Tuesday, August 14, 2007
I have used Bargain Booze for several years now, partly due to the excellent prices and partly due to the friendly staff. Some weeks ago I was introduced to the new store manager at the Church Street, Tamworth, Staffordshire shop. Last Friday, 10th August I went in to buy some cans and as I left the girls said something along the lines of 'Say goodbye, this is our last week.' When I asked why I was told the new manager had terminated their employment and he was going to run the shop himself with the help of his family. Quite honestly I was appalled. All these girls have worked at the shop for some time, so one assumes that their ability to do the job is not in question. They are always pleasant, polite and helpful. As far as I am aware, they are honest and loyal. To terminate someone's employment without good reason must surely be illegal and if not it should be. It is without doubt immoral. Some time ago I asked the manager how they sold their beers so cheaply. I was told that it was because stock was bought in such large quantities on a national level that Bargain Booze could virtually name their own price. One might reasonably expect such a large company with its obvious financial muscle to be able to insist that existing staff be retained as part of the franchise. Or is this another example of profit before people? If this, as I suspect, is the case then I must consider withdrawing my small contribution to the said profit and take my custom elsewhere.
I look forward to your response.
Monday, August 06, 2007
An excellent piece here:
Googling 'fingerprinting children' will give you a wealth of information. It seems the 'fingerprinters' (as might be expected) are all for it and advocate the benefits. However, the 'fingerprintees' or their guardians are a little more sceptical.
Two of the against arguments, just for those who do not see an issue, are that it 'normalises' biometric use, making it seem trivial for youngsters who know no better. Which could lead to obvious security issues in later life. Also, using passwords means that in the event of identity theft or passwords being hacked or stolen, one has merely to change ones password. In the event of biometrics being stolen, and I believe the criminals will find a way once it becomes popular and financially viable, they haven't stolen your password. They have stolen you!
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Sunday, July 29, 2007
There have been a lot of comments on the ‘North/South’ divide. I live in the
Sunday, May 06, 2007
Gordon Brown will probably be our next unopposed prime minister. But given that New Labour has stage managed everything they have done in their term of office, this will be no different. Every Labour politician who has been suggested as a contender has soon afterwards declared they will not oppose Mr. Brown. The silence is deafening. I remember John Prescott being totally opposed to the removal of clause IV from the Labour Party manifesto. . ("To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service."). A few hours with Tony Blair, and he came out in favour of removing clause IV. What was he offered? The deputy leadership, perhaps? That is exactly what he got. And now he is a sidelined nobody. We have been conned by Tony and his cronies for too long. We need to re-establish the labour party as a truly socialist organisation. A life long Labour man, my last vote for this watered down Tory administration was in 1997. I will tell you why. Though opposed to their 'New labour' policies I voted for them. In that terrible year, local politicians, members of the party and Labour councillors advised me, after expressing my doubts, that maybe Tony was trying to get elected on new, popular policies and once in government he would introduce a real socialist agenda I suggested that this was immoral, and as I have always maintained that we (the ‘Real Labour’ party) should be educating the people, and not looking to be elected on popular policies that conflict with our beliefs. Trusting these local politicians, et al, and against my better judgement (who else could I vote for? Another Tory administration?) I voted Labour, to my eternal regret. I have never failed to vote, my small voice is part of the process that may bring us back to a fairer society. This so-called democracy we live in gives me only two choices. Vote for the lesser of several evils or abstain from the right to have an input in this perverse system. I will not tell you how I vote. That is between me and the ballot box. However; I will tell you I now vote for the party and or politician that most closely expresses my beliefs, regardless of their political affiliation.
I sincerely hope that my opinion on these matters is not so far from your own that you might consider them as a viable alternative to the current repressive regime.