At what point does any government decide that they're taking enough from the motorist who has to pay increasing sums to fill the fuel tank? Judging by recent increases in both VAT and fuel duty the ConLib alliance remains blissfully unaware of the impact at the pumps.
For millions of hard-working families, recently referred to by Cleggers as "alarm clock Britain" (what a ridiculous phrase), who are now paying around £70 to fill up, the cost of getting to work is increasing at rates way above inflation. The irony is that the cost of fuel is, er, fuelling the inflation that the Bank of England is keen to tame. The likely outcome is that interest rates will be heading up; we can almost here Bruce Forsyth (in Play Your Cards Right mode) asking if it's going to be higher or lower than 0.5% I think the studio audience would be screaming at the hapless contestant: "Higher, higher, higher".
When we remember that the cost of fuel is only 42p per litre we can see exactly why governments quite like having millions of cars on the road; every mile you drive and you're sending money to the government at the rate of almost £1.00 per litre. If your vehicle does 30 miles per gallon you're dropping around 13p per miles to the government. If you do 10,000 miles per year, yep that's right, £1,300.00 in tax that you simply cannot avoid.
So, whilst governments are keen to be seen to be caring for the environment they actually don't want to reduce the easy money that we motorists provide -- and that we provide so willingly. If governments are so keen to be green, why are they spending soooo much money on widening our motorways that will encourage more traffic? It also explains why they're so slow at re-opening Beeching's closed railway lines (closed by Marples, who happened to be a director of a road-building company) or why they won't electrify the whole network. Indeed, previous governments have actually looked at the impact that new rail lines will have on the motoriing public; if too many drivers might switch to rail and, therefore, reduce tax revenue from driving, they would not open the line.
It is time for the government to stop fleecing the motorist and work towards a properly joined-up transport network.
Friday, January 14, 2011
Wednesday, January 05, 2011
FLASHER LANDS IN COURT
Has the Lincolnshire Constabulary really got nothing better to do than to waste court time (and tax-payers' money) prosecuting motorist Michael Thompson for a minor infringement of the law?
Apparently, the answer is 'no', they don't have anything better to do. Now, we have a situation in which a law-abiding member of the public has a criminal record all because he flashed his car's headlights to warn other motorists that they're heading towards a Police 'safety camera' (aka money-spinning speed trap).
The reason why most motorists, the writer included, warn other motorists of speed traps is because they are frequently cynically placed to do nothing more than to generate revenue; they don't have much to do with safety and with the cut-backs starting to bite we can all expect to see more of these mobile money-spinners springing up on a road near you.
In my region, rural Derbyshire, so many of the main trunk roads have had their speed limits reduced from the national speed limit to 50 mph, accompanied by the condescending statement: "It's 50 for a reason" (and we now know what that reason i$!). A case in point is the A515 from Buxton to Ashbourne, which had it's speed limit reduced to 50 mph.
The argument for reducing speed limits is to reduce the number of crashes or fatalities; having travelled along this road for several years I can't tell you the last time I saw a crash. Now, if you keep to 50 mph you often get stuck behind lorries and tractors, and to overtake you have to break the law, which is a complete nonsense.
The A610 that links Codnor to the edge of Nottingham, on the Nottinghamshire-Derbyshire border, allows you to do 70 mph and then just before a long incline, and still miles away from pedestrians, the speed limit reduced to 50 mph and as you approach the roundabout where the A610 meets junction 26 of the M1, it is reduced to 40 mph.
There must be hundreds of examples from around the country with nonsensical speed limits. The irony is that on narrow country lanes you can tear along at 60 mph when the limit perhaps ought to be lower; but there's not enough traffic on country lanes to make it worth trying to enforce a sensible speed limit. The same goes for villages where often the speed limit is 30 mph (as it should be) but motorists hurtle through.
I am not a fan of speed cameras but I believe they should be deployed where motorists ought to know better, but on the open road the speed limits should be set higher.
As for the motorways, when will we be allowed to catch up with our Continental cousins and travel at 80 mph?
Apparently, the answer is 'no', they don't have anything better to do. Now, we have a situation in which a law-abiding member of the public has a criminal record all because he flashed his car's headlights to warn other motorists that they're heading towards a Police 'safety camera' (aka money-spinning speed trap).
The reason why most motorists, the writer included, warn other motorists of speed traps is because they are frequently cynically placed to do nothing more than to generate revenue; they don't have much to do with safety and with the cut-backs starting to bite we can all expect to see more of these mobile money-spinners springing up on a road near you.
In my region, rural Derbyshire, so many of the main trunk roads have had their speed limits reduced from the national speed limit to 50 mph, accompanied by the condescending statement: "It's 50 for a reason" (and we now know what that reason i$!). A case in point is the A515 from Buxton to Ashbourne, which had it's speed limit reduced to 50 mph.
The argument for reducing speed limits is to reduce the number of crashes or fatalities; having travelled along this road for several years I can't tell you the last time I saw a crash. Now, if you keep to 50 mph you often get stuck behind lorries and tractors, and to overtake you have to break the law, which is a complete nonsense.
The A610 that links Codnor to the edge of Nottingham, on the Nottinghamshire-Derbyshire border, allows you to do 70 mph and then just before a long incline, and still miles away from pedestrians, the speed limit reduced to 50 mph and as you approach the roundabout where the A610 meets junction 26 of the M1, it is reduced to 40 mph.
There must be hundreds of examples from around the country with nonsensical speed limits. The irony is that on narrow country lanes you can tear along at 60 mph when the limit perhaps ought to be lower; but there's not enough traffic on country lanes to make it worth trying to enforce a sensible speed limit. The same goes for villages where often the speed limit is 30 mph (as it should be) but motorists hurtle through.
I am not a fan of speed cameras but I believe they should be deployed where motorists ought to know better, but on the open road the speed limits should be set higher.
As for the motorways, when will we be allowed to catch up with our Continental cousins and travel at 80 mph?
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Invincible Vince Cable?
"Reputation is an idle and most false imposition; oft got without merit, and lost without deserving", wrote William Shakespeare in Othello.
This might have been written about Vince Cable, a policitian whose integrity towered above his colleagues matched with a razor-sharp wit; how can anyone forget the famous put-down when he compared Gordon Brown, when he was prime minister, to Mr Bean? Today, however, after revelations in the Daily Telegraph in which Vince Cable told (nay, boasted) to undercover journalists that he could topple the coalition government if he resigned from the Cabinet. He is now looking more like Mr Clumsy than the able politician that he is. However, his gaffe over tuition fees (in which he threated to vote against his own policy) seems to have started the rot.
But what can we take from this major error of judgement? Firstly, that when you're a politician you should always keep your personal views to yourself. You never know who you're talking to and you simply cannot risk anything leaking out that isn't government policy. This is an area in which New Labour excelled; everyone followed the official party line and maintained strict discipline when communicating with the media.
Secondly, that as Shakespeare so eloquently put it, reputation can come and go at the whim of those who bestowed positive attributes to you in the first place. Vince Cable's reputation is now heading south faster than a flock of migrating birds; if he were a Plc we would be selling shares and I can't see that situation changing in the near future. I would be surprised if he didn't do the decent thing and resign before or during the Christmas recess.
The same problem, of a sliding reputation, is also being visited upon Nick Clegg. Was it only 6 months ago when, on the lawns of No. 10, we all witnessed that friendly, knock-about banter between the newly-weds, Clegg and Cameron? Today, Clegg's reputation has been tarnished partly by his volte face on his party's position of tuition fees.
It seem that the problem with both politicians is that they have come under the spell of power and will do anything to keep hold of power. Before the election it was all heart-felt pledges and a promise to do politics differently. Clegg sounded convincing and Cable was his powerful right-hand man, and there was a sense that we could have witnessed a new dawn in British politics.
Of course, the electorate failed to deliver a decisive victory to any party and we now have a situation in which the Tories are getting their own way and the LibDems are having to bite their lips (or so it seems) as they agree to policies that were never in their manifesto. Perhaps Cameron should have formed a minority government, which would have given Cameron a working majority but the opposition parties would have had real power.
I am sure that Clegg enjoyed the moment when he became deputy PM, but he and his colleagues are actually part of a Tory government, which is great news for Cameron because the LibDems are being wheeled-out to take the flack for unpopular policies whilst they sit back pinching themselves, because I am sure that they can't believe they're not dreaming.
This might have been written about Vince Cable, a policitian whose integrity towered above his colleagues matched with a razor-sharp wit; how can anyone forget the famous put-down when he compared Gordon Brown, when he was prime minister, to Mr Bean? Today, however, after revelations in the Daily Telegraph in which Vince Cable told (nay, boasted) to undercover journalists that he could topple the coalition government if he resigned from the Cabinet. He is now looking more like Mr Clumsy than the able politician that he is. However, his gaffe over tuition fees (in which he threated to vote against his own policy) seems to have started the rot.
But what can we take from this major error of judgement? Firstly, that when you're a politician you should always keep your personal views to yourself. You never know who you're talking to and you simply cannot risk anything leaking out that isn't government policy. This is an area in which New Labour excelled; everyone followed the official party line and maintained strict discipline when communicating with the media.
Secondly, that as Shakespeare so eloquently put it, reputation can come and go at the whim of those who bestowed positive attributes to you in the first place. Vince Cable's reputation is now heading south faster than a flock of migrating birds; if he were a Plc we would be selling shares and I can't see that situation changing in the near future. I would be surprised if he didn't do the decent thing and resign before or during the Christmas recess.
The same problem, of a sliding reputation, is also being visited upon Nick Clegg. Was it only 6 months ago when, on the lawns of No. 10, we all witnessed that friendly, knock-about banter between the newly-weds, Clegg and Cameron? Today, Clegg's reputation has been tarnished partly by his volte face on his party's position of tuition fees.
It seem that the problem with both politicians is that they have come under the spell of power and will do anything to keep hold of power. Before the election it was all heart-felt pledges and a promise to do politics differently. Clegg sounded convincing and Cable was his powerful right-hand man, and there was a sense that we could have witnessed a new dawn in British politics.
Of course, the electorate failed to deliver a decisive victory to any party and we now have a situation in which the Tories are getting their own way and the LibDems are having to bite their lips (or so it seems) as they agree to policies that were never in their manifesto. Perhaps Cameron should have formed a minority government, which would have given Cameron a working majority but the opposition parties would have had real power.
I am sure that Clegg enjoyed the moment when he became deputy PM, but he and his colleagues are actually part of a Tory government, which is great news for Cameron because the LibDems are being wheeled-out to take the flack for unpopular policies whilst they sit back pinching themselves, because I am sure that they can't believe they're not dreaming.
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Are you being served?
If you like coffee and you haven't been on Mars for the last few years, you'll be very familiar with the changes that have taken place to the way that we consume coffee. Over the years we have moved from being a nation that enjoys being served at a table to one where self-service is the order of the day.
The rise of the American-styled, self-service coffee chains has led to the Americanisation of yet another part of our daily lives, which has inflicted a whole new service model on the caffeine-hungry consumer.
If you visit any chain-operated coffee bar, and an increasing number of independent operators, the enjoyment all but evaporates the moment you walk in. The sanitised process starts with a queue as you wait in line to be served; when you finally get to place your order, having had to decipher a myriad of coffee options and then select the size of the chosen beverage (why can't they just offer you "large" or "small" rather than "regular" or "tall" or "grande"?). Then comes the "upselling" question, the one that marketeers must have been very proud of when they decided that every customer is likely to spend more if they're asked to: "would you like anything with that?". Invariably, it's a "no" because I think I might be old enough to know whether I would like a small piece of heated dough and smidgen of chocolate, sorry pain au chocolate, which I will be asked to pay around £1.70. What next? "Does sir need to use the toilet?"
Once you have negotiated the ordering stage, you then have to wait until your beverage is served. If, when your drink emerges, you want sugar you have to take your tray to another area where milk, sugar, ridiculous wooden stirring sticks and serviettes are available.
At this point, and you could have been in the cafe for 10 or more minutes, you're still nowhere near being able to enjoy your rapidly-cooling beverage. The next part in this consumer-unfriendly environment is being able to find a vacant table to sit at; if you're with friends or colleagues you can deploy the pincer movement on arrival: one queues for the drinks whilst the others find a table. However, in some establishments even this forward-thinking activity is frowned upon. If you're alone then it's every coffee-lover for themselves.
Of course, being British no one wants to have to share a table even if this means occupying a table for 4 and then spreading out newspapers and laptops to ensure that no other customer will dare to enquire if they can join you. What did the owners expect? That we would all lapse into Friends-esque exuberance at 8.00 in the morning (or at any time of the day for that matter)?
So, we're finally at our table and in a few short minutes we've consumed our lukewarm cappuccino (the best advice is to always go for a black coffee because at least the coffee will still be hotter than the milky alternatives). What next? What if you want another drink? If you're with friends, again, no problem; if you're alone what do you do? Do you leave all your belongings alone and exposed, and then nervously keep checking that your prize laptop is still where you left it as you endure another customer service nightmare? Or do you pack everything up and go?
Emotionally, I packed up and left the chains behind some time ago because I think that enjoying a coffee or tea or whatever you prefer should be a pleasant experience and not a trip down memory lane to the school canteen. I now go out of my way to avoid the chains (sometimes you have no choice: it is either a McKing burger bar or coffee chain), and always choose those places where you do get service (even a genuine smile) and a decent coffee (as opposed to a superdupersillyfrillylattefrothyccino).
Such places are out there waiting for your custom and when you do find them you won't be disappointed; you will enjoy the difference between the clinical, sausage-machine approach to selling coffee and the more personal approach where staff are generally pleased to serve you, an experience which most Europeans still enjoy.
With the chains achieving ridiculously high mark-ups on the cost of the raw ingredients (7p per espresso shot is what it costs them) they are going to be with us for some time to come, but if we want to avoid a chain-only coffee future then I suggest that we all try to seek out those coffee bars where the last thing you're asked is: "do you want anything with that?".
The rise of the American-styled, self-service coffee chains has led to the Americanisation of yet another part of our daily lives, which has inflicted a whole new service model on the caffeine-hungry consumer.
If you visit any chain-operated coffee bar, and an increasing number of independent operators, the enjoyment all but evaporates the moment you walk in. The sanitised process starts with a queue as you wait in line to be served; when you finally get to place your order, having had to decipher a myriad of coffee options and then select the size of the chosen beverage (why can't they just offer you "large" or "small" rather than "regular" or "tall" or "grande"?). Then comes the "upselling" question, the one that marketeers must have been very proud of when they decided that every customer is likely to spend more if they're asked to: "would you like anything with that?". Invariably, it's a "no" because I think I might be old enough to know whether I would like a small piece of heated dough and smidgen of chocolate, sorry pain au chocolate, which I will be asked to pay around £1.70. What next? "Does sir need to use the toilet?"
Once you have negotiated the ordering stage, you then have to wait until your beverage is served. If, when your drink emerges, you want sugar you have to take your tray to another area where milk, sugar, ridiculous wooden stirring sticks and serviettes are available.
At this point, and you could have been in the cafe for 10 or more minutes, you're still nowhere near being able to enjoy your rapidly-cooling beverage. The next part in this consumer-unfriendly environment is being able to find a vacant table to sit at; if you're with friends or colleagues you can deploy the pincer movement on arrival: one queues for the drinks whilst the others find a table. However, in some establishments even this forward-thinking activity is frowned upon. If you're alone then it's every coffee-lover for themselves.
Of course, being British no one wants to have to share a table even if this means occupying a table for 4 and then spreading out newspapers and laptops to ensure that no other customer will dare to enquire if they can join you. What did the owners expect? That we would all lapse into Friends-esque exuberance at 8.00 in the morning (or at any time of the day for that matter)?
So, we're finally at our table and in a few short minutes we've consumed our lukewarm cappuccino (the best advice is to always go for a black coffee because at least the coffee will still be hotter than the milky alternatives). What next? What if you want another drink? If you're with friends, again, no problem; if you're alone what do you do? Do you leave all your belongings alone and exposed, and then nervously keep checking that your prize laptop is still where you left it as you endure another customer service nightmare? Or do you pack everything up and go?
Emotionally, I packed up and left the chains behind some time ago because I think that enjoying a coffee or tea or whatever you prefer should be a pleasant experience and not a trip down memory lane to the school canteen. I now go out of my way to avoid the chains (sometimes you have no choice: it is either a McKing burger bar or coffee chain), and always choose those places where you do get service (even a genuine smile) and a decent coffee (as opposed to a superdupersillyfrillylattefrothyccino).
Such places are out there waiting for your custom and when you do find them you won't be disappointed; you will enjoy the difference between the clinical, sausage-machine approach to selling coffee and the more personal approach where staff are generally pleased to serve you, an experience which most Europeans still enjoy.
With the chains achieving ridiculously high mark-ups on the cost of the raw ingredients (7p per espresso shot is what it costs them) they are going to be with us for some time to come, but if we want to avoid a chain-only coffee future then I suggest that we all try to seek out those coffee bars where the last thing you're asked is: "do you want anything with that?".
Wednesday, July 07, 2010
Give the independent coffee shops a break
With their slicker-than-slick marketing campaigns, matching equally slick interiors it is all too easy to walk past the independent coffee shops in favour of the Costa Neros of the world (or should that be Costa Small Fortune?). The coffee chains offer much to tempt the easily-persuaded consumer that walking into one of their stores will give them the feeling that they're walking on to a set from Friends.
However, the next time you see an independent outlet give them a go. I was on Kennington Road in London recently waiting for a meeting. I was looking for somewhere to wait and spotted and independent patisserie. I initially hesitated before going in because the one thing that chains offer is consistency and it is this safety in knowing what you'll get that people are so tempted to go back time and time again.
I went in and ordered coffee and a pain au chocolat. I was asked for £1.25 and thought that they had forgotten to add something to my bill. The pastry was fresh out of the oven and still warm and the coffee wasn't bad (although it wasn't as good as it could have been). It wasn't anything like as organised or as beautifully designed as the chains, but then I hadn't had to pay for the branding, marketing and design in the inflated prices they charge.
Chains and independents should live side-by-side, but as the chains take an increasing share of the market the indie sector is bound to be squeezed and that would be a shame.
The next time you have a choice between a multiple coffee bar operator and an independent give the little guy a go.
However, the next time you see an independent outlet give them a go. I was on Kennington Road in London recently waiting for a meeting. I was looking for somewhere to wait and spotted and independent patisserie. I initially hesitated before going in because the one thing that chains offer is consistency and it is this safety in knowing what you'll get that people are so tempted to go back time and time again.
I went in and ordered coffee and a pain au chocolat. I was asked for £1.25 and thought that they had forgotten to add something to my bill. The pastry was fresh out of the oven and still warm and the coffee wasn't bad (although it wasn't as good as it could have been). It wasn't anything like as organised or as beautifully designed as the chains, but then I hadn't had to pay for the branding, marketing and design in the inflated prices they charge.
Chains and independents should live side-by-side, but as the chains take an increasing share of the market the indie sector is bound to be squeezed and that would be a shame.
The next time you have a choice between a multiple coffee bar operator and an independent give the little guy a go.
Monday, May 24, 2010
BA's demise?
I was just that little bit too young to remember the real impact of the striking car-workers in the 1970s, but I know exactly the outcome: a non-existent volume car manufacturing industry here in the UK.
The power of the unions in the 1970s had grown out of all proportion and you can see why Maggie decided to take them all on -- and win. Workers in throughout the Industrial Revolution had no rights and many worked in appalling conditions, so you can see why the workers needed someone or some organisation to stand up for them. The unions became too powerful and threatened to damage the very industries that were paying their members, in most cases, a rather good wage (boosted by bonuses, overtime and other additional payments).
Fast-forward to today and with BA we have a situation where a company losing millions is having to make cuts; the unions won't allow these cuts to be made and the cabin crew have walked out. The result is millions of pounds in lost revenue for every day the aircraft remain on the ground.
It shouldn't take a genius to work out what will happen if the workers continue to strike. They might win the argument but, when they're sitting filling in their unemployment payment forms, they might wonder how they managed to lose the war. As for the unions? They're all right, Jack.
Must fly...
The power of the unions in the 1970s had grown out of all proportion and you can see why Maggie decided to take them all on -- and win. Workers in throughout the Industrial Revolution had no rights and many worked in appalling conditions, so you can see why the workers needed someone or some organisation to stand up for them. The unions became too powerful and threatened to damage the very industries that were paying their members, in most cases, a rather good wage (boosted by bonuses, overtime and other additional payments).
Fast-forward to today and with BA we have a situation where a company losing millions is having to make cuts; the unions won't allow these cuts to be made and the cabin crew have walked out. The result is millions of pounds in lost revenue for every day the aircraft remain on the ground.
It shouldn't take a genius to work out what will happen if the workers continue to strike. They might win the argument but, when they're sitting filling in their unemployment payment forms, they might wonder how they managed to lose the war. As for the unions? They're all right, Jack.
Must fly...
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Demise of the French coffee shop?
On Radio 4's Today programme there was a piece about the rise in the number of cafés that are closing in France, currently around 2 per week across the country.
In the UK we have had far higher rates of pub failures, so in the context of cafés closing perhaps two per week isn't such a tragedy. The reasons for the closures include fewer customers and rising costs, but at the end of a recession these closures should come as little surprise. The other factor was a change in French lifestyles that are affecting demand for the coffee shops.
One of the French interviewees cited the rise of the popularity of Starbucks and explained that they had taken coffee and had marketed in a way only the Americans could. The conclusion, the listener was left to draw, was that the independent operator couldn't keep up with the demands for the Friends-esque lifestyle promised in the CostaNerroBucks identikit operations that are threatening localised cultures across Europe, if not across the globe.
For the French, coffee shops are often at the heart of the local community and no matter how small the village or hamlet every place had a least one place where the people could come together and talk about the day's work over a coffee, pastis or bière.
To the visitor to the country the coffee shops are an integral part of the experience of a country that offers a very different way of life, even it's only for two weeks a year. From my perspective the independent coffee shops offer several benefits over the chains of coffee bars. The staff serve you where you sit -- there's no queueing like you're back in the school canteen; there's no pressure on having to buy anything with your drink (most bars don't do food, that's left to the restaurants); you don't have to choose from umpteen options of coffee and you can buy an alcholic drink if you so desire. Each bar has such a different feel, which adds to the experience, and you are mostly served by the owner, who has a very keen interest in keeping their customers happy.
Compare that to the mayhem of the average high street coffee bar and I can't understand why they're even popular in our country. Having said that we don't have that coffee bar culture that the French and most other European countries seem to enjoy. For us Brits it's the pub or nothing; as for getting a decent coffee -- virtually impossible away from the high street, which perhaps explains why the chains have become so popular. Even many independent tea rooms, which I would prefer to use, don't even know how to spell "coffee" let alone serve a decent espresso.
[As a note to the owners of the coffee chains, could we at least have table service? If I am out on business and want a coffee whilst I check my e-mails I have to fight to get served, I have to wait for my drink, which I then have to carry to a table if I can find one that is available. If I want another coffee what do I do? Leave the laptop and risk a quick dash to the counter? No, I leave. A waiter or waitress would be able to serve me at my seat and in so doing getting me, the customer, to spend more money. Everyone would probably spend more by being served at a table; you have time to think about what you want and you certainly have the option of buying another drink if you are on your own. Even if putting on more staff didn't increase profits, it would add much to the experience, which I currently try to avoid at all costs.]
I hope the French don't wake up one morning and find a country over-run with the multiple operators offering demi-semi-frothy-choco-frappeccinos, when all the customer really ever wants is a decent coffee. The fact that you can't buy a muffin or some other fat-laden product must also be great for the diet.
As an optimist for the French way of life and given their Gallic stubbornness it is likely that their independent operators will remain at the heart of many communities. Most French towns and cities still have mainly independent retail operators, which is a far cry from most UK high streets; in this age of global brands it is a pleasant experience to go shopping in France and have some real choice.
As we plan for our summer holiday, which will be in France (no surprises there), we look forward to a country that still has a routine that, certainly the more rural areas, still abide by. Shops do close at 12 until 2, which can be irritating to the shopaholic Brits, but it is refreshing that there is the enforced down-time.
It also means that you can enjoy a leisurely lunch in a tranquil place sit back and savour la difference.
À bientôt.
Monday, November 09, 2009
SIMON COWELL'S CYNICAL DECISION
Although I am not usually a fan of so-called reality TV shows, I have been hooked in to the current series of X Factor. Of course, everything about such shows is really about as far from reality as you can get; yes, the show and its copy-cat variants do make stars of a handful of people, but you can't help feel that you're being manipulated by very astute producers as you follow the progress of the talented and the talentless.
Whilst I have been happy enough to watch the show thus far, and go along with the make belief world, last night's decision by Simon Cowell demonstrates just how controlling the producers (of which he is one) are. Louis Walsh's only remaining group, John & Edward, together with Lucie Jones, received the fewest votes and as such has to sing again so that the judges could decide who should leave the show.
So far, so good.
The decision, according to Cowell, would be made purely on the performances that J&E and Lucie were about to make. Lucie, after a shaky start, quickly gained her composure and sang like an angel. J&E, on the other hand, the jokers in the pack, performed as anticipated: out of tune and hyperactive.
After the performances, Dermot O'Leary pressed the judges for a decision. Walsh naturally saved his act and Minogue saved her act. Cole chose to send J&E home and then it came down to Cowell. Last week he failed to make a decision and relied on the public vote to determine who would go home. This week he was in control of J&E's fate and the nation willed him to send home the weakest act. In all the previous weeks he was always arguing that it was a joke that they were in the show, so his decision should have been quite easy.
But, he paused, he shuffled in his seat and he cogitated. Before he made a decision he said that neither act would win the show and droned on further before saying that he would let the public decide.
Lucie received the fewest votes and left the show.
If it is a talent show then Cowell should have sent home John & Edward, who without a doubt have been the worst performers in the series. They should never have been allowed to through to the live finals, which is another reason that makes you realise that the show isn't based on talent, but about ratings and hooking in the viewers so that they will vote in their millions and fill the producers' coffers.
No one really minds the fact that so much is being made from the voting system, but when decisions are made that clearly have nothing to do with the apparent aims of the show (to find the best talent) then there is something very wrong.
Whilst there was a lot to admire about Simon Cowell, his decision not to send home the weakest act undermines his credibilty. But Cowell doesn't worry about public opinion and by keeping the jokers in the show it is probably going to result in more people voting for their preferred acts. I imagine next week's show will achieve record numbers of voters.
The conclusion we draw is that such shows are simply vehicles to make money whilst the public is duped into thinking that they are watching a show that is actually interested in identifying the stars of the future, which it clearly is not.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Ryanair Rip-off
Perhaps it just that I haven't flown for a couple of years, and out of touch with the "low cost" airlines, but the experience booking tickets to Rome doesn't encourage me to become a regular flyer.
First of all is the issue of choice. EasyJet used to fly out of East Midlands Airport (EMA) but now the "choice" is straight out of the options manual from Henry Ford: any airline you want as long as it's Ryanair.
So, it's on to the Ryanair website to get those cheap flights. The site itself is very easy to navigate around and I was soon nearing the check-out. Then comes the minefield that is Ryanair's check in and baggage options. We've already arrived at a sub-total of £420.00 for two adults and two children to get to and from Rome, which isn't too bad all things considered, but then you have a summary page which automatically includes travel insurance for every passenger.
You have to go through each person's details and manually de-select the travel insurance option, but I imagine many simply leave it in as it could easily be assumed that you must have travel insurance. If you pay with a credit card then you are automatically insured; you don't need to pay their rip-off rates.
On the baggage options I clicked the one case option and there appeared another cost of £28.00. OK, one bag and I'll check in at the airport despite fuming that there was another unexpected cost to add on.
For my wife and two boys we don't need further baggage so they're left as zero; then we can check-in online for free or for £9 at the airport. I select the free option and then go to check-out; but I can't proceed as one person (me) has to check in the bag at the airport, even though there are no other bags to check in.
The option is that I must do two separate booking; one for me with a bag and another one for my wife and children without baggage, which means they can check in online.
We decide that as we can all take hand luggage we won't have any luggage in the hold, which means that we can all check in online and for free.
I finally arrive at the payment section and have my credit card at the ready. But, another catch: if you pay by credit card there's a booking fee. A what? Another tax!
The rate works out at a 9% surcharge taking our total to £460.00.
At IKEA they charge just 70p to pay by credit card and that's enough. We know that the card companies charge around 1% to their customers so Ryanair is making up to 8% for nothing. Disgusting. The only card that escapes a fee is if you have an Electron card; if you're a regular Ryanair flyer I would get yourself one and quick.
So far, so unrelaxing and we haven't even set foot in the airport yet. However, without checking in baggage and nothing to collect when we land in Rome we should at least be out of the airport in minutes.
Compare this to travelling by ferry or Eurotunnel; a few clicks and you're at the check out and no issue about how much baggage. You just select the size of car and include how many passengers. On the day of travel you drive to the ferry terminal, wait until you embark and then you sit back and enjoy the ride.
There's no fighting through Customs and check in, there's no fear of your luggage ending up in Timbuktu and there's no worry about the cost of parking.
For me it's the ferry everytime.
Monday, December 01, 2008
Use your loaf
"If you don't give a Frenchman his bread 'e is not very 'appy" so concluded Raymond Blanc during one episode of the recent series of BBC2's The Restaurant. In this particular episode one of the hapless couples had decided (or more likely forgotten) not to have bread available for their customers and this was on the very same day that Monsieur Blanc visited. When he searched his table in vain for his pain he was not impressed with the would-be restaurateurs having committed one of the gravest of hospitality errors. Nil point!
In France bread is so, so important that even in the smallest of villages there's usually at least one boulangerie selling a delicious array of breads and cakes. Back across the Channel and all but a handful of independent bread shops, selling their own produce, have disappeared as we as a nation turned away from local shopping, preferring to spend half our leisure time in the all-consuming hypermarkets.
And in these shopping monoliths whilst 'real' bread has made a come-back, by far the most popular variety is plasticised, sliced carbohydrate masquerading as bread; it may contain flour, yeast and salt (along with a multitude of preservatives and raising agents) but bread it ain't. In fact it's so bad we ought to come up with a new noun so that we don't confuse the pre-packaged pap with the genuine article.
So, imagine the delight when I recently walked into The Loaf, a recently opened bakery, deli and cafe in Crich, in rural Derbyshire (made famous as the fictional village of Cardale in the TV series Peak Practice). Before I had tasted the coffee or sampled their pains aux chocolates I had been by seduced by the bright, fresh red and cream interior, resplendent with beech furniture, complemented with dark brown leather banquette seating -- a welcome departure from frilly tablecloths, doilies and Victoriana, which works in only a minority of coffee shops.
I ordered black coffee and a pain au chocolate, and then went to a table and sat down. If this cafe had only one selling point that aced the high street coffee chains, it was that I didn't have to wait like Oliver in the queue for his gruel.
My personal bug-bear of the Caffe Costabucks is that you must stand in line and wait for your drink, having been cross-examined about your need for "any pastries with that?" (No!, I would ask if I wanted anything else) and then you have to carry your order over to a table (if you can find one available) having fought over 6 square inches of work surface in order to dispense sugar and milk. A relaxing experience it isn't.
Back in The Loaf I sat and took in my surroundings; the multitude of fresh loaves that were on display behind the counter -- all having been baked on the premises in the early hours. On another wall was shelving filled with a wide range of pre-packed teas and coffees, and finally the mouthwatering deli counter.
My coffee was a delicious aromatic blend, enjoyed black and unadulterated and my pastry was divine; fresh and flakey as you would expect. The experience was over all too quickly.
As I paid for my breakfast I bought a baguette and a small round loaf, both were wrapped in paper; as I walked back into the cold nothing could wipe that smile off my face.
My only regret is that I don't live in Crich.
C'est la vie!
Sunday, June 29, 2008
You can't shoot builders
Along with any form of homicide it is not advisable to shoot builders, although the builder that we have been working with recently I could have quite happily throttled the S.O.B. ( as our American cousins often to refer to such low-lifes).
The reason for this out-of-character reaction was receiving the invoice for work done, such a fantastic work of fiction I don't know why he doesn't go in for the Booker Prize. Smart-arse comments aside, the invoice was about £2-3,000 more than we had been led to believe, although let us remember that Chamberlain had been "led to believe" that Herr Hitler was a man of peace, so perhaps being "led to believe" things always ends in tears.
If, er, if (heh, heh, heh), if I'm being absolutely honest... (dropping into my mock-Ronnie Corbett mode, and yes written impressions based on famous funny men don't really work... but stay with me); if I'm being absolutely honest (heh, heh, heh) then we (well I say "we"), I am partly to blame for our, or rather my, current travails.
Getting any sort of quote from Bob (obviously not he real name and "yes we can" isn't his catch-phrase... no, I think my builder's catch-phrase is more along the lines of: "because I'm worth it"). Back to my little escapade... I didn't pin him down to an exact price for any given job, although a figure of £2,000 (ex-VAT as we now also find out) for "misc" building work, to which we had attributed a number of jobs.
For a conservatory base and dwarf wall we had been quoted £3,800 (including VAT). When we asked if "Bob" could do the job the exact response was: "well, there'll be something wrong if we can't do it for that..." and yes, of course there is something wrong. Because on top of the £3,800 we had to find an extra £1,000 or so to hire a man and a digger, who also needed a 5-tonne industrial size dump truck to take away the spoil from the excavations needed for aforementioned conservatory base and dwarf wall (which I am not so sure isn't a phrase that dwarves might find dwarfist in these politically correct times).
To my way of thinking, the £3,800 should really be minus the extra £1,000 that we had to find, because otherwise we would have appointed the conservatory company with their all-in-one, guaranteed price. But we didn't. We stayed local (this man lives about 5o paces from our front door) and put our trust in him.
We should have perhaps been warned about "Bob" because in his opinion, when we first discussed with him what needed to be done to refurbish the property (our tentative first steps into development), he advised that it would be quicker to remove all the plaster from the walls and ceilings in order to put in a damp-proof course that (as a builder of 30 years) had failed to observe (until all the plaster has been removed), than it would be to chop out the standard 1-metre of plaster removal normally required for damp-proof courses.
I know that damp can rise, but I've never heard of damp ceilings, unless someone runs a bath and forgets about it.
Having bare walls and no ceiling made it easier for the electrician and the plumber but at what price? 200 bags of rubble and two skips later... no "Bob", that was poor advice.
So, back to the matter of the invoice. Rather than itemising each job and putting in a price, we get just four lines of data: number of hours for labour, materials, VAT and total.
We asked for a break-down of the figures, which we expected to discuss in a professional and adult manner and all we get is that he has never, in all his years ever been asked to provide a break-down, and then he simply walked away from the conversation.
So, we end this entry with a Shakespearian dilemma: to pay or not to pay, that is the question.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
French Farce
Having just returned from celebrating New Year in France it was interesting to see the attitudes of Brits living over there. We were in the Haute-Vienne department of Limousin in south-west France in a small village. Little English is spoken by the locals and the area has had an influx of English people since we last visited in 2005.
We spent New Year's day in a restaurant that was taken over by a couple from Kent at the end of 2005. The food wasn't bad, but neither was it genuine French cuisine; apart from a group of three French locals dning it was just our group of 8 and that was it. In the bar you could hear English conversation and it was obvious that the place was becoming popular with the local English community.
The attitude of the owners was that the French are suspicious of non-French restaurateurs and that they have found it slow to attract the locals. With a fantastic restaurant established in the village, which offers plats du jours for around 8 euros (2 courses for around 12 euros) there is no reason for the French to visit a non-French venue, especially when the prices are significantly higher and the food quality significantly lower.
If the owners are trying to attract local French custom then they must stop using A-boards written in English. One day the sign read: "Roast Pork", which I am sure sent out completely the wrong signals to the locals. Imagine how many customers there would be if a Thai restaurant in the UK was written in Thai? Exactly, very few.
The other option to attract local custom would be to ensure that they are offering what the locals enjoy; in so many of Gordon Ramsay's solutions in his "Nightmare" shows is to simplify, simplify, simplify. The fact that this restaurant does fish and chips once a month is hardly going to endear the locals to English gastronomy. Instead they could be clever and offer fantastic fish dishes with frites, which the locals would enjoy without the dish having to be labelled "fish & chips".
The owners were somewhat dismissive of the locals not visiting their restaurant, but with the view that it is the French people's unwillingness to try something new misses the point and if they continue to service the English-speaking locals and UK tourists then I can't see them surviving for too long. That would be a shame, because the restaurant has potential and there is definitely a need for more good eateries, especially as tourism in this region is growing.
Getting a French chef, or at least advice from a French chef, would start to stop the rot and in my opinion they must really engage with and become part of the local community, otherwise they will be seen in the same light as those immigrants in the UK that are seen as not integrating. They must never forget that they are foreigners with its own unique set of values and customs, and that they must accommodate them or they may as well be back in Kent.
The French can and do welcome the English if you are prepared to get involved and this was brought into sharp relief during our stay in the village for 9 days. In that time we had our French neighbours round for drinks and then we were invited back to their home 2 days later. The family that we 1st met 2 years ago speak no English and with my improving French we were able to hold court for an hour or so each time. Interestingly, the English family living in the gite adjacent to our accommodation had not really mixed and Catherine, the French neighbour, was very dismissive of their lack of integration and especially the wife's lack of French (after living in the country for 3 years).
The French don't have a problem with anyone that tries and after several years of holidays in the country and having a go at speaking French has always been appreciated.
The French, rightly, have a problem with Captain Mainwarings who think that shouting in English is the way to communicate and with those that live in English enclaves, cut off from French life. If you've bothered to move to such a delightful country and want to enjoy that all that life there has to offer then you need to be prepared to give a little back, and I would say that the more you give you the more you will receive.
We spent New Year's day in a restaurant that was taken over by a couple from Kent at the end of 2005. The food wasn't bad, but neither was it genuine French cuisine; apart from a group of three French locals dning it was just our group of 8 and that was it. In the bar you could hear English conversation and it was obvious that the place was becoming popular with the local English community.
The attitude of the owners was that the French are suspicious of non-French restaurateurs and that they have found it slow to attract the locals. With a fantastic restaurant established in the village, which offers plats du jours for around 8 euros (2 courses for around 12 euros) there is no reason for the French to visit a non-French venue, especially when the prices are significantly higher and the food quality significantly lower.
If the owners are trying to attract local French custom then they must stop using A-boards written in English. One day the sign read: "Roast Pork", which I am sure sent out completely the wrong signals to the locals. Imagine how many customers there would be if a Thai restaurant in the UK was written in Thai? Exactly, very few.
The other option to attract local custom would be to ensure that they are offering what the locals enjoy; in so many of Gordon Ramsay's solutions in his "Nightmare" shows is to simplify, simplify, simplify. The fact that this restaurant does fish and chips once a month is hardly going to endear the locals to English gastronomy. Instead they could be clever and offer fantastic fish dishes with frites, which the locals would enjoy without the dish having to be labelled "fish & chips".
The owners were somewhat dismissive of the locals not visiting their restaurant, but with the view that it is the French people's unwillingness to try something new misses the point and if they continue to service the English-speaking locals and UK tourists then I can't see them surviving for too long. That would be a shame, because the restaurant has potential and there is definitely a need for more good eateries, especially as tourism in this region is growing.
Getting a French chef, or at least advice from a French chef, would start to stop the rot and in my opinion they must really engage with and become part of the local community, otherwise they will be seen in the same light as those immigrants in the UK that are seen as not integrating. They must never forget that they are foreigners with its own unique set of values and customs, and that they must accommodate them or they may as well be back in Kent.
The French can and do welcome the English if you are prepared to get involved and this was brought into sharp relief during our stay in the village for 9 days. In that time we had our French neighbours round for drinks and then we were invited back to their home 2 days later. The family that we 1st met 2 years ago speak no English and with my improving French we were able to hold court for an hour or so each time. Interestingly, the English family living in the gite adjacent to our accommodation had not really mixed and Catherine, the French neighbour, was very dismissive of their lack of integration and especially the wife's lack of French (after living in the country for 3 years).
The French don't have a problem with anyone that tries and after several years of holidays in the country and having a go at speaking French has always been appreciated.
The French, rightly, have a problem with Captain Mainwarings who think that shouting in English is the way to communicate and with those that live in English enclaves, cut off from French life. If you've bothered to move to such a delightful country and want to enjoy that all that life there has to offer then you need to be prepared to give a little back, and I would say that the more you give you the more you will receive.
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Aitch for Hotel
Although we have Lynne Truss's fantastic homage to the humble apostrophe, someone should perhaps write at a simple introduction to the pronunciation of the English alphabet.
But surely, we all know that "a" on its own is pronounced "ay". But what about the letter "h"? As far a junior school teacher in rural Derbyshire in concerned, the pronunciation is "haytch". Au contraire Ms Illiterate! The correct pronunciation, as verified by the Oxford English Dictionary, is actually: "aitch".
But does this matter (and should I be starting a sentence with "but")? Yes, it does matter because this is part of the foundation for our rich, expressive and diverse language. Get the sound of our letters wrong and its all down hill.
Many would disagree that such pendantic issues, including issues of grammer, should be ignored and go as far as to suggest that we should opt for a more intuitive approach to language. Some would prefer to use a phonetic approach where all our historic customs and grammar rules go out of the window with basic spelling.
The sad reality about this true story is that if our teachers are getting it wrong, what hope for those now at school? Dumbing-down may not be an actual policy for our leading and learned educationalists (the experts) but it is certainly one of the outcomes.
But surely, we all know that "a" on its own is pronounced "ay". But what about the letter "h"? As far a junior school teacher in rural Derbyshire in concerned, the pronunciation is "haytch". Au contraire Ms Illiterate! The correct pronunciation, as verified by the Oxford English Dictionary, is actually: "aitch".
But does this matter (and should I be starting a sentence with "but")? Yes, it does matter because this is part of the foundation for our rich, expressive and diverse language. Get the sound of our letters wrong and its all down hill.
Many would disagree that such pendantic issues, including issues of grammer, should be ignored and go as far as to suggest that we should opt for a more intuitive approach to language. Some would prefer to use a phonetic approach where all our historic customs and grammar rules go out of the window with basic spelling.
The sad reality about this true story is that if our teachers are getting it wrong, what hope for those now at school? Dumbing-down may not be an actual policy for our leading and learned educationalists (the experts) but it is certainly one of the outcomes.
Friday, June 30, 2006
Scotland the Brave
The recent outbreak of Scottish nationalism, where First Minister Jack McConnell refused to support England in the World Cup, has been followed by rising tennis star Andy Murray.
Whilst McConnell was unrepentent in his decision to deliberately not support England after his ridiculous statement, Murray's nationalistic streak seemed a bit more sublte: when he appeared on court at Wimbledon he was sporting a white outfit edged with blue and a Cross of St Andrew wristband. Although he hasn't uttered a word, the message is clear: "hands off England I'm not yours, I'm Scotland's!"
With many other sporting events there are often teams from across the kingdom, but for Wimbledon Murray is put under the Great Britain heading. This is something he obviously dislikes, otherwise why wear such a display of nationalism. I don't know of any other tennis player that has done so.
Can anyone imagine if Henman had worn a Cross of St George wristband? No, because he would have been condemned as a Little Englander.
As Murray is now GB's only hope for tennis stardom I'm sure that most English, Welsh and Northern Irish people would fully support him as "one of us". If Scotland was playing in the World Cup, then I would be hoping for them to go as far as they could.
As with all things when it comes to national pride, the English in particular, are left wondering how things will be perceived. Every other country does its own thing and doesn't care who thet upset. Well, from now on I'm not so sure that Murray deserves (or even wants) the support of his erstwhile southern cousins.
Come back Hadrian -- all is forgiven!
Whilst McConnell was unrepentent in his decision to deliberately not support England after his ridiculous statement, Murray's nationalistic streak seemed a bit more sublte: when he appeared on court at Wimbledon he was sporting a white outfit edged with blue and a Cross of St Andrew wristband. Although he hasn't uttered a word, the message is clear: "hands off England I'm not yours, I'm Scotland's!"
With many other sporting events there are often teams from across the kingdom, but for Wimbledon Murray is put under the Great Britain heading. This is something he obviously dislikes, otherwise why wear such a display of nationalism. I don't know of any other tennis player that has done so.
Can anyone imagine if Henman had worn a Cross of St George wristband? No, because he would have been condemned as a Little Englander.
As Murray is now GB's only hope for tennis stardom I'm sure that most English, Welsh and Northern Irish people would fully support him as "one of us". If Scotland was playing in the World Cup, then I would be hoping for them to go as far as they could.
As with all things when it comes to national pride, the English in particular, are left wondering how things will be perceived. Every other country does its own thing and doesn't care who thet upset. Well, from now on I'm not so sure that Murray deserves (or even wants) the support of his erstwhile southern cousins.
Come back Hadrian -- all is forgiven!
Thursday, June 22, 2006
What a lot of hot air
There seems little doubt that we humans, especially in the northern hemisphere, are pumping too much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and that this is likely to have an impact on our weather systems. The also seems little doubt that changes need to be made to our collective behaviour if we are to prevent the doomsayers' predictions.
The UK alone contributes but a small percentage to overall global CO2 emissions, so on a micro (UK-only) level the political debate on global warming seems quite removed from our everyday lives of getting to and from work or visiting our local supermarket.
On one level the government's message should be taken seriously and that we should all be doing what we can: cycling everywhere, installing solar heating and erecting wind turbines. If you were to spend the £20,000 or so that it would cost for both solar heating and a wind turbine you would struggle to ever see a financial return; that is, if the local planners allowed you to go ahead.
The mixed messages start to emerge when you understand how government finances work and how every government is actually addicted to motor transport, to the point that new railway lines will not be built (or re-opened) if there is a threat to revenues generated by car journeys. Governments aren't actually addicted to cars, it is just the billions raised from the tax on fuel, road tax and from the anticipated road charging schemes.
On the one hand cars are bad and on the other they're rather very good. How does, or how should, the government handle this dilemma?
From a communications perspective it is tricky. You can't go back to a time when we were less dependent on the car, but governments must re-evaluate their financial need for car-generated revenues. As the M1 grinds to a halt at Luton every morning around 7am, there surely has to be more the transport equation than what it would cost the government if none of us were in our cars. The costs of having hundreds of thousands of people sat going nowhere all around the UK costs businesses millions and these are the costs that we should be looking to reduce.
Governments need to put money into real transport alternatives, to re-open the rural branch lines, to promote bus services and to re-engineer the urban landscape so that we can actually use our cars less.
The UK alone contributes but a small percentage to overall global CO2 emissions, so on a micro (UK-only) level the political debate on global warming seems quite removed from our everyday lives of getting to and from work or visiting our local supermarket.
On one level the government's message should be taken seriously and that we should all be doing what we can: cycling everywhere, installing solar heating and erecting wind turbines. If you were to spend the £20,000 or so that it would cost for both solar heating and a wind turbine you would struggle to ever see a financial return; that is, if the local planners allowed you to go ahead.
The mixed messages start to emerge when you understand how government finances work and how every government is actually addicted to motor transport, to the point that new railway lines will not be built (or re-opened) if there is a threat to revenues generated by car journeys. Governments aren't actually addicted to cars, it is just the billions raised from the tax on fuel, road tax and from the anticipated road charging schemes.
On the one hand cars are bad and on the other they're rather very good. How does, or how should, the government handle this dilemma?
From a communications perspective it is tricky. You can't go back to a time when we were less dependent on the car, but governments must re-evaluate their financial need for car-generated revenues. As the M1 grinds to a halt at Luton every morning around 7am, there surely has to be more the transport equation than what it would cost the government if none of us were in our cars. The costs of having hundreds of thousands of people sat going nowhere all around the UK costs businesses millions and these are the costs that we should be looking to reduce.
Governments need to put money into real transport alternatives, to re-open the rural branch lines, to promote bus services and to re-engineer the urban landscape so that we can actually use our cars less.
Tuesday, April 11, 2006
Do I look fat in this?
On returning from a recent 2-day pampering session at a local health spa, my wife dropped a clutch of glossy magazines on the coffee table. Heat, OK! and Hello to name but a few. On the cover of one there was a headline-grabbing: “Celebrities’ flabby bellies”.
Of course, such headlines are designed to convert the browser into a purchaser; in my case not actually buying, but it did attract my attention and soon I was flicking through the magazine in that nonchalant not-really-reading-but-of-course-really-reading manner.
A few pages in and there was a feature on the girl band Girls Aloud. On the double-page spread there were ‘now’ and ‘then’ photographs of each band member.
Accompanying each photograph was each singer’s vital statistics. In this case the ‘vital’ element of the figures was that they had all dropped down several clothes sizes. The naturally curvy had become almost skeletal; the healthy facial glow now gaunt.
Whilst it’s easy to dismiss such articles as trivial and irrelevant there is a worrying message being sent out. If this article was a one-off, isolated feature then there would be no problem. But taken together with virtually every other women’s and girl’s title promoting, selling and reinforcing the message that thin is good then we’re going to see a continual increase in eating disorders.
In the same title, ironically, there was an article on how thin and ill Anna Kournikova was looking since she’d left tennis to take up modelling.
Little wonder she’s lost weight: it’s the advertising and fashion industry that eschews any figure that’s larger than an 8 and demands a constant flow of young thin girls to glamorise their products. I wonder how many Flakes Cadbury’s would have sold if they used even an average-sized British women let alone anyone that was slightly overweight.
Companies promoting their products and services must start to look at how their advertising is likely to impact on their target consumers. We must see the use of more everyday-sized models so that young impressionable girls and boys don't get the wrong message that skeletal is good.
Such aspects of companies' activities must also be a fundamental part of their corporate responsibility policies. It is all very well making a commitment to the environment, but if they're promoting thin=good/fat=bad messages then they're simply fuelling eating disorders and their responsibility statements are then no more than spin.
Of course, such headlines are designed to convert the browser into a purchaser; in my case not actually buying, but it did attract my attention and soon I was flicking through the magazine in that nonchalant not-really-reading-but-of-course-really-reading manner.
A few pages in and there was a feature on the girl band Girls Aloud. On the double-page spread there were ‘now’ and ‘then’ photographs of each band member.
Accompanying each photograph was each singer’s vital statistics. In this case the ‘vital’ element of the figures was that they had all dropped down several clothes sizes. The naturally curvy had become almost skeletal; the healthy facial glow now gaunt.
Whilst it’s easy to dismiss such articles as trivial and irrelevant there is a worrying message being sent out. If this article was a one-off, isolated feature then there would be no problem. But taken together with virtually every other women’s and girl’s title promoting, selling and reinforcing the message that thin is good then we’re going to see a continual increase in eating disorders.
In the same title, ironically, there was an article on how thin and ill Anna Kournikova was looking since she’d left tennis to take up modelling.
Little wonder she’s lost weight: it’s the advertising and fashion industry that eschews any figure that’s larger than an 8 and demands a constant flow of young thin girls to glamorise their products. I wonder how many Flakes Cadbury’s would have sold if they used even an average-sized British women let alone anyone that was slightly overweight.
Companies promoting their products and services must start to look at how their advertising is likely to impact on their target consumers. We must see the use of more everyday-sized models so that young impressionable girls and boys don't get the wrong message that skeletal is good.
Such aspects of companies' activities must also be a fundamental part of their corporate responsibility policies. It is all very well making a commitment to the environment, but if they're promoting thin=good/fat=bad messages then they're simply fuelling eating disorders and their responsibility statements are then no more than spin.
How to avoid screen rage
It never ceases to amaze me how quickly new technology becomes a part of everyday working life and the speed that we take technological developments for granted. Recently I was having problems connecting to the internet via our ISDN connection (unfortunately, there are still areas in the UK without broadband) and I was immediately faced with the problem of not being able to send out clients’ urgent press releases.
As I pondered my offline predicament I was transported back to being an 18-year-old junior in a sales office where I used an electric typewriter to produce the letters of the day. It was a slow and laborious process, especially if you made a mistake and had to start again. This sense of tedium enveloped me as I knew that I would have to resort to not an electric typewriter but mail merging letters and printing out the press releases, then stuffing the information into envelopes. It wasn’t that long ago that being able to mass produce letters in the time it would have taken a small army of typists seemed a highly efficient way to work – how quickly times change.
The problem with the ISDN connection was soon resolved and was back online. As I hit the ‘send/receive’ button, I reflected how easy it is to e-mail; I also reflected that a noun has now become a verb. E-mailing is almost as easy as talking and a lot quicker than texting; it is silent, immediate, fast and yet can still come across as being a slightly impersonal medium – probably because everyone thinks that e-mails should be far less formal than letters.
Despite the many benefits that e-mail brings to our lives, it can also be a dangerous tool and one that should be handled with caution. It is too easy to use the ‘reply’ or ‘forward’ options in our e-mail software than it is to send a fresh one. Familiarity does breed contempt and before we know it we’re forwarding a long e-mail chain for all subsequent recipients to read.
If we receive an unpleasant (or even a rather intimate) e-mail we should be very careful how we respond. As Bill Howard, in his article Save Yourself from E-mail Faux Pas, explains: “No matter how annoyed you are at some jerk’s e-mail, save your ‘that’ll put the S.O.B. in his place’ response and look at it again an hour later or first thing the next day. Chances are you’ll want to tone it down.”
Not only may you want to tone the response down, you may not want to end up in court. Unlike telephone calls or sending text messages, with e-mail you are actually publishing material and can be used in a court of law if you are making false accusations are producing inflammatory material. An innocent e-mail to a loved one or a rant about a loathed boss can soon end up half way around the world, leaving the originator of the e-mail embarrassed at best and worst without a job. The same goes for CCs: be careful who you might be unwittingly including in your circulation list.
Getting the message to the right recipient in the first place may not be as easy as you might expect, as Bill Howard suggests: “Use addressee auto-fill cautiously. If you type C-l-a-u, Claudia Andrews appears in the addressee window before Claudia Mezza. Hit enter too soon and you’ll send the message to the wrong Claudia.” However. if you’re generating an e-mail from a database that interfaces with Outlook or Outlook Express then you’re less likely to get the wrong person because you’re creating an e-mail from a unique record and you’d know immediately if you’d opened the wrong record.
With previous technologies there wasn’t the need to be so careful, but with e-mail my advice is that we should observe a few simple rules. Business e-mail should remain for business. Use a Hotmail, or similar server-based e-mail systems, for personal contacts. Where you do receive personal e-mails at work, check the policy of the employer; you might be breaking the terms of your employment (sending personal e-mails is no different from making personal telephone calls) and with spyware able to monitor every keystroke, you don’t know who might be watching.
A few years ago when I working for one particular employer I only found out after sending many e-mails to recruitment agencies that all e-mails (sent and received) were retained on their system, even after deleting them from my own computer.
Whether or not it is company policy I also suggest sending out fresh e-mails every time. This way you can’t accidentally send sensitive information to third party recipients. It may be more time consuming to start with a new e-mail, but this way you’ll avoid falling into the bear traps triggered by lazy habit of hitting the ‘reply’ and ‘forward’ buttons.
Don’t respond immediately to what appears to be an unfriendly or rude e-mail the moment you have read it. If and when you do receive such e-mails, the safety of the anonymity of the screen can lull you into a false sense of security and anger can soon burst forth. Perhaps this should be called screen rage, but whatever it might be called, my advice is walk away and take a breather. Even if the e-mail is unpleasant it is much more positive to deal with it when you are calmer and more focused.
To ensure that you don’t send e-mails that are likely to cause offence avoid sarcasm – it can come across too heavy in e-mail – and irony is often too subtle. The best option is to play it straight.
To get the most out of e-mail we need to apply a few commonsense rules. After all, we know how to behave on the telephone and writing letters so why get careless with e-mail? With e-mail now so much a part of our working life we use it without thought, but as professional communicators we need to be setting the agenda for best practice in all areas of communication and remember that our clients may not be giving the attention they should to such a powerful communications tool.
As I pondered my offline predicament I was transported back to being an 18-year-old junior in a sales office where I used an electric typewriter to produce the letters of the day. It was a slow and laborious process, especially if you made a mistake and had to start again. This sense of tedium enveloped me as I knew that I would have to resort to not an electric typewriter but mail merging letters and printing out the press releases, then stuffing the information into envelopes. It wasn’t that long ago that being able to mass produce letters in the time it would have taken a small army of typists seemed a highly efficient way to work – how quickly times change.
The problem with the ISDN connection was soon resolved and was back online. As I hit the ‘send/receive’ button, I reflected how easy it is to e-mail; I also reflected that a noun has now become a verb. E-mailing is almost as easy as talking and a lot quicker than texting; it is silent, immediate, fast and yet can still come across as being a slightly impersonal medium – probably because everyone thinks that e-mails should be far less formal than letters.
Despite the many benefits that e-mail brings to our lives, it can also be a dangerous tool and one that should be handled with caution. It is too easy to use the ‘reply’ or ‘forward’ options in our e-mail software than it is to send a fresh one. Familiarity does breed contempt and before we know it we’re forwarding a long e-mail chain for all subsequent recipients to read.
If we receive an unpleasant (or even a rather intimate) e-mail we should be very careful how we respond. As Bill Howard, in his article Save Yourself from E-mail Faux Pas, explains: “No matter how annoyed you are at some jerk’s e-mail, save your ‘that’ll put the S.O.B. in his place’ response and look at it again an hour later or first thing the next day. Chances are you’ll want to tone it down.”
Not only may you want to tone the response down, you may not want to end up in court. Unlike telephone calls or sending text messages, with e-mail you are actually publishing material and can be used in a court of law if you are making false accusations are producing inflammatory material. An innocent e-mail to a loved one or a rant about a loathed boss can soon end up half way around the world, leaving the originator of the e-mail embarrassed at best and worst without a job. The same goes for CCs: be careful who you might be unwittingly including in your circulation list.
Getting the message to the right recipient in the first place may not be as easy as you might expect, as Bill Howard suggests: “Use addressee auto-fill cautiously. If you type C-l-a-u, Claudia Andrews appears in the addressee window before Claudia Mezza. Hit enter too soon and you’ll send the message to the wrong Claudia.” However. if you’re generating an e-mail from a database that interfaces with Outlook or Outlook Express then you’re less likely to get the wrong person because you’re creating an e-mail from a unique record and you’d know immediately if you’d opened the wrong record.
With previous technologies there wasn’t the need to be so careful, but with e-mail my advice is that we should observe a few simple rules. Business e-mail should remain for business. Use a Hotmail, or similar server-based e-mail systems, for personal contacts. Where you do receive personal e-mails at work, check the policy of the employer; you might be breaking the terms of your employment (sending personal e-mails is no different from making personal telephone calls) and with spyware able to monitor every keystroke, you don’t know who might be watching.
A few years ago when I working for one particular employer I only found out after sending many e-mails to recruitment agencies that all e-mails (sent and received) were retained on their system, even after deleting them from my own computer.
Whether or not it is company policy I also suggest sending out fresh e-mails every time. This way you can’t accidentally send sensitive information to third party recipients. It may be more time consuming to start with a new e-mail, but this way you’ll avoid falling into the bear traps triggered by lazy habit of hitting the ‘reply’ and ‘forward’ buttons.
Don’t respond immediately to what appears to be an unfriendly or rude e-mail the moment you have read it. If and when you do receive such e-mails, the safety of the anonymity of the screen can lull you into a false sense of security and anger can soon burst forth. Perhaps this should be called screen rage, but whatever it might be called, my advice is walk away and take a breather. Even if the e-mail is unpleasant it is much more positive to deal with it when you are calmer and more focused.
To ensure that you don’t send e-mails that are likely to cause offence avoid sarcasm – it can come across too heavy in e-mail – and irony is often too subtle. The best option is to play it straight.
To get the most out of e-mail we need to apply a few commonsense rules. After all, we know how to behave on the telephone and writing letters so why get careless with e-mail? With e-mail now so much a part of our working life we use it without thought, but as professional communicators we need to be setting the agenda for best practice in all areas of communication and remember that our clients may not be giving the attention they should to such a powerful communications tool.
Monday, January 30, 2006
Mean-spirited local authorities
Driving our cars today seems to offer fewer and fewer pleasure: we have speed cameras at every turn, we have expensive fuel and we have increasingly congested roads. Even when it comes to parking there always seems to be problems finding a space.
The only consolation, in recent times, was when a fellow motorist offered you their pay-and-display ticket with enough time remaining to enable you to park for free. This simple neighbourly gesture was always enough to put a smile on my face and restored my faith in humanity.
But if you've been to a car park recently you'll find that your attempts at being neighbourly have been thwarted. Increasingly, you now have to enter either all or part of your registration number so that you can't give the ticket to anyone else. Of course I can see the finance directors' rationale: more money for the coffers, but for the actual amount of additional revenue raised set against the additional cost of the more complex machines, it is a mean-spirited act.
Whether or not you visit car parks that have the 'mean machines', as I'll brand them, there is the other issue: the actual cost of parking. I'm not really bothered whether I pay £1 or £2 per hour, what I really object to is the cynical pricing policy. How often have you found a ticket machine where the pricing is something like: 70p for 1 hour; £1.30 for 2-3 hours and £1.80 for 3-4 hours and so on? That's right, every time you visit such a machine you can guarantee that you have 60p in change or pound coins only. Why don't councils opt for round figures? £1 for an hour; £2 for 2 hours and so on.
The reason is obvious and it is another devious ploy to extract maximum revenues from the motorist that is trying to visit the village/town/city centre and spend money in the shops (keeping shops in business and enabling them to pay their local rates back to the mean-spirited councils).
To encourage shoppers back into town and city centres we need parking policies that actually encourage visits and help dissuade us from shopping at the out-of-town centres where parking is free.
What we pay when we park our cars is not going to change the course of history, but councils should wake up to the fact that they should be encouraging visits to town centres, that they shouldn't be preventing neighbourly gestures and they should realise that we're not as stupid as they think.
The only consolation, in recent times, was when a fellow motorist offered you their pay-and-display ticket with enough time remaining to enable you to park for free. This simple neighbourly gesture was always enough to put a smile on my face and restored my faith in humanity.
But if you've been to a car park recently you'll find that your attempts at being neighbourly have been thwarted. Increasingly, you now have to enter either all or part of your registration number so that you can't give the ticket to anyone else. Of course I can see the finance directors' rationale: more money for the coffers, but for the actual amount of additional revenue raised set against the additional cost of the more complex machines, it is a mean-spirited act.
Whether or not you visit car parks that have the 'mean machines', as I'll brand them, there is the other issue: the actual cost of parking. I'm not really bothered whether I pay £1 or £2 per hour, what I really object to is the cynical pricing policy. How often have you found a ticket machine where the pricing is something like: 70p for 1 hour; £1.30 for 2-3 hours and £1.80 for 3-4 hours and so on? That's right, every time you visit such a machine you can guarantee that you have 60p in change or pound coins only. Why don't councils opt for round figures? £1 for an hour; £2 for 2 hours and so on.
The reason is obvious and it is another devious ploy to extract maximum revenues from the motorist that is trying to visit the village/town/city centre and spend money in the shops (keeping shops in business and enabling them to pay their local rates back to the mean-spirited councils).
To encourage shoppers back into town and city centres we need parking policies that actually encourage visits and help dissuade us from shopping at the out-of-town centres where parking is free.
What we pay when we park our cars is not going to change the course of history, but councils should wake up to the fact that they should be encouraging visits to town centres, that they shouldn't be preventing neighbourly gestures and they should realise that we're not as stupid as they think.
Wednesday, November 30, 2005
Free advertising?
The great news for the PR industry is that there are still many people that are either unaware of PR or unaware of its potential.
I volunteered to help a friend to publicise a new service that he was launching as part of his busness and having submitted a draft release he wanted to know how much the target publication would charge. I explained that they don't charge, but equally we cannot guarantee coverage. But by making the story as relevant as possible to the publication's readership and ensuring that it is genuinely newsworthy then there is a good possibility of coverage.
Many people still see PR as something that is 'free', or related to advertising; both of which are incorrect. If clients are paying for a PR company to help communicate their news then the publicity generated isn't free, by definition, and shouldn't be seen as being something of little value.
The challenge is to continue to demonstrate the value of PR and to show that we're much more than press release machines; our remit should encompass every aspect of how a company or organisation relates to its all of its publics (including staff, customers, suppliers, shareholders, local community, government agencies).
There are a number of mainly trade titles that make charges for "colour separation" (charging for content) and they are the ones that I steer clear of. Not only are they doing a disservice to their readers because editorial and advertising has effectively been merged, but they are missing the point of journalism and PR.
Have a great day.
I volunteered to help a friend to publicise a new service that he was launching as part of his busness and having submitted a draft release he wanted to know how much the target publication would charge. I explained that they don't charge, but equally we cannot guarantee coverage. But by making the story as relevant as possible to the publication's readership and ensuring that it is genuinely newsworthy then there is a good possibility of coverage.
Many people still see PR as something that is 'free', or related to advertising; both of which are incorrect. If clients are paying for a PR company to help communicate their news then the publicity generated isn't free, by definition, and shouldn't be seen as being something of little value.
The challenge is to continue to demonstrate the value of PR and to show that we're much more than press release machines; our remit should encompass every aspect of how a company or organisation relates to its all of its publics (including staff, customers, suppliers, shareholders, local community, government agencies).
There are a number of mainly trade titles that make charges for "colour separation" (charging for content) and they are the ones that I steer clear of. Not only are they doing a disservice to their readers because editorial and advertising has effectively been merged, but they are missing the point of journalism and PR.
Have a great day.
Tuesday, October 25, 2005
Today, the UK government announced yet more plans to dramatically re-shape our education system. Yes, there going to privatise education and they're moving back towards schools taking pupils based on ability: in other words we're back to selection.
In the 60s it was 'out' with selection and 'in' with comprehensives; no more evil 11-plus exams to determine how bright you were. And since then we have been on the slippery slope to where we find ourselves today: more and more going to university and more and more who can't actually read or write.
But that's OK, because today there is no such thing a failure; nothing so black and white as that. No, there are just shades of grey, or rather the whole alphabet to allocate for grades. You can still 'pass' a GCSE with a G. When I did my "O" levels you needed an A, B or a C. Ds and Es? Sorry, but you'd failed.
What's so wrong with failing? Through failure you can actually learn how to succeed; you get knocked down, but you get up again... Character-building is a better word, but that sounds too... well, too elitist probably.
Certainly no room for elitism with Nouvelle Labour. Except that Tony B went to Fettes: the Scottish Eton no less.
It's all a case of plus ca change... and for those who didn't study French I'm really saying that nothing much changes. If we'd left the education system alone and maintained "O" levels and apprenticeships we'd have plenty of tradesman, and we'd have school children that knew what to do with an apostrophe.
Here endeth today's words of wisdom.
In the 60s it was 'out' with selection and 'in' with comprehensives; no more evil 11-plus exams to determine how bright you were. And since then we have been on the slippery slope to where we find ourselves today: more and more going to university and more and more who can't actually read or write.
But that's OK, because today there is no such thing a failure; nothing so black and white as that. No, there are just shades of grey, or rather the whole alphabet to allocate for grades. You can still 'pass' a GCSE with a G. When I did my "O" levels you needed an A, B or a C. Ds and Es? Sorry, but you'd failed.
What's so wrong with failing? Through failure you can actually learn how to succeed; you get knocked down, but you get up again... Character-building is a better word, but that sounds too... well, too elitist probably.
Certainly no room for elitism with Nouvelle Labour. Except that Tony B went to Fettes: the Scottish Eton no less.
It's all a case of plus ca change... and for those who didn't study French I'm really saying that nothing much changes. If we'd left the education system alone and maintained "O" levels and apprenticeships we'd have plenty of tradesman, and we'd have school children that knew what to do with an apostrophe.
Here endeth today's words of wisdom.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)