Below are the details from LONDON (Reuters) website about the postal strike action:
More than 40,000 postal workers began a second wave of one-day strikes after Royal Mail managers and union leaders failed to reach a deal to end the long-running dispute over pay, jobs and modernisation.
The Communication Workers Union (CWU) said 43,700 drivers and mail centre staff across Britain walked out from 4:00 a.m.
They will be followed on Friday by a small group of 400 workers in the towns of Plymouth, Stockport and Stoke and then on Saturday by 77,000 delivery and collection staff nationwide.
The strike went ahead after negotiations between CWU officials and Royal Mail managers in London collapsed for reasons that both sides agreed not to disclose.
"We remain available for discussions at any time," CWU Deputy General Secretary Dave Ward said in a statement. "We remain committed to reaching an agreed resolution."
The backlog of undelivered mail from two strikes last week still stands at 2 million items, the Royal Mail said.
Business Secretary Peter Mandelson has described the strikes as suicidal for a company that is losing 10 percent of its mail volume each year to private firms, the Internet, email and mobile phones.
Prime Minister Gordon Brown, whose Labour Party has received about 5 million pounds from the postal union since 2001, has called the strikes "counter-productive."
I am spilt on this dispute as I can see both sides. As a customer of Royal Mail it’s an inconvenience even for my personal mail – I can’t imagine how it would be for people trying to run a business while this is still unresolved.
From speaking to many people and reading opinions online I can see that it’s not only me. I agree that postal workers are affecting businesses and people are suffering as a result; in times like this recession they are lucky to have a job with a good pension and if they can afford not to work (by striking) then things cannot be too bad financially for them, they are however affecting other people's income and that is not very fair.
On the other hand I read one postal worker’s response to the negative press the workers had received and was sympathetic, he said:
“They have moved my hours by 3 hours with no thought of my family and home life, one guy came back from holiday to find he'd be working Saturdays, he's never done a Saturday in 20 years! Every single office and mail centre has had this happen through executive action - No managers have changed their hours or days. I look around my office and see more managers than actual workers, get rid of them not us.”
I understand that postal workers need to adapt to change (many industries are going through similar experiences) if they want the company to survive the competition that technology has brought but I know I wouldn’t be happy if there wasn’t a sense of fairness and equality in these changes.
Research has shown that the authoritative approach the Royal mail seem to have adopted is ineffective in a changing work place – a company needs to bring the workers with them through openness, consultation and collaboration, not necessitate change without an explanation.
It also seems to me that Royal mail execs and the union are battling egos whilst the public and the workers are losing out – that is just my take on it but either way there needs to be a speedy solution. What are your thoughts?
FYI: For those who want to avoid the effects of the postal strike on parcels and maybe even save some money, here is a forum link with some useful information from the bargain hunter Martin Lewis’ website: http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/shopping/cheap-parcel-delivery.
Showing posts with label "jobs scotland". Show all posts
Showing posts with label "jobs scotland". Show all posts
Thursday, 29 October 2009
Thursday, 22 October 2009
Are Loyalty Cards a Win-Win Situation?
Image courtesy of Tesco.comI was reading in the Financial Times that Tesco reported an improvement in its performance relative to its main UK rivals after revamping its loyalty card scheme, Tesco Clubcard.
“After years of powerful growth, Tesco had been under an unusual amount of pressure in its home market, from which it still draws the lion’s share of its sales.
Its share of the UK grocery market fell from 31.1 per cent to 30.9 per cent over the 12 weeks to September 6, according to quarterly figures from TNS Worldpanel; Asda, J Sainsbury and Wm Morrison – its closest rivals – have all been gaining share.” FT
Tesco fought back against this pressure by doubling the Clubcard points in store and has reported a positive effect, so clearly their loyalty card scheme works well for them.
I wonder then if it is a win-win situation and if consumers benefit just as much as the companies through these types of loyalty card schemes?
I have a Clubcard and although I don’t shop regularly in Tesco, I do collect points when I do happen to buy from there. I am also able to collect points through my gas and electricity provider (E-on). I get approx £5-£10 quarterly, which doesn’t seem much - but if you cash these in for other partner deals – days out, etc this can quadruple and make it much better value.
I have had a ‘free’ trip to The Science Centre amongst other places, purely from trading in my Clubcard points at the end of each quarter. I know that Tesco and other companies obviously benefit from the vast amount of information they get about their customers from these types of schemes but I’m not concerned about the privacy of what I put in my shopping trolley or about how many units of gas and electricity I use each month, so I don’t see it as a downside.
The only bad press I have heard about Tesco’s scheme, strangely arose from The Society of Radiographers who criticised Tesco for offering CT scans through its Clubcard reward scheme.
Society Chief Executive Richard Evans said in a letter to Tesco he was concerned that self-referral for diagnostic imaging outside a nationally regulated screening programme is "inappropriate and unnecessary."
Apart from this, the only negatives that consumers reported when reviewing were that “spending money on things you don’t need intentionally to receive points is crazy and you end up out of pocket”, this may be true for some but I know that I don’t go out my way to spend at Tesco so I’m satisfied that I’m getting ‘money for nothing’ - nothing being no extra cost or inconvenience to me.
Anyway, to round it up, I think it’s a great scheme for earning ‘rewards’ for spending money on everyday buys (groceries, petrol, energy) and I’m not too bothered about the privacy aspect and the fact that Tesco can track my spending for market researcher purposes – as long as they are offering great deals in return.
I view it as a win-win situation, what are your views?
Thursday, 24 September 2009
BBC1’s Wounded
Did anyone watch BBC1’s Wounded documentary last night?
Well it seems to be a huge talking point today online with countless forums already inundated with comments on the bravery and inspiration that the two featured soldiers showed.
It was quite harrowing, but ultimately inspiring and centred on two young men who both suffered some of the worst injuries imaginable.
Tom had been the victim of an improvised explosive device (IED) that had blown off both his legs. Soon afterwards, his left arm was amputated. He was at Birmingham’s Selly Oak Hospital, where British soldiers from Afghanistan have been treated since 2001 and where he was recovering from 15 major operations.
Ranger Andy Allen, 19, of the Royal Irish Regiment was another victim of an IED. When he was flown back to Birmingham, the doctors were hoping to save his remaining leg, but couldn’t. He’d also been blinded in the attack.
What was inspirational was that both were so determined to get on and make the best of their lives. One wanted to walk within 7 months to collect his medal, the other wanted to walk and to see his baby boy. Both did it.
One forum post is from ‘Sue’ who wrote:
“100% AMAZING. I watched this programme through a mass of tears. As a 'Forces' wife and mother I felt very humbled that both my husband and son have returned safe and my heart goes out to all the families of guys like Andy and Tom. WELL DONE BBC for showing this and I hope that whoever watched it will now realise OUR FORCES ARE AMAZING PEOPLE and we should be proud to honour them”
All the reviews and posts I read seem to echo this sentiment and how brave these men are and the only negatives seem to be surrounding the politics of war itself which I won’t go into.
Whatever the circumstances; these two men are brave and undeniably inspirational. It seems that this documentary will be a talking point for a while to come.
Well it seems to be a huge talking point today online with countless forums already inundated with comments on the bravery and inspiration that the two featured soldiers showed.
It was quite harrowing, but ultimately inspiring and centred on two young men who both suffered some of the worst injuries imaginable.
Tom had been the victim of an improvised explosive device (IED) that had blown off both his legs. Soon afterwards, his left arm was amputated. He was at Birmingham’s Selly Oak Hospital, where British soldiers from Afghanistan have been treated since 2001 and where he was recovering from 15 major operations.
Ranger Andy Allen, 19, of the Royal Irish Regiment was another victim of an IED. When he was flown back to Birmingham, the doctors were hoping to save his remaining leg, but couldn’t. He’d also been blinded in the attack.
What was inspirational was that both were so determined to get on and make the best of their lives. One wanted to walk within 7 months to collect his medal, the other wanted to walk and to see his baby boy. Both did it.
One forum post is from ‘Sue’ who wrote:
“100% AMAZING. I watched this programme through a mass of tears. As a 'Forces' wife and mother I felt very humbled that both my husband and son have returned safe and my heart goes out to all the families of guys like Andy and Tom. WELL DONE BBC for showing this and I hope that whoever watched it will now realise OUR FORCES ARE AMAZING PEOPLE and we should be proud to honour them”
All the reviews and posts I read seem to echo this sentiment and how brave these men are and the only negatives seem to be surrounding the politics of war itself which I won’t go into.
Whatever the circumstances; these two men are brave and undeniably inspirational. It seems that this documentary will be a talking point for a while to come.
Friday, 4 September 2009
Teacher's Lose Out, Pupil's Lose out, Who are the Real Winner's?
The Herald reported that newly-qualified teachers across the country are increasingly finding it almost impossible to gain full-time permanent posts, nothing new but still frustrating all the same. The situation has been apparent for several years, as a series of surveys by the General Teaching Council of Scotland has shown.
The most recent of these, published in June, showed that two-thirds of new teachers had failed to gain full-time permanent work in Scottish schools almost a year after qualifying.
However, what is alarming about the most recent developments is that local authorities have been accused of intentionally preventing new teachers from securing permanent posts because they have fewer employment rights.
In the past few weeks, The Herald has been contacted by newly-qualified teachers from local authority areas, including Glasgow, Renfrewshire and South Lanarkshire, who claim their long-term supply contracts have not been renewed as they approach one year of continuous service.
Instead, the work is being given to teachers who have just completed their probationary year, which does not count towards employment history, or those who have already retired.
The timing is crucial, because working for a full year gives teachers the right to take a local authority to an employment tribunal or to receive a redundancy settlement.
In addition, under agreements between councils and teacher unions, staff who have been employed for more than one year acquire a right to seek a permanent contract of employment.
One teacher from Glasgow told The Herald: "There is a growing scrapheap of teachers who completed their probation two, three or even four years ago and are subject to this unethical policy of being passed-over for cheaper, inexperienced staff.
Glasgow also stands accused of failing to recognise teachers' rights to a permanent post once they have completed one year's continuous service, with the local branch of the Educational Institute of Scotland now seeking to take legal action against Glasgow City Council.
In a separate e-mail to The Herald, staff from South Lanarkshire raised similar concerns about the employment prospects of newly-qualified teachers.
"Teachers nearing the end of their continuous service had their contracts abruptly terminated two days before the end of term in June, therefore ending all employment rights," they said.
And in Renfrewshire, Wendy Alexander, Labour MSP for Paisley North, has taken the matter up on behalf of some of her constituents.
"Of more than 300 employees in our schools in the past two years, only four now have a full-time job teaching in Renfrewshire," said Ms Alexander.
The local authorities involved have all denied the fact that they are deliberately targeting newly-qualified teachers and have pointed to a number of other, unavoidable, factors for the trend, including the expected decline in teacher numbers due to many reaching retirement age has failed to materialise, with senior staff holding on for a few additional years of work because of the current economic climate.
In addition, Glasgow City Council pointed out that continued falling school rolls and school closures and mergers has led to a surplus of teachers and a reduction in the number of supply vacancies in the city.
Excuses or ‘reasons’ by local councils doesn’t really seem to help the issue in my opinion. I understand that there are too many teachers out there so why has the Government encouraged people into a profession or course of education that will ultimately leave people without financial security and work.
It’s also worrying to me as a parent to think that my daughter may be taught by several different ‘probationary year’ teachers when she starts school as students are all promised at least a year’s work when they graduate. So in order for this promise to be fulfilled are pupil’s really getting the best education they should be?
I am not suggesting that ‘probationary year’ teachers are not capable or competent but rather it seems to be an inefficient way to continually replace teacher’s especially when the one’s coming to the end of the first year are probably then ready and knowledgeable enough to continue and used to their class, then they are told they need to reapply for a job that statistics show they probably won’t get.
Instead because the work when you graduate guarantee, it seems that pupil’s and education are the one’s suffering, as well as the unemployed teacher’s – so in the end who’s benefiting? No one that I can think of.
Is it not better to have some kind of continuity in education? I remember at primary school in particular I only had two, maybe three teachers and it was better for parents who got to know their child’s class teacher and for young children who received minimum disruption and change.
I don’t know how the Government or maybe more appropriately the local council authorities can turn this around but I am sure on one thing – it’s a lose lose situation at the moment for many teacher’s and pupils alike.
The most recent of these, published in June, showed that two-thirds of new teachers had failed to gain full-time permanent work in Scottish schools almost a year after qualifying.
However, what is alarming about the most recent developments is that local authorities have been accused of intentionally preventing new teachers from securing permanent posts because they have fewer employment rights.
In the past few weeks, The Herald has been contacted by newly-qualified teachers from local authority areas, including Glasgow, Renfrewshire and South Lanarkshire, who claim their long-term supply contracts have not been renewed as they approach one year of continuous service.
Instead, the work is being given to teachers who have just completed their probationary year, which does not count towards employment history, or those who have already retired.
The timing is crucial, because working for a full year gives teachers the right to take a local authority to an employment tribunal or to receive a redundancy settlement.
In addition, under agreements between councils and teacher unions, staff who have been employed for more than one year acquire a right to seek a permanent contract of employment.
One teacher from Glasgow told The Herald: "There is a growing scrapheap of teachers who completed their probation two, three or even four years ago and are subject to this unethical policy of being passed-over for cheaper, inexperienced staff.
Glasgow also stands accused of failing to recognise teachers' rights to a permanent post once they have completed one year's continuous service, with the local branch of the Educational Institute of Scotland now seeking to take legal action against Glasgow City Council.
In a separate e-mail to The Herald, staff from South Lanarkshire raised similar concerns about the employment prospects of newly-qualified teachers.
"Teachers nearing the end of their continuous service had their contracts abruptly terminated two days before the end of term in June, therefore ending all employment rights," they said.
And in Renfrewshire, Wendy Alexander, Labour MSP for Paisley North, has taken the matter up on behalf of some of her constituents.
"Of more than 300 employees in our schools in the past two years, only four now have a full-time job teaching in Renfrewshire," said Ms Alexander.
The local authorities involved have all denied the fact that they are deliberately targeting newly-qualified teachers and have pointed to a number of other, unavoidable, factors for the trend, including the expected decline in teacher numbers due to many reaching retirement age has failed to materialise, with senior staff holding on for a few additional years of work because of the current economic climate.
In addition, Glasgow City Council pointed out that continued falling school rolls and school closures and mergers has led to a surplus of teachers and a reduction in the number of supply vacancies in the city.
Excuses or ‘reasons’ by local councils doesn’t really seem to help the issue in my opinion. I understand that there are too many teachers out there so why has the Government encouraged people into a profession or course of education that will ultimately leave people without financial security and work.
It’s also worrying to me as a parent to think that my daughter may be taught by several different ‘probationary year’ teachers when she starts school as students are all promised at least a year’s work when they graduate. So in order for this promise to be fulfilled are pupil’s really getting the best education they should be?
I am not suggesting that ‘probationary year’ teachers are not capable or competent but rather it seems to be an inefficient way to continually replace teacher’s especially when the one’s coming to the end of the first year are probably then ready and knowledgeable enough to continue and used to their class, then they are told they need to reapply for a job that statistics show they probably won’t get.
Instead because the work when you graduate guarantee, it seems that pupil’s and education are the one’s suffering, as well as the unemployed teacher’s – so in the end who’s benefiting? No one that I can think of.
Is it not better to have some kind of continuity in education? I remember at primary school in particular I only had two, maybe three teachers and it was better for parents who got to know their child’s class teacher and for young children who received minimum disruption and change.
I don’t know how the Government or maybe more appropriately the local council authorities can turn this around but I am sure on one thing – it’s a lose lose situation at the moment for many teacher’s and pupils alike.
Wednesday, 2 September 2009
Celebrity Fronted Social Worker Recruitment Drive for 5000 Jobs
A TV campaign is being launched to try to recruit more than 5,000 social workers, amid fears the ‘Baby P’ case has turned people off the profession, the BBC reported.
Launching the appeal, actress Samantha Morton spoke of the "wonderful" social workers who supported her as a child. Fashion designer Sadie Frost, former Eastenders star Michelle Ryan and musician Goldie are also among those appearing in the adverts.
Children's Secretary Ed Balls said social workers "transform lives".
"Thousands of children and families desperately need the help and support social workers give in difficult and sometimes dangerous situations. It is a job that makes a difference in ways that most of us can only begin to imagine," he said, adding that its success stories were "rarely heard".
‘The Help Give Them A Voice’ campaign aims to attract back social workers who may have left the profession and people looking for a career change, as well as people making initial career choices.
Emilia Fox, another actress supporting the campaign, said: "I think we have got to a really critical situation so this is really to encourage people into a profession with responsibility."
In May, a survey for the Local Government Association (LGA) suggested the criticism of the profession following the ‘Baby P’ case had had a "highly damaging effect" on the ability of local councils in England to recruit social workers.
It found 60% of the 56 councils taking part in the study had experienced problems hiring children's social workers and 40% reported difficulties in retaining experienced staff.
Although this story appears positive and will probably prove to be a successful ‘recruitment drive’, is it really the right way to recruit staff that I’m sure everyone will agree play a pivotal role in society today for many people? It is a job with great responsibility and requires a certain type of person – caring and trustworthy are just two of the vital requirements of someone who would be successful in this career.
Am I being too analytical and pernickety to suggest that this is a waste of time and may attract the wrong type of people? I view this type of profession as one that people are born with the character to do or not, a vocation that no matter what training and skills can be provided to people, they may not be able to cope or do the job competently as it’s a lot more than a nine till five.
The same as a priest or nurse may feel that their profession was their calling; it’s a job that requires a similar nature and commitment to a cause. A lot of amazing social workers exist out there and as reported many have left due to the work conditions and treatment they received. Does it not make sense then to improve on these conditions instead of attracting masses of people, many of whom may be wholly unsuitable?
I understand there is a shortage of staff and they need to take action to ensure these positions are filled but does a celebrity endorsed recruitment drive really reflect the seriousness of the job? Is it really appropriate, no matter what the experiences of these celebrities have been? It is the ordinary ‘Joe Public’ that these people need to help and I just don’t think it’s a great way to recruit these important people. I feel a more targeted campaign if any and internal improvements to the departments makes a lot more sense.
I could be wrong, what are your thoughts?
Launching the appeal, actress Samantha Morton spoke of the "wonderful" social workers who supported her as a child. Fashion designer Sadie Frost, former Eastenders star Michelle Ryan and musician Goldie are also among those appearing in the adverts.
Children's Secretary Ed Balls said social workers "transform lives".
"Thousands of children and families desperately need the help and support social workers give in difficult and sometimes dangerous situations. It is a job that makes a difference in ways that most of us can only begin to imagine," he said, adding that its success stories were "rarely heard".
‘The Help Give Them A Voice’ campaign aims to attract back social workers who may have left the profession and people looking for a career change, as well as people making initial career choices.
Emilia Fox, another actress supporting the campaign, said: "I think we have got to a really critical situation so this is really to encourage people into a profession with responsibility."
In May, a survey for the Local Government Association (LGA) suggested the criticism of the profession following the ‘Baby P’ case had had a "highly damaging effect" on the ability of local councils in England to recruit social workers.
It found 60% of the 56 councils taking part in the study had experienced problems hiring children's social workers and 40% reported difficulties in retaining experienced staff.
Although this story appears positive and will probably prove to be a successful ‘recruitment drive’, is it really the right way to recruit staff that I’m sure everyone will agree play a pivotal role in society today for many people? It is a job with great responsibility and requires a certain type of person – caring and trustworthy are just two of the vital requirements of someone who would be successful in this career.
Am I being too analytical and pernickety to suggest that this is a waste of time and may attract the wrong type of people? I view this type of profession as one that people are born with the character to do or not, a vocation that no matter what training and skills can be provided to people, they may not be able to cope or do the job competently as it’s a lot more than a nine till five.
The same as a priest or nurse may feel that their profession was their calling; it’s a job that requires a similar nature and commitment to a cause. A lot of amazing social workers exist out there and as reported many have left due to the work conditions and treatment they received. Does it not make sense then to improve on these conditions instead of attracting masses of people, many of whom may be wholly unsuitable?
I understand there is a shortage of staff and they need to take action to ensure these positions are filled but does a celebrity endorsed recruitment drive really reflect the seriousness of the job? Is it really appropriate, no matter what the experiences of these celebrities have been? It is the ordinary ‘Joe Public’ that these people need to help and I just don’t think it’s a great way to recruit these important people. I feel a more targeted campaign if any and internal improvements to the departments makes a lot more sense.
I could be wrong, what are your thoughts?
Friday, 28 August 2009
BIG BROTHER’S BEEN BAD?
The media online and offline has been reporting of the decision for next year’s Big Brother to be the last. Davina herself has even mentioned it on her Twitter site and George Lamb on the spin-off show Big Brother’s Little Brother made an official statement that Channel 4 would review its decision after next year’s show.
There has been a lot of hype and speculation for the last couple of years and it seems a little exaggerated in my opinion – with comments like the ratings have suffered, the show isn’t as good as it used to be and hearsay about voting fixes, but does it all really matter? Whether true or not, all good shows come to an end and have a shelf life so it’s nothing new.
I like Big Brother and remember watching the first series religiously but now as BB10 is coming to an end I do think it’s getting less about the viewers’ opinions and more about Channel Four’s own agenda. BB10 Lisa is a prime example of this, she’s been sneaky, bitchy and a complete pain throughout and the only week that viewer’s had a chance to vote her out, Big Brother changed the way to evict, to voting on who you want to stay – perfectly engineered to get the ‘quiet one’ Hira out who seemed to have more going for her than anyone else in there.
Poor Halfwit/Freddie was also a victim of this year’s show as manipulative Bea played with his feelings which led to his downfall – if the public had the chance to get her out sooner then possibly Halfwit’s stay could have been a little longer.
All that aside there have been great shows and lots to talk about over the last ten series and I think it’s the right time to end it before it gets remembered for the rebellious behaviour of it’s participants and the unauthoritative nature of BB that has unfolded gradually and peaked this year.
If it is all coming to an end next year then I hope Big Brother does what many shows have before and make the final season one to remember.
There has been a lot of hype and speculation for the last couple of years and it seems a little exaggerated in my opinion – with comments like the ratings have suffered, the show isn’t as good as it used to be and hearsay about voting fixes, but does it all really matter? Whether true or not, all good shows come to an end and have a shelf life so it’s nothing new.
I like Big Brother and remember watching the first series religiously but now as BB10 is coming to an end I do think it’s getting less about the viewers’ opinions and more about Channel Four’s own agenda. BB10 Lisa is a prime example of this, she’s been sneaky, bitchy and a complete pain throughout and the only week that viewer’s had a chance to vote her out, Big Brother changed the way to evict, to voting on who you want to stay – perfectly engineered to get the ‘quiet one’ Hira out who seemed to have more going for her than anyone else in there.
Poor Halfwit/Freddie was also a victim of this year’s show as manipulative Bea played with his feelings which led to his downfall – if the public had the chance to get her out sooner then possibly Halfwit’s stay could have been a little longer.
All that aside there have been great shows and lots to talk about over the last ten series and I think it’s the right time to end it before it gets remembered for the rebellious behaviour of it’s participants and the unauthoritative nature of BB that has unfolded gradually and peaked this year.
If it is all coming to an end next year then I hope Big Brother does what many shows have before and make the final season one to remember.
Tuesday, 25 August 2009
"I'm suing Google..."
The Times online reported that Google is to be sued for $15 million (approx £9 million) by a not-so-anonymous blogger who was unmasked by the internet search company.
Rosemary Port said that Google had failed to protect her right to privacy when the company obeyed a court order to reveal her name after she used her blog to accuse a former Vogue model of being a "psychotic, lying, whoring ... skank".
Liskula Cohen, 36, won a landmark case in a New York court last week, forcing Google to disclose the online identity of Ms Port, 29, a Fashion Institute of Technology student, who created her "Skanks in NYC" blog a year ago using Google's Blogger.com site.
The New York Supreme Court ruled that Google must reveal the identity of the blogger.
Judge Joan Madden rejected Ms Port's claim that the blogs were a "modern-day forum for conveying personal opinions, including invective and ranting" and should not be treated as factual assertions.
After the court ruling Google turned over the e-mail address and IP addresses from each time the blogger had logged on to the blog, allowing Ms Cohen to discover the identity of her tormentor.
She said she was relieved to discover that the woman who created the blog was not someone close to her and decided not to continue with a defamation suit. The blog was deleted in March.
Google said that users of Blogger.com agree to a privacy policy that allows the company to share personal information if required by legal action.
Firstly, is it me or are the lawsuits getting crazier by the week across the pond? Okay, I know that people will be flying the freedom of speech flag in support of this nasty coward – I have read the comments online already.
That’s a good flag to fly – but not in this instance! Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but if that opinion is defamatory and expressed to an audience (in print or by word), why shouldn't the person making the statement be liable for it? All this decision does is stop Ms Port hiding behind a wall of anonymity.
If Ms Port's comments aren’t defamatory, then she has nothing to worry about. Insulting people or holding a public opinion is not automatically defamatory. Her right to free speech is not infringed in any way.
Problem is, what she wants is freedom to abuse/insult/possibly defame people, in a manner designed to bring them anguish and degradation, in a highly public manner, anonymously. It's the fact that she is embarrassed and concerned that she has been outed that has angered her – not the fact that Google revealed her details – as a result of a court order I must add. Somewhat hypocritical to say the least.
That is not what free speech is about - free speech is the right to say what you want to say, not the right to be unaccountable for your vicious tongue. People should be responsible and accountable for their words and actions - that's part of enjoying these freedoms.
Please tell me this lawsuit will be dropped before it wastes any time or money in court. Someone should also try to contact the victim here - the model that has been called what can only be described as childish names and tell her to take a u-turn and sue Ms Port – not for cash, just for the principle and teach the nasty creature a lesson.
Rosemary Port said that Google had failed to protect her right to privacy when the company obeyed a court order to reveal her name after she used her blog to accuse a former Vogue model of being a "psychotic, lying, whoring ... skank".
Liskula Cohen, 36, won a landmark case in a New York court last week, forcing Google to disclose the online identity of Ms Port, 29, a Fashion Institute of Technology student, who created her "Skanks in NYC" blog a year ago using Google's Blogger.com site.
The New York Supreme Court ruled that Google must reveal the identity of the blogger.
Judge Joan Madden rejected Ms Port's claim that the blogs were a "modern-day forum for conveying personal opinions, including invective and ranting" and should not be treated as factual assertions.
After the court ruling Google turned over the e-mail address and IP addresses from each time the blogger had logged on to the blog, allowing Ms Cohen to discover the identity of her tormentor.
She said she was relieved to discover that the woman who created the blog was not someone close to her and decided not to continue with a defamation suit. The blog was deleted in March.
Google said that users of Blogger.com agree to a privacy policy that allows the company to share personal information if required by legal action.
Firstly, is it me or are the lawsuits getting crazier by the week across the pond? Okay, I know that people will be flying the freedom of speech flag in support of this nasty coward – I have read the comments online already.
That’s a good flag to fly – but not in this instance! Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but if that opinion is defamatory and expressed to an audience (in print or by word), why shouldn't the person making the statement be liable for it? All this decision does is stop Ms Port hiding behind a wall of anonymity.
If Ms Port's comments aren’t defamatory, then she has nothing to worry about. Insulting people or holding a public opinion is not automatically defamatory. Her right to free speech is not infringed in any way.
Problem is, what she wants is freedom to abuse/insult/possibly defame people, in a manner designed to bring them anguish and degradation, in a highly public manner, anonymously. It's the fact that she is embarrassed and concerned that she has been outed that has angered her – not the fact that Google revealed her details – as a result of a court order I must add. Somewhat hypocritical to say the least.
That is not what free speech is about - free speech is the right to say what you want to say, not the right to be unaccountable for your vicious tongue. People should be responsible and accountable for their words and actions - that's part of enjoying these freedoms.
Please tell me this lawsuit will be dropped before it wastes any time or money in court. Someone should also try to contact the victim here - the model that has been called what can only be described as childish names and tell her to take a u-turn and sue Ms Port – not for cash, just for the principle and teach the nasty creature a lesson.
Wednesday, 19 August 2009
Are there still people who don't realise the dangers of Facebook?
I received an email from a friend with this attachment and thought that everyone had realised by now that PEOPLE CAN READ what you write online - especially when you are friends with them on Facebook.
It seems that no matter what happens with technology & communication there is still dim people out there who don’t think about their actions or how to utilise it effectively.
Before this, emailing or texting your whole address book with a personal email was a popular blunder of many and embarrassing enough but insulting your boss and your work has got to be one of the dumbest of all – especially in the current economic climate.
I can’t imagine this particular individual is going to be filling out applications and putting reason for leaving last job: “I was asked to leave for insulting my boss on Facebook”. Perhaps, prospective employers would be sympathetic if her work was s**t, as she said but I don’t think anyone wants to employ someone with such lack of common sense.
To summarise then, hate your boss, hate your work, slag your boss to close friends if it won’t get back to your boss – that is all acceptable , but don’t do it on Facebook when your friends with your boss – that’s just plain STUPID!
Thursday, 6 August 2009
Swine Flu Skivers Costing Companies
Thousands of healthy workers are thought to have taken advantage of official guidelines on the pandemic to extend their summer holidays.
By simply phoning the NHS swine flu hotline or visiting its website, sneaky workers can get themselves a course of antiviral medicine and do not need a sick note from their GP for the first seven days’ absence – don’t anyone reading this get any ideas.
And to make matters worse, the Government is considering doubling this period to a fortnight, which companies fear could make the situation worse and cost them millions of pounds in lost productivity at a time when they are struggling with the effects of the recession.
There are also predictions that more healthy workers will be tempted to call in sick as the weather improves over the next week, after the wettest July on record.
The Employment Law Advisory Service, which provides legal advice to companies on personnel problems, disclosed yesterday that it had begun receiving calls from concerned managers as soon as the self-diagnosis website was set up last month.
It has since heard from more than 1,000 companies that believe staff have exploited concern about the spread of the H1N1 virus to take an extra week off. It believes that the Department of Health’s guidance risks creating a “skiver’s charter”.
Peter Mooney, the service’s head of consultancy, said: “Managers feel that some staff are simply taking advantage of concerns about the transmission of swine flu to take an extra few days off work. Because the emphasis has been on not going to your local GP but using websites to assess the infection and the risk to others, those who stay at home are not going to need a doctor’s note or have too many people calling on them to see how they feel.
“Based on the volume, and the nature, of calls we have been taking, the number of deliberate false cases of the condition is having a significant impact on workplaces across the country — something bosses are keen to tackle.”
The flu service website and phone line handed out over 150,000 doses of Tamiflu in its first week. However, there is evidence that only about one in four recipients actually has the H1N1 virus.
GPs have said that they are being inundated with calls from patients claiming to have swine flu and requesting a note to sign them off work for longer than a week. Many are concerned that they are being asked to certify that people are ill without having seen them, meaning shirkers could take advantage.
Recent figures suggest the average worker takes 7.4 days off sick a year at a total cost of £17.3 billion to the economy, so the impact of staff taking another fortnight off for self-diagnosed swine flu could cripple some small businesses.
I have also read an article in a newspaper recently about a student Emily Morgan who was sacked from the National Pandemic Flu Service call centre for having swine flu - peculiar I know. After feeling ill during her first shift at her holiday job, the 21-year-old was later diagnosed with the H1N1 virus and prescribed Tamiflu.
She phoned in sick the next day, but when she returned to the Plymouth office 10 days later Miss Morgan said she was told she had lost her job. The international business student said: "It's kind of ironic. I feel I would have been better at the job now because I'd know what people were going through.
Miss Morgan said: "I rang them several times and they were well aware I had swine flu, and kept telling me to get well soon. I couldn't believe it when I turned up and I was told to hand in my security pass.”
Miss Morgan had been employed through recruitment agency Reed and when contacted by the press their response was, "There are procedures to follow in cases of absenteeism."
In terms of the ‘swine flu skivers’, I personally think it’s like anything, there are always people out there who will take advantage of a loop hole or opportunity to benefit themselves – I don’t think it’s crime of the century but if it does have a detrimental effect on a business then I suppose they will have to deal with it legally and appropriately.
For all genuine swine flu sufferers – Get Well Soon x
By simply phoning the NHS swine flu hotline or visiting its website, sneaky workers can get themselves a course of antiviral medicine and do not need a sick note from their GP for the first seven days’ absence – don’t anyone reading this get any ideas.
And to make matters worse, the Government is considering doubling this period to a fortnight, which companies fear could make the situation worse and cost them millions of pounds in lost productivity at a time when they are struggling with the effects of the recession.
There are also predictions that more healthy workers will be tempted to call in sick as the weather improves over the next week, after the wettest July on record.
The Employment Law Advisory Service, which provides legal advice to companies on personnel problems, disclosed yesterday that it had begun receiving calls from concerned managers as soon as the self-diagnosis website was set up last month.
It has since heard from more than 1,000 companies that believe staff have exploited concern about the spread of the H1N1 virus to take an extra week off. It believes that the Department of Health’s guidance risks creating a “skiver’s charter”.
Peter Mooney, the service’s head of consultancy, said: “Managers feel that some staff are simply taking advantage of concerns about the transmission of swine flu to take an extra few days off work. Because the emphasis has been on not going to your local GP but using websites to assess the infection and the risk to others, those who stay at home are not going to need a doctor’s note or have too many people calling on them to see how they feel.
“Based on the volume, and the nature, of calls we have been taking, the number of deliberate false cases of the condition is having a significant impact on workplaces across the country — something bosses are keen to tackle.”
The flu service website and phone line handed out over 150,000 doses of Tamiflu in its first week. However, there is evidence that only about one in four recipients actually has the H1N1 virus.
GPs have said that they are being inundated with calls from patients claiming to have swine flu and requesting a note to sign them off work for longer than a week. Many are concerned that they are being asked to certify that people are ill without having seen them, meaning shirkers could take advantage.
Recent figures suggest the average worker takes 7.4 days off sick a year at a total cost of £17.3 billion to the economy, so the impact of staff taking another fortnight off for self-diagnosed swine flu could cripple some small businesses.
I have also read an article in a newspaper recently about a student Emily Morgan who was sacked from the National Pandemic Flu Service call centre for having swine flu - peculiar I know. After feeling ill during her first shift at her holiday job, the 21-year-old was later diagnosed with the H1N1 virus and prescribed Tamiflu.
She phoned in sick the next day, but when she returned to the Plymouth office 10 days later Miss Morgan said she was told she had lost her job. The international business student said: "It's kind of ironic. I feel I would have been better at the job now because I'd know what people were going through.
Miss Morgan said: "I rang them several times and they were well aware I had swine flu, and kept telling me to get well soon. I couldn't believe it when I turned up and I was told to hand in my security pass.”
Miss Morgan had been employed through recruitment agency Reed and when contacted by the press their response was, "There are procedures to follow in cases of absenteeism."
In terms of the ‘swine flu skivers’, I personally think it’s like anything, there are always people out there who will take advantage of a loop hole or opportunity to benefit themselves – I don’t think it’s crime of the century but if it does have a detrimental effect on a business then I suppose they will have to deal with it legally and appropriately.
For all genuine swine flu sufferers – Get Well Soon x
Wednesday, 5 August 2009
Scottish Exam Results Out Today
Nearly 160,000 school pupils across Scotland are receiving their examination results today.
The BBC reported that pass rates at both Higher and Standard Grade level have increased overall, while the numbers receiving the highest grades have also gone up – good news!
Gone are the days when everyone was stuck waiting patiently for the sound of the postman’s steps (I was one of them), as nearly 30,000 students will receive their grades by e-mail or text message; I can see this number increasing year on year.
The Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA) said the pass rate for those sitting Highers rose 0.8 percentage point to 74.2%. For Standard Grade pupils, 98.5% received a pass, up from 98% in 2008.
The total number of exams being sat overall was down by 8,225, with the biggest falls in Standard Grade. The drop was put down to falling school rolls and more pupils taking Intermediate and Access qualifications instead. However, the numbers sitting Higher and Advanced Higher exams increased to its highest level for five years.
Despite the increases, there were falls in the numbers achieving passes in Standard Grade subjects such as Construction, Gaelic and French, which fell 6.4%, 3.1% and 2.1% respectively.
Scotland's Education Secretary Fiona Hyslop said the results were a testament to the abilities of Scotland's youngsters and a cause for optimism in the nation's economic future.
She said: "These results clearly demonstrate that our young people have high ambitions and are achieving success.
"By continuing to support Scotland's reputation for skills and learning, today's results will help to make Scotland the place to do business even in these difficult economic times."
Well something positive to discuss today, good luck to anyone who is receiving their results today - hope you get the results you need.
The BBC reported that pass rates at both Higher and Standard Grade level have increased overall, while the numbers receiving the highest grades have also gone up – good news!
Gone are the days when everyone was stuck waiting patiently for the sound of the postman’s steps (I was one of them), as nearly 30,000 students will receive their grades by e-mail or text message; I can see this number increasing year on year.
The Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA) said the pass rate for those sitting Highers rose 0.8 percentage point to 74.2%. For Standard Grade pupils, 98.5% received a pass, up from 98% in 2008.
The total number of exams being sat overall was down by 8,225, with the biggest falls in Standard Grade. The drop was put down to falling school rolls and more pupils taking Intermediate and Access qualifications instead. However, the numbers sitting Higher and Advanced Higher exams increased to its highest level for five years.
Despite the increases, there were falls in the numbers achieving passes in Standard Grade subjects such as Construction, Gaelic and French, which fell 6.4%, 3.1% and 2.1% respectively.
Scotland's Education Secretary Fiona Hyslop said the results were a testament to the abilities of Scotland's youngsters and a cause for optimism in the nation's economic future.
She said: "These results clearly demonstrate that our young people have high ambitions and are achieving success.
"By continuing to support Scotland's reputation for skills and learning, today's results will help to make Scotland the place to do business even in these difficult economic times."
Well something positive to discuss today, good luck to anyone who is receiving their results today - hope you get the results you need.
Monday, 3 August 2009
No Job? Sue Your College or University?
A New York woman, Trina Thomson, 27, has filed a law suit against Monroe College were she completed an IT degree in April this year. She is seeking to recover $70,000 (approx £40,000) that she has spent on tuition the BBC reported. The woman claims the Office of Career Advancement at the college did not provide her with the leads and career advice it had promised.
"The college prides itself on the excellent career-development support that we provide to each of our students, and this case does not deserve further consideration," its spokesman said.
It sounds a little far fetched in my opinion and I would think that she will be unsuccessful but you never know – stranger things have happened. It is hard to prove because there are so many other contributory factors that the college could argue are the cause of her unfortunate jobless situation; her efforts and the current economic climate being the main ones.
It’s definitely not an isolated situation and one that a lot of students Stateside and over here in the UK will have found themselves in. After studying hard and gaining good qualifications they end up either jobless or taking on a job totally unrelated to their chosen field just so they can earn money.
I don’t think it is generally the college or universities responsibility in these situations but I do think that career advisors are pivotal and a major part of the organisation. I think if the “Office of Career Development” at the college in question has been less than helpful then they should be penalised and hopefully it will prevent other departments such as this in the future failing their students – if that is the case.
It’s a bit like many after sales departments, you find companies in all industries are friendly and helpful on initial contact but when you commit to buy, the after sales experience can be very lacking. It sounds like this is what Ms Thomson is trying to argue that she paid the tuition and studied hard but there was no help in the end after she spent all that time and money and promises have been broken by the college.
I remember a career advisor I seen at 5th year in school, he was very unhelpful and patronising when I told him what course I wanted to go on to do at university, he advised me to reconsider – he called it being realistic about my results, I called it giving up on my aspirations. In the end I never listened to him and completed the degree I had wanted to so it just shows how determination often wins over complaining or blaming other people.
The university I attended had a careers service too but I couldn’t fault any of the advice I have had from them – I was always helped, supported and advised and I know their job isn’t to get me a job but to help me find routes or ideas to go down. I think Ms. Thomson should maybe reconsider because I don’ know if she will be looked on favourably by prospective employers, whether rightly or wrongly – no one likes a trouble maker, least of all employers.
What do you think?
"The college prides itself on the excellent career-development support that we provide to each of our students, and this case does not deserve further consideration," its spokesman said.
It sounds a little far fetched in my opinion and I would think that she will be unsuccessful but you never know – stranger things have happened. It is hard to prove because there are so many other contributory factors that the college could argue are the cause of her unfortunate jobless situation; her efforts and the current economic climate being the main ones.
It’s definitely not an isolated situation and one that a lot of students Stateside and over here in the UK will have found themselves in. After studying hard and gaining good qualifications they end up either jobless or taking on a job totally unrelated to their chosen field just so they can earn money.
I don’t think it is generally the college or universities responsibility in these situations but I do think that career advisors are pivotal and a major part of the organisation. I think if the “Office of Career Development” at the college in question has been less than helpful then they should be penalised and hopefully it will prevent other departments such as this in the future failing their students – if that is the case.
It’s a bit like many after sales departments, you find companies in all industries are friendly and helpful on initial contact but when you commit to buy, the after sales experience can be very lacking. It sounds like this is what Ms Thomson is trying to argue that she paid the tuition and studied hard but there was no help in the end after she spent all that time and money and promises have been broken by the college.
I remember a career advisor I seen at 5th year in school, he was very unhelpful and patronising when I told him what course I wanted to go on to do at university, he advised me to reconsider – he called it being realistic about my results, I called it giving up on my aspirations. In the end I never listened to him and completed the degree I had wanted to so it just shows how determination often wins over complaining or blaming other people.
The university I attended had a careers service too but I couldn’t fault any of the advice I have had from them – I was always helped, supported and advised and I know their job isn’t to get me a job but to help me find routes or ideas to go down. I think Ms. Thomson should maybe reconsider because I don’ know if she will be looked on favourably by prospective employers, whether rightly or wrongly – no one likes a trouble maker, least of all employers.
What do you think?
Thursday, 23 July 2009
Education spending to be cut despite Gordon Brown's promises
“Despite Gordon Brown pledging to safeguard spending on schools and universities, government documents show that the total education budget will fall by £100 million after the next election”, the Telegraph reports today.
Without having to write much more, I am angry that an education system that already seems to be falling behind compared to many European countries is going to suffer from cut backs. The Prime Minister insisted only a couple of days ago that key public services would be safeguarded – does education not fall under that category?
In addition to this, The Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform will have to reduce its entire budget by almost a quarter - what effect is this going to have then on the Government’s ability to help safeguard businesses through the recession?
I don’t have the answers but could make a prediction that it’s not going to be a positive one. I am getting really fed up with the constant controversy and downfalls of the Government, which I know is obviously nothing new. I just hope that this latest decision is the final straw and this country can finally break away from dishonest, gluttonous leaders.
Wishful thinking - I know.
Without having to write much more, I am angry that an education system that already seems to be falling behind compared to many European countries is going to suffer from cut backs. The Prime Minister insisted only a couple of days ago that key public services would be safeguarded – does education not fall under that category?
In addition to this, The Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform will have to reduce its entire budget by almost a quarter - what effect is this going to have then on the Government’s ability to help safeguard businesses through the recession?
I don’t have the answers but could make a prediction that it’s not going to be a positive one. I am getting really fed up with the constant controversy and downfalls of the Government, which I know is obviously nothing new. I just hope that this latest decision is the final straw and this country can finally break away from dishonest, gluttonous leaders.
Wishful thinking - I know.
Friday, 17 July 2009
"Facebook police raid family barbeque..."
Has anyone else seen the front page of the Metro today? At first I thought it was a joke but now I can't actually believe so many resources were wasted on an innocent party - a little bit embarrassing for all involved I would imagine
For those who haven't read the story, basically four police cars, a riot van and a helicopter raided a 30th birthday party with 15 attendees. As the barbeque was going to get lit, eight officers wearing camouflage and body armour jumped out demanding 'the rave' be shut down, whilst this was going on the small gazebo was flapping wildly due to the helicopter's blades above them. Supposedly the party invite created on Facebook under the 'create event' app had been intercepted by police who had thought it was an illegal rave as it was described as an "all night party" online.
Whilst reading it I thought the police must have had an embarrassing apology to make afterwards but was even more surprised to read that the police had insisted that they were right to end the party due to their concerns that stemmed from how it was advertised on facebook. The host of the party was obviously not best pleased as he’d spent £800 on food, drink and a generator for the evening and the party was rudely interrupted and closed down at four in the afternoon, even before the music had been put on.
It just shows I suppose how much of the interaction we have online is viewed and can be easily misinterpreted. I’ll definitely be more careful about the information I put online and how it is worded as the “Facebook police” certainly don’t seem very reasonable so I wouldn’t want them paying me a visit.
On a more serious note, there should be an investigation into who made the decision to go ahead with this ridiculous raid, not only is it a complete waste of time, money and resources but it’s an infringement of the guy’s rights surely. Is it now illegal to have a barbeque or party in your own garden? I didn’t think so…
For those who haven't read the story, basically four police cars, a riot van and a helicopter raided a 30th birthday party with 15 attendees. As the barbeque was going to get lit, eight officers wearing camouflage and body armour jumped out demanding 'the rave' be shut down, whilst this was going on the small gazebo was flapping wildly due to the helicopter's blades above them. Supposedly the party invite created on Facebook under the 'create event' app had been intercepted by police who had thought it was an illegal rave as it was described as an "all night party" online.
Whilst reading it I thought the police must have had an embarrassing apology to make afterwards but was even more surprised to read that the police had insisted that they were right to end the party due to their concerns that stemmed from how it was advertised on facebook. The host of the party was obviously not best pleased as he’d spent £800 on food, drink and a generator for the evening and the party was rudely interrupted and closed down at four in the afternoon, even before the music had been put on.
It just shows I suppose how much of the interaction we have online is viewed and can be easily misinterpreted. I’ll definitely be more careful about the information I put online and how it is worded as the “Facebook police” certainly don’t seem very reasonable so I wouldn’t want them paying me a visit.
On a more serious note, there should be an investigation into who made the decision to go ahead with this ridiculous raid, not only is it a complete waste of time, money and resources but it’s an infringement of the guy’s rights surely. Is it now illegal to have a barbeque or party in your own garden? I didn’t think so…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
