The world is a changing place. Things develop, and times change. Some of these things are personal changes.

This is the 645th blog post I've made. Over the past 3 years, it's obvious how my posting has developed. What started off as a personal blog that could only be read by a few people; is now readable by all, and deals with a wider range of issues. I frequently find those 'silly' news stories, as well as looking at some more serious headlines and passing judgement. Recently, I've particularly been looking at the legal aspect of issues.

I've still been looking at those personal events in my life, and what I'm getting up to - but there's certainly a great deal more "general interest" than previously.

Sadly, Windows Live can't really cope with all of this. It's got a lot better, I was strongly contemplating moving away last year. But it's still limiting - what 'widgets' I can offer, how far I can design the page, who can comment (and how they do so). Certain people have been pressurising me to move for a while.

So, now that I'm actively promoting the blog a bit more by placing it on various listing sites (such as getting it ranked as a blogflux topsite), I've relented to the pressure. Everyone can comment, read, and enjoy. If enjoying is possible.

So, Asp Bites is dead. Long live Asp Bites.

The new blog is now ready to go properly live. I'll probably tweak a few things over the next period - and if you have any comments, please e-mail me.

In the interim though, please update your bookmarks to http://asp-bites.blogspot.com; your RSS feed to http://asp-bites.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default; and please keep reading! :)

Thanks to Thunderdragon for the new logo.

Today was the day. 3 months of training (some official days, some general pottering about, some reading) to become an Ambulance crew at a professional level (even if I won't get paid for any of it, so it can't be strictly 'professional').

Whilst technically a lot of what taught I already knew, and as an advancement of my 'skill set' the jump wasn't huge, the assessment was at a higher level. Transporting patients is a professional job, completely different from a first aid role, and the assessment has to reflect this.

We started with a written paper. I'm used to all St John exams being vague, ambiguous, and with a number of different possible answers. But today's, even by St John standards, was poor. What made it worse is that it is "key word" marked. You could explain exactly how to do something - but unless you use the exact word, you won't get the mark for it.

The pass mark was 70%, I got 74%. Most people were in the same "just pass" range as myself. Some didn't get to that level, including someone who I know is a highly competent St John member. He was 18% short first time round, but was allowed to resit it (on exactly the same paper - I've never understood the logic of that) and managed (unsurprisingly I suppose as he knew what was coming) 92%. I'm sure that his first paper was right on the whole. I'm also sure that if someone has asked him to perform the operation he had to write about, he'd have done it near perfectly first time round. But it's different writing it down.

Then was the practical side of things. Quite simple criteria - it's a Patient Transport job, so you have to pick up patient from X, put them into the ambulance, 'drive' to Y, and put them where they want to go. There also had to be an assessment on resuscitation - something that every operational member of St John is assessed on yearly, now they can combine it in assessments.

I made silly mistakes - school boy errors. Things that will come with practice. However, I think my most serious error was constantly referring to my crewmate as "Andrew", when I know he hates being called that and is "Andy". I'm very surprised I didn't end up as a patient. Therefore, I'm pleased to say I passed.

Still, I'm pleased to report that humour and smut in St John is still present in assessments. Enquiring about the patient's mobility, he told me he couldn't straighten his knee. Fair enough, except that it was already straight. So that was one moment of laughter. The other was more traditional St John. The conversation, whilst waiting just inside the building whilst Andy went and prepped the vehicle, went something like this.

Asp bites Tunes of the Week 2008 - Week 5

Due to various reasons, I've not been sat at my desk with the radio on as much as normal. Particularly, I've not been able to listen to 6music at all as my computer is presently working about as well as a chocolate teapot.

As a result, there's not been a huge number of tunes that have implanted themselves into that thick skull of mine.

Thankfully, one is a tune that came to my attention at the end of 2007:

Out on the same date as The Feeling is the latest single from Goldfrapp, A&E. Very interesting video - if slightly disconcerting, and it puts a whole new twist on the song. It's a very slow, well sung, well written melancholy song. Perhaps though, a bit too much for me today.

Feist is best known, nowadays, for being "that song on the ipod Nano advert". Incidentally, I mentioned 1234 before I saw one of the aforementioned adverts, it's a good song.

This has certainly brought her too wider attention and, potentially, may ensure that her latest single gets a bit of recognition.

January's Last Chance

I realised not long ago that my criteria for considering a song for the ultimate accolade [sic] that is "Asp's Tune of the Year" is potentially a bit harsh. Some weeks, there have been some outstanding songs shortlisted that are potentially better than a different week's TOTW. However, to limit my shortlist somewhat and make my decision easier, I wouldn't have considered them.

So, I've decided that every month I will take one of the nominated tracks that hasn't been a TOTW, and through it into the bundle for the annual selection process. A 'Last Chance' for each nominated track to make it through to the next round.

January has been, surprisingly given the usual post-Christmas quietness, a very strong month musically. Elvis Ain't Dead has come on particularly strong - and SFG are now doing particularly well on the album chart. However, as it was a December release and a TOTW last year, I didn't want to give it another chance.

So, instead, I'm going for the single that's surprised me most of the month. It's a great song, from a band who (as I explained at the time) I didn't think I liked:

When you're at a restaurant, how much do you tip your waiter?

I find it very interesting to compare the British and Continental approaches to this. Over in the main part of Europe, unless you find a tourist restaurant explicitly stating Service Included, you expected to add on anything between 10% and 15% (depending on where you are) to - in many situations - pay the waiter who's served on you that evening.

In England however, we expect that the waiter will be getting a wage. So, I feel the general approach of most people is that you'll tip what you feel appropriate. It certainly is an optional thing. I can see very few people who feel that one should be obliged to tip that little bit extra to your server.

And if, as last night at our class meal, the service consists of 1 missed starter, 1 wrong main course, an enorminate amount of time waiting for the meals (Italian meals don't take that long to cook - so I presume they were out back killing the Chicken), having to go up and ask for them to take our dessert order: you might be minded to tip little, or none.

Personally, your chances of getting a tip are lowered even more if there is a little bit on the credit card receipt saying "Gratuity", and a blank amount. If I wanted to tip you on my credit card, I would have asked you to add a bit to the bill. Don't present me with a piece of paper with a blank that begs to be filled in. Because it won't be. I might, however, leave some change in the bowl in which you brought me the mints.

Even worse, as happened last night, it where the restaurant helpfully calculate your gratuity for you, by adding a 10% "Service Charge" on the bottom of the bill. As none of us felt we got service last night, we paid the sub-total only. As they were serving a table of law student, I don't think they saw fit to argue...

A couple of vital statistics:

What do they relate to?

They're what I did today. Pacing around Oulton Park.

Circuit owners MSV very kindly, at the start of the season, open up their gates for volunteer marshals like myself to have a trackday on them.

Being the sort of person who never says no if it's free, as I was in the area this year with my own car, it would have been wrong not to attend.

I was naturally wary about the experience - I hadn't bought track day insurance, and couldn't afford any repair bills after - be they mechanical after munching the engine for instance; or physical after backing the car into a tyre wall.

Still after the requisite briefing ("These are the flags, but I'm sure you know what you mean"), noise test, finding of towing eye to stick on the front of the car, and 'sighting laps' (they're included in the above statistics, which probably explains why the mpg figure isn't much worse than normal) - I headed out for a few laps.

I was, for the above reasons, still very cautious, especially considering that the track was still damp. Certain people were spinning at one particularly greasy corner doing only 45mph - and in the morning I was still doing 50 without any thought about losing the back end.

My stints were also kept to about 15 minutes, just to keep the car safe. I was slightly concerned as the brakes started knocking at the end of the first stint - but I'm guessing that was just rust, and a bit of heavy braking at the second stint got rid of the knocking without the brake pedal getting any longer - so that didn't pose much of a problem.

I did 5 stints in total with between 3 and 5 'fast' laps (out lap was slow to warm the car up, in lap likewise to cool the car down - they also probably helped the mpg figure). As the day went on, with the track drying, and my confidence building I was able to go faster and faster. More committed through the corners, carrying more speed onto the straights - and really enjoying myself.

Things weren't particularly fast - top speed on one of the straights was probably just under 90, but the big difference is how you can work the corners. On the public highway, you've only got a narrow strip of tarmac that is 'yours'. On a race track, you can use all of it, and thus carry a huge amount of speed through them.

Once or twice I did carry a bit too much speed - front wheel drive cars do understeer a fair amount. See realising that I do need to do more than slightly ease off into Island bend; and hear tyre squealing through Lodge. However, I'm pleased to report that at no point did the car leave the 'black stuff', nor end up pointing in any direction other than the way of the track.

I was planning on having one last stint just before 3pm - however, as I came round Druids on my out lap I saw hail stones on the track, and a few wet patches on my windscreen. I aborted into the pits just in time, as the heavens opened with a huge hail shower, followed by near blizzard conditions with snow, and the session was red flagged.

I took this as a hint and called it a day myself, although things did get going again as things brightened up (British weather eh?). But, it was after a thoroughly good time.

I'd like to publically thanks MSV & all their staff for their efforts today and letting us have a good time. I doubt I'll turn into a trackday regular. But having the opportunity to see how the Corsa could really perform was one that really enjoyed.

A lot of laws give a lot of discretion to the courts. The courts may do such a thing; and can make such an order - often if they decide it's "Fair and equitable".

It's a difficult balancing act to decide exactly what is fair. Especially when it, effectively, gives the court the power to 'ignore' the law; and thus the sovereignty of Parliament.

One such provision is in s33 of the Limitation Act 1980. The Limitation Act is a very sensible piece of legislation. Imagine if, in 40 years time, someone tries to sue you for something you did today. Even if you can remember what it was, you'll struggle to find evidence to support your case - and you'll probably have moved on the such an extent you can't think it's really fair have to account for your actions. The Limitation Act stops this by putting variation time limits on the time to bring legal action.

However, section 33 gives the court the power the ignore these time limits where they consider it 'equitable to allow an action'.

Today, more than 20 years after the "Lotto Rapist" was sent to jail, 5 Law Lords have decided that it's equitable to allow an action for compensation.

I've only been sitting on the periphery of this story for a while, and can't figure out why compensation wasn't awarded at the time - ordinarily, that's exactly what happens. Probably because Iorworth Hoare didn't have the financial means to pay it. However, now he's a Lotto winner, he does have the money.

He's served his time in jail. He's been released. However, he's not been able to write a line under this situation - and now is likely to be sued, meaning he'll have to go through the court process all over again. Yes, he's a convicted rapist. But I'm a great believer that our criminal justice system should be strongly geared towards rehabilitation of offenders. This doesn't allow this to happen.

There were only 'joined' cases in this appeal at the House of Lords. The facts of them are different. And perhaps, yes, if the evidence is there, the right to take legal action should continue for as long as it's fair for both parties to establish a case as strong as it would have been shortly after the 'offence'. But, it strikes me (and no doubt others) that it became equitable to sue a Lottery winner because he came into money. Which isn't the right way round...

Thanks to the much heralded BBC iPlayer (although I'm not entirely sure why it's getting such a huge press when Channel 4's equivalent '4oD' has been around for ages), I just sat down to watch the 1980s installment of Pop on Trial.

It's quite an interesting programme, looking at the different decades of popular music in the UK.

However, I appear to have downloaded the version with British Sign Language. I am clearly a bad person, because after 5 minutes I have stopped due to far too much hilarity.

You see, even the lyrics to the songs are signed. So, when introducing the New Romantic era, it looks far too much like some innovative and quite catchy dance moves to Don't you want be baby and Karma-Chameleon.

I don't think it's me being very harsh - but you can judge for yourself as it's still available on iPlayer - but not for much longer!

If you miss being able to watch the BSL dancing routine, you can be a cruel person in a different way by laughing at this:

It wasn't all that long ago I was agreeing with Baroness Sharples about the menage of the road that is cyclists who don't think that Red Lights applied to them.

Well, thanks to The ThunderDragon, I've been made aware that the leader of the Conservative party isn't even listening to his Peers, and jumping red-lights himself.

Varying views are going round the blogosphere.

On one side, you've got TD and Samuel Coates - who seem to think that it's OK to jump red lights if it's 'safe'.

To which my response (as I commented on TD's post) is that I can (as a Class 1 qualified driver) tell when it's 'safe' to speed. Or similarly when a button has been pressed on a pelican crossing, but the pedestrian has then left. However, if I do speed, or if I do jump the red light - I'll get points on my licence and a fine.

So, I'm agreeing with Dizzy and Mike Rouse on the other side of the debate. And I say this as a keen cyclist myself.

The Highway Code is a set of rules for all users of the road. Car drivers, motorcycle riders, horse riders, pedestrians, and cyclists. Paragraphs 103-158 of the Code are "General Rules ... for all drivers and riders" (my emphasis). Paragraph 69, particularly for cyclists, states:

"You MUST obey all traffic signs and traffic light signals. [Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD reg 10(1)]"

We need to share the roads. They're crowded enough already. The way of sharing is by all complying with the same rules and regulations. Those cyclists who don't are not only not helping themselves, they're not helping the rest of us other cyclists who do want to share the roads and obey the rules.

Question for you. You are a person in a position of public importance. You decide to hire a member of your family as part of your staff - therefore paying them out of public funds.

This in itself is nothing that serious. "Jobs for the Boys" do exist - even though I suppose, technically, it's wrong to appoint someone without a full interview and finding 'the best person for the job'. It means you'll have someone you can trust working for you.

However, let's say that you pay this person an equivalent of £25,970 per year if it was a full time job - and this as work for a part-time, undergraduate student, researcher. Nice salary, I won't get that when I start work with a postgraduate education. Even more jobs for the boys - and with public money, hardly fair, is it?

But, let's go one further. Let's say that you pay this person this high salary for 17hours of work a week - but they don't actually do any work. Or, at least, when challenged, you can find "no evidence, independent or otherwise, of any aspect of [this person's] work".

Paying someone, out of public funds, for a job that they don't appear to be doing, to a total of over £30,000 is potentially a serious serious diversion of our money.

So, if someone is found guilty of the above, what punishment are they likely to receive?

Is it?

The answer is, of course, c). But, at least Derek Conway said sorry. Makes it all better, doesn't it?

UPDATE - 29-Jan-08 08:28 - Derek Conway's older son also worked for him. This came to light in the report on Freddie, but the Commons Standard Committee were unable to look into this at the time. Now the MP John Mann have asked for this to be investigated. There may not be anything wrong, in which case, all's good. But, it looks suspicious enough, so let's hope it is looked into - and if something is wrong, the offence becomes a great deal more serious...

There's so many ways people try to find 'loopholes' in the law to avoid bureaucracy. However, it can be difficult to be sure you're going to be safe. There's many comebacks that are possible.

And, unless you do very well, the law always tends to win. Dishonest intent to avoid legal requirements. Such as dishonestly building a castle behind a pile of hay.

"Over the course of two years, [Robert Fidler] managed to secretly – and unlawfully – build the imposing mock Tudor structure in one of his fields, shielded behind a 40ft stack of hay bales covered by a huge tarpaulins.

Once it was finished, he and his family moved in and lived there for four years before finally revealing the development – complete with battlements and cannons – in August 2006.

Mr Fidler claims that because the building has been there for four years with no objections, it is no longer illegal."

-Daily Mail

Full marks for trying. Zero marks for it working. Because, should retrospective planning permission not be given, and it goes to court, the judge will see the dishonest intent and refuse the appeal.

Bye Bye Castle. Which is a shame, because it looks so nice...

Hat-tip to Michael at Law Actually.

The prefix "Mc" is used in modern language for quite disparaging descriptions. The most classic being, of course, the "McJob". So derogatory in fact, that not that long ago McDonalds were asking the OED to change their definition. Clearly, that can't happen - the OED defines what the word is used for, it doesn't set it.

But, if you are stuck in a McJob, perhaps you've thought about getting a McQualification. And no, I don't mean a degree in watching grass growing from the University of Tooting Beck. I mean an A-level from McDonalds:

"Fast-food giant McDonald's has become one of the first firms to offer its own nationally recognised qualifications.

It will offer a "basic shift manager" course, training staff in skills such as human resources and marketing."

- BBC News

Fundamentally, this is a good idea. I do believe there need to be more options open to people who want to get a career, but aren't suited to university. The Government's idea to get most young people through degrees is wrong, because some people are just not suited to degree life. Go out, and get a job - and on the job training. Adding a formal qualification to some of these routes might help develop this.

But at McDonalds? No thanks...

I talked at the start of this month in TOTW (When selecting Adelle) about the predictions for who's going to make it big in 2008. One such band that made it to many of these lists was Scottish group Glasvegas. Daddy's Gone came out last year, and was probably what brought them to the attention of a lot of people. It's a gorgeous song, and I'm told it's doing the rounds on the music channels at the minute.

Which is a surprise, because it's not their forthcoming release. And therefore, it's actually It's my own cheating heart that makes me cry that was considered for this week's TOTW (it's out on the 14th of Feb). I know why Daddy's Gone is the one on the MTV - despite my efforts I've only found a video of it that was taken from a crowd member at a gig. The sound isn't that good therefore, particularly with the crowd singing along, and I recommend you don't try and watch it, just listen. But, hopefully it will highlight to you the quality of the song - singing in regional accents is all the rage nowadays, but the Glaswegian twang is still remarkably different.

Another 'going to make it big' artist in 2008 is clearly Duffy. She came to the attention of iconic label Rough Trade late in 2006 - and there's no doubt they're good at spotting fantastic artists. Like Glasvegas, she first started to make it big when her first single, Rockferry, came out late last year - and in this case got play on Radio1. Her sound is pretty well unique - which is what I love, I want music to be constantly fresh and new. Yet, with some distinct traces back to the classic ages of pop - Duffy is frequently compared to Dusty Springfield.

Her next single is due out on the 25th Feb.

Anyway, with the second series of the show, the single is being released. Such a sweet charm is a wonderful piece to sing along to; even if whenever I now look at my piece of legal research on "Can this land be saved from development by registration as a village green?", I get the song stuck in my head...

It's a different cover that's made it as a second TOTW though. I mentioned the wonderful juxtaposition created on Raising Sand with the voices of Robert Plant and Alison Krauss. Well, a few years back, Robert Plant dueted with Jimmy Page for Please read the letter. And the latest single from the Krauss CD is the new version of it:

Going back to new singers, another name is David Jordan. He's only 21, and his new single Sun goes down has been a Radio2 Record of the Week, and is on both the Radio1 and Radio2 playlists. This suggests that he could easily make it as another debutante making it big this year.

When the song first made it onto the playlists, I didn't like it. Sounded a bit too Eurovision for me. But, it's definitely been one of these 'growers', so much so that in the build up to its release on the 4th Feb, it's made it as a TOTW nominee.

Finally, a new single, but an existing act. And I'm some way in advance with this one - I've heard it on 6music, and it's nomination only for next week's Pick'n'Mix on RadMac. After Hours is the first single from the second album of We are Scientists. The album's only due out in mid March, so expect the single to appear in the shops a bit before then - so I'll say no more incase I need to talk about the track more in the near future!

Don't forget, all TOTW blogs are also available at my last.fm journal where, depending on availability, you might be able to listen to click previews of some of the tracks in-page without clicking away.

Something different today for old SJA. Meeting up at HQ at 9am to load an ambulance with propaganda equipment to park in the city centre and recruit some new members.

This was, thankfully a partially successful visit. However, you also seem to attract a large number of weirdos doing something like this.

Weirdo number 1 came and told of us drunk/homeless person looking quite ill, with blood on his head, sitting on the walls. So, I get the Response kit and wander over with her and another couple of members.

Found said male - yes, he did look a bit ill. Sort of sleeping whilst sitting up. And for some reason he had orange dye on his head. Not blood, but we'll pass that detail by.

"Hello?" Said I, tentatively approaching.

"Awight?" Said the man, now bolt upright and awake. In such an alarming style he was clearly high on one thing or the other.

Very brief conversation, decide he's fine(ish) and certainly wouldn't accept our help if offered, so leave it there. Weirdo No1 follows, and then announces she's going to speak to him. Finds us a bit later on in the day, and tells us how she bought him some food, a cup of tea, and had a long conversation. We didn't want to know that at all.

The other weirdo I found particularly amusing was the token drunk. Who asked if I'd test his blood for kidneys. I sent him to his GP...

The plan was meant to be that I was going to cover half a day, someone was going come down in the Zafira at about 1pm, I'd then take it back to HQ, pick up my car, and go home.

My relief did duly arrive at around 1pm. As the bosses phone rang from someone who was on lunch, and had been accosted. So, instead, I jumped in and we headed there.

Found an elderly chappy being supervised by 2 coppers, and several splashes of blood. Chappy had fallen over, cut the top of his fingers - and was on Warfarin (blood thinning drug). A bit of a search for some suitable dressings to put over them and apply enough pressure to them to stop the bleeding, but then sorted him out and sent him on the way. First patient for what seems like ages - and I didn't get enough details to justify a Report Form. Which is bad of me, but the police got all the details, so if I see some brown stuff start moving towards me I'll make one up...

We then returned to the ambulance, and tried to complete the 'change over' again. So I sat in the Zafari, which I've never driven before, and tried to get the seat comfortable. Sadly, that wasn't possible, so I settled on getting it into a drivable position. The seat is far to high away from the pedals, and therefore it is the most uncomfortable car I've ever driven. However, as it was only a short journey, I decided it'll do and set off.

I then realised that, in not bothering with a full vehicle check as it has been driven to me, that I'd also forgotten to complete the vehicle log. Never mind, I thought, the other driver will have started the log, I'll leave it as a single log entry with double drivers.

Never presume. I got back to HQ, found the log sheets (after some searching), and saw the log hadn't been started. I did contemplate just guessing the initial time, and copying the mileage from the last entry. However, that would have meant we'd have done 60miles - it's probably 2miles between the city centre and HQ. I also contemplated leaving a blank line in the log, and putting my bit separately. But, as I didn't know the starting mileage, there'd have been some serious guess work required. So, I put the end mileage, signed my name, and left it incomplete. I'm hoping the other driver can fill in the gaps, and does so. Otherwise, I'll have some explaining to do.

No doubt the blogosphere will very shortly be full of this story, but I'm going to get in amongst the crowd.

Because Peter Hain, who I'm fairly sure is the only MP to be called incompetent as a defence for his actions, has finally resigned.

My only question is, why has it taken him so long? He has broken the law. This is where I can put my legal hat on, and refer to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. It states that political donations such as those referred to here must be reported with 60 days.

Hain admits not doing this. Therefore he is guilty of the offence.

The Electoral Commission could have just 'highlighted the failure to declare the donations in time'. But, given the value involved - over £100,000 - that could not have been adequate. Therefore, they referred it to the police as a criminal matter.

Hain says he has stood down to 'clear his name'. Which is pointless - he's guilty of the offence, so some action will need to be taken. There's probably no malicious intent. There's certainly, from what we can see, no indication of it. But you might not have malicious intent when you go past that speed camera at 36mph - you'll still get the points and fine.

He's not going to be sent down for 50 years to fill our already crowded prisons. But he's broken the law - so there's nothing he can clear his name from. Take whatever punishment he gets, and get on with his life.

And if he doesn't get some punishment, our legal system is in more desperate need of help than any of us thought.

For College Advocacy and Interviewing assessments, both practice and real things, we are expected to wear "professional attire". Which translates as "suit". Even though, when I start in practice, I'd save the suit for advocacy and court appearances; and would meet clients in my office attire of shirt and tie (for dry cleaning purposes). Unless they were important clients and I needed to impress them.

Anyway, by virtue of my interviewing this morning, I spent the day in my suit, including this afternoon's workshop. I don't mind saying that I do like wearing formal attire - if only to show off my variety of ties. But, from working this afternoon, I also felt that it did place my mind into a better 'place' for work. Which, given my least favourite subject is on a Thursday, was quite a good achievement.

You quite often see in debates over the merits of smart workplace ethic, and school uniforms the argument that wearing smart clothing produces a better work environment. But, today, I actually experienced it for myself.

Wearing a suit, I felt professional. From body language it's known that clients tend to trust to better dressed person - even if they're the one who knows nothing. But, if the client puts faith in you, it builds your confidence. Regardless of the fact that today I clearly was just in a classroom environment, I think the same thing carries forward.

I'm aware that one law school (I think Cardiff) insist that students attend college in smart professional attire. I'm beginning to think it's a good idea. And I might have one day a week when I do wear shirt and tie. Or maybe not....

- Why do Regional news presenters, when reporting from a village, always base themselves in the local pub?

- Why are young victims of attacks always "model students"? You never hear anyone saying "Well, he was a right toe-rag actually, always getting into scrapes"...

On more than a number of occasions I've selected the Radio 2 Record of the Week as one of Tunes of the Week. In a slight change therefore, this is Lammo's Single of the week from 6 music:

I don't mind saying that, musically, it's not a particularly difficult song. You could even say it's a bit repetitive. But, providing it's done with some style, it can actually be a good technique - the main theme in the song is immediately memorable. Such an immediate recall can only help, hence why it's made it as one of TOTWs too. It's out on the 11th of Feb.

Joss Stone is much better know than Pete & the Pirates, but does sometimes get a bad press. I'll be honest - I don't see why. She clearly does have a nice soulful voice, and her talents are fully demonstrated in her latest single, which was given its physical release last Monday.

Nominated Tracks:

I've built up quite a shortlist this week. In part, I think, from coming home to Blackburn on Thursday, listening to 6music easily on Friday afternoon, and hearing a number of tracks that I heard over Christmas, realising they were still around (see last week's comment about songs staying around for ages), and thus sticking them in the list. So, it was easier to list them separately from the 2 'winners'.

Conquest is one such track. It has actually been out since the 31st December, but has only recently implanted itself into my memory. Described as "a kind of punk rock / flamenco crossover", it's very well written; and Jack White's vocal work fits the song and builds the music perfectly. It's distinctly unlike other White Stripes hits, which a best described as pure rock, hence why I didn't originally take to the song - looking too much at the artist. But eventually I've realised, it's a good song.

Pumpkin Soup by Kate Nash has been out even longer - since the 17th December. But, it's still doing well in the charts - peaked at number 23 last week; and therefore is still getting the airplay.

U.R.A. Fever is the first single from the brand new album from The Kills, which is going to appear in March. Nice song with telephone line intervention, that was out on Monday.

The Journey Continues probably sounds like it's been around for ages - at least, I guarantee if you're in the UK you'll recognise the tune. However, if you take the theme to a bank TV advert, add a nice bass beat and the voals of Sarah Cracknell, and you've got Mark Brown's latest that will be released on the 4th Feb.

Sunshine in the Rain by Swedish group Bodies without Organs has been out for ages - 2005 in fact. If you're in Sweden. Otherwise, you might recognise it because it sounds eerily like It never rains in Southern California. Which I consider as particular strange given their similar titles. It's this week's nominee from what appears to be the established "camp, catchy pop" group (Kylie last week, The Feeling the week before) for 2008; and if you do fall into the catchy refrain a bit too much, you can buy it tomorrow.

The Time of Times is Badly Drawn Boy's contribution to the film Definitely Maybe, or Love Undoubtedly, or 4 Weddings and a Notting, or whatever it's called. Regardless of what I will inevitably think of the film, the song, to be released as a download on the 4th Feb, is classic Damon. You can listen to it via his myspace.

Finally, in time for the 14th of next month, ex-Pulp man Richard Hawley is releasing Valentine on the 28th Jan. I'm finding that all singles from Lady's Bridge are sounding very similar - it may well just be the voice, as Valentine is much slower than recent release Serious which has a bit of a beat behind it. Either way, I still like it!