Dine and Dash – The Lessons From Skipping

Going through the bins behind a supermarket might not be the traditional way of doing the weekly shop, but after three men were arrested for ‘skipping’ from bins behind an Iceland in North London questions certainly need to be asked.

No, not a criminal prosecution of the aforementioned men, but of the supermarkets themselves.

To say there is a global food shortage is a misnomer, as certain parts of the world have plenty to eat, but there is certainly a disparity in global food supply.

However, while people starve in across the world supermarkets in the UK are throwing away thousands of tonnes of perfectly good food every week.

So while the Crown Prosecution Service may have decided not to press charges against the ‘Iceland Three’ perhaps we should all be disappointed the supermarkets will avoid the inevitable media exposure the trial would bring.

There are many faults in the way food is distributed and purchased in the UK and across the developed world and it is staggering to think the major high street supermarkets can dispose of so much of their product and still turn a substantial profit.

Would a similarly positioned clothes retailor simply throw out unsold stock?

No, at the very worst it remaining stock would be put on sale or sold at TK Maxx, but then again the majority of retailors do not have to deal with those pesky sell-by and use-by dates and it this is a central part of the problem.

Sell-by dates are unquestionably an important part of food retailing and essential for supermarkets.

The fallout from a food-poisoning scare traced back to a supermarket could be colossal.

However, to protect themselves against this sell-by dates are overly cautious and often the food is perfectly good for consumption days and even weeks after what is printed on the label.

Unfortunately, because of these arbitrary limits any food still on display after the sell-by date is simply thrown away, with no regard for whether or not it is actually fit for consumption.

Fresh fruit and vegetables are a prime example of this.

Anyone who have ever bought fruit from a supermarket ‘Reduced to Clear’ section knows it is often not only not past its sell-by date, but often not even ripe.

Any regular scavengers of the ‘Reduced to Clear’ section will also know not all produce going out of date on a particular day ever makes its way to this discounted section, begging the question why supermarkets would rather throw food away than sell it at a reduced price.

And can someone explain to me why there is always cheese on reduced to clear? Cheese is basically mould anyway and certainly does not need a strict best-before date.

It is unclear what exactly needs to be done about this problem.

Supermarkets certainly need to display a use-by date on food to protect themselves and nobody can blame them, particularly when it comes to meat products and poultry in particular.

However, a bit of common sense certainly needs to be applied both in terms of the dates actually placed on packaging and the disposal of foods which are clearly not passed its best.

This, combined with the ridiculous demand for standardised vegetables (I really don’t care if the cucumber is not perfectly straight and since when have you been able to grow potatoes all the same size) would go a long way to reducing the UKs demand for food and so increasing the global supply.

So what could be done?

Well for starters better training of supermarket employees so a sensible decision can be reached on whether or not food is fit for consumption would drastically reduce the amount of fresh fruit and vegetables throw-away from supermarket shelves.

Secondly, a more sensible approach to foods which do not need a sell by date, such as frozen goods, cheese and processed foods which are not going to go off in the same way as fresh ones.

Thirdly, an investigation involving the major food retailers, farmers and DEFRA to establish the optimal times to harvest crops, so unripe foods are not sold before they are ready, and a wider study into the use of sell-by and use-by dates on meat and poultry.

Lastly, a sensible plan about what to do with food which would otherwise be disposed of, because it is not right it is simply thrown in a skip rather than being used to help those who cannot afford to put food on the table.

Unfortunately, because the Iceland ‘skipping’ case will now not go to court the supermarkets will not have to answer these perfectly reasonable questions as part of a national debate and so will continue to throw away tens of thousands of tonnes of perfectly good food while a billion people worldwide go hungry.

Free Speech – The Cost Of Talking

2011 Protests in London, UK

Image Copyright (c) Garry Knight

Home Secretary Theresa May is under pressure this week to stop a protest in London by a far-right group. No, not the English Defence League or even the British National Party, but Jobbik.

The Hungarian political party, described by some as the most powerful fascist group in Europe, is set to hold the march in April and it is believed it will also be attended by members of the Greek Golden Dawn movement and the British National Party.

Objection to the demonstration is understandable, particularly when you consider Jobbik’s foreign affairs spokesman called for a tally of the number of Jews in the Hungary on the grounds of national security, while one of the party’s MEPs was suspended after it was found he was of Jewish origin.

However, this protest is not about immigration, Islam or Judaism, but about democracy.

It was triggered when the Hungarian government decided to deny its overseas citizens postal votes.

This leads to an interesting question about the cost of free speech.

While many people find Jobbik’s particular brand of politics rather distasteful, the denial of a democratic vote is just as, or even more, disturbing.

Western governments, for want of a better collective term, praised the protesters during the Arab Spring for demanding democracy in countries long-troubled by military juntas and inherited dictatorships.

So surely, regardless of the organising party’s beliefs, we should be encouraging a group intent on delivering fair voting in a country with a history of authoritarian government?

Regulation of free speech is always a tricky issue.

Being able to say what you believe is a central pillar of a civilised, democratic society, but there will always be people who have opinions objectionable to the majority.

The BNP is a classic example of this.

There were significant objections to the appearance of party leader Nick Griffin on BBCs Question Time in 2009.

However, the protestor’s standpoint on Mr Griffin was in fact the beneficiary of his appearance, after his views were systematically taken apart by the shows panel and audience.

There is of course the fear the Jobbik march will in fact become a political rally, an attempt to garner votes in the upcoming elections, but it is hard to criticise them for this when the peoples power as voters is being denied.

So where exactly do you draw the line here.

It is hard to imagine there would be calls to ban this protest if it was being organised by a moderate Hungarian party, but just because it is an extremist group it suddenly does not matter they are standing up for democracy.

This is, unfortunately, one of those lose-lose situations where by banning the protest you oppose free and fair democracy, but if you support it you run the risk of unwittingly backing an extremist party.

Another similar issue which has arisen is the request of Chief Constables to use water cannon as Police fear an increase in street protests relating to austerity measures.

While nobody wants to see violent protests, or worse still rioting, it is still a basic right of people in a free society to protest about things they do not like.

Just because the government at the time does not agree with them should in these situations count for nothing, including suppressing protests with the use of kettling and water cannon.

The major issue here is if you support free speech, as all rational people do, you have to support it for everyone, not just the people who agree with you.

Any deviation from this results in the exact opposite of what freedom of speech is about.

Negotiating these problems is the ultimate political tight-rope-walk. On one side is the majority of normal, moderate people who understandably do not want extremist minority views voiced and on the other the extremists who have just as much right as everyone else to hold and express their opinions.

This problem is best demonstrated with the calls to ban the Jobbik march. Yes, many view them as fascists, but they are protesting about the suppression of basic democratic principles.

In the end this comes down to the famous Evelyn Beatrice-Hall quote.

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”

Politicians and the Public – Leading By Example

Demonstrating leadership can be a difficult thing, as all too often leaders become passengers as events unfold on the world stage and on the public’s televisions, but should we be expecting more from them in the modern age?

Gone are the days of Kings leading troops into battle, however, at a time when politicians are being forced to make unpopular decisions, both in terms of budgeting and reform, demonstrating this level of moral authority is not only desirable, but vital.

There are certainly many examples of the public calling for this over the last decade and in particular since the introduction of online petitions.

More specifically, two examples stand out over the course of this government.

Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan-Smith, in defence of his welfare payment cuts, claimed he could, if needed, live on £53 a week leading to an online petition asking him to prove it.

Secondly, following his attempted reforms of the school system, Education Secretary Michael Gove was challenged to work in a state secondary school.

Both of these, at least on one level, have some legitimacy.

Should not Mr Duncan-Smith learn how hard it is for the other half to make ends meet?

How can Mr Gove legislate on schools when the last time he was in a classroom was at Oxford University before starting his career in journalism?

However, the fact is the petitioners on both these issues never expected IDS to start making fortnightly trips to the Job Centre, or Mr Gove to start marking homework during committee hearings.

What was wanted in both these situations was the issue itself and petitions were used as a tool to draw 

attention to the policies.

However, in the last few days another similar, although arguably more divisive, issue has arisen where true leadership would be welcome.

On Monday Prime Minister David Cameron offered local authorities a quid pro quo arrangement, whereby the council agree to allow fracking in their ward in exchange for keeping 100 percent of the business rates.

Although this style of arrangement is not unheard of (Alaskan residents, for example, get a dividend from oil companies who drill in the US state), it has proved controversial as it comes at a time when the same local authorities are being forced to find massive savings, calling into question the motivation of any council who agrees.

Mr Cameron is a vocal supporter of fracking and, if his arguments are to be believed, this fuel source could cut energy bills, provide jobs and boost the economy.

So if he truly believes this then why would he not sign the planning orders allowing fracking firms to build a plant in his Witney constituency in Oxfordshire?

Similarly, Chancellor George Osborne is a fan of this new power source and yet his Tatton constituency, right in the heart of a shale gas goldmine in Cheshire, remains unfracked.

There are obviously reasons for this.

Tatton council, for example, is openly opposed to any fracking in the constituency, while in other areas the public (otherwise known as the voters) are yet to be convinced about the benefits.

But in itself this causes a problem.

Winston Churchill said “The nation will find it very hard to look up to the leaders who are keeping their ears to the ground”, in other words leaders by their nature must lead by example, not a Ledru-Rollinesque French revolutionary.

Mediocre politicians, including the current crop of party leaders, let their policies be dictated by what they believe the public wants or what opinion polls told them.

However, compare this approach to Tony Blair and Margaret Thatcher, two politicians who were regularly criticised for going it alone without looking for a consensus.

Regardless of your opinions of Mr Blair or Mrs Thatcher, both were true political lions, leaders in the modern age when too many politicians seem happier to follow, although it is worth noting both had substantial parliamentary majorities during their respective tenures at Number 10.

This is not to say politicians should not listen to the voters, but the fact is public opinion is not always right, often contradictory and regularly unrealistic.

An all too often used political analogy is campaign in poetry, govern in prose, meaning getting elected is about setting out your vision, being in power is about getting the job done.

President Kennedy is credited with creating the mass media politician, where candidates must speak eloquently and look good while doing it, but the reason he is still revered was his ability to unite the country behind his [poetical] vision.

We are arguably living during what could be seen as a significant epoch in human history, a time when the role of capitalism and government are being questioned, but unfortunately we are also living during a time when many countries worldwide also lack a political leader with the skills and conviction to carry through their beliefs.

What make this especially frustrating is this is a time when there is a clear opportunity to significantly alter the way things are done.

So with this idea in mind let us look back at the examples stated earlier.

Would Mr Duncan-Smith not have an easier time selling welfare cuts if he was to prove living on £53 a week was possible rather than just making claims in front of a television camera?

Would Mr Gove not be better placed to reform the education system if he spent significant amounts of time in schools and with teachers and saw what pressures they were under?

Would Mr Cameron not be seen as a stronger leader if he took an unpopular position and allowed fracking in Whitney?

Maybe all of the current occupants in the House of Commons should take note of what a man who unwittingly had history trust upon him said, President Harry Truman.

“Men make history and not the other way around. In periods where there is no leadership, society stands still. Progress occurs when courageous, skillful leaders seize the opportunity to change things for the better.”