits us. We immediately know that this is the person we are meant to be with. It's because our soul-mate is the person we have lived many, many lives with before. It is one of the reasons we don't feel truly happy until we find our soul-mate. True love between you and your soul-mate is not just to do with this life, but all the lives you have both spent together before or will spend together in the future. It is more than desire, more than just love, it is an overwhelming need we cannot be truly happy without.

So having a feeling that you've met your true love is not just based on intuition but recognition. It's what we have experienced in our past lives which also shapes our present lives. And our present tastes. Like when we feel drawn towards a specific country for example. It may be because we've been there before in a previous life. We'll even say 'it feels just like coming home' when we go there. That's because it probably was your home at one time in your past life.

Living your life before is also why we experience deja vu, literally translated as 'already seen'. That's because it's when we experience deja vu we have indeed already seen what's before us. It's slightly frightening when it happens because at the time it's unexpected and seems inexplicable.

Yet the fact is we sometimes have crossover points when what we've seen in the past is exactly what we're seeing in the present. It usually only lasts a split second and as time moves on, the fleeting feeling is gone as quickly as it arrived. But the fact is deja vu is a glimpse of the life we've lived before.

Yet each life we live is slightly different from the one before. Depending on whether we've progressed towards our destiny or regressed, our lives are better or worse. This doesn't mean we are physically 'punished' for living an unenlightened life before. What we are physically is not what's important. It's what we are spiritually that matters and is a true reflection of who you are.

And just to note here, do not think that being poor is a pre-requisite for being good. We can be spiritually progressing and still be wealthy. As long as we use that wealth in a positive enlightened way. Yet the fact remains only once we've reached that stage of spiritual awareness and happiness can we truly move on to the next, less difficult stage in our existence. That ultimately our last life on earth as a human is the one when we find our destiny. Then we can move on to become guides ourselves. To let others learn from our own experience.

It's important to note that these guides will not give us all the answers we seek in life. Whether we find our own destiny, finding the answers is down to the individual choices and decisions we make. Otherwise there would be no point in being alive. We would have no freedom. Everything would be decided for us. But we do have choice. And we exercise this choice by making decisions which comes down to our sense of responsibility towards our own well being, the well-being of those around us as well as the world.

However, they also need people to be willing to change their lives and to be spiritually aware. By reading this, you have given indication that you have both qualities.

The Diving Bell, the Butterfly and the Number 61 Bus.

As I stand at the bus-stop in Maryhill Road, an overweight man puffs his way by, completely drunk. Bent over, he walks along the level pavement as if he’s walking down a very steep hill. The woman standing next to me turns round and says ‘Is that no’ terrible? At this time in the morning. Ah’m tellin’ ye, Glasgow’s getting worse, so it is’
The fact that she herself is totally pissed seems completely lost on her. Her breath stinks, a cocktail of stale and fresh booze. She sways on her feet. As she talks, her head swivels unsteadily up and down and from side to side. I begin to worry that it will fall off completely. And if it does fall off, what should I do? Should I try to catch it? Or should I just let it bounce on the pavement, act as if nothing has happened? Is that rude? Would there be an awkward silence? Should I pick it up and hand it back to her, saying here, I think you dropped your...Before I have time to decide however, my bus appears at the top of the road.
I sit near the back. Not at the very back because I don’t want to get trapped behind the druggies and drunks who are sure to get on this bus as always. I take my book out. A proud act of defiance against my surroundings. The Diving Bell and the Butterfly. A wonderful book about a man who suffers locked-in syndrome. That’s to say he’s completely physically paralysed yet at the same time is totally lucid inside that body. Anyway, it is only a hundred pages long but I still can’t finish it due to my inability to block out my surroundings. I try once again. No good, my attention is drawn to the sound of two Polish chattering away on the seat in front of me. Not speaking Polish myself, it sounds like gibberish. The sort of language people talk when they‘re very drunk. Slurred incoherent gibberish. Still with the huge number of Poles now in the city, this gibberish is now the constant background music to the Glaswegian nonsense you would normally hear otherwise. And I know, it’s only a matter of time, evolution, before the Polish gibberish and Glaswegian nonsense will merge into a curious babble no-one but the severely inebriated will be able to understand.
A man in a donkey jacket gets on and sits in the seat opposite me. I can’t help noticing he opens up the free paper and immediately reads the football pages. I find this annoying. This town’s obsession with Rangers and Celtic. How I would love to take his paper and throw it out the window. ‘Get a life!’ I would shout. ‘Get a bleedin’ life!’ Why don’t you try to read a book like me? That’s culture mate. Not Rangers and Celtic. I mean do you really care? Do you really care about footballers who earn more in a week than some of us will earn in three years?’ I don’t say that of course because if I said that I may end up suffering from locked in syndrome myself. And what would be the point in that? No. That’s right. No point. I look out the window and see the bus has already reached the city centre.
A mobile phone rings. A well dressed man in front of me takes the mobile phone out of his inside jacket pocket. It’s ringtone is clearer now. A sectarian song from one side of the Old Firm. I don’t know which. It’s just another form of gibberish. A couple of faces turn round and glare at the man. Others like me don’t bother. Don’t want the bother. It’s just some more background music on the way to work.
At the next stop a couple of guys in tracksuits get on the bus continuing a conversation from outside. ‘...ye’re kidding me, Malky’s in the digger just for stabbing some guy in the face with a screwdriver? That’s no real man’. The conversation is as much for everyone else to hear than themselves. To let other people know they think stabbing a guy in the face with a screwdriver is no big deal. Aye, very good. Very good. Twats.
We reach the East End. I don’t know why there’s such a hooha about these TV programmes where people are trapped in the seventies and eighties. If I want to travel back to the seventies, I just visit the East End of Glasgow. Gap sites long since developed into modern chic flats in other parts of the city remain gap sites in the East End. Shops which closed down in the seventies remain closed but still displaying the same shop signs they did from that time. East end fashion as it is, remains, parkas, long hair, even flares. The East End. Life on Mars.
We pass Parkhead Stadium. Home of Glasgow Celtic. A impressive and imposing Green cathedral resplendent against a brave blue sky. The car park is filled with Porsches, BMWs, and the like. So much wealth in an area of so much poverty. Just like it’s counterpart in Ibrox. Yet, just like it’s counterpart in Ibrox this place is worshipped. Can’t the people see the irony? How wrong it all is? Is it just me? I find it all so annoying and try to get back to my book once more. But not for long. I look out the window.
Near the addiction centre, one man in particular catches my eye. A white skeletal face so ravaged by heroin that it is barely more than a skull. He genuinely looks as if he has died and has just risen from the grave. It is frightening and shocking, painful to see and desperately sad.
I put the book back in my bag. It’s no use. I’m so full of rage myself. I want to shout and scream at the top of my voice at the injustices and inequalities of the life I see around me. But I stay silent. Like I’m suffering my own form of locked-in syndrome. I can only stay silent. And watch. And listen. And then maybe, someday leave. Move to a nice small town in England or abroad. That’s the dream. The hope. The dream which flutters in my mind against the diving bell of my everyday existence. Never mind, here’s my stop. I get off the bus and go to work.

I love Jaws. Such a great film.

Jaws must be one of my favourite films. It must be because I must have seen it more than a dozen times. Through choice I may add. I love it simply because it's such a great film. In that it's so well made. Every part of it is excellent. The script. The story. The music. The acting. The atmosphere. The setting. And of course the direction. It's just a wonderful film. And it was no surprise to hear Steven Spielberg say a lot of the time he was just a young guy playing it by ear, still learning his trade. A lot of the time he wasn't quite sure what he was doing. It's one of those works of art which becomes great when everything just comes together. And so often great works of art happen when a great artist does something by throwing stuff together and seeing what happens. Jaws is one of those times. A great film by a director learning what film is capable of.

P.S. I won't mention the rubber shark which is admittedly the films weak point. Then again even with a completely unrealistic shark it's still a great film.  

Why are dentists so expensive?

I went to the dentist the other day. What? Isn't that what blogs are for? To tell you I went to the dentist? What did you expect? That I'd tell you I met the Secretary General of the U.N to complain about the price of cigarettes? No, I went to the dentist. The point is how much it cost. I earn a low wage by the way. Just in case you didn't know. I expect you to feel sorry for me. But like I say the point is even though I earn a low wage I still pay the full amount. Is that fair? Is God a dentist or what? I mean I'm talking half a week's wages just to get a check up. It seems that in Britain, day by day, it gets harder and harder to just survive by doing an honest day's work. And by an honest day's work, I'm not including dentists.
Like I say I'm genuinely miffed.You know what parents should do with children? They should take them aside at a reasonably early age, like two, and say "Look son, this is what will happen if you don't brush your teeth every day. And instead of showing them a picture of some unfortunate person with black and missing teeth, they should just show them your average dentist's bill. "Yes, I know son, it isn't pleasant, but I'm showing you this for your own good. That's right, two hundred pounds for a spit and polish Children would rush to the bathroom in their thousands, scrubbing away for all their worth. I'm sure of it. Every dentist would go out of business and I would be happy for a change. So there.

What's the point of voting in Britain right now?

I really enjoyed watching the Intelligence Debates on Bloomberg this morning. The debate in question was whether the two party system was good or bad for America. This two party system debate is something which is also relevant to the UK I feel. Especially since the Lib-Dems have, for the moment at least, become part of the Tory party. But even without that recent development, Britain has basically had two choices when it comes to elections, Conservative or Labour. And over time I feel this has become bad for Britain. Over time I say because in earlier decades the two parties did more or less represent the two sides of Britain. It quite correctly reflected that Britain was divided between left and right. Not so much rich and poor or upper class and lower class because the Conservatives in certain places were known as the working class party for instance. But generally the choice between Tory and Labour was enough for most people. There was enough difference between the two parties to say there was indeed a choice to make. Yet in both parties desire for power they moderated their policies to try and encompass more people and gain more votes. And so as both parties moved towards the centre, by the time we get to the end of the nineties they as good as met in the middle. There was practically no difference between the policies. Which meant when the voters went to the polls in the election last year they were really voting for the personalities involved rather than the policies involved. This was no more apparent than when we had the three political leaders having a live TV debate for the first time. It was more like an X-Factor reality TV contest rather than intense political debate. It wasn't about what they said but rather how they said it. As such Nick Clegg was suddenly a front runner in the election. A man representing a party whose policies were still a mystery but what mattered was he talked a good game. So he was suddenly seen as a front runner. Surely such a situation where policies are secondary to personalities isn't healthy. And again this has simply came about because of the two/three party system. The possible changing of the voting system may help change the dominance of the the two parties in Britain. But even then who else is there to vote for in the UK? What other parties are out there ready to step up to the plate? The British National Party? The UK Independence Party? The Greens? These are parties which are based around one particular issue. They don't appear to be legitimate national parties with real national policies. That's why I feel more than ever before there seems to be no real choice when it comes to voting in the next election. We don't just need a new national third party. But we need a new national fourth, fifth sixth and party and so on. We need good legitimate national parties to spring up and blossom over time. Because if not there is a real possibility this present political personality contest will develop into a nothing more than who has the best hair, voice, jokes, smile, shape. If one of those taking part in the live TV debates was a very popular TV or film star, a stand up comedian or the latest winner of another reality TV contest, those with the real power know it would help their party win the election. The US perhaps has gone there already. And I feel there is a real possibility of that happening here in a couple of elections time. Those in power will say that everyone should vote. It's not just their democratic right but their democratic obligation to do so. But can you really blame people if they don't vote? What's the point when there is no real choice? There is no real choice because there is no real difference between the main political parties. And this is a result of the two/three party system we have in Britain. If it doesn't change then more and more people will be making the choice not to vote at all. Who can blame them?

There's been such an 'uproar' about the Rangers-Celtic match the other night. And quite right too. I love Glasgow but as with a lot of people and their home towns, there's many times I hate it too. Probably why I no longer live there. And when I see the mentality of certain people in regards to football and violence I'm glad I don't live there any more. There's a Glaswegian macho pride in being aggressive and in Glasgow being a violent town. And that same misguided, immature mentality is no where more prevalent when in comes to the rivalry between Rangers and Celtic. A rivalry once based on purely sectarianism is still just the same after a hundred years of violence pretending to be sport. The hate and aggression in the face of Neil Lennon squaring up to Ally McCoist tells you everything you need to know about the Old Firm and the violent side of Glasgow. But that hate reflected in the face of the Celtic manager is also reflected in the hospital casualty wards and the homes where drunken hyped up men come back and take out their pent-up aggression on their wives and family. Of course the very well-paid footballers in their luxury houses and comforted lives don't give a damn about that even if they had the intelligence to understand it in the first place. What I found really offensive today was the attitude afterwards summed up by Jim Jefferies the Hearts manager who said he found the whole thing 'quite tasty'. Alex McLeish had a similar attitude as well as all the ex-players who I seen interviewed. It was pathetic. They all had that same macho pride in thinking they were 'tough'. And that's an attitude many Glaswegian men have. They think they're tough cos they live in a tough town. It's quite sad and immature and a reason I wish Rangers and Celtic were banned altogether from football. But that ain't going to happen. They're not going to change either. Especially if there is money to be made out of violent sectarianism. Which is all Rangers and Celtic is about at the end of the day.

There's talk right now of whether Britain and some others countries should take military action against Colonel Gaddafi. This would be such hypocrisy on behalf on the British Government. Since for so long Britain was an active supporter of Gaddafi. Especially as now a lot more is coming out about the amount of atrocities Gaddafi committed over the years. Whilst all the time Britain with others was dealing with this tyrant for the sake of business and oil. As a Scot it also makes me reflect in particular on the disgraceful decision by the Scottish Government to free the Lockerbie bomber. A man who possibly received his orders direct from Gaddafi. The argument the Scottish government used at the time was that it was for compassionate ground. The government argued the decision to free him was in the spirit of Scottish law, if not the spirit of Scotland itself. That even though Megrahi murdered 270 people, because he was (apparently) dying of cancer, it meant he should still be released to die in his own country. Even in the face of this man committing the biggest atrocity ever known on British soil, the Scottish government said it was the Christian and Scottish thing to do to still show compassion towards Megrahi. Yet the logic of the Scottish government is fatally flawed. Because there is one vital ingredient needed to make the Scottish governments argument remotely plausible. That ingredient is remorse. Megrahi never showed remorse. And as such the Scottish government has shamed Scotland. The decision to free an unremorseful mass murderer was deeply immoral and actually goes against everything the majority of Scottish people believe and what Scotland itself stands for. For that alone Alex Salmon should find himself voted out of office at the next election. Yes, I do believe or I would like to believe, as a Christian and a humanitarian that there is no crime so evil that you still can't find it in your heart to forgive. But the first step in that long journey is for the perpetrator of that crime to show some kind of remorse. And I repeat this is something Al Meghrahi never showed. And therefore he should never have been shown compassion and been freed. It would be nice to think when it comes to everything associated with Gaddafi we've made enough mistakes already. Let's not make another by using military action in Libya.

Not impressed with the new Masterchef Format

I never thought BBC could change a programme so badly as they did with Film 2010 but I obviously underestimated the ignorance of the BBC. It's easy to be clever in retrospect but it's the job of whoever makes these changes to be clever in advance. To try and anticipate what will work and what won't. Just going by the reaction on this message board alone they got it badly wrong.

The reason for this is taking one programme and trying to make into something completely different. Namely trying to turn Masterchef into X-Factor. It's pathetic. People watch Masterchef for the personalities yes, but it's the cooking that really matters. Now it's all about the personalities, the crying, the families backstage, the dream, the auditions. It's X-factor with a bit of cooking thrown in. It's making John and Greg into Simon Cowell wannabees, demi-gods the contestants and ourselves are supposed to worship. So they now have a programme that's rubbish. It's absolute garbage. They've given it a face-lift and ended up making it look like Sylvester Stallone's mum.

I love Formula 1. I don't know why. I can't stand cars. That may sound like a contradiction but it's not really. Formula 1 is about a lot more than just cars. It's about colour, glamour, exotic and less exotic locations. It's about the history of the teams and the drivers. It's the ups and downs of the championship. It's about the technology and the speed. The cars for me are important but just one part of the whole Formula 1 experience.

But like I said in general I can't stand cars. I've failed my driving test five times. Not just because I'm a rubbish driver. Although that may have something to do with it. But I just don't really get the whole driving thing. I was spurred on to get a driving license by friends who told me 'oh once you have a car it means you have so much freedom.' 'You can go anywhere any time, no more waiting for buses.' 'I couldn't live without my car' etc. So I gave in and took lessons. I'm fine driving. I just feel that when it comes to taking the test I subconsciously want to fail it. I just can't stand cars. I see nothing but traffic jams everywhere. Pollution. Noise. I find it ludicrous there's so many cars on the road all with one person inside. And I cycle everywhere. I love cycling. Especially through traffic jams. I feel healthy, free, happy when I cycle. Something I don't feel when driving.

And now with the ever rising cost of running a car it seems in failing my driving test I had a lucky escape. Fuel, insurance and all the rest of it. No news bulletin is complete without interviewing a depressed and miserable sounding motorist in the midst of filling up his car while he bemoans the fact he is not dead.

Anyway in spite of not liking cars I like Formula 1. And I was looking forward to the first Grand Prix in Bahrain. Although I don't think it should go ahead at the moment. A regime that fires on it's own people doesn't deserve the honour of having a Formula 1 race. It deserves cars but not Formula 1. But when the Formula 1 season does start, possibly in Australia now, I'll be up at 5am watching and enjoying. Quietly glad I never did learn to drive myself.

Changing your mind. The benefit of being a male politican?

Strictly it wasn't a U-turn. David Cameron opened a 'consultation' about the idea of selling off England's national forests(to summarise the policy quickly but not entirely accurately) and decided in the end that it was a bad idea. But I applaud his ability to finally decide something which is by all accounts what most of England would have wanted. And it got me thinking about the benefits of being able to change your mind. That although in the game of politics, this behaviour will be derided by opposition parties, I think it's an absolutely excellent character trait. I don't mean doing a U-turn in the Nick Clegg kind of way, making a clear promise and then reneging on that promise. I mean in not letting pride get in the way of common sense and simply changing your mind.

Because (unfortunately) I can still remember the Margaret Thatcher era. The woman who perhaps most famously declared 'This lady's not for turning!' She did this as if it was something to be proud of. The Tory blue rinse brigade lapped it up, cheering and waving their wigs in the air with the kind of abandon you would see at an average Hornsea Swingers Club for the over 55's.

This mindset of 'not turning' or not changing your opinion was made in reference perhaps to one particular issue. But Thatcher had that general attitude to life. It was an mindset she wore like a Hells Angel would wear a leather jacket. In other words she wore it as a symbol of who she was. And admittedly I'm going to come across as sexist here but I find this certain aspects of this attitude distinctly feminine.

By that I mean if I was to generalise I find a lot of women, once they've made their mind up about something, that's it. You can argue until you're blue in the face but there is absolutely no way on earth she is going to change her mind. Which is fine. But when you try to show her that her behaviour is irrational. That it is simply not the truth to say black is white, hell will still have to freeze over twice before she evens considers there could be another answer other than her own. Even then she will not change her mind. And if in exasperation you ask this woman the simple question 'Why?' you will probably receive the answer 'Because!' Which apparently means you have to fill in your own answer because at the end of the day it doesn't matter. It's still going to mean no. An actual reason is not necessary.

Men are slightly different. A man may say 'There's absolutely no way in a million years I'm going to do that. Absolutely no way!!' But if you then say 'I'll give you a fiver' you'll receive the answer 'OK I'll do it.' because the man is flexible. Open-minded. Or maybe he's less principled and the lure of a fiver is just too much to resist. But the fact is, in my experience, men are far more flexible and open to changing their minds than women. And this is a character trait I find in politicians something to be applauded rather than derided. So well done David Cameron. Listening to public opinion before making decisions is a good thing.

The Big Society. Be wary who you volunteer for.

All this talk of The Big Society is all very well but it rings as hollow as the Phrase 'we're all in this together'. If you are thinking of giving your time to a local charity be wary of which ones to work for. You may have to shop around to find one which suits you. Maybe it's just me but my own experience of doing voluntary could have been better. Wanting to help the community in some way I've ended up working for two local charities. In both cases it seemed to be I ended up running around for the people running the charities rather than for the people the charities are supposed to help. One charity for instance was crammed full of office staff who if going by the cars in the car park were doing all right for themselves. The main concern seemed to be the office canteen which was going through a massive, and no doubt expensive refurbishment. I don't know what percentage of money was going towards their wages but I did find the whole experience slightly uncomfortable at the time. The charity itself seemed to be about people talking about doing this and that and then not really doing very much. It was the same in the next charity I went to. The boss, a very loud, direct woman drove a flash sports car and seemed to spend most of the time talking a lot and not doing much. Maybe I've been unlucky so far. I'm sure there is a good charity out there which means I could genuinely be able to do my bit. But I can't help get the impression there's a lot of local charities out there which get funding and are not really checked up on. It's seen as a cushy number by those in charge and although they may have got into it for the right reasons, a number of people seem to be employed by the council not based on the standard of work they do but the work they are supposed to do. Many I came across elsewhere on a day to day were simply incompetent. Again I'm sure there's undoubtedly more worthwhile genuine local charities who care about the community. But in my own admittedly limited experience other charities shouldn't be taken at face value. If you are volunteering, be aware that you're not getting used for the benefit of the people running the charity instead of working for the people the charity is supposed to help.

I'm not impressed by Wayne Rooney.

Wayne Rooney scored a very good goal yesterday. It was an overhead kick straight into the top right hand corner of the net. It was a good goal. A winning goal. Against United's Manchester rivals Manchester City no less. But by the way the commentators and media are going on you would think it was one of the greatest goals scored in all time. They all talk about the 'wonder goal!'. A piece of genius. Extraordinary! Amazing! Already it's been described as possibly the goal of the decade. You'd think Wayne Rooney had jumped in in air did a double pirouette, a triple back somersault, a song and dance number from Chicago, read extracts from Katie Price's latest novel 'Reading for Dummies', and then deliberately hit the ball into the back of the net with his ear. He didn't. It was an overhead kick. It was a good goal. Nothing more. Get over it.

Apart from that Wayne Rooney could have done a triple back somersault and all the rest and I still wouldn't have been impressed. Partly because it was Wayne Rooney who scored it. This is the man who slagged off the England fans when they booed him and his England team-mates for being rubbish. (Even as a Scot I could see the unfairness in slagging off the people who go out their way to support you). This is the man who pays a lower rate of tax than I do on the millions he earns through deliberately using a tax loophole. This is the man who held Man United to ransom so he could get a hundred percent pay rise up to £180, 000 a week. This is the man who cheated on his pregnant wife by sleeping with prostitutes. So even if Wayne Rooney does score a good score, well an overhead kick at least, I couldn't really care. All I see is the celebration afterwards he does in the pose of the messiah or someone who thinks he is. I guess what I'm trying to say is, I'm not impressed. I'm not impressed by Wayne Rooney.

I watched the last Episode of Not Going Out on Thursday. I thought it was atrocious. What made it so bad is that the programme used to be so good. In fact after the BBC decided to cancel it after the last series I signed as many on-line petitions as I could to get it back on the TV. I kind of wish I didn't now. There's been some some good episodes or more accurately some highlights during this series. But the storylines have got sillier and dafter and have completely lost the essence of what made the first few series so good. Usually (in general I find) with sitcoms the episodes deemed the best are shown first and last to make a good impression. The weaker ones are shown second or third for example. Yet last night last episode was the worst in my view. It was a dream sequence. A kiss of death in most sitcoms and a sure sign the writer has ran out of ideas. Lee Mack's character (Le)e was in a coma so we seen, in a kind of Life on Mars way, Lee in various dream situations which of course included Lucy trying to seduce him all the time, his father (Bobby ball appearing in drag and as a lapdancer etc...The jokes weren't funny and the whole thing stank of desperation. The point is it's such a disappointment to see a really good series end on such a low. And if the BBC decide to cancel it then I don't think I'll be signing any more petitions to bring it back.