Darker morning vs darker nights...

Brace yourself: slightly more serious post coming up...

Around 13th August 2010 the daily express started a campaign for the UK clocks to go forward one hour, and (as I understand it) they would remain this way all year round. Thus aligning our time with most other European countries. In the article dated online on the 13th they explained that Prime Minister David Cameron would 'look at' wither or not this would in fact benefit Britain. Just yesterday he said these plans would only go ahead were it clear the public supported it.


So what would turning the clocks forward an hour do? It would mean longer nights as the sun would theoretically be setting an hour later, but it would also result in later sunrise. Living in London, the sunset would be at 22:22 on June 21st but in the winter solstice, December 21st, it would not fully be light until 9:04am. This isn't too late, sure it would be inconvenient but we could live with that, right? Well it would be more than inconvenient if you were living in Thurso, where the sun would not set until around half 11 at night in mid summer, and would not rise until after 10am in mid winter. This is long after people have gone to school and work. So practically lets think about the implications of children going to school in the pitch black. Not only would it cause more accidents and problems with children trying to get to school in the dark, but attention levels would be much lower. Here's my thinking, you know when you need to get up early one day and its still dark when you wake up and all you want to do is go back to sleep and until the sun comes out it still feels like 'night time'? If we feel like that and we're adults, multiply that by a million for kids, and lets be honest that attitude is not conclusive to positive learning!


Research suggests this move would decrease Britain's CO2 emissions by hundreds of thousands of tonnes each year. As daytime would be later, less people would be switching lights on at that time of night, for example. 


The Daily Express also believes it would improve the nations health by encouraging more leisure activities and could boost tourism by up to £4 billion a year. (I'm not too sure how this figure can be estimated or the reasons why, but I'm not the expert!)


The subject is currently in the form of a private members bill which on the 3rd December 2010 was debated at the second reading stage in the house of commons. It was voted for that the bill be sent to a Public Bill Committee whose job it will be to scrutinise clause by clause. 
The Bill itself sets out that if passed the government would be required to 'conduct a cross departmental analysis of potential costs and benefits'. If found to benefit the UK, the government would be required to initiate a trial clock change. 


In my house certainly there is a lot of confusion over when the clocks change and what time it should be etc etc but there is a certain delight in winter time (I think) when you get that extra hour in bed. It feels like a free hour, although you know fine well you lost an hours sleep however many months ago, but that hour extra is blissful! In my opinion, there really isn't that much wrong with the status quo, so why fix something if it isn't broken?

Twilight fans vs strong objectors

I wanted to write a 'quick' post, if there is such a thing, so I decided to pick a topic I could talk freely  about without so much research on the topic. Even more than usual I'm going to struggle to keep this in so many words that you won't get extremely bored, I can't promise anything but I'll try!

So I'm going to say it now, and judge me all you like but at least let me explain, I do like twilight! When the film advert first came out, I wasn't too fussed, 'its just another soppy movie with some fantasy thrown in', I thought, but then a friend told me to read the book. I love reading, I used to read a book a week on average (before starting architecture!), so although a bit reluctant to join just about every other teenage girl in the world of twilight, I gave it a go. The first chapter I had to force myself to continue reading, after that, I couldn't stop. Stephanie Meyer's style of writing was ok, for a first novel it was good, compared to other books I have read it didn't appear to be that well written, but that wasn't why I was enthralled. The characters were believable, as much as they can considering half are vampires and the story, although simple, was captivating! I truly could not stop reading and I will admit that I have re-read it since! It was just so addictive, I HAD to keep reading! After a while I didn't notice that it wasn't perhaps that well written, I was so engrossed in the story and felt like I knew the characters! I read the other books in the series too and have seen the films to date. Personally, I much prefer the books, through script writing and editing, chapters I felt were important were missed out and obviously the portrayal of characters and scenes wasn't how I had personally imagined it. Don't get me wrong, the films are good films, but I don't really associate them with the books in the sense of comparing the two. Obviously the basic story is the same, the characters are the same, even some of the dialogue is the same, but in my head: they are completely different! 

So that's my opinion on twilight itself. What about the 'twi-hards'? to them I'd say, 'calm down a bit!' It isn't real, the character's are fictional and do not reflect the personalities of the actors! I think some people just got far too carried away to be perfectly honest! 

a design for t-shirts and badges I found online that let
me tell you I was tempted to get and hand out in town...

What about those who make fun of anything and everything twilight? personally I think they should calm down a bit too. What harm is it doing for other people to enjoy reading these books or watching these films? Fair enough it has been commercialised a LOT but like all fads, it will go away in time, there is no need to get so worked up about it. 

I do apologise, this 'short post' didn't turn out so short after all! But it got it out of my system and I'm not going to lie I am really in the mood to go read the book again...

'Reality' tv shows vs scripted programmes

Before I begin, if you are a fan of reality tv or have watched Big Brother and enjoyed it and/or voted for your 'favourite', you might be insulted by this post and should probably stop reading now...

What do I mean...
Reality tv in one form or another has been around for as long as tv itself, however it became incredibly popular around 1999 with the likes of Big Brother. The genre can include anything that is unscripted and generally doesn't involve professional acting, from game shows and quiz shows to talk shows, from celebrities in a jungle to a random collection of 'average' people in a house. 


For the purposes of this post, when I say 'reality tv shows' I don't mean quiz shows or game shows or the likes, I will be referring to shows that frankly just take the mick, that require the general public to waste their money to remove people from 'the house' or 'the jungle': Big Brother, I'm a celebrity get me out of here, that sort of thing.When I say scripted, I mean just general comedies, dramas or soaps.


So let me start by saying, I'm not a HUGE tv fan, but I do enjoy sitting down and watching a light hearted comedy, or a documentary or a film every now and then. I used to watch a lot more tv than i do now, this may have something to do with having such little time for menial activities such as tv these days, but more than that, I become genuinely annoyed at tv and the media because of all the attention given to such classless programmes. 


What is the purpose of 'Big Brother' for example? Well after a long while researching, i still haven't found the answer! In case you've been more successful than me at avoiding such trivial wastes of time, the premise of the show is to take a group of 'ordinary' people and stick them in a house to live together isolated from the outside world, surrounded by television cameras 24 hours a day. Sounds riveting, no? Frankly the people on such shows aren't normal and they don't represent a cross section of society. Obviously anyone is going to act differently surrounded by cameras watching their every move, so these people aren't even acting like themselves! I don't understand why anyone would want to I watch it though, if I wanted to watch people eat I could sit and stare at my family at dinner time; if I wanted to watch people sleep, I could sit and watch my little brothers or little sisters sleep; if I wanted to watch people argue and fight, I could just sit and observe my siblings! Granted if I did any of the above for the purposes of entertainment, I'd have some problems, but is it not weirder watching people you don't know fight/sleep/eat? The entire concept is just ridiculous!



As for 'I'm a celebrity, get me out of here', let's face it, they're not celebrities, maybe once they were but this show is worse than 'Strictly come dancing' as a tool to regain one's dwindling 'career'! Granted it may have boosted some careers, in the case of Myleene Klass for example, but let's face it, the 'celebrities' in the jungle are just as fake as the 'normal people' in the Big brother house. Why do I think this, I hear you ask? They know exactly what goes on in that jungle as there have been 10 seasons so far, so why act horrified and disgusted when asked to eat a crocodile eye? 
What annoys me possibly most isn't, well, all of the above, its that during the however many weeks a season of Big brother or I'm a celebrity is on for, it is all over the news and breakfast shows and media in general. Fair enough it is the Sun and the Mirror but still I'm sure there are more newsworthy stories out there? I'd rather hear actual news, not who fell out with whom, or who fainted in the jungle, its not news and there are much more important things in life! With that I think I should end this rant and move on!