Am I the only one who gets a little bit bored with hearing news stories starting with ‘a new study has found that’ and then the most mundane, ridiculous or obvious idea being stated. Over the last few days I have heard on television that 1) Masturbation increases your chance of getting cancer, 2) the reason that human beings blush is to try to stop them from lying and 3) a regular run through the park improves your mental health.

Rarely are the results from such studies actually interesting or provide interesting proof of previously unknown gems of information. The subject matter is normally laughable, and it sickens me to hear some posh news reader stifling their giggles as they tell me that ‘refusing to have sex on the first date increases the chance of finding a good man.‘

It just angers me that scientists work hard to earn a degree and then waste their time and money given to them by the government to find out things that, in all honesty, people don’t really give a shit about, or alternatively, already know. I’m no scientist, but if I were, I think I would be more focused on looking for cures and ways to prevent death, but whatever. Suit yourselves.

Oooh, controversy sweeps the United Kingdom as the new Doctor Who is revealed!

David Tennant has been pretty popular, generally speaking. He has, in my eyes, been a brilliant Doctor, although I would not argue that he has been the best. The new Doctor Who (getting the keys to the Tardis in 2010) is Matt Smith, possible the most generic and common British name in existence. Try typing that into Google and getting an appropriate link, it’s not easy, I can tell you.

Anyway, what’s your opinion? Ok, he’s young, but I don’t really like the fact that people are criticising him before they have even seen how he will play the role of the Doctor.

PS. Hope you had a lovely Christmas

The news pissed me off, as I am sure that you can imagine if you have ready my last piece. I should be doing NaNoWriMo right now, but I had to write about this when I heard this.

Sergeant said in a press conference that he left to avoid “a bloody battle,” which to me at least implies that some kind of bullying went on. Maybe not pushing, shoving and name calling, but I am sure that people got “worked up” about John’s position, as he said on It Takes Two this evening.

I think I said enough last time, but John Sergeant has my sympathy, and I have a huge amount of respect for Brian Fortuna who was really nice about the whole thing. I am not going to vote for anyone this series, partially because I do not give a shit and partially because none of them deserve it.

Those who I think should leave some time very, very soon:

• Rachel Stevens – she was my favourite in S Club 7 back in the day, but I find her stupidly infuriating. I get the impression that she thinks that she is God’s Gift, and I would delight in telling her that she is not.
• That Christine woman from the One Show – she is a whore and I hate something about her

I like Jodie Kidd though. I think she is the least pre-practised of all (in terms of her past, all she has really is the graceful thing.)  So, at the moment, I am thinking Jodie to win, but whether or not I will continue to watch Strcitly Come Dancing is a wholeother kettle of fish.

Those of you who do not know what Strictly Come Dancing is, you are probably not British. Go look here and you can learn. For information on the ’scandal’ which I will discuss, google it, I am sure plently will appear.

So I am not going to put the event in context, do your research if you do not know what I am talking about.

My personal opinion is that this whole thing is ridiculous. Strictly Come Dancing is a REALITY show in which CELEBRITIES dance for CHARITY. I have capitalised the key parts of that definition. In REALITY, the most talented person does not always win; CELEBRITIES have set talents; doing something for CHARITY is supposed to be a selfless act.

These competitors who find themselves booted out whilst John Sergeant remains in the competition are bitter and do not understand what the programme is about. I understand that they set aside many hours to practise for the show, but such is life. GET OVER IT. You are competing in a show in which the goal is to raise money for charity through a phone voting system. What do the competitors expect Sergeant to do? If he drops out (out of embarassment and guilt, which I fear may happen) he is a bastard for not raising the maximum amount of money possible for Children in Need. If he stays, he is condemned by those involved in the show purely because a) people like him and b) he is not a very talented dancer. You cannot blame Sergeant for any of this, I blame those who work on the show for thinking that they have the right to ultimately choose who stays and who goes.

Come Dancing died a long time ago, and get rid of the public vote and that is essentially what you have. If you want the competition to be based purely on talent then get rid of the public vote, and hell you might as well get rid of the celebrities. Bring in proper dancers. Oh, wait a minute, that wouldn’t work would it? The format is popular because the audience have a say in the result, it includes some well known faces and money raised goes to charity.

The celebrities involved and their professional dance partners are taking this WAY too seriously. The X Factor, Pop Idol, all of those START people’s careers, but Strictly Come Dancing is not like that. You gain a name in the X Factor, and you need a name to get in to SCD. If you get kicked out of the competition, it is not the end of the world. Either you were a shit dancer or you are not very popular among the public. GET OVER IT.

Unfortuatenly, SCD shows some celebrities to be absolute dicks. These people who think that they are above the public, and think that they should get rewarded for being a good dancer, they sicken me. Every one of them needs to buy a dictionary and look up the term ‘charity.’ Then, maybe they should do a bit of research to find out what ‘that’s life’ means and to see just how ridiculous they are being.

The judges also aggravate me: the point of the half viewer vote and half audience vote is that both have an equal say. The judges get aggravated when the public do not agree with them, as if their opinions must be the best. I do not care which dance the judges found most techinically correct, but I do understand that that should be factored in to the voting process, hence their half of the vote. However, I will spend my half choosing the most entertaining dance – you cannot issue me with rules that I have to vote to save the technically best dancer – I will vote for whoever entertains me. If I like Sergeant’s dance, you can be damn sure I will vote for it.

Furthermore, if the producers don’t want Sergeant in the competition, why put him forward for it in the first place? I am sure he did not actively volunteer, or beg them to let him take part. He is doing it to raise money for charity out of the goodness of his heart, and people are having a pop at him for not being a good dancer.

Sorry, technically good dancers, but I will not pet your ego by voting for you, Sergeant has my vote. I like him, and if anything, I like him more because of all this drama. Congratulations, you bunch of wankers.