Electrak – ‘Health and Safety gone mad’?

We often hear Jeremy Clarkson merrily criticising the pitfalls and inefficiencies of modern excessive health and safety regulation and standards; but the cliche is just so true. Huge teams and large amounts of manpower potential are wastefully employed conducting unnecessarily detailed risk assessments on mundane activities. Even our Young Enterprise team was not allowed to sell coffee, a potentially hugely lucrative idea, on the grounds of a health and safety risk. But apparently it’s not enough: the already heavily guarded 3-pin British power plug somehow isn’t good enough for my school’s Science labs. Allow me to introduce you to the most ridiculous power plug on the market (actually they’ve stopped producing them; I wonder why. No market maybe?)

The design is supposedly meant to prevent people from electrocuting themselves. The idea I guess is that the exposed part of the plug is buried deep inside the socket when connected. But the standard British power plug already has plastic insulation around the base of the male connector, preventing contact with a stray finger by accident; you’d have to try very hard to electrocute yourself, even then with only 240V. Another supposed advantage is immunity to inundation: the copper contacts are above the socket when plugged in, preventing water from creating a short. But then that begs the question: why not simply have normal sockets pointing … God forbid … downwards?

This is a typical example of the way kids in Britain like me are generally padded and protected from reality even in secondary school, both physically or mentally. Exam results are now no longer of any significance since the median boy in my year at St Paul’s got 10 A*’s and 1 A at GCSE; it’s simply a matter of not making careless mistakes and my 12A*s, 4 of which were among the top 10 in the country, suddenly look distinctly less impressive. And someone in close contact with application selection at Cambridge effectively openly confessed that they will discriminate against good schools: mediocre applicants from bad schools will be considered better than good applicants from the top schools. At school societies sometimes we have guests travelling from afar who we want to house; yet even after a committee member agrees to house the guest for the night, the poor speaker has to have his/her criminal records checked and bypass the kilometres of red tape which seem to hold our country together. In reality, the standard employer will probably take the person who got a 1-2 stamped with the brand name of (insert prominent University here) almost regardless, and the gas company house Putin for a year.

On the other hand is it possible that all this regulation actually necessary? We always hear about products with minor possible safety risks being swept off the shelves with great gusto and groan but a possible mirror image of this is China; take the milk situation for example (chocolate is now also unsafe). I’d personally argue an ‘ideal’ balance can be struck with far less over-protection in the UK, and that China is simply the reverse extreme. But whatever the case, I remain adamant that the Electrak power plug is one of the most ridiculous solutions to a non-existent problem I have seen in the field of electrics health and safety for a long time.

Advertisements

20 Responses to Electrak – ‘Health and Safety gone mad’?

  1. I feel Electrak cables contribute to the atmosphere of the Computer Studio (just like the ancient operating systems, IBM floppies and Apple LaserWriter…)

  2. Ben Dory says:

    Hmm, Did I at least partially inspire this with my rant on Friday? The Electraks are ridiculous, especially as they are now extremely expensive due to their discontinuation, meaning that teachers are guarding them like gold. It does seem silly that such measures need to be taken to prevent intelligent teenagers from artfully managing to stick conductors into both live holes, as well as making sure he is not earthed for prompt electrocution to occur. I can see how upside down 3-pins might be annoying in a lab, but why on earth do we need Electraks in a the water-free electronics lab for example? At Rokeby we just had little plastic slips that covered plugs in the lab. Sure many we stolen and/or eaten by juniors, but they did the job otherwise…

  3. Lewis Smith says:

    Can you please elaborate on how applications to Cambridge is relevant to the main theme of the article?

    I would also like to point out that there is a very disproportionate public school presence at Cambridge, so if they accept mediocre state school kids before good public school kids; there must be a severe lack of mediocre state school kids applying.

    Furthermore, I believe discrimination against public school kids should be augmented. You said it yourself; the median score in your school was 10A*’s. All that indicates is that any child put in your very affluent school will achieve outstanding grades. It speaks highly of your schools education system; but nothing of each child’s potential to succeed once they have been removed from the advantageous environment rich parents can bring.

    In my school on the other hand, there wasn’t a single person in the year (besides myself) who studied 5 Highers (equivalent to AS levels, and the norm in scotland). Achieving success in this kind of environment surely outweighs even potentially better success elsewhere? You realise that if a large proportion of your school attended a deprived state school, they would not recieve half of what they did at one of the top public schools in the country. Likewise, if one could succeed from a disadvantaged background, imagine what they could achieve at an institution like the one you attend.

    The solution? Universal comprehensives and no two tier education system. If you want to stand out, try coming where the playing field is even.

  4. Bryant Tan says:

    Cambridge was going off at a tangent which wasn’t quite at 90 degrees; i.e. another random thing which I thought I could get away with ranting about in the same blog post.

    It would appear we will simply have to agree to disagree on this one. I don’t believe there is a *disproportionately* high proportion of public school kids at Cambridge – merely a *high* proportion – there’s a difference, and I’d argue that the public school students who are there, on the whole, are there on their own merit which is why I think the proportions are approximately correct.

    Of course, I’m not disregarding the effect of a highly superior education on applicability to Cambridge. It’s true that those given opportunities on a silver platter will end up with a huge advantage. But one mustn’t disregard the effort put in by the students to get into the school in the first place and the hugely demanding selection process to get into such schools. I for example worked damn hard to get a place at my prep school and the top scholarship into St Paul’s School, and I did this because I believed it would give me a phenomenal headstart in education. After all that slog and labour, to be told that *because* I worked so hard to get into a top school I will be discriminated against and have to hold a top position at this top school, relative to all the other hugely determined, driven and intelligent students who, like me, were selected as the creme de la creme, is detrimental to my confidence in the university selection process. I would even have naively thought mere selection for St Paul’s school would count in favour of someone; clearly this is not the case.

    In addition, it’s no longer true that education is all about money. St Paul’s and many other schools are rolling out more and more generous bursaries options and needs-blind entry systems. There is also a significant presence of very good state schools. Affluence and money is beginning to have less and less of a footprint in quality of education. It is still, unfortunately, an influential factor, but I believe that universities overcompensate for this factor since they are working from data which is decades old.

    To conclude, I’d say it is important universities do realise the significance of affluence on the education of an individual, but I believe they have over-corrected for this and that this error is getting worse every year since while each successive year of educated kids gets slightly more needs-blind than the last, universities are correcting more and more for the affluence factor.

  5. Lewis Smith says:

    I recognise the difference but still stand by my earlier claim. Around 7% of children in the UK attend independent schools, but make up around 45% of oxbridge population. Tell me thats not disproportionate. Had those same public school students, who you believe are at oxbridge on their own merit, been raised in a deprived area and went to a deprived school; on the most part wouldn’t achieve half what they did at a private school. Therefore, if someone shines through from a deprived area, they have clearly walked that extra mile in comparison to affluent children, and it is only right that oxbridge consider this (although, they dont).

    Actually, for any independent school i am aware of; if one can afford the tuition fees then they gain a place, regardless of academic merit. After a transient glance at St Pauls website, I coudlnt see any indicator that every single applicant undergoes entrance testing. Am I incorrect? I also imagine that those gaining complete scholarships for private schooling are in a huge minority, so of course oxbridge will look favourably on those who have shown perserverance.

    “Affluence and money is beginning to have less and less of a footprint in quality of education.”

    Please show evidence for this assertion. In the area where I come from, there is a CLEAR correlation between affluence and grades. To get into a decent state school, you must first live in a particular catchment area, which of course have greater house prices.

    If one was to swap a student from a deprived school with a student from a top school, we would probably see the former easily outperform the latter. Therefore, for one to beat the national average in a deprived school, it takes much more effort on their part.

  6. Ben Dory says:

    As a pupil at St Paul’s this is a matter which I feel strongly about. Please allow me to correct you on a few points as a matter of clarity rather than an argument: The applications procedure for St Paul’s could be the most stringent in the country and yes, every single applicant is made to undergo an immensely challenging series of tests for their age. Evidence of this is that in the year of my entry (2005), five boys from the Junior School (Colet Court) were rejected due to slightly sub-standard results in the Common Entrance examination. Competition from external prep. schools like mine were even more fierce, especially in the Scholarship Examination, where the Maths paper would include questions of A level standards, aimed at 13 year olds, and the Geography paper required more knowledge than we later needed for GCSE. As a result of this, applicants in essence, had to take mock GCSEs three years early, and would only be accepted if they could prove that they were already capable of getting a string of A*s. This is the reason for our success, and good teaching only forms part of it. Schools like St. Pauls are almost an anomaly amongst public schools, and it is certainly false to say that just anybody who comes here will obtain 10A*s. The Harrodian for example, which is even more lavishly funded, has an average GCSE result of around 3A*s, which is far from Oxbridge-worthy.

    Another reason for success at schools like St. Paul’s, is the culture of hard work and expectation. In GCSE year it was not uncommon for most to be routinely working into the early hours of the morning as a matter of course, and conversely to some State schools, it is those who do not work hard who are mocked and ostricised, as opposed to those that do. It is of course, fair to say that it is not the fault of attendees of some State Schools that hard work is not demanded, but this is not to say that this should be used to our discredit. Simply because we work hard because we are made to, does not mean that it is any easier for us to do it, or that we deserve any less of a reward for doing so.

    Of course I will not say that there are those, in the State sector who do not put in equally rigorous efforts, perhaps like yourself, but it does seem that Universities are overcompensating, and their expectations of State school graduates are so much lower than that of Public school graduates. Evidence of this is how each year we fail to send more than a third of our upper form to Oxbridge. The other 66% comprises of naturally talented boys who have all achieved near to or more than 10A*s and worked extremely hard also. I will also give as an example the attendees of Tiffins girls school in Kingston, which is a State funded school which has similar resources to most State schools in the country, but obtains equal results to schools such as St. Pauls. The pure reason for this is rigorous selection and a similar culture of hard work, which will always arise when a large number of intelligent students are collected in one institution.

  7. Lewis Smith says:

    If the students applying to St Pauls are so naturally gifted, then why bother spending tens of thousands of pounds when they could achieve excellent results at state facilities? You said that you gained the top scholarship which only consists of half of your tuition fees; even if someone from my own situation achieved the top scholarship, the financial burden would be far too great to attend your school.

    Also perhaps those who are taking these entrance examinations have attended private primary schools (5-11), in which case the point still stands; their capacity to achieve greater than peers on a national scale is due to advantaged upbringing. Unless of course you are suggesting there is entrance examinations fo 5 year olds?

    Again, your second paragraph is more a point for me. I think you should appreciate it is much easier to work harder in an environment where your peers are also competing to achieve a top grade; each student feeds off one another. Thats why when someone is capable of working hard in the apathetic environment of a deprived state school, their achievement should be recognised as evidence of personal perserverance; as opposed to simply peer pressure.

    I think there is a component of solipsism in your final claim. You are concerned that a third of you upper form fail to attend Oxbridge. 5% of my school year is applying for university. If universities dont acknowledge the clear advantage sthat money brings to childrens education, how can social mobility possibly be increased? How can you expect someone who has grown up in an environment where all their peers are apathetic and underachieve; who is the first generation of their family to even consider higher education, to achieve the same as someone who has brought up in an environment where they have been given every advantage there is to succeed?

    A local private school contacted me through a teacher about giving me a scholarship to attend their school. I declined, because I do not believe in a two tier education system. Independent schools expropriate resources from the state sector, and maintain the perpetual cycle of keeping the rich rich, and the poor poor. If St Pauls students are so naturally erudite (ignoring years of private elementary education), why pay for private eucation?

  8. Lewis Smith says:

    I didnt notice that it wasnt Bryant that made the earlier post.

    Apologies regarding any conseqently irrelevant point made.

  9. Ben Dory says:

    I’m afraid on re-reading my post that I had been slightly ambiguous. It is the 66% who do NOT gain a place. Now, on your point about why bothering to attend St. Paul’s the real question should be, if you can, why not? It is certainly true that the better resources lead to a more enjoyable experience at school. I hardly believe that independent schools expropriate resources of the state. We are in fact, doing the state a huge service by relieving them of the burden of our education. Could you imagine the financial burden on the already overstreched state system that adding the missing 7% would cause? The government’s worry at this is shown by how upon threatening to chage VAT to independent schools, they were sent scurrying with their tailes between their legs when they realised just how many extra students would leave the independent sector. I feel guilty in asking whether your reasons for rejecting the scholarship were purely benevolent. Was there not also a sense of your wishing to be the outstanding big fish in the small pond, and the worry that in the independent sector you would not look as impresive?

    Also, you do seem to agree with me that we, as a whole, work harder in schools such as St. Paul’s. The point of mine that you are missing is that yes, it is a pity that people don’t work as hard in the state sector, but still, while many of them relax and enjoy themselves due to this lack of drive and expectation, we are still stuck to our books and computer screens, working hard and often, not enjoying ourselves, because of the pressure to work. What is the point of this when Universities then take into account the fact that we work hard because of our highly expectant schools system? Of course there is an advantage to be found in smaller classes and good teachers, but I daresay I panically taught myself most of my GCSE syllabus in the months preceding the exams to gain my 10A*s, and I find it utterly unfair that were I to attend a state school, this would have been seen as so much more impressive.

    On your point about private prep. feeder schools, a large number of boys in my year have attended state prep schools, and although they are in a minority, this proves that you do not need to have gone to a private prep school in order to attend St. Pauls. In my prep school, although it was private, only eight of us in a year of fifty were even permitted to apply for St. Paul’s, simply to save them the embarassment of large rejection figures.

    We seem to be symbiotically feeding each others arguments, especially with your point that only 5% of your school is applying to university. Is it therefore, not surprising that 45% of Oxbridge atendees are from Independent schools? The Conservative Shadow Cabinet minister of Universities recently despaired as to how Universities cannot grant state school pupils places if they do not apply for them. What, short of tracking state school pupils down and begging them to come can Oxbridge do to get more state school pupils in? Is it not enough that you already need a far lower number of A*s at GCSE to be given an interview?

  10. Ben Dory says:

    By all means read this article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7638211.stm

    for more poorly researched slander about how all of us at St. Paul’s are overpriviliged cretins sailing through life, but please also send your email address to me at bendory@hotmail.com (or I daresay post it here) so that I can send you an open reply to Mike Baker (the author) which will be published in our school magazine later this term.

  11. Bryant Tan says:

    ‘St Paul’s’ has no period after the ‘St’.

  12. Ben Dory says:

    Now that’s an even more controversial argument…

  13. Lewis Smith says:

    “if you can, why not?”

    To quote the article you linked:

    “[St Paul’s] charges day pupils £16,500 a year.”

    If one could perhaps realise this is greater than half of a families total income, they would see why the logistics of attending St Pauls is perhaps slightly impractical. Regardless, you seem to be financially capable of enjoying the luxuries of independent education. If you could attain the same grades at a state school, why not take the tens of thousands you would have spent in private education and donated a portion to charity perhaps? Realistically, one would only spend these absurd volumes of cash if they were a) ridiculously rich or b) utterly convinced that attending this specific school will give you advantages that state schools just won’t.

    Again, a third of your students attening Oxbridge, two of the most renowned universities in the world is quite a feat. When I claim that around 5% of my year is applying for university, this includes universities ranked >50 in various league rankings.

    The independent sector sources some of the best teachers. Due to lack of state teachers specifically in the area where I come from, pupils have had to travel between schools to simply attend classes. I think it is a great shame when the education of the deprived suffers due to lack of basic resources. Regardless, I find any pragmatic arguments second to my ideology.

    You should feel guilty as it is an odious remark on my character, despite having never encountered me. Unless you are suggesting I had some incredible university admissions acumen at age 13 I think you should refrain from what is frankly ad hominem. When I was in need of an operation to my foot, my parents offered to pay £1000 for me to be taken privately. I refused, and waited for the NHS. The principles of a socialist, eh?

    Your second paragraph is initially ramming its shoulder into an open door. Am I aware of the hard work that you and your peers put in? Yes, completely. From what I know of Bryant he is very intelligent and motivated. However, you are missing my fundamental point. Should someone who receives CCD at a state school gain priority over someone with AAA from private? No, of course not. However, should someone who receives AAA from a particularly deprived state school gain more credit than one who recieves AAA from a top private school? Of course. Why? Because although the state school kid never had the small class sizes, never had the professional parents, never had the top teachers, never had tutors for each subject they found themselves lacking, never experienced a ubiquitous propensity to work, he STILL managed to succeed. Surely overcoming these extra barriers should be recognised and awarded?

    Specifically for Oxbridge applications; private institutions provide extra assistance with entrance examinations. There are even members of staff hired mainly for Oxbridge applicants. State schools cannot possible compete with this, especially deprived ones. It is only right admissions staff consider this when evaluating an applicant. Will you try and evade this situation also?

    Give me at least a rough percentage to work with. How many boys in your year attended a private school? The fact that they are in the majority in your year, whilst being a huge minority nationally, shows the clear advantages attending a private prep school can achieve. Im not talking strict rules, but you cannot deny the clear trend.

    The reason only 5% of my year is applying for university is because only around 5% have anything like basic entry requirements to, at best, average universities.

    Who suggested that you are “overpriviliged cretins sailing through life”? You can keep your masochism private, thanks. Privileged? Yes. If you deny you that St Pauls students are overwhelimgly priviliged then you are deluded. Cretinous? No. To suggest you are mentally deficient would be a delusion on my part. “Sailing through life”? Whilst you have clearly put in a profusion of effort into achieving your success, it was partly due to propitious congenital circumstances. So in effect, this is partly true and false.

    Could you clarify your last comment please.

  14. Lewis Smith says:

    by your last comment I am of course referring to your comment in your main post, not the response to Bryants display of grammatical erudition.

  15. Ben Dory says:

    The trend for these posts seems to be that they are getting larger and larger, which might be extremely time consuming if this goes on, so I’ll keep my reply short:
    -I must admit that academic success is a factor in many parents paying such high school fees, but by no means the only one. The abundance of extra curricular availability alone would mean that I would endorse going to St Paul’s even if the teaching itself was much worse (and I’m afraid that there are certainly some who fall under the “ridiculously rich” category)
    -This argument was never about two identical candidates, both gaining AAA. Oxbridge would always accept the state school applicant hands down in this case, and to be honest, I wouldn’t even dispute that would be the sensible choice. What I will dispute is the fact that it is common for state school applicants with worse grades being accepted “through the back door” as my Head Master rightly puts it. As Bryant correctly put it earlier, the universities are now going to far, and overcompensating in favour of state school applicants. And yet, you demand more.
    -We have no dedicated staff for universities applications, merely staff members who are dedicated in the other sense of the world, and give their free time to help. Our “head of universities and careers” is also a busy teacher of History, and is not paid extra for his extra responsibility. You also seem to glaze over the fact that if there might be extra lessons for Oxbridge applicants, this is even more work the applicants must undertake to meet the challenge!
    -The comment regarding cretins, apart from being flippant, was based on your (and Mike Baker’s) apparent attitude that if you stick any old person into St Paul’s they will get straight A*s and be whisked off to a top university.
    -On the issue of your refusal for a scholarship to an independent school, what right do you now have to lament of your deprivation of a good education, where it had been shown to your first hand how benevolent and charitable independent schools can be to children who are not privileged enough to afford the fees, and you simply turned it down to make a point? Part of the reasons why the fees for St Paul’s are so high, and why there is such a desperation to raise money now, is that we are also subsidizing the extremely generous bursaries provided, as well as the many community outreach schemes which share the resources of the school with underprivileged members of the community, as well as teacher training for state school teachers.
    -This other 95% of yours, could you give me some sort of indication that they are hard working, or are they the providers of the “apathetic environment” you mentioned your earlier battle against? This is more of a question than an argument.
    -Which comment did you want clarification on? The one about controversy was also a joke. Perhaps these things don’t translate well on the internet.

    Wow, that wasn’t really short at all, was it…

  16. Ben Dory says:

    Ahh, I just saw your after-post to that. I guess its getting a little late for me to function properly. (Its about 2:30am, the time stamps are all incorrect for some reason). What I meant was that to even be accepted for an interview, you need at least 5A*s if you come froma public school. On the state school side however, to quote one of those shameless blogs:

    ” Re: What GCSE grades are needed to get into top universities

    At GCSE I got 2A*s, 8As, 2Bs and a C (chickened out and took foundation stats at the last minute lol) and I’ve got a place at Oxford for 2008″

    I rest my case.

  17. Lewis Smith says:

    You are either indulging in mendacity or frivolity. I hope the latter. Apart from the “ridiculously rich”, no sane person would pay tens of thousands of pounds on account of extra curricular oppportunities. Please concede that virtually guaranteed academic success is the prominent reason for independent education. otherwise, why not attend a state school?

    I believe my argument still stands even if the state school candidate has AAB. Its impossible to construct any definite rules here; the point is that there should exist a biased towards state school applicants.

    “You also seem to glaze over the fact that if there might be extra lessons for Oxbridge applicants, this is even more work the applicants must undertake to meet the challenge!”

    Is this sincere? This is specialist coaching that will help them gain entry to a top university. It makes the entrance examinations a lot more bearable.

    I believe that if you place a student in St Pauls they are very likely to perform well. If you were to place that very same candidate in a deprived state school they would perform under the national average. Need I elaborate this point and its obvious implications further?

    Im not lamenting my individual right to a good education. I am arguing for standard universal education where the affluence of students parents is not a factor in education. I personally didn’t take the scholarship because I don’t want to support what I regard as an unfair system. I was offered Head Boy in my school but turned it down due to the schools contribution to religious charities which disregard the prophylactic nature of condoms. I like to act by my principles, and attending a private school conflicts with my basic ideology. Bryant said he earned top scholarship, but that only accounts for half of hsi tuition fees? I could never afford £8000 a year for my entire high school education. This is not equality.

    They tend to either come from severely deprived backgrounds in which case they most likely don’t stand a chance at higher education, or they are merely apathetic to the system.

    Regarding your last comment, each applicant should be considered individually and perhaps this particular candidate had special circumstances. What percentage of applicants do Cambridge interview?

  18. Ben Dory says:

    I already did conceded that a ‘major’ reason was academic achievement, my point about extra curricular was to highlight other reasons apart from this. You also seem to be basing your entire arguments around your ‘beleif’ of some fictional placing scenario which you do not back up with any evidence at all. More curiously so, you go further than saying we would do less well in a state school to suggesting we would perform ‘under the national average’ for God’s sake isn’t it time to give us at least some credit?
    I really am begging to get interested in these poor, disillusioned colleagues of yours. What are they doing right now as a mark of their proud apathy? Sleeping I daresay, I envy them right now as I toil to both write an essay about the reign of Edward the Confessor, edit a last minute school magazine article that has just been sent to me, carry out research on arterial Aneurysms, and maintain this argument with you. I can’t say I feel sorry for them, nor do I feel they merit a place at university if they aren’t willing to work for it.
    Why is it exactly that you say they don’t stand a chance at higher education? Surely with the abundance of EMAs and Student Loans provided by the government it is easier than ever for anybody to attend university?
    I can’t tell you exactly how many applicants get interviewed, but they are in a minority. As a looser statistic, two years ago, the majority of the boys from our school who were rejected from Oxbridge obtained 8A*s and 4As. The situation has become so dire that boys obtaining 7A*s, a fine result by any standard, are not usually permitted by our school to even apply to Oxbridge.
    I even understand your point that it is harder to obtain good GCSE results in state schools, but surely at A level the onus is so heavily committed on the student that the teaching becomes far less important. Certainly for me, at least 70% of the work I do is in private, reading through the literature, and not teacher led.
    Alarm bells immediately start ringing for me when I read somebody demanding “bias”. The fact is, that universities are already forming such a heavy bias towards state schools that it is becoming ridiculous the lenghts we need to go to in order to counteract against this bias in our favour. When boys from schools like mine with flawless grades cannot gain a place at a top university, where is the equality there? How can we improve on flawlessness (this being 10A*s at GCSE and 3As at A level)? It is now necessary for boys at my school to become ‘UCAS whores’ and scoop up as many ridiculous credentials as they can which they neither want nor need, because being perfect under the old system just doesn’t cut it any more. We have a choice, go to an independent school and somehow improve upon flawless, or go to a state school and do very well.

  19. Ben Dory says:

    OK, its 4am. Time for this overwhelmingly privileged result of propitious congenital circumstances to get his 2.5 hours sleep before waking up and starting all over again. At least Oxbridge will take into account the fact that I’m only doing this because I go to public school so that the poor state school students who have been in bed since 10pm don’t get too disadvantaged. Lewis, it has been a pleasure arguing with you and although we fundamentally disagree, I have respect for your point of view and obvious success in an otherwise dreary system. Good night.

  20. Lewis Smith says:

    In order to inhibit the portentous perpetuity of this argument, I think you are right to suggest we retire. The fundamentals of our arguments have been conveyed so further argument seems futile. Perhaps we could both take time to reflect on each others arguments? Quite serendipitous of the final question on Question Time to pertain to this matter haha

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: