Here in the UK we are being asked to vote for Police and Crime Commissioners (PCC) to oversee the police forces.
As far as I can see this is just another figurehead post whereby the appointed person will receive a lot of our money but offer nothing in return.
One PCC will represent a whole county and therefore has an awful lot of people's views to take into consideration. These views may well be conflicting with priorities in rural areas being totally different from those in inner city locations.
Furthermore, although the PCCs are elected, if they don't perform we have to wait until the next election for the job in order to try and change them so in reality they are unlikely to truly represent the population of the county and are more likely to follow their own agenda, just as other politicians do.
I say other politicians - aren't they supposed to neutral. According to the website explaining all of this http://www.choosemypcc.org.uk/about-pccs/ they swear an oath of impartiality and are not supposed to represent any political party. In Derbyshire we have candidates from the Labour party, Conservative party and UKIP. This does not sound independent to me, why do they need to mention their politics if it is to have no effect?
There was to be an Independent but he left the registration process to the last minute and when his payment was delayed in traffic he missed the deadline. Something tells me he would not be any good for the job with management skills like that!
So far I have not seen any information from the candidates about why we should vote for them, sure it is available on the website but for those who don't have access or don't go looking then they are being asked to vote in an election they know nothing about. Perhaps I will now be deluged with leaflets, who knows, but the election is approaching in just over two weeks.
We all know however that pre-election manifestos are all about telling the public what they want to hear. As soon as elected the personal agendas of the PCCs will come in to play and may well reflect their party political views despite their oath of impartiality. We see this all the time in government and opposition.
So why vote? I am not sure I will. Normally I am not part of the apathy section of voters but in this case I am struggling. I am not prepared to select a candidate based on political alignment and cannot select a candidate given the limited information I have seen so far from them.
I think I will make my stand for the environment and not travel to the polling station (OK, so I would have walked but that is not the point!)
This is yet another instance of the state pretending that the public actually have any say in how things are run and I for one am getting fed up.
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
Monday, October 22, 2012
Prince Charles and the Black Spider letters
Here in the UK there is much fuss about the letters that Prince Charles has written to the government expressing his views on a number of matters. These are known as the 'black spider' letters due to the appearance of his handwriting.
Whilst the content of many of them is known about, a number have been kept secret on the premise that the content may harm Charles' position when he becomes King.
This is presently being fought over with a judicial decision that they should be published being overturned by the government. Clearly they contain something significant that would be embarrassing or at least highly controversial.
Personally I believe these letters should be published in the public domain. After all it cannot be a surprise to Charles that he is first in line to the throne and therefore should have himself moderated his actions so that there would be no possibility of anything that threatened his position.
There is no problem with him holding political views and although the monarchy is supposedly independent of party politics I don't think we should deny him the right to express his views. The problem arises because what he writes is being kept secret.
Like many people the world over I express my views via social media, and directly to MPs by means of letter. The content of my letters and my social media posts however isn't secret, and often I precis my letters and the responses to them in my blogposts.
Prince Charles and indeed other members of the Royal Family should work within the same constraints and their letters be made available for scrutiny upon request.
This is yet another case where the Freedom of Information legislation is being abused. FoI is fully supported by the government of the day, regardless of their political persuasion, as long as it doesn't contain that which they wish to censor for their own reasons.
Freedom - what Freedom?
Whilst the content of many of them is known about, a number have been kept secret on the premise that the content may harm Charles' position when he becomes King.
This is presently being fought over with a judicial decision that they should be published being overturned by the government. Clearly they contain something significant that would be embarrassing or at least highly controversial.
Personally I believe these letters should be published in the public domain. After all it cannot be a surprise to Charles that he is first in line to the throne and therefore should have himself moderated his actions so that there would be no possibility of anything that threatened his position.
There is no problem with him holding political views and although the monarchy is supposedly independent of party politics I don't think we should deny him the right to express his views. The problem arises because what he writes is being kept secret.
Like many people the world over I express my views via social media, and directly to MPs by means of letter. The content of my letters and my social media posts however isn't secret, and often I precis my letters and the responses to them in my blogposts.
Prince Charles and indeed other members of the Royal Family should work within the same constraints and their letters be made available for scrutiny upon request.
This is yet another case where the Freedom of Information legislation is being abused. FoI is fully supported by the government of the day, regardless of their political persuasion, as long as it doesn't contain that which they wish to censor for their own reasons.
Freedom - what Freedom?
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
Franchise Restaurant Chains
I regularly eat in my local Pizza Hut and enjoy the food and the experience very much - probably explains my size!
On returning from holiday recently therefore when looking for somewhere to stop for lunch my wife and I chose a Pizza Hut just off our route.
To say it was totally different from our usual experience would be an understatement. The restaurant was dirty, the staff were uninterested and seemingly untrained and the service was hence appalling.
In view of this I filled in their customer satisfaction survey, expecting to receive a call or email from someone to discuss my concerns further.
When this was not forthcoming I wrote to the manager of the branch, detailing my concerns - this was on the 3rd October. On the 17th October I received a reply, dated 5th October but as it was posted first class I don't know where the delay occurred. Either the Post Office were slow or the manager backdated it to make it look better.
The reply merely served to reinforce my concerns - apparently I should not have raised it with the manager but gone straight to Head Office! The manager's explanation was that he was on holiday at the time - apparently his staff cannot run the restaurant if he is not there.
To compensate me for the poor experience, he would like to offer me a voucher, but get this, it can only be used at that Pizza Hut. So I would have to travel out of my way to use this voucher and would also have to trust his word that all the issues had been addressed - I don't think so!
One of the supposed benefits of restaurant chains is that you should be able to expect the same standards of food and service wherever you go. We seem to have found the exception to the rule here as we have not previously had a bad experience.
It seems that Pizza Hut are a franchise operation, part of the Yum group. It is time the big bosses saw what some franchisees are doing to their image and took action.
** Update - November 2012 **
After writing to customer service and receiving no reply I took the next step and emailed the CEO of Yum.
Finally a satisfactory response. I was contacted by the area manager responsible for that region and was offered a full and genuine apology, a promise that the issues would be investigated, and a gift card I could use at ANY Pizza Hut.
Why it had to get to this stage I have no idea, but I am happy with the outcome and grateful to the area manager who finally did what those below them should have done.
The company's reputation has been restored with me! Shame it was necessary to go right to the top.
On returning from holiday recently therefore when looking for somewhere to stop for lunch my wife and I chose a Pizza Hut just off our route.
To say it was totally different from our usual experience would be an understatement. The restaurant was dirty, the staff were uninterested and seemingly untrained and the service was hence appalling.
In view of this I filled in their customer satisfaction survey, expecting to receive a call or email from someone to discuss my concerns further.
When this was not forthcoming I wrote to the manager of the branch, detailing my concerns - this was on the 3rd October. On the 17th October I received a reply, dated 5th October but as it was posted first class I don't know where the delay occurred. Either the Post Office were slow or the manager backdated it to make it look better.
The reply merely served to reinforce my concerns - apparently I should not have raised it with the manager but gone straight to Head Office! The manager's explanation was that he was on holiday at the time - apparently his staff cannot run the restaurant if he is not there.
To compensate me for the poor experience, he would like to offer me a voucher, but get this, it can only be used at that Pizza Hut. So I would have to travel out of my way to use this voucher and would also have to trust his word that all the issues had been addressed - I don't think so!
One of the supposed benefits of restaurant chains is that you should be able to expect the same standards of food and service wherever you go. We seem to have found the exception to the rule here as we have not previously had a bad experience.
It seems that Pizza Hut are a franchise operation, part of the Yum group. It is time the big bosses saw what some franchisees are doing to their image and took action.
** Update - November 2012 **
After writing to customer service and receiving no reply I took the next step and emailed the CEO of Yum.
Finally a satisfactory response. I was contacted by the area manager responsible for that region and was offered a full and genuine apology, a promise that the issues would be investigated, and a gift card I could use at ANY Pizza Hut.
Why it had to get to this stage I have no idea, but I am happy with the outcome and grateful to the area manager who finally did what those below them should have done.
The company's reputation has been restored with me! Shame it was necessary to go right to the top.
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
Unfair VAT on e-books
For some time now I have been a keen e-book reader, and am very happy with my Kindle. I probably have less than one hundred books on it so far but the amount of shelf space that even that number would take up is considerable.
So far so good.
My problem is with the tax treatment of e-books.
If I buy books in the more traditional hardback or paperback format I am not charged any VAT. If however I buy e-books then I am charged VAT. Why? I don't understand the difference because at the end of the day the content is the same, possibly even less as some e-books are without some of the pictures you get in the print version.
This seems to me to be counter productive. E-books do not require trees to be chopped down to make paper, do not require vast warehouses to store, no fuel guzzling trucks to distribute and no shelf space at retailers.
All in all this should actually be reason for the government to offer an incentive as they are more environmentally friendly. So why then are we charged VAT to buy them? The only reason I can see is greed - yet another way to extract money from Joe Public for the government coffers.
I will be writing to my MP and the government. I am not hopeful for a change of policy however!
So far so good.
My problem is with the tax treatment of e-books.
If I buy books in the more traditional hardback or paperback format I am not charged any VAT. If however I buy e-books then I am charged VAT. Why? I don't understand the difference because at the end of the day the content is the same, possibly even less as some e-books are without some of the pictures you get in the print version.
This seems to me to be counter productive. E-books do not require trees to be chopped down to make paper, do not require vast warehouses to store, no fuel guzzling trucks to distribute and no shelf space at retailers.
All in all this should actually be reason for the government to offer an incentive as they are more environmentally friendly. So why then are we charged VAT to buy them? The only reason I can see is greed - yet another way to extract money from Joe Public for the government coffers.
I will be writing to my MP and the government. I am not hopeful for a change of policy however!
Hollow political words
I read in the press that Ed Miliband proposes to split up the largest banks if Labour comes to power.
Apparently he feels that the present proposals by the government to ring fence the traditional retail banking operations from the risk of the investment banking element do not go far enough.
I have to agree that what little money I have in the bank should not be exposed to the actions of gung-ho investment bankers who have demonstrated in the past they can make poor decisions and welcome any protection that can be put in place.
My question is, as the banking crisis started under the last government, why did he not say or do anything then?
It is fine for him to say that the coalition is not doing enough in his opinion, but doing something is far better than doing nothing as his government did.
Finally, how far do we trust politicians of any political belief. I am certain that if Labour win the next election this promise will be quietly sidelined and forgotten.
Apparently he feels that the present proposals by the government to ring fence the traditional retail banking operations from the risk of the investment banking element do not go far enough.
I have to agree that what little money I have in the bank should not be exposed to the actions of gung-ho investment bankers who have demonstrated in the past they can make poor decisions and welcome any protection that can be put in place.
My question is, as the banking crisis started under the last government, why did he not say or do anything then?
It is fine for him to say that the coalition is not doing enough in his opinion, but doing something is far better than doing nothing as his government did.
Finally, how far do we trust politicians of any political belief. I am certain that if Labour win the next election this promise will be quietly sidelined and forgotten.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)