Yellow Swordfish

Wet Money

Here’s somethng I don’t understand:

The water industry regulator, Ofwat, is planning to fine Southern Water £20.3m for “deliberately misreporting information” about its performance. The misreporting meant that Southern was able to raise its prices by more than it should have done, Ofwat said. The fine is also for poor processes and systems that meant “customers received poor service”, the regulator added.

OK - so naughty Southern Water. But there again, the article suggests that they both owned up to this problem AND compensated their customers. Furthermore, Ofwat (what a genius it was who came up with these bloody names!) state (although not Southern Water) that the fine will not burden customers because it will come out of profits so just hit the shareholders and their dividends.

Now here’s the question. When Southern Water hand over this huge sum of money - who, or what, gets it? If this were a criminal or civil case in a court of law then the plaintiff would benefit. But this isn’t a legal court ruling, this is a ‘regulatory body’ appointed by, yes, you guessed it, the government. So where does the money go? It looks more to me like this is almost a tax on being naughty.

Ideally, the company should be made to pour that £20.3m into it’s operations. Sure, the shareholders get hurt and they, in turn, can get rid of the directors who are responsible for the loss. That would be a fitting punishment. Now I don’t know the rules here but I suspect the money just disappears under the mattress of the government and to that, I strongly object. And so should the customers of Southern Water.

The Honesty Button Or How The Co-Op Passed The Buck

It is against the law in England to sell alcohol to anyone under the age of 18 or tobacco products to anyone under the age of 16. Any sales assistant or shopkeeper found flouting these rules could face prosecution and a stiff fine. It is, if I understand it correctly, up to the sales assistant to make a decision on the age of a purchaser and, if challenged, up to the young purchaser to prove their age.

The Co-Operative supermarket chain however, appears to have a new weapon in their armoury to combat illegal sales to minors as I discovered yesterday when I wandered in to a store in Colchester to purchase a pack of cigarettes. Affixed to the counter were two buttons (which I have simulated in the image right although I can’t guarantee the wording). Before she handed me the cigarette packet I had to press the button most appropriate to my situation. I, somewhat stunned, pressed the green button and the purchase was made.

I cannot be alone in thinking this is rather a bizarre and buck-passing method of checking on the legal age of a youngster coming in for his nights lager. If I was 17 and desperate to drink myself silly on the streets then I’m unlikely to press the bloody red button am I? But I assume that by pressing the wrong one I am absolving the sales assistant from her legal responsibility. She can say if legally challenged - and it’s probably linked to the till receipt - ‘…well - he pressed the green button did’n ‘e? How was I s’posed to know ‘e was only 6?‘.

After I left the store I got to wondering. I should have checked out the pharmacy counter and looked for the button that said ‘I am over 16 and legally allowed to have sex with a partner who is also over 16 so just sell me the damn condoms.

Time To Recycle Recycling

If you have not been forced to accept the ubiquitous ‘wheelie bin’ where you live - and I am aware of people that haven’t - then it is surely only a matter of time. We have had the ‘black’ bin (general household waste) for several years now but all changed about a year ago.

Due to EU regulations on how much a local authority is now allowed to put into landfill, our district council came up with a cunning plan. Instead of just the usual weekly collection of the ‘black’ bin, this would be changed to a fortnightly collection (fortnight = 2 weeks for our US friends) with the intervening week being a collection from our new ‘green’ bin (recyclable waste) and our ‘brown’ bin (garden waste for composting but, for some obscure reason, not vegetable food waste).

As a family of four with a weekly bulging black bin we sought advice from the council on how we would cope with it being collected only every two weeks as new rulings also state that any bin overflowing will not be taken. We were also rather concerned about a bin load of rotting and smelly items sitting in the hot sun of summer for two weeks outside of our house but they had no response to that.

The advice, of course, was to recycle more. An admirable aim of course. All plastics, paper, card and tins they said. ‘What about used dog food tins and the like?’ I asked. ‘Clean them out first’ they said. ‘So’, I said, ‘you want me to use more oil that heats my water so that I can wash out the dog food tins and flush the waste down the kitchen sink into the sewerage system’. ‘Yes’ they said, without blinking. Environmental Health, Anglian Water and Shell are going to love us, I thought.

‘Can’t we just have two black bins?’ we asked. ‘No’ they said, eyes lighting up ‘but we can give you two green bins!’. And now I know why. Household waste - i.e., the black bin - is handled by the local authority. Green waste is contracted out so the council don’t give a damn what I put in there as long as they don’t have to handle it. Basically the advice is to put as much in the green bin as we possibly can so that it is someone else’s problem.

Now for the good bit. If you ever wondered what happened to all the recyclable waste - along with the bottles from the bottle banks - EU Referendum reveals all. And as a bonus, you’ll learn why violence against dustman is becoming a favourite past-time of householders. It is, as so much handed down from the bloody EU, corrupt, outrageous, hugely expensive and a complete and utter waste of everyone’s time.

Last year the Inland Revenue… OK… the bloody Tax Man, decided for reasons that have not been disclosed to me, to instigate an investigation into my 2002-2003 tax return.

This is a whole year after the return has been filed and tax paid. No reason given, but letters sent full of dark foreboding and warnings suggesting I will be burnt at the stake if I fail to co-operate fully. And of course I do. Me? As honest as they come guv. And I do the only sane thing. I take the matter to my accountant who, after all, knows more than I do about this sort of thing.

A year later I get the bill from my accountant and another letter from the Tax Man. The accountants bill is for £545.00 - the letter from the bloody Tax Man informs me that I actually overpaid and they owe me £5.42p.

As usual, the middle man wins again. And the penguin? I don’t have a clue but I found it on the home page of the Inland Revenue’s website so I figure it must be their new logo. It c ertainly looks like I feel.

And So The Interrogation Begins…

I just heard an ‘expert’ on BBC News 24 describe what happens next to the four suspected suicide bombers now in custody. ‘Two Detectives’ will ask them questions for about an ‘hour’ at a time respecting their ‘human rights’. They will have a ‘lawyer’ present at all times and the police will do ‘nothing’ that may jeopardise a later ‘fair trial’.

Does this sound more like a cosy chat over tea and a kit-kat?

Now - don’t get me wrong - there is no way I condone getting physical here. Start using torture - even mild torture - and your civilisation is on a slippery slope to oblivion. But an ‘hour’ at a time? With a ‘lawyer’ present? Is that any incentive for them to start talking?

There has to be something in the middle here between the cosy chat and the physical abuse - perhaps something more fitting to the actions of these animals. Throw out the damned lawyer and bring in an independent witness - use a Muslim even - then grill them around the clock.

Perhaps I’m getting more reactionary in my old age but I don’t understand a custody system that treats these four individuals the same way as a petty shoplifter.