What’s in a name?

I was named after Rod Stewart from the popular beat combo The Faces. However, my dad decided that Stewart rather than Rod would be a more appropriate name. I am inclined to agree with him.

I’ve often thought that if I had children, I’d want to name them after a literary character. There’s some sort of romantic part of me that thinks entwining your child’s name with that of a literary character will somehow magically endow them with all the good qualities of that character or some sort of cool mystique. However, unfortunately Atticus does not go well with my surname.

The Royal Me

I imagine that they would feel some sort of attachment to the book that they might otherwise not feel, and therefore live their life virtuously and treat the literary character as a role model. Having said this, the first time I had consciously sat down to listen to Rod Stewart’s music was the start of last year and I imagine my child would be as lazy as me and not get around to learning about their namesake until they are in their 30s.

Stewart can also be spelt (incorrectly) as Stuart. Unfortunately the misspelling is also the more common name. When my brother was considering calling his new born child Emaline, my dad criticised him for thinking about giving his child a name that would always be misspelt. I started coughing at this point with my father protesting that when he gave me the name he didn’t realise it could be spelt another way.

I am quite proud of the way my name is spelt. There are not too many others of us (Stewart Lee and Stewart Downing being two examples) but I think we’re fiercely proud of the way the name is spelt. It’s a common enough name but with a unique twist.

It amused me greatly in my old job where my email address was my full name that people would have to spell it correctly to find my email address and then start the email addressing me as “Stuart.” I think this is probably the reason why I pay extra attention when writing someone’s name because it always makes me feel a little bit more special when someone gets mine correct.

I get a bit annoyed when American TV shows have characters called Stuart on them. The way they pronounce the name is horrid. It’s like “Stourt” or something. I find it painful to listen to. Stewie from Family Guy is fine though. Not only does the pet name suggest that he spells his name correctly, but in the first couple of seasons he was a ruthless genius and this is something I aspire to be. I have a couple of items of clothing with Stewie Griffin on them. One is a baseball cap which I was wearing on holiday in America. A musician who wanted me to buy his CD yelled out to me “Hey Stewie!” It took me a good few seconds to work out how he knew my name.

One great thing about my name - and it took me 25 years to realise this - is that, when shortened to Stew, it can replace you in any song. Every singer in the world is then literally singing about me. Stewart Lee worked this out too, but is more subtle naming his shows things such as A Room With A Stew.

Once you get past the major problems of having a name with an uncommon spelling - never being able to get novelty mugs with your name on being the biggest one – it becomes more of a badge of honour having to put up with misspellings. After the age of around 6, I accepted that I would often receive birthday cards with someone else’s name on and I learnt to deal with it.  I think the disappointment of this put me in good stead for disappointment later in life that would be caused by the performance of the England Footballs Team.

I have always been told that Stewart is the Scottish way of spelling the name. This suits me and seems to be a way of connecting with my heritage as legend has it that my great-great-great-grandfather Anderson was originally Scottish and sailed down via Ireland before settling on the Kentish coast. However, when I went to Edinburgh Castle earlier this year, we found a sign with “The Royal House of Stewart”  and whilst getting a photo of me in front of it, one of the members of staff informed me that it wasn’t actually the Scottish spelling. I have just found the below on Wikipedia:

Stuart is a traditionally masculine given name as well as a surname. It is the French form of the surname Stewart. The French form of the surname was brought to Scotland from France by Mary Stuart, in the 16th century.

As we all know, Wikipedia is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so I think that settles that matter. Further internet research suggests that the Mary Queen of Scots changed it from Stewart to Stuart to ensure the French could pronounce it correctly as they would usually render “w” as “v”.

Be proud of your name, no matter what it is, especially if it is unique. It makes you special.

We are sailing…

 Last week I went on holiday to Scandanavia with my girlfriend and did possibly the coolest thing I will ever do in my life. We were part of the crew on a Viking ship.

Other people sailing far at sea

When I say crew, I might be exaggerating slightly. It’s not as if we were hired and paid in plunder. We weren’t recruited by a fearsome leader for our brute strength and ruthlessness. What happened was a little more mundane.

We got to the Viking Ship Museum in Roskilde (pronounced Rosh-kill and more commonly known for the music festival which I had previously thought was called RockSlide) after a circuitous route through the town. Getting to the ticket desk, the enthusiastic Danish man asked us if we wanted to go on the Viking sail boat for 95 krone. He was so enthusiastic about it that I instantly thought “Of course I do!” but I looked at Jo to see if she wanted to spend that much money on it. She looked at me to see if I would be comfortable doing it despite being unable to swim and being terrified of drowning. After a while we concluded that yes, we both definitely wanted to do it and we booked our time slot.

Check out the glee on my little face

So we joined around 15 other tourists at the appointed time for a safety briefing with the captain of our ship. I don’t think that was her official term but I’ve forgotten her name. She told us that we’d all be wearing life jackets but they probably weren’t needed as no one had fallen in during the 25 years they’d been open which reassured me. It’s quite odd – I’ve got a fear of water that I’m able to give over after about 10 minutes on a boat. I’ve been on narrowboat holidays where I’ve been clambering around the outside of the boat, jumping assure and pushing off and jumping onto a boat, yet I still have an initial fear that I’m going to fall in and drown.

The captain also told us that we would need to do some rowing which excited me because it felt like a more authentic experience, and it excited Jo as she is a rower and it was a chance to try out rowing in a different boat.

As we were excited, we were the first ones onto the ship and we got to sit at the back of the boat which has a technical term that I forgot in my excitement. This meant that we were rowing what Jo has told me is called stroke, meaning that all the other rowers should follow our pace.

Having never rowed before, it took me a little while to get the hang of what I was supposed to be doing. During this learning phase, we went slightly off course and almost crashed into some moored boats at the side of the harbour. Reading this and knowing that the other rowers should be following my pace would suggest that it was my fault that we nearly crashed. I would like to submit my case to the jury thusly:

The woman behind me was rubbish. I had to repeatedly stop rowing as our oars would hit eat other. She was clearly not following my lead as she should have been. The only time my side of the ship were in time was when I looked back to see what she was doing and to follow her although this synchronisation was brief with her soon falling out of time again. It frustrated me a bit. She never would have made it as a Viking. She didn’t even have the beard for it.

Jo with the win through her hair and a sail in front of her

After a while we were out at sea and go to hoist the sail. As we were in the prime position, at different times myself and Jo both got to do important rope holding tasks. I was excited by this. Even though it mostly consisted of just holding a rope for about 10 minutes, there was a period at the start of pulling on the rope and at the end of slowly letting it out. As you can tell, I am easily pleased.

I was also selected by the captain (it may have just been that I was the nearest but I like to think that I was selected) to lower the sail. I got a bit confused by this as I thought if I lowered it, that it would fall straight into the sea or onto people. I had forgotten that this probably wasn’t the first time that they had lowered a sail on a Viking ship and they probably had a tried and tested method for doing so as I marvelled as the sail lowered itself perfectly between where the crew was sat.

Whilst we were sailing, the captain was warning us that we might have to row back in. I was really hoping we would get to do so as, whilst sailing was neat, we wouldn’t get the full Viking experience if we sailed straight back into port as they were doing later in the day.

As I have mentioned, this is perhaps the coolest thing I will ever do in my life and if you ever get the chance to visit Roskilde (just half an hour from Copenhagen on train), I urge you to do so. The rest of the museum is fun too – you can care your name in runes, paint a shield or sword and many other activities that are probably aimed at children as well as see the ruins from 5 Viking boats that were recovered last century.

Review: Go Set a Watchman by Harper Lee

There is something quite romantic about creating a beautiful piece of art and then refusing to create anything else.

This appeared to be what Harper Lee had done with To Kill a Mockingbird until recently. The 89 year old author's second published novel has had some controversy surrounding the circumstances of getting it published. It has been claimed that she is being taken advantage of in her old age to go back on her promise to not publish any other work.

The sequel, Go Set a Watchman, was actually written prior to To Kill a Mockingbird when Lee was asked by her editor to write something about the earlier lives of her characters.

It seems that this release could have done with a bit of editing prior to release. Not only are there obvious errors (such as constantly switching a gender of a teacher) but blatant inconsistencies with Mockingbird - most notably the outcome of Tom Robinson's trial which is mentioned in passing.

Whilst it could be claimed that you shouldn't be reading it as a sequel as such, it is difficult not to do so when the book contains the same cast of characters along with elements of a shared universe, and this is probably something that HarperCollins should have addressed before letting the book loose in the big wide world.

Whilst the theme of race relations is central to Watchman's narrative, the elements of Mockingbird that made it so engrossing - the trial, the events afterwards involving Bob Ewell and the qualities of Atticus Finch as a good man in a bad world - are all missing.

Whilst the book is enjoyable in general, I can't help but feel that where it not be for Mockingbird, this book would never have been released and is not even in the same ballpark in terms of quality and emotional depth.

Vader is Luke's father and thoughts on spoilers

Last week, the internet vomited a storm of hatred for anyone who posted anything indicating things that might possibly have happened in the final episode of the current series of Game of Thrones.

I don't watch Game of Thrones and therefore I didn't care. I do care about wrestling though. On the same day, I had been avoiding the internet until I was able to watch the latest pay per view, Money In the Bank after I'd got back from work.

Initially my thinking was: can't all the people who are getting upset about Game of Thrones spoilers just stay off the internet for a few hours? I know some people need it for work, but the likelihood is that they are just so attached to checking their phone every 30 seconds that they can't stay away from it.

At the end of the week, though, I changed my mind.

I found out what happens in the latest episode. I didn't intend to as I really don't care. I overhead two people at work discussing it and I discovered who dies. It is so easy for people to spoil things for others and blaming the victim is just as wrong here as it is anywhere else. It is symptomatic of a culture where people aren't as considerate of others as they could be.

When I've been spoilered previously on wrestling sometimes it's been my own fault because I've Googled something such as "How old is the Undertaker" and accidentally brought up headlines about the event I'm watching. Partly it is because of dicks. I intentionally unfollowed all wrestlers on Twitter as they are the most likely to be tweeting about an event before I see it. Then a guy from a band I posted about the result of the main event. Hence my now self-imposed social media blackout on Mondays after a pay per view.

I have also recently finished playing Season One of the excellent Walking Dead video game. Just before I did, I was in the process of recommending it to a friend and I was about to send the link to the Android app when I realised it had a massive spoiler in one of the reviews. Seriously, dude. Do you not think that someone who might want to play the game without knowing what happens might want to read a couple of reviews? I can't even fathom the mentality of someone like that.

I get the need to talk about things you enjoy. It's human nature, especially if you want to discuss the art you have experienced. But a bit of consideration is required.

There is also a weird culture of self-spoilering by reading TV guides which tell you who is going to die in Eastenders (or whichever other soap). I always found this confusing. Why would you want to know what's going to happen in something before you watch it? But then I'm not the sort of person who watches soap. Just the male soap opera that is wrestling. With wrestling, I do sometimes read websites which predict results of Pay Per Views, although this is mostly because I want to see what other people think will happen as I don't have many people to discuss wrestling with in real life as most of my friends have actually grown up.

I'm wondering if there has been a slight change in the way things have happened recently. Netflix have started releasing entire seasons of shows in one batch, and this perhaps makes people realise that not everyone is watching it at the same stage.

The new series of Orange is the New Black was released a couple of weeks ago but I've not seen anyone say anything about it yet. This could be because it's got weaker since the first series, it could be because not many people have made it all the way through yet or perhaps because it is easy to understand that not everyone would be at the same stage in their viewing due to the way it has been released.

There is though the question of when is it okay to talk about something. I've recently been listening to Richard Herring's Edinburgh Fringe Podcast (or as all the cool kids are calling it, RHEFP) where he was discussing how someone was annoyed at him for giving away something that happens in the 1970s TV series Colditz. The implication is that enough time has passed that if you haven't seen it now, then you clearly don't care enough to not get spoilered.

This goes back to the point about understanding that not everyone is at their same stage in viewing something, though. It may well be that someone has just only just discovered a show. The issue is that if we were always avoiding talking about something for fear of spoiling something for someone, then we would never be able to discuss art at all.

I think a balance needs to be struck though, and the situation where two colleagues were discussing Game of Thrones is not quite as I described it. One of them did ask the other first if they had seen the final episode. And herein lies the crux of the matter. You need to understand who you are talking to about the issue and whether and innocent bystanders are likely to get caught in the cross fire.

In a work situation, there are maybe one or two people nearby and you will probably know if any of them care enough for you to need to avoid talking about it around them. This happened in my previous job - you knew that everyone watched The Apprentice (partly because we had a sweepstake on it) so you made sure that everyone in earshot was up to date.

The problem is that the internet is international and social media is a platform that anyone can send stuff to, it is so easy to accidentally see a snippet of information that gives the game away. There is also no possible way for you to ensure that everyone reading your message is up to date with the show you are watching. In fact, it is probable that not everyone is up to date with it, and therefore the best thing to do is to be considerate and not post something that clearly gives away what is going to happen.

A number of people have learnt to be more considerate now, although you will always have people who haven't themselves been spoilered and learnt the lesson of not telling everyone what happens. Sometimes a website will give away a spoiler and that is exceptionally mean. No websites, that's a bad websites. I can understand reviewing an episode but not writing stories with big headlines about what happens.

Maybe I'm just over sensitive about this in a way. I'd like to think that I'm not overreacting but then I am the sort of person who avoids watching film trailers as I like to watch a film knowing as little about it as possible. I think though, if you've invested a lot of time in something - for example watching five seasons of it - you would be pretty justified in being annoyed at having it spoiled for you.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, wherever possible, try to avoid mentioning when talking about something openly a piece of information which would spoil the enjoyment of someone watching it if they knew that piece of information.

And it might be petty but if if someone does it to you, reply with "Vader is Luke's father" and they might just change their ways.

Why the deficit is good

I had considered writing a weekly post in the run up to the election. I didn't do this because I didn't have enough time to do so and there are hundreds of other people writing who are much smarter and much more clued up about politics than I am. So instead, I did a lot of reading and tried to learn a lot more about how the political system works and what is going on. There is one thing that has been bugging me which hasn't got a lot of coverage and that - as a qualified accountant - I'd like to think I understand and have some handle on.

As I have woken up early on election morning, I figured it is something I would get off my chest, even if there is minimal chance that it will persuade anyone to vote differently. I think it's fairly obvious from other things I have written that I lean to the left. I'm not trying to persuade you to vote that way. I just think it's more important for you to make an informed decision which is quite difficult in among all of the hyperbole that you get whilst the electioneering process is going on.

The thing that has been bugging me is George Porgey and Davey Wavey's (and some other parties) obsession on getting the deficit down. They have done this by the measure called austerity, which is effectively just cutting spending. However, it is worrying to me that our chancellor appears to not understand the concept of leverage.

Debt is actually good. Companies have what is called a gearing level. This is the ratio of debt to total debt plus equity. It is essentially shows what percentage of a company is funded by debt. Debt for a company is actually cheaper than equity. Banks generally want a lower return on a loan than an investor would want on their equity (for example 5% against 10% - these figures have been plucked out of the air but are probably in the ball park). Therefore, it is cheaper for a company to repay a bank loan than it is to pay dividends on equity. It will also mean not selling off a large portion of your company.

A great example of this in practice is Duncan Bannatyne. Ages ago I read his book "Anyone Can Do It" which explains his business model. The model was just borrow some money, buy an ice cream van, borrow some more money and buy another. And then move on to more profitable businesses. He will be getting himself in more debt, sure, but his business empire (and you can be sure a man like him must call it an empire. I know I would. It would make me feel Star Wars-y) was growing at a phenomenal rate. I'd recommend reading it if you want to see it in action, even if you hate the guy. I can lend you my copy.

There are other examples of good debt. A number of you, may have a mortgage. This is a loan which you are using to get yourself something you couldn't afford initially. You believe that you will be able to make the repayments and you think that the cost of the interest payments is worth the long term goal of being a home owner, something that D-Cizzle is very keen for you to do. (Too much so in my opinion - we need more social housing rather than right to buy, but that's another debate).

Another version of this is a student loan. You don't think you can afford university now, but you can see the benefit of going and believe that you will be able to repay it in the future. You are not even taking as much of a gamble with this as you don't pay it back until you reach certain earnings.

The principle should be the same with our economy. It is not doing great, so we need to borrow money (increase the deficit) to be able to do more things that will make us more money in the future (through taxes) in order to be more prosperous now.

It is my opinion that this obsession on the deficit is a fallacy and that the way out of our economic problems is not austerity but more spending now on things that will make the Kingdom more prosperous and allow us to raise more taxes to pay off the current borrowing.

As mentioned before, I am not as clued up as I would like to be and am happy to discuss this with anyone. I now await my fellow accountants to rip my argument apart as it's been at least 5 years since I studied any of this stuff. Please be kind. It's 6am and my brain doesn't switch on until at least 10am.

The Case of the Mysterious Telegram

Starring:

Bassim El-Wakil as Sherlock Holmes
Stewart Cork as Doctor Watson

from the diary of Doctor John Watson MD

Thursday April 9th, 2015

It was when I was partaking in my sandwiches in the canteen at luncheon that I received a telegram from Holmes:

Holmes cryptic commands

The knocker on which I knocked thrice

This message  puzzled me. Why would Holmes ask me to check on his house without leaving me a key to do so? Surely this couldn't have been an oversight on his behalf. And why would he command me to deduce? Something was afoot! I wondered if perhaps he had been kidnapped and that this cryptic message was a clue to help me find and rescue him.

Then I realised he probably knew that I would set off the alarm and not have any idea about how to switch it off, This would be why there was no key. But something about the telegram still troubled me. Something didn't quite seem right. I must venture to his residence and check immediately!

My cunning disguise

I arrived at Holmes' abode and strode up to the door and knocked on the knocker not once, not twice but thrice. From the lack of answer I managed to deduce that no one was home. Curious!

Walking around the side of the house, I discovered that Holmes' carriage was there. I know from experience that Holmes is lazy and wouldn't go to Ireland by foot which made me more suspicious.

I found a comfortable secluded spot to sit and watch the house and donned a disguise and hid from sight. Nothing happened so I went home to dinner.

Not a clue

I noticed upon leaving the gardens of Holmes' abodethat the house next door was called Oakhurst only the U was a V.

Was this a further clue from Sherlock Holmes to test my deductive powers. Had he somehow managed to alter the letter?

V in roman numerals is five - was he away for five days? But he had advised he would be back Sunday which was only four days away.

It struck me that the residences around Holmes' were rather old. This was not in fact a clue but was a sign created before they invented spelling. Drat! I shall return tomorrow to continue my investigation.

Friday April 10th 2015

Holmes' first clue: Nemo

Having had no further communications from Holmes despite my telegram to tell him that his house still existed, I set out to his home in search of further clues.

I concluded that there must be a mystery waiting to be solved, for without leaving me his keys, Holmes had basically asked me to go and look at his house. Why would he ask me to do that if there wasn't something for me to see there? And the use of the word "mind" in his telegram... surely that suggested he wanted me to use my mind to deduce something. But what?

Me puzzling until my puzzler was sore.

I stumbled upon a clue that Holmes had subtly left me which I had not noticed upon on my first visit. Perhaps I had previously been caught up in taking him at his word and I had literally just trying to check that "all is good."

The first clue I found was hidden in a little plant pot. A little clown fish. As any child will tell you, these are more commonly known as a Nemo, which is derived from from the popular moving picture, Finding Nemo. Aha! Holmes wanted me to find him! He was Nemo! I was onto something. But I needed more to go on.

Donning my cunning disguise, I waited to see if anything would happen. As it was a windy day, some leaves blew about but there was nothing suspicious.

I puzzled and puzzled and then I puzzled some more. I puzzled and puzzled 'til my puzzler was sore but sadly I made no progress in my investigation.

Instead of worrying about it, I went to the local public house to see if I could lubricate my brain in any way.

Saturday April 11th 2015

I lubricated my brain sufficiently, however my powers of deduction were unfortunately not increased. In fact, this morning, they appear to be slightly worsened. I can only conclude that this must be the effect of ageing, but at an unprecedented speed. Perhaps there was some mysterious toxins in the air which made anyone age rapidly. Perhaps Holmes had somehow been turned into an old man and was calling for help? Ah, no, wait. Alcohol gives you hangovers. I must remember that one in future.


I had set up a cunning trap the preceding day. I had a small blue skull to return to Holmes from a board game and so put this in an envelope addressed to him and put it through the door, however only pushing it through part of the way so that it was still possible to see it through the letterbox.

When I returned this morning, I discovered that my envelope was still hanging in the letterbox and thus there had been no one in to collect it and also no post this morning.

Had Holmes abandoned his house and diverted his post? This seemed like it might be the case. Otherwise, surely there would have been a barrage of communication requesting his assistance in cases, or at the very least, the paperboy would surely have delivered his copy of The Times.

I discovered a plate with Aladin, Jasmine and the genie on it. Was this a sign from Holmes? I wondered if he had been taken off on a magic carpet ride. Ah, magic carpets are but in the realm of fantasy. This could not have happened. He must instead be referring to the song - A Whole New World. The new world, as we know, is a term for America and Holmes had recently mentioned a desire to visit LA. Perhaps that is where he was? But why would he say he's in Ireland?

Then I recalled - Holmes had been exasperated that everyone hadn't realised he was in LA last week. So he has just returned from there, I deduced! This is a clue about where he has been, but what about where he currently is? I struggled with this conundrum but made no progress and instead went to get my eyes test.

Sunday April 12th 2015

Aha! I have solved Holmes' cunning riddle! He has gone to Ireland for the wedding of his sister! I deduced this because he told me it in the car the other day! It was all a cunning double bluff rouse. Holmes is such a cheeky scamp! Fortunately he is home, alive and well and back ready to solve crimes. He has confirmed to me that the wedding was "great" is as unimpressed as ever at my lack of detective skills.

I want the world, I want the whole world...

There is an advertising campaign on the tube at the moment which says  “Think 3
minutes is too long to wait? Try waiting 3 weeks for broadband!”

Before I started working in London, it always amused me that people would rush for the tube when another one is along so frequently.

The tube is a brilliant system. I like the fact that there are big announcements telling you exactly where you are so you know when to get off. I like how easy it is to get a connection. I like how frequently they arrive. I like how easy it is to find a tube station by just wandering around if you’re not sure where you are..

I’m also a big fan of the tube map. I love maps. I’m not sure why. I think it might be because I've got no sense of direction and therefore I like things that help me overcome that. I also like looking at them and all the exotic - and not so exotic – names of places I could visit, things I could see, things I could do.

Since Dan Light showed me that you can put a ‘transit’ option on Google Maps, I've become obsessed with looking at maps with the actual underground routes put on. It is interesting to compare the diagrammatic London Underground Map originally designed by Harry Beck with the actual layout of the tube lines. The standard map is so neat and structured yet when you look at where the actual lines run, it looks like a chaotic mess and you can start to appreciate what a work of art the map actually is.

Tube Map of London (left) compared to the actual layout of tubelines on Google Maps (right).

It’s not as much of a mess as the Paris metro which looks like a plate of multi-coloured spaghetti. I am confused by the New York system where basically all seems to run the same way and I struggle to see the benefit of having so many lines doing the same thing. I like the simplicity of the metro in Prague where three lines all intersect at just one point. Or the even simpler system in Athens where two lines cross over at two points. I think this is a hobby it will take me a while to tire of as there are 148 cities with metro systems for me to look at.

I fell in love with the tube map when we got a game called The London Game when we were little. I had no idea what any of these places were with exciting names such as Pimlico, Barbican and Knigtsbridge. I had no idea what these places we like, where they were, what you could do there (other than a few things on the cards in the game) but I fell in love with them and fell in love with the structure of the map and the ease of navigation.

Since working in London, I've come to realise that sometimes running for the tube can be useful. My trains back to Folkestone run every half an hour, so if I miss one I've got 29 minutes to spend loitering at St Pancras before I can get home to dinner/bed depending on the time of day.

So I've started to see why having to wait three minutes for another tube could be a bit frustrating at times. I struggle, though, to find much sympathy for people having to wait three weeks for a broadband connection. It is such a luxury item that I'm sure you can go without it for three weeks. When I moved into my flat it took 2 months for them to install my broadband. This was partly because the internet company refused to believe my flat didn't exist as it wasn't on the post office database. This confused me as the postman suffered no problems actually delivering my post.

I survived during this time. I spoke to humans rather than machines. I think we are too obsessed with connectivity these days. I include myself in this. I’ll often almost bump into someone in the street as I’m replying to a message which could probably have waited the 10 minutes until I get to my destination to reply to. We don't need to be always connected, always on. I've started turning my phone off for periods of the day just so that I can ensure I'm not picking up my phone every 20 seconds and can therefore focus on what I'm actually doing or enjoy the moment knowing I'm not going to be interrupted.

Our modern society is also so obsessed with having stuff now - which the internet is partly to blame for, I think. You can now get pretty much any entertainment you want - music, films, books, computer games, delivered to you instantaneously. And anything you can't get straight away, you can get delivered pretty quickly.

I love the internet. It lets me watch House of Cards, and I'm all for technological progress but I'm sure anyone can do without a broadband connection for 3 weeks, especially when everyone has a small box that can be used to summon the elders of the internet to provide you with information if there is something you really need.

Some people have been waiting thousands of years for clean water. It is often far too easy to lose perspective. You can deal without broadband for a short while.