A Better Way to Spend 90 Minutes

Admittedly, I had the intention of writing and publishing this article before the England team packed their bags and returned home to a disenchanted, though not surprised, nation.  Whilst trying to reshape this article concept to fit Wimbledon, I was pleasantly disappointed to realise that World Cup fever was still going strong.  The matches were still being watched.  Results still talked about. My office even had a dress up as a country from the World Cup day. (For the record, my fave blue and white stripy top led to an imaginative Argentinian costume, so much so that my name wasn't even entered into the best dressed competition).

It’s not that I don’t like football. I mean I couldn't run around for 90 minutes, I can’t even run up the stairs, just don’t get me started about how much they get paid or that these ‘professionals’ can get away with biting people, and yes I am tarring all football players with the same Suárez coated brush.

It's just that I can just think of 101 better ways to spend 90 minutes of my life.

Lucky for you, I won’t waste 90 minutes of your life by listing all of the 101 better ways to spend 90 minutes.* Instead, I have compiled a list of five of my favourite films.  (I’ve been extra careful not to include spoilers).  I know I have questionable taste in films, but perhaps give a match a miss and watch one of these? You might even enjoy it. 

 1) Safety Not Guaranteed (2012)

Seattle magazine employee, Jake (Nick from New Girl), picks two interns, Darius, the lesbian and Arnau, the Indian (the film’s words, not mine) to write the story behind an unusual classified ad.

“WANTED. Someone to go back in time with me.  This is not a joke. You’ll get paid after we get back. Must bring your own weapons. Safety not guaranteed. I have only done this once before.”

Let the cool and charming qualities of this film wash over you.  Don’t overthink it, just enjoy.  Let yourself smile like a loon and let yourself cry for reasons you can't quite explain. 

2) Frozen (2013)     

      Don't try to be cool and avoid the hype and don’t complain that ‘Let it go’ is completely overplayed. With castles, princesses, a hilarious talking snowman, ‘true’ love and a lot of bursting into song, it’s true that Frozen has all the, sometimes annoying, ingredients for a typical Disney film. But when you watch it you’ll realise its refreshingly unconventional, and if you don’t like it you have no soul.   

3)      13 Tzameti (2005)

Written and directed by Georgian filmmaker Géla Babluani, 13 Tzameti looks on as Sébastien, a young immigrant, follows instructions promising riches, meant for someone else. Assuming a false identity, Sébastien becomes involved in a game of Russian roulette, where men bet on the lives of other men. A minimalistic psychological thriller, this is one film where you won’t want the light to turn on.  For those who don’t appreciate black and white, subtitled films, this is the exception. Once you’ve seen this film, your heart will pound and your palms sweat just thinking about it. 

4)      V for Vendetta (2005)

  In a dystopian near-future England, the beautiful Natalie Portman plays Evey, ally to V, an eloquent, charming masked freedom fighter/ terrorist.  Based on the incredible graphic novel of the same title, V for Vendetta depicts a heavily oppressed Britain, with strong references to the fear of government surveillance and the corruption of the media. In his sinister Guy Fawkes mask, which has since been used by anti-establishment protestors around the world, V sparks a revolution. This film is simply amazing.

5)      Pitch Perfect (2012)

Aside from the fact that Anna Kendrick is 100% the coolest person in the world and I want her to be my best friend, this is such a fun film.  Rebel Wilson is ridiculous as Fat Amy and the songs really are great.  You’ll end this film wondering whether you’ve missed your chance to put together the best a cappella group ever and spend your evenings lurking round alleyways and car parks, hoping to find yourself in the midst of a riff-off.

Harriet

*I was honestly aiming for films under 90 minutes.  Then I remembered about half time, extra time, injury time, commentators rambling on time, interview time and biting time so I stopped worrying too much.

An Open Letter to Tony Hall, Lord Hall of Birkenhead CBE

Director General, BBC

House of Lords

London

SW1A 0PW

 

Dear Lord Hall of Birkenhead CBE,

The BBC trust chairman, Lord Patten, said of you upon your appointment,

 

'As an ex-BBC man he understands how the Corporation’s culture and behaviour make it, at its best, the greatest broadcaster in the world. And from his vantage point outside the BBC, he understands the sometimes justified criticisms of the corporation – that it can be inward looking and on occasions too institutional.'

 

As I am sure everybody would agree this is a glowing recommendation, and exactly what an organisation like the BBC needs. According to Lord Patten you are an individual who understands the ethos and aims of the BBC, but who is at the same time critical of its apparent failings. Such a recommendation however, is completely contradicted by recent events.

 

I am talking about the BBC’s arrogance in ignoring the views of over fifty thousand people.  On Saturday the twenty first of June there was a protest by The People’s Assembly against our current coalition’s austerity measures.  Tens of thousands of people were present in marching against our government’s stance on austerity. For all intents and purposes, the day was a great success!

 

This was a hugely enjoyable and joyous event. Not the angry protests of the riotous students that were heavily reported on in 2010. No, according to one individual present it was, “lovely to see so many families taking part, with the young and old marching together, and many people of different faiths and ethnicity joining in, helping to create a carnival atmosphere.” This was a healthy protest and a fantastic example of the public gathering in their devotion towards a single cause.

 

Then why is it then that this received zero coverage from the BBC, a neutral, non-biased public service. Well the cynic would argue that it is because it was too much of a triumph, and unlike the student protests there was no negative spin to be placed upon such an affair.  Such doctoring of the country’s news would be far too Goebbels-esque to be taking place within a forward thinking and progressive nation like the UK though, surely?

 

I wish I could say yes, I want to, I really do! But in recent years it appears to me that our nation’s primary impartial news service is anything but impartial. Take the aforementioned student protests for example. The story was spun in such a way as to focus on the riotous contingent, a group who were for the most part, not even students. It veered away from an objective discussion of the issues these students had taken to heart, instead opting into a childish exercise in finger pointing. 

 

This appears to be a running trend within our country’s broadcasting of the news. Take the recent European Elections for example. The whole lead up was filled with childish attacks against UKIP and their party members. I am not one to support their party, no, anything but. I do however believe that such a focus distracted from the important issues that should have been brought into discussion. The BBC should have been a platform for “all” the parties to voice their opinions. Take the Green party for example. Their views were completely ignored throughout the lead up, why? Because they were real, productive views, counter to those of the centre parties and not merely those of an easily belittled, and mocked caricature of a party. The BBC in recent years has reported on two things, the politics of the centre political parties, and those it can ridicule and villainise on the outside in an attempt to distract from the real issues.

 

Take the Saville scandal and ongoing witch hunt. These stories give the public an enemy and excuse the news from having to report on other subjects deemed less worthy, or should I say; politically convenient.

 

One individual at the recent protest stated how, “This is not rent a mob. This is people across the social spectrum working in the public sector, private individuals who care about the services that the state provides, and standing up for all of us so that we might still have a decent education, a welfare state when we need it, and support when we are sick or elderly.” As they have said, this is about people across the social spectrum, the sort of views that an organisation trying to move away from its “inward looking” and “institutional” roots would be happy to share.

 

This is why I feel that you have failed to provide on the promise made by Lord Patten. I understand your job covers a broad spectrum of the BBC, but you are its face, and its beating heart. It is for this reason that it is up to you to take action against such blatant inadequacies within “our” organisation.

 

Because in all truth that is what the BBC is. It is ours. It belongs to the people of the UK. It is not yours, and it most certainly is not owned by the centre political parties of whom it appears to be benefitting most.

 

The French philosopher Michel Foucault once stated that, “I'm no prophet. My job is making windows where there were once walls.”

I feel it is time the BBC did the same. It is time it became a window to the thoughts of the people; for too long it has been a wall trapping us within the enclosed space of centre political thought.

 

Yours sincerely,

The Pessimist Chronicles, ©2014.

Greetings, adulthood!

I am a total novice in the blogging business, but I thought I'd give it a shot. I wanted to get back into some sort of writing because, as I'm sure is the case with many post-graduates out there, I am facing a rapid decline into existential crises. I'd say my short time after university has been successful in the sense that I have taken to my new found role as fully-fledged adult. I have a job and a flat (not necessarily the ones I want), but enough money to pay for food other than super noodles and toast (just about), and I have even joined the gym! However, I think it is safe to say that most twenty-something's would much rather crawl back into the comforting arms of 12pm start lectures on the blurred lines of sexuality. So what better way to placate that nostalgia than to begin blogging my thoughts on post-graduate life via The Pessimist Chronicles?

As someone who is keen to enter the world of magazine publishing, I am pleased to take my first steps with The Pessimist Chronicles and some of my favourite people by my side! I’m not overly confident that a significant amount of people will care what I have to say, but hopefully it will bring some sort of amusement and entertainment to a select few out there.

I do think of myself as a post-feminist and my dissertation was fairly unconventional, since instead of choosing to write about Keats or Shakespeare, I chose to write about sex ( I did include a bit of Jane Austen in there though!), which I’m sure I will share with you at some point on this blog. 

I imagine I am coming across as quite the stereotypical English lit student. Yes I did an English degree and enjoy feminist theory, but my blogs will not be super-opinionated, bra-burning feminist shit. In fact, it’ll probably be far less respectable than that. I regularly compare myself to Bridget Jones and I can have a tendency to over-share so my contributions to The Pessimist Chronicles could turn into more of a series of my own (most likely embarrassing) stories.

Enjoy!

Saz

An Open Letter to Michael Gove

Director of Education

Sanctuary Buildings

Great Smith Street

London

SW1P 3BT

Dear Mr. Gove.

As part of the 'Big Society', we feel it is our duty to discuss with you some of the finer points of your latest reforms to the English school system. Are you sitting comfortably? Good. This may come as quite a shock.

As graduates in the field of English Literature, we can often be found to take umbrage with many of the current coalition government's policies, reforms, and downright troubling decisions. Student life, and the pursuit of education, has certainly not been made easier by the current regime. We were personally lucky enough to avoid having to pay the extortionate £9000 fees imposed in 2012, by only a couple of years. We have heard the government defending this decision time and again, yet the facts speak for themselves: more and more students will now be unable to ever pay off their student loans, and as this occurs, the country's financial situation will almost certainly be adversely affected. This was, of course, an outcome easily foreseeable by most people, yet the government clearly, and very surprisingly, were unable to do so, until it was too late. However, that is for another rant. The arguments over student loans have long left the doorstep of the Conservatives - the majority perceive blame as resting firmly on the shoulders of the Liberal Democrats, those who made up such a large proportion of the demographic who voted for them feeling, quite understandably, betrayed.

Why is it that we mention this event, then? It had very little to do with you, after all. Well, it is the aforementioned lack of foresight involved which concerns us most at this present moment in time. The government seems perpetually inclined to think of the here and now more than the future, or, in some cases, not to think at all. It is this which bothers us most. It is a common occurrence that Conservatives and Liberal Democrats alike will condemn the Labour party for their lack of foresight, 'leaving' you to deal with the deficit, but it is a problem which seems to plague every party whenever they are in government, and governing with blinkers on, we would suggest, is not the best way to tackle politics.

The radical new changes made by you to the education of schoolchildren in this country has been a controversial matter for a while now. Time and again the public has spoken out against your reforms, yet our concerns have been ignored. It does your party no credit - what do we plebeians know of what is best for our own children, after all? Yet the very core of the matter is that whenever the government makes a severe change to our lives it is us who has to live with the consequences. Politicians can afford to attend good private schools if state schools would not meet their children's needs, after all, but for the common man, this is not a perceivable option. Our schools are for all intents and purposes at your beck and call; is it not imperative, therefore, that you should consider the practical application and ultimate consequences of your reforms? Trust us as we proceed to inform you of the grave error you have committed in your latest radical alterations to our education system.

It was recently reported how you have decided to 'ban' non-English classics from the GCSE syllabus, thus losing the chance to learn of the racial inequality as presented in books such as Harper Lee's 1960 novel To Kill a Mockingbird and the social themes of John Steinbeck's 1937 classic Of Mice and Men. Within a very short timeframe, an online petition had been set up to convince you to change your reforms, and the hashtag '#Mockingbird' was trending on Twitter. As much as many of us writing to you now detest the 'hashtag', its popularity is testament to the strength of the opposition to this unwelcome announcement.

You soon bit back, however, by clarifying that nothing has been banned, and that you are merely 'asking exam boards to broaden - not narrow - the books young people study for GCSE.'

Unfortunately, your logicality seems to have been turned down to a particularly low temperature that day, so as a kindness we have decided to clarify things for you. It is true that you stipulate students must study (and we quote from your article rebuffing these unsavoury 'rumours' as published in The Telegraph on 26 May) 'a whole Shakespeare play, poetry from 1789 including the [R]omantics [we have kindly added the appropriate capital 'R' for you there], a 19th-century novel and some fiction or drama written in the British Isles since 1914 [why British we can't fathom].' You go on to add: 'Beyond this, exam boards have the freedom to design specifications so that they are stretching and interesting, and include any number of other texts from which teachers can then choose.'

Unfortunately, this only highlights, not refutes, the problem. While you may never have 'banned' these books per se, your reforms have put the English Literature syllabus into a situation where it would be nigh on impossible to include any additional material, foreign or otherwise. The set-up is so fixed and so challenging that there would be no space to add any additional material to the subject whether or not the presiding teacher had the will or the inclination to take on the additional challenge. One of us works for the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust and can confirm the continued popularity of Shakespeare - the Trust received over 800,000 visitors in 2013, and the Royal Shakespeare Company regularly sells out performances - but these patrons are usually adults and students. Children, conversely, and understandably, often have great difficulty understanding Shakespeare, not necessarily because Shakespeare's language is particularly challenging - David Crystal reminds us that 'Over 90% of the English used in Shakespeare's day has not lost its meaning' - but because it is perceived to be so. Children need to be eased into Shakespeare, introduced to it in fun ways (I would recommend in performance rather than on the page, and in simpler forms, such as the tried and tested Macbeth) and guided through his true challenges. It is for this reason only parts of the plays are usually used in classrooms: by the time a teacher has helped a class fully understand and appreciate a full Shakespeare play, it is time to move on to a 19th-century novel, a period where the form of the novel was relatively young in England and still very elitist, and thus another challenge presents itself. It will be a relief once schools can bring their pupils to the post-1914 works, and they can all uniformly rely on George Orwell's Animal Farm (1945). Where in all this, we ask, is there going to be any room for non-English literature? Anyone with a logical mind can see the problem here.

The nation of origin for these texts should not be just cause for them to be so unceremoniously torn away from syllabuses. They are timeless classics that highlight historical extremes of inequality and the human condition and emphasise their continued application to modern society. Surely the core purpose of the study of English Literature as a subject is to learn about different histories, different cultures, different philosophies. Naturally, as a country it is right and just that we have our own native authors at the forefront of our studies - Shakespeare, as England's elected national poet, should have a prominent position in our education, just as Scotland should teach Robert Burns and Russia should rightly revere Alexander Pushkin - but we should have enough scope to realistically include at least one or two pieces of literature from the rest of the world in there. We are, after all, a part of the world, despite the efforts of certain quarters to cut us off as an entirely independent sceptred isle set in the silver sea which serves it in the office of a wall. Take away our syllabuses interactions with the rest of the globe and your reforms make you little different educationally to how UKIP want to be internationally.

To draw this letter to a neat conclusion, we wish to quote the article by The Guardian newspaper which was one of the first to report on your supposed 'axing' of American classics from the GCSE syllabus:

'Last year, Gove, who has said children should be reading 50 books a year from the age of 11, told a conference of independent school heads that he would much prefer to see a child reading George Eliot's Middlemarch than one of Stephenie Meyer's Twilight vampire novels.'

Wouldn't we all? But the sad fact is that Middlemarch is a far tougher book to tackle than Twilight. Anybody with a literary bone in their body would surely acknowledge that. What is at issue here is not what children read, but developing an enthusiasm for reading. Many of us grew up on comics, yet now several of us are embarking on postgraduate study. One of us is pursuing MA research into early modern English drama; another is writing a PhD thesis reading Lacanian psychoanalytic theory through the writings of the English Romantic poets. It is certainly a big step up from The Beano (not that we are for a minute suggesting The Beano make it onto the GCSE syllabus). The point is, children develop literary skills through different methods, but what is most important is that they enjoy developing them. As much as any of us may like Dickens now, make our teenager selves read Bleak House and we'd be put off English for life. So often we hear people lamenting our chosen subject paths because of their own difficulties in studying English at school, so much so that many now have a mental block against the subject, unwilling even to try to pursue the classics independently. By narrowing the curriculum as you have done, you do not show an understanding for how best to mould intellectual minds, but rather risk torturing students through hours of potentially mind-numbing reading, creating a generation who cannot succeed in English purely because they are bored by it. It is an undesirable reality, but a reality it is nonetheless.

Without the ability to choose a wide range of literature from around the world and throughout time, our children will not have the will or interest to even conceive of reading fifty books per year. At that age, our own interests in literature were probably formed far better with Of Mice and Men, Macbeth and An Inspector Calls than with, say, Middlemarch, Love's Labour's Lost and David Copperfield. If it ain't broke, as the old adage says, don't fix it. Our education system needs reform, yes - one of us could tell you long, rambling stories about having to teach himself the entirety of GCSE mathematics because his teacher was so poor she spent the entirety of each class shouting at one unruly child rather than actually doing any teaching, and there are doubtless many under-performing schools out there, but statistics and generalisation is what gets governments into trouble over issues such as this. Teachers, by and large, do a bloody marvellous job in this country, and it saddens us - no, it outrages us - to see so many leaving their careers because of what you are doing to them and their pupils. Is it not more sensible to allow the professionals in the classroom to choose the appropriate materials for study for their own pupils? They should themselves know what is most appropriate for nurturing their students' intelligence and success, and should be able to teach them beyond the confines of a national curriculum. One of us remembers fondly how an enjoyment of early modern drama first began to formulate after a teacher took a class to see a performance of King Lear despite the curriculum's insistence on the same old chestnut, Romeo and Juliet (which is now, incidentally, despite his love of Shakespeare, his least favourite play, doubtlessly down in no small part to forcibly having the same passages drummed into him class after class after class). The two titles which have been referenced time and again in this controversy - Of Mice and Men and To Kill a Mockingbird - cover a great variety of themes without the difficulty of language in need of repeated teacher translation. If you will forgive a sudden change in tone, it would be desirable if you would climb down from your ivory tower and actually look at what you are doing to the people who have to live with each and every one of your myopic and narrow-minded reforms. Perhaps it would be wise to acknowledge your own limited knowledge of the classroom and trust the judgement of those who have been trained - at great personal financial expense - to teach. We wouldn't know how to run a government department, after all, and we acknowledge that.

There's good change and there's bad change - McDonald's making their chicken nuggets with 100% real chicken was undoubtedly good change; then again, the new and 'improved' Cornetto is a major let down. Be a chicken nugget, Mr. Gove, and not a Cornetto.

Yours faithfully,
The Pessimist Chronicles, ©2014.

PS: We would point out that, in the current economic client, children should be able to get those fifty books per year from public libraries. But what do we know?

This letter was sent to Michael Gove on the evening of the 9th June 2014. Unless we are refused permission, any response received will be communicated to our readers immediately.

There's a loud drilling noise coming in through the window...

Come back soon to see our new-look site!

Europe, May 22nd: What's the Fuss?

As many of you may have heard, May 22^nd is not only the date of the UK’s local elections, but the 2014 European elections as well. For many, this is a hot topic, and something of huge significance. However, the cynics amongst us may say, 'Why bother?'

 

After all, it’s not like Europe directly affects us anyway. We’re 'Great' Britain, we don’t need them... Or do we?

'Who are you?'

 

Here’s a question for you. The strapping, fine specimen of a human being shown above; who is he? Go on, think about it. Any ideas?

Well interestingly, MEP Nigel Farage was equally baffled as he attacked Van Rompuy – ex Belgium prime minister and president of the European Council- shouting, “Who are you? Who are you?” Farage followed this with the statement that Van Rompuy has “the charisma of a damp rag and the appearance of a low grade bank clerk”.

This outburst raises two important points.

      1.    .  How exactly did Farage get his job?

      2.      There is a lack of stimulus within UK politics for the public to get involved with the rest of Europe.

You see, whilst Britain is a part of Europe, we kind of hide it. The news rarely approaches European politics, and when it does, it is from the position of an outsider. This is interesting, especially when one thinks of how Britain first joined the European community in 1973. Yes, the European Union wasn’t formed until 1993, but this is merely an evolution of the Single European Act of 1978 in which Europe became “an area without internal frontiers in which the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital is ensured”.

So why is it Britain continue to sit in the closet when it comes to our relationship with Europe. It has been forty one years now…

So why exactly is May 22^nd important?

Well you see, this our opportunity to really become involved with Europe. This date is when we as a country, we have to make a decision. Do we bury our heads in the sand when it comes to the importance of Europe, or do we become a pro-active member of the community?

So here are some of the reasons to really think about it and get involved:

      

·         The European parliament acts as co-legislator on most EU laws; it’s our means of acting on laws in Strasbourg/Brussels.

UKIP have a made a habit of arguing how Strasbourg and Brussels are controlling us, making laws about which we have no say. Well, with people like Farage as our MEPs, individuals who do nothing but attack the rest of Europe rather than get pro-actively involved it’s no surprise. EU laws are made to benefit a European community, no wonder we feel they’re not benefitting us when as a country we stand in a corner and insist we’re better.

·         European Parliament plays a role in the creation of rules and regulations by which trade within Europe takes place.

Europe is the world’s largest single market. In getting involved we’re able to negotiate a streamlined, singular regulation rather than having to comply with a cornucopia of different regulations. England on its own would take the role of an outsider, the red tape would only get thicker when we as a country have no say on how it’s cut!

·         CONTROVERSY! Free right of movement for EU citizens.

Contrary to popular belief, this is not to blame for everything wrong in the country. We’re in a recession, the minimum wage is a joke and nobody in the UK wants to work in certain roles. This is not the fault of free movement throughout Europe. It’s easier to pick an outside enemy than face the facts. Take the treatment of the Jews throughout Germany in the Second World War. People are disillusioned with politics and unhappy with the state of the country. To give the population a common enemy is the easiest way to make a name for yourself in this climate; it doesn’t help the underlying issues however.

In fact, free movement within the EU has numerous benefits. It allows our economy to keep functioning as migrants take the jobs nobody else is willing to take.

It also allows fresh opportunities within Europe for many British people. Take university ERASMUS for example. British students get the opportunity to study or work abroad as part of their degree.

We don’t think of these benefits however, we’re too great to benefit from the rest of Europe… oh no, they just sponge off us!

·         Eurovision!

Come on guys! We’ll never win Eurovision unless we play along! Everybody knows it’s just about politics anyway, perhaps if we get involved in Europe we may actually win one day!!!

Fucking foreigners... Their roads even killed Diana!

 

That’s not to say Europe is perfect. No; far from it. It needs work, and it needs our country’s full commitment to make it work. I guess that is what this article is about. I’m not trying to say Europe’s the best; that we should all marry a Frenchmen (or women), and give our children names like François and Pierre. No, we are British, and that is important.

This is about getting involved. As I have said before, up to now we've been in the closet about our relationship with Europe. It’s time to swing open the door and join the party, recommend a few choice tracks and get everybody twirking along with us.

UKIP argue that we have no say as to what goes on in Europe. Well, when you publicly abuse them and refer to their members as “non-countries” it’s no surprise. So that’s why everybody should think about their votes in the European elections. Surely it’s too soon to turn our backs on the rest of Europe when up until now we've hardly got involved.

After all, if all we are willing to do is throw a big Farage about the whole thing, can we ever expect any change for the better?

So that’s what this article is about. Getting involved…

Who knows, it might actually do some good!

Shaun Beale

The Graduate's Guide to (Not Really) Growing Up

Six months have passed since we donned our caps and gowns and made our ways, slowly... painfully slowly... I mean, seriously, I have never concentrated on walking so much in my entire life... down the Cathedral to collect a piece of paper.  No idea where that piece of paper is by the way.

The Chronicler’s have been separated by cruel, cruel adulthood, and now – scattered around the country, or at least the south coast, and far, far up north in Solihull – we are embarking on LIFE…

If you’re anything like me, this is what you can expect…

1) Radio 1 starts to get too much, so you switch over to Radio 3, where you catch the 18^th Century Season and you drive home calm, daydreaming of Mr Darcy and balls. As in, nice, fancy, formal dance balls. Not Miley Cyrus’ wrecking balls, Ed Balls or hairy balls.  

2) You opt for a sensible coat. A nice, warm, puffy coat. A coat with a hood, multiple zips and the option to popper it over your face. There is nothing fashionable about this coat and you just won’t care.

3) You go to bed early, ideally at around 9 pm. The days that you could come home at three in the morning with your wobbly boots on and still make it to a 9 am lecture become a distant memory.

4) Little things will start to really annoy you and you won’t care who knows it. For example, when the postman used to deliver the neighbours' post by accident, I used to take it round to the correct house, like a friendly volunteer. Now, I run around the neighbourhood until I find the postman’s van and I stand next to it until he reappears, handing him the letters: 'You delivered these to the wrong house.'

5) You have a saving plan, and you actually save. This might even involve a spreadsheet, with the formulae you learnt and said you’d never use. On that note, Student Finance England start sending you letters about money you owe THEM, not money they’re going to give YOU.

Harriet Baker, BA (Hons)