I got an email from ASDA today. It said that, from 5th October 2015, when our groceries are delivered, they will be delivered in crates, and that the delivery man will wait while we unload the groceries from the crate. Or, we can elect to have the groceries delivered in plastic bags, in which case we will be charged 5p per bag. That is because the government have introduced A LAW, which dictates that large retailers must charge at least 5p per plastic bag.
ASDA has had a think and must have decided to average the charges. I suppose that what it has done is calculate the average number of bags used per shopper. Perhaps it has counted the number of shoppers over, say, a week, and the number of bags used in that week. The average seems to have come out at 8, since ASDA say that they will add 40p to the cost of delivery if one chooses to have one’s groceries delivered in bags. Thus, it seems that large retailers are going to be obliged to count the bags which they use and pay 5p per bag to someone or other. ASDA say that they will donate the 5ps to charity. Thus, despite appearances, it is not shoppers who are paying the charge, even if they are ultimately the ones who pay. It is the supermarkets. They pay the charge, but are not allowed to keep the money! Yes, it is extremely crazy. Shoppers have to pay 5p per bag, but supermarkets must account for all the bags used. Thus, it is assumed that, if a supermarket gives out, say, 10,000 bags in a day, then £500 accrues. But that £500 is not theirs, nor is it the Government’s. They are obliged to give it away, and so they give it to charities.
But who decides which charities? In my opinion, if I pay 40p for the bags, then I should decide which charity should benefit, and not ASDA.
I’m in two minds. I cannot decide what is the best thing to do. Should I elect to have my groceries delivered in crates and then take my time to unload them and waste as much time as possible, keeping the delivery man waiting? Or should I elect for bags to show that I believe that Government has gone out of its mind?
But there is another point. Since I am now paying for the bags, I have a reasonable right to demand that the bags are in pristine condition. No more rips. Further, why should I give my paid-for bags back to the deliverer when I have paid for them and they are MINE? Why should I not dispose of them in the bin, or by throwing them in the sea? Or burning them? Further, why should I not have a reasonable right to demand a name and address from whom I can demand a refund if one or more bags are damaged?
Somewhat facetious, I must admit, but these sort of LAWS ought to render politicians liable for the costs. Thus, rather than supermarkets being liable for the costs involved in this idiotic LAW, it should be those MPs who voted for it who are liable. OK, I know that such an idea is impracticable since no one knows what the consequences might be at the time. Even so, for too long has it been the case that MPs can vote for anything at all and not be responsible for the consequences. The present situation absolutely stinks.
The Americans have a peculiar system for dealing with civil cases. In the UK, a Judge decides. In the USA, a jury decides. In the McTear Case, the Judge decided that ASH ET AL had not ‘proved on the balance of probabilities’ that smoking causes lung cancer. And yet, in the USA, juries are awarding million dollar awards to anyone who sues a tobacco company because they got lung cancer and they smoked. The big point is that juries can totally ignore the law and decide that black is white, or that the Sun goes round the Earth, or that smoking causes lung cancer.
So I suggest that there is nothing much wrong with our ‘representative democracy’ other than the fact that MPs are not individually responsible for the consequences of their decisions. No one else would be permitted to get away with crimes and thefts other than MPs.
What this boils down to is that Government has once again decided to use FORCE against a group of people to FORCE them to do all the work without pay.
And our elected representatives do not protest.
A Visit to the Dentists.
I honestly could not believe it.
I have known my dentist for some years. He is a grand chap and I get along with him very well. He knows that I grow tobacco plants.
I went to see him a few days ago.
He asked me if I was still growing tobacco plants. Right. It is only a couple of months ago that I went last for a specific treatment at which we discussed my tobacco plants, but one can forgive the lapse of memory. So we talked for a little while about growing tobacco plants.
After the treatment, as I was about to leave, the nurse tried to hand me a couple of leaflets. I looked at the top one and it had the word ‘SMOKING’ on the front. I said to her, “No, I do not want that leaflet” And then I looked at the other, and it said, “Oral hygiene and smoking”, and I said, “I don’t want that one either”
Both the nurse and the dentist did not seem to know what to do. My dentist is a very intelligent chap, but he did not seem to know what to do when I refused to accept the leaflets.
How weird is that? My intelligent dentist could not understand that I find such leaflets INSULTING. They assume that I have the intelligence and knowledge of a child, and that I can be manipulated by propaganda.
He relented in the end after trying to push the leaflets at me on the grounds that he was OBLIGED to do so. I think that it suddenly occurred to him that his behaviour was not appropriate when I said, “Look, I’m 76 years old. I know what I want”
It is weird how even intelligent people like doctors and dentists have succumbed to the brainwashing. It really is a mystery. For example, a couple of months ago, at an appointment with said dentist, I asked him if he saw many mouth cancers, and he muttered something like, “Oh Yes”. But I know for a fact from national statistics that that cannot be true unless he is very, very, very unusual. The facts are that there are around 30,000 dentists in the UK. The number of mouth cancer deaths of all sorts are around 1,500 per an. Therefore it follows that any individual dentist, on average, will see only one such terminal cancer every 20 years. That cannot be denied. [At this time of night, my figures are very rough, but not totally inaccurate]
Why do dentists, doctors, publican, teachers, etc, succumb so easily to being used as propagandists? I do not understand. Do they not have Unions and Societies deliberately created to protect them from such manipulation? How were those organisations become corrupted?