I can't believe I'm hearing myself saying this, but last night's 'Britain's Got Talent' (apart from the sideshow acts) left me emotional and inspired.
While politicians and bankers have been playing self-interested games with people's lives, two acts in particular - 'Only Boys Aloud' and 'Jonathan & Charlotte' - magnificently dispelled the much-held belief that the youth of today is becoming increasingly disaffected or downtrodden.
I'm not ashamed to say I shed a tear watching them sing their guts out in the face of the mess that short-termist opportunists and strategists have made of their generation's prospects.
They've been so badly let down, but last night I caught a glimpse of a future with hope.
Roy's Bleet
My Take on Stuff: Not quite a Blog ... too much to Tweet.
Sunday, 25 March 2012
Monday, 5 March 2012
The Banks have their heads in the Trough again while ours are in the Sand
Despite the Base Rate holding at 0.5%, we have a swathe of banks lining up to increase their lending rates.
Lets just remind ourselves that they mugged us once already and, like the gamblers they are - or addicts chasing the dragon for that next buzz - they're back cap in hand to gullible Aunty Public hoping to recoup their losses. Never mind that they've written off billions to countries on the brink of bankruptcy - who, ironically, borrowed at rates far cheaper than you or I can negotiate due to their 'sound' credit rating!
Or maybe they're just looking for ways to fund the compensation they're having to fork out for the PPI they also mis-sold us.
Bend over again, everyone - this might hurt a little. It wouldn't be British to complain, but we can all look on and tut.
Lets just remind ourselves that they mugged us once already and, like the gamblers they are - or addicts chasing the dragon for that next buzz - they're back cap in hand to gullible Aunty Public hoping to recoup their losses. Never mind that they've written off billions to countries on the brink of bankruptcy - who, ironically, borrowed at rates far cheaper than you or I can negotiate due to their 'sound' credit rating!
Or maybe they're just looking for ways to fund the compensation they're having to fork out for the PPI they also mis-sold us.
Bend over again, everyone - this might hurt a little. It wouldn't be British to complain, but we can all look on and tut.
Wednesday, 22 February 2012
A Look at Conflict: How Long can you Hold a Grudge?
History at school bored me - I'd rather have been told loads of interesting stories than to have to keep going over a select few on the curriculum, with the emphasis on our ability to commit dates and people to memory. There were reference books for that if you needed them, although I appreciate you need a broad grasp of chronology to know where to look. It was only later in life, after coming to Europe and seeing firsthand the wonderful landmarks I'd only ever heard about, that I realised there was something of historical importance on virtually every corner and my natural inquisitiveness took over - someone famous may once have passed there or over here is the site of a significant building or event.
I understand that our diverse cities and cultures wouldn't exist were it not for the blood, sweat and tears of previous generations - and it's important to historically preserve both our physical achievements and the memory of those who accomplished or protected them - but when it comes to continually reminding ourselves of the religious or political motivation behind CONFLICT, shadows remain cast over many generations and tracing back grudges becomes increasingly convoluted and unreliable. You only have to look at the scholarly accounts of the Napoleonic wars to realise how events can be interpreted so differently in a relatively short period of time.
In my simplistic view, this becomes an obstacle to current (and hence future) world inhabitants being able to strive towards harmony - wherever they were born or whatever their domicile today. It would be great just to be able to say "Let's just have a 'Day Zero', a point of mutual forgiveness, whereafter you should try to live peaceably with your neighbours from wherever you are right now". But that wouldn't be fair to the living ancestors of those born in exile, longing to be reunited with their loved ones ... unless there was the further will to remove the very territorial borders that caused the squabbles in the first place. We should all be free to tread broadly anywhere on this shared globe.
Or is it actually worth it, for the sake of future generations, for this one generation of misplaced tribes to just suck it up and endure the heartache of separation from kin or homeland to allow its offspring a real shot at a new beginning? - to start their lives without being indoctrinated into hating the enemies of their forefathers and rather to be taught to truly love their new neighbours?
A kid is a kid to a kid. Is it right that past disagreements should continue to blight new lives to the extent that some have never known an existence without conflict? It's worth noting that, by the end of the '100 Years War', the original protagonists were long dead. What would the world degenerate into if no-one knew better than kill or be killed? We may as well have never strayed from the caves.
If an aggressor seeks to breach the peace, they should face immediate prosecution for the very first crime committed in their name - why should anyone be above the laws by which the rest of us are expected to conform? There shouldn't be degrees of looting and harm to another individual, depending on whether you're 'A. Citizen' or the leader of a country.
One thing I know for sure - we shouldn't dwell on past grievances, except to learn valuable lessons about how we can create a better, peaceful future. People quip "Never forget where you buried the hatchet". I disagree - I say "Melt it down - make a monument of it if you like - but burn the handle".
I understand that our diverse cities and cultures wouldn't exist were it not for the blood, sweat and tears of previous generations - and it's important to historically preserve both our physical achievements and the memory of those who accomplished or protected them - but when it comes to continually reminding ourselves of the religious or political motivation behind CONFLICT, shadows remain cast over many generations and tracing back grudges becomes increasingly convoluted and unreliable. You only have to look at the scholarly accounts of the Napoleonic wars to realise how events can be interpreted so differently in a relatively short period of time.
In my simplistic view, this becomes an obstacle to current (and hence future) world inhabitants being able to strive towards harmony - wherever they were born or whatever their domicile today. It would be great just to be able to say "Let's just have a 'Day Zero', a point of mutual forgiveness, whereafter you should try to live peaceably with your neighbours from wherever you are right now". But that wouldn't be fair to the living ancestors of those born in exile, longing to be reunited with their loved ones ... unless there was the further will to remove the very territorial borders that caused the squabbles in the first place. We should all be free to tread broadly anywhere on this shared globe.
Or is it actually worth it, for the sake of future generations, for this one generation of misplaced tribes to just suck it up and endure the heartache of separation from kin or homeland to allow its offspring a real shot at a new beginning? - to start their lives without being indoctrinated into hating the enemies of their forefathers and rather to be taught to truly love their new neighbours?
A kid is a kid to a kid. Is it right that past disagreements should continue to blight new lives to the extent that some have never known an existence without conflict? It's worth noting that, by the end of the '100 Years War', the original protagonists were long dead. What would the world degenerate into if no-one knew better than kill or be killed? We may as well have never strayed from the caves.
If an aggressor seeks to breach the peace, they should face immediate prosecution for the very first crime committed in their name - why should anyone be above the laws by which the rest of us are expected to conform? There shouldn't be degrees of looting and harm to another individual, depending on whether you're 'A. Citizen' or the leader of a country.
One thing I know for sure - we shouldn't dwell on past grievances, except to learn valuable lessons about how we can create a better, peaceful future. People quip "Never forget where you buried the hatchet". I disagree - I say "Melt it down - make a monument of it if you like - but burn the handle".
Monday, 30 January 2012
The Case for Hester
In case it escaped your attention, and despite my own close association with the finance industry, I've become increasingly disillusioned with the self-serving monster that the City has become.
So it might come as a surprise that I count myself amongst those who feel that, both morally and contractually, RBS Chief Executive Stephen Hester was entitled to his bonus.
If you or I had entered into a challenging role on the understanding that a bonus would be forthcoming provided we delivered on an objective serving the public interest, we'd feel pretty shafted if the rewards for our labours didn't materialise.
Now this isn't a case of an employer reneging on their part of the deal - Hester's bonus was rightly placed on the table in accordance with the provisions of his engagement and in acknowledgement of the fact that RBS has begun to turn around under his stewardship.
Instead, this is the story of a man compromised into foregoing his entitlement because a Government too toothless to regulate effectively wanted to make an example of him by demonstrating they are coming down hard on the excesses of a banking industry responsible for getting us all into this mess in the first place.
And who were there, gutlessly baying over Cameron's shoulders? The double-speaking Labourites who, in language suggesting they intended to stitch Hester up all along when first negotiating his pay deal, are trying to salvage some credibility by claiming "There is nothing in the employment contract of Stephen Hester which binds the company or its remuneration committee to pay a mandatory bonus".
Hester's reward for stepping up to the plate? A poisoned chalice, shimmering enticingly … at the end of a stick. He was never going to win against the full weight of our conveniently united reds and blues, both trying to appease a public rightly disconcerted by corporate greed.
So it might come as a surprise that I count myself amongst those who feel that, both morally and contractually, RBS Chief Executive Stephen Hester was entitled to his bonus.
If you or I had entered into a challenging role on the understanding that a bonus would be forthcoming provided we delivered on an objective serving the public interest, we'd feel pretty shafted if the rewards for our labours didn't materialise.
Now this isn't a case of an employer reneging on their part of the deal - Hester's bonus was rightly placed on the table in accordance with the provisions of his engagement and in acknowledgement of the fact that RBS has begun to turn around under his stewardship.
Instead, this is the story of a man compromised into foregoing his entitlement because a Government too toothless to regulate effectively wanted to make an example of him by demonstrating they are coming down hard on the excesses of a banking industry responsible for getting us all into this mess in the first place.
And who were there, gutlessly baying over Cameron's shoulders? The double-speaking Labourites who, in language suggesting they intended to stitch Hester up all along when first negotiating his pay deal, are trying to salvage some credibility by claiming "There is nothing in the employment contract of Stephen Hester which binds the company or its remuneration committee to pay a mandatory bonus".
Hester's reward for stepping up to the plate? A poisoned chalice, shimmering enticingly … at the end of a stick. He was never going to win against the full weight of our conveniently united reds and blues, both trying to appease a public rightly disconcerted by corporate greed.
Friday, 27 January 2012
Barclays Wins Award! Oh, hang on .......
A short post today, on a theme close to my heart.
To coincide with the World Economic Forum currently being held in Davos, Switzerland, Barclays Bank today (27 Jan 2012) won a Public Eye "shame award" for [purportedly] speculating in food prices (story here). So much for CEO Bob Diamond's appeasement to the Occupy Movement that banks should become "better citizens".
Those of you who know me will be aware of my Facebook page "Let's Sink Anthony Ward ("Choc Finger", Armajaro) and his greedy ilk", first set up when Mr Ward's company Armajaro caused heavy fluctuation in cocoa prices in 2010 (you'll have to start right from the bottom of the threads to get to why I set it up in the first place).
Since then a number of people and companies have been added to my 'Hall of Greed / Corruption (Allegedly)' and I urge you to look at the page and then get behind organisations like the World Development Movement, who are campaigning hard for tighter trading regulations.
To coincide with the World Economic Forum currently being held in Davos, Switzerland, Barclays Bank today (27 Jan 2012) won a Public Eye "shame award" for [purportedly] speculating in food prices (story here). So much for CEO Bob Diamond's appeasement to the Occupy Movement that banks should become "better citizens".
Those of you who know me will be aware of my Facebook page "Let's Sink Anthony Ward ("Choc Finger", Armajaro) and his greedy ilk", first set up when Mr Ward's company Armajaro caused heavy fluctuation in cocoa prices in 2010 (you'll have to start right from the bottom of the threads to get to why I set it up in the first place).
Since then a number of people and companies have been added to my 'Hall of Greed / Corruption (Allegedly)' and I urge you to look at the page and then get behind organisations like the World Development Movement, who are campaigning hard for tighter trading regulations.
![]() |
| An update to the above story, posted by the World Development Movement (26 Apr 2012) can be found here Denied (twice) at AGM - WDM have been advised "Barclays creates commodity derivatives which it sells to clients, but it doesn't technically speculate itself." More investigation required ... views on this would be appreciated by commenting below. |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
