Bog Roll

Do they think we're all stupid? Toilet roll is just the latest in a long line of products where the manufacturers clearly think we're blind, stupid or both... So I was renewing the Andrex and noticed a clear difference in size of the cardboard centre between the old and the new. I'm not quite such a pedant that I measured it but I'd estimate the difference in diameter was about 3mm. Not much really, but when you think of how thin toilet paper is I reckon your're looking at a reduction of at least 30 sheets. And guess what. You pay the same price.

This is an increasing trend - the price stays the same but the quantity you get for the price is reduced. This can be a decrease of more than 10% in some cases. Products which have done this range from your favourite bar of chocolate to your washing up liquid via tinned soup, loaves of bread and countless other products. In some cases the quantity is going down and the price going up at the same time!

Now, I have no major problem with increasing prices (well, we'd all prefer prices went down but that's not going to happen) - as long as they're justified. But why the subterfuge? Why not just keep the quantities the same as what everyone is used to and put the price up? It would seem the honest way of doing things. I know myself that I will tend to avoid products where this tactic has been used - I hope everyone else does the same!!

Heroes?

No, not another blog about Bowie!
Is it just me or is the constant tagging of normal mundane people as 'heroes' getting a bit much? I know what I think a hero is and it's not that difficult to define - people who, in the face of danger and adversity or from a position of weakness, display courage and the will for self sacrifice for some greater good. That is how a lot of people I know would also describe a hero.
So, working from that definition, how do we arrive at calling sportsmen heroes? After all, top sportsmen are simply there because they happen to have a talent in their sport. Yes, they probably practice daily and need to make some sacrifices (but get paid very handsomely for the privilege) but are they heroes? No more than someone who excels in, for instance, carpentry or topiary. But the best carpenter in the country would never be given the moniker 'Hero' just because they are brilliant at carving - why then is someone who can kick a ball a bit better than the rest of us... or for that matter any other sportsman or pop star, or television presenter who happens to be good.
So why are we treating these people almost as demi-gods? Is it an extension of the whole celebrity culture? I suspect it is... After all, with so many 'reality' shows which catapult people who are pretty much talentless into the world of celebrity, are we now using the word hero to describe someone who stands a bit above them in the celebrity ranks?
I'm waiting to see how many tennis players over the coming weeks will be described as heroes - many of them for sure. But again - they are professional sports players who are doing their jobs. There is no danger to them, no courage is needed, and the only greater good they are looking for is a greater bank balance.
There are very few real heroes these days. Yes, there are examples of astounding heroism from the members of our forces - most of them unacknowledged. Deeds carried out in an unwanted war thousands of miles from our country generally aren't reported by the media.
Closer to home though an astonishing act of bravery and heroism was virtually unreported. Why it would be is unclear but Ingrid Loyau-Kennett, Gemini Donnelly-Martin, and her mother Amanda showed exactly what heroism is when they protected the body of Lee Rigby without a thought for their own safety. This is what I call heroism. This is what the media should keep in mind before they further devalue the term hero by describing some overpaid sports celebrity as one.

Margaret Thatcher RIP

I'm old enough to remember 3 day weeks, random power cuts, boiling a kettle and toasting bread on a coal fire because there was nothing else to use, needing to make sure there were enough candles etc. not to mention the bins not being collected and decent people who wanted to work not being able to because of flying pickets. Do you remember British Leyland? Crap cars coming off the production line and breaking down 3 days later because of shoddy 2nd rate workmanship and materials....The country was being held to ransom by union leaders who believed they should run the country, not the democratically elected government - and this was a Labour government - the ones the unions are supposed to like...

Margaret Thatcher was voted in in despite her being a 'milk snatcher' - that didn't seem to bother too many people then. If I recall correctly, she made no secret that things would be tough to get the country back on it's feet... and they were. Her election campaign centred on taking power away from the unions and a tag line of 'labour isn't working' and the British people gave her a mandate to go ahead and fight the unions. The fact that she did, took away the power that was bringing the country to its knees and got the country back on the road to recovery seems to be forgotten by a lot of people. Yes, it was difficult but the country was in absolute shit state.

The biggest problem most people have with Maggie is the miners strike. The mining industry had been in decline since the 60's or even earlier. The governments plan was for mines which were no longer profitable to be closed and the rest to carry on production - makes sense doesn't it?. The unions opposed this and insisted all stayed open so called a national strike to 'fight for the rights of miners'. This made no economic sense - at a lot of pits it was costing more to get the coal out of the ground than it could be sold for. There were a number of pits that were viable and could still have have resumed operations after the strike but the unions refused access for the safety engineers to maintain the pumps. They flooded and were lost. The union (or should I say Scargill) screwed their own members by not seeing sense. If it weren't for the unions the mining industry would have been smaller, but at least some miners would have kept their jobs. And they wouldn't have been forced to live in absolute poverty for the duration of the strike (whilst their union leader lived in absolute luxury).

Oh, and the poll tax. Deeply unpopular.... but I still don't see why.... Everyone has to pay for the services which are provided by local and national government. OK, so how do you do that fairly? Here's an example of unfairness - two households on the same street. One is a single man no kids, the other a family of 2 parents and 4 children. The single man uses less of everything the government provides as public services - less rubbish, less public transport, less education etc... yet in the old rating system he paid exactly the same as the family of 6 people - this model is still true of the current system. The poll tax simply took that unfairness away - each adult paid the same for the same services. So why was it unpopular? Because the poor had to pay the same as the rich.... Do the rich use more public services than the poor? Nope - they use far less. So why should they pay more? You don't go into Marks & Sparks and get asked how much you earn so that they can work out how much you should pay for something do you? Where else are you expected to pay a different amount for a service based on your wealth?? Hmmm....


So, to everyone who thinks it's a good idea to trample on Maggie's grave, or thinks we should get 'ding dong the witch is dead' to number one... try to imagine what this country would have been like if she hadn't won the election in 79... just think what the alternative would have been and what this country would have been like. I for one am glad she was elected and believe her to be the most important and best post war prime minister. RIP.