In the words of Kent Brockman, I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again – democracy simply doesn’t work.
The UK has been the laughing stock of the world recently, with the insane decision to invite the public to suggest names for a new Arctic research ship. Far and away the clear winner was “Boaty McBoatface”. Fortunately, intelligence still clings desperately to bits of wreckage in the ocean of stupidity, some of which is still bobbing around among the idiots who decided to let the public get involved in the first place.
The ship will be called the RRS Sir David Attenborough – which is what it should have been called from the start without having involved people who shouldn’t be allowed to vote or breed.
The Australians, who are about to name an ice-breaking ship, have said they want to avoid “a Boaty McBoatface situation.” I mean, the Aussies are looking down at us. How bad is that?
Someone called John Walker – one of those people under the misapprehension that they’re funny – has said he will name any future child he has “Boaty McBoatface” in protest. If only we could be certain that he was joking. I mean, completely certain.
In the UK, people took to their keyboards to say the decision not to pick the name Boaty was anti-democratic.
The imbeciles who let it get this far have even attempted to suggest the affair was “good for science”. What they didn’t make clear was that the sort of science likely to have benefited was the kind you’d find in a play school environment. You know – let’s build a model bridge (out of sparkles and split red lentils). Or, let’s paint a picture of a house (using sparkles and split red lentils). Or, let’s grow some lentils (and add some sparkles).
But it appears that Sainsbury’s is also under the control of the kind of idiots I used to work for, and for whom the end result is irrelevant as long as a lot of people are involved in getting to it. Their Camden Road store placed an ad in the local newspaper asking for an artist to paint their canteen for free.
You can probably already see the precise point at which Sainsbury’s lost the plot and became the target for thousands of retards whose sorry little lives revolve around social media. I mean, the average “artist” in London – especially if he’s out of work, and especially if he’s the kind Sainsbury’s no doubt had in mind – is likely to have already been on the steering committee of the “vote Boaty” party anyway. Then consider that it is Camden we’re talking about, and that ramps things up a few more notches. Then consider that Sainsbury’s most recent profits were declared at £681 million on sales of over £25 billion. The brains of these “artists” will reach meltdown pretty quickly.
Ordinarily, though, it would just be a story about crassness. However, when you get to this bit, you once again see democracy at work:
The advert was placed in the local paper following a colleague discussion around ways to improve the canteen…
A “colleague discussion”, eh? That sounds suspiciously like a team meeting to me. I can see the flipcharts and free doughnuts already. It takes even less effort to imagine how some idiot “colleague” suggested that a Banksy-wannabe monstrosity on the canteen wall while they ate their tofu salad would somehow increase productivity (though not in those words). Trying to get a radical, out of work artist to do it unpaid was probably one of the better ideas.
Actually, it’s quite funny watching people so easily putting their foot in their mouth as a result of social media, these days. I wonder how much longer it will take them to realise that those who use social media as a substitute for a life aren’t worth bothering with. Don’t try to avoid upsetting them, don’t worry if you do, and for God’s sake don’t engage with them unnecessarily – even if they are “a colleague”.
Sainsbury’s, though, has gone all defensive and apologetic, which is absolutely the worst thing they could have done. To start with, they’re now implying that the “colleagues” were wrong. Yet there is no real reason why the store couldn’t (or shouldn’t) have asked someone to work unpaid any more than there’s a reason why they couldn’t (or shouldn’t) have offered a large sum of money. It’s up to them. As I said above, choosing the former option is merely a case of crassness, brought about by an incompetent attempt to be “democratic” and involve the workforce.
Sainsbury’s store management should have told their staff they were getting a couple of coats of magnolia, and that keeping their jobs should be incentive enough to maintain productivity. That would have been the end of the matter.