Category Archives: Grubby Capitalism

Dealing with Spam

Posted on by

I recently received one of those regular internet requests to help some African bloke invest his $20 million inheritance. To enable me to receive one half of this windfall all I needed to do was send some personal information including, obviously, my bank details. Rather than ignore it as usually do, I thought I would try a different approach, so I replied –

“No thank you, but please feel free to contact my business partner, Mr M. Mouse at www.disneyworldflorida.com. Best of luck, Donald (Duck, not Trump)”

Another one to consider would be –

“Oh, how wonderful! Yes please. I love Nigeria and have such wonderful memories of your country – my favourite (former) colony. My details are as follows – Bank of England, A/C Holder Elizabeth Windsor, Sort code 11 11 11 A/C No. 1111111111. Please access the account with my blessing.”

As for unsolicited phone calls, instead of just putting the phone down try something different

“Hello, hello, hello? I can’t hear anybody, I wonder if they can hear me …. Hello, hello…..Hello, hello……..Bloody hell, there’s no bugger there!” Then put the phone down.

Or,“Oh I’m so glad you called, I’ve been hoping to speak to somebody about my traffic accident/mis-sold insurance but I’m a little busy at the moment. Could you please call back tomorrow” (Repeat as necessary).

If you really want to freak them out, “Bless you my child. I’ve been expecting your call. You have been directed to me by the Lord. Have you found Jesus? Let me tell you how to bring Him into your life” – Pause – “Sorry, hello, hello…………..”

Silly, I know, but it helps brighten the day!

Message to the Undecided

Posted on by

According to the media many people have yet to decide which way they are going to vote in the European Union referendum on June 23rd.

To listen to politicians both for and against the EU is to be bombarded by facts and figures based on speculation, surmise and, predominantly in the case of the pro-EU politicians, scaremongering. Nobody knows for sure what the financial cost will be one way or the other and frankly, the cost is irrelevant, as are the arguments on safety and security

The only relevant issue in this debate, and one that few have highlighted, is the issue of freedom. We, the electorate have to decide whether we want our country to determine its own future or have decisions made for us by a federation of European states.

As an independent United Kingdom we are governed by the political parties we vote into power and who we can vote out again after 5 years should we be unhappy with them. It is called democracy and accountable government. No such democracy or accountability exists in the EU where we are governed by unelected members of the European Commission accountable to nobody.

It may well be that we will be financially better off by staying in the EU (a moot point) but so what? You cannot put a price on freedom and, throughout history, peoples and countries (including our own) have fought to gain or protect their independence and freedom. We must not allow ourselves to be bought and sold on the whim of political idealists or fat-cat businessmen getting rich from trading in the EU. Freedom is price-less.

Here is a useful analogy for those yet to decide. If you were an animal would you prefer to be one which is fed, watered and cared for in captivity with a third party responsible for your welfare? Or would you rather be outside of the secure fence, free to come and go as you please, making your decisions freely and with sole responsibility for your own destiny? I know which one I would rather be.

Tax Avoidance – Again

Posted on by

Every few months a new episode of the same story appears in the media. This week we’re back to the hoary old chestnut of tax avoidance and the “scandal” of wealthy men and women arranging their affairs to save on personal income or corporation tax.

It happens throughout the world and offshore tax avoidance schemes seem to be as popular and thriving as they ever were. In many cases, no laws are being broken and the smart folk are simply utilising smart accountants and the infrastructure available to them.

It may be immoral for the chief executive officer of a large company to pay less tax than the woman who cleans his office or the bloke on the factory floor who assembles the parts for the machinery that has made the CEO’s fortune, but it is not illegal.

It should be illegal of course but to make it so would require a change of law so that tax avoidance, which is legal, is instead proscribed as tax evasion, which is not. That would require a huge change in political will however and, no matter how much we all rant about the unfairness of it all, it is unlikely to change.

Many of the targets of any proposed change in legislation are the paymasters of our leading political parties and politicians are as likely to bite the hand that feeds as a turkey is likely to vote for Christmas.

British Steel

Posted on by

The staggering collapse of the British steel industry, like coal, formerly one of the pillars of all that made this country wealthy and prosperous, has been painful to behold. Like anybody else, I feel desperately sorry for those people who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own.

The fact that for the last few years our steel industry has been run by a foreign company, Tata of India, was initially hard to digest but welcome nonetheless if it kept the industry active and people in work. Sadly, it hasn’t worked out and, following the loss of thousands of jobs at the turn of the year, it was announced last week that thousands more will follow on the back of losses of £1 million per day.

The main reason is said to be the flooding of the market by cheap Chinese steel with which the West cannot possibly compete. There are those who say that our Government must intervene and save the jobs, a familiar refrain but one that has to stack up economically. In spite of the wishes of the Far Left it cannot just be left to the government to keep its citizens in full time employment. The lessons of the former Soviet Union clearly demonstrate that.

However, there is something that any government can do and that is to tax foreign imports so harshly that the home market can flourish once more, even if it means a more expensive product for the consumer. In the USA the steel industry faces a similar problem and the government there has responded with taxes in excess of 250% on foreign steel to try to protect the American industry and its workers.

Our government should do the same thing although the problem we have is that we are bound by the rules of the European Union. It is up to them to deal with the problem, meaning that British jobs are at the mercy of the unelected mandarins of Brussels. Another factor to be considered when voting in the June referendum.

The Modern World of Sport

Posted on by

The scene is set and the tension is rising in the majestic sports arena. The crowd of 80,000 expectant fans noisily anticipate the arrival of their heroes on to the field of play. With an explosion of loud and colourful fireworks the teams make their way on to the pitch and the decibels rise to another level. The players slap each other on the back, place a comforting hand on the shoulder of an inexperienced colleague or maybe kick a ball to ease their own nerves.

The referee calls the teams to attention and the military band begins to play the national anthems. The players link arms with their comrades and lustily belt out the lyrics to the well-known tunes. The crowd join in and the whole arena is awash with the anticipation and tension that always precedes such an important fixture. No sooner have they started than the bands are finished and leave the pitch to the players who now focus on what lies before them. You could cut the atmosphere with a knife as the teams turn their attention to their opposition.

The contest is a mere minute away and everybody in the stadium and the millions in front of their television screens in homes, bars and sports clubs throughout the land settle down for one of the most eagerly awaited contests in the sporting calendar.

And then…….and then the scene cuts to an advertisement for a Renault or was it a Citroen, a Ford? Who gives a damn? What the hell is this? We’re psyched up for a game of international rugby and we have to watch this garbage. Oh look, now it’s an advertisement for a bank or building society or whatever.

What has happened to the BBC? Why have they allowed commercial television to get hold of so many sports that for so long were their exclusive domain? Yes, it happened to football a long time ago but rugby, surely not? Surely yes, it’s all about money these days and nothing else matters. This is the modern world and I wish it wasn’t.

Carve Up

Posted on by

I recently read an interesting article on countries unlikely to survive due to the artificiality of their borders. Several countries were mentioned but three stood out namely, Iraq, Syria and Libya.

In the last two centuries Africa and the Middle East were carved up by European colonial powers, such as France, Germany, Italy, Belgium and Great Britain.

Tribes and groups of indigenous peoples, thousands of years old and with no cultural link were pulled apart or lumped together with no thought other than profit and how they would look on a map.

Iraq and Syria were created after the end of the First World War in 1918 by France and Britain and groups such as the Kurds, Sunni Muslims and Shiite Muslims were forced to live together whether they wanted to or not.

Libya formerly consisted of three separate regions called, Tripolitania, Cyrenaica and Fezzan. In the early 20th century Italy invaded North Africa and arbitrarily lumped the three regions together to form the new nation.

None of the peoples in any of those three countries wanted nationhood and until recently all were held together by brutal dictators, Saddam in Iraq, Gaddafi in Libya and Assad in Syria. The first two were removed by Western action and the last, Syria, is in turmoil as Assad desperately clings on to power with Russian backing.

What a mess.

 

 

The Wealth of Nations

Posted on by

On the back of the English £20 note is a picture of Adam Smith, the famous 18th century Scottish economist, philosopher and author, whose book “The Wealth of Nations” radically changed the way people thought about wealth and national prosperity.

Smith was a great believer in free trade and the economic and social benefits that it could bring to a nation and its people. However, he once remarked that –

“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest”.

A statement worth bearing in mind when we hear of certain leaders of big business urging the UK to remain in the over-regulated European Union.

We must never forget that capitalist self-interest outweighs all other interests, including democracy and freedom, time after time.

Referendum at Last

Posted on by

So now it’s official, we will have a referendum on June 23rd to determine whether or not our country remains a part of the European Union.

The Common Market or European Economic Community (EEC) seemed a great idea back in 1975, when the last European referendum took place. What could be better than trading openly with your neighbours, free of national trade barriers or tariffs and allowing goods to pass easily and speedily between trader and customer? Such an opportunity for British business.

It was all a trick though, all smoke and mirrors, because it was never just about trade, it was about the creation of a federation, a United States of Europe, and laws passed by an unelected and undemocratic European Commission based in Brussels, leading to an inevitable loss of national sovereignty.

We were never consulted on political union and, when the word “Economic” was dropped and the EEC became the EC (the European Community) followed by the more ominous sounding EU (European Union) alarm bells began to ring.

We were told that it was too late and we could do nothing about our nation’s seemingly inevitable drift into membership of a European Super State. We could do nothing about the bureaucratic bungling and incompetence, the appalling waste of natural resources and the corruption of overpaid and unaccountable Eurocrats.

Well, now we can and we must grasp the opportunity with both hands because it may never arise again.

Sugar Tax

Posted on by

Like many of us, I’m not a believer in the Nanny State and feel that people should be able to live their lives and regulate their behaviour without recourse to the State, subject, of course, to compliance with the laws of the land.

However there are occasions when a government does need to take action for the protection of the more vulnerable members of society and a good example of this seems to be the proposal by celebrity chef and food campaigner Jamie Oliver for a “sugar tax” on soft drinks.

This, of course, is in response to the country’s obesity crisis, particularly in relation to children.  A problem shared with most parts of the western world, it has to be said.

Oliver’s argument is that by raising just an extra 10 pence in tax on a can of fizzy drink a further £1 billion a year can be added to NHS coffers to combat the illness and disease (diabetes being one of the biggest concerns) caused by consuming too much sugar. Naturally, the big food and drink industry corporations have objected to such a blatant attack on their profits but then they would do wouldn’t they?

In an ideal world parents should be trusted to pay attention to the dietary welfare of their children and most parents do this perfectly well. However, some parents are not so responsible and some, whether ill-informed, uncaring or just plain stupid, are causing untold damage to their offspring by allowing them to eat and drink whatever they want without thought for their health and well-being.

Insurance Rip-off

Posted on by

It has always struck me as unfair that, up to two years after a motoring conviction is “spent”, (meaning that it is no longer current for criminal law purposes) the motorist is penalised again by his insurance company.

For example, if you are caught speeding in a 30 mile an hour zone you will normally (depending on how far you exceeded the speed limit) receive a fine and a 3 point endorsement on your licence.

The endorsement is current for 3 years and if you accumulate a total of 12 points within that time you will face a ban. However, after 3 years the conviction is spent and has no relevance to any future legal proceedings and you can even apply to have it removed from your licence after 4 years. Why is it then that, at insurance renewal time, insurance companies always ask, not whether you have any current convictions, but whether you have had any convictions within the last 5 years?

This happened to me recently when I declared that I have a speeding conviction dating back to October 2010, just under 5 years ago. This conviction has been spent for nearly 2 years and in the eyes of the law has no relevance to any future offence that I may be stupid or careless enough to commit. Why should insurance companies be allowed to, in effect, treat the conviction as though it were still current and increase the insurance premium accordingly?

Frankly, this is nothing short of exploitation and extortion by insurance companies and it is surely time that action is taken by the financial authorities to curb their greed.