Loyalty.... on the cards?

I don't have a loyalty card. Maybe that says more about me than otherwise. Maybe I'm not that loyal?

Perhaps it's that I was always terrified that at the checkout, with a long queue behind me, the alarm would go off noisily and publicly; the store manager would be summoned and tell me, in front of all the other shoppers - and neighbours - that I'd only bought two bottles of gin this week instead of the usual four and 'is there something wrong sir?'

I believe that there is something similar in place when one shops online for groceries: 'You appear not to have ordered any herpes medicine for three weeks, you must be running out by now sir?'

'And you've bought tampax this week sir, as you did four weeks ago, can we interest you in a lawnmower?' (all together: because you'll not be doing anything else this weekend).

Joking aside, you do know of course that a loyalty card and the benefits that accrue therefrom, is all about gathering more information on you so that the retailler and product manufacturer can more carefully target you as a customer. That's obvious.

Advertisers use them so as to reduce the money they have to spend on 'broadcasting' their message on TV and radio, which is very expensive, and instead they can target someone they know more about via packaging, leveraging their 'partner' products etc.

And that's fine really because it means that you will tend to be 'communicated with' about products that you're interested in. A win-win then for everyone.

But what if you're vulnerable? This kind of targeting adds massively to the pressure that retailers can put on you to buy their products. 'People who bought this also bought this (and if you don't, you're an idiot).'

If people know what you buy they know your habits and largely, your lifestyle. And they can do so in a way which entices you to spend more money with them. Perhaps money you weren't planning to spend, but the offer's just too good to miss. And next week there'll be another offer that you cannot afford to miss too.

Eventually you might get to wonder who is making your shopping choices: you or the retailler?

Still, the lawnmower's quite good.

Thanks for reading etc.

If you're not doing anything wrong..

I used to think surveillance was a good thing. It would catch the 'baddies' and enhance my freedom. And if I was doing nothing wrong then I had nothing to fear.

And in your own mind you do go about your daily business 'doing nothing wrong'. You don't steal, you don't hurt anyone deliberately, you don't do anything that could remotely be described as 'wrong' in your own head or indeed in the eyes of the law. You go about your daily life; a good citizen with your family at the centre of your actions, disseminating cheer and good will at every turn.

But what if, out of curiosity and boredom, you once visited a porn site online? What if you had a brief meaningless 'fling' with someone else? What if you did 85mph on the motorway in a 70 limit? What if you got paid in cash for doing the old lady's garden next door and didn't declare it on your annual tax return? What if you went to watch the cricket as the guest of a supplier and then didn't declare it to the taxman? What if you told the local 'good' school that you go to church every Sunday so that your kids might get in? When in reality you go at Easter and Christmas?

None of these things are a hangable or even cautionable offense. You therefore retain your sainthood and your blemish-free outlook on life. Your 'good family man' status. And that's great. Good for you.

But what if you then have a dispute at work as a Government employee? What if you oppose a Government policy and find yourself in a position to be recognised and taken seriously. Someone of good standing, credibility and influence. You believe that your are doing the right thing. You might be a whistle-blower perhaps, exposing corruption within an organisation that shouldn't be there. And that demands that you speak up for the greater good.

The trouble is that if your opponent knows everything about you; that you once, on a rainy afternoon visited 'debby does dallas.com' or flirted with the girl in the typing pool, got pissed at a Christmas party and did a Hitler salute; tried to see how fast the new Merc would go at 4am on the motorway...

If you did any of these things and a vast array of others that, I would argue, prove you're alive, human and real, then you're in deep shit.

It doesn't matter that the people you're accusing of wrongdoing or sexual infidelity or massive financial corruption are guilty of doing so. What happens is that you are labelled as a pervert or a speeder, a law-breaker, a hypocrite. And your 'revelations' fall at the first hurdle, that of being a credible witness.

Because in the wrong hands, the information that essentially proves you're human, and flawed, just like everyone else, can be used against you to discredit your argument, your revelations, your accusations. To the point where whatever the magnitude of the wrongdoing of the people you are exposing will not be taken seriously because of your minor human frailties and foibles.

Knowledge is power they say. I think that's probably more true than we know. I don't think that surveillance is such a good thing anymore.

I don't necessarily know what the answer is. But I don't think it's being controlled by snoopers.

I don't think it's always about exposing MPs for their foibles either. If they're doing a great job for the country we should cut them some personal slack in my opinion. If they're telling us how to live our lives (which they increasingly are) and are found wanting in their own lives that's another matter of course.

Overall, them having information on 'us' when we do not have access to information on 'them' is a bad thing. The balance should, if anything, be in the opposite direction if they're making laws for us to abide by.

If you do live an unblemished lifestyle you can throw the first stone. If not - and I'm guessing you don't - then you should be against surveillance and against the creeping spying that we're now encountering.

Thanks for reading. Sleep well, if you're not already. ;)

Mark

Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom to be a complete c*nt

There's been loads of stuff on twitter about freedom of speech lately. Many people lauding the fact that they tolerate, embrace even, views with which they don't agree so long as they're genuinely held and come under the remit of free speech.

What's that old chestnut that's always wheeled out at times like this? I may disagree with what you say but I'll fight to the death for your right to say it. I think some people have become a bit carried away with that sentiment.

There's a lot to be said for it: Tolerance is always good. Intolerance is probably the biggest cause of conflict in the world today. So that's all good then.

I also agree that 'being offended' is not a crime. It is, in effect, your problem and not something that can or should be rectified by the long arm of the law. Prosecuting people for saying or posting offensive things on twitter for example is not really what we should be about as a society. Mary Whitehouse could always have switched channel of course.

But this last sentiment, for some people, seems to be an 'absolute' and they use it as an excuse to 'push the envelope', a get out of jail free card of sorts. They seem to be saying: 'I can say or type anything - it's only speech after all, not physical violence - and you cannot take offence.'

And that's where I become a bit uncomfortable with the whole 'crusade' as it seems it is becoming. You see, to me, something doesn't quite stack up about free speech when viewed in this way.

I had a twitter conversation with a gay friend of mine about the anti gay ads being run in London on buses (which were eventually pulled by Boris): He said they should be allowed to run (even though they were proposing something that was scientifically proven to be untrue - that being gay can be 'cured') on the basis of freedom of speech. 

The thing is that these ads were not one person espousing his or her views, but instead designed to influence opinion. And that changes the ball-game as far as I am concerned. And just if you think that bus ads or any other form of advertising doesn't influence opinion, ask yourself why then do people pay a lot of money to run them? Of course it influences people about their views and choices and opinions.

And so does what people read on twitter. Yes we might say that we're a bit more worldly-wise than some, a bit more cynical, but twitter rumours spread like wildfire, presumably on the basis of our gullibility and belief in what we're being told. You starting to see the problem here?

So one could begin to make an argument about freedom of readership; that what we read should be - as far as possible - fair and true. That should be a 'right' for us? The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has volumes of rules to that effect. But that, when adopted and used by Government, is the other extreme, the way of total control, of Brave New World and 1984 and all that and not something that I would ever advocate. 

It is, however a direction in which we have been travelling in recent years with our anti-discrimination laws and, I would argue, the growth of the nanny state. So to a degree I can understand the backlash about freedom of speech that is now emerging. 

I'm just not sure that replacing one extreme with another is very helpful. 

I think freedom of speech a bit like a child. It's something you can have and love and nurture and value and protect It is perhaps something that you would fight for. Die for even, as many have in one way or another. But if you abuse it, mistreat it, use it wrongly, it should be taken away for its own protection. So that it can thrive and so that others who have children can love, nurture, protect etc.

Using it as a means to cause offense - not so you might offend someone who has differing views but to offend them personally when you're not making a reasoned point but deliberately insulting someone for whatever reason - is abusing that hard-fought freedom in my opinion. 

And doing that, in my opinion, puts in jeopardy the freedom of speech that is afforded to everyone else. By abusing freedom of speech in the way I describe, you are effectively threatening my freedom of speech and that is unacceptable to me. 

And as you have (presumably) said, threatening freedom of speech is unacceptable to you. You see what I mean when I say it doesn't quite stack up? 

Anyway, I think I've said as much as I can on this issue for now without going around in circles. The following are my feeble attempts to put the issue into 140 characters for twitter. Unsuccessfully of course - this is too big an issue for that, but nonetheless I'll share them with you. Because I have freedom of speech. For now anyway. ;) 

Is freedom of speech more important than respect? More important than getting on with your fellow human beings? More imp. than generosity?

Using freedom of speech as a shield allowing you to blatantly abuse someone is moronic. What does it achieve?

Freedom of speech is valuable & worth fighting 4 but using it in an arrogant: 'I can insult more people than you can' way is just stupid imo

With freedom of any kind comes responsibility & that means responsibility 2 respect other people just as they respect your freedom of speech

Using freedom of speech to deliberately cause offense, knowing that there is no other possible outcome from what you say, is half-witted.

Freedom of speech should be used to make a point and influence a debate not just to abuse people. Do that and you're abusing the freedom.

You can make a point by being rational, polite & reasonable: Using insults, even under the banner of 'freedom of speech' = lost the debate.

So whilst I might fight to the death etc etc., if you then use freedom of speech 2 talk utter shit, you might find me less willing next time

And if you miss-use freedom of speech to abuse people, don't be surprised when that freedom becomes more limited 4 the rest of us who don't.

So there you have it. Enjoy your freedom of speech, but remember that it does not give you the right to be a complete cunt. 

I've never used that word on twitter before and probably won't again. Feels good though.

Thanks for reading


Mark 

Swivel-eyed loon?

Debating an issue anywhere, but especially on twitter, has taught me that resorting to insults means you have lost the argument. Completely and unequivocally.

If wanting a Government that takes account of and then properly represents the people it serves, makes me a swivel-eyed loon, count me in.

If having perfectly legitimate concerns and views on issues that affect everyone in the country, like the EU, makes me a swivel-eyed loon, I'm your man.

If articulating my views and concerns in a civil, cogent and respectful way, with reasoned argument, factual content and serious issues, not based on what's in it for me as an individual, but on real problems facing not just British people but ordinary people throughout Europe makes me a swivel-eyed loon, then I'm happy to wear that badge.

What I am not prepared to do is to be called a swivel-eyed loon by a fucking chinless wonder who has never had to do a day's work in his life; who has no idea what it's like to count the pennies to provide for his family.

You cannot dismiss us any more Lord Feldman. We're coming after you. And for Dave, and Nick, and Ed.

And we're doing so calmly. With reasoned arguments and views. Issues will be highlighted and examined. Promises will not be forgotten. We are, finally, more powerful than your old boys network. Be very afraid.

So who's still fighting the last war?

This cartoon was in yesterday's Times newspaper. Presumably our august Journal of record agrees with the sentiment that Nadine Dorries and Nigel Farage are still fighting the last war, almost 70 years after it ended - and 70 years to the day, since the Dambusters' audacious raid which saw the Mohne and Edersee Dams breached by bouncing bombs and the subsequent catastrophic flooding of the Ruhr Valley. Nice one Peter Brookes (whose cartoon this is). 

Trouble is, it's the EU that is still fighting the last war - and actually, if you look closely enough, winning it, on behalf of Germany.

The EU is a 60 year old institution created to solve a 70 year-old problem; an institution that has subsequently become - oh bitter irony - the tool being used by Germany to achieve the takeover of Europe that Mr Hitler couldn't quite manage through force, during the last unpleasantness.

The irony doesn't end there: This time the German approach has been to lend poor people (countries) money; watch them waste it (as was entirely predictable) and then lend them some more, until the poor countries are hopelessly, uncontrollably indebted to Germany. Banks, instead of tanks, if you will. You have to wonder where on earth those crafty Germans ever got this idea from.

Or maybe you don't.

You may think that this is all a bit strong ('old chap') but do me a favour and consider the following:

Do you think Germany didn't know that the Greeks pay hardly any tax; have 5 hour lunches, retire at 52 and enjoy sunshine, wine and ouzo, before they (the Germans) made the EU's cheap money available to them (the Greeks)?

And if you lend money that is not paid back, why would you lend even more, unless you had an ulterior motive? 

Do you think Germany didn't know that, with a single currency eliminating the possibility for weaker countries to devalue and rebalance their economies, German companies would 'eat the lunch' of their southern European rivals and at the same time enjoy a 30% exchange rate advantage compared to where they'd have been with the Deutchmark - effectively fucking UK industry as well as the rest of the Eurozone? German companies are currently buying up Spanish, Greek and Portuguese businesses like it's going out of fashion; Germany is booming while there's 30% unemployment in Spain.

Mr Brookes and the Times think UKIP and it's supporters are still fighting the last war. You know what? I hope they're right, because unless more people take up the fight against this German takeover of Europe, the millions who died in the last war will have done so in vain. 

And then we'll all be German. And none of us will be allowed, or have the time, between sleeping, working and death, to enjoy even a small amount of that Greek lifestyle. Old chap. 

Thanks for reading.

Mark 

tumbleweed

Click here

UKIP - A welcome spanner in the works?

I'm sure that cleverer people than I could get the following sentiment into 140 characters. Just about everyone, then, but I cannot, hence a quick and hopefully short blog on the success of UKIP and the pulling of UK politics to what people (usually with a left-leaning agenda) call 'the right'.

It would be completely disingenuous of me, having advocated that people should vote for UKIP in order to kick the other parties; to raise the issue of the EU much higher up the political agenda; to try to get the voices of 'ordinary' voters heard, and to 'force' call-me-Dave into shifting his ground, if I were now to criticise him for doing so.

Whether, in his heart of hearts he really believes in a more Ukipian stance: lower taxes, smaller Government, fewer laws and regulations, an exit from the disaster that is the EU, is largely irrelevant to me: If he doesn't believe in these traditional 'Tory' values, even though the majority of the population does, (48% voted for Tory or UKIP against 29% for Labour this week) then we need a way of forcing him into it. They supposedly work for us after all. (I know that's laughable but hey ho).

People will say that the traditional parties have MPs and UKIP does not; that they (the existing main parties) have publicly and democratically mandated policies, so they have the voters 'on side'. But where is the choice? None of the main parties was offering an anti EU option at the last election. Even though it was a front and centre issue for many people. And to say, as they endlessly and infuriatingly do, that you voted for us so you must accept everything in our manifesto, is just bollocks. People vote for people, leaders in the main and the general stance of the party, rather than local MPs, or every single detail in the manifesto. So to say 'it was in our manifesto' as a catch-all, get out of jail free card drives me potty.

The fact is that Dave is so far out of step with traditional Tory values that he might as well be Blair's successor. Yes they're doing things about Welfare and the NHS, MOD funding and equipment levels that were woeful under the last lot; Gove is taking on the dinosaur teaching unions at last, and there is a fairly half-hearted attempt to get UK finances back under control after the almost criminal ineptitude of the last Labour Government.

But there's no 'vision'. No route-map to getting the country back on its feet. No recognition of the biggest threat we face in my opinion, which is the Germanification of Europe - not just to the detriment of the UK, but the potentially fatal damage being done to our friends amongst the ordinary populous of Southern Europe.

I am not anti-Europe in any way: I am European. I have worked in France, Germany, Holland, Spain, Italy, Switzerland, Scandinavia. I have friends there. I love the culture and lifestyle of many of those countries. I would fight for their freedom - as we did as a nation twice during the unpleasantnesses of the last century. So why are we standing by while they are oppressed by the EU as Germany's current agent in its quest for European domination? (Think that's too strong? Think about it carefully, objectively, then get back to me).

So enter UKIP. A welcome voice for people who have no other outlet on this issue: Is defending people who are struggling to feed their kids in Spain, Greece etc., right wing? Is it nasty? While fat Eurocrats enjoy a lifestyle that would make Solomon blush? Is stealing money out of people's own bank accounts something we should applaud? What if it was your account?

So if UKIP's success can force Dave to change his stance in the right direction, can help to change UK policy on the EU, can, by making our eventual exit more likely, help the struggling people of southern Europe in particular (if we leave the EU will crumble even more quickly than it will naturally imo - they need us more than we need them), then it's a good thing. Possibly a great thing.

So, as I see it right now, UKIP can be an effective spanner in the works that gives us more of a say on the EU and that forces Dave to move to the right for his own survival. Ultimately, if they won't listen to voter's views or do what's right for the country over what's right for their party, they will, if faced with losing their own livelihood and career, have to do what keeps them in a job.

That's not how it should be. Not how most MPs would describe their motivation, but it is the reality of modern-day political office. Just as the Eurocrats will do anything to keep their extremely well-paid jobs, including selling out their own people without hesitation, so UK MPs will do whatever it takes to keep their cushy jobs. It's time to use this power we have over them, to force them to do what we want them to do. There's no other way it seems to me.

UKIP is doing us all a service in this regard and long may they continue to do so. And it's not just the Tories who are under threat. The Lib Dems are pretty much toast now thankfully, but even Labour's stance on Europe, on borrowing, on immigration is being swept away by the sense being talked by UKIP imo. The political landscape is changing. At last. And that's a good thing. UKIP is healthy for our democracy because it is challenging the status quo and it is not simply a protest party. It has momentum, leadership, vision, charisma. You might not like it, but it's true.

Final point, just so as not to seem to be entirely Machiavellian about this, Frage is a Tory to his roots. I'm not sure Dave is. So who knows what the future may hold?

Thanks for reading.