Sunday, 12 May 2013

Ice cream inflated Lolly

In the news today, well, more last week but who’s bothered.  Consumer chiefs are investigating after four British tourists paid 64 euro (£50) or ($83) for four ice cream cones in the Italian capital of Rome.

Roger Bannister and his wife, along with his brother and wife were on a short break and stopped for an ice cream at the Antica Roma ice cream parlour.  Aware of prices becoming inflated if they sat down, they cunningly ordered the ices to go.

Mr Bannister, who is a company executive from the West Midlands, said: ''They didn't even say thank you when we paid.” And added, “How can they get away with charging that much?”  The question I’m examining Roger is, how can you be that stupid?  Mr Bannister continued to be outraged by saying, “It's scandalous and should not be allowed to happen.” You allowed it to occur Roger; there was a choice you could have made other than paying the clearly inflated prices.

I’m not wishing to be unkind to Mr Bannister, as I’m the worse person for working out sums but even I would have questioned 64 Euros.  You also have to query how Mr Bannister managed to become a company executive; I can only assume that he doesn’t do his own accounts.

A staff member from the ice cream parlour, who has remained anonymous, said: ''The prices are clearly on display. They got what they asked for - four ice creams.”  Which is a fair point, a minute spent to look at the price list before proceeding with the acquisition would have saved Mr Bannister from making a national embarrassment of himself and family.

With today’s smartphone technology and internet access there is little excuse for not being able to work out the exchange rates.  The ice cream establishment and others are clearly preying on the British tradition of not complaining and charging extravagant prices. But the fact still remains that although life offers you many choices,  this was undoubtedly one of yes or no.  Simple.  

Saturday, 11 May 2013

Incredible night out

In the news today, an incredible event that took place in the city of York involving the Hulk.  North Yorkshire Police have issued a statement following an assault on a female that suffered a black eye after the green fictional monster struck.

The statement says, "At the time of the incident, the woman suspected of the assault was covered in green body paint with dyed red hair”.  It is however suspected that the green angry assailant was a female in her early 20’s around 5ft 8 in tall of a medium build.  This would immediately rule out the real incredible Hulk, as I’m sure he is much bigger and a man.

The incident took place in the early hours outside the local McDonalds restaurant and appears to have been an unprovoked attack.  Detective Constable Cheryl Hunter, who is investigating the crime said: "Thankfully the injuries were not too severe. However, the outcome could have been far more serious”.  It’s unsure from the victim as to what if anything was said during the beating, but if you’re like me you’d have wanted the words, “Don’t make me angry………” somewhere in there.

Police have asked that if anyone witnessed the occurrence and can identify the Hulk, to contact them.  I wonder how many calls they have had recognising her as the incredible Hulk?  I’m guessing her friends are keeping silent about this, maybe they were all dressed similar and to squeal on her would break the super hero’s code.

The target of this comic book attack should really think of herself to be lucky that she didn’t come up against any of the other super heroes instead of the alter ego of mild mannered scientist David Banner. The real Hulk had green hair if I remember correctly; the assailant had made the error of dying hers red, possibly down to a lack of research. If you’re going to be a gigantic, green, illuminated, mutated humanoid monster with incredible strength, and an inability to control your rage, at least get the costume right!

Saturday, 4 May 2013

Company man, forever

In the news today, a New York company has offered its staff a 15% pay raise for being tattooed with the company's logo. The brokerage firm run by Anthony Lolli says that not only does it prove the employees loyalty to the company but they receive a healthy pay increase.

So far in the last two years around forty employees have taken the plunge and been branded with the everlasting reminder of who they work for.  The company, Rapid Realty, has a logo that isn’t too offensive in that it is made up from the letters of its name and most employees are sporting it on their forearms.  It might be a different story if they worked for a contraceptive firm.

The scheme was put into motion after one employee got the tattoo to prove his devotion to the company.  A corporation logo pen neatly tucked into the shirt pocket for all to see would be a less eternal display of dedication.

I’m just wondering what would happen if the company ever went under and there would be forty unemployed branded ex devotees wandering the job centre like cult members that have lost their leader.  Maybe they could incorporate the tattoo computer chip so that they can be tracked and take another step closer to the big brother state.

When you think on one hand that Mr Lolli has increased his wages bill considerably, if you have got the perpetual company brand with you at all time, you are less likely to leave the firm, thus increasing productivity and the fortune of the aptly named Anthony Lolli.

I’m unsure that this scheme will catch on elsewhere; it is after all an extreme measure to take. I can’t see workers from McDonalds rolling up their sleeves and proudly showing off their yellow M’s, or workers from the sanitary products factory. 


Friday, 3 May 2013

Name and shame

In the news today, New Zealand are having a clampdown on new parents with the banning of certain baby names. This comes after a string of 'unsuitable' submissions to the countries births and marriages department.

Some of the recently rejected names included, Queen Victoria and the symbol '\'. Strict officials told parents it would contravene tight rules on what are considered acceptable. Other rejects include stand-alone letters that are clearly initials but do not stand for anything. 'AJ', 'MC', 'VI', 'LB' and 'CJ' were all turned down. I'm a little disappointed not to see 'BJ' to be honest.

You really have to admire some parents efforts with proposed names for their offspring and at the same time question their suitability as role models. 'Lucifer' 'Anal' and 'Mafia No Fear', funny as they are, would not produce a normal child.

The department has recently produced a banned list of names which include, '4Real' 'King' and 'Duke', the last two making the list as they could imply the child has a title. Some hard of thinking parents even wanted to call their children '2nd' or '3rd' in order of their arrival.

The most popular rejected name is 'Justice' although my absolute favourite is 'Talula Does The Hula From Hawaii', which in 2008 a court ordered had to be changed. Stating that it made the girl look foolish and would cause her embarrassment. She could have just shortened it to Hula.

At the time, the judge criticised parents who gave their children bizarre names, citing examples such as 'Number 16 Bus Shelter', 'Midnight Chardonnay' and a set of twins that were called 'Benson' and 'Hedges'. All of which are highly entertaining unless you are one of those poor unfortunate siblings.

I think the underlaying issue here is not the bizarre names but the actual suitability for these people to bring life into the world. I'm sure a child called John will have a better chance of a stable upbringing than one called Mighty Duke.

Some of my own suggestions will possibly not get past the officials but may reflect some of the parents more accurately.
Dole money, Carlsberg, McD and Workshy? Maybe not.