Fairness - "the British way" ?

I was reading an article in the current Web User magazine (issue 284 dated 26 Jan 2012), about "Not Paying for Ebooks".

Firstly, the article, in no way, supports piracy etc. It focuses on what content is out there, that is available for Ebook reader devices, that can legally be obtained free of charge e.g. "Classics" that are out of copyright etc.

The article has been produced, apparently, because of some statistic, about how many people in the UK received an Ebook reader (mainly Amazon Kindle devices) as christmas gifts.

It happens, that I'm not one of them, as I've had ebook reader applications in a number of smart phone devices for some years now. While I'm not familiar with all of the sites/sources that were mentioned in the article, I'm familiar with places like Project Gutenberg. And while I do like to read some up to date stuff, I've also learned to enjoy some of the so called "Classics" (some of which I'd already seen as films).

Anyhow, the point of this, is that at the end of the article, there's a sub-article on "Why are Ebooks so expensive" ? It explains some of the apparent business justification that is churned out by the Publishing industry, but finishes with the comment

"However, the simple truth seems to be that ebooks are expensive because publishers can currently get away with it, perhaps as a way to offset the money lost through the decline in paperback and hardback sales."

I'm more than happy to say that that is a direct quote from the magazine article, though I couldn't find the name of the author at the time of typing this.

My point, is that this highlights the larger picture that here in the UK (and probably many, many other countries), many "Business Practices" are tantamount to theft.

I don't mind paying a reasonable mark up on the cost of producing either this type of products or for any other things that I might "consume", but therein lies the rub. It seems that I have a very different idea of what is a "reasonable mark up", than what seems to be considered by Business/Commerce.

I can't say for other countries, as we all have different ideas of what might be fair, unfair and what might be considered as virtual theft.

Most other (all ?) developed countries, have proper rules and regulations laid down, in the form of Laws, written constitutions, Bills of Rights and other documentation, so the citizens of those countries know where they stand. We don't. Sure, we have the laws, but we have no written constitution and certainly no national Bill of Rights. In fact, the only actual "Rights" I have, are a few that have been included in some very old law that is still extant and those that have been granted by the EU in the human rights legislation, to which, the UK is signed up.

What's the relevance of that ? Well it would be relatively straight forward to work through British Law and produce a proper written constitution and bill of rights. Yes, it wouldn't be a quick thing, as there's many millions of words that make up the laws of the UK. It would be easier for a government to "start the ball rolling" and it would be equally as easy for our law courts to start finding the results of cases in any such constitution/bill of rights. After all, aren't the upper levels of the judiciary supposed to be some of the smartest minds in the country ?

Again, it would be just as easy to include a few new things. Like, for instance, a maximum cap to the amount of money a business could put on top of the cost of producing something ? I don't know, lets say 30%. At the same time, if the "product" is one that is sold through intermediaries of various types, be capped at 10% per intermediary, to a maximum of 30% (so 2 intermediaries could add their 10%).

But "they" won't, will they. Despite all the modern technological methods of being able to work out exactly how much something costs to produce, right down to unimaginable levels of accuracy, the governments wouldn't let that happen would they. The businesses themselves would "squeal like stuck pigs", because they'd have to expose all their sordid little secrets, about how they've been taking the piss and ripping off the consumer. Plus the lobbyist's who purport to speak for the various businesses would have to flag up just how many "back handers" (of any form, no just money) they use to put across their point to the various politicians, so that various laws that affect goods, services, etc are only enacted in their favour.

The "vested interests" have too much of just that i.e. a vested interest, in being able to keep ripping the consumer off.

A similar analogy could be drawn to the news this week, that the man currently in charge of the currently, 82% state owned, RBS, is being awarded too high a bonus, because it's one of the main recipients of government money (ultimately that's our tax money). Then there's all the bollocks that's been spoken that he "needs" this bonus and RBS need to pay it (in one form or another), too attract the best, most able/capable person to help RBS recover and for the tax man to get our money back.

Well how about this ? This person doesn't need some mega bucks bonus, because he already receives enough money as his salary! So why pay extra in bonuses ? After all, isn't the "bragging rights" of how much of a wonderful job he's done/is doing, also worth something ? I'd say it is and will do nothing to damage his "employability" in some future high level banking position.....

Ha! I could go on and on about these apparent, business related inequities. They are just a bunch of legalised thieves, one and all. If they're not taking the piss out of the consumer, they're taking the piss out of the business and the shareholder.........

Britain is "chockablock" with examples of "fairness" but only if it suits business and government to be so. The rest of the time "we", the public, just get the shitty end of the stick!

Current government....condescending bastards ?

Last year, we had that referendum about whether we wanted to change the way votes were counted, from "first past the post" to "AV" (alternative voting method). Now it was the current prime minister who was one of the leading lights of the "No" campaign, which was basically run on a "don't change it, because it's too complicated" line.

If it was so complicated, then how the fuck do people like me KNOW that that is the exact way that the leaders of the political parties are elected here.

I might just be an ordinary working bloke, but I'm not fucking stupid Cameron. If anyone is, you are, you old Etonian, Oxford educated, rich, tory cunt! I'm not stupid enough, to be patronising to people like that. Even if they might not understand something, give them the benefit of the doubt, they're entitled to that at least.

Now last week, there's some government judicial committee, who apparently says that we need a new law, because a jury wouldn't or couldn't understand the legal point of "Joint Enterprise".

Joint Enterprise ? Well I'll draw an analogy. A gang of youths, possibly young men, go out and commit a crime, lets say a murder. Now there's enough evidence to link some, or all of them to the scene of the crime, yet for a number of reasons, the police might not find enough evidence or proof as to which member of that group/gang/whatever actually committed the murder. Well using the legal point of Joint Enterprise, the law would or could consider them all guilty of the murder charge, and depending on the strength of the evidence linking them to the crime, they're then sentenced accordingly.

Sound familiar ? Yes, that's right. It's how the 2 of 5 suspects were convicted in the "Steven Lawrence" case. Of course, it does seem that because of cock ups by police and/or the CPS at the time, they didn't get all of them, but a jury did find that there was enough evidence to convict the 2....

How to I know this ? Well obviously, according to the Judicial committee I mentioned earlier, I don't because it's too complicated a concept for me, Mr Ordinary Bloke in the Street, to understand.

Don't patronise and/or condescend to me like that you jumped up fucking arseholes.....

I know what it fucking means and suspect that if I was ever called for jury service and had to sit on a case like this, I'd be able to work out exactly what the fuck was going on and whether there was enough proof/evidence of guilt or innocence..........

Wake up you "know it all" government cunts........

Accident waiting to happen ???

This mornings news had the reports about the cruise liner, Costa Concordia, at the Island of Giglio, off the Tuscan coast, with a severe list to starboard (right hand side - just looked at the latest pic's I can find and the liner is shown on it's side, I don't know whether it's actually "turned turtle", a la "Poseidon Adventure" or not.......).

Now I've been present at a nautical incident in 1988 (during my time with the RN - and the incident I was involved in was a collision between 2 ships, caused by a mechanical breakdown). So I know just how fucking scary such events can be (the one the ship I was on wasn't as bad as the news reports of the Costa Concordia is showing).

It's fair to point out that I'd received some training about such problems as part of one of the training courses I attended was about saving a ship after battle damage/missile strike has occurred - it still doesn't really prepare you for the shock of the incident.

Anyway, for some time now, whenever one of the cruise lines shows the pictures of their "latest and greatest", both myself and my partner have wondered about the possibility of such an incident. Because these vessels always look like they're top heavy i.e. with more showing above the waterline that might be below it. Here's a link to the "Daily Mail's online article" about it. And yes, at least one of the pictures shows what we seem to think might be correct.

It's like looking at pictures of earlier vessels that have sunk (specifically, some pictures of the Mary Rose, Henry VIII's flagship come to mind).

So is current cruise liner design more about the arrogance of "ship designers" thinking that technology will overcome both nature and "human error" ? Looks rather like that might be the case!

Doesn't matter how much the technological innovation of stabilisers, bow thrusters and other positioning and stability aids are fitted, if you put a fucking great hole in the ships side, especially below the water line, there's a likelihood of being problems.

I mean, damn, the ships master seems to have done pretty well in getting the damaged vessel close in to Italy, to enable the authorities to be able to do something to minimise casualties, but for fucks sake, you wouldn't want to sail a "skyscraper" would you. After all, I know that that's a shit analogy, but if you think on the depth of the footings/foundations of a high rise building when compared to what's above ground, you might think twice about whether it's such a good idea. Especially when it comes to the likelihood of something that could shake or know the damn building over (earthquakes etc), so why the fuck design a ship like this, when the damn sea's are infinitely more unstable than land, plus either lack of, or misuse of kit that "looks" into the water below the keel (echo sounding and similar equipment) can't guarantee that it's clear and safe for the vessel, then it's patently bloody obviously that it should only be going places where the depth of water is known as well as whether there's likely to be underwater obstacles.

But no, yet again, another fucking brilliant example of seamanship, shows that there's no guarantee of total safety.

Ha! And it's the 100th anniversary of the sinking of the Titanic (parallels will have been drawn.....) this year.

My partner doesn't like the idea of sea travel anyway, so shit like this reinforces her view........

I bet that all the planets "cruise line companies" will be looking to make sure that all their kit for checking safety and depth below their ships keels will be either double checked for function, or upgraded.....

Fashion Fuck up's ?

What is it about the fashion industry ? More's the point, it doesn't matter what it is that these people say is currently "fashionable", because they'll say anything...... just to get a sale and a few more £/$/€ out of your pocket.

A lot of women and girls are still wearing "Ugg" boots. Why they might wear them in the first place is a better question. Yes, I'm sure they're warm, if the weather is cold, but they're fuck all use if it's wet. Plus too make things worse, they're fucking "Ugg"ly, or maybe just fuggly..... They look like the sort of footwear that was advertised in the "sunday supplements" 20 years ago at old people. They have no style to them whatsoever.

So if you own a pair and use them for anything other than keeping your feet warm, then you're a style free, "mug punter"...... cos they're fucking ugly !

The same applies to any type of womes shoes, that have been designed with thick soles. The use of a high heel is different, because the look  and more specifically the height of a heel is more about how they make your female leg look i.e. the higher the heel, the more "scrunched up" the calf muscle is and the more shape it gives the lower leg. Fair enough then, yet to look good, the shape of the heel must be thicker, directly under the base of the heel, tappering down to a slimmer/thinner base that actually connects with the floor below the shoe (does that make sense ?). In other words, it's wider below the foot and tapers in. Of course, a womans ability to actually walk with such heels does take practice and is dependant on the height of the heel.

Now that is very different from shoes designed with thick soles or shoes that have a heel that splays out from the base of the heel. It doesn't matter which type, both heels that splay out and thick soles, irrespective of the style and design of the shoes upper, it make it look like you are wearing orthopaedic footware, designed for those with some sort of foot disability. In other words, like the Ugg boots, they're also fucking ugly! It doesn't matter who made or designed them, they're fucking ugly.

Before I finish, and yes, it's still shoes/footwear....... some other total cunt, seems to think that brining back "wedge heels" was also a good idea. Well the person who thought that, and convinced some shoe manufacturers that it was a good idea should be dragged out into the street and be beaten to death. Cos they're just like Ugg boots, thick soles and wide splayed heels, they look like shit, and they make the wearer look like a total fool, with a mental throw back to the 70's. They were ugly then, and they're ugly now.

It doesn't help that the current trend for women to wear "leggings", "skinny jeans" and thick wooly tights as trousers (which in a lot of cases, does look good/nice) because wearing any of the footwear I'm mentioned above, makes them look like they've got golf clubs, some with wooly/sheepskin covers, sticking out their arse. Or it makes them look like they're wearing footwear for the deformed!

Lets face it, there's a million and one styles and types of footwear out there. If you're gonna get something new, then make sure that it's either practical and/or stylish and/or appropriate, and more than anything else, it suits you. Hell, if need be, go and try on the new look/style, but get a friend to take a picture of you wearing them, take the image home, then scrub out the face, as knowing and seeing that it was you, is a distraction. Then look at your shape and see if that style will actually suit you and not make you look like a complete fucking idiot!

And yes, there's also a problem with mens footwear, except in most cases, it's more subtle. The ones that looks completely fucking foolish, are some of the designs of sports type footwear i.e. trainers and the like. Don't let the design nazis at the likes of Nike, Adidas, Reebok, etc etc churn out styles and designs of footwear that look fucking rubbish, but come with all the brain washing shite of how you won't be able to live without them - ha! you won't if you end up paying what they want to get out of your pocket! I mean, unless it's specialist sports footwear from professional sports people, then paying anything over about £50 or £60 is complete robbery. They don't cost a fraction of that to make, because they use sweat shops in the far east i.e. the "dollar a day workers"......