Baby Oleg Has Two Daddies: Compare the Meerkat Adverts Refelcting Modern Families

The Compare the Market or Compare the Meerkat advertisements have since their inception in 2009 become something of a staple on our screens. A relatively avid television watcher will frequently see these anthropomorphised CGI meerkats telling them, and the rest of the nation, that they can make big savings by getting insurance through Compare the Market. It utilised a set of jokes about eastern European accents accents, typographical errors, Russian wealth, pointless websites, and the aforementioned anthropomorphising of meerkats to create a memorable brand. All very clever marketing; and all very boring.

What is not so boring about the advertisement campaign is how Compare the Market have gone from using the two main meerkat protagonists, Aleksandr and Sergei, to advertise their website in an entrepreneur and employee/assistant relationship, to one that resembles a same sex couple. 

It started of relatively early as an employee/boss relationship.

Later, the idea of this same sex relationship began to be explored. An example of this can be observed at the end of the following advertisement. Aleksandr and Sergei are seemingly about to settle down and go to bed for the night. Both meerkats dressed for (or in) bed with only one being shown on screen, but this was only hinted at by the advertisers.

It was not until the introduction of baby Oleg that the slowly evolving dynamics of this on screen relationship reach its current point. An implied, yet fairly obvious, same sex family.

The advertisement remains in its grandiose location, presumably Aleksandr's stately home, but gone is the presence of a employee/boss relationship between Aleksandr and Sergei. The markers of this relationship, the business attire donned by Sergei have been replaced with his pyjamas. His first appearance on screen signalling a comfortability with his surrounding, the brushing of his teeth, preparing himself for another night as residency at the house. This of course could be a result of his job, he is simultaneously presented as an employee maintaining the Compare the Meerkat website and as a sort of butler, or assistant, to Aleksandr.

The initial interaction between Sergei and Aleksandr at the door of their mansion makes that seem less likely. When answering the sound of the doorbell, only to find a baby meerkat left on the doorstep, Aleksandr asks Sergei "Who has called zis time?". It was of course a baby called Oleg with a note asking for them to look after him, presumably by his mother who wished for him to be raised in a caring home. Or at the very least by a family who could provide a better standard of life for her child. The faces of Aleksandr and Sergei showing similar pleasure at the idea of adopting and raising a child as their own, particulalry after baby Oleg calls Aleksandr "dada". This is quite telling in itself, as it highlights the dynamics now growing within their relationship. Sergei has since his inception been occupying a subordinate role, one usually reserved in popular culture and society for the female.

Sergei was immediately pleased at the prospect of adopting a child. Aleksandr was considerably more reserved about the thought of bringing up baby Oleg, that was until he was invited by the child to adopt the role of its "dada". The carrying of the child by Sergei further solidifying the symbolic roles played by these two characters. Made even stronger when Aleksandr, who by now has firmly assumed the role of father, agrees to having a child under the stipulation that Sergei carries out the child caring duties. Sergei is symbolising the feminine in this relationship, he now has even more 'second shift' responsibilities. This obviously playing on the stereotype of feminine domesticity, and the idea that their is always a more feminine member of a same sex relationship.

What is so significant about these adverts, and what I have only just noticed about them, is how it symbolises the ever changing family landscape of modern Britain. The diverse nature of modern family life is one that has been largely ignored by the advertisers who often choose to 'play it safe' when it comes to depicting the domestic. To have a family setting, even one that is only implied, where a gay couple adopts a child, on national television, as part of a popular advertisement campaign, would have unthinkable in the not too distant past. There simply would have been outrage. 

To extent that would still be the case, they are using anthropomorphism to make these characters disconnected from humanity, to make it acceptable to the conservative elements of society, and to break this ground. They are hiding the meaning away and never explicitly stating Sergei and Aleksandr's relationship, and they are using comedic elements to gloss over much of its importance. Advertisements are still a medium of communication dominated by 'traditional' nuclear families, the working husband, the domesticated mother, and the 2.4 children, they all remain mainstays of television and print advertisement. 

However, with all things considered, this is still one small paw in the right direction.

Bernie Ecclestone To Bribe His Way Out Of Bribery Charges

The allegations against Bernie Ecclestone were concerning a bribe he paid to a German banker in 2006 to undervalue the Formula One assets of BayernLB, a bank in Germany. The reason he allegedly paid the £27million sum to a German banker was so that a company called CVC, which he favoured and who had promised him he would keep his job, could buy their stake in Formula One. This bribe upset another German company called Constantin Medien, who claim they missed out on a large sum of commission because of the bribe. As it always is with business dealings it is all very boring, so I have just summarised it briefly, and probably inaccurately. However, if found guilty of bribery he would have faced up to ten years in jail. To avoid that he and his lawyer probably had a conversation something like this:

BE: I need to make these allegations go away, that's why I've got you down here at great expense.

L: Okay Bernie, first thing I want to know... Are these allegations true? I just need to know so I can build a case that avoids any of the facts as much as possible if they are.

BE: Of course they are true, they don't call me the Godfather of Formula One for nothing.

L: They don't! Do they?

BE: No... but I wish they would. I'm always up to something, I have fingers in all sorts of dodgy pies, and I once put a Freddo's head in someone's bed.

L: What the hell are you going on about? What the hell is a Freddo?

BE: It is a small chocolate frog.

L: What are you talking about damn chocolate frogs?

BE: They're really tasty, and because they're bigger than me they can be well intimidating too!

L: *Indecipherable shouting and swearing*

BE: I take it you want to get back on topic?

L: YES! You blithering idiot!

*Long pause as the lawyer calms down*

L: So you're guilty. Everyone knows it. Plus you've admitted to paying this Gerhard Gribkowsky character the money in court, although you're claiming he forced you into it somehow.

BE: Yep.

L: Okay.... So I guess our only option is to bribe the courts to make the charges go away.

BE: Can we do that?

L: Yep, there's some bullshit German provision in courts that means the wealthy can get away with loads of things as long as they're prepared to pay a bribe!

BE: Good news then, I am ridiculously wealthy. Now who wants to go break some more laws with me?!

Astonishingly this it true (not the conversation part though... I just made that up), although officially it is being called a 'payment'. A payment of $100million that will go straight into the German treasury and make everything okay again. This means that all is once again well in the world. Apart from the fact that this proviso unfairly favours the wealthy! It favours the people who can afford to pay bribes to get away with bribery. How can you be taken to court over something, pay some money legally to end proceedings, and then be allowed to walk free without being found either guilty nor innocent? Especially when the bloke you have bribed is currently serving a prison sentence for accepting bribes!

The unusual proviso he relied upon to be found to be 'guinnocelty'* is supposed to be enacted to ease the burden on German courts, but only in circumstances where the case looks nigh on impossible to resolve. I am just going out on a hunch here and suggest that this probably was not one of those occasions. Here is why I have my doubts: (just nabbed these quotes from this Guardian article)

"The chief executive of Formula One was accused of having paid the former Bayern LB chief risk officer Gerhard Gribkowsky $44m in 2006 to ease the sale of the bank's share to a company that had guaranteed to keep Ecclestone in his job. He has admitted paying the money but denied it was a bribe."
In what way is that not a bribe? He paid another companies employee some money, with the intention to get him to make the sale of his employers assets to another company go through. Even if his claim that it was to silence him over "irregularities in his tax affairs" then that surely is also a bribe? A bride to stop one rich chap who was guilty of tax evasion from grassing on another rich chap (allegedly) avoiding tax.

"In an explanation of its decision, the court said it had "considerable doubts" about whether Ecclestone knew Gribkowsky held that particular position at the time of the alleged bribe".
No! That is all nonsense, you would not pay someone £27million if you didn't know what position he held and whether he could help you. That would be madness. What did Bernie think he do then? Did he think he was a humble cleaner? Did he just want to be nice to some chap on minimum wage, but surprisingly drinking in an expensive bar in designer clothes?! Rubbish! Rich people do not give away their money, they hoard it until there is nothing left for the rest of us.

""Accordingly, a prosecution of the accused due to bribery is not probable as things stand," the court said, despite admitting that all the evidence in the case had not yet been heard."
The prosecution wasn't probable presumably because the Bavarian state couldn't resist saying yes to that big cheque waving in their face. There really is nothing like bending over backwards for the rich now is there.

So Bernie Ecclestone walked free despite in the judges statement highlighting the fact he had "made a "corrupt" deal. And he had been not "reliable or truthful" during the case in London". All made possible by his wealth, some technicalities, and a dodgy loophole in the German courts that favours the rich.

I just hope they will be as nice to me when I go over, commit a crime, bribe a police officer to get away with it, get caught out because that police officer has been caught taking bribes, and then after some, but crucially not all evidence is heard, wave a cheque for £10 in their faces walk away 'guinnocelty'.

Of course I could just be being a pessimist and dear old Bernie could be truly innocent. That was not really the point of this post. He is rich, that is reason enough for me to dislike the man. I really couldn't care less about his guilt. I just found it ridiculous (but not all that surprising) that a legal system, in a developed part of the world, could get away with having a provision built into it that allows the wealthy to just buy their way out of trouble... more so than usual anyway.

*Had to mix guilty and innocent together because I did not have a word to describe this outcome.

How To Spot Racism On Facebook: A Short Guide To Those Awful Memes Circulating Everywhere

You might be thinking something along the line of "what use is this guide? It's obvious when someone posts something racist to Facebook, I will see a word that will be racist!" And you would be right, that is an easy an obvious way to spot racism on Facebook and the moron who wrote that post is deserving of a swift five finger lesson. In my opinion a disembowelling would not be considered heavy handed either. However, recently there has been a marked increase in posts that disguise racism as national pride or caring for the vulnerable, within shameless like baiting posts. Usually these are in the form of pictures, with short statements designed to get people to see, like and share without ever really engaging with its true meaning. You have all probably seen these and recognise what I am jabbering on about, but just in case you do not I will explain what they are and how to spot one that is racist.

So picture let us now the scene. You are scrolling through the endless cat pictures, videos and insufferable dull posts about people's lives on Facebook. You stop suddenly on a few of these pictures, and go to like one of them. There is a pause... Unlike the moron who clicked immediately, you think about them for a second, you try to find a meaning. Why has it been made? What does it really say? What does it say about me and my friend?

Picture 1.

Firstly, this is linking race to that other great Right-Wing crusade... benefit scrounging. It is clearly, and quite cleverly I have to admit, designed as a joke. One that I do not find funny, but one that many will do, the point is clearly labelled on the thing "share if you laughed". Something which many undoubtedly would have done without thinking about its implications. In this sense it would have been quite successful. Ultimately, it would have spread the lie that being foreign is not compatible with hard-working British ideals. This is and always will be nonsense. This 'joke' is designed solely to distance Johnny Foreigner and his lifestyle from the average stereotypical British person. It also has no truth to it whatsoever!

Want proof? Unlike the racists I will provide some. Here is a quick example from the Government and Office of National Statistics, with the most recent statistics I could be bothered to find. "As at February 2013, 16.4% of working age UK nationals were claiming a DWP working age benefit compared to 6.7% of working age non-UK nationals (at the time they first registered for a National Insurance Number) (resident working age UK population figures based on country of birth 2011, ONS). Claimants who were non-UK nationals when they registered for a NINo may of course subsequently have become permanent residents or British citizens."

Read page nine onwards for nationality and benefit statistics. 

If you share a post like that and you deserve... Toe Wedging

If you now dislike the person who shared this then congratulations, you remain a decent human being

Picture 2.

I can hear many of you reading this now saying "oh come on!!! How can a quote by Winston Churchill be construed as racist? He led Britain through World War Two and saved us from horrible racists!" Of course you would be right in saying that. Under his government we did indeed fight the worst case of anti-Semitism Europe has ever seen. Yes we did defeat Nazi Germany and its allies. However, that alone does not stop him being a nasty and despicable man, he was a racist. That quote is just one such example of it. By spreading this quote, or any of his imperialist attitudes you or your friends are implicitly condoning the actions of 'our once great empire'. The same goes for any of the other 'great' imperialists and their like baiting quotes.

For sharing a post similar if not the same as this one the punishment should be... The Pear of Anguish

If you decided to delete this idiot (who at one point was an acquaintance but is now nothing more than a footnote in your history) then you're still in with a shout of succeeding where that moron failed. You could still have an IQ above 70!!!

Picture 3. 

This one has continuously annoyed me since I first laid tired eyes upon it. Why? Because just like a case of herpes it goes away every now and then just to come back when you least want it to. I could be in a good mood, then bang... The same old (eye)sore is back. This particular one is incredibly inaccurate, calls upon the vulnerable as emotional anchors, and uses foreigners as scapegoats for all their woes. All very much the key staples of right-wing propaganda. I can hear people say "surely they cannot make all of this information up, pensioners are paid poorly!" Actually whilst I do agree they are paid a pittance, they have made up most of (or at the very least selectively reported) the facts to create a sensational and divisive load of twaddle.

Point 1. Whilst the average state pension entitlement is indeed around £6000 per year (it is actually £5881.20 per 52 weeks) if you are entitled to the full amount. They have conveniently ignored the other eligible benefits in order to keep the total so low, such as: State Second Pensions, Pension Credit, Council Tax Support, Housing Benefit, Winter Fuel Payments, etc.... I'm not saying they are enough but, it is significantly more than what is stated on this piece of racist propaganda. 

Point 2. The picture they have chosen to use for this is deliberately very evocative. It has been purposefully chosen to encourage the target audience (read: gullible idiots) to sympathise with this lady. She is hunched over in a pose reminiscent of frailty, the heightened camera angle encouraging the audience to view her as small or subordinate. She is counting a minimal amount of change in her hand, signifying the stated pittance she receives as financial support. Visually you are encouraged to view that as the sum total of her entitlement. By using all of these techniques in the photographs composition they want you to view her powerless in the face of this suffering. All of it caused by the 'folk devils' or immigrants/scroungers/government/whoever they want to crusade against. It is however nearly all lies; as we know pensioners are one of the most powerful groups when it comes to policy making. The grey vote is one all the politicians chase simply because they vote more. 

Point 3. The use of a sensationalist newspaper headline is deliberately designed to label all immigrants as recipients of this little old ladies rightful pension fund. This is nonsense, it is a special case and one which requires some leeway. An example of this kind of rubbish, and quite possible the same article from the same newspaper (although I cannot verify that myself), can be found here. A few things jump out when you examine this article: 

Firstly, it is a large family and as such there is a need for a large house. Simply put it is necessary to pay rent on a more expensive property. 

Secondly, the father is an EX-asylum seeker, he has now become a legal and recognised resident of the UK on reasonable humanitarian grounds. 

Thirdly, he had become unemployed after losing his job as a bus conductor. He used to work but is unfortunate to be without a job at the time this article was published. Convenient subject matter if you wish to demonise a group as scroungers. 

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, the authors of the article gloss over the real problems mentioned in the article. This is done so they do not draw too much attention to the true cause of such high payments. It states very briefly that the house "is owned by Brophy Group Business Ltd, a British Virgin Islands company whose registered address is a post office box in Liechenstein". Someone is making huge profits on renting this accommodation to this family, simply because there is not enough social housing being built and what there was is being sold off, whilst having the money pumped out of the UK into two tax havens!

Point 4. This is by a country mile the most inaccurate and the most irritating. Illegal immigrants cannot claim benefits, because by definition they are ILLEGAL. If they came forward and tried to claim benefits they would be caught out and deported! That one piece stupidity alone is enough to make me want to rip the beating heart out of anyone's chest who likes or shares this rubbish. As for refugees they are rightly entitled to benefits should they need them (just like the aforementioned family). Asylum seekers are another favourite of these idiots and I will quickly address that too. They are entitled to some benefits but they are negligible, about £36 for a single person. 

Anything that has 'factual' statements that seem to be incredibly unfair or just plain ridiculous need to be verified before you believe them, that is just not a rule of the internet. That should be a known practise in every aspect of life. Do not trust everything you read, especially if it is trying to scapegoat someone or something. Disinformation is one of the key tactics used by these people. The racists, fascists and a lot of politicians will use the average person's laziness, or inability to research the facts, to spread hate and anger at minorities. Groups who are almost exclusively made out to be the sole benefiters of structural inequalities in our society, rather being the targets of discrimination. 

Punishment for anyone spreading this level of nonsense should be proportionate to the crime... Flaying

Congratulations, if you punched that moron in a particularly nasty part of their body. Even more so if it came after running 23,547 miles to their home (just because you felt so strongly about the need to). Unlike your (now former) friends you can spot racist propaganda and you do not easily fall for the techniques they use to spread this nonsense.

These are only three of the many, many examples of this nonsense currently filling the social media platforms. It could be described as having similar properties to brown and foul substance, one often found in a porcelain bowl.

*Disclaimer* I do not accept any responsibility for torture that is done upon the idiots who spread the aforementioned rubbish throughout the various forms of social media. What is done to them is the responsibility of the person who deemed it necessary to go too far, especially when a simple "you're an idiot and a racist whom I shall no longer associate with" would have sufficed. The torture methods were suggested for my own amusement only!

Civilised Societies Do Not Execute People

The death penalty advocates in the UK have relentless groaned on about the imaginary positives associated with capital punishment since its permanent removal as a punishment for murder in 1969 (after and experimental period beginning in 1965). Its removal occurred via a vote by an overwhelming majority in parliament, since then supporters of such drastic measures have lamented the ability for the state to end a persons life, and with it our transition into a 'civilised' society. Every time a major news story breaks, particularly when it involves a group of people who are currently the subject of a moral panic, the pro-deathers come flying out the gates screaming bloody murder with a wilful disregard for the consequences, statistics and faults.

One such consequence, and in my humble opinion the most severe, is the ever-present risk of taking an innocent life through capital punishment. Often proponents of the death penalty at this point will use tired and false arguments such as: very few people executed will be innocent, that murderers and other criminals deserve the most sever form of punishment, and that it acts as a deterrent (supported via questionable economic theory). 

Who cares if most are guilty? That is not acceptable justification for those who have been wrongly executed and their families. You cannot undo a death penalty no matter how many Derek Acorah's you use! It is pure injustice and advocating the use of it is tantamount to advocating the murder that it is supposed to discourage. They point towards cases of criminals being released and killing again and act like this is justification for blanket killing. The irony of this is that many, if not most, of these pro-death penalty advocates are strong anti-abortionists, or pro-lifers as they are commonly called. Surely this would be taking away even more people's right to life? Innocent people's right to life! Just like those innocent babies they often harp on about! Some supporters even going as far as advocating swift executions to better serve as a deterrent for extreme crimes (once again ignoring the wrongly convicted).

The second important point is this. Is capital punishment even a deterrent in the first place? There are plenty of countries that continue to practise this archaic punishment, but facts prove it to be ineffectual and at worse counter-productive. State legalisation of murder serves as a kind of normalisation to homicide. Therefore, the adoption of institutionalised murder as a punishment and deterrent actually increases murder. Unlike the many advocates who base all arguments solely on conjecture (or rather bizarrely the previously mentioned economic theories), the statistics prove this normalising effect to be the case.

That's even before you mention the cost, and the final point I am going to make. The extremely large amounts of money spent when executing someone convicted of a crime, in the cost of the executions; also in the cost of the trials. Money that could be put to much better use in fighting the causes of murder and violent crimes. Such as alleviation of extreme poverty, drug rehabilitation, domestic violence support programmes, and an alienation for many youths from society and its markers of success. Money better spent on creating a caring, loving and forward looking society. Not one full of the hate and the fear of yesteryear, synonymous of a time when executions were considered acceptable punishment. As Martin Luther King once said "Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness, only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that".

Anyway, I will leave this post there. However, if you fancy a bit more reading have a quick gander at this. I found it interesting.

UKIP MP Wannabe Chased Out Of Party By Couple Who Talk To Angels

I could not wait to get back to my desk and type this post!

I will start by explaining why I am so excited. Today was a bad day for myself. Nothing particularly unpleasant happened to me, it was just dull, tiresome and completely uneventful. The sort of day that is undesirable to someone who is 'self-employed', whilst simultaneously managing to not be the least bit irksome. It was a textbook example of a nothing day. A day slowly ticking by, minutes the length of days, everyone filled with no real response to anything. That was until my journey home! Upon a chance reading of an article I was overcome with joy, a smile crept across my otherwise solemn face, and laughter burst forth uncontrollably as if erupting from some long dormant volcano unleashing its wrath upon the days apathy (it seemed that long to me). My mind wandered between the errors that these UKIPpers had made when describing this couples beliefs (as you would expect from that bunch of idiots), and the delights of imagining how conversations between the parties involved would have played out. So lets take a trip into the wonderland, the gift that keeps on giving, the little Englanders imaginarium, UKIP. Time to pick it apart and highlight it as the traditional inane ramblings of UKIP members, full of contradictions and inaccuracies.

I guess I should start by highlighting why the ex-UKIP candidate Jake Baynes and his local party chairman Graham Livings exemplify stupidity. This is mostly out of courtesy for those who practise the same or similar spiritualities, but also for my own enjoyment. 

JB: "I do think if someone is saying you are in touch with the angelic realms I have to call into question their judgement."

As opposed to being spoken to or listened to by God? In whatever form he/she may take thinking a mystical being living in the sky or another realm is listening to you is bizarre when you state it like that. How can you make such bold claims dismissing one set of beliefs and claiming they have no place in your party, whilst at the same time ignoring equally irrational beliefs expressed by other party members? Are Christians not infiltrating your party with their wacky beliefs? This is particularly odd when you think about it separate from the 'crazies' tag he is trying to label their beliefs as, 'angelic realms' sounds suspiciously like popular culture's representation of Heaven does it not? 

JB: "Everyone's got their different beliefs. It's not for me to belittle anyone's beliefs. People have different views. But if Ukip is trying to shake off this fruitcake image thing, we're not doing a good job of it." 

Oh Jake Baynes this quote started so well... Right up until the but! When a UKIPper says that little word you know it is all going to go wrong. You cannot say it is not your place to belittle yourself and then imply that because of their beliefs they are fruitcakes. That is belittling their beliefs! That is contradicting yourself within four sentences! That is UKIP! I can see why he was relatively well thought of within the party.

GL: "We've been infiltrated by the Glastonbury occult. I've heard a lot of people say locally they won't be voting for Ukip because of this. It needs to be addressed."

Now now Graham! Calm down a bit! I am sure you have heard them say they will not be voting for UKIP for multiple reasons. Mostly, I imagine, because you are a bunch of xenophobic ultra-right-wingers who could not care less about the plight of anyone other than your rich chums. Are you planning on doing something about that too? Or will you simply continue with that one policy you have? The one which is to be scared and hateful of anything that is not 'English enough' for your followers. If it is the latter I am sure your followers could not care less about someone's 'occult' connections. In fact it probably would make them the sanest person in UKIP. 

*GL: "Ukip has a prescribed list which states the no one who has been a member of the BNP or the English Defence League should be a member, but when they sat down and wrote out the prescribed list, they wouldn't have thought to put occultists down." 

Yeah, because being a practising alternative spiritualist and then wanting to join UKIP is beyond the pale. It is comparable to (or worse than) being member of a racist party or group and then joining a bunch of xenophobes. At least openly racist people (along with view equally as archaic) would be voted for by your membership and supporters.

*JB: "They say they get their divine inspirations from the Archangel Michael, and to be honest, I don't think that has a part to play in politics".

To be fair to Jake Baynes, this time I couldn't agree more. I do not think that religion or spiritual beliefs and politics should be mixed at all. What was that about gay rain?

**GT: "Ukip are not out to demonise everybody".

Nope, not at all. I have never known UKIP to demonise (or be derogatory towards) large swathes of the UK population, just: immigrants, homosexuals, women, the poor, environmentalists, non-Christians, ethnic minorities, the list goes on and on.

And they're off again the Wacky Racists go on and on. Each liar determined to win, manoeuvring for position, looking for the opening that will put him in the lead. 

Will the Dastardly Dicks ever manage to win a race? Or will they always fall short? Drat, Drat, and Double Drat!*** 

*Quote from a different source to the original article that inspired this post.

**Glenn Tucker, UKIP party member; also one of the 'occultists'.
***Yes I know it was a poor joke, but I really wanted to call them Wacky Racists. Also Dastardly Dicks kind of suits them!

Matalan The Miserly

I am not keen on purchasing from companies that exploit the opportunities presented by global capitalism, primarily by using low-paid workforces throughout the world to maximise profits on items sold to us in the western world. It is an act perpetrated by a system that encourages and enables morally bankrupt to flourish through ruthlessness and selfishness. Unfortunately, like most of us in the west, at times we have almost no option but to buy from many of these cheap high street chains. Many of us do so knowing the full implications of our purchases, and exactly why these items are so cheap, despite the huge profits being generated by these brands. The employees of these factories work on clothing for western consumption in truly atrocious conditions, often being over-worked, terrible living and working conditions, or in many cases worse. However, all of this is ignored by the company, by its marketing teams, and most importantly for this façade of guilt free shopping to continue, by the consumers. We do not know about it, and we do not care about, because they are not from our world. They are not from the developed world. An attitude that has paved the way for the brazen attitudes towards cheap labour, and their rights, that we see all around us.

So what does this have to do with Matalan? Well they are just one of many, many retailers exploiting this abundant resource comprised of huge swathes of impoverished people in the world, and a perfect example of the uncaring, calculating nature of global capitalism. Especially in light of the tragic events in Bangladesh over a year ago, and their refusal so far to pay the necessary compensation to the victims and their families. The continued stalling over what should be a straight forward admission of guilt only exposes the company (and the many others like them) for what they are. A company that places the needs of their owners ahead of the right to safety, security, and anything resembling a decent living standard for its indirect (and hidden) employees. 

When you examine the numbers associated with this example of execrable behaviour towards members of Matalan's own global supply chain it brings the nature of this facet of western consumption into focus. The sharp contrast between how Matalan wishes to be perceived as a family friendly brand, and the truth (that they couldn't care less about the families of those victims), is eye-opening for many. When you see the figures it becomes increasingly difficult to comprehend the callousness of the family who owns Matalan, the Hargreaves family (just so everyone knows who they are). 

1. In 2013-14 tax year Matalan made sales of £1.12billion.

2. Forbes list the Hargreaves net worth as $1.3billion.

3. Matalan only owe the fund £3million.

4. For their troubles the sweatshop workers of Bangladesh earned on average $38.50 per month whilst creating all those profits for Matalan et al.

Yet it looks like this appalling situation will bypass most of Matalan's customers, in addition to the plethora of other value brands consumers once again. All whilst the sweatshop, as a tool for profit masquerading as opportunities for the impoverished, is defended by many of those within the establishment.

Misleading Conservative Propanganda: WE Are Not Better Off

News broke on the 25th July that we in Britain are out of the dip caused by the recession. Surely this is reason to celebrate, for now we will all be prospering in comparison to the recent austerity years, we have all been saved from perpetual poverty by the Conservatives attacks on the poor, have we not? Well no, not at all. The news was that the economy is now 0.2% higher than before the banking crisis in 2008. On the surface that seems straight forward enough, we have recovered considerably. That is exactly what the Tories want us all to believe, they want us to believe that they are our saviours, that we should continue to accept their Draconian economic recovery plan, that we should just trust the establishment they represent. It is all nonsense. The GDP figures, despite the Tory propaganda claiming otherwise, do not tell the whole story.

Per person the economy is nowhere near the pre-crisis levels, it is quite obvious if you just think about it for a second. A 0.2% rise above the pre-crisis peak spread out amongst the pre-2008 population and the considerable number of new UK residents does not equal a growth per head, irrespective of how hard you try to make it look like it does. The celebrations from people on the right (wrong) side of politics to this news just shows how deceitful they are prepared to be to flog their brand of nonsense to the public, especially as we enter the countdown to the next general election.

The fallacy that we are in a better position now is further undermined if you just look at what the strongest sector is, the only sector to show real growth, and what typifies the nature of the work in that sector. The service sector makes up by far the biggest part of the UK economy, it accounts for around 80% of all jobs in the UK. That alone does not mean much, but when it is dominated by a low-paid workforce it paints a picture the government does not want you to see. One where minimum wage jobs are (to an extent) abundant and everyone in work is barely scraping by, unsurprisingly to the delight of the Tory parties wealthy clientèle. The same ones who own the companies, have received huge tax cuts, and experienced mountains of preferential treatment from the millionaires club located within Westminster. They are the only people celebrating this news, they are once again (as if it ever stopped) raking it in.

Afterall, everyone else in this country has either lost their jobs, or seen pay freezes/cuts/negligible increases (delete as appropriate). All whilst inflation has continued to rip chunks of hard earned pay from our wallets to be used solely on the essentials. Forget those little things that make life bearable, a meal out, a holiday, an ice-cream on a hot day. It has become all about the staycations, the bargain bucket, and bottles of frozen squash for the rest of us.

Bloody Romanians, Coming Over Here, Taking Our Jobs And Our Overcrowded Homes

Okay, it is time to talk about that lot. Not the Romanians, I have nothing against them, it is the 'battalion' I am referring to. The Christian Crusaders of Britain, the inarticulate defenders of 'British Values', the collective of contrived facts spat fervently at anyone who is not 'Indigenous', the hypocrites in Britain First. There is so much I want to write about these people, but in the interest of keeping this brief I shall concentrate on one article on their website, one that came to my attention today.

Lets start with the obvious, this article is worded to cause hatred towards immigrants. The frighteningly large benefit payments being a particularly favoured technique of the tabloid/racist media to encourage the readers of trash like this to view all immigrants or the unemployed with suspicion. Anyone who in any (often fabricated) way can be identified as similar to the subjects of the article are labelled as a figmental drain on our dwindling and stretched resources. This is done oblivious to the contradictory facts that are usually glossed over in the article, thankfully this 'article' is no different. The article, as I have already pointed out, has a headline purposefully reminiscent of the tabloid benefit hysteria, it makes the reader instantly feel animosity towards an innocent family. 'Romanian immigrant family of 17 on £55K a year benefits seeking a bigger home', it screams "how dare you come over here and scrounge of us hard working British taxpayers". Where this hate mongering falls short is that later, and very clearly stated is this "The Tomas arrived here from Prahova in Romania in 2012, lured by the prospect of a better life for their children. Father Mihai, 47, says he earns £1,800-a-month as an electrician".

So where do these benefit payments come from and why are they getting them? Well thankfully this article was written by idiots, and as such they provided the answer. I say they provided the answer but in truth they just plagiarised this nonsense, passing off the racism as their own. It should be noted that the 'writer' is one of those idiotic racists who clearly can only be objecting to the fact they are not 'indigenous British' (a joke of a statement as it is), but pretending otherwise under some flimsy pretext. The article on this ridiculous and abhorrent website states that "Mihai pays £1,700-a-month rent but the size of his and wife Veronica's brood means they receive a series of benefits. The family say they get £2,500 in tax credit, £1,400 in housing benefit and £700 in child benefit which totals £4,600 a month". I could just leave that right there and assume you know what all of these benefits are for exactly; however, in the interest of clarity a breakdown of these facts would be quite useful now. That is shall provide.

Tax Credit: 'Tax credits are state benefits that provide extra income to people responsible for children, disabled workers and other workers on lower incomes'.
The key point is that this family receives these tax credits precisely because they are working and are paid poorly (especially for those living in London). If workers were paid better there would be no need for them. Simple as that.

Housing Benefit: 'You could get Housing Benefit to help you pay your rent if you're on low income'.
Obviously there are some regulations regarding eligibility, but if they are receiving it, which they are, presumably they are eligible. As they are eligible they are well within their rights to claim, in fact it is stated that they pay £1,700 per month in rent, on £1,800 per month wages it would be crazy not to receive this benefit. The real enemies here are the greedy landlords who fleece people and the system for every available penny.

Child Benefit: A benefit designed to help provide the essentials for all children, it is a relatively small payment per child and does not in any way cover the cost of raising a child. Child Benefit is paid at a higher rate for the oldest child. This is £20.50 a week. If you have other children, you get £13.55 a week for each of them'.
Hardly going to help the parents rake in the cash is it?!

Then comes the usual role call of knee-jerker's, racists or Labourtories/Conservatives/UKIPpers who jump on any bandwagon that diverts attention away from real issues. The two quoted in this plagiarised piece are Susan Hall and Glenn Hearnden. Interestingly, they omitted the UKIP MEP Tim Aker from their racist role-call but chose to paraphrase his quote in the Express article in which he stated that "this simply illustrates Britain's soft touch approach", using his tired analogy of Britain being a 'soft touch' in their first sentence (like most racists they cannot think for themselves). It is also possible they omitted that particular crack-pot because they are competing with UKIP for the title of 'grandmasters of all things little Englander', either way I couldn't care less; they are both equally deserving of any sane persons scorn.

One final note... you know an article is little more than racist fear-mongering when The Express and The Daily Mail are reporting the story, and is gaining favourable reaction on Storm Front.

I couldn't be bothered with writing a post today... Here's a very poor first year essay

I wouldn't advice anyone taking a module on Work, Employment and Society to plagiarise this. It was one of my first essays submitted for university, the language and grammar are awful, it barely follows academic conventions, and more importantly, it was submitted via turnitin so you WILL be caught out.

If you want to think of it as a study aide, useful only as a guide to know what not to submit go ahead, unless you are happy with barely scraping a pass.



Managing rapid change within particular work settings

This essay will explain both upskilling and deskilling of workplaces and the changes that can occur for the employees in the workplace. The essay will first explain what is meant by deskilling, and will provide the theory that the deskilling of the jobs effect the employees job security and removes the need for highly skilled workers to be employed with the technological advancements. After this the essay will focus on the way that chefs have had their profession deskilled by both the outsourcing and pre-preparation of the food that is served in the restaurant and technological advancements that have allowed this to occur. Following this the essay will highlight the growth of highly skilled job sectors in post-industrialised nations and how this has affected the economy and moved it away from traditional manufacturing to one based on professional knowledge based jobs or the service industry. Finally the essay will look at the rise of computer based jobs in the US from the 1960’s to 1990 and how this has coincided with a greater demand for highly skilled professional working in many sectors of work involving the technology.

Changes in the workplace can be caused by a variety of different parameters; one of these is the deskilling of jobs that can occur in workplaces. There are many benefits for companies to change the methods of production that they use and to deskill the work that takes place by their employees through new innovations in technology. Zuboff referred to the process of adopting technology in the workplace as automating, “The process of automating work operations involves the replacement of living labour with technology: thus it is characterised by a deskilling of work” (Noon, Blyton 1997; 117) the automating of the workplace reduces the amount of employees needed to produce the service provided by the company, and those who do remain in their jobs after the automating process find that many of the skills required before the technology was in place are no longer needed, so the company does not need the skilled professionals to produce the service. Deskilling allows for the employer to pay the employees within their organisation a significantly lower rate of pay, this reduces the pay roll and offers the company a larger profit margin. This process also offers the employer the flexibility of being able to hire a larger amount of people to do a job, and as such allows the company to be able to hire and fire employees far more easily. The deskilling of work is often known as Taylorism or Fordist mass production, this process involves a regimented approach to the work that employees undertake. Jobs are made routine and simplified, often with the help of machinery or other forms of technological advancement, for the employer the benefit of this is that people can easily be moved from one role into another due to the low level of skill required to perform the tasks they are given. Braverman claimed that this is “central to capitalist production in its industrial phase” (Sayer, 1991; 50) although Braverman was writing about this process in an industrial sector of work de-skilling is a change that can occur in many areas of work beyond industrialised areas of work, when this form of change occurs those working in this sector can find that they have less security in their employment. Within white-colour jobs such as the design industry, the effects of the deskilling of the job has also been researched, the results give support the Braverman’s deskilling thesis. Cooley’s researched the impact of computer aided design on those employed in this role, Cooley stated that “There is already evidence to show that CAD, when introduced on the basis of so-called efficiency, gives rise to deskilling of the design function and a loss of job security” (Cooley, 1987 cited in Edgell, 2006; 59). This research suggests that the impact technology has when introduced to help companies make profits can often lead to the employees of companies to feel less secure in their jobs. The deskilling of the jobs that these employees undertake can result in a higher level of staff turnover for the company, this could be partly due to the task of hiring an equally skilled replacement becoming easier as the skill level required to design, craft or operate a piece of machinery is lessened.

Highly skilled jobs are not free from the risk of becoming deskilled, jobs where creativity is important to the employees are also frequently standardised with the aim of increasing efficiency. A study done in the hospitality sector of work, found that chefs have a high attrition and turnover rate in work, this can be attributed to the standardisation of their workplace and the food. Robinson and Barron explained that “The application of technology and standardisation can both ensure higher profitability and ease the burden on an underskilled and underresourced kitchen” (Robinson and Barron 2007; 916). The turnover of staff in the chef profession can be attributed to this deskilling of their work, although the business may benefit from the adoption of the new technology and standardised practises, the chefs may feel that its use in the kitchen limits their creativity in their work and reduces their technical skill development that they might otherwise have gained through the experience of more traditional cooking methods (Robinson and Barron 2007). Fine researched the use of outsourcing to improve efficiency in a kitchen; he noted that chefs were often worried about the application of the outsourcing of the food preparation and the widespread usage of these pre-prepared produce. Fine observed that there are “two principle observable mechanisms of deskilling in the professional kitchen: the use of convenience foods, and capitalisation and the application of technologies” (Robinson and Barron 2007; 918).

Deskilling is not the only form of change in working environments that can occur, the opposite can also occur, this is called the upskilling. When writing about the upskilling of labour in a post-industrial society, Bell’s thesis argues that in a post-industrial society traditional power sources such as the possession of wealth or property have become less important, in a post-industrialised society the power is in knowledge and those who possess knowledge have a greater share of the power in the society through this knowledge (Edgell, 2006), this argument is supported in The Brave New World of Work, Beck writes on the subject of this transition from a industrialised economy to one based on knowledge that “Knowledge, not work, will become the source of social wealth” (Beck 2000; 40). Within the upskilling thesis Bell explains that is the key to the post-industrial society, with the economy moving from industrial work to service and professional jobs the change has an impact on many people working within that society. The upskilling of the labour market means that not only those within education have to learn new skills but also many people in full time employment may find that they are being trained or have to learn new skills in order to compete in the labour market. The post- industrialised society according to Bell would see a change in the nature of work and this would result in a larger proportion of jobs being taken up by the service sector, Bell argues that this would see a “decline of blue-collar workers and the increase in white-collar workers, especially the scientific and technical occupational category” (Edgell, 2006; 63). This increase in knowledge based jobs has been recorded by the OECD Jobs Study 1994; the study noted that there was a significant increase in jobs that are typical of a knowledge based economy (Warhurst and Thompson, 1998) and a movement towards this kind of economy with education being the primary source of access to power in the workplace. This knowledge based occupational group has become more prominent in our society as the economy has evolved. To be employed in the sectors that these professional workers are you require a high level of education, often university degrees, as such those seeking employment in a knowledge based society must first achieve a high standard of education. This movement in the job market can cause issues amongst those in full time employment within a society; the workers may find that in areas with traditionally manufacturing based economies the risk of unemployment increasing, with jobs moving out of these towns or cities into countries where manufacturing the goods is cheaper. This may lead to a significant proportion of the population of that town or city unemployed and needing to re-skill or up-skill to increase their employability in order to find new work.

Much of the upskilling of work within society has come from advances in computer based technologies, these technologies can often require an in depth knowledge of the systems to run the programs or provide the input to achieve results. A study conducted in the US by Autor et al. between the 1960’ and 1990 found that “increase in the rate of growth of demand for more educated workers is concentrated in the most computer-intensive industries and those industries with rapid growth in computer investments” (Young-Hwa 2002; 94-95). Autor et al further researched into the possible link between the relationship between the educational upskilling and the rate of computer usage of the workforce in the US and the investment in these high end technologies and computer based jobs.

Deskilling has had a huge effect on the work lives of many people in society, they have been forced to deal with a rapid change in their work lives and have been subjected to a loss of security in their jobs as a result of the deskilling of their labour. Many find that the jobs they are working in have become increasingly monotonous in their nature or that the need for their skills is becoming less important as technological advances are replacing human skill with the precision and efficiency of machinery. Many jobs have seen an increase in production from this new technologies and staff numbers decrease at the same time, this has allowed for teams of low skilled workers to be employed on a less expensive salary than the skilled workers. Although this has largely occurred in the manufacturing sector it has also occurred in professional or formerly professional jobs, for example chefs or clerical workers. However, the UK is now a post-industrial country with an ever increasing growth in highly skilled professions this is where the upskilling of the labour market has occurred primarily. There has been a rise in these knowledge based jobs with an emphasis on educational achievement as a gateway into the higher professional jobs. The knowledge based economy has become a large proportion of the economy in western countries and employers therefore must adapt and learn new techniques and gain more knowledge in order to achieve good career prospects. This therefore, has been the most important change in the working environment for many employees, they must continually adapt to the changing environment to be able to retain their jobs in this knowledge economy.

References

Sayer, D. (1991) Capitalism and Modernity An Excursus on Marx and Weber, London: Routledge.

Edgell, S. (2006) The Sociology of Work, London: Sage

Beck, U. (2000) The Brave New World of Work, Polity Press: Cornwall

Noon, M. & Blyton, P. (1997) The Realities of Work, Macmillan Press: Basingstoke

Warhurst, C. & Thompson, P. (1998) Hands, Hearts and Minds: Changing Work and Workers at the End of the Century, in Thompson, P. & Warhurst, C, eds. (1998). Workplaces of the Future, Palgrave: Basingstoke

Robinson, R. & Barron, P. (2007) Developing a framework for understanding the impact of deskilling and standardisation on the turnover and attrition of chefs, International Journal of Hospitality Management, 26, 4, pp. 913-926.

Young-Hwa, K. (2002) A State of Art Review on the Impact of Technology on Skill Demand in OECD Countries, Journal of Education and Work, 15, 1, pp. 89-109



Hope you enjoyed reading the single worst piece of work I have submitted for anything.

P.S. I can't remember if this was a draft or final version... Submitted way too long ago

Thoughts on Consumerism

I was watching a television show last night on BBC 2 called the men who made us spend, it validated so much of the cynicism I hold about the world of people. That world we call a society. It never ceases to shock me, the waste, the attitude, the idolisation of the next must have thing. I must specify that I am no Luddite. I, much like nearly everyone else in the world, embrace useful innovation. Anything that improves our lives or does something non-useful but provides entertainment (which I guess you could argue is useful as a stress relief) is fantastic. Innovation is a must, it is required for human civilisation to progress enough to benefit everyone on this small rock. What I am not so keen on is the systems of manipulation that drive much of this 'innovation'.

Too often innovation is falsified by companies through techniques such as marketing or planned obsolescence. These techniques drive the wheels of consumption. Often in places where the need for upgrading the current technology was not at the forefront of concerns in pre-consumerist society. It is the Capitalists relentless drive for ever increasing wealth accumulation that causes this disposable attitude towards perfectly functioning items, unless of course they are designed to break. The actual needs of those consuming these goods are never truly considered, instead they are created, it is almost exclusively a manufactured desire for change. One man's answer perfectly sums this up, when asked about the new features that have improved the iPhone 45032s "Um... basically probably not much, there's a finger print scanner which is very cool". When questioned about queuing for three days for an upgrade on his phone, which does pretty much exactly what his current one does, he replied "at the end they brought out something new that we all want"*. What the guy said wasn't as important as the gist of it, which was that they want to buy simply because it is the new thing to own. It doesn't have to last, why would it? Not when these consumers, these wallets, all of us... have been conditioned to accept that what we buy, often for substantial sums of money, will be falsely upgraded 3-12 months down the line. It's the American Dream in action, the few can get very rich selling items to people who have no real need for them, made particularly sweet as these consumers are all to happy to buy into it. To hell will the important things in life, I've got the new Google Glass, I have the latest piece of nonsense and can show how amazing I am to the world through this item I was told to consume... What do you mean I look like a twat?

It's not just digital technology corporations at it either, they all are, some more widely publicised than others. 'The men who made us spend' highlighted how planned obsolescence began, through the humble light-bulb, in a bid to increase profits. They simply wanted them to last shorter lengths of time to increase the need for them. Hell yeah I here you say, who needs any kind of reliability? Screw the environment, what has that ever done for us? To continuously package minor improvements in technology as must have items is one thing, and as long as there is an improvement (however slight) it could never be too objectionable. However, the idea of throw away consumption that was adopted so readily by the Capitalists did not cease with items that can be upgraded, it extended to single function 'consumables'. [Enter stage left].... IKEA, who through clever advertising managed to change the western worlds attitude to furniture. It no longer served a specific function, a chair was no longer a chair, a table became something else, it all began to say something about you. IKEA and their ilk had done the remarkable, they had effectively made function, durability and reliability secondary considerations. This new drive to consume in every aspect of our lives is as Zygmunt Bauman states packaged around a "constant pressure to be someone else". In these few words he expressed the essential characteristic of consumerist society, the new capitalism, we no longer buy things because we need them, we buy them because the advertisers tell us we want them, they tell us what to think about the types of people who own these desirables, and in a magical way they say something about you.

We have all become George A. Romero's zombies and we are all loving it.

* at least I think he said that! the guy mumbled a lot of that.