Ethical Companies – The Blog

John Hurt and Richard Burton, how could this possibly fail as a film ?  This is a faithful adaptation of the book (more so than many book to film conversions) and recreates the atmosphere, mood and the zeitgeist of the book perfectly.  John Hurt and Richard Burton both come across well, as do most of the characters (although I can’t but help think of Rab C Nesbitt when I see Parsons).  My only possible criticism is it might be a good idea to read the book first, but I wouldn’t go as far as to say it was essential.

It’s a 9 out of 10 film for me.

At under £4.00 (as I type) on Amazon you can’t go wrong.

Steve

Tweet This Post 

Ban on bargain booze: Minimum price law could be introduced across UK

Bargain booze deals are to be outlawed as the first minimum price for alcohol is introduced in the UK.    Supermarkets will now be forced to charge at least 45p per unit of alcohol, under the scheme unveiled by the Scottish government yesterday. Separately, ten local authorities around Manchester are pushing for the introduction of a 50p minimum figure per unit under local bylaws. That scheme, which has been given tacit support by David Cameron, could be adopted by other councils around the country.

You don’t need to be an expert in discourse analysis to see the flaw in Daily Mail’s reporting here ….  The title suggests it “might” be introduced, but the first sentence of the article intimates it WILL be introduced.  Nice bit of contradictory journalism there, the Daily Mail obviously seeks to argue with itself ….

Under the 45p scheme, a supermarket offering a special deal of 24 cans of 4 per cent lager for just £9 would have to charge a minimum of £16.72. A two-litre bottle of supermarket brand cider would treble in price from £1.32 to almost £3.80, while supermarket-brand vodka would go up from £8 to £11.80. Whisky would increase from £9.20 to £12.60.

I don’t drink lager.  However, 24 cans for £16.72 doesn’t strike me as likely to put a dedicated drinker off his/her Stella Artois.  It’s still less than £1 a can after all.

The proposals, championed by the Scottish National Party, aim to deter binge-drinking and the associated ill-health and violence. However, the change is expected to see hundreds of thousands of Scots heading to supermarkets over the border to continue stocking up on cheap booze in England. Supermarkets are challenging the policy, claiming it will unfairly penalise sensible customers.

Booze cruising into England, who’d have thought it ?

Richard Taylor, Morrisons director of corporate affairs, said: ‘Morrisons does not support a minimum unit price which would only serve to punish our customers.

Serve to punish Morrisons’ profits and/or market share more like ….

‘ The Scotch Whisky Association said the policy would ’significantly damage’ the industry as well as punishing low-income families and the elderly. Economists suggest the 45p minimum will mean drinkers in Scotland pay an extra £236million a year. However, SNP Health Secretary Nicola Sturgeon claimed it would save the Scottish government some £700million over ten years, largely through reduced ill-health. She claimed it would mean 50 fewer deaths from alcohol in the first year, as well as 1,200 fewer hospital admissions and 22,900 fewer days’ absence from work. While the policy has support from the medical profession, the main opposition parties in Scotland – Labour, Tories and Liberal Democrats – have vowed to vote it down. Miss Sturgeon drew parallels with the ban on smoking in public places, which was first introduced in Scotland and then across the UK.

I find it hard to believe it really would make all these differences.  If people want to get smashed they will, maybe if you increase the price tenfold, but these increases will be unlikely to make any difference.  Plus we live in a free market economy, should government be interfering in this at all ?

However, the Centre for Economics and Business Research said its calculations suggested harmful drinkers would cut down by only 2.7 units per week, less than one pint of Continental-strength lager, adding the move ‘could have a genuine negative economic impact in terms of jobs, trade and costs to the consumer’.

A sensible and pragmatic piece of reasoning, I can’t but help think they are right.  Plus (excuse my cynicsm), isn’t it entirely possible that this is just an exercise in raising duty, VAT etc on alcohol = more money for the government ?  Maybe that’s the REAL reason for this ….

Steve

Tweet This Post 

As you may already be aware (and if you weren’t you soon will be) that the Daily Mail website, amongst its articles has little “mini polls” where you can click yes or no in response to a topical question. Questions such as “Does Britain still have a special relationship with America ?” After selecting yes or no you get to see the results.

You may also be aware that I don’t believe in banning the burka, from my recent posts on the subject. So on this article here: The burka empowering women? You must be mad, minister. I spotted a poll (presumably some of the polls on the specific pages are contextual and bear a relationship to the article surrounding them) entitled “Should Britain ban women from wearing a burka in public ?” and voted no. Here are the results at the time of writing this article:

Now maybe I just don’t “get it”, but do 88% of British people really want to ban the burka in Britain ? I just don’t understand the problem here. I get the whole thing about possible coercion into wearing them and the idea they are a “walking coffin” (in some people’s minds) but do 88% of British people (well 88% of the Daily Mail readers who do polls at least) care one way or the other about burkas ? Is banning them not just replacing one form of control with another ? Maybe I’m just stupid, but I really don’t see what all the fuss is about. If you’re one of the “yes” crowd then please explain what the problem is you have with them.

Thanks in advance.

Steve

Tweet This Post 

Female minister insists women must be able to choose their own clothes as ban on burka is ruled out.

Banning the burka would infringe a woman’s right to ‘choose each morning when you wake up what you wear’, Cabinet minister Caroline Spelman said today. The Environment Secretary claimed it was ‘empowering’ to be able to choose your own outfit, and this must not be taken away.

Do men not have the right to ‘choose each morning when you wake up what you wear’ then Catherine ? Not sure about the “empowering” bit for the majority of us, after all we’re talking clothes here. However, the point being made is that we should be allowed to basically wear “what the bl*&^%$ hell we want”, and that applies to the burka as much as it does to any other items of clothing.

It came after the immigration minister, Damian Green, resisted demands from within the Tory party to ban the burka – which critics claim is actually a symbol of oppression.

And banning the burka is not oppression ? Taking away somebody’s right to wear something they want to wear sounds oppressive to me. This of course is the problem with people and politicians demanding specific rights on the grounds they are being oppressed, they can often end up oppressing others. Not with me ? Well let’s take the smoking ban as an example, people demanded the right to clean air etc, because they were being oppressed in where they could consume beer etc. However, all the ban has done has shift oppression to another sector of society, in this case the smoker. You’ve seen the quote at the top of my blog ? “Do as all pragmatists do, compromise”, but of course the anti smoking brigade didn’t compromise did they and now they are hammering away again to oppress the smokers even further. You may of course be under the impression that I smoke, but I don’t. I do, however, respect the rights of people wanting to smoke and I believe we should have shown compromise all round. Anyway I digress, back to the burkas (where compromise was not needed as wearing one is hardly a health issue to others is it ?)

Mr Green said a ban would be ‘rather un-British’ and run contrary to the conventions of a ‘tolerant and mutually respectful society’.
This is despite a YouGov survey that found that 67 per cent of voters wanted the wearing of full-face veils to be made illegal.

Hmm. I guess he’s right, it does seem somewhat un-British, although I’d have preferred the suggestion that such a ban was pointless, and would be demeaning and oppressive to the burka wearers. As for YouGov, more information please. How many voters ? What ratio of men to women ? What quantitative methodology was used, or was it a straight yes/no ? What are the demographics of the “average” YouGov user (I could think of a great many examples but I will not comment) ?

Some Tory MPs also back a ban, including Philip Hollobone, who has tabled a private member’s bill that would make it illegal for anyone to cover their face in public. Mr Hollobone, the MP for Kettering, said that he would refuse to hold any constituency meetings with women wearing burkas.

Bigot.

He said: ‘This is Britain. We are not a Muslim country. Covering your face in public is strange, and to many people both intimidating and offensive.’

I don’t find it intimidating and offensive, I don’t find it “anything”, I have no views one way or the other from that perspective.

But Mrs Spelman made the counter argument that wearing a burka is important for women’s rights. She said: ‘I don’t, living in this country as a woman, want to be told what I can and can’t wear.’

Damn right. By the way Caroline that dress you’re wearing is too “loud”, you are no longer allowed to wear it (yes this is sarcasm).

‘I’ve been out to Afghanistan and I think I understand much better as a result of actually visiting why a lot of Muslim women want to wear the burka. It is part of their culture, it is part of understanding that they choose to go out in the burka and I think those that live in this country, if they choose to wear a burka, should be free to do so. We are a free country, we attach importance to people being a free and for a woman it is empowering to be able to choose each morning when you wake up what you wear. ‘

Let’s not forget the men Caroline, we want to “empower” ourselves and wear what the hell we like as well. Today, Steve is wearing a white silk shirt, black jeans and holey socks …. Conclusion: I need some new socks.

French parliamentarians voted last week to outlaw full-face veils, including burkas, in public. Mr Green said he did not think that the French vote for a ban would have an impact on immigration into Britain, as Muslim women move here instead. He said: ‘I stand personally on the feeling that telling people what they can and can’t wear, if they’re just walking down the street, is a rather un-British thing to do. We’re a tolerant and mutually respectful society.

‘There are times, clearly, when you’ve got to be able to identify yourself, and people have got to be able to see your face, but I think it’s very unlikely and it would be undesirable for the British Parliament to try and pass a law dictating what people wore. I think very few women in France actually wear the burka. They [the French parliament] are doing it for demonstration effects. The French political culture is very different. They are an aggressively secular state. They can ban the burka, they ban crucifixes in schools and things like that. We have schools run explicitly by religions. I think there’s absolutely no read-across to immigration policy from what the French are doing about the burka.’

Ahh the French, they certainly do things differently to the English. As for the point about security and proving identity, that’s fair comment, sounds reminiscent of the compromise I mentioned above.

The Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali, the former Bishop of Rochester, told the Sunday Telegraph he is not in favour of an outright ban on the burka. But he added that they should not be worn if doing so ‘compromises public or personal safety, endangers national security or impedes professional or social interaction’. The new head of the Muslim Council of Britain, Farooq Murad, said that Britain was the most welcoming country in Europe for Muslims. He pointed to the spread of mosques and sharia, or Islamic law, as positive signs of the greater freedom Muslims are given in this country. Under the French ban, a woman wearing the burka can be stopped on the street by police and ordered to a police station, where she will be compelled to remove the veil. The woman faces a possible fine. Muslim men who are deemed to have ‘forced’ their wives or daughters to wear the burka will also be fined. President Sarkozy has said that the burka ‘is not welcome’ in his country. He claims that it is ‘oppressive’ to women and reduces them to ’servitude’. He said: ‘The burqa is not a sign of religion, it is a sign of subservience.’

I thought it was piece of clothing myself …. If it must be a sign then it’s a sign that these women shall wear what the heck they want.

Catherine Heseltine from the Muslim Public Affairs Committee said UK MPs should not waste their time discussing a ban. She said: ‘Britain is a free country. We value our freedoms and we don’t want MPs or the government telling British citizens what they can or can’t wear. How does it hurt anybody else if a woman chooses to wear a small piece of cloth across her face ? Quite frankly, MPs, there’s a £160bn debt; shouldn’t they be busier worrying about what they’re going to do about that, than a small piece of cloth that a few women choose to wear ?

Nicely put Catherine, straight to the point. I guess this will all die down and we’ll move on. I’m glad though that it won’t be banned, but I must admit I’d love to know the reasons why 67% of YouGov users voted for banning the burka.

Steve

Tweet This Post 

You know those “spot the difference” quizzes you get in puzzle books etc  where you see 2 pictures and you have to spot the difference(s) ?  Someone sent me a sort of internet version, where you have to spot the difference between 2 internet pages. Here’s the 2 pages (will both open in new windows):

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1294610/Calls-burka-ban-grow-Britain-French-outlaw-Islamic-walking-coffins.html

http://ethicalcompanies.co.uk/testing/Calls-burka-ban-grow-Britain-French-outlaw-Islamic-walking-coffins.html

The difference is subtle, but ….  Well if you look hard you can see it

Steve

Tweet This Post 

Calls grow for burka ban in Britain as French outlaw Islamic ‘walking coffins’.

Britain faced growing calls to ban the burka today after French MPs voted overwhelmingly to outlaw full-face veils in public. Politicians in France united yesterday to ban Islamic veils that cover a woman’s face, which some described as ‘walking coffins’. Deputies in the country’s 557-seat lower house, the National Assembly, voted in favour of the ban by 335 votes to one.

I guess French politicians have nothing important to be dealing with …. Oh, you know, like national deficits, unemployment, recession and so on …. Let’s ban burkas instead …. Hmmm.

Support for a ban in Britain has come from Tory backbencher Philip Hollobone and the UK Independence Party. Mr Hollobone has tabled a private members’ bill which would make it illegal for anyone to cover their face in public. The Kettering MP, who has previously likened full face veils to ‘going round with a paper bag over your head’, said: ‘It is unnatural for someone to cover their face and it not a religious requirement. ‘We are never going to have a fully integrated society if an increasing proportion of the population cover their faces’. His Face Coverings (Regulation) Bill is the first of its kind in Britain, and is one of only 20 private members’ bills drawn in a ballot for the chance to make it into the statute books.

And long may he stay a back bencher ! As for it being “unnatural” to cover your face there is no law against it. So if I want to go out of the house with a paper bag over my head (I’d make some eyeholes), or with underpants on my head and pencils up my nose (can you tell I like Black Adder ?) or even wear a pink bra as ear muffs, then I WILL DO SO.

The bill, which had its first reading in June, stands little chance of becoming law due to limited Parliamentary time and a lack of support from the main political parties.

Oh dear, what a shame, snigger.

Mr Hollobone has insisted that his bill has widespread public support: ‘People feel that something should be done about burkas, but so many are afraid to speak out for fear of being labelled a racist.

Really ? Let’s do a snap poll on the streets and I bet the resounding response most British citizens would give to the query “should wearing burkas be made illegal ?” is “who cares what they wear, it’s not my problem, and utterly unimportant to me”.

‘Part of the British way of life is walking down the street, smiling at people and saying hello, whether you know them or not. You cannot have this everyday human interaction if you cover your face. ‘These people are saying that they don’t want to be part of our way of society.’

You should try walking down Tottenham Court Road in London Mr Hollobone (see previous post below), I didn’t see that much smiling, just people going about their business.

Far-Left groups such as the Communists joined president Nicolas Sarkozy’s ruling UMP party in voting for it, although Socialists and Greens abstained. Communist MP Andre Gerin said yesterday: ‘Talking about liberty to defend the wearing of the full veil is totally cynical – for me, the full veil is a walking coffin, a muzzle. ‘The result follows months of heated debate during which immigration minister Eric Besson also described the burka as a ‘walking coffin’, while prime minister Francois Fillon accused wearers of ‘hijacking Islam’ and displaying a ‘dark sectarian image’. Recent polls suggested that more than 80 per cent of French people wanted the burka banned, including some of the country’s five million Muslims. Under the terms of the bill, anyone caught wearing a burka, which covers the entire face and body with just a mesh screen for the eyes, or a niqab, which has a slit for the wearers’ eyes, will face a £117 fine.  Men caught forcing a woman to wear a burka or a niqab will face a year in prison or a £25,000 fine.

The garments are seen as undermining women’s rights and a threat to France’s secular status. The proposed legislation, which is colloquially referred to as the ‘anti-burka law’, is officially called ‘the bill to forbid concealing one’s face in public’. The draft bill backed by Mr Sarkozy’s government will now pass to the Senate upper house where it could be ratified in September to become law. But it could be shot down by the European Court of Human Rights and France’s constitutional watchdog, the Council of State, which has warned that the bill may be illegal because it does not allow freedom of expression. This would be a humiliation for Mr Sarkozy, whose government has devoted much attention to a bill that only affects around 2,000 women in France. It could also dampen efforts in other European countries to outlaw veils. Belgium and Spain have begun the initial stages of burka bans. The main body representing French Muslims fears the ban will stigmatise the religion, which it says does not require women to cover their faces anyway.

A French tycoon is setting up a fund to help Muslim women pay ‘burka fines’. Muslim businessman Rachid Nekkaz has pledged to sell property worth 1million euros to finance the fund.

I’m glad that the motion to introduce an anti burka law in the United Kingdom is unlikely.  I mean really, if these women choose to wear them then let them.  If they want to burn them (and possibly burn their bras at the same time) then let them.  We are supposed to be a tolerant society, yet we have this sort of nonsense proposed.  Our government has far more important things to be worrying about, let’s deal with those instead and scrap the idea of banning burkas and save a few quid in the process ….

Now, where did I leave my pink bra ….

Steve

Tweet This Post 

Plastic bags to be put over Birmingham ‘terror cameras’.

Bags are to be put over scores of surveillance cameras in parts of Birmingham with large Muslim populations, after local objections. Safer Birmingham Partnerships (SBP) said 216 cameras were put up, including hidden ones, mainly in the Washwood Heath and Sparkbrook districts. The cameras were financed through a counter-terrorism fund, but the SBP said they would tackle all crime. Councillor Salma Yaqoob said people had lost faith in the authorities.

The Respect Party councillor for Sparkbrook said: “In terms of reassurance it’s going to take a lot more than plastic bags. “The residents have lost faith with the authorities for their sneaky handling of the way they went about this and will not be reassured until they have been told the locations of the hidden cameras too.”

The partnership said it would not be putting bags on the covert cameras because, even though they are not being used, it does not want to reveal their location.

I’m sure there’s a lot of people out there who object to CCTV cameras, not just Muslims and/or Brummies in fact.  Is the government to listen to the concerns of people in areas not predominantly Muslim as well ?  Don’t get me wrong, I have no issue with Muslims, indeed I have several friends of the faith.  However, I have to question why it’s the areas where the populace is of primarily of the Muslim faith that are to have their cameras “bagged”.

How much does it cost to operate all these cameras ?  David Cameron wants to save some cash, start scrapping all the excessive CCTV cameras, save on the ‘leccy bill if nothing else

Steve

Tweet This Post 

Gordon Brown accepts a pay cut (for David Cameron)

Gordon Brown’s last act was to deprive David Cameron of hundreds of thousands of pounds. Gordon Brown’s failure to turn up for the State Opening of Parliament may well have been because he couldn’t look David Cameron in the face. Mandrake hears that one of Brown’s final acts in the Downing Street bunker was quietly to organise a pay cut for his successor which he must have known would leave him out of pocket to the tune of hundreds of thousands of pounds. On Brown’s orders, the Prime Minister’s remuneration package was cut from £194,000 to £150,000, but this was done with such stealth that no formal announcement was ever made.

Indeed, I am told that Cameron entered Downing Street blissfully unaware that he would, as Prime Minister, be earning only marginally more than he had as the leader of the Opposition. One imagines that the poor chap must therefore have set about implementing his pre-election pledge of an across-the- board cut in ministerial salaries of five per cent with a heavy heart as this took his salary down to £142,000. Over the course of a five-year parliament, I calculate the personal loss to Cameron will be in excess of £250,000, and this is not counting the pension benefits. “This was pure Gordon,” harrumphs my man in Whitehall. “Quite prepared to make the big sacrifices – so long as it wasn’t him who actually had to make them.”

What a petty minded and spiteful act. Speaks volumes about the Labour Party in my opinion.

Steve

Tweet This Post 

World Cup 2010: Health officials tell fans to ditch beer and crisps for water and grapes.

A government quango has urged football fans to choose sparkling water and grapes rather than beer and crisps while watching the World Cup.

I did check the date to see if it was in fact April the 1st ….

The Food Standards Agency (FSA) which has an annual budget of £135m, has issued four pages of advice on how to make “healthier choices … while you’re feasting on the footie”.  It suggests fans “walk to the pub instead of taking the bus” or “use half-time for a brisk walk and some fresh air”.

£135,000,000 a year and this is the best they can come up with, which is what everybody already knows (and many ignore) anyway.

The guidance, which comes as the future of the agency is thrown in doubt by looming public sector cuts, has been dismissed by the TaxPayers’ Alliance as “drivel”.

Well it’s an easy way for David Cameron to save £135,000,000, let’s face it working for the FSA can’t exactly be rocket science can it ?  I’m pretty sure I could manage any of their roles (well except any super techy IT stuff, as they’re bound to have an expensive intranet/internet/Sharepoint setup).  Actually that explains where the money’s gone ….  Sharepoint; in my experience a great way to haemorrhage cash (S Golds etc).

World Cup party hosts are urged to serve apples and grapes rather than crisps, while those grabbing a takeaway are warned to “choose a shish kebab with pitta bread and salad rather than a doner kebab”.

I urge the FSA to “mind their own damn business”.  They don’t get it do they ?  Don’t get me wrong I’m no big footy fan but even I know it’s mainly a “lad’s” beer and kebabs and chanting thing.  That’s part of the experience surely ?

In a section entitled “down the pub”, fans are told: “Enjoying the match at your local pub can be great fun, but the snack and meal choices tend to be limited.  ”Bar snacks are often high in salt and fat, particularly saturated fat. Give pork scratchings a miss and go for unsalted peanuts.”

Pubs sell unsalted peanuts ?  Oooh pork scratchings, I love them.

It adds: “With some of the matches starting in the evening, you might have time to eat your evening meal at home before you go out.  ”Don’t feel pressured by those around you to drink more than you want to. Skip a round or opt for a soft drink – how about try a sparkling water with a slice of lemon or lime?”

How about a six pack of Stella Artois and a large kebab ?  Sounds good.  Hey donor kebabs often have lemon (juice) on them !

The guidance also lists some globally-inspired World Cup food suggestions including: “Go Italian and enjoy spaghetti with aubergine.”

I’m sorry, but aubergines are (in my opinion) quite possibly the most disgusting type of food on the planet.

Matthew Elliott, chief executive of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said: “Taxpayers don’t want patronising advice about what to eat, drink and how to spend half time during World Cup games.  ”Most of this information regurgitates old advice and the last thing football-watching revellers are going to be thinking about is how many calories are in their pint when it goes to penalties in the final. Red card for the person who dreamt up this drivel.  ”This comes at a time when ministers will be looking to make savings and this exercise is an example of how money is being wasted by one of the myriad of quangos that are ripe for the chop.”

Lamb or pork chop ?  :)

The FSA, which was created in 2000 in the wake of the BSE crisis, employs over 2,000 staff including its chairman Lord Rooker, who oversaw the creation of the quango while a Labour minister and who is paid £54,000 a year until 2013 for the equivalent of two days’ work a week. Tim Smith, its chief executive, earns £190,000.

£190,000 ?!?!  Where do I get a job like that ?  Heck, the £54,000 will do for starters.

It is responsible for a £500,000 consultation exercise on genetically modified food that was ordered by the last government but has been left in doubt following the resignation of two leading members of the project steering group.  Professor Brian Wynne and Dr Helen Wallace walked out, the latter saying the cost of the exercise “should be spent on schools and hospitals, not reputation management for Monsanto and other GM companies”.

Well if they walked out that’s a few quid saved isn’t it ?

Don’t get me wrong, I am not a lager swilling, junk food junkie.  But ultimately this is a pointless and futile exercise, and the only thing can change people’s habits is the people themselves, and I’m not convinced that efforts to coerce and/or influence people are right, after all we all know grapes and water are more healthy than kebabs, don’t we ?  ….  It’s down to that old demon “personal responsibility”.

Steve

Tweet This Post 

“The public should be invited to reject the politics of fear, that sees life as a perpetual terror of what might happen and a perpetual investigation of what has. It should not be asked to regard every child as a victim and every adult a paedophile, a terrorist or a mass murderer. The government should stop spending stupid amounts of money on a security lobby now running amok through the public sector.

There is no such thing as safe. There is only safer, and safer can require the greater watchfulness that comes with taking risks, witness new theories of road safety. Removing risk lowers the protective instinct of individuals and communities, and paradoxically leaves them in greater danger. But there is no government agency charged with averting that danger. There is no money in it.” – Simon Jenkins (The Guardian)

This has already been blogged by Al Jahom’s Final Word but it’s worthy of repeating.

Steve

Tweet This Post