Jack Cooper

Having your first driving lesson is a bit of a milestone. I never realised how much 'adultism' and the first stage of independence it gives you. It certainly sweeps away what may be the remaining pieces of your childhood, that's for sure. You are now in control of a potentially lethal weapon.

This post will seem more like a diary entry more than anything. I want to note down what happened on my first lesson while it's still fresh in my mind; it would make a good read when I've passed my test to see how much my nerves and attitudes have changed. Right, here we go:

Dear Diary,

OK, we won't do that BS. Let's just get on with it.

The lesson was incredibly early for me and a Sunday morning: 9am. After a dismal five hours of sleep, I quickly got ready to find my instructor was outside my house early (as if 9-o-clock wasn't early enough). Seeing the car out there was oddly intimidating. After all, I was likely to drive that tonne of metal soon.

I got in the car after a rushed half-arsed breakfast. Phew: the instructor is a warm and friendly chap. I had visions of this military grade guy who don't have no time fo' them slackers! This eased my nerves... a bit.

We drove to a housing estate in my neighbouring town of Luton. It was quiet, peaceful and ideal for a new learning driver, I suppose. We stopped and swapped seats. I've been in the driver's seat before, but this felt different. More serious. Never mind, this guy was very calming. We went through obligatory paperwork, and then did the 'cockpit check'. This is a simple procedure of making sure the door's shut, your mirrors are correctly positioned, and you are suitably seated.

Next, we went through the controls of the car - what the gearbox does, the clutch and the functions of each pedal. I knew all of this already, but I don't really want to be a smart-arse and boast that this stuff's already in my head. Nothing wrong with a refresh of information, after all.

Then came the bit that had me nervous. The instructor handed me the key, and prompted me to start up the engine. It fired right up, of course. He then told me to put the gear into first, and slowly depress the clutch, until I find the 'biting point'. Oh god, I'm setting off! This would be my first time driving on a public road. I dabbed the throttle to apply some revs, released the handbrake, and surely but slowly I was off.

Starting point. If only things stayed this way...

I was pottering along at about 10mph in first gear. I didn't really want to speed up without the instructor's, er, instruction. But more overwhelmingly, I didn't really want to speed up because this was my first time ever, at least not on a track. Driving on Silverstone was good, but there was almost zero chance of crashing; there was nothing to hit. This residential road was full of parked cars and blind corners. So yes, 10mph will do nicely, thanks.

But oh no. I was told to go into second gear. Not a problem, I know my way round a gearbox. But I didn't really want to go much faster. Due to the higher gear though, I was now doing about 20mph.

We came to a junction. I was expecting my instructor to tell me to turn left. This would mean that I would simply loop back round to where I started, and I would continue to do some laps to get the hang of things. Wait a minute... I'm being told to turn right? Holy Jesus. Alrightly then...

I wasn't too familiar with this estate, so I had no idea where this road would lead me to. Assumingly, it will just continue with the quiet housing area. Oh no. I pulled up to a mini roundabout to find a road I was familiar with - because it's one of the main (read: busiest) roads of Luton. And Luton is a pretty major town, might I add.

So, to re-cap some stuff. A driver with five minutes of road experience was now driving at 30mph down a major town road, surrounded by other drivers. Intimidated doesn't even come close to what I was feeling at time. Oddly, though, there was a sense of enjoyment there, too. I would guess it's a mini adrenaline rush.

It may look pretty, but it's just disguising its evilness

First traffic light junction, didn't have to stop. Whew. I've only set off with the clutch once, and that was at a speed that could be outpaced by a snail. Under the pressure of traffic lights, at the front of the queue? God knows what I would've been like. Anyway, now I was driving down an even more major road. It was straight, and the limit was still 30mph, so it wasn't too bad. But I was hardly settled at this point.

First roundabout. Oh crapping hell - I barely know the rules to roundabouts. Somehow, I managed to pull a straight ahead manoeuvre without cutting a dozen people off, but man my hands were firmly gripped. And now the road has a 40mph limit. I'm starting to wonder if my instructor is the suicidal type, or he really likes to live on the edge. Like, as close to the edge as would be physically possible. The road is wide and visible, so the 40 limit was fine.

Was this hell-hole about to claim a victim?

Now I had to drive through a sleepy town called Houghton Regis. Full of humps, zebra crossings and mini roundabouts, it really did keep me awake from my five hour sleep. I was starting to let the enjoyment take a little more control over me. Well, I did until I came to my first major crossroads.

These aren't your average crossroads you find on a country road. This was the real busy deal, complete with traffic lights and everything. To make things worse, I was at the front of the queue and on an incline. At this point, I would have to find some skills from thin air to pull this one off. Surprisingly, I did exit the crossroads without a crash. I was surprising myself at this point. I mean, I know I have had driving experience before a few years ago, but this was a whole new level. I wasn't proud, but I was pretty happy at this point.

"You want me to go how fast?!?"

Things went fine until I exited the town centres, and onto the country parts of the A5. Wait, this is now a 60mph limit. The words 'sixty' and 'no experience' should never ever be put together. But hey, I had no choice. I know the 60 limit is a maximum and not your 'target speed', but I didn't really want a mile-long tailback behind me. The pressure would probably be too much. Still, it went fine. Interestingly, 60mph feels fairly brisk in the passenger seat, but when you're driving, it feels like you could go another 30 more and still be in control. But do not do that, obviously.

Clutch control when changing gears was a slight issue. I was releasing the clutch too quickly when I had selected my gear, meaning the car jerks forward a bit. It doesn't do much really, but jerkiness is always an unpleasant thing. Turns out you have to be real smooth at everything you do. I might take on some Jazz music lessons to aid me.

Leighton Buzzard, you complicated arse

Then came about half an hour of pottering around another town called Leighton Buzzard. This is an old town with narrow streets and strict 20mph limits (which are too easy to break in a modern car). Leighton really tested my brand new ability here, to a point where it exposed me and I ended up making a few silly errors.

But I never thought I'd be doing 70mph on my first driving lesson on a dual carriageway. But it happened, and that was fun. I do like some speed, and I felt surprisingly in control at that point - more so than 20mph in a town centre. I'd read so many websites that clearly said how your first lesson will be in first gear creeping around some housing estates. My instructor was either confident in me, or just plain insane.

The beast

So yes, that was my first lesson in a nutshell. When I say a nutshell, this had easily been my longest blog post to date. But oh well. I ended up covering 40 miles in the space of about an hour's worth of driving. I didn't stall (surprisingly), but I really need to refine my clutch work. Next lesson is meant to be parking bays, I believe. So let's see how that goes...

As a side note, the car was a diesel Corsa. It had an almost scary amount of power - totally unexpected, because you associate Corsas being slow city dwellers. God damn throttle sensitivity!

I've always been quite an observant individual right from a young age, especially when I was in the car. I've always wanted to know where we were, where we were going, what speed we were doing, how my parents were driving, and what other drivers were doing. In other words: I was a freaky child.

The thing is, I still am a freaky person. If I don't know where we are, I'll whip out my phone and fire up the GPS, because I need to know where the hell I am. It's a strange obsession of mine. And I still don't like sitting behind the driver, because, well, I can't see the speedometer or tachometer.

It does have it's plus points mind, because I do - as humbly as I possibly can - consider myself a good navigational person. I like reading maps (I used to get frustrated and confused when I was younger over my classmates struggling to read them), and I like to have a mental map of as many locations I can possibly remember. But whatever.

This observational part of me has lead me to form some opinions on what's going on around me. For instance: middle lane hoggers, please go f*ck yourselves. UK Transport Department, go f*ck yourselves until it hurts.

Why the UK Transport Department? Well, they have just recently introduced something that I disagree with so much, they make me clench my fists. And I'm not even driving yet! These new infuriating products are nicknamed 'stealth cameras'.

A stealth camera is a brand new type of speed camera that is slowly getting rolled out across the UK's major motorway networks. They are special because they have the ability to record 4 lanes at once, rather than just one or two like a conventional speed camera. This means the stealth cameras can be situated on the side of the motorway, out of the way.

Right in the middle of the road for everyone to see and slow  down to a safer speed. Lovely.

Now don't get me wrong: I am not a crazy anti-speed camera lunatic. Those green/yellow speed cameras you find in built up areas are handy to make sure everyone sticks to around 30. I am a frequent pedestrian, so I do appreciate them a lot. These cameras work because they are brightly painted and right in the drivers view, which slows the driver down before passing the camera. This makes the camera effective when placed in accident hot-spots - the driver slows down because he/she doesn't want a fine, and the risk of an accident significantly drops. Making the camera visible will mean it won't catch people out as often, but it will actually slow people down. And safety is more important than money for the government, right?

Well, these stealth cameras obviously couldn't give a toss about safety; they want the money. Not only are they placed to the side of the motorway out of the drivers' line of sight, they are also painted a not at all eye catching grey. You can see where the nickname comes from. This ultimately means that drivers will not see the camera, and will not slow down. Before they know it, a bright flash illuminates their rear-view mirror - busted.

The whole basic concept of cameras helping people slow down has been completely thrown out of the window.

So, let's re-cap here. Urban speed cameras work because they force people to slow down due to their brightly coloured nature. Stealth cameras are purely Government piggy banks. If the Government really wanted people to slow down, they would put the cameras fully in view where people can see the damn things and slow to the appropriate speed. Hiding them will result in absolutely nothing, except a penalty. It's almost as though they are proud to admit they just want our money.

Of course, some people would argue that you should always be doing 70mph anyway, so there's no need for the cameras to actively slow you down via sight. But the fact is the average car motorway speed now is a whopping 79mph (yes, average), and the motorway is Britain's safest road. The logic is easy: the 70 limit was introduced in an era when cars were as rigid as tracing paper and had the braking power of rubbing your feet against the road. Following the advancements that have been made, the speed limit now would probably be about 100mph if it correlated with the increase in safety. Long story short: doing 80 in your car is safe.

What's going to be next, a personal tracking device to log speed on every car and report it back to the police and insurance companies? Oh wait, they already bloody exist.

Right from when I was a tiny dribbling child, I was always told about the 'good' and the 'bad' food, mostly at school. They would continuously promote healthy foods by making us test exotic fruits (of which I hated every single sample) and just generally whispering McDonald's under the same breath as Satan.

When I get a Big Mac that looks like this, I will have a sex change. Confident my penis will stay in tact.

Now I am less than ten months from being an Official Adult, and I supposedly have all the independence of the world. For the most part, yes I do, but the finger waggling still continues with 'Eat this', 'Don't eat that' and 'Get X amount of exercise per day'. And my simple question is this: why?

Now I wouldn't be asking that if these were mere recommendations; some public advice to keep people on the right track but ultimately allowing them to have their own responsibility. But while technically that's all it really is, you get the sense that they are orders.

Take McDonald's for example. We all know that this has never been the place for slimmers, and the business itself has never tried to be anything but a convenience restaurant. I go there full well knowing that it's never going to improve my health. And yet, have you seen some people on the internet talking about Maccy D's? They say it's so deadly, the food itself might as well be malaria. Well, they sort of say that... you get my gist.

Coca-Cola is another one to constantly be targeted. I saw this article on a website which discussed this experiment a man took - drinking ten Coke cans (330ml) per day for a month. The website's headline contained the words: "The Results Were Shocking". So what happened? Well, the guy gained twenty-six pounds, which is a smidgen under two stone.  Shocking? Of course not.

Each Coke can contains 140 calories per can. Multiply that by ten and we get 1400 extra calories per day on top of the guy's usual diet. So of course he's going to bloody gain weight. The article targets how awful Coca-Cola is as a result from the experiment, but the fact is that sugar is sugar. You could have several teaspoons of sugar in your many cups of tea per day, and you'll see similar results. Quick, everyone boycott PG Tips!

What I ultimately want to say as a result from all this is this: let people make their own choices. Stop glorifying rabbit food (also nicknamed as salad) and shaming kebabs. We are adults, and we are old enough to make our own choices. If people choose to eat unhealthy food, do you really think a whiny article is going to make them suddenly change? Nah, didn't think so.

As for myself, I have what people would probably consider an unhealthy diet. I never get my 5-a-day, and I always go over on saturated fat, and probably calories too. But the fact is that I'm making the most of it while I'm young. I seem to have a pretty good metabolism right now, but I bet my left lung that won't be the case in another ten years.

I will end this post here. It's pretty difficult eating chocolate and typing at the same time.

In case you didn't know, it's 2015. Each year makes me think 'Ermehgerd we are totes in the future now', but of course it's another normal year that will pass very quickly. Though 2015 does seem a bit scarier than other years.

For instance, it has been circulating on the internet that once this year has passed, 2030 will be as close as the year 2000. That genuinely is quite scary for me, because I have vivid memories from 2000, and that didn't seem like it was that long ago. Fast forward an equal amount of time and I will be 33 years old. Probably still living with my parents, single, and with a crap office job. Can you sense my optimism?

2015 also marks the 'future', according to the legendary film Back to the Future. So have they made any correct predictions?

Let's start with the biggie - the hoverboard. Technically, they have correctly predicted it! A start-up company called Hendo have created a hoverboard in the past year that you can ride and float above the ground. However, the Hendo board uses extremely strong and sophisticated magnets to keep you afloat (therefore requiring you to have a metal floor from god-knows-where) - somewhat different to the film's go anywhere board. Back to the Future uses an anti-gravity board, and since gravity is something we don't even have a complete theory for yet, it's unlikely we will be seeing an anti-gravity device any time soon.

Self-tying shoes? Nope, but who in the name of holy Nora is lazy enough to require automation for their damn laces? Certainly, it's something I'm not eagerly waiting for.

Flat screen TVs! Ah, they have become the complete standard now, but rewind ten years ago and they were a fascinating luxury. Go back another twenty years after that when BTTF was just outing in cinemas, they were complete science fiction. Yet, there you are. Not only that, you can see a video call going on in this picture. Skype, anyone?

Flying cars. The technology is there for that to happen, but what's the point? Oh sure, the traffic and pollution will be removed from the cities, but it would just make airspace an incredibly hazardous place to be. You might lose concentration for a few seconds, and oh no, you've been sucked into a jumbo jet.

One last thing BTTF got right was 3D films. 3D has been around for some time now, but it was only in the last five years since the terrible blue and red glasses were ditched for some sophisticated shades that don't distort the colour and a 3D effect that, for the most part, works. I've only ever watched one film in proper modern 3D, but it was damn good. However, 3D is already dying down. You see, it's not much more than a novelty. Sure, to have something coming to you is cool, but there is nothing wrong with seeing a 2D film on a big screen with a decent sound system. It's all about 4K now.

• I hope to get a half-decent job
• A personal car for independence
• To improve my social skills
• To get drunk for the first time in ma lyfe
• And other things
• Meaningless bullet point for quantity
• Look at me with my seven goals!
• OK, I'll stop now

Nearly every country in the world has some form of journalistic press to inform the residents on what politician has cocked up recently, or which z-lebrity has had an affair with a tramp. In the case of the UK, all newspapers are equal, but some are much more equal than others.

Let's get some basics out of the way. Newspapers can be divided into two obvious categories: the broadsheet and the tabloid. Normally, the broadsheet is a serious, formal and wordy newspaper packed full of the latest stock market figures and economic movements. A tabloid focusses on lifestyle things, gossip, and in the case of The Sun, tits.

The problem is that our tabloids in particular have gained a reputation for being amazingly awful. Now I don't know what tabloids are like in other countries, but I do often hear that the UK does have the worst press in the world. That's very easy to believe, especially when you consider that one of our papers had to shut down for good because it dug itself such a deep hole by nosing into celebrity lifestyles.

Let's start with the 'Redtops'. The Sun, the Daily Mirror and the Daily Star arguably are the lowest of the low you can possibly get, since they don't really feature news at all, just 'ooh, Mel B made a different kind of tea this morning! THIS IS HEADLINE WORTHY'. Saying that though, I don't think these are the worst newspapers you can buy in the UK. You see, these papers don't pretend to be anything serious. It's obvious that they are very, er, simple, and so leaves the customer with no doubt about what they're reading. They're stupid, but they are honest with what they are. That doesn't mean you should buy one; they still make horse shit look more interesting.

Honesty isn't really a word you can associate with the Daily Mail, or better suited as the Daily Fail. I don't even know where to start with this one. Upon initial brief reading, you seem to find a rather well-written formal looking paper that has an ideal blend of current affairs and general lifestyle. Sounds like an almost perfect recipe. But then you start to read some articles on the political agenda... oh dear. This isn't a paper that has a slight leaning bias in the right-wing department, it's a full-on tip. Everything the Labour party does is scorned upon, and everything UKIP does is amazing, brilliant and fabulous. Oh wait, not fabulous, that sounds a bit gay and gay is wrong in the world of the Daily Mail.

It doesn't stop there, though. Not only do we have political bias so strong it's almost amusing, we have the ultimate propaganda producer here (or just spouting BS in other words). 'COFFEE WILL SHORTEN YOUR LIFE BY 20 YEARS', screams one headline, complete with a source from a fat man in a shed. The funniest thing is that in a few days' time, you'll see 'CAFFEINE PROVEN TO BE ESSENTIAL TO HEALTHY LIFESTYLE'. Oh that's right, another fat man called you and gave out his tripe for £35. The worst thing about all this is that these misleading headlines scare people into believing stories that are incredibly false. Take weather stories, for an example. 'BRITAIN SET FOR ARCTIC FREEZE AS TEMPERATURES PLUMMET TO -20°C NEXT WEEK' inevitably reads one headline. This does genuinely worry people about staying warm, getting stranded and rising energy bills. And then of course it ends up being the hottest week for years and the paper acts like the story never happened.

Although I haven't mentioned them, pretty much all newspapers in the UK face some kind of controversy. I don't want to go in-detail about them, simply because I haven't really read them. So I'll reserve judgement, but I'm sure they can't be worse than the sodding Daily Mail. 

Why can't newspapers just be honest? Oh, that's right, honest stories don't sell. Newspapers' number one purpose is not to inform you, it's to grab money from you. That's why you'll find The Sun shouting about leaked sex tapes, even if the most destructive natural disaster had just hit and killed - god forbid - thousands of people.

Hey, at least we don't have bloody Fox News.

I haver never thought of myself to be an 'Alpha Male' kind of guy. Perhaps I'm a 'Beta Male'... geddit? Better? OK, I'll stop.

In more relevance to the title of this post, I am not someone who is a film-lover. I'm fairly sure I've talked about this before, so I'll keep it short and say I just get quite easily bored with them. My issue is my mind thinks too logically - yes, hear me out here. When watching a film, my mind knows 'this isn't real', and I'm always subconsciously thinking that. The end result means I can never depart from the real world and enjoy this wonderfully fantastic story that's being shown to me on the big screen. It is a big shame.

One day, I was browsing on the amazing site that is Imgur, and came across a post that shows a gif of this character introduction in this film. It was quite good, and with everyone commenting things like 'OMGG BEST FILM EVA!!!11!!1', my curiosity rose. I was hoping to find someone in the comments asking what the film name was. Sure enough, my knight in sparking armour was there with the million dollar question. The film turned out to be something called '10 Things I Hate About You'.

I was so intrigued by this film at this point, so much so that I bashed it into Google. Turns out this film is a teenage romantic-comedy. Now I never judge anything at all ever, but I immediately knew this film would be pissing awful. The thought of a cheesy American film with a plot on the wrong side of predictable was floating round my head.

Then I saw the 7.2 score on IMDB. OK then, this film might actually be alright. After all, not many teenage films get that high. I decided to take the plunge, and watched it. Expectations were low, fidget levels were forecasted to be unseasonably high.

And then, my life changed forever.

Based from the Shakespeare play 'The Taming of the Shrew'

I'm not going to go on in-depth like some kind of film critic (do your own bloody homework about the plot), but this film was seriously something amazing. Screw you Disney, this is the true definition of magical.

Never had I felt before to re-watch a film immediately after finishing one, but that changed after this. The silliest thing is that I can't even work out why I love it so much; it is in essence a basic teen love plot filled with some jokes.

Perhaps it was the characters. You really root behind nearly all of the protagonists - something even the big boys can't always manage - and feel the emotion that they feel. Heath Ledger and Julia Stiles do an amazing job with their characters, not forgetting Larisa Oleynik and Joseph Gordon Levitz as well of course. I'm really not sure.

What I am sure of is that this film also left me a little bit disappointed, but not in the way you might imagine. Coming away from this, I felt I had hit my 'best movie ever', and nothing in the near future will be able to top that. It's safe to say that I don't want to ever see another rom-com ever again, however ignorant that may sound.

If this film flew as low under your radar as it did mine, then I suggest you watch it. Unless you are 95 and have the same humour as a burnt sausage, then I suggest you stick to Question Time. 

Jack has put a corny rom-com at the top of his movie list. Yep, definitely not Alpha Male.

Back in 2012, I was an owner of a 4th generation iPod Touch. It seemed like everyone had one, and for a good reason. Its 'retina display' was amazing for when it was launched in 2010 alongside the iPhone 4, and of course you had the vast Apple ecosystem of apps alongside your music player.

After about 9 months of ownership, the relationship started to turn sour. The device started to slow down more and more, with apps completely out of the device's reach when it came to performance requirements. Hardly surprising when you find out the Touch came with a measly 256mb of RAM. This lag became more and more substantial until just using the damn thing became a chore.

By that summer, I put my foot down and decided I wanted to get something new. But I didn't want another iPod, oh no. I wanted to upgrade to the daddy iPad. The latest 'Pad at the time was the 3rd generation, and it looked mighty tempting. It too had just received a 'retina display' makeover (albeit much later than the iPod and iPhone), and was marketed as a highly capable tablet.

In August 2012 I took the plunge and forked out £400 (yes, really) of my hard-earned pounds for one. For that money, it should really give me daily back massages. But all was well, and it meant I could comfortably surf the web anywhere in the house without resorting to a small phone screen or a clunky laptop. Needless to say, it was used for many hours on a daily basis.

Fast forward to today, and the trusty old thing is still getting used daily for casual web browsing. That's pretty much all it gets used for - there's barely any apps or music on there, save that for my phone. But has anything changed? Yes, very much so.

First of all, we have the cosmetics. Due to its aluminium back, this thing is fairly scratched. Nowhere near as bad as my chrome-backed iPod mind, but you'll still struggle to pass this thing off as 'good condition'. Considering it spends about 95% of its life in a protective case, I struggle to think how horrible it will look now if the back had been on every hard surface in my house. It's also worth mentioning that there are a few chips along the edges, but they are pretty small and minor.

Then we come to the overall performance of the thing. Over time, electronic devices just slow down for no good reason, even if they are kept clean (I'm looking at you, iPod), and it turns out my iPad is no different. With a measly 1GHz dual core processor and 1GB of RAM, a lot of apps and even websites are really starting to tax my poor 'Pad. Safari is particularly bad at times, where the device will freeze for a good 30 seconds before responding. It's fair to say this thing isn't the slick beast it once was.

It's got so bad now that my phone, a budget Motorola Moto G, is much nippier flicking through websites. The only saving grace for my iPad now is the screen is still a pleasure to use for full-fat websites.

Certainly, I want to replace it. In my head, I know I shouldn't have to replace a £400 device in less than three years, but that's how technology works I'm afraid. I certainly won't have my phone for two and a half years, for certain. But what do I replace it with?

Do I keep with Apple? The iPad Air 2 is a beautifully thin thing with the fancy Touch ID and now 2GB of RAM. But I do fear that I will fall into the same trap as before. On the other hand, I could get a taste of Android on the big screen, with choices ranging from the rather nice looking Nexus 9 to the cheaper Tesco Hudl 2. Android is king when it comes to customisation, but there isn't many tablet optimised apps on the Play Store.

I'm not totally sure right now, but one thing I do know is that I don't have a casual £400 in my pocket right now. Damn unemployment...