Tuesday, January 19, 2010


Straight away, we hear 'job cuts inevitable after Kraft takeover'. Gordon Brown said the government was "determined" to ensure that Cadbury jobs were secure.

"We are determined that the levels of investment that take place in Cadbury in the United Kingdom are maintained and we are determined that, at a time when people are worried about their jobs, that jobs in Cadbury can be secure," he said.

Peter Mandelson added his two penneth saying Kraft's chairman and chief executive Irene Rosenfeld had already written to him to assure him of Kraft's "respect for Cadbury's heritage and employees".

He said he had now invited Ms Rosenfeld for talks on the details of Kraft's plans, which he said he would then immediately disclose to the Cadbury workforce.

Well he should have been discussing that before the takeover went ahead. Or was he fooled by the pre-emptive letter of assurance mentioned above?

I still say five years maximum before Cadbury's UK and production is moved abroad. Of course there will be financial reasons. Like wages are lower in South America or Eastern Europe.

A poor excuse for Cadbury employees and British industry.


Kraft has bought Cadbury's. Another British company owned by foreigners. I predict within 5 years Cadbury's in Birmingham will be gone and Cadbury's chocolate production will be moved abroad. They'll keep the name and they hope to keep the customer base and good will. If they move production abroad, I for one will not buy Cadbury's again.

Friday, January 15, 2010

I’ll Never Buy Bosch Again

Bosch has announced the closure of their plant in South Wales with the loss to the area of 900 jobs. The production will move to Hungary, where labour costs are 65% lower.

The BBC website headlines it as '900 Bosch workers to get support'. This is a devastating blow to jobs and communities. The headline is meaningless. People don't want support, they want their jobs.

The Welsh Assembly should demand repayment of the £21 million Bosch was given in 1991 as an incentive to locate there.

Wednesday, January 13, 2010

One Good Man and (hopefully) True

For the first time in 350 years Englishmen face a trial without the benefit of a jury, the case presided over by a judge.

Will this mean an end to justice? Is it the first step away from our adversarial legal system toward the European model?

The men concerned are charged with serious crimes. (I'm not going into the details as I want to concentrate on the principles. You can read more detail HERE). Three trials have collapsed, the last of which was halted because of suspected jury fixing.

But should we remove the right to jury trials? I believe this to be a dangerous precedent. Better, in my view to house the jury securely so that here can be no question of interference and give the men a fair trial.

There are also the dangers inherent in leaving guilt and legal procedure and precedent in the hands of one judge.

I also suggest that if a jury can be omitted from the legal process on the grounds they may be at risk of being influenced, how long before a jury trial is suspended because a defence counsel may adversely affect the outcome of a trial by persuading a jury a defendant is not guilty?

The case is well put in the conversation between William Roper and Thomas More in 'A Man for all Seasons':

"William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!

Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!"

And there lies the danger. If we dismantle the law to convict the guilty, how will the law protect the innocent?

Tuesday, January 12, 2010

VIRUS ALERT! From an email I received today

Warning of a huge virus coming

Hi All Tamworth Watchers

Please pass this on to all your friends, family and other contacts.
I received this warning via my father in Australia where Norton Anti Virus who are gearing up for this virus!

You should be alert during the next few days . Do not open any message with an attachment entitled "POSTCARD FROM HALLMARK", regardless of who has sent it to you... It is a virus that first copies all your contact list and then shows you A POSTCARD IMAGE which burns out the whole of your hard disc of your computer.

This virus will be sent from someone who has your e-mail address in his/her contact list. This is the reason why you need to send this message to all your contacts.

If you receive this message called "POSTCARD"  DO NOT OPEN IT! even if it has been sent from a friend, shut down you PC immediately. This is the worst Virus announced by CNN.

It has been classified by Microsoft as the most destructive virus ever. The virus was discovered by McAfee, and there is no repair possible yet. The virus simply destroys the Zero Sector of the Hard Disc, where the vital information is kept.

Keep Safe



Saturday, January 09, 2010

Harriet Harman. Fine!

Harriet fined £350 for careless driving. I suggest they keep a close eye on her receipts. They may find a £350 bill slipped in.

Friday, January 08, 2010

The Truth is the Truth- but Whose Truth is True?

Until reading this http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/beds/bucks/herts/8448469.stm article about the Muslim protesters who called British soldiers murderers, I have not really had a view on the case. I don't think British soldiers should be described as murderers. They act on the orders of their officers and are sent to war by the government. If anybody, it is they who should be the object of Muslim wrath. On the other hand, we are supposed to be a free country, and if we take away one person or group of people's freedom to demonstrate, we endanger the freedoms of everybody. But, they have chosen to live in Britain and should accept our way of life and foreign policy. But we can't expect everybody to give up all aspects of their beliefs and culture... and so the arguments could go on, a swing one way and then another.

In this enlightening article, Munim Abdul claims their behaviour was not threatening, abusive or likely to cause offence, because it was the truth. He went on to claim : "If it's the truth then there's no way they would find it upsetting" and "It's like calling a paedophile a paedophile, that's what he is."

That is where I took the view he and the six other defendants were wrong, morally if not legally. There are many things we are restricted from doing and saying, even though they may be or we may perceive them to be truths. For example, Mr. Abdul has a darker skin than I do. In Britain, we have a very specific law that prevents me from discriminating against Mr. Abdul, or from abusing him based on the very real truth that his skin is a different colour to mine. So arguing abuse is not abuse because it is the truth is at best very weak. It could also be very dangerous if this claim is upheld by a British court, because allowing a defence in this case on the basis that the abuse was truthful would allow a racist to use a similar defence.

Expenses plans 'not watered down'

Looks like the expenses reforms are more subtle than substance.

"The man in charge of overhauling MPs' expenses denies backing away from some proposed radical reforms to the system."

Isn't whitewash mostly watered down?