Christmas 2007, Wii consoles were in short supply in the UK.
Mainland europe however, had lots of stock, an ingenious idea was hatched, instead of paying out transport costs to move stocks from europe to the UK, press releases were put out saying Wii consoles were suffering from a supply shortage.
yet again it appears that christmas 2008 will see the same issue?
* tesco - out of stock, no availability from supplier * woolworths - out of stock * toys r us - lowest package price increased by £10 and a limit to only 2 consoles per customer * amazon - instock but lowest priced packaged increased by £10 * other stockists, such as currys, pc world, keeping prices high, with pc world even charging £4.95 for delivery!
its not looking good, so i would advise ordering before we hit december, or you will hit supply problems and/or face ordering one from europe, and pay for transport costs!
Posted on 19-11-08 @ 12:22 AM CST [link to post] [No Comments]
Share on Facebook
Monday, November 17th
Price rise in supermarket beans!
im no fan of the daily mirror, but credit where credit is due, they lead with the headline on monday, with a story that comes as no surprise to penny pinchers
the price of supermarket own brand beans has gone up by more than 50% in the past month!
people who work in the "bean world" are baffled and cannot explain this price rise, the supermarket concerned state that its down to packaging costs!
its just the latest in a long line of supermarket own brand products thats rising in price. the theory that supermarkets save us all money is a complete fallacy! supermarkets are marketing showrooms, who dont give a jot about the recession and how people are struggling to get by, they are sales machines.
the supermarket own brand prices are more often than not just a few pence below the named brand we all know, but cost the supermarket considerably less to produce and put on their shelves, which equals bigger profits for the company. - they swamp the named brand in a particular area, with their own brand alternative at less than half the price of the established named brand - they then reduce the amount of named brand product on the shelf, so it runs out and you have to pick up the supermarkets own brand or go without. - often the named brand product disappears altogether or is moved to a lower shelf whilst the price of the own brand creeps up to just below the named brand
its a marketing con trick!
on baked beans for example, the supermarket's claims to be "saving customers money" has no credibility whatsoever. raising the price of a tin of beans from 66p to 84p and lowering the shelf position of the product, for two months, then reducing the price back down to 63p and advertising it as an exclusive offer, is not on. its not just beans, its on major product lines, if milk is so cheap now that there is a price war on it, saving the customer a penny, why has the supermarkets own cheese gone up by over a pound during the same time? why "save" your customer 5p on a litre of fuel, if they spend over £50 in your store, at a time when petrol prices should be falling in line with actual costs (which they are not) - at a time when inflation is dropping as people hold onto more of their money, yet productsinstore continue to rise in price?
dont take my word for it, try this simple experiment:
pick out 5 or 6 products and keep your eye on them every week you visit the supermarket, youll be surprised at how the price moves around!
Posted on 17-11-08 @ 12:09 AM CST [link to post] [No Comments]
Share on Facebook
Sunday, November 16th
experts!
hate them... cannot stand the total piffle they spout...
i have a simple approach to them: if a person proclaims themselves to be an expert in any non life threatening subject - they invariably are not! it doesnt work all the time, but it serves well at protecting me from "spin"
just read a crackin article about an estate agent in glasgow, having a one day sale, with many houses and flats at "upto 40% off" the woman estate agent says...
"there are plenty of people with the money to buy out there, despite prices falling across the UK, here in scotland prices continue to rise!" - the "expert" has spoken?
facts - the very next article stated "house prices in scotland report a sharp fall!" - headline article on the list down the side of the article states "UK housing market in free fall" - how many did she sell? she wouldnt say i think she may be trying to talk up her business and trying desperately to sell something before her failing business model goes under and she has to get a proper job!
on a similar theme: self promotion and the expert antiques roadshow have had their first 1 million pound evaluation. - they tell us of the record viewing figures they are getting - its a story being run by the BBC on news 24, bbc website, regular BBC channels and bulletins, even BBC radio (every hour)
yet they cant tell us what the thing is, as its a top secret until the show is broadcast! you think they are trying to "sell" their program?
Posted on 16-11-08 @ 12:09 AM CST [link to post] [No Comments]
Share on Facebook
Saturday, November 15th
wondering...
* why dont john cleese and andrew sachs do a new series - based on basil fawlty in old age and he still hires manuel? imagin the non pc gags they could have
* why do the makers of the x-factor show not produce the results of the phone vote for us all to see and scrutinise? big controversy over laura leaving the show last week, seeing as many of the genuine complaints reported being unable to get through on the phone number they provided... yet tonights show the judges state that not enough people voted... hmmm
* why has the whole "children in need" occasion become BBC's children in need?
* still on children in need: asda took credit for raising 2 million quid... didnt their customers raise this? same with other big company who "raised" funds..... mostly its the public who dish out their hard earned cash, is it not?
* instead of "3 for 2" and BOGOF (buy one get one free) offers.. why dont they just lower prices?
you may think im a grump... but really im not! i like children in need, even tho i think its a sorry state of affairs if we need to raise millions each year to "buy UK children cot blankets" in this day and age.
i have given money this year (as i do every year - i only give to kids charities) but please, for the love of god, sort stuff out about the actual occasion!
* if you are gunna collect money for CIN at the traffic lights... at least put something on your bucket about who you are and why your collecting! and DONT hold the traffic up more than it already is! * sort out the BBC program itself...
- tess daley? fern cotton? are you sponsored to find the most talentless crap available? one presented one of the most successful kids tv shows in recent years, and managed to lower the viewing figures so far it was dropped from the schedules.. and the other took over presenting top of the pops and took it off air for good! hardly a ringing endorsement! - media studies students LISTEN UP! learn please, to turn the audience microphones down.... its no good watching a program where the sound of the artist or the person talking is drowned out by incessant gimp screams from the audience! TURN THEM DOWN FFS! (this could be applied to all programs really, but even more so on the BBC) - applause for nothing - Pack the feck in please! "we cross over to burt bloggs who will tell us whats coming up!" burt bloggs then announces whats happening next and back to the studio..... to rapturous applause for 3 minutes whilst the presenter attempts to shout louder than the audience volume, and you miss most of what they say. - the whole thing looks unrehearsed, stagnant silences as one or two people on the stage witter on aimlessly until its time for the next link, seasoned actors and stage professionals are made to look like robots, get it sorted BBC will yas - heres a crazy idea, when its time to move to someone with a microphone... turn it on BEFORE they start talking.. always a good idea to be able to hear what someone is saying!
the best one is for last....
stop the constant self promotion! children in need started at 7pm.. by 7.20pm they had talked for 10 minutes about strictly come dancing special, and interviewed two of the dancers from it. "name dropped" dr who 7 times promoted eastenders 4 times and had an ex eastenders actress singing and promoting her own christmas panto.
its tedious!
children in need used to be a fast flowing funtastic night of song and laffs... now its getting to be predictable, stale and robotic.
under no circumstances, should you allow a charging order request in a county court to go unchallenged!
the business trying to impose it on your house, will tell you anything to try and get it through unopposed, once its in place, they will not hesitate to enforce it fully, with the worse case scenario that they will attempt to force you to sell your house!
I fought one in the court today, on behalf of someone i know, who has been messed about by a national high street bank, reknown in the UK for its business. after denying access to paying in details for 11 months, saying it would be brought before a court for 11 months, last year they served notice they were applying for a charging order, and the papers were served through the automated court set up in northampton.
the bank's solicitors did not reply to the court within the two week timescale, after i requested it be moved to a local court. they then sent notification that a hearing would commence in january this year, they received the notification on christmas eve! it went to court, via form filling, with a full explanation of what had gone on,how they had sent debt collectors out, denied access to vital paying in details (which is an offence) and misled the court regarding court costs and reasons for a part admission.
NOTE: partial admission was made, rather than counter claim for automated charges for hundreds of pounds, and the costs this would involve, a partial admittance for an amount that was minus all the admin charges and court costs was given
the bank agreed to this new total, the charges and court costs were wiped off - still the bank tried to intimidate them, by stating that if unopposed then no court costs would be sought - but gave a fantasy figure of thousands of pounds that would be claimed, if the charging order was opposed.
i opposed the charging order.
the judge read the defence and decided that a temporary judgement was given and that costs would not be awarded. the judge ordered the case to be reviewed 6 months on.
today was the review. on arrival i met with the solicitor representing the bank, who came armed with instructions from them. he was very amiable and polite as we chatted, and was surprised that i would be challenging the request for a charging order! one thing he did give away, was that he would not look directly at me as he explained that the charging order was simply a way for his client to secure the debt as otherwise the defendant had no legal requirement to pay it off should they sell their house. understandably, my friend was very worried.
when we all went in to meet with the judge, luckily he had re read through the case notes and previously submitted information. the bank's solicitor opened by stating... and i quote:
"my client has instructed me to ask that the court allow a charging order to be applied on the property, and demand payment forthwith (in full) immeadiately. if the defendant cannot pay this amount then i have been instructed to actively seek sale of the asset to recover the debt in full!"
hows that for a slimey rat! after months of saying it was just a formality, after telling us outside the court that it would never be actioned its just for security, their solicitor walked into the review and stated that they wanted the house sold to get the banks money!
luckily, i had a defence prepared and a five point plan of action to reason with the judge, for this to be stopped. even more luckily, the judge had read the previous case notes and had the foresight to see just what the bank was upto... he made the simple payment judgement final, with no future review, and used the common sense approach to not give an order for any court costs, as they would set the debtor back months in their payments. he denied the claim for a charging order, and insisted that times are hard for anyone in debt and creditors, it did not matter that the debt would take 106 years to pay off, it was unreasonable that the bank now came back to court to try and change an order to benefit themselves, not only over other creditors but also over the individual who sat before him.
he did state it was in the best interest of both parties to review circumstances in the future, and clear the debt off, which i thought was fair enough, as both parties wanted it cleared, but the court found that it was best to allow the debtor to pay it off in a time scale that was possible rather than selling a home to pay a debt which totalled less than most people would pay for a car.
common sense prevailed.
my message to you is simple - if you are facing a charging order request to a court, oppose it from day 1! keep to the facts, list all the details with back up copies if necessary and seek help from day one. a national bank will seek to enforce it once its in place and force you out of your home.
build yourself a defence against it, seek professional help and if in doubt ASK someone about it! dont let it drag on in silence and accept it unopposed, i guess todays win in court was more down to luck than planning, i didnt need the defence i had built, imagine the outcome if i had just gone along to observe without a defence and one was needed to stop the charging order!
example 1: have your say DEBATE:Is bias 'blocking British Obama'? SENT:08-Nov-2008 11:37 COMMENT:the only bias in british politics im concerned with, is the way the BBC are not holding the current government to account and reporting the facts, that the public wont find out until after they have gone! COMMENT STATUS:Rejected * after posting this, and people recommended it, it was removed a couple of hours later, on the grounds that it broke the BBC house rules house rules are - abusive wording, racist or sexist comments, naming individuals, personal attacks. please explain how this broke house rules BBC i asked - the BBC have failed to answer or reinstate the post!
example 2: biased reporting george osborne affair, was reported extensively on the BBC news channel, for 48 hours it was the lead story every hour, it was given 6 minutes of airtime, involving various comments from BBC staff reported as news. every half hour, the headline summary, it was again the lead story. after 1 day, osborne was cleared of any wrong doing by a political watchdog, who stated he had no case to answer and had not done anything wrong. for days after, osborne was all over the BBC news website, the osborne reference and questions posted by BBC commentators, out numbered mandelson stories by 7 to 1.
lord mandelson's role however was a little more intriguing! - he only visited the yacht (then changed to reveal he stayed on the yacht as a guest) - when he told us hed first met the russian billionaire, was then changed to some years earlier once the media questioned this - the european union had checked there was no conflict of interest and that nothing inappropriate had taken place, was then discovered that his own staff had checked his account of dealings and conversations out, and the european commission did not know he had stayed with the russian billionaire years earlier
the BBC then asked him in front of the cameras, which he refused to answer several times, despite this the BBC dropped the story.
the osborne affair is still posted on nick robinsons website blog today, from oct 21st, oct 22nd, oct 23rd, the head of BBC news has even had to release a statement about the bias reporting after newspapers attacked their reporting, the comments left by more than 1000 posters on that statement make interesting reading!
example 3: more biased reporting the glenrothes by-election - the BBC news and website reported that it was "a shock win for labour" and that the result "was totally unpredicted!"
yet not 3 days earlier, the BBC reported that upto 3 weeks earlier, the word was from people who worked inside the cabinet office, that labour would win it.
example 4: biased reporting again! "political pressure has persuaded the banks to pass on the full 1.5% interest rate cut!" utter tosh! the banks have only passed this on to a select band of mortgage holders and would be buyers, the vast majority will see no change in the interest rate they pay! the banks have given a little ground, mainly due to the newspapers and the campaigns they have all front paged about how they are ripping people off by not passing the cut on, which coincidently, all came out the same day as the cuts were passed onto some mortgage payers.
example 5: labour party connections to the BBC (thankyou to dirtydorothy for the list)
- Chairman Gavin Davies (later Labour adviser) - Chairman Sir Michael Lyons (previously Labour council chief) - Director General John Birt (later Labour adviser) - Director General Greg Dyke (previously Labour donor and candidate) - C.O.O Caroline Thomson (previously Roy Jenkin's aide) - Head of Political Research Bill Bush (later Labour spin doctor) - Deputy Head of Political Research Catherine Rimmer (later Labour spin doctor) - Director of Strategy Ed Richards (later Labour spin doctor) - Head of Corporate Planning James Purnell (now Labour Minister) - Head of Northern Ireland News Tom Kelly (later Labour spin doctor) - Scottish News Editor Tim Luckhurst (previously Labour spin doctor) - Political News Editor Joy Johnson (later Labour spin doctor) - Political Editor Andrew Marr (student Labour organiser) - Home News Editor Celia Barlow (now Labour MP) - Head of European Affairs Chris Bryant (now Labour MP) - Newsnight Producer Phil Woolas (now Labour Minister) - Foreign Correspondent Martin Sixsmith (later Labour spin doctor) - Current Affairs Reporter Ben Bradshaw (now Labour Minister) - Current Affairs Reporter Lance Price (later Labour spin doctor) - "Question Time" Editor Gill Penlington (previously Labour researcher)
so the next time you watch a BBC news report, just ask yourself, are they really independant and reporting the news, or are they spinning for the labour party???
