Where did all the money go?

The Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) announced today that it lost £5.2 billion last year. Firstly, from the point of view of the bank, this is terrible news. £5.2 billion is more money than I can even comprehend, let alone have. It is enough to give everyone in Asia a pound. To lose that amount of money something has to go seriously wrong, and it did. I won't bore you with the details, because what I want to know is, where did all the money go?

Traditionally banks are places where businesses and members of the public can go to store their money in a secure place. The banks then 'invest' your money and (hopefully) make a profit, sometimes passing a small chunk of the profit onto you, the customer. Now it would seem that no RBS customers have lost their savings, otherwise I'm pretty sure people would be more angry than usual. Equally nobody seems deliriously happy because RBS have given loans amounting to £5.2 billion away without any obligation to pay them back. Also RBS is 81% owned by the taxpayer. So are 81% of RBS' losses going to be passed on to taxpayers? Of course not, but taxpayers won't be getting any share of profits should RBS actually make any. So if the taxpayers (and therefore the government) don't have the money, none of RBS' customers have the money and the bank certainly don't have the money, where did £5.2 billion go? Now some of the money is clearly accounted for, but most of that is RBS' own fault and it is only really paying back what is has dishonestly earned. Even with explanations as to where the money has gone, surely there is something wrong with the whole system of banking in the United Kingdom if a business which is owned by the taxpayer and used by the taxpayer is allowed to lose money like a cash-catapult. In fact, surely it isn't just the United Kingdom's banking system and indeed economic system that has failed like a concrete parachute? The whole of Europe is in debt as well as the USA and other nations. Which really begs the question, who are well all in debt too? It isn't taxpayers because everyone is poorer. It isn't the banks because they won't lend. It isn't business because they've all gone bust. So does that mean that all European countries are all in debt to each other? Surely then we can just write off large chunks of debt then? As of now, that doesn't appear to be happening. Why not? Unfortunately we can only answer that once we answer this question:

Where did all the money go?

Titanic II.

No, it isn't a sequel to James Cameron's 1997 borefest, or the utterly terrible 2010 film, thankfully, it is a real functioning ship. Or at least it will be by 2016. Australian mining billionaire Clive Palmer has revealed plans to build an (almost) identical replica of the ill fated vessel that sank over 100 years ago. The ship will from both inside and out appear authentic, from 1st to 3rd class. Whilst nobody this time around is calling the ship 'unsinkable', Titanic II will be 'the most safe cruise ship when it is launched', fully equipped with 18 modern lifeboats. Although some people may be put off by issues regarding taste, there are already 40,000 passengers signed up. Perhaps some signing up with the idea of commemorating Titanic victims?

Personally I think it is a brilliant idea. The Titanic was a far more stylish ship than the modern day floating apartment blocks that pass for luxury cruise liners. Not only this but there are 3 classes. 1st class, which has all the perks you'd expect, down to 3rd class, with authentic Irish stew, dancing and music and shared toilet facilities. There are also plans to provide accurate costumes for passengers, according to their ticket. This venture isn't just an attempt to relive the past; air conditioning, a casino and a theatre have all been added to make the journey feel a bit more up to date. Aside from looking brilliant, the whole experience should be, well, fun. The novelty of crossing the Atlantic on a Titanic replica would only add to the usual cruise liner experience and the fact that it is being funded by a somewhat eccentric billionaire makes the whole project a bit more likable.

This might not seem like the obvious thing to do during a recession and many may consider the whole thing a waste of money, but at least you'll be wasting it in style.

Now, I'm no expert, but...

With 24 hour rolling TV news stations, news websites and newspapers, all of which are easily accessible from pretty much anywhere, there are bound to be some news stories that just act as 'filler'. Increasingly though, there seem to be a number of stories which aren't really newsworthy, but make it onto TV anyway, disguised as actual news because an 'expert' said it. Go through a news website or watch a news channel for long enough and you will definitely come across a story like this. If you search 'experts say' on the BBC News website one of the things you'll realise is that there are far too many experts. This gives any news outlet the chance to justify almost any claim on the grounds that, odds are, they can find an 'expert' to quote.

The reason why I put 'expert' in quotation marks is because most of the statements made by these 'experts' are blindingly obvious to anybody who hasn't got a chunk of their brain missing. Stories along the lines of 'Cutting the NHS budget will negatively impact care, say experts' and 'Morale of teachers drops as education budget is slashed according to expert report'. Now if this is the standard of knowledge to require you to become an expert I think I'll have to share my own gems. Chopping off your left arm will hurt. Punching someone in the face for no reason will have negative consequences. 84 is a larger number than 7.

Seriously, when you find out something we don't know, or something useful, or something you can all agree on, or something that couldn't be figured out by a simply Googling a few key words then get back to us. Until then, news outlets, please stop giving us the 'expert' opinion.

Even when experts have found out something that appears useful it usually turns out they've got it wrong. This seems most common in food stories. Of course an apple a day keeps the doctor away, but doesn't stop you needing treatment for cancer if some stories are to be believed. Although actually apples can reduce the risk of cancer according to other reports. But you'll be fine as long as you don't eat chocolate, apart from maybe dark chocolate which has a host of benefits. Oh no but wait, it is fatty and high in calories. We should just stick to a nice cup of tea, which has antioxidants and other lovely things in, everyone knows that. Unless you're a woman, in which case it'll probably give you arthritis. Okay, so bad news for tea drinkers, but good news if you like coffee! It can reduce the risk of a variety of cancers, as long as you survive the potential heart, stomach and stress related problems it can cause. If you're thinking of just playing it safe and drinking water then be careful! Drink too much and you won't sleep properly and it might cause kidney damage. Thinking of just eating plain ol' rice? Big mistake. It can upset your mineral balance and stop you absorbing nutrients. In summary, ignore the experts and do what pretty much everyone has known for years yet chooses to ignore, have a balanced diet and exercise.

Then again, what do I know? I'm no expert.

Is nothing sacred anymore?

I pretty much grew up watching Scooby-Doo. I had all the films on video and most of the newer ones on DVDs. Of course the videos were better because there was something inexplicably satisfying about inserting a VHS into a video player. But now imagine my horror when, flicking through the channels to find something that isn't either a repeat or a cookery show, I come across Scooby-Doo! Mystery Incorporated. They don't look the same any more! Fred has a jaw which would put David Coulthard to shame, Daphne is clearly suffering from anorexia and Velma looks like she is on the verge of becoming a sexual predator. Scooby and Shaggy look essentially the same, although the latter may have somehow actually lost weight. It doesn't just stop at how they look. The things they say simply don't feel right anymore. Instead of zoinks, yikes and jinkies there are serious undertones, far too serious undertones. There are story arcs and references to films. Fred and Daphne are engaged and Shaggy's voice has changed (which is actually fair enough; the original voice, the brilliant Casey Kasem, is now 80 and they have chosen Matthew Lillard, who was excellent playing Shaggy in the live action films, to replace him). The villains and plots are suddenly far more sinister and twisted, a bit like a modern Batman film. What happened to crooked real estate agents and prospectors who wanted to scare people away from their gold? One of the worst things is the distinct lack of a theme song! There is an opening theme but it takes itself far too seriously and doesn't have any catchy lyrics or even a half decent tune. The original theme song from Scooby-Doo, Where Are You! is brilliant and probably better than most songs in the Top 40. Even The Scooby Doo Show theme and the What's New, Scooby-Doo themes are at least catchy. I liked Scooby-Doo when I was young because it was essentially a harmless whodunnit with funny characters. I never once questioned their back stories, because they were too busy eating Scooby Snacks, splitting up and looking for clues, fooling and trapping the villain and finding out it was all just a man in a suit. It didn't take itself too seriously, it just entertained. After all, you can make Scooby-Doo as serious as you like, but its still a cartoon about a talking dog.

Scooby-Doo should not have changed. And it would've gotten away with it too, if it wasn't for you meddling Warner Brothers!

Titles are hard.

Picture if you will, a deserted mansion. It is dark. The wind whistles through the overgrown garden, the rustling leaves sound like faint whispers in the night. You approach the house, slowly, tentatively. Its sagging roof and rotting timbers show its age. As you near the huge wooden door you see a face carved in stone looking down upon you, as if to warn you to stay away. The fear shoots out from your heart, through all your veins and to the ends of your fingertips. The very fingertips with which you clutch your gun, in an attempt to comfort yourself. Bravely, or maybe foolishly, you swing open the door. The hinges creak and groan as if the whole building were in pain. You step into the hall, the tap of your shoes on the dusty tiles resonating throughout the house. Through a hole in the roof moonlight comes flooding in. A staircase sweeps majestically upwards to a long corridor. You climb the stairs. With each step your chest tightens, your lips dry and your heart pounds faster inside your chest. Portraits of relatives long since forgotten hang from the walls. The rooms echo with the ghosts of children's laughter. Suddenly your hairs stand on end. You hear a noise from behind a door. You freeze in terror. You grab your gun as your approach the door. Slowly you turn the rusted handle, unsure if you have the courage to look inside. Curiosity drives you on. You throw open the door and the noise, which you thought could spell your doom, is nothing more than a pigeon, that has made its home in this abandoned bathroom.

What you don't do is leave the door shut and shoot blindly through it. Oscar Pistorius must have the best lawyer in the world if he gets away with what he has done. In my view he doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Its all just a Pope-ularity contest.

With the shock news that a frail and elderly man is to retire at the tender age of 85, from a job in which millions expect him to be the voice of God, the Vatican now needs a new man in charge (although I'm not sure why). This is my break down of the front runners for the job, to help you decide who would be best at Poping.

Cardinal Mark Oullett

At just 68 he is unlikely do die anytime soon, which gives him an obvious advantage over other candidates. Judging from his pictures on the internet he has a bigger, shinier hat than many other wannabe Popes, which should stand him in good stead for all of that hat wearing that the Pope does have to do. He wears glasses which could be a problem as, once over the age of 50, locating spectacles becomes an extremely difficult task. Also a high risk of them falling off his balcony. No facial hair, grey on top, looks bored/miserable enough to be Pope. He's got every chance.

Cardinal Francis Arinze

At 80 years old, Francis is the oldest potential Pope, but with age comes wisdom. Also with age comes senility, loss of hearing, loss of eyesight, hair loss and a general dislike for loud music. Again wears glasses, but a less shiny hat. Will need to bling things up if he wants to impress God. Has the unfortunate disadvantage of not being white. Nothing wrong with this of course, but the Catholic Church looks about as ready for a black Pope as this blog looks ready to win a writing award. He does appear to have the general disposition of a Pope however: vaguely bewildered, bored, peacefully balancing on the edge between life and death. Unlikely winner, but maybe worth a punt.

Cardinal Peter Kodwo Appiah Turkson

Another black candidate from Africa, this Papal pretender doesn't wear glasses, dresses more brightly and doesn't look like a poorly functioning robot of himself. At just 64, this young whippersnapper has got plenty of years left in him and is a contender for the best name. Also looks more competent (the kind of chap who can go to the toilet unassisted) and has quite a nice smile. In summary: no chance.

Cardinal Tarcisio Pietro Evasio Bertone

The other candidate for best name, but a full 14 years older than his a rival. Wears glasses and dresses the part (shiny, really shiny), but still no sign of any facial hair and is the fourth in a row to be grey on top. Looks generally uncomfortable and does speak five languages fluently, including Spanish (and nobody expects the Spanish inquisition!). Has done the legwork and can also read several languages. Definitely boring enough to be in with a chance.

Cardinal Angelo Scola

Only 71 and has a name that sounds like a footballer who you think you remember. Really blings it up but still wears glasses and is grey on top, so nothing too outlandish. Only recently became Archbishop of Milan and looks like he would kill anyone who got in his way. Certainly has a boring enough past to become Pope, but seems too ambitious, as though he wants God's job too.

Joao Braz de Aviz

Not even a cardinal, but doesn't have grey hair! Quite plump and looks stereotypically jolly. Dresses the part but seems far too on the ball to become Pope. Seems nice, which might make him popular, but not got his head far enough up in the clouds to really be a contender. Will become host of a religiously themed Brazilian game show at best. 

Well that is my run down. Not that it matters. 

*Sorry about the white text on white, no idea what has happened there. I'll keep working on it, but in the mean time if you highlight the white areas then you should then be able to read the text.

Things I don't understand. Volume 1.

There are many things I don't understand. This is just Volume 1, I'm sure I'll be adding to it. If there is a reasonable explanation for any of these things then please comment.

1. Why is the letter 'y' not a vowel?

I can't think of a word that doesn't have either a vowel or the letter 'y' in. If 'y' was a vowel then there would finally be a rule in the English language that actually works. For example the whole "'i' before 'e' except after 'c'" thing is a terrible rule (think about it).

2. Why do people sometimes say 'no, yeah' or 'yeah, no' as a response to a question?

Surely its one of the other. It can cause confusion, especially if you're not face to face, because you can't read the person's body language. It's also becoming more popular. At present it just seems to be used in general chit chat, but if it finds its way into serious conversations then we could be in real trouble; "Sir, the enemy is attacking! Should we fire the missile?" - "yeah, no" -"eh?"

3. Why is Justin Bieber so popular?

Well, why? In terms of his music he is a very, very highly polished turd. He has a personality, which is aimed with about as much subtlety as a rocket propelled grenade to the face from three feet away, to make teenage girls scream like utter morons. I could go on, but I'll probably save that for another day.

4. Why trap the good guy/bad guy in an easily escapable or overly-elaborate situation?

This is usually something that the bad guy does to the good guy; like leaving a highly trained secret agent out of sight and just presuming that the crocodiles will eat him, or the laser will chop him in half, or that the guards will perform their job with some level of competency. Now however it seems like the good guys are doing similar things. Take the latest James Bond film for example. MI6 decide that the best place for a highly trained, mentally unstable, former agent who is brilliant at hacking almost anything electronic, is inside a glass cell with an electronically operated door, with a fairly minimal amount of men, who are of course not as highly trained, guarding it.

5. Chinese writing

I do not understand Chinese writing.

6. Why is almost everything delicious also unhealthy?

It just isn't fair. Why haven't we evolved to have taste buds that crave more healthy foods? Surely it would be an evolutionary advantage to want to eat things that won't make you lose your big toe to diabetes, or make you expand until you get to the size where an 18th century whaler would shout "thar she blows!" at you.

Well, that is all for now, but I'll be back some other time with more. Please comment if you have any explanations or if you just want to tell me how bad I am at this.

Space travel, schmace travel.

Now, don't get me wrong, the universe is amazing. Not "OMG Justin Bieber is soooooo totes amazing" kind of amazing, but actually mind-bogglingly, jaw-droppingly, intriguingly and beautifully amazing. And big. Very big. Its also quite high up. Much higher than you can jump. As a consequence of space's bigness and high-upness, it is very expensive to get there.

On average a NASA space shuttle flight costs £982833000. That is enough money to buy 98283300000 midget gems. Taking the average midget gem to be a centimeter in length, that is enough sweets to reach to the moon and then wrap around the equator 14 times, with 3739007100 left over to eat. That is enough to feed 341 people for their entire lives*. Surely this money could be better spent. Millions of people each year still die from famine, drought, disease and war. The entire planet is facing an energy crisis. Not to mention overpopulation, food production, climate change, pollution, deforestation, sea level rise, species extinction, the nuclear threat, corruption, greed, the fact that Justin Bieber is so popular, economic collapse, a growing gap between the rich and poor, obesity, natural disasters, dependency on technology, terrorism and anything else I may have overlooked. The point I'm making is that we should probably try and sort things out down here on earth before we start exploring space, especially when it is so expensive. The amount of money spent to fund space exploration could instead fund research into solving many worldwide issues.

It isn't just a simple matter of priorities, but history shows us that we don't really advance or expand until we have solved a more immediate problem. Until the wheel was invented things for early humans were going pretty slowly. Since then we've managed to invent cars that can go over 200 mph and provide Jeremy Clarkson with employment. Until we invented efficient farming methods to ensure a relatively consistent food supply we couldn't focus on anything else in any great depth. It is unlikely that Albert Einstein would have come up with his theory of relativity if he had to tend to his crops every day. Space exploration is complicated (like trying to solve a 3D sudoku from 300 yards away using a robot operated by your foot. Underwater. In the dark) and it won't get the attention and funding it needs to succeed until the issues on our own rock hurtling through space at 67062 mph have been solved. And if we can't solve them then the least we can do is build that tower of midget gems to the moon.

*Calculations based on average weight of and calories in a single midget gem, a life expectancy of 80 and the recommended calorie intake for a UK male. Please correct me if I am wrong. I also acknowledge that people can not survive on midget gems alone. Please do not try this at home (or anywhere for that matter). Although if you are stupid enough to do this then your inevitable death is probably not such a great loss to humanity. 

The horsemeat scandal: A night-mare?

If you're worried that you've eaten horse, the mane thing is not to panic. Remember that things are a much worse for the horse, just imagine being in their shoes. I understand that images of some poor horses, stood outside in the rein, can really stirrup the emotions. But again, don't worry, the horse population is stable. Having said this, I know I can't shergar coat it. In fact some people have shouted themselves horse in anger at this foal play. Of course people have every right to be angry, some of these companies have been taking consumers for a ride, all for a quick buck. The people responsible may have long faces now, but they mustn't be allowed to just trot off without facing the consequences. The more worrying news however, is that potentially dangerous drugs have entered into the human food chain as a result. Will these drugs be in the food chain furlong? This is not equestrian I can answer. Of course the real tragedy in all of this is that the phrase 'I'm so hungry I could eat a horse' has lost all meaning. 

The drug worries aside, this scandal doesn't actually seem too bad. It doesn't effect vegetarians, vegans or people who like horses (to eat, not ride). One thing in particular that I have noticed, is that nobody has actually complained about the taste. Which really begs the question, why don't we eat horse? If it is 'tasty' enough to pass for ready meal quality beef and cheap enough to make companies want to use it instead of cow, then why don't we have genuine (pronounce in New York accent for full effect), equine burgers? In fact, why disguise horse in round slabs of meat at all? Why not have the horsemeat equivalent of turkey dinosaurs? Sliced horsemeat sandwiches? (which I presume will go well with horseradish sauce). Horse scratchings? (lets face it, they can't be any worse than the pork variety). For those with more expensive tastes, how would you like to be the proud eater of the winner of the Grand National? Horses also have the added benefit of being able to rapidly transport themselves to slaughterhouses. And just think of all the luck people will have once there is a surplus of horse shoes. Horses also pollute less; cows' burps are notorious for adding unwanted gases to the atmosphere. My only concern however, is that it may only be a matter of time before traces of jockey would be discovered. But what if we get a taste for jockey too? Its not too big a leap to then move on to eat proper, full size people. I presume they'd taste the same (think eating a Mars Bar and eating a Jumbo Mars Bar). Well, who I am to stand in the way of progress.

Bon appétit

So, it has come to this, I've started a blog.

I don't know if starting this blog is my way of having a midlife crisis. I haven't bought a Harley Davidson, started guitar lessons or had an affair (its difficult to have an affair when you're not already in a relationship). Then again, it would only be a midlife crisis provided I die sometime around the age of 42. Either way it has come to this, I've started a blog.

I've not decided what it will be about, or even the general tone. It took me about two days to choose what font to use and to be honest I'm still not totally convinced. I will try and keep these posts concise. Nobody particularly enjoys meandering their way through unnecessarily long sentences that go on and on for what seem like minutes, only to find out that what the author really wanted to say could have been summed up in far, far fewer words. Sometimes it will be useful, sometimes informative, sometimes serious and sometimes funny. I hope.

I will probably rant, rave, criticise and ramble, you know, like a person, but in words. Also, like a person, I will be topical as well as reminisce about things from the past, like when beef burgers were made from cows. I have no idea how long it will last, how many times I will post or how good or successful it will be. Well, wish me luck, I've started a blog.

(Oh and please comment)

(Please)