Accidental Old Faithful

So, as you'll remember I have moved myself into my new – albeit temporary – bedroom. And this has involved the entire audit of clothes.

And this meant that I stumbled upon my Faithful Black Shirt.

The Faithful Black Shirt isn't just any shirt. This is one of those shirts like the Lime-Green-Zip-Up Shirt that has been with me for a while.

That is one of the benefits of barely changing shape – staying slim for as long as possible. As much fits you now as did ten (or even fifteen) years ago.

And – as any lady will tell you – black never goes out of fashion.

And that's where the audit comes in. The audit is actually turning into pretty much a Whole Life Audit as it has also involved me getting rid of a lot of DVDs, CDs and basically anything of excess in the two rooms which were occupied – the spare bedroom having previously been empty, this means three rooms are getting sorted.

When you do a clothes audit, you assess when it was you last wore the shirt, how frequently you do wear the shirt, and how likely it is you are to wear it again. Which made me consider the history of the black shirt as a whole.

This is probably the cheapest, most simple black shirt and yet – despite it probably having passed its proper shelf-life many moons ago, I haven't found a similar one to replace it with. It is scorched. It actually got scorched very early on in life when I went to visit my friend Susie who had moved to York for her post-graduate diploma whilst I stayed in Newcastle for mine. It got scorched because she didn't have a steam iron, just an absolute bog-standard one which I wasn't used to. That was a good night out.

It has a slight stain which I have had to cover up with black permanent marker. I'm still not sure how I got the stain, but it happened the night before I woke up in bed with the lovely Scott who never quite went away.

And although it can't be seen because I mended it, one of the seams ripped a little when it got caught as I dashed off the train at Manchester after I eventually did fall asleep after pretending to be asleep for most of the journey because the woman who sat next to me was mad and kept trying to tell me about various medical procedures she had been subjected to. She spent the rest of the journey singing. Actually quite loudly. In the quiet coach.

I don't know why I can't find a replacement. I need to – the deodorant bleaching around the armpits is now starting to get embarrassing, and the tips of the collar are starting to fray. It isn't even as though I am holding on to it for the various sentimental reasons. I just can never quite justify buying a new shirt whilst it is just about acceptable. Only once it has gone past that point of no return shall there be another.

On occasions I do managed to talk myself round and tell myself that I need to sort it out. Those are usually the days when I am really not in the mood for shopping and nothing quite fits, is quite right. The slim-fits are too slim, or not slim enough, or the arms on a 40” chest are just a little too tight, whereas on the 42” they are fine, but the shirt then is too baggy. I hate these days.

Some days are “shopping days” - where I can walk into a store, find exactly what I want, and buy it straight away. Where things throw themselves off the shelves at me, and I buy many more things than perhaps I ordinarily would have. But mostly not.

And so it is that the faithful old black shirt has migrated over to the new bedroom with me, a relic of a bygone era – when I partied with gay abandon and clubbed 'til 5am. It is, perhaps the oldest thing in that bedroom now, having endured well over a decade of drunkenness, debauchery and dallyancing.

And it's probably still good for one more night out...

Loving the over 50s

So, I've already mentioned about me going swimming. Generally I do 100 lengths and it takes me about an hour. That's quite a long time to have to cope with your own thoughts so I've developed a number of coping strategies.

Firstly, you'd be surprised how difficult it is to keep count of the number of lengths you have done. You'll be swimming down the pool repeatedly saying “34...34...34...” and the next thing you know you're on “36...36...36...” despite it still being the same length. So I've started alternating: I do two lengths of breast stroke, and then two of front crawl. I've had to work up to this – before it was 3 breasts and one crawl. I struggle with the breathing on front crawl for too great a distance so I am quite pleased to be up to a 2:2 ratio.

But this helps with counting the lengths too. Obviously swimming up the pool is the odd numbered lengths, whilst returning down the pool is evens. Good. But this means if I'm doing crawl the length number is either 3/4 or 7/8 or 11/12. Basically, the return length on front crawl will always be divisible by 4, which means I am less likely to get confused as to whether I'm on length 4 or 8.

And the target setting is very important. The first time I went after the hiatus I targetted 64 lengths: one mile. But then I started swimming 80 lengths, beating the target. So then I targetted 80 lengths and started swimming 100. Now I set the target at 100. This is actually a bit disappointing. When I targetted 80 and swam 100 technically I had exceeded my target (despite being fully aware at the beginning that I probably would); whereas now I only 'meet' it. Well, except for last week when I did 116 lengths. Don't worry, the pool is only 25metres long – it's not a proper Olympic-size.

But then I set mini-targets. Steps on the way to be proud of, where I can say “I've done a quarter” at 25 lengths. And this is where the 50+ comes in: they get better, and more frequent, once I have completed 50 lengths. 50 is obviously halfway. Good. And then there is 64 – one mile. And it's no distance then to 67 – two thirds of the way through. And that's only 8 lengths short of 75 which is three-quarters. And then it's 80. And then 90. It really helps when you can say “Come on boyo, you've done 90%, you only got another 10 lengths to do”.

But all these things keep the interest levels up. Well, for the moment at least.

You see I've bought a waterproof MP3 player to try to keep me going. It will probably make keeping track of the number of lengths more difficult, but may make it more enjoyable. The only problem is that I have to fill it up with a suitable swimming playlist and, despite having owned the thing for 2 months or so I am only at D in my alphabetised song library, so it may be some time.

Until then I might start counting the number of tiles on the bottom of the pool.

A lack of pride

So, as a happy homo (well, technically bisexual, just don't tell my mother or she'll think there's hope) I like to attend the pride festivals.

I know it should be a celebration of what has been achieved in the name of equality, and a recognition of the battles still to be won, but to be honest I use them to spot totty.

Stick that many gaybos in a big field and I am almost certain to find an attractive one. It's the same with clubbing and why I like gay clubs: there is a very high likelyhood that the attractive person will be a queer; and even if not they are likely to be much more tolerant of any amorous advances and therefore the risks of me getting punched are reduced. I wouldn't go on the gay scene looking for a lass, though again whilst there is a risk that a lady on the straight scene may be a lesbian, she is likely to understand why I may not have thought it.

So I treat the Pride events as a big party, a massive club where I can have fun and try my luck. And so I try to go to as many as possible

My usual year will involve Nottingham, London, Manchester and Brighton Prides as a minimum. The reasoning is simple: Nottingham aside, they are the biggest and best events in the country, and Nottingham is home turf.

However, this year there has been a trauma of epic equations to hit my social calendar.

I'm not going to Nottingham Pride. It clashes with one of my best mate's weddings, and he gets priority. No massive loss there really, you may say: how many 'new' people would I see that I wouldn't on the scene? Well, a few, but quite. A reasoned argument.

I'm not going to London Pride. It clashes with a friend's birthday barbeque. That of itself wouldn't necessarily be fatal: I could miss the barbeque, she wouldn't be too annoyed, it isn't as though it is a 'big' birthday like 30 or 40. But it'll be the first opportunity I will have had to see the whole group in ages. Combine that with the fact the I will be in London for the two weekends immediately prior and it would have meant three weekends in a row in which to impose myself on my friends to accommodate me. So, reluctantly, I think I have decided I won't be going to London Pride, despite this year it also being World Pride. Still not convinced, but there is good reason.

I also don't think I'll be going to Manchester Pride. My friend that I usually stay with has to go to a wedding. He's not over the moon about it, but his parents are away so he has to represent 'the family'. That and he has been bribed by having a holiday of his own paid for by them. So if I were to go I would need to accommodate myself. Again, not a massive issue, but unless I know anyone else there it'll be a weekend and a cost which I will struggle to justify.

And finally, I don't think I'm going to Brighton Pride this year. And for very similar reasons as for Manchester: I normally go camping with a group of friends, but after a series of washout years, with rising prices and poor facilities (a distinct lack of hot water for the entire weekend, each year that we have been down) they decided that they don't want to go. And I can understand it. Because of the increase in cost we decided not to go to the official event last year - that's how bad it got. And the campsite price seems to increase 50% year-on-year without any increase in facilities (in fact last year we noticed a distinct decrease in the provision of toilets). So the options again are: 1) that I go alone; 2) I convince them to go in the same manner; or 3) we find some way to get there and stay in comfortable and yet austere circumstances on a weekend when everyone knows they can charge a premium.

But I'm no stranger to doing things on my own, and have attended Brighton Pride previously, turning up later than the others after an epic ordeal involving eight trains in five hours.

It'll be a shame not to go this year though. Whilst I haven't been a stallwart of Nottingham Pride, I have attended every Manchester Pride for the last ten years, and London and Brighton Prides for seven years, so it would be a shame to break the tradition.

The traditions have been a bit random. I started with London Pride when my friend moved down there. Brighton started as quite a random, last minute decision of my friends to go down for a holiday and we've been going back ever since.

Manchester started one day when I was walking the dog. Me and my sister had been trying to think of fun things to do, and she found out about it whilst I was walking. She rang me (early days of mobiles) and I ran back and grabbed some aftershave and hairgel before the taxi turned up. The next couple of years we were more organised about it and booked hotel rooms, then she dropped out and my London friend stepped into the breach, and by then my Manchester friend had move to Manchester. So Manchester has a particular place in my heart.

We'll see.

Marry me?

So, at the moment I can't get married.

Because I'm gay.

I know I have discussed this before, and where possible I am going to avoid re-covering old ground.

This all resurfaced yesterday when the Church of England published its response to the Government consultation on legalising gay marriage.

Shall we start with a few reasons why the Church of England is wrong?

Now, this isn't a comment particularly on religion as a whole – I will get round to doing that (before anyone hijacks the comments section to have a secularist rant).

1. 65% of the population are not religious.

Whilst the majority of people will tick that they “have a religion” on forms, this is mostly because they believe they are expected to associate themselves with one; but 65% of the people in that survey “are not religious”. Now, I have concerns over that survey – organised by the Humanist Society, but conducted by an external, independent agency - YouGov - presumably according to recognised standards.

However, when you combine that with other surveys that suggest the number of 'active' Christians is between 10% and 20%, does the religious argument even really come into it? Although that has to be born in mind that we are arguing here for allow which will only change the rights of around 1% of the UK population.

 

2. The Church of England was set up specifically so that the King could divorce.

Indeed, since the changes to the law with the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 divorce rates have risen dramatically, even amongst Christians. If they are arguing about the 'sanctity of marriage, surely divorce has already done more damage than same-sex unions could do?

3. The Church of England has a few fundamental tenets: Faith, Hope, Charity, Love and Tolerance.
   The overriding message from the bible is “For God so loved the World that he gave his only begotten son”. Note that it doesn't say “For God so loved the World* (*except for the gays)”.

4. The Church of England says, in the introduction that marriage acknowledges “an underlying biological complementarity which... includes the possibility of procreation.”

So, presumably we should also be refusing marriage to those couples who can't have children because one or other are sterile? Or they are too old? Or they are getting married because one or other is dying? Or that just don't want children?

5. Civil marriages – that is, those without religious ceremony and not in a religious building – have been legal since 1836.
    That separated 'marriage' from 'religion'. Indeed the Christian response even acknowledges that in the introduction “The consultation wrongly implies that there are two categories of marriage, “civil” and”religious”. Showing, in fact, just how out of touch the Church of England are and have been for well over 150 years. Indeed in their response (at para 2) they rely on their own text dating back 350 years. So that means that their paragraph 17 is just plain wrong. They try to redress the confusion they themselves create paragraph 18, waffling on about the 'ceremony', but the fact of the matter is still that people engaged in a civil ceremony in a civil and non-religious building are married in the eyes of the law. Which brings me on to...

5. Marriage is a legal definition.

In this country Parliament has been given the remit of making the laws, not a church senate unelected by the population. However the consultation makes clear that the Church – indeed all religions – can maintain their own definition, and will not be forced to hold same-sex ceremonies within their buildings, which actually puts the church in a better position than they are in at the moment: at the moment they are currently expected to hold non-religious ceremonies or ceremonies of other religions within the building, so long as the people getting married are of the parish.

For some reason they dispute this: “Many, within the churches and beyond, dispute the right of any government to redefine an ages-old social institution.” (para 8).

So, why should religion have the right? Particularly when we are looking at the legal definition of it. As I have already said, religion is out of step with many, many other social institutions and has long lost control over many other definitions, so I really don't see as they have any right over this one.

7. Civil partnerships are currently a second-rate union.

The Church of England response states that the “previous legal and material inequalities between heterosexual and same-sex partnerships have now been satisfactorily addressed.”

No they haven't.

Perhaps in the mind of the Church of England they have, but to the people that they really matter they haven't.

They are different in name.

Now, this may seem a tiny, minor distinction. But it is a distinction – a discrimination – enough. Indeed, whilst the Church argues that the distinction 'civil partnerships' and 'marriage' is so slight as to not warrant a change in the law, they clearly feel that it warrants a substantially and strongly worded response that such a change should NOT be introduced: that their definition of marriage is so sacrosanct, so precious that it shouldn't be dallied around on other unions which have exactly the same “legal and material” rights It is also clearly such a difference that it justifies the gays in arguing long and hard for the change, that it is still a material distinction, an inequality, a discrimination, a fundamental difference.

Gays have long learnt that the difference in names is actually pretty fundamental. We've long been called many different names, all of which have been used to distinguish us, to hurt us, and to discriminate against us, and none of which have been nice.

What the Church of England response is actually saying is that if the word marriage is a reflection of the strength of the bond, that gay unions should not be given the same name heterosexual unions; that somehow gay unions are second-class. They don't deserve the same name.

In paragraph 6 of their response they state that “marriage affords many benefits to society, which include mutuality, fidelity and biological complementarity with the possibility of procreation.”

Well, we have dealt with the procreation matter already. So are they really saying that same-sex couples do not have the same bond of trust, mutuality or fidelity as heterosexual marriage?

Really?

No, they aren't. They actually counter their own argument at paragraph 9 “Same-sex relationships often embody genuine mutuality and fidelity” and “The Church of England seeks to see those virtues maximised in society.” So they have actively contradicted themselves. Do they now want us to marry, or not?

How ignorant.

8. Marriage evolves

Again, they acknowledge this at paragraph 7: “While marriage has evolved as an institution in many other ways this aspect has remained constant.”

Why?

Why should it? Why is this one, single aspect of marriage the only 'protected', 'undesecratable' aspect? Particularly when it seems to be the only discriminating aspect.

In fact, in their own introduction the Church of England says “imposing for ideological reasons a new meaning on a term as familiar and fundamental as marriage would be deeply unwise.” So what does the Church do? Is the entire basis of the church not idealogical? (Obviously I have already covered the fact that this isn't a 'new' meaning, but one over 150 years old, prior).

9. By their own admission, it is purely biological

At para 10 The Church says “the uniqueness of marriage … is that it embodies the underlying, objective, distinctiveness of men and women.” and that “this distinctiveness and complementarity are seen most explicitly in the biological union of man and woman.”

So, we're ignoring the fact that when Christ was supposed to be around, homosexuality was just as active today; they are purely objectifying it as biology. The women out there will be unsurprised as they have been objectified by religion for years. We're no longer human, people, we're objectively biological.

Clearly the writer of the response to the consultation has never seen a gay couple, seen how so fantastically they complement (as opposed to compliment) each other. How together they have a skill set that adapts, that provides that mutuality, that makes each of them an active and independent individual working together within the union: the total being greater than the sum of the parts.

To be perfectly base about it, the Church is concentrating on willies and fannies and ignoring the fundamental mutuality at the heart of the union. Send them back to the school playing field. They carry this theme on – para 11 “Marriage has, from the beginning of history been the way in which societies have worked out and handled issues of sexual difference.”

NO IT HASN'T

Marriage has been about love, mutuality, fidelity, support, complementation, assistance, friendship, sometimes just being there. They are reducing it down to bonking.

They say (para 11) that “to remove from the definition of marriage this essential complementarity is to lose any social institution in which sexual difference is explicitly acknowledged.” But then go on at para 12 to say “To argue that this is of no social value is to assert that men and women are interchangeable individuals.” What they are actually asserting in their statement is that all men are interchangeable with other men and women with other women and that so long as the union contains one of each, sod the individuality. Individuality doesn't matter to the Church. All they are concerned about is sexuality. It's all about sexual difference, not the person.

They say that a majority of their bishops supported same-sex partnerships when the bill was passing through the House of Lords which has actually been quite well documented and contradicted. Ultimately they accepted civil partnerships, presumably because it was the lesser of evils and they were being threatened with full marriage.

Did you realise at all whilst reading the response that the Church doesn't refer to “love”. Not once does it use the word in relation to marriage. Not a single use. The bible doesn't shut up about love. Love thy neighbour, God so loved the World and so on. There is clearly no room for love in marriage when you're too concerned about bums and willies.

Strangely the response states (para 16) that “legislating to change the definition of a fundamental and historic social institution for everybody in order to meet the emotional need of some members of one part of the community … seems a doubtful use of the law.” Well it isn't. The law regularly defines and redefines words and phrases, all the way from the Finance Acts to Health and Social legislation. And it is very frequently done in order to bring about a single meaning where there has been confusion or inequality of expectation as to what the word actually means.

In fact, the Church seems very confused generally as to the use of language. Aside from the ceremony/marriage confusion, they question the use of the word 'ban' in the consultation document. They suggest that this “implies an act of human will to prevent same sex couples marrying”. (para 25).

Well yes. There clearly was a human will to prevent such an occurrence when the original legislation was introduced.

And secondly, same sex couples cannot marry. Yes, I know there is a distinction between a 'ban' and an 'exclusion', but the effect here has been the same: same sex couples cannot marry whilst heterosexual couples can. Are you really trying to tell me that same sex marriages were missed off as an oversight and therefore it is an 'exclusion' rather than a 'ban'?

The “redefinition” of marriage isn't going to alter it or debase it for heterosexual couples who wish to marry. They will still have no less of a marriage in law or in society.

This isn't about giving the gays 'special rights', this is about them getting the same rights as everyone else.

If you would like to contribute to the consultation it is available here.

So, please, will you marry me?

So, how was it for you?

So, how was my jubilee weekend?

Well, you would think – with so many friends down in London – that I would be down there. And it is probably my greatest regret that I wasn't there. One of the greatest regrets of my time so far.

So, why wasn't I in London?

Well, I have many friends down in London, however they all had things organised. I was hindered somewhat by my three weeks abroad. These three weeks – though they were the most fantastically brilliant three weeks of my life and I would never refuse those – have caused many a hindrance. They mean that this year in the garden I am growing substantially less than before, either because I missed the sowing season, or because the ones I had sown died before I could pot them on. However more pertinently with regard to this weekend, it was those three weeks when everyone else made plans, and when the decent train tickets sold out.

There are other reasons as well. The friend that I usually stay with was up just last weekend for a weekend in Nottingham; and due to two training courses in London at the end of the month – each conveniently on a Friday allowing me to stay for the weekend – it means that I shall see all my various London friends over those two weekends. Even for me, three trips to London in a month is slightly excessive, not to mention expensive.

I would have loved to go up to Newcastle, but again my friends up there were pre-booked (although it later turns out that one was let down with little to do, though even less money to do it with, so it would have to have been a very economical weekend had we spent it with each other).

And with one thing and another I hadn't had a Nottingham weekend for a while and actually quite wanted to see family and friends.

So I was to go native, stay local.

But it was one of those weekends that was built up so greatly: there was so much expectation upon it – not just because it was a four day weekend; not just because it was a celebration; but because it was the Diamond Jubilee – a ONCE IN A LIFETIME occasion.

So, surely my mailbox was brimming with invitations? Surely I was having to turn people down, disappoint the many?

No.

And I'm not too sure exactly what happened really.

I stayed in on the Friday night. That was reasonably as expected. Even with a three-day weekend, people tend to forgo the Friday night in favour of enjoying nights on Saturday and Sunday – when they can relax and recover on the Monday; rather than overdoing it and burning out before the Sunday shinnigans. So I expected few to be out that night any way.

Saturday night was the football club 'end of season' drinks out in town. Few attended. Town was quiet.

There seems to have been a growing fracturing within the club and whereas once we had been a tight, integrated unit, regularly going out and inviting others out; this seems to have changed. It may just be the natural cyclical nature of groups – they grow too big to invite people out; they have disagreements or distractions and then, after a while, regroup and rebuild into a new organism. You see it in all groups, it is natural development – new people come in, other people leave and the dynamics within the group, the smaller sub-groups subtly shift and change the chemical composition ever so slightly, but with massively different effect.

But it was a very small group out. And like I say, town was quiet anyway. I don't know if there were so many other events planned that people already had plans, if so many people were hosting parties of their own; or maybe ennui had set in. We are in a recession, and Nottingham is in the provinces, and so people may have thought better than attending a celebration that is essentially on the extremity of the fingertip of the body of the whole.

Sunday I spent most of the day gardening and doing bits and bobs around the house. I did pop into town later on just because I can and to see what was happening and the answer was – again – nothing much.

Now, Monday I had made plans. I had created plans – I was organising a party.

Now, this was all a little bit last minute. I had been intending to do something for a while, and this weekend seemed to present the ultimate opportunity. I had courted opinions the weekend before at another party, and generally people seemed to be available and enthusiastic about it. But, in fairness, it wasn't until Wednesday lunchtime whilst shopping at the supermarket that I made the final decision.

And so I started shopping for it there and then – the non-perishables that would keep for the almost-a-week until the party. And that night I sent the invitation out electronically. I invited around 60-70 people. That's not a bad number because you know that not everyone would turn up. Now, admittedly if half turned up it might prove squeezing on the resources (well, the barbeque, in that it isn't made for that many people) but I could always get enough food that number of people one way or another.

But I needed to know.

And by the next shopping trip on Friday I only had 6 acceptances – mostly family. I only had a couple of rejections – all the others were 'pending'.

Now, that simply isn't workable. I don't know if I'm catering for 6 or 60 people. And there is a massive difference in the food requirements between them! Some of the stuff is fine – crisps, for example, I can get through in the months and months of their lifespan. But the fresh stuff I really have to have a decent idea how many I am catering for. Having said that, a single lettuce at a barbeque will still more than enough for 60 people. No-one has salad at a barbeque.

Oh, but I did have to buy a quiche. Just in case there were vegetarians. You can't barbeque a lettuce. I've tried.

And that's probably what frustrated me the most. Not whether or not people turned up, but the fact that pretty much 90% of the invitees didn't have the courtesy even to decline where they knew they weren't going to be able to make it.

So I had absolutely no idea until the day how many people were going to turn up. In the end most of them didn't. It was the family and my best mate. So actually a really nice gathering, and one which my barbeque could adequately cater for.

And it was actually a really nice occasion. It was lovely to do something for the family and my best mate. It's been ages since I've had the family round for a meal – in fact it may only have happened once before whilst my brother has hosted many times. And I do like my best mate.

And then me and my sister went out and got drunk. Which was good.

But, when you are faced with constant adversity you have to celebrate any little successes. And when built up to a critical zenith, you can only look down, return to earth at a pace.

Will the quiet coach please be quiet.

So, I'm a regular train user. I get four trains a day during the week, two in the morning and then two back again in the evening. I also frequently get trains over the weekend. There is rarely a day when I'm not on a train.

And one of the things that bugs me is the train announcements. They are pretty much never ending. And bear in mind that – particularly on the early trains – people are often trying to doze or sleep. So, for example, a standard train announcement will be:

“Good morning ladies and gentlemen and welcome to the 0710 East Midlands Trains service from Nottingham to London, calling at Beeston, East Midlands Parkway, Leicester, Market Harborough, Wellingborough, Kettering, Bedford, Luton and London St Pancras where we are due to arrive at 0920....”

Of itself I don't have a massive problem with this bit: you need to know you are on the correct train.

Then they go on...

“This is a peak time service and as such off-peak and super-off-peak tickets are not valid on this service and you will be required to purchase an upgrade ticket. Advance tickets must state the 0710 journey time, otherwise the ticket will be invalid and a new ticket must be purchased. Railcards must be presented with discounted tickets otherwise the ticket will be invalid and a new ticket must be purchased. Travel without a valid ticket is in breach of the national conditions of travel and will be subject to a penalty fare of either twice the cost of the ticket or £20 whichever is the greater. An example standard peak time ticket to London is £88.”

Bit of a niggle with this one. If you don't know what train you are booked on or allowed to get you probably shouldn't be getting a train; and if you still do get a train then more fool you. And why do we need to be told what that cost would be?

But it carries on...

“First class is located towards the front of the train in coaches F, G and J; with standard class in coaches A, B, C, D and E. Coach A is our quiet coach and we would politely ask that you do not take calls in the quiet coach and keep all electronic noise to a minimum”

If you don't know whether you're in first class or standard, you are a dumbo. Simple. And why they have to list every bluddy carriage. If you don't know the rules of the quiet coach, don't sit in there. Simple. It's not as though it's going to be very quiet anyway, what with the incessant droning of the train announcements.

“East Midlands Trains operate an entirely non-smoking service and smoking is not permitted anywhere. This includes all train carriages, toilets, vestibule ends, platforms and stations.”

Now, in England smoking hasn't been permitted for a long while on trains and platforms. I really don't think it is necessary to tell people. You don't tell them not to poo on the seats, you don't tell them not to dismantle the luggage racks, so don't tell them not to smoke.

“Please ensure you keep all luggage and personal items with you at all times. If you see any suspicious item please alert a member of the train crew.”

Hmmm. I think this is just pure common sense really and when noise-time is at a premium, entirely unnecessary. I'm not sure what they call suspicious activity anyway. Probably pooing on the seats.

“In the interest of safety, emergency notices have been placed in the vestibule ends at either end of the carriage and we would kindly ask that you take a moment of your time to read these.”

Has anyone (other than me) actually read these? Do we really need telling about these? Has there ever been a train crash and someone has said “We'd have been able to get off the train and saved more people if only we'd have known where the emergency notices are”? Really? No. Again, cut it out. And vestibule ends? The people who know what that is have probably already sought out the emergency notices and committed it to memory.

“There are catering facilities on board this morning with a full breakfast service for first class passengers and a trolley passing through standard class. We would therefore ask that you keep aisles free from luggage and use the racks available at either end of the carriage, or use the overhead luggage racks”

Aside from the slight stupidity that we've only just been asked to keep all personal belongings with us, and now we are being asked to leave them at the luggage racks; this is just a plain courtesy request. The stupid people who leave luggage in the aisle will long ago have stopped listening. I have certainly never seen anyone with a bag in the aisle suddenly go “Oh, hang on – I must move that...” But what this also does is set you up: you know you have a catering announcement to come at some stage.

“I am Sophie and I am your train manager this morning. I hope you have a quiet and comfortable journey, however if I or any of the other members of the train team can be of any assistance this morning please do not hesitate to ask.”

Well, I am now thoroughly relaxed that I know the name of my train manager. If I had needed assistance, then I would have had absolutely no idea what to do or who to ask. And a quite and comfortable journey? Maybe I should go and ask them to stop invading my ears with superfluous information.

“Once again this is the 0710 train to London St Pancras, calling at Beeston, East Midlands Parkway, Leicester, Market Harborough, Wellingborough, Kettering, Bedford, Luton and London St Pancras where we are due to arrive at 0920....”

Well, this one is just plain stupid. By now the train is about 5 minutes into the journey and the doors are locked; so if you have made a boob and gotten on to the wrong train it is far too late anyway.

But then she hangs up. And we are – finally – blessed with silence. For all of a minute. Then we get...

“Good morning ladies and gentlemen, my name is Darren and I am your catering manager this morning. I am delighted to announce that breakfast is now being served for our first class passengers who can enjoy a full English breakfast with tea or coffee and optional starter for £9.99.”

Marvellous. Why do we need interrupting for us standard class passengers to be told exactly how much it costs to eat in first class?

“For the benefit of our standard class passengers we have a trolley service passing through the train serving a variety of tea, coffee, hot chocolate, herbal infusions, colas, waters and fruit juices, beers, wines, spirits and mixers...”

If we have to be given menu examples – which I wholly object to anyway as it is just noise pollution – could we not just be told “hot and cold drinks”?

… “Cakes, biscuits, flapjacks, a variety of sandwiches, crisps, nuts, chocolate bars and fresh fruit...”

Excellent. So we now have a fully itemised catalogue of the contents of the trolley.

… “Including our tea and chocolate combo where you save 40p when you buy any hot drink together with either a KitKat, Mars bar or a Snickers.”

Excellent. The hard-sell. As if they weren't grinding us down enough.

“This morning on board we also have a chef preparing hot breakfast baguettes including either bacon and egg or sausage and egg with either brown sauce or tomato ketchup for just £4.95. Should you require a hot breakfast baguette, please stop our customer host as he is passing through the train.”

Customer host? What the hell is a customer host? And if I had any query as to what a breakfast baguette contained – though I probably could have guessed – I'm sure I would have had the gumption to ask whatever the customer host is.

But, by now we've actually gotten to Beeston, the first stop, and so get told:

“Ladies and gentlemen the train is now approaching Beeston. Beeston is your next station stop. If you are leaving the train here at Beeston, please ensure that you have all luggage and personal belongings and mind the gap between the train and platform edge. Please retain all tickets and travel documents as barriers may be in operation here at Beeston. Please connect at Beeston for local bus services and onward connections to East Midlands Parkway and Loughborough. On departure from Beeston the train will carry forward to Leicester, Market Harborough, Wellingborough, Kettering Bedford, Luton and London St Pancras, That's Beeston your next station stop.”

So we are told that it is Beeston around seven times in that little bit. And again reminded where the train is going on to.

Quite why we need to be told to take all of our luggage and personal belongings (though I fail to see what the difference is) I'm not entirely sure. Again – if you can't keep your life about you, should you be using a train? And yes, we have all sacrificed the occasional umbrella to the gods of safe travel, but not once has that announcement prompted me to go “Oh yes, my umbrella...” I simply forget that I have had it out. And again, if you can't pay attention yourself to the gap between the train and the platform, you probably deserve everything that comes to you.

They could probably cut 90-95% of the information out and let me have that quiet, comfortable journey.