Cool Ketchup

Heinz Ketchup bottlesI’ve seen this in various newspapers today (including online ones). The BBC refers to it as a “Ketchup debate”, but in reality there is nothing to debate. The silly saga has come about because an Asda branch in London has started stacking it in chiller cabinets instead of on the shelves with other condiments, as they have always done until now.

Irrespective of what the so-called experts have said in the articles, which is very little, ketchup is cooked during manufacture and packed into bottles while it is still at about 90°C. It is deaerated first to further reduce the risk of microbial growth, and it contains vinegar, salt, and sugar, which help act as preservatives. The bottles are sealed and cooled, so it is under a partial vacuum until someone opens it to use it. In effect, until the seal is broken, it is pretty much sterile.

To that end, unopened ketchup can – and should – be stored at room temperature, with no adverse effects. Storing it in the fridge is a waste of time and money, and since it uses more energy it’s also negative for the environment.

Once opened, bacteria and yeasts immediately get inside the bottle. It’s even worse if it’s café ketchup, because it will probably be a cheaper brand, and all the dirty scumbags who seem to frequent cafés will have poked their used knives inside to dislodge it (Heinz themselves encouraged this in one of their stupid adverts – ketchup used to be as thick as putty, but subsequent reformulations have rendered it more like thick soup, making knife-poking a pointless exercise).

Dirty practices, natural contamination, and cost-cutting and pseudo-health driven reformulations which have reduced the preserving power of ketchup, mean that it ferments in the bottle once opened – readily when warm, but even when stored in the fridge, though to a much lesser extent. Unless someone has poked something nasty into it with the knife they’ve previously had in their mouth, this fermentation is usually harmless. But it does mean that any ketchup stuck in the neck of a bottle is likely to leap out at you next time you open the lid. It’s happened to me a few times in the past, which is why I always correctly store part-used ketchup in the fridge.

As if this weren’t enough, Heinz themselves state you can store unopened ketchup in a cupboard, but you should refrigerate it once opened and use it within (I think) eight weeks, though eight weeks is a bit conservative in my experience. So what’s to debate? It’s more a case of letting idiots have their say (a lot like Brexit, really), even though anything other than the Heinz advice (or “remain”) is completely wrong.

That’s what’s the matter with the world today! People don’t get told they’re wrong, anymore. They just give dumb opinions which become part of general “knowledge”.

Ice Age XXVI – This Time I’m In On The Ground Floor

Glacier - an ice age comethThe Sun is at it again. I saw a small item in today’s paper copy reporting that it will be -15°C by the end of the week, and that it will stay like this until the end of March. Oddly, the front page of the online version’s UK news has a story about how plants are blooming a month early, since spring is on the way.

I’m not sure quite what it is they’re trying to get at, since this winter has not been uncharacteristically cold, mild, wet, or dry. It’s been a bit of all those things, just like British winters tend to be.

It’s worth noting that the Met Office isn’t forecasting anything like what The Sun is. Neither is Netweather.


And this is why I wanted in on the ground floor! All The Sun’s blather about snow over the last fortnight came to nothing. Even places which had any barely saw more than a centimetre (for Brexiters, that’s about three eighths of an inch). And as for it being colder than on the dark side of the moon until the end of March, today the temperature ranged from lows of around 7°C to highs of 10°C, and the forecast – the proper forecast from the Met Office and not some two-bit amateur outfit using seaweed and pine cones – is for temperatures as high as 12°C into the middle of next week.

Fair enough, we have had quite a bit of rain today which, after all, is only unfrozen snow, but still not quite the new Ice Age that The Sun was assuring us was underway.

Sweden’s Six-Hour Day Trial

Swedish ParliamentI read about this a while back, but it seems the trial has come to an end. The BBC’s story title is misleading, because it certainly doesn’t answer the question “what really happened when Swedes tried six-hour days?”

The only detail that matters is that those who had their working day cut to six hours were still taking home the same money. I seem to be the only one who sees that for what it is: an effective salary increase of about 25%, which means an increase in wage costs of the same amount for any company who has to foot the bill, or the taxpayer if the government subsidises it.

I mean, how can you trust the comments of people who have been part of the trial to give objective or meaningful feedback? They got a huge pay rise and lots of extra free time – who wouldn’t like that? It would have meant a hell of a lot more to find out what they said if they’d had to take a 25% pay cut. I’m sure they wouldn’t have liked that anywhere near as much.

Of course, the story contains the ubiquitous tale of a mummy able to spend more time with her child (sorry, her daughter – got to keep the old feminine wheel turning full on, haven’t we?)

Unless companies (or government) are prepared – or able – to increase wages by this amount, the numbers just don’t stack up. Less hours per person on the same pay means wage bills go up. Less hours per person also means less output, requiring more jobs, so wage bills go up. Less hours per person and no extra jobs means reduced output, so profits fall. Government subsidies to fund it means higher taxes, so take home wages go down. Increased costs will (and I mean ‘will’) result in companies going bankrupt, so more unemployment. And so it goes on.

But, hey. At least women will get more time at home with their daughters, eh?

Also funny are some of the comments left by frequenters of the BBC forums. One comedian, who goes by the name “bbchateukip”, which clearly defines both the mentality and the political leanings of the user in question, says:

My managers are obsessed with input rather than output – they are quite happy for someone to sit there doing rubbish work but see them as good because they spend 12 hours a day – I am considered lazy as I do the bear [sic] minimum hours but because I know how to use a computer I actually achieve more! this is not noticed though – but least I get to spend time with friends and family

I’m sure his employer doesn’t quite see him enveloped by the same radiant glow, and is probably quite accurate in their assessment. I’m also pretty sure that his implication that everyone other than him is doing a piss poor job is also less than true. And I’m certain that the 24 likes he has acquired are also made by equally misguided people.

Life – and the standard of work you produce – is a little more complicated than just being the result of the number of hours you work. Business success, on the other hand, is pretty much directly connected with it, and could not be sustained following a 25% reduction in hours worked.


The comments above are my own, based on the earlier stories and the latest one from the BBC. However, I have since discovered that quite a few other sources have reached similar conclusions. All of the stories make the point that it is too expensive. Even the articles with misleadingly positive headlines say the same thing. The other stories all appear to be based on this Bloomberg one.

If you have the mental capacity to push the feminist claptrap to one side and look into the guts of the matter, the trial could never have been successful for the simple reason that workers got to work fewer hours for no loss in pay. That detail prevented the results from ever having any scientific value. The only way the trial could have had scientific value would have been if those taking part earned 25% less for doing 25% fewer hours, because if it ever became the norm then – one way or another – that, or rather the cost of that, would have to have been absorbed either by the companies who did it, or the government if it subsidised it.

But even that is a red herring, since there is no way on God’s Green Earth that someone is going to perform 25% (or more, which was the hope) better for a 25% reduction in hours – even less so if they also take a 25% drop in salary. And you don’t need a stupid, very expensive experiment to try and prove otherwise. It just isn’t going to happen.

As it turns out, absence due to sickness (one of the goals) did not improve. In some cases it actually increased significantly. It also appears that a trial which ran between 1989 and 2005 was stopped because there were insufficient data to support the supposed benefits. In other words, it did not work.

Reading between the lines, the trials were carried out at places where the staff are probably about 95% female (retirement homes). And another trial is due to begin amongst Sweden’s social services shortly (also gender-skewed if they’re anything like in the UK), with the complicating factor that there is a shortage of social service staff anyway, and this “experiment” is partly intended to drive recruitment in that area.

Truly scientific experiments attempt to alter as few variables as possible, then look for effects of changes to those that are. If you want to prove that working fewer hours is better, you can’t ignore the costs of doing it, and you can’t tack a recruitment drive on to the end. The results would be absolutely meaningless, no matter what the outcome.

Brexit IS Screwing Things Up

World MapThis article makes interesting reading. The heads of more than half of the top 500 companies in the UK say Brexit has already had a negative impact business, and two-thirds believe it will worsen over the next 12 months. The only people who have benefited so far are those who export, where the weaker pound has helped them – which makes me wonder what my arsehole of an ex-company’s directors said, since they don’t export very much, and yet were vocal supporters of Brexit prior to the referendum.

What really pisses me off is how every negative story ends with something along the lines of:

Despite ongoing uncertainty, the majority of business leaders – 96 percent – were confident their company can adapt to life outside the EU.

Idiots. It’s just like that asteroid that apparently slammed into earth 66 million years ago – life on Earth may have survived, but the dominant dinosaurs were wiped out. By comparison, managing to survive Brexit would not mean that Brexit is a good idea!

It’s funny, but all you have to do is look at a map of the world (above). Then consider what the world is like in the 21st Century.

We are not going to f***ing survive on our own – even less so if we move in with America just to try to alleviate the inevitable effects of Brexit. And it is unbelievable that anyone should believe otherwise, and especially not the leaders of large companies.

With Trump in the White House, another World War is looking increasingly likely. Trump has talked complete bollocks since the moment he was inaugurated, and yet Theresa May has already given him the key to her flat, which pretty much confirms whose side we’d have to be on once any war started. Europe, on the other hand, looks as if it would be more likely to tell Trump to shove it.

The USA might be the largest economic power in the world, but it is far from being the dominant military one. It is also shackled by being entrenched firmly in a particular moral foxhole, whereas those it might end up in conflict with have no such restrictions, and would happily adopt any moral position (and war tactic) that suited them in order to come out on top militarily. Furthermore, America is now managed by a complete asshole, and any war would be a disaster – both for America, and anyone else who had placed themselves in that same foxhole.UK size versus ego

Theresa May is incapable of realising that Brexit is not as simple or as narrowly defined as David Cameron’s idiotic referendum question last June implied. The extremely narrow winning vote to leave the EU was wrong last year. It’s even more wrong now.

The UK’s size versus the rest of the world is currently the inverse of the size of its ego.

The UK should be a part of Europe. Geographically it is. But it should also be part of it both economically and politically.

1-2-3-4-5… Fail!

Learner car recoveryI saw this story a few days ago about a man in Norfolk who failed his driving test “in just 5 seconds”.

It reminded me of something that happened to one of my pupils about 7 years ago. He drove back into the test centre and I made my way through the waiting room to go and listen to the debrief. With hindsight, I think I heard a loud clang as I did so, but it didn’t register at the time. When I reached the car the passenger door was open and the examiner had his head in his hands and was saying:

I can’t believe you did that. I just can’t believe it.

I asked what had happened, and the examiner told me he’d asked my pupil to pull forwards into a parking bay, but he didn’t stop in time and had driven into the crash barrier surrounding the car park. I went to the front of the car and saw that there was no damage – just a very slight scuff. When I got back to the passenger side the examiner was still repeating that he couldn’t believe it. I looked at the fault sheet and said:

Do my eyes deceive me, or did he only have two faults?

The examiner replied:

That’s the whole point! It was almost a perfect drive.

Then he said he couldn’t believe it a couple more times, and added:

I’ve got to fail you because there could have been someone standing there. You can obviously drive and we’ll see you again soon.

My pupil was a very good driver, but in spite of that it took him another five attempts to pass in the end, as he picked up a different single serious fault on the four more he failed. I used to rib him about how he’d managed to fail that first one literally less than one second from the end. And I use the example to emphasise to all my other pupils that they mustn’t switch off as they head back to the test centre (which is a common issue with learners).

I should add that I have no issue whatsoever with the examiner’s decision nor with his explanation. He was 100% right. Examiners have no way of knowing how someone drives the rest of the time, which is why candidates need to be squeaky clean on their tests when it comes to safety matters. If they aren’t, the examiners have to (or should) err on the side of caution.

As for the pupil, we are still in regular contact – though I have ignored him this last weekend. He is a Chelsea supporter whose smugness is currently off the scale. And I’m not.

As for the guy in King’s Lynn in that original article, it’s a similar situation. Yes, he had a brain fart – but what if he’d had a similar fart while driving alone just as a group of school kids started to walk across a road? The examiner had to fail him, no matter how good the rest of the drive was. If he hadn’t, there’d really be no point in having a driving test system in the first place.

With new pupils, and especially (though not exclusively) those who have driven in other countries, I often say “UK rules, UK rules” at some point, as they turn into a junction and aim for the right-hand side of the road. With some, it is a deliberate act, but very new drivers it is just a steering issue.

I saw another ADI end up on a pavement and nearly through a hedge earlier this week as his pupil over steered into a junction and then didn’t straighten up (probably with a bit of gas thrown in for good measure, followed by blind panic, which usually happens). I think we’ve all been there at least once in our careers. Indeed, it was such occurrences that led me to realise that the dual controls are a useful tool for teaching beginners, and not something to avoid using at all costs.

Echoes From History

Neville Chamberlain - Peace for our timeOn 30 September 1938, Neville Chamberlain (then, the British Prime Minister) returned from a meeting with Adolf Hitler. He is famously pictured holding a piece of paper aloft, and he can be seen on newsreel footage saying:

This morning I had another talk with the German Chancellor, Herr Hitler, and here is the paper which bears his name upon it as well as mine. Some of you, perhaps, have already heard what it contains but I would just like to read it to you: ‘ … We regard the agreement signed last night and the Anglo-German Naval Agreement as symbolic of the desire of our two peoples never to go to war with one another again.

Later that day, outside Downing Street, he was quoted:

My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time. We thank you from the bottom of our hearts. Go home and get a nice quiet sleep.

“Peace for our time” was previously uttered by Disraeli (another British PM) after a meeting with Germany in 1878. You’d need to be a very dumb (or a Brexit voter) to not know what happened next in both cases.

Cut to 79 years later, and Theresa May cosied up with Donald Trump last week on an official visit. Trump made some noises that would have been music to May’s ears – about Brexit being good, and stuff like that. After she left, and while she was travelling to meet President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey (a Muslim country, you understand, though you won’t if you’re a Brexiter), Trump announced his ban on Muslims entering the USA. Theresa May refused to comment for several days, until we were fed a snippet where she had pretty much been forced to say she “[did] not agree” with the policy.History repeats - Theresa May in "Peace for our time" pose

I’m just saying.

Team Rock Goes into Administration

Team Rock logoOriginally published 25 December 2016.

This is a bit of bad news. Team Rock Ltd. – the company behind Classic Rock and Prog magazines (amongst others) – has gone into administration. The administrators were called in five days before Christmas, and staff were laid off with no pay with immediate effect. They watched as locks were changed on the offices.

This is the shitty way companies operate (I’ve mentioned before how I was told to make a load of temporary staff redundant just before Christmas one year, when I’d pleaded with the powers that be to at least wait until afterwards).

Hopefully, the titles will be bought by someone, although I sincerely hope that the trend towards articles about Depeche Mode and other 80s/90s pop crap in Classic Rock magazine is arrested by any new owner.


Since I wrote this, I received the next issue of Classic Rock as usual in mid-January. Today, I got an email from the magazine with a link to a free Pink Floyd ebook and the news that Classic Rock is now part of Future Publishing again.

This is really good news (as long as they backtrack a bit on that Depeche Mode thing!)

A Polite Moose?

The Moose loose in the house

A funny story from the BBC about a moose dropping into someone’s basement in America. The homeowner is quoted:

She was absolutely the most polite, gracious beast that you could have in your house.

Each to their own, I guess. My attention was drawn to those little black things all over the rug, so I Googled “moose droppings”. They look like this.

Moose droppings

I suppose the moose didn’t make off with the family silver, so in one respect you could say it was “polite”*.

I’m only kidding, though. It’s a fun story.

*No moose (or anyone else) were harmed in the writing of this article.

Natural History

Obsoletely Fabulous - FuturamaSky’s Discovery channels often carry a lot of stuff about evolution, which is quite ironic given the reaction by many people on various web forums over the last couple of months to the possibility that the Sky/Discovery partnership would become extinct at midnight on 31 January 2017.

I fully accept that there are people out there who are happy to watch 640×480 YouTube videos (or ones they stole on BitTorrent) on their Linux boxes. I also accept that these people are programmed at the genetic level (and they have fewer genes than most anyway) to try to persuade everyone else to do likewise.

It wasn’t much of a surprise, therefore, to see a number of people announce that they were going to get rid of Sky as a result of all this.

Except – and here’s the funny part – Sky and Discovery came to an agreement sometime late on 31 January and ensured the continuation of Discovery channels through Sky for “years to come”.

I wonder how many jumped ship before they found out it wasn’t sinking after all?

Who’s Doctor Who?

Tom Baker's Doctor WhoAnother one which follows on tentatively from the previous two articles.

I haven’t watched Doctor Who since Tom Baker left, and although the reboot of the series in recent years seemed to take a quantum leap in terms of budget and effects, it just doesn’t interest me anymore – maybe I just grew up? I don’t know. But the BBC loves hyping the show up, and whenever the current actor playing the Doctor announces he is stepping down (as Peter Capaldi, the present Doctor, has just done), “speculation” on who might take over fills the Beeb’s website almost immediately.

Almost by definition, the “Doctor” in Doctor Who is a male character. He was never conceived as anything else. Naturally, to the BBC, this now means that four out of the eleven suggested short-listers are female.

I wonder what odds the bookies will be offering? Could be worth a flutter.