” I seem to smell the stench of appeasement in the air.”Margaret Thatcher
Thursday, 21 February 2008
Tesco willing to work with the UK State (thus logically against it’s customers) on banning 'cheap' alcohol
It is interesting to note that Tesco appear to be cravenly responding to New Labour’s, authoritarian, patrician, health fascist line, that supermarkets are selling alcohol to the proletariat too cheaply.
At first thought one might wonder that some are willing to go along with anything and conjecture they may be hoping for a position of relative authority over the other prisoners in the concentration camp.
It is also quite possible that they are just boxing clever by responding to the likes of Professor Julian le Grand, when they know the only route is really even higher punitive taxation.
This is undoubtedly where the government would desperately like to go, but even they clearly realise that, without first demonising alcohol and all those who sell and drink it, this may be a step too far - even for New Labour supporters. That is why they now have their like minded medical glove puppets whipped into doing a chorus line on the subject.
Tesco's executive director for corporate and legal affairs, Lucy Neville-Rolfe, pointed out that it was actually really in the State’s hands as: "We can't put up our prices because people will simply shop elsewhere - it could be commercial suicide - and we (the supermarkets) can't act together to put up prices because that would be against competition law.”, in other words a price fixing cartel and "Supermarkets are not allowed to act together to put up prices because that would be bad for the consumer."
Tesco knows perfectly well the government can’t bypass that - or they would run afoul of the real law of the land in this respect - the EC and the European Court.
It is possible they are betting both ways… any further such pronouncements though - and I will be voting with my feet, on principle.
At first thought one might wonder that some are willing to go along with anything and conjecture they may be hoping for a position of relative authority over the other prisoners in the concentration camp.
It is also quite possible that they are just boxing clever by responding to the likes of Professor Julian le Grand, when they know the only route is really even higher punitive taxation.
This is undoubtedly where the government would desperately like to go, but even they clearly realise that, without first demonising alcohol and all those who sell and drink it, this may be a step too far - even for New Labour supporters. That is why they now have their like minded medical glove puppets whipped into doing a chorus line on the subject.
Tesco's executive director for corporate and legal affairs, Lucy Neville-Rolfe, pointed out that it was actually really in the State’s hands as: "We can't put up our prices because people will simply shop elsewhere - it could be commercial suicide - and we (the supermarkets) can't act together to put up prices because that would be against competition law.”, in other words a price fixing cartel and "Supermarkets are not allowed to act together to put up prices because that would be bad for the consumer."
Tesco knows perfectly well the government can’t bypass that - or they would run afoul of the real law of the land in this respect - the EC and the European Court.
It is possible they are betting both ways… any further such pronouncements though - and I will be voting with my feet, on principle.
Wednesday, 20 February 2008
Quote of the day
” When wrongs are pressed because it is believed they will be borne, resistance becomes morality.”
Thomas Jefferson
le Grand calls for UK supermarkets to be banned from selling alcohol
The ‘Chair’ of the Department of Health mouthpiece, Health England , Professor Julian le Grand is at it again.
This time he wants to ban the sale of alcohol in supermarkets, because he clearly doesn’t think adults are capable of managing their own alcohol intake, one suspects he believes unlike him and his elite cronies.
He puritanically sees alcohol as "adult candy" and apparently believes that customers are being ‘seduced’ into buying alcohol, on offer, on their way around the supermarket.
One might be tempted to wonder if he has a relative that runs an off licence ;-)
He also believes the price of alcohol is “disgracefully low" and there should (magically?) be a "dramatic rise" in prices - one presumes he would wish to rectify this by means of yet more taxation.
He seems incapable of understanding, or maybe doesn’t know, that there is no such thing as a “disgracefully low” price, without interference from his ilk the market sets the price. One suspects he would prefer it if the state controlled and set the price of all goods and services.
I have news for him. He may get his wish, at least in the short term and for beer, due to market forces.
The director of food at the British Retail Consortium, Andrew Opie, reacted angrily to what they pointed out was a ridiculous suggestion.
He pointed out that no one buys alcohol accidentally and drew attention to something anyone who regularly shops in a supermarket will have probably noticed: “Supermarkets have the best record on preventing under age sales and are helping to drive a culture of sensible drinking."
This time he wants to ban the sale of alcohol in supermarkets, because he clearly doesn’t think adults are capable of managing their own alcohol intake, one suspects he believes unlike him and his elite cronies.
He puritanically sees alcohol as "adult candy" and apparently believes that customers are being ‘seduced’ into buying alcohol, on offer, on their way around the supermarket.
One might be tempted to wonder if he has a relative that runs an off licence ;-)
He also believes the price of alcohol is “disgracefully low" and there should (magically?) be a "dramatic rise" in prices - one presumes he would wish to rectify this by means of yet more taxation.
He seems incapable of understanding, or maybe doesn’t know, that there is no such thing as a “disgracefully low” price, without interference from his ilk the market sets the price. One suspects he would prefer it if the state controlled and set the price of all goods and services.
I have news for him. He may get his wish, at least in the short term and for beer, due to market forces.
The director of food at the British Retail Consortium, Andrew Opie, reacted angrily to what they pointed out was a ridiculous suggestion.
He pointed out that no one buys alcohol accidentally and drew attention to something anyone who regularly shops in a supermarket will have probably noticed: “Supermarkets have the best record on preventing under age sales and are helping to drive a culture of sensible drinking."
Tuesday, 19 February 2008
Fayed’s much heralded Inquest ‘evidence’, all bluster, no substance
Well many of us may have been waiting for some sort startling evidence backed revelations from Mohammed Fayed yesterday, especially those with a penchant for tinfoil lined hats.
If so we were all doomed to disappointment. He had not a shred of it. Zip. Nil, Nought.
One begins to suspect the only conspiracy was on the part of Mr Fayed. That it may all have been some sort of elaborate wind up on Fayed’s part, at the taxpayers expense, designed to allow him to bad mouth as many people as possible under the immunity provided by the court. It strikes one more as a sort of elaborate fingering the nose at the British State, perhaps in revenge for imagined, or even real, slights – But done with your and my money.
His claims are so convoluted and complicated, involving so many people and such random impossible chances and coincidences, that it is difficult to imagine that even he gives them any real credence.
It would simply not be possible for such a vast conspiracy to have hung together for ten weeks, let alone all these years, without concrete evidence, in large amounts leaking big time. If it were there to be had it would have been by now. Also some of the supposed bedfellows are beyond belief – The French and British security services for instance ;-) who would believe that?
Mr Fayed’s research/evidence seems to have led him to believe Prince Philip was German. His views on the subject as expressed in court are not what might necessarily be interpreted as politically correct racially speaking. Whilst prince Philip probably has some German blood from Prince Albert, his grandfather was King George I of Greece and he was born Prince of Greece, so presumably he is more Greek than German and should not be condemned for being either. Prince Philip saw active service for this country throughout WWII.
Mr Fayed has had his expensive joke. His performance and claims have been so risible one wonders, as a lay person, if he may even have laid himself open to contempt.
The proceedings should now be brought to as speedy conclusion as possible, with as little further waste of hard earned taxpayers money as possible.
If so we were all doomed to disappointment. He had not a shred of it. Zip. Nil, Nought.
One begins to suspect the only conspiracy was on the part of Mr Fayed. That it may all have been some sort of elaborate wind up on Fayed’s part, at the taxpayers expense, designed to allow him to bad mouth as many people as possible under the immunity provided by the court. It strikes one more as a sort of elaborate fingering the nose at the British State, perhaps in revenge for imagined, or even real, slights – But done with your and my money.
His claims are so convoluted and complicated, involving so many people and such random impossible chances and coincidences, that it is difficult to imagine that even he gives them any real credence.
It would simply not be possible for such a vast conspiracy to have hung together for ten weeks, let alone all these years, without concrete evidence, in large amounts leaking big time. If it were there to be had it would have been by now. Also some of the supposed bedfellows are beyond belief – The French and British security services for instance ;-) who would believe that?
Mr Fayed’s research/evidence seems to have led him to believe Prince Philip was German. His views on the subject as expressed in court are not what might necessarily be interpreted as politically correct racially speaking. Whilst prince Philip probably has some German blood from Prince Albert, his grandfather was King George I of Greece and he was born Prince of Greece, so presumably he is more Greek than German and should not be condemned for being either. Prince Philip saw active service for this country throughout WWII.
Mr Fayed has had his expensive joke. His performance and claims have been so risible one wonders, as a lay person, if he may even have laid himself open to contempt.
The proceedings should now be brought to as speedy conclusion as possible, with as little further waste of hard earned taxpayers money as possible.
Monday, 18 February 2008
Quote of the day
“ The true danger is when Liberty is nibbled away, for expedients.”Edmund Burke
" If you are not free to choose wrongly and irresponsibly, you are not free at all.”Jacob Hornberger
A permit to allow you to do lawful things the ruling political elite disapprove of
It is arguable that Professor Julian le Grand a lecturer in social policy at the London School of Economics, is a very scary person.
Why? Because of some of the more sinister methods of state control of the individual that he advocates, coupled with the fact that, as a former aid to Tony Blair and chairman of Health England, a ministerial advisory board, he has the ear of those in power, so wealds undue influence.
He is advocating the introduction of licences to permit people to purchase perfectly legal goods.
He proposes that the licences should be made as difficult as possible to obtain, with complicated forms to fill out and that they should cost between £10 and up to £200 (presumably to penalise the better off) and be renewable annually.
You know it must be something to concern citizens of every political stripe when both the Telegraph and the Guardian have commented on it detrimentally.
He is talking about smoking in this case and the permit would be to purchase tobacco products – but the principle is dangerously easily applicable to anything the state, as the tool of the ruling political elite 'disapproves' of.
But hey! The money would all go to the good old NHS, so that’s OK then – Right?
Once the principle is accepted and applied to a limited hate group, who many non smokers will not worry about, it can be rolled out further.
Alcohol? All those binge drinkers disrupting society, it would keep underage kids away from the stuff right? Stop those middle class wine lovers inadvertantly drinking themselves to death right? Probably not…
‘Unhealthy’, ‘fattening’, food and drinks like burgers, or even tea? Apparently drinking bottled water is ‘immoral’ now. How about that?
A petrol/diesel permit?
What about certain activities like taking a cheap flight, or maybe taking a foreign holiday?
This is actually pretty scary stuff - and by no means beyond the realms of possibility.
In a truly bizarre piece of convoluted newspeak he attempts to brand this classic example of fascist thinking as “libertarian paternalism". An oxymoreon if ever there was one.
It is certainly a fine example of the Political Patrician classes mental processes at work. Showcasing the patrician view of the lower orders he feels and possibly intends this to impact more on poor and less well educated, justifying it on the grounds that it should contribute to a reduction in 'health inequalities'.
It clearly about as diametrically opposed to actual Libertarian thinking as it is possible to get.
One wonders if this may be deliberate on his part, in an attepmpt at black propaganda, targeted at the political ‘meat and two veg brigade’, to put them off realising what Libertarian ideas are really about, given that those ideas are such a threat to his way of thinking.
Why? Because of some of the more sinister methods of state control of the individual that he advocates, coupled with the fact that, as a former aid to Tony Blair and chairman of Health England, a ministerial advisory board, he has the ear of those in power, so wealds undue influence.
He is advocating the introduction of licences to permit people to purchase perfectly legal goods.
He proposes that the licences should be made as difficult as possible to obtain, with complicated forms to fill out and that they should cost between £10 and up to £200 (presumably to penalise the better off) and be renewable annually.
You know it must be something to concern citizens of every political stripe when both the Telegraph and the Guardian have commented on it detrimentally.
He is talking about smoking in this case and the permit would be to purchase tobacco products – but the principle is dangerously easily applicable to anything the state, as the tool of the ruling political elite 'disapproves' of.
But hey! The money would all go to the good old NHS, so that’s OK then – Right?
Once the principle is accepted and applied to a limited hate group, who many non smokers will not worry about, it can be rolled out further.
Alcohol? All those binge drinkers disrupting society, it would keep underage kids away from the stuff right? Stop those middle class wine lovers inadvertantly drinking themselves to death right? Probably not…
‘Unhealthy’, ‘fattening’, food and drinks like burgers, or even tea? Apparently drinking bottled water is ‘immoral’ now. How about that?
A petrol/diesel permit?
What about certain activities like taking a cheap flight, or maybe taking a foreign holiday?
This is actually pretty scary stuff - and by no means beyond the realms of possibility.
In a truly bizarre piece of convoluted newspeak he attempts to brand this classic example of fascist thinking as “libertarian paternalism". An oxymoreon if ever there was one.
It is certainly a fine example of the Political Patrician classes mental processes at work. Showcasing the patrician view of the lower orders he feels and possibly intends this to impact more on poor and less well educated, justifying it on the grounds that it should contribute to a reduction in 'health inequalities'.
It clearly about as diametrically opposed to actual Libertarian thinking as it is possible to get.
One wonders if this may be deliberate on his part, in an attepmpt at black propaganda, targeted at the political ‘meat and two veg brigade’, to put them off realising what Libertarian ideas are really about, given that those ideas are such a threat to his way of thinking.
New Labour nationalises Failed bank Northern Rock
It’s the ‘general election that never was’ all over again. New Labour have spent so long pratting around, unable to make a decision over the inappropriately named Northern Rock (more like a millstone round all our necks) that they have now left themselves with no option but to nationalise it, ‘temporarily’.
Not content with exposing the taxpayer to £55 million liability, in a spectacular example of Nick Leeson-onomics, New Labour have gone double, or nothing - ramping the exposure up to £110 million!
This matter will no doubt see some considerable comment so I shall limit my myself to observing that this averages around £3,500 for each taxpayer. Personally, if I had any choice in the matter at all, I could think of a few things I would rather have spent £3,500 of my hard earned cash on.
Not content with exposing the taxpayer to £55 million liability, in a spectacular example of Nick Leeson-onomics, New Labour have gone double, or nothing - ramping the exposure up to £110 million!
This matter will no doubt see some considerable comment so I shall limit my myself to observing that this averages around £3,500 for each taxpayer. Personally, if I had any choice in the matter at all, I could think of a few things I would rather have spent £3,500 of my hard earned cash on.
Definitely something to think about
Beaman’s World had an interesting post the other day.
It articulated something that I had trying to formulate more concretely myself:
Probably a majority of any group wishes to live in peace and quietly get on with their lives - but a majority that will not police their fanatic minorities is in fact irrelevant, when it comes to the activities of the fanatics and extremists - when it comes to how that group relates with and impacts on, the greater world.
If the majority do not oppose them then if anything they become part of the problem as they provide a form of legitimisation, and/or a medium for the fanatics to move and conceal themselves within and a resource.
There will always be fanatics, of every stripe. If they are not opposed the chances of their reaching a tipping point in numbers and momentum where they then effectively ‘own’ the rest and can do untold harm are greatly increased.
Possibly a concrete illustration of where the phrase: “If you are not part of the solution then you are part of the problem” fits well…
Go read the post.
It articulated something that I had trying to formulate more concretely myself:
Probably a majority of any group wishes to live in peace and quietly get on with their lives - but a majority that will not police their fanatic minorities is in fact irrelevant, when it comes to the activities of the fanatics and extremists - when it comes to how that group relates with and impacts on, the greater world.
If the majority do not oppose them then if anything they become part of the problem as they provide a form of legitimisation, and/or a medium for the fanatics to move and conceal themselves within and a resource.
There will always be fanatics, of every stripe. If they are not opposed the chances of their reaching a tipping point in numbers and momentum where they then effectively ‘own’ the rest and can do untold harm are greatly increased.
Possibly a concrete illustration of where the phrase: “If you are not part of the solution then you are part of the problem” fits well…
Go read the post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)