Just under three years ago I got my A-Level results and found out that I hadn’t got into my first choice university. Obviously, at the time, I was extremely disappointed, and to some extent I felt like I’d let myself down. Three years have passed since then though, and I now know that something which I originally looked at as a failure was in fact one of the best things that has happened to me. I was lucky to have had a couple of bad days in exams, because if I hadn’t the past three years of my life, probably the best three years of my life, wouldn’t have taken the same course.

As a person I’ve grown immensely over the past few years (and not just because of the copious amounts of pizza I’ve devoured), I’ve become much more self-confident, independent and assured. I no longer have to check someone else thinks the way that I do, speaks the way that I do or wears the same clothes as I do; if something works for me then it works for me, why should I even give a second’s thought as to how other people might think about something that makes me… me? This seems obvious now, but it hasn’t always been so. At school I was quite a shy kid without much to say for myself, I didn’t really express myself because I didn’t want anyone to think I was weird or strange in any way. Now I’m offended if people don’t think I’m a bit strange.

At sixth form I became a bit more confident, I bought a green suit (which was cool I don’t care what anyone thinks) and I was much happier to make contributions to discussions, but I still wasn’t quite comfortable with myself. However, that changed quite quickly when I came to university. I came to Brighton with the intention not only to do well in my studies and improve my knowledge, but also with the intention to do well as a person and to improve, really, how I thought about myself.

While I was at sixth form I’d come to the realisation that one thing I could do was make (at least some) people laugh, and making people laugh is, from my experience, the best way to not only make friends and make other people happy, but also to make yourself happy.

I was determined to make the most of the opportunity for somewhat of a new start at university, to go out of my comfort zone and enjoy what I was told would be the best three years of my life – what I hoped would be the best three years of my life. Armed with my ability to make (at least some) people laugh, I made friends with my flatmates and my coursemates. They could either have befriended me because of my ability to make (at least some of) them laugh, or out of the necessity to get along with people you have to spend nearly every day with. I’ve also had really good relationships with my lecturers and tutors, all of whom it’s been a pleasure to learn from and interrupt the lessons of with often failed attempts at making a joke. From these groups I know I’ll have friends for life and I’m sure that when we all have to say goodbye my hayfever will perk up and make it look like I’m crying.

Each of these groups of people have helped me enormously to develop into the person I am now and the person that I’m proud to be. They’ve laughed at (at least some of) my jokes, laughed at me for drunken mistakes and laughed at me for sober mistakes. So really they’ve just laughed at me… They’ve shared good times and bad times with me (there hasn’t been much bad) and they’ve always supported me regardless of whether they agree with me or not. They still read this damn blog for goodness sake, imagine having friends that would do that for you!

The likelihood is I’ll come out with a decent degree which of course I will be proud of, but something else I will take from my experience over the last three years is that being me is pretty fantastic. It’s fantastic because I have a group of friends at home and a group of friends at uni that are vastly different but are the same in that they make life enjoyable. It’s fantastic because I’m happy with who I am as a person and I don’t need the approval of people who don’t matter to me. It’s fantastic because I know that moving forward I have people around me who will laugh with me when I’m happy and pick me up when I’m sad, and I know they’ll do this for me, the person I am, which is luckily the person I want to be.

Just this week I went for a night out dressed as a woman, and strangely enough I think this sums up how I’ve grown as a person. Three years ago, I wouldn’t have even entertained the thought of going out dressed as a woman; what would people think? But now I don’t care, I only care what people close to me think, and they thought it was hilarious. That made whatever sense of embarrassment I felt worth it.

I guess what I wanted to say in this ramble is thank you to those people, those people who’ve helped me become a man who would dress as a woman to make them laugh. Thank you for making me happy. You’re all wonderful.

As I’ve been told, pretty patronisingly at times, I’ve become ‘quite political’. Really, this utterance should exit mouths with a tone of encouragement, but every time I hear it it seems that the words spill out accompanied with a side-serving of belittlement, as though, because I think about things, I should be put away in a zoo-like environment so people, when they need cheering up, can drop by and have a look and a laugh.

While I’m away on my trivial and entertaining trips to thinky-thinky land I often wonder why the world is in such a horrible, desperate mess, and, more importantly, why we don’t seem to care in the slightest. The reason is that the information presented to us, and the language it is presented in, places strict limits on what we can actually think about. If we ever manage to think outside of this narrow range we’re labelled as a ‘radical’ or a ‘loon’ (I’m being a loony radical in writing something like this).

Some of you will be thinking “what are you on about Liam, I can think what I want”, which may be true, but, if your mind is being controlled, would you know?

One of the main ways our thought is restricted, as has been mentioned by multiple people (who aren’t allowed to say such things on the television) is through the language of fear:
“Did you know that wealth inequality is a huge problem in the world and people are needlessly homeless or in poverty or starving to death”
“Did you know ISIS are going to drop EBOLA BOMBS EVERYWHERE and KILL US ALL!?”
“Oh goodness, don’t worry about the poor or homeless or starving people!!!! stop ISIS giving me ebola!!!!!!”
Maybe that is an extreme example (I prefer to call it a satire) but this is a very common thought process in such areas as the Daily Mail comments section (other racist, sexist, homophobic tabloids are available) but also in other parts of the internet and in the mainstream media. So, it’s basically everywhere. People are being scared by the constant stream of terrifying stories presented by the media and politicians, and fear can be a very overpowering emotion, and being scared of ISIS’s ebola bombs is a fairly rational reaction; ebola bombs are scary. This all results in lots of people being scared stiff of ebola bombs and dying, which in turn means that the real problems in the world, the problems that mean ISIS and ebola are actually a threat to a lot of people, are pushed almost completely out of the public consciousness.

This fear, and the resulting restriction of thought, is very handy for those few people (who are in charge of the media that scares us) who benefit from the massive wealth inequality that the above conversation so very rightly brought to our attention; it means we’re not pissed off at them for keeping everything for themselves with no regard for other humans. We’re too busy panicking. As soon as the threat of ebola bombs from ISIS are presented as a possibility and we’re all scared into thinking only about that, they let out a sigh of relief (some money probably comes out with that sigh, they’ve run out of places to put it), the status-quo that they so adore, that keeps their pockets so heftily lined, is safe. Thank god for ISIS!

Fear, though, is not the only thought controlling technique used by those in power/those with money (from now on, when I say ‘those with power’ or ‘those with money’ I mean the same thing, those people are the same people). Have you ever thought that every political party is almost exactly the same thing? Good. They are. Now, why might this be?

Political parties, full of people who’d quite like some power, rely on donations to get their campaigning to a level that brings them to the public attention. They need quite a lot of money, which is quite handy, because there’s a few people in this country who have all the money (literally all of it) and they’d quite like things to stay the way they are. If only there was a way for them to encourage the political parties to keep things the same… The donations? Oh, I see.

Politics and people’s thoughts therefore operate in a very small sphere: the sphere of main stream politics, or capitalism. In an ideal world we’d have political parties and media outlets offering an alternative to capitalism and the massive inequality and misery it brings, but that would cost money, and as we’ve seen, a few people have all of that, and they are sitting in a tree, k-i-s-s-i-n-g capitalism, so any media outlets that would allow people to think beyond the very restricting shackles of capitalism are unable to find funding.

Seeing as we’ve been dragged through the dirt of capitalist rhetoric and propaganda for so long, no one even believes there’s an alternative, we have to plough on, ruining the lives of the majority of people on earth, creating endless wars and ensuring that a tragically enormous number of people live in poverty because people find it extremely difficult to think that this isn’t actually right.

Because of the control of the wealthy, when you go to vote you have a very limited choice, with the green party probably the nicest of a bad lot, and they get hardly any attention from the media (funny that innit). By scaring us into submission and subservience and giving us the same political party three times (or four times if you count the UKIP), the people with power (the people with money) ensure that we can only think in the realms that they let us, want us, to think in, we honestly and truly believe that Labour offer us something different to the Conservatives: “you can have this red capitalism or this blue capitalism, go on, pick one, PICK ONE”.

If we could start again now, with the technology we have, if we had a choice of how to run the world because no one has all the money and we’d erased all traces of the massive wealth the richest few people had, do you think we’d collectively, democratically choose to distribute wealth and resources the way we do now? Of course not, it’s horribly unjust, but it’s really hard for us to imagine a world that isn’t as shit as the one we’re in now because we’re constantly bombarded with assertions that this, the current way, is the best way the world could be, and poverty and starvation and all kinds of inequality are just an unfortunate result of a ‘fair’ system. Maybe one day we’ll get back to those basic human instincts of empathy and compassion and we can move forward in a better world.

Until then though, thank god we’ve not been ebola-bombed.

As you all know, or at least should know, the World Cup is underway in Brazil, and also, rather predictably, England got off to a losing start. After posting about fashion’s similarities to language (fashion being something I know little about), I thought I’d write something about football’s similarities to language (football being something I like to think I know a lot about).

The connection between football and language, like that between fashion and language, may seem like something that requires a painful mental stretch to reach, but, after thinking about it for a while, I think I’ve found quite a few similarities.

The first comparison to make is that, much like in language, change is not a particularly well received thing in football. The introduction of the ever so logical and much needed goal-line technology was resisted by many people within the game. They said that the human error of referees was something that made the game unique and pure, paying little to no attention to the fact that goals being given/not being given due to referee or linesman error is wholly unfair, as England found out at the World Cup four years ago (we would have won if Lampard’s goal stood…). We see such resistance towards change in language. The meaning of literally changing is a perfect example of this, as is, like, people, like, using like in their sentences a lot. Changes in language may be less considered and deliberate than changes in football, but in both, changes are resisted by those pesky prescriptivists.

That comparison is less romantic than the ones I really want to make though.

Like language, football has a rhythm. This is (or was) especially evident when watching Spain play football, their tiki-taka style of quick short passing seems to have a beat. To me, admittedly not to all, it’s captivating and enthralling to watch, and when they do it to the best of their ability it is poetic in nature and it can be something quite beautiful.

If football can appear poetic, then surely, there must be players that write more elegantly than others. Watching England play Italy yesterday, and watching Andrea Pirlo glide around casting footballing spells,  it is clear to me that he is one of the players that proves this hypothesis. He makes the game look much easier than everyone else, and makes it look like they are trying ever so hard to do what he can do with one eye closed and a glass of merlot in his hand. Similar to a great piece of writing, Pirlo’s football makes that of others look significantly less skilled than his.

Along with it’s poetic nature, football also has narratives and storylines. In single matches, like Holland against Spain on Friday, it can be one of a successful underdog coming out on top; a David and Goliath contest, I suppose (I am fed up of hearing that though). The prevailing narrative of the current World Cup is probably one of redemption for Brazil. In 1950, Brazil got to the final of the World Cup, the last time it was in Brazil, and came up against Uruguay. Their fans were certain that they’d win, and were almost celebrating winning the tournament before they had. A mistake. Uruguay came up with a surprise (David and Goliath again), and won 2-1. Brazil was a nation in mourning, football means a lot to the people there.

This year, the first time the tournament has been held in Brazil since then, the pressure is massive an Brazil to make up for the shock and disappointment of 64 years ago, and the narrative this brings will unfold over the next few weeks; Brazil will be desperately hoping, praying for a happy ending.

For England, we always hope, and this year we have a good team, last nights loss against another good team isn’t the end of the world. Two wins in the next two games and we’ll go through, and who knows, maybe we’ll do what Uruguay did to Brazil all those years ago.

Then again, we might have the same old story for England: Tragedy.

As we are all aware (I hope), the UKIP were quite successful in the European Elections last week, and, as I disagree wholeheartedly with what they stand for, I’ve been reading furiously about what could have caused people to vote for them. One factor that I’ve seen mentioned a number of times is the way in which Mr Farage presents himself as ‘anti-establishment’.

Of course, he’s not ‘anti-establishment’, he’s a privileged former city worker with a bit of a racist streak (when he’s tired), which, to me, screams establishment.

Regardless of this fact, I would hazard a guess that this is something that captures voters and drags them to Farage, and, to give him some credit, he’s good at presenting himself as something he’s not (or lying…).

We are all aware of the way politicians like to twist questions and answer in such a way as to mention everything their aides have told them to, and that’s annoying. If an interviewer asks a question, we want to know the answer to that question, not the one that it’s been manipulated and transformed into.

This is where Farage is a bit different. I don’t want to say he’s ‘straight talking’, he obviously knows what he’s doing (most of the time), but it does seem that somewhere in the “diabolical plan to be perceived as ‘anti-establishment’ and chuck all the foreigners out” he’s written: ‘appear as though I’m not a politician’.

Obviously, a good way to go about this is to do things politicians don’t, like go down the pub and drink a nice ale or seven and smoke, or to be more direct in the way he answers questions. Being the leader of a minor party (despite what he might say) allows him to flout the political rules somewhat, because if it leads to a slip up, there’s not a lot to be lost.

Again, to begrudgingly give him credit, he hasn’t slipped up much, he’s outlined what he thinks and some people agree, and he’s not really strayed from his message, so his loyal followers have done just that, followed him, ale in hand, sticking up for the good people of Britain (as long as they’re not from somewhere else).

In recent weeks however, when asked about the UKIP’s policies about anything whatsoever that isn’t immigration or leaving the EU, he’s reverted back to that old establishment ploy of twisting questions and answering them in a way that gets his desired message across. He’s conforming to the standards of those people he’s so actively trying to prove he’s not.

Whenever he or his party is asked about domestic problems, the first answer is to blame the foreigners, he has to get the message across that they’re to blame, he has no policies regarding domestic problems; the UKIP don’t have a manifesto. With the European election, this was a major issue, but I’d suggest it’s not going to be at the top of the public’s list of worries when the focus shifts to the general election, and Farage, if he wants to be taken seriously, will need answers to questions about the issues at the top of such a list that don’t just blame immigration. If he has a whole manifesto lurking behind him in the shadows, it seems unlikely to me that he’ll be able to keep up his ‘straight talking’ appearance without contradicting the party’s policies somewhere along the line.

I also don’t want to forget that he has slipped up already, in an interview when he was asked what the difference between living next door to Romanians or Germans was, he said ‘you know the difference’ and later blamed his comments on ‘tiredness’. It’s hard to imagine a career politician making such a mistake and revealing themselves as a racist when tired.

A combination of slip ups and increasing pressure could (and hopefully will) lead to his ‘anti-establishment’ image crumbling and people realising that he’s just one of the politicians after all, and the dreadful UKIP ‘blame anyone but those responsible’ bandwagon will be derailed.

Even if that happens, we might get the Tories in again, and they hate blaming those responsible too…

Yesterday I posted a link on the Facebook page to an article in the Guardian comparing language to fashion, and after thinking about it, I decided that I’d write a blog about that subject (but not exactly that subject).

Now, I don’t know much about fashion and its history (other than that double-denim has never been acceptable, Tim), so I’ve decided to approach this from a subtly different angle, and compare language to clothes, as I think I’m more knowledgeable about the purpose of clothes that I am about the whole fashion thing.

Essentially, clothes are functional items, they keep us warm when it’s cold outside and preserve our modesty and protect us from ungodly sights on the bus to university. I think language is fundamentally a similar, practical thing, it helps us to communicate with our fellow hunter-gatherers when we are on the chase for our dinner around the vast expanse of the supermarket, and it allows us to communicate when we are building our shelter (or buying it – no, renting it – as is more often the case these days).

Clothes and language have other purposes though, aside from being used for the rather bland tasks mentioned above. Both can be used to make a statement about ourselves. At home with our significant other (or alone, in my case) we may be rather loungey with what we wear and how we speak, using a series of grunts and points to communicate and wearing the physical form of points and grunts, the jogger and the hoodie.

When we go outside of the house, we may try to make ourselves more aesthetically and audibly pleasing by throwing on a pair of jeans and throwing about some actual words (some of you may not, you know who you are, you probably grunted at what I just said). We are by no means at the height of fashion or literary genius, but, because we’re a self-conscious bunch, we’ve made a small effort to become more pleasing on the eyes and the ears of other human beings we may encounter on our travels, who knows who you might meet? One day I’ll meet someone…

Sorry, drifted off into my own thoughts there, anyway… *awkward cough*

Finally, if we go out to a fancy do, we may dress up in our best ball gown/dinner jacket and make ourselves appear fabulous, our clothes have become a statement of style, we want to impress. While we’re wearing such elaborate clothing we may as well also dress up linguistically, add a bit of zhoosh (I have no idea how to spell that word) to the words we speak and the way we say them.

You wouldn’t go to a posh do in your joggers and your hoodie, so why go in your language equivalent?

Or you may not care how you dress or how you speak, instead deciding to combine denim bottom halves and denim top halves, and talking in a similar nonsensical manner.

Thanks for reading again, I hope you are entertained and enlightened. Peace.

Hi again, it’s been a while, I hope you’re well.

After an interesting discussion yesterday about the Look Up video that’s been doing the rounds on Facebook, I thought I’d share my opinion in a bit more detail than a Facebook comment allows.

First of all, if you haven’t seen the video, here’s a link (I don’t do technology well so if it’s not a hyperlink just copy and paste or whatever): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7dLU6fk9QY

Granted it’s an interesting watch and raises a good topic for discussion. I think it’s wrong about most things though and I’ll explain why.

First of all though, of course all this technology can be a distraction, we all have those friends who sit on their phones at the pub or in other situations where they’ve chosen to socialise, but on the whole do we really think that the bad that comes of social media is not worth the good? I think we should accept that these things happen, and yes they’re annoying, but it’s just the opportunity cost of something that, really, is wonderful and miraculous.

‘We open our computers and it’s our doors that we shut’. Yeah, maybe, sorry about that, I don’t want to be out in the world ALL THE TIME. I wasn’t there, but I assume before social media or computers came about we could make a sweeping statement like ‘we open our books and it’s our doors that we shut’. At least now we can open our computers and communicate, if the point here is that we aren’t communicating enough with each other that – to me – is clearly a flawed statement, we’re communicating much more, just in a different way. If it’s that we’re not out enough, that’s just personal preference and how things can change.

‘A world of self interest, self image, self promotion; where we all share our best bits, but leave out the emotion’. I don’t know where to start with this, maybe I’m deluded in some way, but to me, this seems almost completely incorrect. Obviously there are people who are self obsessed, and maybe social media gives them more of a chance to fulfil their selfish agenda, but the majority of people I know are not like this. It’s a huge disservice to the population as a whole to make such a generalised statement suggesting that because people share pictures of themselves when they think they look good or share a funny story to make others laugh that they are somehow doing life wrong. They’re doing life right. Being happy with yourself and letting others know it isn’t bad, is quite obviously good. As for leaving out the emotion of course on social media we do. Or, maybe we don’t. People deal with their emotions in different ways, some let it out on Facebook for moral support from the masses, some share it with just their close friends to keep it more private and some keep it purely to themselves  to keep it completely their own. This isn’t a social media issue, this is personal preference and should be respected as such.

‘Being alone isn’t a problem, let me just emphasise; if you read a book, paint a picture, or do some exercise you’re being productive and present, not reserved and recluse’. So if I’m on social media and talking to my friends I’m somehow not being as productive as a person doing one of the things listed here. What makes that a more valuable use of my time? If I go to the gym and get fitter what more am I gaining than if I’m trying to be funny on Twitter? People might say I’m looking great but at the minute people tell me that I’m making them laugh. To be honest I’d rather do that. Social media IS social, communicating to people through this medium does not make you reserved or a recluse, it’s just a different way of talking. Lots of my friends live in Guernsey, I can’t talk to them face to face, I’d rather spend an hour chatting to them on Facebook than reading a book. That’s just me though, reading a book is fine, it’s your time, do what you want.

‘I can’t stand to hear the silence of a busy commuter train.’ I’m silent on a train, you might be too, it’s not because of technology, I just don’t want to talk. It’s a good time to relax, to think, to listen to music, have time to myself. I don’t think it’s a crime not to talk to a stranger next to you, nor is it strange if you do. Different people do different things in these situations, but I’ll hazard a guess that before mobile phones some people still didn’t like to talk to strangers and some people did. A bit like now.

‘It’s not very likely you’ll make world’s greatest dad, if you can’t entertain a child without using an iPad’. Well there can only be one world’s greatest dad so you don’t have much of a shot at that. You also may be a woman. Besides this though, what’s wrong with entertaining your kid with an iPad, why is something else more valid? You can do loads with an iPad from puzzles to games there just all in one place, organised, not in separate boxes in an untidy space. Of course going outside and interacting is important but so is being inside, one on one. Getting to know your kid takes a lot of different things (I assume, I’m not a dad) and I don’t think many parents just give up if the iPad isn’t quite doing the job.

‘We’re a generation of idiots, smart phones and dumb people’. No, we’re not, people are fascinating and intelligent, that’s a stupid thing to say. That comment just made me angry and upset. If that’s what you think I feel sorry for you, I really do.

And finally the guy that asks for directions. Okay, if he was on his phone he wouldn’t have had to ask someone for directions and that story wouldn’t unfold. But what if he was on his phone looking at a map? He gets to his destination earlier and bumps into the girl who bought coffee before him and she spills it on him. They exchange numbers and go on a date, live happily ever after in a similar kind of fairytale. That wouldn’t have happened without a smartphone. Hypotheticals don’t really make your point valid because I can just come up with a counter example.

So it’s not all bad in fact it’s mainly good. Think of all the charity campaigns that have gone viral recently and you can immediately see the power of social media. If you’re out with your friends then maybe don’t spend all of your time on your phone, but if you’re home alone with not much to do, chat to your friends 100s of miles away and maybe tell your Twitter followers a joke. Or read a book. Or go to the gym. All equally acceptable choices for what to do with your time.

I’ll end with this: You can make someone’s day without even seeing them, isn’t that marvellous?

Thanks for reading and I welcome any responses.

Hello again, friends (you are my friends you have no choice in the matter). I’m back again and I’m going to write a blog, so here goes.

Recently, with a research project coming up, I’ve been trying to think of something to research (as you do). While doing this I’ve noticed a lot of people on Facebook/Twitter etc. correcting the spelling and grammar of others. I’m not sure why they do this, maybe I’ll research it, but I think its strange so I’m going to right about it now.

I don’t really see what the point of correcting other people is, clearly there not trying to upset anyone, so why would anyone get upset?

You all know the people I’m talking about, they usually begin there comment with a cocky little ‘*’. This is when you know a correction is coming up. The poor innocent person who made the error is in for it, the grammar nazi has found them and theirs no excape.
‘*you’re’
‘what?’
‘You mean you’re, not your, idiot.’
Is usually somewhere along the lines of what goes on. Its a very strange thing to get you’re self worked up about, its a harmless error, and clearly you know what the other person is on about if you can correct them.

Maybe the people doing this have literally had the worst day ever and need to take out there frustrations, but do they have to do it like that? Belittling people is pretty mean, and doesn’t exactly show you off in a good lite. Yes, maybe if the person making an error put there instead of their on there CV they might not get a job, but equally if you put on your CV, ‘correcting grammar of the imbecilic and uneducated’ under the hobbies section, you probably won’t get the job either.

Literally my favourite thing, though, is when these grammar nazis ‘correct’ something thats already correct. This happens literally all the time with literally. It does actually mean the thing I just used it to mean, but these angry people love ‘correcting’ this usage with phrases such as ‘do you even know what literally means’. Yes I do, do you not understand exaggeration? I’m not saying I like using literally like this, I think their are better ways of saying the same thing, but who cares?

So, the next time you see a sign that says ’10 items or less’ instead of boiling over in outrage thinking that it should say fewer, why not just think, oh yeah, I know what that means, not a problem. And the next time someone makes a grammar or spelling error on Facebook, Twitter, or even a blog, try not to get worked up about it and rip their throat out.

Thanks for reading again, hope you had a great time.

Well hello again. It’s me again. I know I’ve been writing a lot recently but I’m really enjoying it, so I’m going to carry on if that’s okay with you (I’ll carry on regardless so it’s best if it is okay with you).

Today’s blog was inspired by a conversation I had with Maisie (hi Maisie) on the bus this afternoon. In this conversation I said the common phrase ‘all’s fair in love and war’. This got me thinking (as many things do), firstly, that the above phrase is stupid, and secondly, that loads of common phrases are stupid.

“Why is this stupid Liam?” I hear you all vigorously exclaim. Well, the first issue I have with this phrase is that it claims all is fair in both love and war. No it’s not. Killing innocent people in a war is not fair, they have families, friends, and even enemies that’ll miss them if you (excuse the saying) ‘pop a cap in they a**’. If you pop a cap in someone’s a** because they have coveted your boy/girlfriend that is also unfair and frankly rather silly on your behalf. They also have families, friends and enemies that’ll probably miss them.

So, we have decided that you shouldn’t pop a cap in the a**es of anyone innocent in a war, or for the purposes of love (I don’t want to get into war politics at the moment). But (yes but) I have another issue with this phrase, and this is it – how can you compare the fairness of things in a war with the fairness of things in a situation influenced by love? Well, you can’t (or shouldn’t, some modals here to keep Jelena interested (first years you’ll understand and be scarred next year)). As I’ve said, I don’t want to get into war politics, but if you, as a country, are being invaded by some people who want to take over and introduce some bad things to the country like a heavy metal national anthem and cold meats for breakfast you may be entitled to protect yourselves and pop a cap in the invaders’ collective a**. I would use the invading imagery to refer to something bad in a love situation but that would be crude so I won’t. But if someone where to *ehem* y’know, with your girl/boyfriend, it isn’t as acceptable for you to pop a cap in their a**.

Blimey, that was a long explanation.

I’ve got a few more sayings/phrases that I don’t like, and I can see by the gleeful look on your face that you would like to hear more, so here goes:

The first was one that Maisie said (remember her from earlier? She was on the bus). ‘Sticks and stones may break my bones but what you say won’t hurt me’. Rubbish, absolute rubbish. Small sticks and small stones won’t break my bones, but what you say might hurt me very much. What if you say my hair is bad? Or my hands are too small? You think those things don’t hurt me? Well they do! They do I tell you!

Another one is ‘everything happens for a reason’. You may find comfort in thinking this, if so carry on, but everything doesn’t happen for a reason. Well it might happen for a reason, but that would be a cause and effect type thing, where the ‘something’ that happens is the effect, and something caused it. In that case, it did happen for a reason. That’s not what the saying means though, the saying means if something bad happens there is something good coming in the future. It’s a bit like karma (a load of rubbish). Just because something bad happens doesn’t mean something good is going to happen, why would that be the case? Why does the universe owe you anything? If you wan’t something good to happen, go and make it happen, don’t just wait for it to happen because something bad did in the past, that’s not how life works.

Sorry about that rant, I got carried away.

The final one I’ll say today is ‘it’s always in the last place you look’. Nooooooooooooooooooooo, it’s not is it? WOW, that really is profound. It’s always in the fourth to last place I look because I like to look for things I’ve already found. Obviously it’s going to be in the last place you look.

Thanks for putting up with me again, I hope you have been thoroughly entertained, any funny sayings or daft phrases you can think of are welcome in the comments section below or on Facebook.

I hope you have a wonderful weekend, peace out.

Wagwan mandem.

Woah, sorry, I mean hi. How are you all doing. I’m going to assume you’re good like I normally do.

Anyway, the topic of this blog, which has nothing to do with me speaking like a h (I’m so g I’m h, y’know?) but to do with how we ‘speak’ with more than words.

I was inspired to write this blog when I was listening to a song by Boyzone called Words. In the song, Ronan Keating sings ‘It’s only words, and words are all I have, to take your heart away’. This isn’t necessarily true in a number of ways. One is gruesome, and one is potentially linguistically interesting.

I won’t go into detail about the gruesome thing, but rather unsurprisingly I will go into the linguistically interesting thing. Is Ronan telling the truth?

Well, first of all, as I have explained in a previous blog, words do mean lots, so he has a point. However, I don’t think words are that great on their own.

Let’s take the word hello. In itself, hello means, well, hello, you know what it means.

However, if I sing hello with a smile on my face, you will probably assume that I’m happy, either to see you or just in general. If I mumble hello with a frown on my face you’ll probably assume I’m sad in general (I’d never be sad to see you I promise).

Clearly, the fact that I said hello didn’t make you think these things, the way I said hello made you think these things.

Now, back to what Mr Keating had to say. Is it only words I have, to take your heart away?

I don’t like to criticise Ronan too often because he has a wonderful voice and some wonderful songs, but here I feel like I have to (sorry Ronan). I would say to Ronan that quite frankly if he only said words to his lady (or gentleman) love in a monotone voice he would struggle to take her (or his) heart away. What he does have to take her heart away is a combination of things, obviously including words, but also including intonation and facial expressions among other things.

To finish, as I said in a previous blog words do mean lots, but not on their own. On their own they’re pretty rubbish (sorry if you disagree don’t hate me pls), it’s when we combine them with other things that they become truly wonderful. I propose Boyzone’s lyrics be changed to ‘It’s only words and intonation and facial expressions amongst other things, and words and intonation and facial expressions amongst other things are all I have, to take your heart away’.

Peace out homeslices.

Sorry, I mean thank you and goodnight. I really need to stop doing that.