Recently in Society Category

With an increased demand for allotments in the UK - a waiting list of up to 40 years in some areas - the government have announced, this week, that they may consider tax incentives to people who allow parts of their land to be used as allotments.

The report also revealed something about The Queen and the Royal Family. And it wasn't that the Queen is secretly an Essex girl, born and bred.

No, the report stated that The Queen owns over 600,000 acres of land. And this statement was included in the report as if someone was trying to drop a hint with a certain Monarch.

It seems that growing vegetables at home or in an allotment is fast becoming the new craze and being hailed as the saviour for the future of food supply. As though it has only just been invented.

There have been flashbacks through history towards the Dig For Victory campaign during the war. Except this time people are Digging for Financial Security, Health Benefits, and for that Global Warming thingy.

It's as though everything's turning full circle. It's 64 years since the end of the Second World War - when tins of Spam were considered to be exotic, and it looks as though people are turning back towards the idea of living off the land.

In a survey carried out in the early '90s, it stated that 58% of people said that they would only garden if they had nothing else to do. When the same survey was carried out this year, it was stated that the figure had now reached 34%. It also stated that there used to be a stigma attached to gardening that it was something old people did.

And it's about to become big business. Many garden centres all over the country are thinking of ideas to get people back into gardening and also growing vegetables.

One of the ideas proposed was to eradicate the Latin names for plants. Probably to avoid the snobbery and the scoffs from the person behind you when you try to pronounce Chrysoplenium glechomaefolium without them turning and laughing in your face when you get it wrong.

Also, some garden centres have even thought about getting rid of the large metal trolleys that are usually common in garden centres. This is likely due to the fact it's difficult to choose what you want to buy when someone who is in a rush to get across to Epilobium anagallidifolium, manages to ram the trolley into the back of your legs.

In a rush to get out, you'll probably just end up panic-buying and leaving a store with a plant that can't be planted in your garden unless it's north-facing, the soil is alkali, the wind's really strong, and you live on the remains of an ancient Indian burial ground.

Even if you do manage to plant it, it will either grow into a small pathetic-looking stick or it will grow into something so large that it's determined to make its way towards your satellite dish and turn off the signal during the opening credits of East End Coronation Farm.

It used to be thought that all plants grow towards the sun, until it was proven as a law of physics that all plants actually grow towards the nearest satellite dish.

But something else that was said this week was that people who do grow their vegetables at home often end up not eating them. The report says that people find they just don't taste as nice as store-bought produce.

The only good thing about growing vegetables at home is that there's a small chance that something that you grow, like a marrow, may just turn out to look like Winston Churchill. Then you could go to the local newspaper and, if it's a newspaper in an area where nothing much happens, you may just make the front page.

Food is always an interesting topic. There's much conflicting information regarding food going around and it's difficult to know what's true and what isn't.

Although, it does look as though the way we get our food is going to have to change. Intensive farming and produce pumped full of chemicals looks as though it's the way we're going to have to go in order to feed everyone in some years down the line. So we may just have to grow our own food.

While at the moment in the western world we can get food almost anywhere apart from commercial airlines and hospitals, there'll be a time in the future when that probably won't be the case.

And everything these days seems to come with a vegetarian option. Quorn or soya.

In fact, there was another report out this week (where would we be without them?) that said that while the sales of soya and quorn are on the increase, 74% of those people who were asked said they had no idea what quorn or soya actually was.

Little did they know that quorn is a protein-based product made from fungus and egg white, and soya is made from grinding the bones of witches under a full moon and then heating them to 200 degrees until a paste is formed. Add sugar to taste. Serves 4.

And these meat substitutes are supposed to be a tasty alternative to meat. In the same way you can convince yourself that rice cakes are a tasty alternative to crisps. When they really taste like polystyrene. Only less filling.

We're in an age obsessed with food and eating as much varieties of it as we can find. If the media isn't full of lots of new foods to try with cooking programmes cropping up every day of the week, then there's the government telling people to stop eating too much sugar or saturated fat.

Whether it's the government or a charity or a diet agency that's telling everyone to lose weight, it's all over the screens and all over the leaflets.

Even during the recession, the diet industry is becoming more and more profitable.

Once upon a time, thousands of years ago, there was only one theory for not getting fat. It was revolutionary for the time. The theory was called 'Don't Eat Too Much'. The only problem was that it was carved into a gigantic stone and therefore it didn't sell very well because no one could lift it.

Then, many years later in 1850, a man named Dr Fred Calorie came up with a revolutionary idea after realising he was bursting out of his trousers. His idea was to come up with a system in which people lost weight by following a set of guidelines. Fred Calorie invented a single scientific unit that could be used to measure how much food someone was eating in a day in proportion to the type of food. Those units became world famous and were named, in honour of their discoverer, as 'Freds'.

Or something like that.

Then the whole world's dieting program was based around this. It was very simple and it basically meant that anything that tastes nice, you were not allowed to eat.

And anything that tastes nice means it's full of fat.

That's why we eat chips and pies and crisps. And hamburgers - because they are from cows and cows are fat. I promise you'll never see a cow using a rowing machine.

And it's for the same reason that we don't eat ants - because ants appear to have very little fat so we leave them to the birds.

And the birds leave the hamburgers to us because, due to an unfortunate design flaw, birds cannot use the drive-through at McDonalds.

Also, it was confirmed this week that many up-market restaurants have had to close during the recession. Eating out is said to be one of the first things that people turned away from when money was tight.

The Recession Guide to Restaurants:

1) If the word 'cuisine' is used in the menu, the main course is about the size of a mouthful of food. They call it À la carte, it costs about £99.99 and you'll go home hungry. Unless you stop for fish and chips on the way back.

3) If the word 'eats' is used, it will be very cheap. But the money spent on prescriptions for antibiotics and diarrhoea medication will be high.

Also, last week, a new fast food lobster restaurant opened in London.

Usually anything that sounds or looks terrible probably is. Except for lobsters. People only eat lobsters because they're ugly. You wouldn't imagine going into a restaurant and having to choose a puppy from the pen in the corner before sending it into the kitchen to be dropped into a pan of boiling water while it's still alive. But if it's something like an ugly lobster, that's no problem.

Many restaurants are trying new things in order to beat the recession. Fast food venues are beginning to exploit the failure of the up-market restaurants. The only problem with that however, is that many restaurants are trying to be something they're not. They're trying to outdo the competition by giving the customer more choice and trying to introduce new types of food.

Going to a drive-through at a fast food restaurant in the future is set be a nightmare.

'May I take your order please?'

'Er...yes. I'll have the Cylindrical Drinking Vessel Filled with Nature's Clear, Odourless, Extra-wet liquid. And for my meal I think I'll have the pizza. With no toppings. Oh, and hold the cheese. I'll wash that down with a glass of the house soya milk and then, for my main, I think I'll have the toast, medium rare please, with the Grilled Panda Groin and a side of Sautéed Bat's Nipples.'

'Would you like rice cakes with that?'

'Oh, yes please. And a diet Coke.'

'If you believe the press, it's a difficult time to be a parent'

There has been a lot of news this week targeting parents. Firstly, there was criticism of parents on Monday when it was announced that more and more parents are calling their children peculiar names.

There's an unwritten rule that as soon as a couple have a baby and you know whether it's a boy or a girl, you must first ask how much it weighs. Then, when you've thought about what the equivalent weight is in bags of sugar you can move on to the next stage; which is asking the proud parents what name they have chosen.

Then you have to smile and look really pleased for them when they tell you that they've named their newborn baby T.K. Maxx.

But apart from the naming of their children, parents have featured in many more headlines over the week.

There has been much in the news this week already featuring the phrase 'Back to School' - a turn of phrase that younger children may not mind hearing, if all they have to do at school is draw all day and spell the word 'cat.' But for those who are older and the phrase conjures up images of The Chartist Movement, 19th Century Poetry and Simultaneous Equations, the world may be looking a little bleak.

However, the reason the phrase has been in the news lately is mainly down to the idea of cost for parents. 'School Bell Leaves Alarm Ringing for Parents','Parents Unable to Afford School Trips for Children' and 'Parents Struggle to Afford Uniform and Stationery' were just some of the headlines to grace the news pages this week.

And styles of parenting also made the news.

It has been an accepted notion in the last few years that parents should not be 'pushy' and not force their ideals and aspirations on to their children.

Yet, Alan Milburn MP released a report recently suggesting that parents should be more pushy.

And if anyone was interested in what Alan Milburn MP had to say, there would be a stampede of parents rushing out to book piano lessons and elocution tutors. And parents would have their children hooked up on a drip as they slept - supplying them with copious amounts of Omega 3 while they whisper in their child's ear, 'You have the potential to be great!' over and over again.

The response to the report has been that parents always think that their children are better than everyone else's children anyway. Spending time at school in the day, coming home and learning time's tables and how to speak Mandarin before sharing a hot bath with Enid Blyton.

'T.K.Maxx is coming on really well. Oh, and did I tell you that Netto cured cancer last week with the chemistry set we bought him for Christmas?'

If you believe the press, it's a difficult time to be a parent.

Do you encourage your children to play on the street? Should you object if they want watch violent films? Should you make sure they learn French?

Perhaps play in sight of the house? Perhaps the occasional film if vetted by the parent first? And perhaps learn just enough French to be able to say to a French waiter, 'Please tell me this isn't snails I'm eating'.

Should parents give children a push in the direction of studying and passing exams to become a world-famous astronaut? Or let them become a free spirit, live off the land and support charities such as NSPCL (National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Lettuce)?

And then there's the issue about what to put in a child's lunchbox. This week, it was announced by The World Cancer Research Fund that feeding your child ham severely increases the risk of bowel cancer.

Put the bacon down, and no one gets hurt! Step away from the spam! Is that a salami in your pocket or are you just about to pay a large contributing factor to your child's death?

The report said that the 3,700 bowel cancer cases each year could be avoided if everyone ate no more than 70g of processed meat per week. That's the equivalent of 3 rashers of bacon or 1 and a half sausages.

Parents will have to compare that with other claims from just this week alone, stating that some of the foods that prevent cancer are; blueberries, carrots, avocados, tomatoes and cheese. And foods that cause cancer are fries, steak, mackerel, sugar-free sweets and cheese.

Of course, cheese has appeared in both lists but, as these were all published in British newspapers, then both claims must be true.

And then there's the latest political correctness that has taken the school by storm.

At sports days, there are some schools in the country that have made sure that no child loses a race. And that's in the schools where they haven't banned sports day altogether.

Some schools that were reported about this year had ensured that pupils that came last in a race were told that they were the 'last winner'. In fact, most of the sports involved running around in circles until everyone was tired and then they all went home with a trophy.

And this leads into the next headline of the week. 'Competition Between Parents Reaches New Heights'.

A new survey (one of the several hundred that are carried out every day) suggests that while competition between children is on the decline, competition between parents is on the increase.

The report stated that while children were running around at their sports day this year with everyone winning and no one losing, there were brutal competitions between parents who stood on the sidelines eating home-made snacks.

Apparently, the latest craze sweeping the schools is to have parents prepare healthy food to bring along to the sports day. And then the real competition begins. Parents at a school in Kent, this year, were reported to have begun a food fight over whose pasta salad was the best.

One parent who was in tears for having their pasta salad thrown into the hedge said, 'It's just not fair. It took me ages to make and Chardonnay's parents just tossed it aside. So I gave them a Chinese burn.'

Another parent made claims that they were called mean names. Apparently, one man was verbally attacked by Reebok's parents who said that he stinks and that he was a pig. He retaliated by saying, 'I know you are but what am I?'

And even though the children's races have declined in case it hurts their feelings, (even playing Tag is considered victimisation) the parent's race is still in top form, with some parents reportedly training for weeks before the day.

Welcome to the Sports Day Training Programme For Parents. This programme is to prepare parents who are not used to running to be able to successfully take part in the parent's race at your child's sports day. This will save huge embarrassment for you and your offspring.

Rule number 3: No wunning aloud! Wunning is the combination of walking and running and it causes emotional turmoil for the child to see their parent wunning. It's for parents who feel like they're going to lose anyway so they may as well only make a half-arsed effort. Someone who is wunning does not look like they're in a race - they look more like they're trying to find the nearest toilet because they've just pooed themselves.

In fact, even John Prescott took part in a sack race this week for the opening of a new sports centre in Hull. Of course, having the aerodynamic properties of a bungalow and the coordination of an American bombing attack, he ultimately fell flat on his face.

But that's not all. There has been even more news piling the pressure on for parents.

On Tuesday, the Conservatives revealed plans to subsidy pupils by up to £5,000 for those children at private schools whose parents have lost their jobs.

While it's good news for the parents of children at private school and bad news for the taxpayer, the news has once again managed to open the debate about whether children receive a better education at private schools.

We hear stories about students from private schools who have received a million A-levels but couldn't get a place at university because their chosen universities are being told to favour those students from state schools.

But then the media add fuel to the fire by practically suggesting that state schools are only good for students if they want to end up with a degree in painting nails, or burping or drive-by shooting.

It's obviously not true that a private school education leads to a better outcome in later life. Success in life comes down to the type of person you are, not how many chemical symbols you can remember or whether you're able to recite the complete works of John Keats.

That's unless you're not the sharpest tool in the shed - in which case going to state school or private school doesn't matter, you'll still end up as a councillor.

And soon there'll be more news targeted at parents in the coming weeks.

As it's coming closer to that time of year again, there'll be the usual stories in the news about gap years and how dangerous they are. Another student with 'the world at their feet' who's gone missing while wading through some marshland on the wrong side of Somalia.

And the parents will have to stay at home and worry; wishing that their precious children, Diet Coke and Toyota, had stayed home and experimented with bull fighting and sword swallowing instead. 'It's much safer,' they'll be saying.

'You are just 9 questions away from a lifetime supply of teabags'

If you ask a MP their thoughts on crime, they'll say it is a bad thing indeed. If you ask them their thoughts on the economy, they'll say it's a very, very bad thing indeed. If you ask a MP about immigration, they'll freeze and look like they've just broken wind in front of the Queen. In a confined space.

The topic of immigration manages to get the government hot under the collar for fear they will be criticised for being unpatriotic if they fully open the borders to every Tom, Dick and Hunrikadelz - or classed as racist if they say no to immigration.

The new points system for immigration, in which the term 'new' is used loosely, is said to be 'working well,' but the idea of an island as small as Britain reaching a population of over 70 million residents in the next 20 years has caused a stir.

The new points system is to replace the near-automatic entry in to Britain. Before this, anyone who has lived in Britain for at least 5 years without a criminal record was guaranteed legal citizenship. That is, if you break the law for 5 years, you were then protected under a new one.

However, there are many other systems that have been tested over the last few years and may still make a comeback. For example, there was much talk of having a 'Britishness' test that those wanting British citizenship must pass:

Welcome to 'Who Wants to Be a British Citizen?' You are just 9 questions away from a lifetime supply of teabags. Please answer by circling Yes or No.

1.Do you have an incredible fixation with the weather? Yes/No

For your own information:
Although here in Britain we have free speech, don't say anything. A housewife is now a 'domestic engineer', old people are 'senior citizens', and aliens are 'universal freedom explorers'. Please do not walk anywhere carrying any money - but it's unlikely that you'll have any anyway. The economy has gone down the pan so the only things in the black at the moment are Alistair Darling's eyebrows.

Another suggestion has been to create a booklet that teaches potential immigrants about Britain and the British norms and values; condensing everything that defines the nation into one book. But how do you explain to potential immigrants about Cillit Bang? And Gillian McKeith? And how everyone in the country sings for Simon Cowell's supper?

Forgetting all democratic processes, the government could erect a large wall around the United Kingdom with turrets on the top. But, then again, try building a 7,500 mile wall around the UK without the help of migrant workers.

The current immigration situation over the last few years has been blamed on everything from global warming, to the economy, to the government under Mr. Anthony Blair - whose wife is currently said to be suffering from swine flu (a direct result of the family continuing to have their snouts in the trough for the last few years).

But it's a difficult situation to talk about and while gets discussed and debated in Parliament, Britain is made out to have the same immigration policy as the Native Americans.

There's always going to be arguments over immigration, and the debate about whether it's being racist to suggest that no one should be allowed into the country will go on for even longer. It will oppose the view that immigrants have made an improvement to the economy and the healthcare system and they should be allowed to migrate to the UK as they please, as long as they meet the requirements.

In 1973 when Britain joined the EEC, there was a mass wave of immigration. Crowds of Dutch people poured into Britain forcing everyone to wear clogs and eat waxy cheese and soon the windmills were going up at the end of every street. 'It was awful,' someone said. 'Before you knew it the place stunk of tulips and everyone was cycling everywhere, speaking perfect English.'

'Some of them come here, don't work, and then expect the state to give them money so they can go and buy cigarettes and Beatles memorabilia.'

'Then came the Belgians with their fancy larger and delicious chocolates and their...I can't remember any more stereotypical national characteristics but they were a pain in the neck.'

'And what about those Polish? They come over here to work as handymen; turn up on time, work really hard, don't rip you off, and refuse to shout offensive remarks at women. They're ruining our traditional British values!'

On the one hand, the media portray Britain as bulging under the strain of the population with not enough health services and schools to accommodate everyone. Whereas some portray the condition of immigration as being the largest boost to the economy since Hogwarts joined the EU.

It depends which way you look at it.

There is also the fact that over 55,000 people are ditching the shores of sunny Britain for a home abroad compared to the approximate 230,000 entering the country every year. But with the government's top secret plan to continue to aggravate the British public, the emigration figure is expected to rise dramatically.

Some say that the immigration problem is caused by people from all over Europe flooding into Britain to take all the jobs that British people don't want to do - like clean toilets, harvest vegetables or score 25 goals per season in the Premier League.

And others say that it's the more skilled workers that are being imported by the UK to work as nurses, scientists, and doctors. And, if this is the case, the cause of the immigration problem may just be the fact that half of Europe has moved to Britain to get an appointment with their local GP.

'This means having to stop off several times on the journey to rob a bank'

It's coming up to the height of the summer and over the last few years three things have been certain to take place around this time.

Firstly, the Met Office will apologise for promising a hot summer. The amount of rain that has fallen so far will mean that the name 'barbeque summer' will consist of redundant barbeques collecting rainwater in the garden - unless people turn them upside down, climb aboard, and use them to float down towards Cornwall on a flooded M5.

Secondly, MPs have embarked on their mid-year, 82-day break - meaning that the state of the country should improve slightly between now and September. They'd better be sure to spend their holiday on British beaches, showing their support for the environment and making sure the press photograph them with as many pensioners, children, and culturally diverse people as possible while they stand in the freezing sea with their trouser-legs pulled up.

And thirdly, Prince Charles, the Archbishop of Narnia or [insert hypocritical figurehead here] will tell everyone that we are destroying the planet with our greed, gluttony or trips to Florida in a Land Rover. Before deciding where to invest their next £billion.

The environmental debate usually reaches its peak in the summer where MPs make the headlines once again as they jet set across the world and get criticised if they venture out of the UK for their summer holiday.

Every summer, people come on the television and say that to save the planet we must not get aboard a plane and they'll try and make you feel guilty if you do.

But it's also said that the planet has been through worse events than the proliferation of the human being. They say that the earth has undergone earthquakes, volcanoes, extinction, magnetic storms, hundreds of thousands of years of being bombarded with asteroids, continental drifts, solar flares, cosmic rays, flooding and recurring ice ages. But if you buy an energy-saving light bulb, put your left leg in, your left leg out, in out, in out, and you shake it all about we'll save the planet and make the world safe so that people of the future can happily drive around in their Volvos.

The debate as to whether Heathrow should have a third runway looks like one that is set to last and will continue to divide the Labour and Conservative parties throughout the rest of the year and beyond.

The Conservatives oppose the decision to build a third runway because of the damage to the environment. Some have even suggested that the site could be used to create a wind farm where environmentalists can go and spend some time hugging wind. But the Labour Party are standing in favour of the new runway because of the benefit to the economy that it will bring or because a new wind farm will mess up Gordon Brown's hair.

So, as it's summer and everyone is ready to go on their holidays, those who don't want to face the ecomentalists that will scowl at you as you board a plane will be heading off for a holiday in the UK.

But Britain isn't known for its seaside hotels and they are frequently said to be among some of the worst in Europe. We may have one or two decent beaches, respectable scenery, and excellent cream teas but the latest report from mystery shoppers has suggested that British hotels are particularly bad.

A 4-star hotel would probably be the equivalent of Fawlty Towers. And a 3-star hotel would probably be less comfortable than a South American jail.

The toilet paper may be folded into a little V, the breakfast may be something people would describe as 'hearty', and you may have a quaint little view of the ocean. But the maids have a habit of vacuuming at 3am (scoring extra points if they hit the skirting board), there's bacteria in the bathroom that's so big it's sitting and reading a newspaper, and in terrible British fashion you find that the previous occupant has actually pooed in the kettle.

Yet, to go on holiday in Britain it is likely that you would travel by car. And this means having to stop off several times on the journey to rob a bank so you can afford the petrol.

If, on the other hand, you want a hotel with revolving doors, lots of plants, and a chirpy wake-up call, you'll probably have to step on a plane.

But this is a nightmare in itself.

Taking a plane usually involves arriving at the airport early so you can be stripped naked in front of hundreds of people and poked and prodded to ensure you haven't got anything sharper than a tissue.

But at least going on a plane is more interesting than travelling by car. Children can spend time looking out of the window at the clouds as oppose to listening to their parents making an announcement every time they see a sheep or having to hold their noses. Because it's a well-known fact that the countryside stinks.

It's also a well known fact that, when looking through an aeroplane window, only posh houses can be seen. Usually surrounded by hedgerows that look like Jilly Cooper.

A downside to travelling on a plane is having to listen to the safety announcements telling you how to put on your seatbelt and the dubious phrases that they use.

In the 'unlikely event' (= an interesting expression coming from a company who lie about departure times) of a sudden change in cabin pressure (= fuselage splits in two), oxygen masks will fall down. Place the mask over your nose and mouth and breathe 'normally'. (= 'Normally' as in the way that a person breathes when they are in vertical freefall at 1,000 miles per second inside a large aluminium can that is heading for a cornfield.) During a 'water landing' (= the plane plunges into the ocean), life vests are available under your seat and the cushion on the seat itself can be used as a floatation device (= you will be stuck in the middle of the Pacific Ocean for several days holding on to a cushion that smells of farts).

Another downside to flying on a plane is the change in people's behaviour when they are several thousands of feet in the air. When a member of the cabin crew tell you to 'be aware of the nearest exit' you start to look around and make a plan in case the plane crashes into the sea.

You form a master plot in your mind that involves surveying the other passengers to see who you can push aside to get to safety if something does go wrong.

It's survival of the fittest.

As the plane splashes down, react fast. Avoid the nearest exit as there is a very large passenger in the way who looks like they may take too long to escape. Make a beeline for the second-nearest exit which involves stepping on the head of the widow with the big hair, knock over the man you've seen rubbing his bad ankle, and push aside the emotionally disturbed passengers before exiting the plane where you can help others. You're of no use to anyone if the large passenger's fallen on top of you during a badly-planned emergency strategy.

Another change in personality occurs when it's meal time. Despite having many meals during their lifetime, people have never been so excited to have a meal on a plane. Just seeing the meal trolley coming down the aisle can make someone so excited they may just experience total euphoria as they all sit up, pull their trays down and repeatedly tap nearby passengers on the leg to announce that the 'FOOD'S COMING!'

People know it will taste like an old sock and yet they get so excited when it arrives.

The meat in the meal, whatever meat it is, usually contains grill marks on either side as if they think people actually believe there's an open air grill on the flight deck. The food is also usually served with some kind dressing that is packaged in something from the space program and the sauce itself tastes like it has been made of rejects from Russia's nerve gas agency.

So, the environment/third runway situation is still debatable and the debate will continue until well after the summer recess.

And the idea of the most environmentally method of travel isn't going to go away anytime soon with large amounts of money set to be offered to scientists who can invent a method of vastly reducing damaging emissions from aircraft.

One of the other interesting reasons why local residents argued that the third runway would be a nuisance was not just because of the noise or the pollution; it was actually having bright airport lights outside their houses.

So, doing my bit, I have come up with an idea that I may even consider taking on Dragon's Den.

Being a wild thing, my idea is to try hanging pieces of material up over the window.

I think I'll call them 'curtains'.

'People use whatever terms they can to create an impact'

Last week the Advertising Standards Agency slapped KFC's chickeny bottom for their advert that suggested that KFC has fresh chicken delivered to each store every day, when this actually isn't true.

But this is hardly surprising. We all know that companies sometimes tell lies to make them seem more appealing: It's said that Bold 2 in 1 is part of the fabric of life, Red Bull gives you wings, and that the government want a fairer, stronger, and more prosperous Britain.

There's been much in the news lately about how companies/executives/political parties have been deceptive. Everyday another group of people are being exposed.

So if you're Al Gore and you make an international film telling everyone they're going to burn in Hell you get the Nobel Peace Prize. If you embezzle the British public of their savings you get a six-figure pension. But if you say your chicken is delivered fresh everyday it will mean the ASA will send a man round with short trousers and a clip board to pull angry faces at you and tell you he's very, very cross.

It's the same with television programmes. If Bear Grylls goes out into a lake to catch a fish and can't manage to find one, the show would not be worth watching. So if they buy a fish from Sainsbury's and pretend he caught it in the name of entertainment it's not the end of the world.

And some viewers complained when it emerged that Andrew Marr doesn't actually drive a Nissan Figaro as is shown in the opening segment of his show. Oh God, no. Say it isn't so.

Some television has to be staged or it would not be worth watching. There would be no point in upsetting housewives who had settled down with a box of tissues to watch a reunion between a woman and her long-lost father on daytime television - only to have the father turn up at the woman's house when she's not in. It would be about as interesting as watching ITV3.

People like to be entertained when they watch television; it's why programmes like Countdown and Through the Keyhole get such low viewing figures. They don't contain any danger, exploding helicopters or car chases. For anyone to want to watch Through the Keyhole, a contestant would have to take the panel hostage and David Frost would have to explode into a million pieces, or at least break a few bones and then escape down a mountain with Keira Knightly while being chased by transvestite neo-Nazis.

It's the same when advertising products. Advertising is the fine art of making you believe that something you've never seen before is what you've been waiting for your whole life.

An advert for shampoo seldom takes place in a shower where most people wash their hair. The advertising agencies seem to believe that the majority of the population frequently wash their hair in the hot and steamy waterfall that they have in their back garden while tropical birds dry their hair with a towel when they're finished.

And it's not good enough to have an advert for shampoo that says, 'It makes your hair clean.' According to advertisers shampoo needs to invigorate, enrich, and cause multiple orgasms.

Back in the old days when people were born in chimneys and were only let out to be beaten, the adverts were much simpler. In magazines and newspapers it stated exactly what the product was, how much it cost, and included a little information about it. These days, an image of an orange on a beach where the sky is slowly turning to cheese is supposed to advertise a car. It's the power of dreams apparently.

Food becomes 'zesty' (sour), a 'delicacy' (something you would never dream of eating), 'cuisine' (an extra 60% above the price of 'food'), 'lemon-flavoured' (contains no lemon whatsoever) and 'old-fashioned' (from when E.coli was a side-dish).

Adverts are full of tedious music - like the Boots advert with 'Here Come the Girls' - who have been coming for nearly 2 years and obviously have no intention of arriving because in every advert they're always on their way and don't seem to be getting closer to their destination.

Or everyone seems to be holding their abdomen; walking around saying they're 'bluuurrrttedd', and having to take biffidus fartidium which is good bacteria.

And if they're not bloated they're either constipated or have severe diarrhoea.

I've been on the toilet for days with terrible diarrhoea, but if I take new Imodium Super Bung, I can save it all until tomorrow! So now I can carry on with my super life, run my hands through fountains in the town square, and smile at strangers!

Advertisers run the risk of irritating the public so much that they will never end up selling any products and it wouldn't be surprising if the woman from the Curanail/Criminail adverts has full police protection for her own safety. The advertising campaign is about as useful as having Jo Brand as the face of Actimel.

Comparethemeerkat.com is scientifically proven (we love microscopes, we do!) to lower cholesterol and build a healthy immune system because you're worth it. Terms and conditions apply. Batteries not included. May cause death.

Also, blinding people with vast amounts of information about extra features gets people to buy what is being advertised. A washing machine no longer only washes clothes. It has sat nav and internet and can send photos to mobile phones - which no one's really bothered with since Rebecca Loos.

It's also the same with the news. The language helps to create the tone. The Sun may say 'Dirty Old Pervert Finally in Jail', while on Newsround they may have 'Poor Little Kitty Goes Missing' and Newsnight would say 'George Osbourne to scrap failed FSA.'

The language helps to set the tone and make the audience go 'Ahhh' when there's a bag of puppies that have been found by the canal. Or 'Boooooo' when an MP walks on screen. But there's usually more use of the terms 'Recession', 'Turmoil', and 'Death' on a serious programme like Newsnight and phrases like 'Celebrity', 'Celebrity Wedding', and 'Celebrity Mansions' on the lower-key programmes.

You wouldn't expect Jeremy Paxman to introduce Newsnight and they sit at the desk showing the audience at home pictures of nipple-slips from Heat magazine.

Many companies from advertisers to newsgroups are beginning to be scrutinized about their use of language; creating effect but inadvertently not being technically correct.

But the use of emotive language has taken to the streets. People use whatever terms they can to create an impact.

For example, a thug may stop you in the street, smash the base off a glass bottle and say, 'I'm gonna glass you!' - which certainly creates impact and sounds quite threatening and mean. But you would have to stop and think very carefully and explain to them, in the heat of the situation and in the name of language, that 'glass' is a noun, not a verb, and therefore should not be conjugated.

Then hope this doesn't make things worse.

'You can no longer recognise a criminal'

There was a time when talking about crime would automatically conjure images of burglars climbing through windows, suspicious-looking people on street corners, and having to come back from purchasing a kebab with your buttocks full of lead.

We're told that all children practice criminal activities on their video games to ensure that in real life, by the age of six, they have enough experience to bump off anyone who threatens their drug empire.

But the fastest-rising types of crime in today's society are not coming from thugs in the street. Modern technology has allowed criminals with a higher IQ than that of a daffodil to proliferate. Now corporate and bureaucratic corruption from the top of the hierarchical scale is beginning to dominate - as well as that of identification fraud.

The latest news from the government's National Fraud Strategic Authority last week was not that they have been exposed as a gang of imposters secretly controlled by the Russian Mafia, but that they are launching a cyber security strategy in order to combat information crime.

Information and ID fraud are on the increase and with the latest warnings that it's costing the country £1.7 billion every year - almost as much as MPs - and so planning strategies have been stepped up. People are terrified that someone could be using their identity to take all of their money, carryout illegal activities or worse - order books by Katie Price in their name.

People hate the idea that someone could go looking through their rubbish bins, find their organic yoghurt cartons and past editions of The Polo Times and decide they have far too much money and that they are going to help themselves to some.

The main problem with identity fraud that comes with the advancements of technology is that you can no longer recognise a criminal. You can't just see someone dressed in a black and white striped top with a woolly hat on their head and a sack over their shoulder containing next doors' Kenwwood Smoothie Maker. Today's cyber criminals may wear a suit, call their children Doughnut and Banana, and have a fondness for caviar.

There has been much speculation in the past as to whether a criminal can be defined by their physical attributes, with the debate still open as to whether someone's appearance can give an indication as to whether that person has a violent nature.

A recent study has suggested that members of a jury base part of their verdict on the physical appearance of the defendant. For example, the defendant, a member of parliament, may have evidence to show they were in their luxury French villa when the £9 million was stolen from the Bank of England, and they may bring out Barack Obama and Nelson Mandela as character witnesses. But if they're not wearing Armani, they'd better get used to communal showers. "Off with his head," the jury will cry, "He has a beard and everything!"

It was confirmed this week that ID cards were going to be optional. The initial £5 billion idea was to reduce ID fraud and to curb terrorism - as though all terrorists would have Occupation: Terrorist on their card and that criminals themselves were going to have the knowhow to fill in the complicated application form anyway.

Dear Applicant,

Please note: The Home Office is a highly flawed department and we cannot be held responsible if your personal data or the details of that embarrassingly large boil on your bottom, that you did not want anyone to know about, is left on public transport or sold to the Telegraph.

'People would trample over each other just to catch a glimpse of a legend'

When the "news" and images of celebrities in the media consist of stories about their lives in glossy magazines, you may just think that everyone in the public eye automatically start marrying goats, drinking their own urine, and throwing phones at paparazzi - only to go home and have cocaine shovelled up their noses by a trio of burlesque dancers.

Seeing a celebrity walking down the street obviously means they're going to meet Meg Ryan for lunch and not just going to the supermarket, and therefore it should make national news. The sky is falling down, Gordon Brown has just declared war on South Wales, and a nuclear power station has just exploded, but Helen Mirren has just bought some new earrings so that is what, of course, makes the News at 10.

We seem to be living in a celebrity-obsessed society where celebrities have a huge influence on people's lives.

A product that could turn saliva into gold would be dismissed as ludicrous unless it's endorsed in an advert with Jane Fonda and then it's flying off the shelves.

But for all the superficial celebrity attention, there's a rare time when one person, can have such a dramatic effect across the globe.

You know you've made your mark on society and on the world when the news channels show images of people of all ages coming together on the streets to sing your songs, people wear a single white exfoliating glove in the shower in tribute, and people all over the planet are trying to moonwalk from the dinner table to the kitchen sink - even if they look like a giraffe with a bowel complaint trying to wipe gum off the bottom of their feet.

The high activity of social networking websites and text messages at 400,000 per second last Thursday evening meant that the news of Michael Jackson was all over the world within hours of his death. Even faster than on the news channels. After the vast surge in text messages, the viewing figures for the Sky and BBC News rocketed as people rushed to confirm if the news was true.

Believing all information received in a text message could be a risk with so many people texting hoaxes like the statue of liberty has come alive and is in the process of terrorising New York or Gordon Brown has gone rabid and has bitten a chunk out of Harriet Harman's ear while dressed as a Nazi.

But either one of these rumours would have been less shocking than hearing that a music legend had died. By 10.30pm, last Thursday, with the news circulating the planet, the news channels still hadn't caught up. You would probably expect no mention of Michael Jackson on BBC News - they usually drag their feet and check the facts before they make any hasty announcements. You would have expected Sky News to be slightly bolder and have quoted the news of his death from another source under a Breaking News headline. And you would expect Fox News, being American, to have seen a rumour on Twitter, which was good enough for them, and to be already holding a live séance in the studio.

The following day, people awoke to the confirmed news that Michael Jackson had died and those at Glastonbury emerged from their tents looking like Worzel Gummidge to the sound of tracks from Thriller, the world's fastest ever selling album. All over the country, news rooms were interviewing people who were lining up to say that they had met Michael Jackson - who had been to his concerts, stood next to him in a lift or was once sneezed on by the man himself back in 1984.

It was in the up and coming days that the focus changed from that of shock to a lament of a lifelong tragedy.

When images of his transformation from a child star to the 50-year-old, unconventional man that he had become appeared all over the news and on entertainment programmes, the words "misfortune", "pity", and "sadness" cropped up - and they were words that were used to describe the life of Michael Jackson on so many levels.

With mass moonwalks taking place, live re-enactments of the Thriller routine, and thousands of people of all ages meeting in the street to sing his songs across the globe, Michael Jackson has cemented his place in history as the world's foremost pop star who had become a living legend when he was still only a child.

Despite some of the negative opinions of him - distorted by the medium that is the sensational speculation from the media that, ultimately, contributed to his downfall - the fact that people idolised his music, would trample over each other just to catch a glimpse of a legend, and the vast number of tributes all over the world shows that he meant something to a lot of people.

And yet, already, there have been people criticising him and even criticising his fans for their mass tributes as though all of the attention is exaggerated. But it's a rarity that someone's talent is celebrated on such a large, international scale - especially for a performer who, in life, was a troubled perfectionist who would never be satisfied with himself and who heavily criticised his own circumstances - even without the media doing that for him.

For anyone who is not a fan of Michael Jackson, the fact that his work is an inspiration to many people should not be condemned.

Michael Jackson; with his unique style, being the ultimate live performer that broke all music records, created his own genre, performing from the age of 4; gave his whole life to entertaining others and trying to instil happiness into many people's lives. He has developed into an idol, a cultural phenomenon in life and in death. His lyrics and dance moves have become globally renowned, and his songs have become a soundtrack to the lives of multiple generations of people, and will be remembered like anthems that immortalise parts of history in people's minds like the ghosts of a long-gone summer.

'The idea of space tourism has been on the agenda for many years'

It's called White Knight Two Eve and, within 2 years, it could be taking the first small group of passengers into space. The vessel is specially designed using carbon nanotubes (in layman's terms, that's nanotubes made from carbon). The high-altitude jet will take a spacecraft (SpaceShipTwo) containing two crew members and six passengers into orbit. More than 250 people have paid over £100,000 per ticket to be some of the first to experience space tourism, but they'll probably still charge you an extra £2.50 for the headphones so you can watch Apollo 13 as the in-flight movie.

It is, of course, Richard Branson who is behind the scheme and everyone who wishes to be a passenger must take a 3-day crash course in space travel - just so they know what to do in the event of an attack from Cybermen, and also to ensure that the force is with them.

White Knight Two Eve will act as the mothership, designed to cradle SpaceShipTwo under its wing and then release it at 15,240m in the air. The vessel itself has received some complaints from not having toilet facilities on board but reaching 2000mph in 25 seconds should ensure that any passengers have parted with the contents of their bowels before leaving the stratosphere, allowing last night's vindaloo to become a separate entity within 0.7 seconds of the launch.

The idea of space tourism has been on the agenda for many years and, only now, does it look as if it's actually going to happen. Over 30 years ago, the Voyager spacecraft were launched into space so they could transmit whale song, and messages from Jimmy Carter, as if any little green beings on other planets are going to understand the English language - especially that of an American president. The plan was, in essence, that some extraterrestrial beings would pick up the messages and pop down to Earth on a package holiday for a cup of tea and a custard cream.

If any aliens were to visit Earth they would more than likely see the recession, overpaid executives, knife crime, terrorism, falling education standards, job cuts, global warming, diminishing fossil fuels, illegal drugs, violent crime, poverty, and Amy Winehouse and head back to the galaxy far far away.

That is unless their planet is an exact replica of ours. With the only difference being that on their planet Alistair Darling has purple hair.

So the new space tourism venture is set to install some excitement back into the world outside our small planet. Since the Great Space Race between Russia and America, the most people have to get excited about is a new tea towel or the latest ringtone for their phone.

So White Knight Two Eve should begin to awaken some of the enthusiasm. The only problem is that nothing is going to be as big as the moon landings - they happened in a time when space was more exciting; it was new and strange and evocative and had only been explored in television and film up until this point. The moon landings had all the great catchphrases: "The eagle has landed", "One small step for man...". Back then, even the astronaut's names were better - they sounded like superheroes (Buzz Aldrin) or they had incredibly strong arms (Neil Armstrong).

Bringing the ventures into space is a bit like trying to remake The Godfather in that it can only be a disappointment or, at least, would lack the excitement and calibre of the original event.

But Dr. Richmond Vrmgh, a physicist who, after undergoing a complicated and tragic operation in which he had important vowels removed from his surname, said that "White Knight Two will be the gateway into space tourism and it is great news that a British man has beaten the rest of the world to commence the space tourism industry. This will be a big moment in history."

And while we are all looking to space for the future migration of the human race, recent reports have said that actually living in space and undergoing frequent space travel will leave you short and fat. Before this concept, people were looking forward to space travel even when they knew the vessel may explode on launch, they may get lost in space or have to have a lightsaber duel with Darth Vader. But the thought of arriving back into the Earth's atmosphere looking like John Prescott was so terrifying it put people off space travel and they're all at home clinging to the ground.

So in the coming years when Virgin begin offering their trips into space aboard White Knight Two Eve, it will only be a short amount of time until there will be package deals to the moon. The moon looks intriguing from Earth, when you're looking up at night-time, but when you're actually on the moon it's baron, bleak, and is fatal without protective clothing - a bit like Nottingham circa 1985.

Some argue that human beings should not go into space, it's just too dangerous. And some say that the Earth is too precious a basket in which to keep all of our eggs. But there's so much that has been left unexplored on our planet - the deepest depths of the oceans, the labyrinth of ancient ruins, and Castle Bromwich. Perhaps it's better the devil you know and to sort out the problems on this planet before we create new ones on others. Before we take out the Martians it's probably better to first sort out the corruption at home and, in doing so, boldly go where no man has ever gone before.

'There has been the emperor's-new-clothes effect concerning modern art'

If you've been keeping up with the news lately you may have been given the faintest inkling that the world is in financial meltdown. We've been constantly bombarded with stories about how everyone is out of pocket and, according to the headlines, people are selling their homes in exchange for rice. In fact, you're probably looking at your pets right now and wondering what they taste like.

So, in this tense economic situation, it could be considered a risk to be spending money on any elaborate pieces of public art - especially when it is of the "modern art" variety, and therefore not so well liked and appreciated by everyone.

People are obviously against the idea of their hard-earned money going towards something that offers little benefit. After witnessing the public reaction to the recent MPs expenses scandal that left the nation baying for blood, there must be council officials all over the country sweating and drawing short straws about who's going to have to appear on Newsnight and explain the £3million 40ft turd they've commissioned to be constructed at the local precinct.

Visiting art galleries is on the increase, presumably as most of them are free. It seems even people who would have never visited an art gallery before are becoming tempted by the cheap days out - even if it is looking at a painting and pretending to admire the lighting before an American tourist steps in your way. And then run off to buy a Monet fridge magnet to advertise your new-found culture.

Generally, the public believe that true "art" refers to the old-fashioned style, where you have some idea as to what the work is supposed to represent. They like to look at something like the frescoes in the Sistine Chapel by Michelangelo for hours because the people look like real people and it's been painted on the ceiling - so they can sit and compare it to how they've never been able to paint their ceiling at home without getting paint in their hair.

A room where the lights go on and off would not necessarily be considered as art by everyone who saw it. Walking into a room to see the lights going off for 5 seconds and then coming back on for 5 seconds would not necessarily cause people to stare in amazement at how it represents the division in society and the divinity of human beings in the extensive magnitude or dimension that is the universe. They're more likely to walk in and say 'Is there something wrong with the lights?'

In general, people don't seem to like modern art. A television programme last week showed people offering their opinion on modern artists. Surprisingly, one of the most frequent comments from people was that artists look scruffy.

There would have been a time when you could walk into an artist's studio and see that he had white hair and spectacles and a waistcoat and you would assume that he knew his onions.

But people obviously don't seem to like the modern, open-toed approach to art as they see it as a move away from more respectful, traditional methods of creativity.

But there has been the emperor's-new-clothes effect concerning modern art. People used to stand and shout at the fact that the council have just paid £8million to see the "art" that is a chair in the middle of an empty room.

In order to impress the aloof critics, people have started to pretend that they actually see the reasoning behind the exhibits.

So now, people pat the artist on the head, call them "amazing, darling", and ask them how they got the ingenious idea to paint on a wall while wearing a blindfold and then urinate over it.

People used to have paintings of flowers and rivers and trees on their wall by artists who were creative enough to be able to represent flowers and rivers and trees to scale. But now there're going to feel like they should be keeping up with the times and staple one of their cats to the wall instead. Or cut off their own hand and mount it above the television. It's art, baby.

Some form of controversial art appears in the news every week. Last weekend, it was the new exhibition by Banksy - who is one modern artist that people often enjoy. This time public money was spent creating the exhibit and not taking it down as it usually is.

More notoriously, one of the most controversial pieces of "art" was announced under the headline "The Tate Gallery has paid £22,300 of public money for a work that is, quite literally, a load of excrement" - which referred to a man who left a personal touch by filling cans with...his, let's say artistic "vision".

An Italian named Piero Manzoni died in 1963, but not before ensuring that he filled a total of 90 cans with his vision.

If someone sent a can of vision to your door, you would most probably take offence and contact the police. But it seems if you send a can of vision to the local museum it gets you £22,300.

This does however; leave open the possibility of art fraud from millions of people having visions every day.

Something is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it and antiques, as well as art, are becoming a more and more popular investment.

There must have been a time in the middle of the 20th century when people suddenly thought that the past is 10 times better than the present and started to collect old things.

Presumably though, a Georgian desk would probably be of a much higher quality than a flat-pack desk that, if you tried to assemble yourself, would get covered with the contents of your arteries.

And giving someone a 40-year-old sofa would be an insult, whereas giving them one that was 200-years-old would be much more of a worthy gift.

It seems that in this economic downturn, people are investing more in antiques. While their own house may only be worth £14.50, their Victorian writing desk is worth a killing.

But it seems undecided yet as to whether people are going to embrace modern art or stick to their guns with the more traditional approach. Either way, it's not going to be the last we see of sawn-in-half cows and a pile of rubbish on top of a bed.

It seems the Mona Lisa is so last week. Poor Leonardo da Vinci (an avid reader of this blog); he's probably turning in his grave. It's not his fault he was born before the days of innovative art. We can only imagine what he could have done with empty rooms and a can of vision.

'Advancing technology seems to give rise to new problems'

Last week the BBC made valuable use of licence fee payer's money to conduct a survey asking people if they feel that the proliferation of technology has benefited their lives.

38% said Yes and 62% said No.

It was also suggested that people would much prefer to live a less complicated, technology-free life and sit outside their homes like The Waltons, relaxing and playing with a piece of dust.

The enquiry then lead to a mini-debate as to the extent of the question, and also caused leading scientists to suggest that, to no surprise, Britain is no longer at the leading forefront of technological advancements and that technology that actually complicates things is unwelcome.

Now, unless you're an MP you probably don't catch sight of many £50 notes. But if you do, you will notice that the new £50 notes feature Birmingham's own Matthew Bolton, the engineer who formed a business partnership with James Watt in 1773 to make huge developments in the steam engine industry.

If you don't have wiry hair and wear comfortable shoes this probably doesn't interest you all that much.

But the larger subject at hand is Britain's contemporary input to the world's inventions and just how far the baton has been passed on to other parts of western Europe, America, China and Japan in terms of inventions, developments, and discoveries.

Britain has been home to many inventions and discoveries; including the fax machine, electric motor, steam and jet engines, light bulbs and, most importantly, perforated toilet paper.

But lately, things have started to slow down in terms of technological advancements from Britain, and, if there's such thing as the £50 note in the future, there's going to be no one to feature on it.

Unless they add Simon Cowell, Levi Roots, or What's-his-name from Eastenders.

And even in the world at large, technology can't seem to decide which direction it's moving in. It's difficult to come to a decision on whether we're actually technologically advanced.

When drawing on the debate as to whether we are moving backwards in terms of technology, the retreat of Concorde usually crops up.

There was a time when you could get to America in less than 4 hours on Concorde, and in a step back for technology, it now takes around 10.

But Concorde, as an advancement in technology, created large problems - the spelling of the name between the British and the French, the decided market portrayal and safety of the 4 subordinate engines, and the fact that the Americans said the sonic boom knocked over their cows.

Technology is expensive and even Concorde, in 1976 cost the taxpayer £1.34 billion - which, even in today's money could get a home for at least 2 MPs.

As always, advancing technology seems to give rise to new problems.

And there are also a considerably large number of people who have refused to embrace technology; people who spend their day dressed as Windy Miller to churn butter, who only consider spam to be a canned meat, and are just coming to terms with corduroy.

There was once the idea that technology was going to make life more simple and make complicated tasks easier to complete.

But every new piece of equipment comes with a new instruction manual the size of War and Peace and a remote control that is guaranteed to make your nose wrinkle every time you look at it.

And while DVDs are more convenient than VHS, they can, for some people, be more difficult to operate.

To the less technologically apt, playing a DVD is like guiding a Harrier Jet through a missile attack. Only more complicated.

Every time you watch a DVD, you're forced to watch a message telling you that you are only allowed to watch that film if you're at home, not in a public place, and you're wearing green.

And you also have to sit through messages about pirate DVDs - giving you the implication that the SWAT team is about to burst through your window and confiscate it.

And by the time all the messages finish, you're 191 years old and it's time for bed.

There's something interesting about the fact that people have suggested that technology doesn't make you happy - if anything it makes everything slightly more complicated.

Believe it or not, there are some people who just want a mobile phone to actually call a real human being - and not to send nude images to the Philippines, launch espionage satellites, or boil an egg.

But it seems that progressing with technology is actually going to mean taking a step backwards, turning away from the over-complicated nature of recent advances.

We may think we're advanced because we have a satellite dish on the wall of our house, because we can watch penguins falling over in documentaries on our plasma televisions, and check the weather on the other side of the world in over 100 languages.

But if there was the option for it to all disappear, how many people would ever choose that option?

Technology obviously isn't making everything easier.

For a world that has managed to launch rockets into space, put a man on the moon, and make high-tech machinery to prevent it from raining on the Olympic games, we still can't manage to print a document without the printer passing through hundreds of blank pages or saying "You have performed an illegal operation. This computer will now self- destruct."
Considering we can view images of robots looking for water on Mars, or can attach cameras to the back of a wasp, you would think you'd be able to watch something as simple as a television much easier than 30 years ago.

In the past you pressed a button the television came on.

Today, if you're trying to watch Deal Or No Deal (for reasons known only to yourself) the digital box will say that there is no satellite signal being received - only for you to have to call customer services, tell them your password, shoe-size, and the number of hairs on your head; so they can announce that the digital box isn't working because you've got to turn it on and off 17 times, take the viewing card out, sing to it, and then swipe it between your bottom cheeks.

You wouldn't expect your television to suddenly stop working in this day and age. If you were on the frontline of a military war zone or in the middle of nuclear fallout you may expect a small degradation in picture quality. And it would be OK if the picture cut off when something like Emmerdale was about to start.

The BBC study stated that people liked the technological advancements in the '80s - new, but not too complicated. If there's ever a time machine invented, it seems 62% of people will be packing up the computers, satellite navigation systems, and satellite-launching mobile phones to join Gene Hunt back in 1981.

Click here for a printable version