Yeah I know...

I want to move home. Location dependent on TV show. 

I want to stay at home, but it needs a lick of paint. Any chance? 

I've an old watch. How much will you give me for it? 

I've £20 to spend on junk at a car boot sale. Can someone help me choose something I can then sell on for a profit?

I can win money playing 50/50 or participating in a quiz where the odds are completely loaded against me. 

I think this celeb is great / bad because of something in today's paper. 

Once hailed as the most important US import on TV.

I've invited complete strangers around for dinner so I can win money.  

I've had an accident and I wasn't to blame. Can anyone help?

I want to know where I can get the best deal on insurance?  

Something more important than what we are currently reporting on is scrolling across the bottom of the screen. Look! More breaking news!

Cookery. 

More cookery. 

Rerun of twee UK crime show. 

And now the Six O'clock News.

And repeat 5 days a week.   

Today's figure pulled out of "Cost to the Economy" hat is

£27 Billion

Just One Other Thing

When TV stations can't think of anything to fill their schedules with they simply dust down old episodes of US Cop shows and hope no-one notices.

And so, finding myself in a similar position, You Tube let's me do the same.  

Angry Since 1967 Costs UK Economy Tens Of Pence.

A leading financial organisation claimed Angry Since 1967 was costing the UK economy 30p a week in time otherwise used for more productive things like watching TV, scratching your hole, or wondering if you've left the iron on. Their chief economist said "We've calculated that the time wasted reading Angry Since 1967 costs the UK economy some 30p a week. You'll note this figure is neither 29p nor 31p but exactly 30p. And if that doesn't tell you all you need to know then no amount of hinting will make it clear. I mean come on. Isn't it obvious? We just pluck these figures out of the air. It doesn't matter if it's the cost of bad weather, money wasted by people having a shit or time spent on Angry Since 1967, no-one ever asks the fundamental question of "how precisely did you work that out?" Instead they simply accept the figures we publish and build the story to fit. Yes we, and our colleagues in other companies, may have the word "Economics", "Finance", "Consultancy" or "Analyst" in our organisations name but that doesn't mean you should simply take every single word issued as the unchallengeable gospel truth. I mean, come on? No one can, with any real accuracy, know how much it costs the economy when it snows. Or rains. Or when it didn't snow. Or rain. Yet we can. To the nearest round figure. The laughs we've had watching as the media report the bollox we produce as if it was based on tangible, methodical research. Consider this. Do you think a large commercial organisation would really devote the necessary resources of time and money to produce figures they know will never be challenged? Or that adverse weather conditions somehow don't impact us, meaning that while everyone else shivers, we have the resources in staff and time to produce figures based on painstaking research?"

 When asked what the future held the spokesman said "We'll be releasing figures next next week which will make for interesting reading. We've quantified the the cost to the economy of these "cost to the economy" reports. We estimate it to be in the region of at least £37 million, or £5 million, or £5.40, although the final figure won't be known until we pick it out of our big hat". 

More than words*.

Odd one this. I have that feeling I should be posting something more substantial than another "oo-ee look at the fearmongering bollox on the BBC website" but, and this is a shocking admission, I can't think of anything. So this post is about nothing. It is a phantom, a notion of a post. I'm sure you can imagine how it would go. Howling derision, impotent finger waggling and metaphorical eye rolling directed at some seemingly unimportant thing which I kid myself into thinking reveals an inner truth, but that actually doesn't reveal the truth (inner or otherwise) at all. Now some might claim that this post says more, by saying nothing at all, than my usual 500 word rants. And that's fair enough. But then I'd have to conclude that this nebulous "some" include followers of the noted Irish philosopher Ronan Keating amongst their number.

Exactly.   

*No. The other one.