OT: Alcohol Prices

davmaggs

First off all this is just a press release being rehashed into a tabloid story. This type of story comes around every few months and yet when I wander the supermarket isles I'm yet to find these miracle prices on booze that average people buy.

Secondly, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first.

spen666

Chewy Cheeks wrote:

Spen

Debating the issue - fine - and its seems as thought this is where its going now.
I really understand the ouitcomes of alcohols availability

The social commentry was what gave me the pip - looking down on folk and
stereotyping.

Thank you for your kind permission to carry on this debate. i'm really grateful for your kind consent.


Social commentary? Looking down on people?

By whom exactly?

I really understand the ouitcomes of alcohols availability

If you read what I posrted, it was neither a condemnation nor support for the price of alcohol charged by Tesco. It was a comment on the contradiction between the words and deeds of Tesco.

spen666

davmaggs wrote:

First off all this is just a press release being rehashed into a tabloid story. This type of story comes around every few months and yet when I wander the supermarket isles I'm yet to find these miracle prices on booze that average people buy.

.....

So because you don't find it in your local store, its not happening?

Despite Tesco confirming they are selling the drink at this price.

rjsterry

spen666 wrote:

Chewy Cheeks wrote:

Spen

Debating the issue - fine - and its seems as thought this is where its going now.
I really understand the ouitcomes of alcohols availability

The social commentry was what gave me the pip - looking down on folk and
stereotyping.

Thank you for your kind permission to carry on this debate. i'm really grateful for your kind consent.


Social commentary? Looking down on people?

By whom exactly?

I really understand the ouitcomes of alcohols availability

If you read what I posrted, it was neither a condemnation nor support for the price of alcohol charged by Tesco. It was a comment on the contradiction between the words and deeds of Tesco.

D'you think he might have been referring to the single mum/service comments?

And you didn't really comment on it, so much as point it out. Obviously their press releases say what people want to hear and their pricing policies are more mercenary, but what do you think they or we should do about it, if anything?

Chewy Cheeks

Spen

The social commentry was by you and pasty about single mums.

Frankly it was sneering

spen666

Chewy Cheeks wrote:

Spen

The social commentry was by you and pasty about single mums.

Frankly it was sneering

Erm ever heard of humour? Some things can be said in a manner that causes amusement to some others.

clearly you have had a humour bypass and fail so spot humour or light hearted comments.

Get a sense of humour

rjsterry

spen666 wrote:

Chewy Cheeks wrote:

Spen

The social commentry was by you and pasty about single mums.

Frankly it was sneering

Erm ever heard of humour? Some things can be said in a manner that causes amusement to some others.

clearly you have had a humour bypass and fail so spot humour or light hearted comments.

Get a sense of humour

Just because you and 'some others' thought it was funny, doesn't mean you weren't sneering does it?

EDIT: Or to paraphrase your argument from another thread: just because you find it funny, doesn't mean it is funny.

Chewy Cheeks

Spen got one thanks - dont need your advice

spen666

Clearly you don't have one if you fail to distinguish an attempted humorous aside from a serious social comment

spen666

Clearly you don't have one if you fail to distinguish an attempted humorous aside from a serious social comment

lost_in_thought

Oh shush your bickering the both of you.

I don't see a problem with Tesco selling wine for £1 a bottle, but I do think it's a tad hypocritical to vocally support a ban on doing so, while doing so themselves.

The super-cheap stuff is pretty icky anyway. Sometimes OK for mulling.

spen666

lost_in_thought wrote:

....

I don't see a problem with Tesco selling wine for £1 a bottle, but I do think it's a tad hypocritical to vocally support a ban on doing so, while doing so themselves.

.....

Exactly what I was saying in my opening post

joebingo

notsoblue wrote:

spen666 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Well for me, Government = Society. I'm not sure what other power people have to defend society other than through government?

no, WE are society

What power do we have?

Public protest
Expressions of displeasure in many forms, letters, internet forums, public demonstrations etc

Protest doesn't achieve as much as you think it does. Look how many people protested against the Iraq war. Still happened... Protests and demonstrations are pointless if we don't hold our *elected representatives* to account for issues that really matter. Its only at elections that we really have any power.

no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no.

You think an election really changes anything? The power is, and always has been with the people. Our elected representatives have made it quite clear in recent years that their policies revolve around making money from FPN's and protecting the profit margins of the big banks by not holding anyone but the public to account for the credit crunch. Protest doesn't achieve much because the people are quite happy to sit inside, eat crap food in front of X Factor/Strictly &c. The apathy frustrates me, I've not found anyone I know who supports the Iraq/Afghan wars, but everyone is just accepting it?!? Mostly because of heavy handed police at protests, unlawfully detaining crowds, unlawfully breaking up protests and even killing people who just happen to be in the area.

In recent years, what has the government done to really gain your trust? My question doesn't actually take into account ruling parties because they're all the same. Supposedly they're answerable to the electorate, but they're not. They're answerable to the people they owe money to. And there's the inherent flaw in Capitalism.

£1.11 for a bottle of wine? Bargain!!!!

spen666

Re Notsoblue - protest achieves nothing? - Remember the Poll Tax?

lost_in_thought

spen666 wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

....

I don't see a problem with Tesco selling wine for £1 a bottle, but I do think it's a tad hypocritical to vocally support a ban on doing so, while doing so themselves.

.....

Exactly what I was saying in my opening post

It's like you're giving us essay titles, Spen.

'Tesco are selling wine for £1 a bottle while supporting a ban on doing so. Discuss.'

Doing an A-Level in ethics?

davis

Crowd-sourcing ethics is morally wrong. Discuss.

spen666

lost_in_thought wrote:

spen666 wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

....

I don't see a problem with Tesco selling wine for £1 a bottle, but I do think it's a tad hypocritical to vocally support a ban on doing so, while doing so themselves.

.....

Exactly what I was saying in my opening post

It's like you're giving us essay titles, Spen.

'Tesco are selling wine for £1 a bottle while supporting a ban on doing so. Discuss.'

Doing an A-Level in ethics?

A levels?

Did my last A level when the miners were on strike

Oh and I didn't actually ask any of you to discuss or comment on it. Your choice to post or not


PS can you all sign a waiver please to enable me to include your comments in my thesis

davmaggs

spen666 wrote:

davmaggs wrote:

First off all this is just a press release being rehashed into a tabloid story. This type of story comes around every few months and yet when I wander the supermarket isles I'm yet to find these miracle prices on booze that average people buy.

.....

So because you don't find it in your local store, its not happening?

Despite Tesco confirming they are selling the drink at this price.

My point is that it's just a press release. They publicise a limited run of some gut rot, the tabloids publish it and the supermarket gets punters thinking they have cheap deals. Except they either aren't actually widely available or they'd never be bought by someone who isn't verging on skidrow.

A few months ago it was all "pint of beer only x pence at supermarkets". Again, where was this cheap beer? No actual source listed and still the meme gets repeated again and again across the outraged minority and talk radio.

Whilst there may be an issue worth debating, you are falling for the PR by repeating this wine offer. They want you to.

spen666

davmaggs wrote:

spen666 wrote:

davmaggs wrote:

First off all this is just a press release being rehashed into a tabloid story. This type of story comes around every few months and yet when I wander the supermarket isles I'm yet to find these miracle prices on booze that average people buy.

.....

So because you don't find it in your local store, its not happening?

Despite Tesco confirming they are selling the drink at this price.

My point is that it's just a press release. They publicise a limited run of some gut rot, the tabloids publish it and the supermarket gets punters thinking they have cheap deals. Except they either aren't actually widely available or they'd never be bought by someone who isn't verging on skidrow.

A few months ago it was all "pint of beer only x pence at supermarkets". Again, where was this cheap beer? No actual source listed and still the meme gets repeated again and again across the outraged minority and talk radio.

Whilst there may be an issue worth debating, you are falling for the PR by repeating this wine offer. They want you to.

So we better not debate ethics or discuss the immoral or otherwise behaviour of big companies because it might get them publicity.

Bet you would have said the same re discussing behaviour of Germany in 1930s - better not discuss it, it will only give them publicity.

I'm sure McDonalds and the McLibel case was a great example of how discussing unethical behaviour helped McDonalds

davmaggs

Ahh a variant on goodwin's law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

What you can do is to not include a PR link in the original post, and therefore not give hits (and profit) to the tabloid involved.

spen666

davmaggs wrote:

Ahh a variant on goodwin's law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

What you can do is to not include a PR link in the original post, and therefore not give hits (and profit) to the tabloid involved.

Then everyone immediately either
a) accuses you of making it up OR
b) asks for your source of information

Porgy

spen666 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

...

Of course theres conflict, any promotion of social responsibility is just PR. Profit is their bottom line, not social welfare. They function within the framework of laws and regulations set by the government. I don't think you can ever really expect a business to behave ethically. Its the government's job to make sure that their profit making isn't socially detrimental.

i'd argue it is society's job to do this (except that Margaret abolished society didn't she?). We all need to act to defend society from the excesses of profit driven businesses.

i thought we elected governemnt's to carry out society's will. :?

How - spen - do you suggest we act if it's not through our elected representatives?

spen666

Porgy wrote:

spen666 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

...

Of course theres conflict, any promotion of social responsibility is just PR. Profit is their bottom line, not social welfare. They function within the framework of laws and regulations set by the government. I don't think you can ever really expect a business to behave ethically. Its the government's job to make sure that their profit making isn't socially detrimental.

i'd argue it is society's job to do this (except that Margaret abolished society didn't she?). We all need to act to defend society from the excesses of profit driven businesses.

i thought we elected governemnt's to carry out society's will. :?

How - spen - do you suggest we act if it's not through our elected representatives?

Plenty of ways - protest by demonstration, expressing views via media, internet etc. Refusing to shop/ do business with companies whose acts you disagree with - eg the boycotts of Barclays Shell etc in the past

Revolution?

rjsterry

You've suggested what we might do about it - not shop there - but you still haven't actually said what you think you should do about it spen. Their press releases contradict their pricing policies, but so what? Is this particularly unusual behaviour for any large business, much less Tesco?[/i]

spen666

rjsterry wrote:

You've suggested what we might do about it - not shop there - but you still haven't actually said what you think you should do about it spen. Their press releases contradict their pricing policies, but so what? Is this particularly unusual behaviour for any large business, much less Tesco?[/i]

I am not suggesting to anyone to not shop there. I was answering a question about what people can do if they disagree with a company's actions.

As I do not shop at a Tesco anyway, I will boycott of the store in protest. I'm sure they will notice the loss of my annual £0 custom :oops:

Why don't I shop there? i prefer the products at other places

Porgy

spen666 wrote:

Porgy wrote:

spen666 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

...

Of course theres conflict, any promotion of social responsibility is just PR. Profit is their bottom line, not social welfare. They function within the framework of laws and regulations set by the government. I don't think you can ever really expect a business to behave ethically. Its the government's job to make sure that their profit making isn't socially detrimental.

i'd argue it is society's job to do this (except that Margaret abolished society didn't she?). We all need to act to defend society from the excesses of profit driven businesses.

i thought we elected governemnt's to carry out society's will. :?

How - spen - do you suggest we act if it's not through our elected representatives?

Plenty of ways - protest by demonstration, expressing views via media, internet etc. Refusing to shop/ do business with companies whose acts you disagree with - eg the boycotts of Barclays Shell etc in the past

Revolution?

but most of that would be to bring about a change in legislation - usually backed by government

corporate boycotts by themselves change little or nothing in the long term - and I should know - was involved in a few in my early days of politics.

and revolution? - well isn;t that bringing about a change of government from one that isn't supported by the masses to one that is (ideally) - so it's still down to govenrment acting in the end.

rjsterry

spen666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

You've suggested what we might do about it - not shop there - but you still haven't actually said what you think you should do about it spen. Their press releases contradict their pricing policies, but so what? Is this particularly unusual behaviour for any large business, much less Tesco?[/i]

I am not suggesting to anyone to not shop there. I was answering a question about what people can do if they disagree with a company's actions.

potayto poytahto.

As I do not shop at a Tesco anyway, I will boycott of the store in protest. I'm sure they will notice the loss of my annual £0 custom :oops:

Why don't I shop there? i prefer the products at other places

So the issue doesn't really bother you, you were just bringing it to our attention, and you don't shop there anyway. Ummm...OK.

spen666

There is nothing wrong with change supported by the Government. The poll tax demos led the government to change the law on local taxation from what they preferred to the current system. The government acted because of the actions of the people.

I'm sure the current government would love to cut NHS spending, but haven't because of public pressure.

Corporate boycotts DO WORK, they need enough people to support them. If they do not have sufficient support, then that is a lesson in itself.

Revolution was not a serious suggestion (unless you are French).

Without revolution, then all change must be backed by government. however, its the people who can shape the government opinion/ policy by letting their views be known.

spen666

rjsterry wrote:

....



So the issue doesn't really bother you, you were just bringing it to our attention, and you don't shop there anyway. Ummm...OK.

You are inventing things here.

I have never said the issue doesn't bother me. i would not have posted on here if I was not bothered about it.

I am not directly affected by the proposed stoning to death of that lady in Iran. I am not likely to ever go to Iran. That does not stop the issue bothering me or me raising it in appropriate forums. Its the same here. Its not about where you shop, its the actions of the company.

The issue here is the manipulation of public opinion and the contradiction of what is said and what is being done. Tesco are not the only company that have done this, but they are the current example, hence why I referred to it

rjsterry

spen666 wrote:

There is nothing wrong with change supported by the Government. The poll tax demos led the government to change the law on local taxation from what they preferred to the current system. The government acted because of the actions of the people.

I'm sure the current government would love to cut NHS spending, but haven't because of public pressure.

Corporate boycotts DO WORK, they need enough people to support them. If they do not have sufficient support, then that is a lesson in itself.

Revolution was not a serious suggestion (unless you are French).

Without revolution, then all change must be backed by government. however, its the people who can shape the government opinion/ policy by letting their views be known.

There's also the Lumley Effect - recruit a sufficiently well-liked public person, who can 'have a word' with the particular decision makers, and you can jump to the front of the queue as it were.