Horrors of Open Plan Offices

Whoever invented the open plan office needs a good kicking. I'm sure they are probably hiding under a table somewhere, in a conventional office. Because if they had any brains they'd realise there was a hit list and this is one individual who must be near the top. If not on the top, even, in doing a Google search there is some vagueness as to the original inventor. The word "architect" crops up.  Yes those people who design things for others but don't give a damn about the results, otherwise they would of designed them better in the first place and worked or lived in the places they designed. The hypocrisy is they don't.

Open plan offices are a cauldron of noise, they are unbelievably difficult to concentrate in, because there is always some idiot who speaks up loud or because of their own insecurities and psychologically unbalanced mind desperately seek attention. In the open plan office they can get all the attention they want.  Whether this is in talking about what they saw on TV, their pets, their family, sports.  The subject is irrelevant.  This is probably the biggest bugbear of any open plan office. Some employees need for silence to do calculations, read, or undertake any complex task requiring concentration it's essential. The open plan office takes this away.  Those individuals who have these difficult tasks are then under stress and strain, not just to do their work but also not to make mistakes. It's not like they are colouring in a picture by numbers, what they are doing is difficult and their need for clarity is essential.  Therefore mistakes happen and in business those mistakes can cost money.  Whilst an employer may see the advantage of cramming in employees tight like battery hens, they rather not consider these other costs.

It is mind boggling how employers mix functions of office workers under the open plan office. When mixed all out office war can take place. For example, a group of people who are constantly on the telephone should not be put next to a group who barely use the phone.  It is as though the telephone users intentionally want to stop or harass the non users from doing their work. Their job involves communication, not thinking and there is a blindness to understanding someone else may need to concentrate. They talk normally or loudly, they don't try to subdue their voice.  They fail to understand or see the effect of verbal diarrhoea.

In an open plan office individual's are more likely to be interrupted while they work. They are seen not just as sitting at a desk and getting on with the job, they are seen as available to others. Available to be spoken to, when they would rather just get on with it.  Some people also can not help but talk while they work, and try and engage others in what they are doing. Like the telephone employees it's as though they are looking for approval, as they discuss items or work. By discussion they take away their own decision making process, they share it. If uncomfortable in making a decision or because they don't have confidence in their own abilities. These people are a hindrance as they are being overpaid, and not doing the job they should be doing. But they are human beings, and it could be the personal need for social contact which makes them this way. Especially if they don't get the chance to speak to others outside of the workplace.

Hot desking. This is another useless concept bought in by employers with the advent of open plan offices in a way to reduce costs. No office worker has a dedicated desk, they may have an area but not a dedicated desk. Unless it so happens they have a disability. Then they do have a dedicated desk. However, by dedicating a desk to this individual there then becomes less choice for the remaining hot desking employees to sit anywhere else.

Windows. In the open plan office when one person opens a window the draught is felt fifty metres away in another part of the office which may be quite a bit cooler. On account of convection currents and sun light streaming through the window. Further to this some office workers like a little bit of air and may have a high body temperature, whereas those who like as much warmth as possible because they enjoy a hotter climate don't like the window open.

It is with a great deal of irony how open plan office may even be cited with architectural awards. Awards for all kinds of reasons, the most natural light, the most eco friendly, the most sociable, however the one thing they should be given an award for they are not. This is as suitable places to work in. The employees end up facing the brunt of it them.  This especially goes for the newer offices. The ones where the toilets never work properly, the air conditioning is ineffective or only effective in a certain part of the building so every other employee is baked like a jacket potato, or worse frozen. Lets not forget to mention how it is employers think when a lot of their employees are crammed into an open plan office those employees will require less stationary, or less toilet roll than they did previously.

The resounding effect of open plan offices is a great deal more stress and a reduction in productivity. You can tell the employer to you are blue in the face, but they don't hear.  At which the whip is cracked and you're asked why an urgent piece of work has not been actioned.  Oops, as you think back to a piece of paper which happened to be handy while sitting on the crapper.

Truthfully, open plan offices stink, in more than one way.

The British Class System

There has always been a class struggle in the UK. To state otherwise is being blind. The worst part about this struggle is how the entire British population are blamed for the sins of only a select few. What always comes to mind is the old colonial British Empire. The lust for greed and riches from far off lands wasn't something the general British people wanted to do. It was a sense of dominance carried by the upper-class elite. It was also these person who reaped the benefits of pillaging the British Empire. Not ordinary working class struggling Joe Bloggs. When I look at the way some continents view the UK I can see their envy and hatred. It is deep seated in how the British came to their lands and took. Yet, were they to see the poverty suffered by the lower and working classes of the UK at the time there might be some sympathy.  To imagine a hundred or two hundred years ago the general populace of the UK were ill educated, poor and mere plebs to the rest of society. We were no more enlightened than the general populace of say Pakistan or India now. Or even those poor subservient classes of China.  It is only those who see themselves above the rest of us who gained by keeping everyone in their place. Like the Indian caste system. A very similar societal norm was indigenous to the UK. But this is not elaborated on in history books and clues can be gathered from political history. From the Labour movement, from equal rights and one vote for each adult, regardless of gender.

So in today's modern UK we see a threat from terrorists and extremists who perceive us as rich, slovenly and  decadent, but are so wrong. Were they to know and understand how tough it has been for common society and the worker, the poverty stricken they might feel different.  Education can be a leveller, just as can be winning the lottery. Unfortunately for the most of us the common threads of society, NHS, education, politics are all being butchered.  Eaten away by economic cuts, moves to the centre ground and meddling politicians who think they know better how to organize something than the experts. Lastly not forgetting the cauldron of religion which acts to segregate the peoples further. Multi social groupings don't work, multi culturalism is a fragile concept which again can be torn to pieces by the want of poverty and a voice.

Maybe the ideals of communism would be an answer to it all. But then maybe not just as Animal Farm portrayed. Inherently human beings are selfish, whether they're on two legs or four.  An societies are divided by classes, classes which will always be salient and tangible.  The class system is here to stay regardless of what is ever thought, written or deliberated. Accept it and get on with it.

Amazon, they don't just screw the Taxman

Here is one of those bugbears which can make you go absolutely crazy and demand real justice. It's one of the most loved internet shopping sites in the world, Amazon. In the last few days it has come to be found of over four billion pounds of sales, the actual tax paid by Amazon was about 0.1 %, and it received more in the way of UK government grants than it paid in tax. This is one of the biggest growing companies in the world and they screw over the Taxman. Now when it is a run of the mill ordinary individual who manages to get away without paying a little tax, you might think well good for them. As long as this is not an everyday thing they do, as long as it is proportionate. But celebrities, rock stars, comedians, footballers, actors who do it, well they deserve the full weight of the law against them.  In a similar sense the same should happen with Amazon.  But this isn't new news, it had been common knowledge for some time, but the enormous scale of tax avoidance they are using means this is not just despicable, it is a wanton criminal act.

It is tax which pays for the services to the country. Tax pays for hospitals, fire  brigades, doctors, nurses, police, local amenities, such as parks and play grounds for children. Tax helps pay for Universities, it is through tax the jobless and disabled get welfare benefits given to them and because of tax pensioners have a state retirement pension. So when I purchase goods of Amazon I am effectively getting a slightly cheaper item but taken into account the tax which is not being paid and hence the profits Amazon is making, I am losing out. The country is losing out, every child, man, woman who uses a service which has been paid by taxpayers money loses out. Amazon are not just screwing the tax-man they are defecating on every ordinary individual who buys goods from them. By getting grants from the government higher than the tax they pay Amazon is in effect participating in legalised immoral theft. So Amazon, do you think the public will let you get away with it?

This is a pertinent question.  Personally since December 2012, I have not purchased a single item of Amazon. I've checked over my last year's worth of bank statements, as I didn't have much to do at the time, and there nearly every month there had been some kind of purchase through Amazon.  In the last year these purchases were over a thousand pounds.  I am just one individual. Now if this were to be multiplied by a few more individuals Amazon would find it does not pay to shit at the same table you eat from, which they now do everyday.  The last book I bought I got through a high street shop a couple of weeks ago. Now I intend to use high street shops or UK proper tax paying businesses for any purchase I'd of normally bought through Amazon.

My advice.  Don't just sit there and click on their web site, get up, go out, and spend your money somewhere else. It might cost a couple of quid more, but in the whole scheme of things it will be money spent to support your own country, not to furnish the pockets of an organization which allegedly is based in Luxembourg.

Galloway chastises the BBC

The continuing saga of Maggie Thatcher's demise continues.  Fortunately after tomorrow it can all be forgotten and the incident brushed under the carpet. It has been made into something disproportionately more important than it is. This sentiment was echoed eloquently by George Galloway in a 4 minute interview on the BBC today. He rightly voice how the BBC refused to play the full song "The Witch is Dead," and this was the only means the public had to demonstrate their view of this woman. It seems the entire divisive debate has as much venom in it as the great debate of whether Royalty actually has a place in society today. There are those ultra right wing people who no doubt bow down to both Royalty and will be shedding a tear for Thatcher as well. As Galloways said, Thatcher decimated the mining communities and industry in the UK was cut back by a third. The wake of her rule is still being felt. George also considered it sanctimonious and vile ten million pounds should be spent on her funeral. This is a significant point.

If public funds are being spent on an event then every member of the public has a right to comment or make judgement on it. Whether it is a good comment or a disliked comment. In this case it is because a woman died and there is a notion of politeness to never say bad things about those who have died. Yet, dictators and tyrants have died around the world and it has not stopped news broadcasters from still talking badly of those same persons. Simply if someone dies it doesn't make them any better in life.  We are remembered for what we did and the impact on other peoples lives. If there are persons who felt they were not treated with respect then or had an negative experience I don't see why they should be muffled in their opinions. There are many people in this country who will view Thatcher as a tyrant. There are no doubt families who have loved ones who passed away because of the effects which had reverberated through the policies Thatcher advocated.  Were it possible to weigh on a set of scales the number of lives saved against the number of lives lost through government policy, then Thatcher's scales would be more heavily with lives lost.  There is a public right to speak out when public money is spent and it is unjustified. Tomorrow will certainly be such an occasion.

Galloway on this occasion has expressed a general sentiment which a large proportion of the country agree with. It is wholly unfortunate it had to be Galloway who was given air time to say it and no other more respectable MP had. Galloway will say anything to get into the media and to get a gathering. As someone once said to me who knows of Galloway, "George is only concerned about George."  Politics has made him, popular, wealthy and possibly even given him some status. One thing is for sure though, I know he would not of got on with the Old Witch.

Ding Dong the Witch is Dead

The legacy of our the late Maggie Thatcher is now ensuring she will live in perpetuity in the history of UK politics. Even in death she has managed to create a stir. This time it is because her supporters have protested against a chart hit from being played in full on the BBC.  It is of course "Ding Dong The Witch is Dead" and it has become a massive download hit on the internet. As internet sales now count this song is fully representative of what the public consider to be contemporary music. Publicly this song has so much backing it is now a hit, yet a small group of Thatcher supporters think it is inappropriate. If this is the case then I can not help why did these opposing supporters not create an alternative hit by purchasing an different song. There quite clearly is not as much support as publicly they acclaim there is. Ding Dong the Witch is Dead, therefore will not be played in full by the BBC, they will play only a few seconds of the song.  The BBC is bowing down. In retort I expect there will be a few complaints from those people who believe it should be playing the entire song, personally I am considering where I stand on this issue. Tory voters will state there is a small minority of people who are rejoicing at her passing, but this can not be true otherwise Ding Dong the Witch is Dead would not of be where it is now.

Maggie Thatcher was not the iconic image of what a powerful woman should be. She was the first woman Prime Minister, an achievement. How she presented herself as a leader was tough but exceptionally divisive. I ask was it necessary to be a person who talked down on people, who demeaned them and came across as a bully?  Maggie manipulated the female vote for her own needs, to get herself voted in. She hoodwinked women using gender as an issue, playing on their naivety not on her politics. Many women voted her in just because she was female and they wanted to show the country a woman could do better.  Now a great many women have regretted they did so, Thatcher's policies ripped apart the nation as they accentuated the class divide.  Further the currying favour with the notion we live in a classless society, we don't. Society by it's very nature will always be class driven and those classes will change, as it is a concept with cloud like manoeuvrability, the wind blows it from one place to another. To an extent, Maggie was an opportunist, she was in the right place at the right time, but she did work hard to be there and to be in the seat of power. Famously she said she lived of only four hours sleep a night. Keeping up with politics is a 24 hour job, or rather 20 hour job. No other politician is said to have been as informed as she was. Pity she was not informed of the devastation and poverty she caused the lower and working classes.

So Ding Dong the Witch is Dead has just as valuable and iconic a place in contempary history as does the passing of the Iron Lady, the two are compatible and useful in understanding two sides of a coin.

Thatcher her legacy not

The media has taken a genuflect as news of Margaret Thatcher's death hit the headlines. What is most annoying is the sentiment of not talking harsh of the dead. They go on about her achievements, what she did for the country as though everything Thatcher stood for was great, as though she was the greatest thing since sliced bread. This she certainly was not. The reality is for those working classes who lived through her reign, and it really was very much an autocratic reign, hardship, depression and subjugation took place. She was a bully, she stood for the rich and hated the poor. Everything she did had a secondary or tertiary reason behind it. She completely hoodwinked the Americans as well. They too have some kind of fake notion Thatcher was great, however, considering they voted in Ronald Reagan at the same time Thatcher was around, and we all know Reagan had the start of Altzhiemers, then it goes to show their voting public were no better than the voters of the UK.  A great many women voted Thatcher in because she was a woman, and they didn't take heed to her political persuasion or the symbolism of her handbag being as representative as Hitler's moustache. They were misguided. British people voted Thatcher in because it was the 80s and during the 80s the economy was going great. They had money and aspirations to be rich and better than their parents.  Voting for Thatcher was saying they were not just on the up, they were aspiring. It was yet again another symbolic act of stupidity.

Thatcher it is known had so many arguments with her own cabinet over her entire tenure all except one member changed (Hestleltine). There was only one way to run the country and it was her way. With her never against her. She was known as the Iron Lady for good reason. Thatcher's third term of government was a chance event which she is forever indebted to Argentina and the invasion of the Falklands.  Thatcher showed she could be the female version of Churchill after all, something every Prime Minister loves is a little war, because it  immortalises them in history.  Tony Blair was the same when he sided with America in a cynical special relationship to hit Iraq.  He pulled out all the legal stops and interpretations of international law to allow joining in.  Of course the fact he got on charmingly with Bush about as moronic as Reagan is serendipitous fortune again. Thatcher got on well with Pinochet, the Chilean president, the dictator who killed thousands of his own people. Thatcher got on so well with him because he provided radar coverage while the fight back of the Falklands took place. Then of course when he needed an operation and had been exiled she let him come here so he could get fixed up and ensured the international courts did not arrest him.

They say Thatcher saved the UK billions of pounds in the agreements she fought against EU agreements.  But it was her predecessor Heath who put the UK in the common market in the first place. She was only fixing a bad deal he'd set up. In Thatcher's relationships with oil rich states, her son Mark (now knighted) was allowed to broker arms deals as a middle man and syphon off a few million into his own bank accounts.  While he wasn't getting lost in his car over the sand dunes. Thatcher introduced the right-to-buy scheme, so Council tenants could purchase their own homes with great big discounts.  The reason for this was to aid her friend in Westminster Baroness Shirley Porter (Tesco heir) and she changed the voting boundaries to ensure more Tory MPs won seats. Then those council houses left Local Authority housing stock and were sold off by people who couldn't afford them and made a quick buck, only for the same individuals to go running back to their Council's asking to be re-housed yet again.There was no additional social housing built as compensation. She also introduced the Poll Tax, a local taxation system as a way to fund Local Authorities. Rather than this being based on rateable values of houses it was based on individual adults. Millions in public funds was lost as people disappeared and could not be traced.

When Thatcher came into power there was one resounding effect of her leadership. Poor people go even poorer. It was hard times. She sold off British institutions to keep the economy afloat.  She sold back to the people those assets they already owned.  British Rail, British Gas, British Telecom. Her running of the economy encouraged Building Societies to turn into banks, carpet bagging became a common term. Greed was in the air, the entire country became morally self centred. And the richer and more powerful an individual the greater their riches and power became. She believed in de-regulation and banks got bigger and greedy, Building Societies were carpet bagged and made into banks just so the members could make a quick pound or two. All the money of which went back into the economy as poor people are more likely to spend money. But the security of the Building Societies was lost. The few remaining today stand firm while today's biggest banks are owned by the tax payer. Saved from failure because as private institutions they could not be allowed to go bankrupt.

Thatcher went out of her way to break the unions, to break down terms and conditions of employment which had taken decades to achieve. The contract between employer and employee returned back to that of slave and master. She devastated the coal mining industry. Coal which today could be used to independently fuel fire stations, instead disused and now inaccessible mines have decayed. Today we import 50 million tons of it, it is a travesty of disproportionate amounts.  Depression hit the North, it hit every working family and it made all slaves to her ideology. At the start of Thatcher's tenure in office (1979) inflation was 13.4 per cent, when she left it was 9.5 per cent. Not a great change, it dipped and it peaked, she epitomises no special qualities as a Prime Minster by continuing the boom and bust of our economy. Let us not forget as well how it was her government which removed free milk to children in schools.  A supplement to children's nourishment, Thatcher, Thatcher the milk snatcher. Another reason why amongst the poor she is hated.

I hear in some parts of the country there were celebrations. Something I can very much understand as a reasonable reaction. Therefore in consideration of a multitude of events there are some pretty good reasons the late Thatcher should not be given a state funeral. She was not loved by the entire country, and only historically will her value be impartially interpreted.

Murderers Cherelle McKenzie-Jackson and Marc Tulloch

I have just read an article about the teenage murderers: Cherelle McKenzie-Jackson, 14 and Marc Tulloch, 17. In yet an another incidence of moronic behaviour they killed a boy who was playing football. The victim was Junior Nkwelle, 15.  Cherelle apparently did not like the way Junior had spoken to her, she felt aggrieved, so aggrieved in fact she decided Junior had to pay for his behaviour. For some reason Cherelle believed she was special and if insulted by another teenager they should pay for it. Junior paid for it when Marc Tulloch stabbed him in the chest to appease his girl friend Cherelle. It is another act of mindless violence and mindless disregard for life.  No doubt both Cherelle and Marc had no consideration for consequences. This seems to be a common thing with teenagers. Junior was not considered as a human being, he was not considered to be the son, nephew or brother of another person. He was not thought of for the good deeds he had done during his life which Cherelle and Marc were not aware of.  He was evaluated by a judge and jury of only two people, two teenage kids full of ignorance and self worth.  Remarkably these two murderers were not sentenced to murder but rather man slaughter, when this vengeful act was actually premeditated. Cherelle set the whole thing up. In view of this their sentences would seem pretty light Cherelle got 8 years and Marc 10 years. However, they will only serve half this time.

There may have been a degree of verbal provocation, but verbal provocation is something every person must live with during their entire life. It happens every day. Normal people learn if they are provoked to use many different strategies. Walking away, verbal argument, physical violence which is non fatal, verbal reasoning, humour and laughter. The list of coping strategies is endless, it is as imaginative as a human being can be. Whilst the solution from Cherelle and Marc was probably the least imaginative of all.

I am always saddened whenever I read the news about teenagers who are murdered or who are killers and take no responsibility or thought about what they have done. I am saddened to yet again read of this happening in London. On a housing estate (Loughborough Estate) in Lambeth South London. It is an area which suffers from poverty, it has both gangs and drugs issues. It is in fact a common factor of many housing estates in London.  With poverty there is ignorance as well.  It is poor kids killing poor kids, because I never hear of rich kids killing rich kids in the same way. 

Poor late Junior had his life ahead of him, he could of expected to live another 60 or 70 years, had a girlfriend and got married and had a family. Junior and his parents will never see what his sons or daughters would of been like. How he could of enriched this planet. In the meantime Cherelle and Marc will likely serve a total of 9 years and then be let free.  It seems in such instances life is cheap. Both sentences should of been double. Maybe they will come out of prison having learnt something, but at that time they will still both be pretty young, well at least they have time to think about consequences. If that is they do.