(demm42 will not spam you!!) Best of Soapbox 2005 (Jan-Jun)
demm42's E-mail :
(demm42 will not spam you!!)
Home
demm42
Tours
Mini-Tours
Fun Stuff
|
As I've said on the main soapbox page, all the items on this page are my own personal points of view, and do not represent anyone else. Best of Soapbox 2004 June 2005
One of the news sites on the internet has a story about proposals to make us pay a congestion charge on public transport (specifically trains) to prevent dangerous overcrowding at peak periods. This comes at a time when the government is proposing to charge us up to £1.40 per mile (according to media coverage) for driving on the roads of this country. They certainly didn't keep this one in the public eye during the election did they!! So let's have a look at this. Firstly, they're going to make driving a rich mans perk (i.e. the sort of people who make financial contributions to the political parties, allegedly). At least the roads will be clear for them in the future. Anyway, I've already covered road charges on the soapbox so I won't go into that again. So, we all switch to our expensive (at peak times) public transport system. This helps the environment as there are fewer cars on the road and creates jobs in this sector as more people are now using it. Good. The environmentalists are happy, the train operators are happy with the extra income, and the governments achieved what it wants (until the taxes raised from roads goes down). However, there are only so many trains you can fit on a railway line. As investment in the railways has been lacking for years, it's now too late to improve the capacity of the tracks in urban areas. The result is trains becoming congested making them more dangerous for the people that use them. The answer. Let's charge people extra for travelling on congested trains. How f**king ridiculous!! Firstly they force us off the congested roads by pricing them out of our reach. This results in more people on the trains and dangerous overcrowding. So they charge a congestion charge for using the public transport system they've forced us onto to make off-peak travel more attractive. How many employers are going to accept employees working flexible hours to suit the best prices on the trains used to get them to work? Would your employers accept this? No. Neither would mine. Additionally, business cannot be conducted effectively between companies if they all work different hours. How long will it be before they introduce congestion charges for paths? Yes, certain footpaths in a city are that congested with people walking because they can't afford to drive or take the train. This results in them having to introduce a footpath tax to decrease the number of people using it. In fact why don't they just charge us for stepping out of the door of our house!! One point I want to make is that the freedom of choice in the UK is being eroded by proposals to make us pay for that freedom (didn't we use freedom of choice as one of the reasons for going to war a while back!!). We are possibly going to be made to pay for leaving our homes by whatever means (car or public transport) at the times we choose. Proposals like this have far reaching effects and achieve nothing. I could go into other points such as how are people going to tour a country (tourism is one of our major areas of business) they can't afford to tour because of road/public transport taxes? Are they really that blind to the consequences of such measures? Finally, it would have been nice for the genius's behind these proposals to suggest a reduction of the cost of public transport at off-peak times instead. The result would still be the same (people paying more at peak times), but you'd encourage more people off the roads on to public transport at the times when it's less busy. But that's not likely to happen in our money driven society is it?
The fact is that these tickets were given out free (except for the cost of the text) so that people could go to the concert which aims to raise the profile of African poverty. He has also condemned Ebay who will obviously get a commission type payment from the sales (I believe this is how it works anyway, but as I don't use Ebay please accept my apologies if I'm wrong). However, Ebay has said it will donate its commission (or whatever) to the charity for all tickets sold. However, the fact remains it's not Ebay's fault. It the people who took the chance to profit (at the expense of genuine people who wanted to support the cause) that are to blame. Now we've always had ticket touts who sell tickets outside major sporting/other events at highly inflated prices. However, if people are willing or stupid enough to pay these highly inflated prices for the tickets that's their business. If none of them purchased the tickets, then the touts wouldn't be there making money at their expense. The difference here though is that the touts will have had to pay for the tickets (unless they're forged). If no one buys the tickets, they're out of pocket. However, the tickets for the Live 8 concert were free. I suspect that the vast majority who are selling them on Ebay are just doing it out of greed, and will not be donating any of the money to the charity. I believe all of the money raised from the sale of tickets should be donated to the charity. Now don't get me wrong. I don't begrudge anyone making money. I would love to make a serious amount of money overnight. However, I have a conscience, and I don't want to make it at the expense of someone else. It's just a pity that some people in society haven't got a conscience. How do they sleep at night? Update: Shortly after writing this article, Ebay were on the news saying they'll be taking all the Live 8 tickets being sold on Ebay off the site. Good for them!! Update 2: Various radio shows have been discussing the above topic. The main three arguments for selling the tickets were:
The first two of the above points are valid. However, it's doesn't make it morally right to sell the tickets. The concert is being held to highlight the poverty of the citizens in these African countries (not the leaders admittedly in some countries). Regarding the third point. Bob Geldof has spent time publicising and promoting this free concert. He feels passionate about Africa and I think he has every right to be hacked off when people appear to be abusing his convictions for their own gain.  You may have heard
on the news a story about a five-year old boy in Dewsbury who was
apparently abducted by several children aged around 11 years old.
It then appears the boy was tortured (for want of a better word)
before they tried to hang him. The children who've been arrested
are being questioned on attempted murder.
Now obviously all the details at the time of writing are sketchy/unconfirmed, and further details may have emerged since I wrote this. However, commenting from the media coverage as it stands (at the time of writing) this crime is sick for an adult to commit, never mind children. The trouble is that you can see what's going to happen next (provided that no more details to the contrary have now become known). Yes, it will be another James Bulger (although the children involved in that crime were slightly younger at the time it was committed). The children involved will not be punished. Do-gooders will say that they are only 11/12 years old and didn't know what they were doing. Maybe they'll argue they've come from broken homes and try and blame social services. Maybe it's a game that's gone wrong (I can't believe that this has even been suggested). Some computer game or film which depicts some similar crime may come into the spotlight (who's letting children of this age watch films/play games like these?). While the parents may have to bear a little of the blame for their children's actions, it isn't directly their fault. 'Listen son/daughter, I want you to go out and beat up then hang an infant today'. Yes you can imagine the parents saying this to their son/daughter before he/she goes out. The children who commited the crime will then be taken out of society, rehabilitated/educated privately, and released back into society with new identities, all at the taxpayers expense. Some punishment eh? Are you telling me that 11/12 year old children who beat up and then hang (allegedly) a five year old boy (for whatever reason) don't know that this is wrong? What if it was your five year old? How would you feel? The fact is that this five year old boy will probably bear the scars from this for the rest of his life. I'm sure he'll be offered therapy, support and help, but it will always be there for the rest of his life. This reason alone is enough justification for the children involved to also have a life sentence (again at our expense, but at least justice is then being served) with no release back into the community for at least 50 years. Harsh I know, but this crime just sickens me. Finally, to sit on the other side of the fence, if my daughter was ever involved in any crime like this, I would expect her to be taken out of society. At the age of seven she knows wrong from right (although she does like to push the line to the limit as do all children). We all know children do get into fights. They get bullied by other children. However I don't believe this crime could fall into either of these categories. It shows an utter disregard for another persons life and is callous in its nature. Let's hope we don't have any more cases like this in the future and drum this respect that the government keeps harping on about into our children. Now as I said previously, a lot of this article is conjecture at the time of writing and maybe other details have now emerged. I really hope that all is not as it seems. Time will tell. May 2005
Firstly, in the past two weeks (before this was published) the media has had stories regarding two policemen who have been in court on speeding charges. The first one was regarding a policeman who was caught doing around 160mph on the M54 in the Telford area. After he said that he was just trying out his new police car his case was dismissed or he was let off (can't remember the actually terminology used). The offence took place in the early hours of the morning so there wouldn't have been much traffic on the roads. Now I don't have a problem with policeman trying out police cars. I don't think it's wrong. However, were the flashing lights going? Did he tell his superiors what he was going to do (assess the cars capabilities)? Was the motorway shut while he tried it out? If the answer is yes to these questions, then why was the case brought to court at our expense? If no, then why has he been let off? What message does this send out to other road users? Can a motorcyclist say he was just trying out the bike in the same circumstances? No. They'd throw the book at him. Secondly, a policeman was let off a 90mph in a 30mph because he was attending an emergency. He hit another car and crashed into a house. If this is the case, why is he in court at our expense? It was reported that the black box recording of the offence had gone missing. How convenient. However, it was apparently being used in another vehicle now. Ironically, the driver of the car he hit is yet to be prosecuted. Thirdly, of the 59 speeding offences involving police officers in one area, not one has been in court. All were let off because they had a legitimate reason for the excess speed. The majority (so I believe) weren't on an emergency and didn't have there lights flashing. I wonder what a legitimate reason is for speeding? Can we, the public use the same excuse? I've left the oven on at home. My wife's about to have a baby. The guy in front has just cut me up so I'm giving chase to make a citizens arrest. I wonder if any of them would hold any water? Finally, locally a speed camera has had its camera sawn off. Now I can't imagine any of the drivers who pass by that way having a problem with this, although I must admit I don't condone this vandalism (for want of a better word). In fact, as you well know, I don't condone any vandalism. And it has been pointed out that this camera has reduced accidents in this area. So what's the problem I here you say. Well, the police are now appealing for information to track down the vandals. No problem with that either. They appear to be devoting a fair amount time and resources to the enquiry, No problem with that either. Why is it then that when you phone the police to report a crime (vandalism or otherwise) the same amount of resources/time don't appear to be applied? Is it because their pride hasn't been hurt by the crime? I'll leave you to decide on that one. It has been
suggested that people (usually young offenders) on community sentences
should be seen to be serving their sentences by wearing orange uniforms
so people will know that justice is being dealt and to shame the
people involved.
Now firstly, this doesn't deal with the underlying problem which is yob culture and the fact that a lot of these people committing these offences are not caught. But never mind, when they are caught at least we will be able to see them serve their sentences. Then the civil liberties people and do-gooders get involved. They say that this will cause resentment among the criminals and wont help to adjust them into a normal lifestyle (or words to that affect). They also argue that a lot of these offenders come from broken homes and this causes them to become young offenders. Finally, they worry that these people may then become targets for vigilantes. Now hold on a minute. Firstly, if these youths are under 16 they can do what they like, or so it seems. There not allowed to be named and shamed, they walk around outside court smoking and flicking V's at the press (when there names are revealed). They don't give a f***. And why? Because they know as soon as they get in that courtroom, they just say they come from a broken home, and they get to go on holidays at our expense to rehabilitate them. Okay. I admit that may be exaggerated, but it has happened in the past. Anyway, I don't believe that these rules will apply to this age bracket. Secondly, assuming they are 16 or over, then they are old enough to be classed as an adult. They are not kids anymore. In fact they say they don't want to be treated like kids. In that case they will also know right from wrong. Are the civil liberties people telling us that these young offenders don't know that smashing shop windows, vandalising phone boxes or mugging elderly people is wrong? And we should pity them if they do commit a crime. What rubbish!! Thirdly, if people do take the law into there own hands and become vigilantes, then these people should be punished as well because they are acting no better than the original offenders. Two wrongs don't make a right. These offenders are making the lives of the average person a misery. In some areas, people are afraid to leave there houses because of the intimidation these youths cause. I don't see the civil liberties people standing up for the right of someone to leave their house and go to the shops without being hassled and intimidated by these yobs. Only today, as I publish this, vandals have attacked a childrens cemetery in Bolton. Well this defies belief. There will come a time when they will push ordinary citizens too far. And who will be punished. Yes the people who take the law into there own hands because they have had enough of the yobs. And you can bet your bottom dollar they wont be let off with a holiday!! Time for deep breathes. In - Out - In - Out. Calm now. I'm sure you can see which side of the fence I'm standing on here. I am getting fed up of writing about this subject. However, until some respect comes back into this society, I can see this topic coming back again and again.
I would have liked to see more independent MP's who have no agenda and can truly represent the people they stand for and not have to tow the party line. Anyway, watch out for the tax rises now. Computer (Possession) Tax and all that. Just don't say I didn't warn you. The news is now full of stories about calls for Tony Blair to move over. Now hold on a minute. I'm no fan of Tony Blair, but calling for him to move on just after an election win is wrong. People didn't just vote for Labour, they voted Tony Blair as Prime Minister. To move him on now makes a mockery of the election. How many of you would have voted Labour if 'Two Jags' was going to be the Prime Minister? Not as many I'm sure. And as for bringing David Blunkett back into the cabinet!! Need I say anymore. While I accept that the stories surrounding him were in his personal life, the fact remains (in my opinion) that the actions he took were wrong and caused unnecessary stress for the people involved as well as bringing sleaze back in to party politics, which I've always associated with the Tories, rightly or wrongly. However, for the sake of balance, I better say that I can't remember a recent Tory sleaze story in the news so I've probably got this opinion from stories many years ago. Also, apart from him calling Tony Blair a liar, I respected the campaign the Tories fought and did think Micheal Howard handled the run up to the election very well. Anyway, politics is back on the soapbox, and it feels good. Here's to another 5 years.
Anyway, let's cover it from a few angles. Firstly stress. Stress in the workplace is on the increase according to several websites. This can be dependant on the job. For instance, it makes sense that someone in a job such as a policeman would be expected to have a more stressful day that someone working as an architect. In fact, any public facing jobs (i.e. teaching, customer service desks, etc) are probably more stressful. Have you watched the TV programme Airline that shows Easyjet employees dealing with the public. Customers get held up because of an accident on the motorway. They then get angry because Easyjet haven't held up there flight for them. The fact is they could have allowed themselves extra time in travelling to the Airport. But their minds don't work like that. If it takes 45 minutes to get to the Airport, we'll allow an hour just in case of delays. A motorway accident can add an hour if not more to any journey. And what about the passengers already on the flight, who did allow the extra time and turned up for the flight with plenty of time to spare. Why should their journey be delayed for the sake of a selfish few? Anyway, the point is that those customer service people have to put up with this stress day in day out. Just to balance it out here, I do realise that Easyjet sometimes run the flights late (as do most Airlines) and this can be just as frustrating for the passengers who then have a valid reason to be angry. Don't shoot the messenger though. Back to the point. Sickness and stress. Increasing numbers of employees are going off sick because of stress related illnesses. Along with the job involved, other causes can be poor management (and when this is brought up through the grievance procedures no action appears to be taken), expectations, workload. I'm sure there are others. But let's take a look at workload and sickness now. In most jobs, when people take holidays then someone will have to cover for them, just as when you take your holidays you expect someone to cover for you. Again this can vary from job to job. The same applies to sickness. We all get ill at sometime in our lives. In all my years of employment (over 10) I'm quite proud of the fact that I've only had about 6 weeks of sickness. About 4 weeks of this is over the last 4 years. OK I'm older now. More likely to get sick. But also the doctors, and I don't dispute some the reasons behind this, but the doctors are less willing to give out medication for illness. There was a time that when you got ill, you'd go to the doctor who'd give you some medicine and you'd be back on your feet in no time. However, the viruses, bugs, whatever you wish to call them, are now becoming resistant to these medicines. So the doctors stop prescribing them. (Money is also another factor behind this, but let's not get into that on this soapbox). The thing is though, people are now taking longer to get over the illnesses. Businesses see this, and assume more people are throwing sickies, which brings me onto my next point. A small proportion of people throw sickies when the weather is nice or they have a hangover. Obviously this isn't right and these people should be disciplined for their actions. The thing is though it's hard for businesses to prove it. The result, they punish the majority because of the small minority who abuse the system. For instance, they may withdraw the right to full pay when you're sick. At the end of the day, those of you who don't exploit the system suffer because of those who do. To go the other way, some companies may reward people who don't go off sick. Fine, except this is counter productive. If you were going to lose a large bonus because you had a bad cold, you would seriously consider going into work. The result if you do, particular if you work in an open office, everyone in the same office gets the bad cold as well. More employees end up ill. This hardly improves the sickness figures. So what's the answer? Well there isn't one. Things are just going to get worse. Until employers recognise the fact that most employees are going to be ill at sometime in their lives, deal effectively with poor management causing stress, along with finding an effective way of punishing those who throw sickies things cannot improve. Anyway I'll finish this topic here. April 2005
Anyway, it's back again. Or wheelie bins to be correct. It has been reported that Nottingham City Council is going to fine residents who leave their wheelie bins in the street up to £1000. They are allowed to do this apparently under the Environmental Protection Act. The reason behind this. They are causing an obstruction to people, in particularly disabled people and parents with prams. No problem with that. Now let's delve a little deeper. In days gone by, we used to fill bin bags, leave them out for the dustmen, who'd throw them in the back of the dustbin lorry, hence there was nothing left on the paths after they'd been. Now don't get me wrong. I accept that this sometimes caused problems with dogs/cats ripping open the bags and rubbish being blown down the street. With regards to the dogs, they shouldn't be out without there owners anyway. The cats are harder to deal with. Also the dustmen are less at risk from sharp objects in the bin bags. Fair enough again. Then along came the bright sparks. Let's spend money (our money contributed through taxes) and give all the residents wheelie bins. The dogs/cats can't get at the bags (except that a wheelie bin can only hold about 2 to 3 full bags of rubbish. God forbid you have a large family). The dustmen are safer. Yes, that's a good idea. Let's make everyone have to wheel a heavy bin (before emptying) from there house to the road. Yes wheelie bins make a house look lovely don't they? The demm42 clan used to live in a terraced row of town houses with little room at the front of the house, so the wheelie bin had to go around the back. Being in the middle of the row of town houses, this was quite a walk. Anyway, it's anyone's guess how disabled/elderly/injured people managed to move this bin to the front of the house. The residents compained. Some councils agreed to help them, others were stubborn. Anyway that was a good few years ago. Wheelie bins are here to stay. (I wonder if there's a wheelie bin millionaire out there?). So wheelie bins are getting left on the street now. This is going to happen anyway for all residents that work. You put the wheelie bin out in the morning, go to work, come home in the evening, move it back. The fact is for one day of the week at least, the street is going to be littered (pun) with wheelie bins. How does threatening the residents with fines help the disabled, injured or parents with prams in this circumstance? Can you imagine asking your manager if you can nip home to put your wheelie bin away? What do you think he'd say? While it is appreciated what the threat of fines is trying to achieve, the fact is that it won't solve the problem for at least one day of the week. To conclude this topic, the city council that's now threatening the fines are the cause the problem by introducing the wheelie bins in the first place. So in essence, they only have themselves to blame and should therefore be fining themselves. That would be an interesting court case (and a waste of taxpayers money). Another load of rubbish me thinks.
So I thought I'd write about MG Rover. As I write this, things aren't looking good as the administrators have been called in, meaning that up to 20,000 jobs at MG and suppliers could be at risk. No one can imagine how worried the families involved are with all this uncertainty hanging over their heads. There seems to be a lot of calls for the government to bail them out (damn, politics!! Two paragraphs in and I've already broken the no politics rule). Obviously if this had happened in a couple of months time then it would be unlikely money would have been made available. However there's an election on. All the parties can make promises to the voters at the plant. Tony Blair even visited the site last week. To me, and I hate to say this, it just looks false. It's a shame that it has to come down to this. Still, the government is pointing out how well the economy is and using this as an election issue. (Cheap shot I know!!). The fact is, as I've said many times on this soapbox, manufacturing (and other businesses) in this country, no matter our skilled/loyal the UK workers are, will always suffer at the hands of the manufacturers/businesses in developing countries who can produce the goods at lower costs and more profit to the companies (and people at the top on profit related bonuses) involved. We will become a nation of transport drivers, shopkeepers and hoteliers. While I'm not in favour of the tactics employed by French workers in similar situations, they always seem to get results from the French government which are sometimes contrary to EU policy. Funnily, when the UK stands up against EU policies we get looked upon as awkward stick in the muds. Oh it's just the British being the British. Still upper lip and all that rubbish!! Actually, Europe's not yet been mentioned in the campaign (at the time of writing). A subject for another soapbox me thinks. There are no easy answers. I don't believe the government should pump millions into an unprofitable business, but I also don't want to see thousands of families lose their livelihood. The fact is until the cheaper economies grow to a level similar to ours, we are not going to be able to compete. Once they have grown to that level, then the shoe will be on the other foot. However, this is many years off yet, so the near future will continue to look bleak for many manufacturers and businesses in this country. Let's hope they can survive that long. March 2005
Right. The BBC is funded by the licence fee. Okay. Analogue TV is going to be switched off in 2012 (or earlier if possible). It's all going to be digital. Fine. The licence fee will remain in place until 2016, as recently announced by the government. Yes. Now let's look at it from another angle. Broadband is getting faster. ADSL2+ is being tested at 24mbs (I believe). It's now getting to speeds where TV can be delivered into the home via the internet. No need for a receiver. No licence fee as the licence is for the receiver (I believe). Let's look into our crystal ball. Can you see it to? TV delivered via broadband. No receiver, no licence fee, no money for the BBC. What can be done? http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0%2C%2C2-1508650%2C00.html Computer (Possession) Tax. We'll look into taxing everyone who has a computer. Is it me, or has this not been given much coverage in the media (other than the above sites and on Radio 5 live)? Is the government trying to keep it quiet you wonder (election year remember. Unpopular ideas allegedly not brought into the public arena) or is it just that the media doesn't rate it as an important news story? Now before I start, I better say that this is only being looked into at the moment (consultation paper I think they call it). However, no matter who gets into government, I believe that this consultation will result in this tax being levied. Will it be applied per household, or per computer? Will computers that aren't used on the internet be included? Will Xboxs and other games machines that can connect into the internet be included? What about PDA's, mobile phones and fridges? (Come on, admit it, you want an LG internet fridge as well). Obviously, no answers at this time. It's a consultation document. I was annoyed when I first heard about this. Various forums on the internet have also covered it, and the general feeling among computer users is that of disbelief and anger. The fact is that if (or once) this tax is brought in, other items in the house could also end up being looked into for tax purposes. Hence the other name for it 'possession tax'. Like I keep pointing out, it's an election year. If you live in a marginal area, politicians are going to be coming to your door canvassing. Why don't you ask them about it? Whether you choose to believe what they tell you is up to you. In my opinion, this will happen whatever. No government is going to ignore new ways for raising money via taxes. I'll keep you informed if I find out anything else.
Let's look at the water bill first. It cost me around £270 last year for the water. This year it's around £330. That's an increase of around £60 (my maths was always good). An increase of about 22%. Now I'm sure there's lots of ways the local water supplier could justify this increase, but 22% is more than 5 times the rate of inflation. Now let's look at the gas bill for the winter period quarter. About £80 last year, just under £95 this year. 18% increase. Around four times the rate of inflation. The lowest is the council tax bill, with an increase of just under 5%, but I suspect that's only because it's capped. Anyway, back to the utility bills. I admit I'm with the old school. I've stuck with the main suppliers for the area. Better the devil you know than the devil you don't is the phrase I use. I realise I could probably make savings by switching suppliers, but why should I? Here's something I didn't know. Better stress that is based on what I was told by a salesman for one of the other suppliers (so it may be sales bull), so I apologise if I get any of the facts wrong. When the government (which one I don't know) opened up the supply of gas and electricity to other suppliers, to make sure the competition was fair they told the main suppliers for the area that their price should always be the highest in their areas. For instance, if Southern Electric are your main supplier they have to be the supplier charging the most. However, they can go into an area supplied by Manweb for instance, and offer cheaper electricity as Manweb are the main supplier for that area. Manweb can go into Southern Electrics area and offer cheaper electricity in that area. (Maybe someone can confirm this). So basically, because you choose to stay with the supplier you've always been with, you get penalised. And they call this competition!!! How can this be called choice when the one you choose is being told to charge the most? Can you imagine Tescos or Asdas being forced to sell they own brand goods for a price in excess of the competition. In other words, their own brand bread which could cost about 45p a loaf would have to be increased to 70p so that the competition (Warburtons or Hovis) can sell theirs at 60p. I can't see them going for that. I got a pay increase of around the rate of inflation this year. However, my utility bills are increasing at 4 times this rate or more. Can you imagine what would happen if all employees started asking for a pay increase of 20% to keep up with the bills. You start to wonder why you bother. What is the point of earning a living? You see people who are on benefits getting all their bill's covered. No objection to that. And most of them are happy. Those of us who work get the privilege of stress and crap to come home with a bit of money at the end of the month, to watch it be frittered away on bills that are increasing at a rate in excess of the extra money we're getting. I'm no better off this year than last. The government are promising tax cuts. It's an election year. We are all going to be better off. Even the budget was aimed at winning the voters with very few tax rises (those will come when the next government is in power). However, I can't see it myself. If what is being considered is correct (computer/possession tax), then everyone who is reading this in the UK will be getting an extra tax bill. I will cover this on the next soapbox.
The news is that more than 200 jobs are likely to be lost in Dingwall, Scotland as a call centre is switched to India. This follows numerous other companies doing the same thing in other areas of the country. Now I'm biased. You know my hearts in Scotland, and having visited Dingwall many years ago, I know what a nice small town it is. I believe that this is the largest employer in the town, and as such, the loss of these jobs will not only affect those people, but the other businesses in the town who supply this company and its employees. And I don't believe this will be the end of this trend. Other companies in the UK will continue to make the same decision. We all know that there is no way Britain can compete with Asia on salaries. It's all about money, not loyalty to the people in this country. The fat cats want to get fatter. Ask yourself how many of these companies involved pass the cost savings onto their customers? What makes it worse is the fact that one of the companies involved is what I would call a British company through and through. My faith in this company has now been dented. Whether the people in this country will get a better service because of this move remains to be seen. However, I don't believe that this will be the case this time. The call centre involved provides information that is specific to this country. It's not an insurance or financial institution. The fact is it's time the people in this country made a stand. Complain to the companies involved if the money they make off you doesn't benefit this country. If they don't listen, don't give them your business. If enough people made this move, then the companies involved would have to listen. One final interesting point connected with the above. I believe (although you'll have to correct me if I am wrong here and I'll update this paragraph) the Data Protection Act doesn't allow personal data, such as credit card details to be transferred to India (and other countries as well) due to the data protection in those countries not being as stringent as here. Any company that does this is may be breaking the law. Could this also be part of the reason why identity theft (which has also been in the news this week) is on the increase? I'll let you decide that. February 2005
Basically last week there were rumours that some of our village schools were being reviewing for closure due to falling pupil numbers. All schools with less than 100 pupils were being considered. However, last year the secondary school catchment areas were reviewed as there were too many pupils. Hmm. Think about that one. I believe that even in the village we live in, which secondary school you attend depends on where you live in the village. You can be split off from your friends in your class when you move up a school. Now let me just say that no decisions had been made about the primary schools and the local authority stressed this. However, this is going on around the country, where village schools are being closed, the land is being snapped up by land developers, new houses are built, couples move in, have kids and find there is no school to send the kids to. A vicious circle. Bernera primary school on the Isle of Lewis is to close. This is due to there being only 3 pupils at the school. Now maybe with only 3 pupils there is a valid argument for shutting the school. I believe the next nearest school is about 10 miles away. I presume a bus will be laid on to take the pupils to this school. However, to close the school permanently would be a shame. In ten years times there may once again be a need for a local school. However, I think that 20 or more pupils justifies the need to keep a school open. To consider closing a school with 90 pupils is ridiculous. The government keeps banging on about how there going to keep improving our education system. However, when you look at this locally, it's not the case. It's all about money. It's just a pity that money constraints never seem to apply when pay rises are looming for the politicians (allegedly. I've got this thing about politicians haven't I? Very disillusioned voter. That's me.). Part of the reason why the demm42 clan wants to move is because of the size of the class that our daughter is in, which results in each pupil getting less attention than they need. To be fair the school does try to help her though. The point is however that if village schools are being merged, this will result in larger classes and more pupils will not get the education they require. Improving education? Not from what I can see. There are other arguments than can be made regarding our education system, and I'm sure they will appear on this soapbox in the future. For now though, I'll leave it there.
Now if you're a regular reader of this soapbox, you'll know that there are two areas I tend to avoid, religion and race. Both are areas that are very emotive. Firstly I'll tell you where I stand on religion. I would like to believe in God. Sometimes I do. However, when I see what's going on in today's world, with all the heartache and pain, it makes me wonder where he (or she) is. Why isn't he (or she) helping? Religion is supposed to unite people. From what I see, it appears to divide people. People often have wars over religion. It basically comes back to 'we all have to live on this planet together, so let's get on'. Having said that, I believe people should make their own choices. If they want to go to church every week, that's up to them. I respect there choice of how they want to live there lives. If you look on my Lewis/Harris pages, you'll have read how the Lords day (Sunday) is still observed. All the shops/businesses close. Like I said on those pages, it's nice to see and I respect the choice the hebrideans have made. What I'm saying is just because I don't go to church every week it doesn't make me any less religious than anyone else. And I don't judge others for the choices they make about religion. On to 'Jerry Springer the Opera'. I did watch it. I enjoyed it. It wasn't one of your stuffy Italian operas and as operas go, it was entertaining and funny in parts. However, I could see how some people might find it offensive, not just for the language but the religious content as well. I'm not going to psychoanalysis it though. I not going to harp on about how it is trying to send a message to all of us about religion. In my view, it was entertainment. Nothing more. Not to everyone's taste I'll admit, but nothing more than entertainment. And if this sort of entertainment offends you, don't watch it. Switch it off. Peoples choice. Getting it into the news by refusing charity donations from it is just free marketing for them. Getting back to the point, at the end of the day people are dying from cancer. Every bit of money helps. Does it matter where the money comes from? Just because I don't go to church, would my money be refused by this charity? If I wasn't a Christian, would my money be refused? Would they refuse money from the lottery because it could have come from people involved with the opera? Where do you draw the line? To finish off, if one of my relations was dying from cancer, and £3000 pounds could save their life and allow them to live a normal life, I wouldn't care where the money came from. And that's my point!!
Save me now, save me now... come on and One day the earth woke up, said "Boy it's getting hot Save me now, save me now... come on and "Save Me Now" by Jeff Lynne from the album Armchair Theatre. 141 countries have signed up to the Kyoto Protocol emission pact (or whatever it's called) to cut greenhouse emissions and slowdown global warming. And well done to them. It's nice to see that some countries are finally coming together to do something for the future of our kids and their kids. Before I start, I have based this soapbox on what I've read and heard from the media, so I apologise if I get any of the facts wrong. Anyway, to carry on, it's just a pity that the worlds biggest polluter (I am lead to believe according to some sources in the media), the USA hasn't signed up. I believe they said it would cost too much to implement. Nice touch. The cost of helping save our planet for our kids is too much. I'm sure there's some political argument they could use to back up their position, but in my opinion they don't appear to be showing any interest in securing the future for our kids, even their kids. It just makes me angry. Is this another indication of what I've previously said about business influencing political decisions? Are the polluting companies the ones funding the political campaigns? That's a decision you'll have to make yourselves. Another point made is that developing countries are given get out clauses (or wording to that effect). Is this right? There's an argument to say that they are still developing, and haven't caused the pollution. Also, can we not help them to stop them making the same mistakes we have? Time will tell. The fact is, as I've said numerous times on this soapbox, we all have to live together on this planet. Sod all the political agendas, the military posturing/spending, using money as an excuse. Surely this is more important. This applies to all sides, the good, the bad, the indifferent. This planet is not worth the fight if you're not willing to secure its future. If the evidence is inconclusive, get more evidence. Once it happens, it's too late. The world needs to act now!! 141 countries can see that. It might only be a small step, but at least it's a step in the right direction. The world MAY be dying. The time to act is now. If your not part of the solution, then your part of the problem. It's about time the above song by Jeff Lynne was played around the world. The message is still as strong today as it was in the late eighties. I'm sure there are other songs making the same point, but this one stands out in my memory. The lyrics say it all. January 2005
Apparently, the rising oil prices are the reason behind this. Now don't get me wrong, I'm glad to see two big companies doing well, and if I worked for those companies I would certainly expect to see a bonus in my pay packet in the coming months as a word of thanks to all the employees who helped make it possible. But there is one thing that bothers me. Whenever the government puts up the tax on fuel, they also say they hope that the oil companies will absorb the rise so that they don't pass it on to the voters (sorry, customers). However, usually it does get passed on to motorists with the oil companies saying that they don't make much on fuel anyway. Let's ponder for a minute. 60..59..583..2..1..0. Okay. Do you see where I'm going here? The oil companies usually pass on rises to the oil prices as they don't make enough money on the fuel to absorb it. They then say that their billions of profits are due to oil price rises. Am I the only one who thinks this doesn't add up? While we're on fuel, why have none of the car manufacturers produced a car that will run on another fuel source. Electric cars just don't do the distance yet, although I'm sure the technology is there. What about a solar powered car? Whoops. Sorry, forgot we live in the UK don't we. At least the roads would be quiet at night. Anyway, I tell you what I think. The only reason that we don't have a vehicle that runs on water, wheat, rubbish (that would be good wouldn't it. Stick all your rubbish in the car. No more binmen, sorry, refuse collectors. See previous soapbox below), whatever, is that the government would be up in arms. Imagine them losing all that income on tax. There'd be an outcry. All that money they'd lose. They have to rely on there sorry, better not go off on one here. Don't fancy a libel case. But isn't the internet a technology used for free speech. Sorry I'm going off the point here. Anyway, just as in America, it could probably be alleged that the interests of the corporations and political agendas do sometimes suit one another. Political parties do have donations from corporations/industry sometimes. Sorry I'm going off the point here (again!!). Back to fuel. I, like many other people, am fed up with the price of fuel. Numerous other areas related to this have also been tackled on this soapbox. Too much traffic on the roads. Environmental issues. Fuel prices are increased to force people to use public transport. Tough if you live in a remote area. Tough if you want to visit relative the other side of the country. And does anyone think that the price of LPG will remain at its current level once it becomes the norm? Neither do I. Well I'll finish there for now. I'm sure that this and related subjects will return again.
Anyway, it's not this disaster I'm going to comment on, but I'm returning to one of the subjects that came up several times last year and is already in the news (locally and nationally) this year. As usual, I don't claim to know all the facts on the points I make, so I apologise if I make any mistakes. A thirteen old year boy has been in court convicted (I believe) of drink driving. He was already banned from driving from previous offences (so it's obviously okay to drive at the age of 13). He was also speeding at 70mph in a 30mph zone. He was in a built up area. News coverage showed him smoking outside the court (so you can smoke at 13 as well!!). Radio 2 also had an MP on arguing that he shouldn't be put away in a young offenders institution. Please note that this MP did believe he should be taken out of the community though for rehabilitation. Yes let's talk to him away from the community. That will make a difference wont it. I wonder if the same sentiment would be expressed if he'd knocked down and killed a mother and child? Your wife/child? In a separate story, someone on a housing estate complained about children climbing on their walls and into their garden. The housing association has put large spikes (1-2 foot in length) on the walls. Other residents are up in arms about it. They are scared that their children might fall on these spikes and get injured by them. Now is it me, or does this not make sense. If children are climbing on high walls, aren't they at risk anyway of getting injured if they fall? Surely the spikes would deter them? Or would they be more of a challenge to them in which case these children obviously have no brains. Shouldn't the other residents be saying it's stupid to climb walls to their children? As you know, I'm a parent. My daughter climbs everywhere. She's not old enough to go anywhere on her own yet, but if I caught her climbing walls, particularly ones with spikes on, I'd go bloody mad at her, no matter what age she is. Back to the main point. This year looks like it will be no different than previous years. Crimes by youths will still not be dealt with effectively no matter what the politicians promise. Just remember this when the general election finally arrives. |
All Trademarks are acknowledged.
I have decided
to add this page to keep the best of the soapbox articles I have
written. I feel I'm writing these articles, and some of them are
good, but I'm not getting noticed. So someone out there notice me,
because surely I've got a future in writing newspaper columns. Or
maybe I'm dreaming.
