Inside job.

A phrase carelessly banded about is "It's what's on the inside that counts". Is it really though? The way a person acts is often excused by this phrase, as if it's ok to be a complete bastard to people as long as actually, deep down, you're not a complete bastard. But there's a balancing point where what you do defines who you are, no matter what you are actually thinking inside your head.

I'll use myself as an example. I am fairly self-aware, and therefore I know that to complete strangers (and even people I've known for a long time), I can come across as arrogant, rude, laddish, annoying, selfish and inconsiderate. In actual fact these attributes don't really define me - I think my wife might be more likely to describe me as caring, modest, considerate and generous, and - naturally - this is how I would prefer to view myself. However, the issue is that unless I display these characteristics day to day, you'd have no way of knowing that they are 'the real me'. If you see someone who is arrogant and laddish, that's the reality for you, and therefore those are the defining characteristics - not 'what's on the inside'.

Sometimes I don't think before I speak - or rather I do think before I speak, but because I'm not offended by what I am about to say, I don't see why others should be. An example: A few years back we were discussing our wedding plans with a friend, and said that we weren't planning on doing the whole 'first dance' thing, where the bride and groom do a slow dance with all the guests watching. The phrase I used was that 'it's like a car crash' - you can't help staring, and it's very uncomfortable for all involved. Of course our friend, along with 90% of married couples, had had the 'first dance' at her wedding, and took my comments as a personal attack to mean that her entire wedding was like a car crash. Was that really my message? Of course not. Did it cause offence? Absolutely.

On the other hand imagine the most cantankerous person in the world. Hating everybody and having no respect for himself or anyone else. But hey, if you met him in the street and he was nice as pie you'd go away with a very favourable impression of him.

Oscar Wilde said: ‘It is only shallow people who do not judge by appearances.’ Barbara Cartland said: ‘I hate the type of boorish individual who, I am told, has hidden beneath such a rough surface a heart of gold. Quite frankly, I am a busy person and I have no time to dig’.

So it's perfectly clear to me that's it's most definitely not what's on the inside that counts, it's how people perceive you that makes the difference. You won't be thanked for what's going on inside your head. Instead, to quote the song at the end of Bugsy Malone "You're gonna be remembered for the things that you say and do".

Road To Nowhere

I'm not really into politics, but I love to stick my oar in with a good idea or two.

One thing that's bugged me in recent years is the traffic in the UK. Even as recently as ten years ago, I remember driving back up the M3 from one of my many Southampton gigs, and passing maybe three or four cars on the way back. Now it seems that the roads are busy at all times of the day - the country simply has too many people on the road.

The government's solution: charge more for motoring, build more roads, and tell people to take an overpriced public transport system. Brilliant.

My method would be to look at the cause. Too many cars. Why? Too many people driving. So why not tackle that instead? For starters, there are far too many drivers on the road who shouldn't be. You can still drive at 90 years old having taken your test more than 70 years ago (1938!) with nothing more than an eye examination. My dad is legally entitled to drive a truck. His test was taken during National Service, and involved driving a truck along a road into the nearest town. A Corporal turned the truck around for him, and my dad hopped back in the cab and drove back - that was it. Passed with flying colours. Even tests taken as recently as ten years ago bear little relation to today's driving conditions, and still today driving tests don't include motorway or night driving! Unbelievable.

So, policy number one - introduce compulsory driving tests every five years. If you're a good driver, you have nothing to fear. If you're a bad driver, you deserve to fail your test and get off the road.

So that's got rid of a good 10% or so of our drivers off the road. What next? Well, what about looking at why people are driving? I love nothing more than a spin round the country lanes on a Sunday afternoon, but that's my choice. Some people have to drive to work, so increasing prices won't have any effect on them at all.

Instead, what about offering companies tax incentives to get a certain percentage of their workforce working from home one day a week? My company offers this, and far from a loss in productivity, it boosts morale and people work harder with less distractions. In this age of technological wizardry, there are very few excuses for people driving to an office every day.

So there you have it - get bad drivers off the road, and get people to work from home. All sounds a bit simple really doesn't it?

Fuzz

Navel fuzz, belly-button fluff - whetever you want to call it. "Isn't it weird how it's always blue?" you hear the less imaginative and the dim-witted folk say.

Well, I would have thought that anyone with eyes and more than three brain cells could tell that it's not always blue, it's not the colour of your socks, and it doesn't depend on what day of the week it is.

Get over it.

I've got the power

In these eco-days of ours, with all sorts of trouble on the horizon for our planet, we're all trying to do our little bit for the environment. However, there's one thing I've never understood, and that's turning all the plug sockets off when you're not using them.

In my first year of college, I stayed in a family home and the whole family, far ahead of themselves ecologically, had what can only be described as an obsession with switching all the plug sockets to 'off' when they weren't being used.

Now, I'm not entirely stupid. I fully understand that that a TV on standby will use energy, as will a phone left on charge all night - the energy is clearly evident in the heat produced by both of these. I do have a limited grasp of Physics, and my understanding is that energy doesn't just go into thin air - it has to be transformed into something. Heat, light, sound, movement for instance.
My question is this - where is the energy going from a toaster left plugged into the mains? Surely that's not actually using energy, and there is therefore no reason to obsess about turning the switch off at the mains? Even more so for a plug socket with nothing plugged into it.

If all the sockets in my house are using energy by just being there, then surely I'm better off switching my whole house off when I leave for work in the morning?

How do you like yours?

How do you like your steak? Medium? Still bleeding? Or cooked to a crisp? Whichever way you like it is the correct way for you, and no-one can convince you otherwise. Well, I think so, but it seems not evryone agrees.

I was in a restaurant recently - it's a bit quirky and serves 'gamey' sort of stuff - and the ostrich on the menu caught my eye. I've had it once before and loved it, so was excited about having it again - well, as excited as one can be about dead bird on a plate.

When it came to ordering I asked for the ostrich, and asked for it to be done "medium well". After all, that's how I like my food. Cooked.

"I'm sorry sir," said the waiter, "but we only serve the ostrich medium rare."
"Ok," I said " please can you ask the chef to do mine medium well - that's how I like it"
"I'm afraid that's not possible, we only serve it medium rare".

And that's it - my dining experience ruined within minutes of sitting down. I'm sorry, but who are you or your chef to tell me how I should have my food? You're serving me and I'm paying for it godammit. Don't pretend that 'that's the way it should be cooked' because it should be cooked how I like it. It seems these days that chefs concentrate on food being prepared in a certain way, and that no other way is acceptable.

A couple of years back, I had these concerns when we sat down with the chef who was going to cook the food for our wedding. After all, he was a chef with 10 years experience at the Dorchester under his belt - he was bound to cook things 'the way they should be cooked'. How refreshing then, when he asked me how we should do the lamb. A bit sheepishly (pun intended), I replied that I actually like it fairly well done. "Excellent!" he said "I love my meat well done - that's how my mum used to do it, and that's the way I like it."

So there's my vindication right there. I used to have tomato ketchup sandwiches when I got in from school - in my opinion they're great, and if you've never tried one then you're really in no position to comment otherwise. I once knew a guy who used to love a plate of mashed potato with a tin of Heinz tomato soup poured over the top. Never tried it myself - but hey, whatever rocks his boat.

My point is - whatever you like/don't like, that's fine. But none of us should dictate what others' tastes 'should be' as defined by convention. Eat what you want, how you want it!