Fat tax

Ryanair proposes 'fat tax' for obese passengers
Budget airline considers extra charge for overweight after a third of travellers back idea in survey

Not content with plans to scrap check-in desks, charge passengers for using toilets and clobber customers with a £30 charge if their duty free won't fit into their hand luggage, Ryanair has hit on a new scheme for increasing revenue: a so-called fat tax for overweight travellers.

In what appears as much a ruse to gain publicity as a serious policy, the Irish-based budget carrier said today it would impose an as yet undecided extra levy on passengers who weigh considerably more than average.

The charge, which could fall foul of discrimination laws before it ever takes effect, was proposed following a poll of passengers on the airline's website. It attracted more votes than other ideas, including a €1 levy to use onboard toilet paper, which would have the face of the airline's famously pugnacious chief executive, Michael O'Leary, printed on it. The fat tax gathered nearly a third of all the votes.

The airline now plans to poll passengers on how the charge should be calculated, with ideas including a per-kilo levy for all men weighing more than 130kg (20 stone) and women more than 100kg, or a fixed penalty if a passenger's waist touches both neighbouring armrests at the same time.

"In all cases we've limits at very high levels so that a 'fat tax' will only apply to those really large passengers who invade the space of the passengers sitting beside them," said Stephen McNamara of the airline.

"These charges, if introduced, might also act as an incentive to some of our very large passengers to lose a little weight and hopefully feel a little lighter and healthier."

Several US airlines already oblige very obese passengers who spill over into neighbouring seats to buy a second seat in some cases. Earlier this month, United Airlines said it would do so for travellers whose size made them "infringe on another guest's seat".

Source: The Guardian

Ever gloomier economic outlook

World growth 'worst for 60 years'

World economic growth is set to fall to just 0.5% this year, its lowest rate since World War II, warns the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

In October, the IMF had predicted world output would increase by 2.2% in 2009.

It now projects the UK, which recently entered recession, will see its economy shrink by 2.8% next year, the worst contraction among advanced nations.

The IMF says financial markets remain under stress and the global economy has taken a "sharp turn for the worse".

In another gloomy view of the UK economy, the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) said Britain would be saddled with government debt for more than 20 years.

IFS director Robert Chote warned that spending would have to be cut or taxes raised by more than planned to allow public finances to recover.

The predictions came as Pascal Lamy, the director general of the World Trade Organization, urged countries not to react to the global economic crisis by resorting to protectionism.

Speaking from the World Economic Forum in Davos, Mr Lamy said such a move would be "a big mistake".

'Virtual halt'

According to the IMF, the outcome of the economic slowdown has been to send global output and trade plummeting.

"We now expect the global economy to come to a virtual halt," said IMF chief economist Olivier Blanchard in a statement.

The IMF says that despite a number of policy moves, which have been carried out by many states, financial strains remain.

International co-operation is needed now to draw up new policy initiatives, and for capital injections to support "viable financial institutions".

Meanwhile, it predicts that the eurozone economy is poised to shrink by 2.0% in 2009 and the US economy by 1.6%.

Banking crisis

The report comes on the same day the International Labour Organization said that as many as 51 million jobs worldwide could be lost this year because of the global economic crisis.

It had been hoped that growth in developing nations would continue at a steady pace and help offset the recession in developed nations such as the US and UK.

But the seemingly endless crisis in the banking system has put paid to that notion.

Countries such as China are now struggling with a collapse in demand from their primary export markets.

Meanwhile, developed economies such as Japan, Spain, the US and UK are in recession, with new job losses being announced on a daily basis.

'Uncertainty'

The IMF says that growth in emerging and developing economies is expected to slow sharply, from 6.25% in 2008 to 3.25% in 2009.

It cites the main reasons for the drop as being falling export demand, lower commodity prices and much tighter external financing constraints.

The IMF points out that policy efforts to tackle the downturn so far - such as liquidity support, deposit insurance and recapitalisation - have been drawn up to address the immediate threats to financial stability.

However, it says that these emergency measures "have done little to resolve the uncertainty about the long-term solvency of financial institutions".

"The process of loss recognition and restructuring of bad loans is still incomplete," says the IMF's World Economic Outlook Update.

'Bad bank'

The IMF says future co-ordinated financial policies should concentrate on recognising the scale of financial institutions' losses and on providing public support to those institutions that are viable.

"Such policies should be supported by measures to resolve insolvent banks and set up public agencies to dispose of the bad debts, including possibly through a 'bad bank' approach, while safeguarding public resources."

The IMF says the global economy is projected to experience a gradual recovery in 2010, with growth picking up to 3%.

"However, the outlook is highly uncertain, and the timing and pace of the recovery depend critically on strong policy actions," it warns.

Source: BBC News

English language domination

New lingua franca upsets French

That the French resent the global supremacy of the English language is nothing new, but as Hugh Schofield finds out, a newly evolved business-speak version is taking over.

They were giving out the annual Prix de la Carpette Anglaise the other day. Literally it means the English Rug Prize, but doormat would be the better translation.

As the citation explains, the award goes to the French person or institution who has given the best display of "fawning servility" to further the insinuation into France of the accursed English language.

Among the runners-up this year: the supermarket company Carrefour ­which changed the name of its Champion chain of stores to Carrefour Market, not using the French word "marche".

Also the provocatively-named Paris band Nelson (it is the Admiral, not Mr Mandela, that they have in mind) whose frontman J.B. sings in English because, he says, French does not have the right cadences for true rock.

Worst offender

But topping the poll for grave disservices to the mother tongue is France's higher education minister, Valerie Pecresse.

Her crime: proclaiming to the press that she had no intention of speaking French when attending European meetings in Brussels, because, she said, it was quite obvious that English was now the easiest mode of communication.

The rise and rise of the English language is a sensitive subject for many here in France, who believe that French has every bit as much right to be considered a global tongue.

Even conceding to English victory in the war for linguistic supremacy, the French believe that the least they can do is defend their own territory and keep the ghastly invader at a decent remove.

The same group that sponsors the Prix de la Carpette also brings legal actions against companies that, it says, breach the law, for example, by not issuing French language versions of instructions to staff.

Personally, I sympathise greatly with defenders of the French language. I think it is true that culturally the world will be diminished if one monolithic form of discourse squashes the rest. But then I am also a realist.

Recently I have spent a lot of time in French multinational companies, and what is inescapable is the stranglehold that English already has on the world of business here.

French executives draft reports, send e-mails, converse with their international colleagues - and increasingly even amongst themselves - in English.

It is of course a kind of bastardised, runty form of business-speak full of words like "drivers" and "deliverables" and "outcomes" to be "valorised", but is nonetheless quite definitely not French.

New language

This brings me to Jean-Paul Nerriere.

Monsieur Nerriere is a retired French businessman who one day in the course of his work made a fascinating observation.

In a meeting with colleagues from around the world, including an Englishman, a Korean and a Brazilian, he noticed that he and the other non-native English speakers were communicating in a form of English that was completely comprehensible to them, but which left the Englishman nonplussed.

He, Jean-Paul Nerriere, could talk to the Korean and the Brazilian in this neo-language, and they could understand each other perfectly.

But the Englishman was left out because his language was too subtle, too full of meaning that could not be grasped by the others.

In other words, Monsieur Nerriere concluded, a new form of English is developing around the world, used by people for whom it is their second language.

It may not be the most beautiful of tongues, but in this day and age he says it is indispensible. He calls the language Globish and urges everyone - above all the French - to learn it tout de suite.

In his book Don't Speak English, Parlez Globish, Monsieur Nerriere sets out the rules.

Globish has only 1,500 words and users must avoid humour, metaphor, abbreviation and anything else that can cause cross-cultural confusion.

They must speak slowly and in short sentences. Funnily enough, he holds up the late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat as an excellent exponent.

Many in France consider Monsieur Nerriere a traitor for promoting the dreaded Anglais, but he insists he is not.

He says the French have to recognise that the language war is lost.

"We're just urinating on the ashes of the fire," he says. We should look on Globish not as a triumphant cultural vehicle for les Anglo-Saxons, but as a tool, he says: essential but purely utilitarian.

For lovers of English there is another consideration, only half-serious I admit. But what if this were all a devious Gallic plot?

After all, if Globish really does take over the planet with its stunted business-speak, its bland insignificance, its cultureless access-for-all availability, then where does that leave the real English?

Will the language of Shakespeare suffer by association, leaving the field open one day for the resurgence of the other great tongues of the world ? Like French?

Source: BBC News

Over to Obama

What do you think of Obama's speech? Read and listen to it here.

My fellow citizens: I stand here today humbled by the task before us, grateful for the trust you have bestowed, mindful of the sacrifices borne by our ancestors. I thank President Bush for his service to our nation, as well as the generosity and cooperation he has shown throughout this transition.

Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath. The words have been spoken during rising tides of prosperity and the still waters of peace. Yet, every so often the oath is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging storms. At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because We the People have remained faithful to the ideals of our forbearers, and true to our founding documents.

So it has been. So it must be with this generation of Americans.

That we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood. Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred. Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age. Homes have been lost; jobs shed; businesses shuttered. Our health care is too costly; our schools fail too many; and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet.

These are the indicators of crisis, subject to data and statistics. Less measurable but no less profound is a sapping of confidence across our land - a nagging fear that America's decline is inevitable, and that the next generation must lower its sights.

Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real. They are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this, America - they will be met.

Source: Telegraph

Bye bye Bush!

How do you think Bush will go down in history?

What are the images that come to mind when you think about his Presidency?

Here are a few reminders. Watch these videos: Part 1 and Part 2 and have a look at these photos to jog your memory.

Look at this humourous site which celebrates all things Bush.

Trendy pets

RSPCA says people who dress up their dogs could be prosecuted

The animal welfare charity claims that forcing pets to wear clothing could be harmful, and in some cases there may even be grounds to prosecute.

Canine couture has become fashionable in recent years and there is a dizzying array of products on sale, from bootees, pyjamas, all-in-one trousers and even hoodies for dogs.

Top fashion designers, including Vivienne Westwood and Ben de Lisi, have also created dog designs, while the London store Harrods has an annual fashion show called Pet-a-Porter.

Experts believe there are occasions where dog clothing is acceptable, such as with small dogs and short-haired varieties, and during cold weather.

Jess Bland, a professional dog walker and pet sitter, says: "Dog clothing certainly serves its purpose when it's cold and wet, but it has to fit properly.

"Although dogs would survive in the wild, they're generally used to being indoors. So there is a case that they need coats in the winter, especially shorter haired dogs and smaller dogs."

But the fashion for pet clothes angers Lynn Williams, founder of dog charity Happy Dogs. She said: "People love their pets and the retail trade has latched on to that.

"To see a little dog dressed up in boots, I think, is a little over the top.

"You can buy anything fashion wise for your dog. I have an extreme love of the dog, but I don't like to see them dressed up as little human beings. I don't think they like it either. It's unnatural."

Earlier this week animal welfare officers also warned that dog clothing could cause the animals to overheat.

Jo Barr, RSPCA spokeswoman, said: "Dog owners should be aware that under the Animal Welfare Act that came into force in April 2007 they have a duty of care to ensure that all of their pets' needs are met.

"One of those needs is to express normal behaviour and it could mean that with restrictive clothing they are not able to do that properly.

"We're concerned that any pet should be viewed as a fashion accessory. Taking on an animal is a long-term commitment. It's quite humiliating and sends out the wrong message about pet care.

"We've seen trends in recent years brought about by the rise in celebrities with 'handbag dogs'.

"This usually leads to people taking on pets because they are 'fashionable' and sadly that means many are neglected.

"We've had similar problems with popular films like Harry Potter, with parents wanting to buy owls as pets for their children.

"Going back further to the 1990s, we saw people unable to cope with turtles and terrapins that they'd bought due to the popularity of the film Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle."

Source: Telegraph

That's bloody awful!

SWEARING NOW THE BLIGHT OF BRITAIN

Swearing has become the curse of modern British life, with the vast majority of us no longer offended by bad language, according to shocking new research.

Influenced by television, more than nine out of 10 adults now admit to swearing every day. And those who do not are often too fearful to challenge those who do.

The average Briton now swears a staggering 14 times a day, with 90 per cent of the adult population no longer fazed by the use of expletives. Our behaviour is heavily influenced by the increased use of bad language on television, say critics. They want the Government to tighten controls.

Broadcaster Esther Rantzen said last night: “Every body would agree that there is too much swearing on television and something has to change.”

Esther, who is patron of the Campaign for Courtesy, added: “It is becoming ludicrous and banal. We don’t want society to go that way too.”

John Beyer, of Mediawatch UK, said: “This sort of language is damaging our culture and the way we speak to each other. Children as young as four, five and six are copying it and it is undermining our language. There is no place for unnecessary swearing on television.”

Chef Gordon Ramsay and controversial presenter Jonathan Ross are among the worst culprits. And just last week chef Jamie Oliver had to apologise for swearing during an episode of his Ministry of Food series. He used the F-word no fewer than 23 times in 50 minutes.

Conservative MP and Daily Express columnist Ann Widdecombe said: “I think it is clear that the amount of swearing in society has been enormously influenced by the amount of swearing on television, in films and even in books. The fact remains that there are many people who do not like casual and consistent swearing and are offended by it when they hear it in public. But these days sometimes all you can do is stare in disbelief when you hear this kind of language.”

Peter Foot, chairman of the Campaign for Courtesy, said there was still an appetite for good manners.

“Swearing has become too habitual, but I think if you walk down most suburban streets and knock on the door, people are actually generally still polite.”

Britain is generally seen as a conservative nation but a survey of more 2,000 people found that just eight per cent are now offended by swearing, as long as it is in an adult context.

The detailed study by the Aust ralian company www.Nulon-uk.com found a clear link between a person’s age and their views on swearing.

Ninety-four per cent of those aged 18-30 said bad language was no longer even an issue, while just 79 per cent of people aged 50-60 agreed.

According to the research, men are more foul-mouthed than women, with 90 per cent swearing on a daily basis compared with 83 per cent of women.

Perhaps most shockingly, some 78 per cent of people admitted to swearing regularly for no reason whatsoever, while the overwhelming majority – 98 per cent – admitted they swore when they lost their temper. William Findlay, who compiled the report, said: “This survey clearly shows that British people accept that swearing is a fact of life in today’s society. The fact that nearly every one of the 2,319 people polled has sworn while angry shows that British attitudes towards conservatism in public are changing.”

Greg Simons, joint managing dir ector of Nulon, said: “To find out that the average Briton swears 14 times a day is a real eye-opener. The results clearly show that swearing is a fact of life in today’s society, both at home and in the workplace.

“I have witnessed swearing at all times of the day at all levels of society, from children to police officers. Britain seems to be a nation that just can’t be shocked.”

Source: Daily Express

What's your opinion on the level of swearing in society? Do you think there is too much unnecessary bad language on TV? Do you think that the article is all just a fuss about nothing?

I personally dislike it when females swear. Am I old fashioned?

I usually only swear when I am angry. I often swear when I am driving as it really stresses me out. When do you use bad language?