Scores of French riot police descended early this morning on the “jungle” camp in Calais, bulldozing makeshift tents and rounding up hundreds of illegal migrants hoping to stow away on lorries to Britain.
It’s a sorry state if affairs.
We all know why illegal immigrants, asylum seekers, whatever you want to call them, want to come here to this sceptred isle. Depending on who you ask the reasons range from: work; benefits; convert us all to Islam; endangered at home; want a better life; other family already here.
These guys in the ‘jungle’ in France, though. Looking for asylum in Britain. If they get here and can get a claim going, fair enough to them. But…
All the journalists and reporters I’ve heard on this story (and I don’t claim to have heard them all) have all asked why these refugees want asylum in Britain, but never asked why they’re not claim asylum in France when they’re already in France.
Is the French system that bad? Surely they don’t all have family here?
I was just thinking this morning about how much longer I would have to wait for a reply to this email to Ocado about their claim to be ‘as green as walking to the supermarket’ when early this afternoon a response plops into my inbox…
Dear Sim-O,
Thank you for your e-mail.
The claim that ?Ocado is greener than walking to the supermarket? was a conclusion that was reached by an independent Carbon Footprint Assessment agency called Greenstone and not by Ocado.
The centralised warehouse which every order is picked from means a small supply chain and massive energy/resource efficiency at every level of the business.
Greenstone compared our unique picking model to several well known supermarket chains. These chains emit huge amounts of carbon as they have countless stores around the country, all consuming electricity, using chillers etc. All of these stores have long supply chains from suppliers driving up and down the country. Building new stores generates high amounts of carbon, while Ocado can still grow within one Warehouse.
The most recent comparison in May 2009 of Ocado to ?traditional supermarkets? across the same detailed categories showed that we had a lower carbon footprint. This did not take into account the huge additional carbon footprint of traditional stores from customers traveling to them each week by car.
Hence it was concluded independently that Ocado is greener than walking to a supermarket
For more information on the survey itself, you can contact Greenstone in the following ways:
Ocado, online grocery home delivery service, claim on their vans that they are ‘as green as walking to the supermarket’ and on their website has the statement…
With such a lean, efficient operation, we’ve been able to lower our carbon emissions to the point where each Ocado delivery now has a lower carbon footprint (CO2 per £ of sales) than walking to a supermarket.
I’m buggered if I think how driving a van can produce less CO2 than walking, especially as at the moment they are using biodiesel and not something like hydrogen fuel cells which produce only water (not counting all the CO2 produced in the ‘manufacture’ of the hydrogen). I wouldn’t have given it much thought if the claim had been nearly as little as walking, but less…?
So I sent them an email…
To: ocado@ocado.com
from: Sim-O
Subject: your CO2 output
Sri or Madam,
On your vans you claim…
We’re as green as walking to the supermarket
and your website also carries the statement…
With such a lean, efficient operation, we’ve been able to lower our carbon emissions to the point where each Ocado delivery now has a lower carbon footprint (CO2 per £ of sales) than walking to a supermarket.
Could you substantiate that claim, please. It is a big claim and it has to be true otherwise you would not be able to make it, but I am puzzled as to how.
What are you counting as producing CO2 in each type of journey? How far back through the delivery chain are you going? What, exactly, are you comparing for each type of journey?
What are the figures and the maths that enable you to make such a claim?
Kind Regards
I’m not trying make a point, get some info so I can point my finger and yell ‘Cpaitalist Charlatan Pigs!’, but genuinely puzzled. Just by the fact that the van has a driver puts the van on an equal footing with the pedestrian. Doesn’t it?
I applaud the society of Chiropodists for pointing out to me the dangers of this; however, having done so I now respectfully ask them to leave it me and every other high heel wearing woman in the land to decide whether or not we wear high heels in the workplace..
[and yes. Dorries did put a double full stop at the end of that sentence. Probably the equivalent of ‘hrumph’]
I realise that aborting a feotus(sp?) and wearing heels are slightly different but the principle is the same. It’s about autonomy over your own body.
… why does Asda need to bring in a range of Indian inspired clothing “and not actually cater for men”
… why does Asda need to bring in a range of Indian inspired clothing when “there enough stalls on the market for affordable asian clothing?” What about school uniforms?
… why does Asda need to bring in a range of Indian inspired clothing when “I find it offensive these get-ups being sold in a British supermarket, if it’s in their shops fine I can tolerate that! They should be intergrating with our ways and donning our dresscode! but oh what’s the use come 2020 we’ll all be wearing this attire anyway ,eating halal meat, kneeling to the east and obeying sharia law!”
… “I am waiting for the day they change their logo to an islamic one. …and slowly but surely they made their plans”
… “I have no objection to ethnic fashion, except on those streets of some of our major cities that have gone completely to the other extreme, stocking little with any appeal to the indigenous population.”
… why does Asda need to bring in a range of Indian inspired clothing when “our Asian residents should be adopting western clothing as the norm whilst living in the UK.”
… “BYE BYE ASDA TESCO HERE I COME”
… “I rather think this is another placating excercise. Is it to make sure we all get used to seeing so many traditionally dressed immigrants on the streets that we forget who we are?”
… why does Asda need to bring in a range of Indian inspired clothing when “there are enough asian clothes shops in the asian no go ghettos”
… “Slowly slowly catshee monkey the take over in in your shops now ??.” [wtf that’s supposed to mean?]
… Asda are “Pandering to minorities with an eye to the future…….”
I’m not racist, but the Daily Mail is read by them.
I was under the impression that it was a leftist propaganda machine that was run by the UK arm of some international communist organisation.
That’s the impression given by some on the web, anyway.
Some councillor has siad some stuff about the BNP being contrary to everything a Welsh National hero, Orwain Glyndwr, and since then T-Shirts with Orwain and a slogan on them, printed by the BNP, have increased.
I’ve never heard of this Orwain Glyndor chap, but John Walker, the BNP National Deputy press officer to give him his full title, is quite convinced that Orain and the Nationalists are peas in a pod…
Orwain stood for the right of Wales to be Welsh, which is exactly what the BNP’s [sic] policy is
That’s not quite correct though, John. Is it? There’s a little more to it than that.
The BNP support the right for the home nations to be Welsh/English/Scottish/Northern Irish as long as they adopt the BNPs’ version of their national identity.
The BNP do not support a Welshmans right to be any religion except Christian. Apparently, Christianity is the indigenous religion of these Isles. Why else would they make a big deal of how many mosques there are in Wales.
38 apparently. Handily, the BNP post lists them all. Why would they do that, I wonder? What does it matter where these mosques are. Why would the BNP list, for it’s readers, the addresses, including postcodes, of every mosque in Wales, when BNP members are probably the least likely to go visiting?
I hope no ones going to try to persuade some Welsh people to be more Welsh.
It is a little controversial about whether a No Platform policy actually does anything at all. Everyone has their opinion. This one is mine.
I do not believe in the no platform policy. There are ocassions where direct action and not allowing the fascist to speak is justified but not to, say, go on a programme or be in a debate because the BNP is also appearing is handing the fascists a chance to spout their perverted logic unhindered.
I believe that the direct action, of the type the UAF use is excellent.
In a situation like that, where the fascists are giving a statement, not debating or discussing things with other parties or public, then shutting them down, stopping them speaking, closing off the stream of racist propaganda, is the only thing to do.
In that situation they have a preprepared statement, they have a plan, an expected sequence of events. They are not interested in justifying themselves, they are just trying to get the words out there into the open so they can enter peoples consciousness and start to propagate and put doubts in peoples mind so the hearer can fill in the gaps in the logic themselves.
Because the anti-fascists have to go against what is, in the mind, now considered fact, they have to go much further than just assert that Fat Nick and his gang are wrong. The anti-fascist has to prove that Fat Nick is wrong. With evidence. That takes much longer and is harder to do than just assert things and always puts you on the back foot.
In that situation it is imperative that the message the racists want to get out does not leave their lips. Once it is out there it is much harder to counter and so harassement, heckling, disruption is the weapon of choice.
You go to a statement with the intention of argueing it, you’re not gonna get anywhere. You might as well saw your own cock off with a rusty cheese-knife for all the good it will do.
As I say above, direct action is good in some situations, but what about when the bigots are invited, due to impartiality rules, on to a TV debate?
The thing is, whatever you do you have to think about how it looks otherwise you end up in the position the UAF are in now…
[the] UAF finds itself in the unusual position of having to defend themselves for organising a protest against a party that the majority of people would probably accept are racist, and in general oppose.
With this in mind, you’ve got to be a bit careful about how direct action is used because you can make yourself out to be just as fascistic as the fascists.
In a debate environment, direct action doesn’t work.
Another option is to direct action is to go on the TV/radio programme, enter the university and debate them. But when you do, you have to remember you are not trying to change the mind of the racist, it usually takes something much more profound to make them come to their senses. When you enter a debate with these people, you are going to make them look stupid, you are going to pick holes in their logic, you are going to ask them awkward questions that they would rather not answer in case they make themselves look like the cunts they are… Jonathon Bartley expresses it well here (go to 5:57)…
When shutting the message down is not appropriate it needs to be shown up then and there. It needs questions, unexpected questions asked of it. The people listening need to go away with any questions or gaps in their thoughts from the fascists message answered already with answers that show up the contradictions, fallacies and bigotry for exactly what it is. If their message is not challenged at the time, what’s gonna happen? Are most people gonna look up all the anti-fascist writing on the internet? Of course not. It needs countering at the time.
So now, in a debate situation you can either make yourself look like a cunt and make the fascists look the victim or you can make themselves look the cunts they are or you can do one other thing.
Adopt a No Platform policy and let the fuckers get on with it unhindered.
