Basically I use the word 'basically' too much. I'm normally blissfully unaware of this but it struck me the other day when I was thinking about over-used idioms like 'At the end of the day', Can you bear with me a moment' and 'At this point in time' and how much it annoys me every time someone starts a sentence with these words..

I know I very rarely use the idiom 'at the end of the day' and if I do use it, I've actually been known to even grimace and apologise afterwards (yes, that's how neurotic I can be). we've probably got Jeremy Kyle guests to blame for the over-usage. The proper use should be when you are talking about the most important fact that has determined a situation or a result.

For Example:

'At the end of the day my foot was falling off so there was no way I was going to be able to finish the marathon'..

However in normal everyday usage I now take any sentence to mean the same thing:

'At the end of the day, I can't be bothered to talk about this. I'm right and I'm not discussing this further and it doesn't matter how much evidence you have that says the contrary'.

This phrase should  be reserved for footballers only. It's not a bright way to start a sentence and they at least, have a valid excuse AND they normally use it in the correct manner...

'At this point in time'. Maybe Mr Tony Blair is the best person to ask as he used the phrase so bloody much. It's really quite unnecessary when you consider the fact that the only real translation is 'now'... so why not just use 'now'?? Where is the advantage in using more words when there is one word that explains exactly what you mean for the word 'now'?

For Example:

'We are unable to help you at this point in time but we might be able to next week'.

or

'We are unable to help you now but we might be able to next week.

Maybe 'now' is too informal?

Admittedly now I think about it (and after a quick google search), it sounds better than 'now' at the beginning of sentences and I actually think I use this phrase quite a lot....

Damn it.. I hadn't thought this blog through properly...

Admittedly: There's another word I use a lot. I normally use it when I'm about to contradict myself. So watch out for it next time...

But I never ever say 'at the end of the day' or 'please bear with me'... At least that's just one contradiction out of a possible three.. 66.6% is a definite pass mark...

You may already know this:

Why, In this day and age does it take 3 days for a Bank Transfer to Clear?

It actually doesn't.. It is instantaneous. The reason why it still appears to take 3 days is so the bank can earn 3 days of interest on your money for themselves.
It might not seem much to you if it's only a £20 transfer but when you take into account how many bank transfers take place in a day, then we're talking millions of pounds.

What I Did Already Know

Why, when you try to pay for drinks in a bar using your debit card, do bar-tenders tell you, you have to spend a minimum of £10/£20 for the transaction to go through?

Because the owner of the bar wants to make more money out of you. By saying they are charged for small transactions means there is more of a chance of you either spending more on a round of drinks/food or leaving your card behind the bar until you've spent the required amount. There is no hidden charge for businesses when a customer wants to pay with a debit card when the price they are paying is less than £10..

Funnily enough, an owner of a public house told me this, who coincidentally doesn't insist on customers spending a minimum on debit card transactions. Interestingly enough, he also actively encourages people to take cashback too because it costs less for him in bank charges when dealing with electronic money rather than pay the fees for using the night safe deposit system.

Maybe the charges on these debit card transactions are helping to pay for the Night Safe Deposit Service?? What a great Irony that would be..

So what's this all about?

Now, I can understand the need for a blue-tooth or a hands-free set when using your car if you really need to answer the phone but I cannot understand why people will walk around with them on unless it's to fulfill some kind of Spice Girls/Buck Rogers type fantasy.

But the new craze now seems to be talking into your phone by holding it in front of you like it's a walkie talkie..Maybe this is some kind of C.B.-using-lonely-trucker type fantasy being fulfilled. Or maybe these people are just dicks..

Although given the choice i'd rather be sitting on the bus to Hell next to someone doing this than someone trying to listen to music through their stupid tinny phone speaker... One word: Headphones - It's a hell of a lot more enjoyable and you won't get into embarrassing situations like the guy sitting next to me the other day who was listening to some imtimidating hardy garagey grimey two-step bitch-skat r'n'b before his phone moved on to 'Mr Loverman' by Shabba Ranks... It took him a full minute to find the skip button on his phone but it must have seemed like 5 hours..

Another sub-genre of annoying mobile phone users are the people commonly referred to as having 'Big-hair/Small Phone Syndrome. You know, the ones that have got  really small phones that they can conceal underneath their big or long hair.. You sometimes think they are talking to themselves. Sometimes, in the worst situations you have thought that they have been talking to you and you try to actually reply to whatever it is they have just said to the other person down the other end of the line. For those not in the know, It's feels a bit like the humiliation when someone you don't know says 'hi' and you automatically say 'hi' back before you realise they were saying 'hi' to someone else behind you; I hate that too..

Maybe If I didn't wear my headphones so much, these kind of situations wouldn't happen between songs when I hear the outside world.. I shall try listening to Captain Beefheart on my Mobile phone tomorrow and we'll see how I get on..

The phenomena known as 'Google-block' occurs when you are attempting to procrastinate by googling randomly but you cannot actually think of  anything worth googling even though everything you ever wanted to know is at your finger-tips.

If you ever have an attack of the anti-googlies when you desperately want a distraction from the job in hand then remember these interesting searches you could try:

1) Chernobyl bike ride

2) Underground Britain (especially look out for Subterranea Britannica)

3) Who is dead?

4) Hollow Earth Theory

If that fails.. Then you'd better just watch this again:

I'm updating the website at the moment...

I've added an 'about' page, a decent 'links' page, a new gallery in 'look' and an 'employ' page... 

BUT DON'T GET TOO EXCITED!

I've not actually put anything on these pages yet but the thought and indeed the incentive is now there to finally get round to adding my portfolio on 'employ' and my life-story (Jordan style) on my 'about page'... -

Additionally, that's more than an incentive for you to come back soon and check the site out again next week...

Ok, I haven't quite updated the 'about' or 'employ' page yet.. so here's a few things that I want to comment on from the last week...

Radiohead

I went to see Radiohead on Wednesday. Now I've been looking forward to this gig since I booked the tickets back in November last year. I'm lucky enough to have seen them before but I wasn't going to miss  the chance of hearing their newest offering 'In Rainbows' live for the whole world. It's one of their best albums yet. I'm pleased to say Radiohead didn't disappoint. They truly are one of the best live bands on this planet. What did disappoint me though were the people who were there to erm, chat throughout the whole thing as if they were at the pub.

The first 45 minutes of the gig were spent being pushed and shoved around by gormless idiots who seem to be blissfully unaware that Radiohead had taken to the stage and were more interested in finding their mates who'd save them spaces while they went to get beer. So here we are, at one of the gigs of the year and people still cannot disconnect themselves from their mobile phones or in the case of the person standing next to me couldn't contain his delight at 'shagging a dirty bird' at the weekend and had to tell his mate in loud detail of what had happend the previous weekend whilst Radiohead are blasting out one of my favourite songs 'National Anthem'.

Now who in their right minds would pay £45 to go to a gig and not even listen? I certainly wouldn't pay that much to see a band that I was only half interested in seeing. Even more annoyingly (and probably more annoyingly to the band themselves), these people would then sing along badly at the tops of their mockney accents when Radiohead played one of their big anthems from the 90's. And for the record, I thought 'No surprises' was the most half-arsed rendition i've ever heard.

The evening  was topped off by the fact that when anyone half-famous wandered past everyone would turn the other way with their camera phones to take photos of these half-wits.. I wouldn't half mind seeing a picture taken directly behind the crowd towards the stage from a slight incline that would show us how many people also watched the gig through the lenses of their camera-phones... Hmmm, can't wait to check out everyone's footage on youtube. Obviously nowadays, if you haven't got a blurry picture taken on your phone of a big event shared on the internet, then you obviously weren't there..

Most reviews of the gig didn't point out these annoyances to the public apart from Drowned in Sound... The NME's uninsightful review can also be read here.

Glastonbury

So it wasn't the quagmire everyone was expecting it to be and it looks like the headline acts were also a huge success. I watched some on TV and was glad Jay-Z, although not my type of music, answered his critics and made Noel Gallagher eat humble pie. He makes 'pop music'. Oasis have made 'pop music'. Kylie makes pop music  and no one complained about her. What the hell were the Beatles making if it wasn't 'pop music'? Yes, it's hip-hop but you cannot discredit it's catchyness. The essence of popular music songwriting is clearly there.

Again, I think some of the reveiwers must have been at different gigs as I didn't witness Amy Winehouse's triumphant return like everyone else did. Frankly she sounded like a guinea pig being squashed by a stilletto whilst trying to play the tuba.

"But she's suffering from emphysema! you callous bastard!" I hear you shout "She's a hero for being able to get up on stage at all..

Come on, if she really had emphysema then it really wouldn't be a pretty site and I doubt she would have been able to play at all.. She's basically got symptoms that could lead to emphysema due to her crack addiction. She's not well but she doesn't have emphysema yet although this WILL change if she continues honking on her crack pipe. I can picture the 'Yul Brinner' style adverts now. Should you go to rehab? Go, go, for God's sakes go.

Anyway, which current arist making popular music would you rather have as a role-model?

a) Amy Winehouse

b) Pete Doherty

c) Jay-Z

And, which current artist making popular music isn't a drug addict?

a) Amy Winehouse

b) Pete Doherty

c) Jay-Z

Dr Who

Again, I thought it was rubbish. Most of it tended to be made up of the stars of the show running around aimlessly and some really awful cliched dialogue thrown in to build up the suspense of the Daleks arrival and the impending doom that we all knew about months ago. Although I wasn't expecting Richard Dawkins to be guest-starring.

Now after all that insane running about, we were actually left on a real amazing cliff-hanger as many of the Doctor's cohorts face the dreaded sink-plungers and, wait for it,  the Doctor is regenerating! If he really is re-generating then BBC Wales and Russel T. Davis have close-guarded the best kept secret in television ever and the tosh that made up most of the episode can be completely forgiven. BUT, I have a feeling that isn't going to happen...

Anyway, I'm still going to watch the last episode and I hope i'm wrong.

Although maybe he regenerates into Richard Dawkins?