Monday Moan 36

 

Latest from Sainsbury's on wasting food

I have received a response from Sainsbury's to my question about why their staff were throwing away good food rather than trying to sell it or give it away to a charity for needy people (see Moan 34).

 

“Thanks for your email.  We’re always happy to answer customer enquiries regarding our stores and services.   I can understand your concerns regarding food waste in our [XXX] store as you saw our staff in the process of clearing everything off the shelves and putting them into plastic bags marked for waste. I would therefore be happy to explain what we have in place to help reduce waste.

 

To implement our groundbreaking ground zero food waste to landfill programme we work to a clear hierarchy of reduce, reuse and recycle to divert food waste from landfill. We view waste as a valuable resource that can be treated in ways that both generate energy and reduce environmental impacts.

 

Our landfill diversion hierarchy starts with good stock control to reduce the generation of food waste. We also donate food that is within its 'use by' date to charity.

 

Our landfill diversion hierarchy then sets out the preferred options for the treatment of the remaining food waste. Our preferred choice is anaerobic digestion, which breaks down the food waste into fertiliser and methane gas, used to generate electricity. Each store or depot evaluates whether there is a suitable anaerobic digestion plant within practical distance. Our second tier of preferred waste treatment methods are In-Vessel Composting (IVC), Fluidised Bed Combustor (FBC) or Pyrolysis. Our third choice is incineration. We use 'backhauling' - using lorries on return journeys - to divert food waste to waste treatment.

 

We periodically revaluate our food waste processing choices. And as new anaerobic digestors are built we move towards this solution.

 

Now, I don’t know about you, but I think that response amounts to not much more than blowing a lot of hot air through a living waste disposal unit. It’s just a load of guff.

 

I have, of course, thanked them for it but put in a request that they actually address the issues I raised in my note to them.

 

Watch this space for any response.

 

Oscar comedy show

In a major breaking story today, the Government has announced that ‘Honest’ Harry Redknapp is to be asked to lead an inquiry into tax evasion.  It has also emerged that the Government has decided that the recent Leveson Inquiry was deeply flawed and it has appointed Rupert Murdoch to review it and come up with his own recommendations for action.

Unlikely, you might think.  But surely no more unlikely than asking a policeman facing attempted murder charges to run the investigation into the death of Reeva Steenkamp in the home she shared with Oscar Pistorius.

Yet this is exactly what happened in that case.  And it seems that every time I read about the case fresh lunacy has been uncovered.

The police case, widely leaked through the press, included such things as the victim having been beaten before being shot, of banned drugs being found at the scene and of a neighbour having heard shouting for an hour before the shooting.  In court it emerged that all three of these elements of the prosecution’s case were either wrong or dubious. The victim’s body showed no signs of any abuse apart from the gunshot wounds; the ‘banned’ drugs turned out to be herbal remedies; and the neighbour who heard “two people talking loudly at each other” appears to have been that rare person who can hear things clearly from huge distances, as their house was somewhere between 300 and 600 metres away, depending on which part of the police evidence you choose to believe.

Perhaps we ought to skip over ‘minor’ errors such as the chief investigating officer forgetting to wear protective covers on his shoes whilst trampling all over the murder scene, since he, Hilton Botha, was possibly distracted by thoughts of the charges of attempted murder that he was facing.  But is it just coincidence that the police have now said that Carl Pistorius, brother of Oscar, is to face charges of culpable homicide, relating to a road accident in 2010?  Or is this a rather pathetic case of tit-for-tat “we can drag up embarrassing things too” retaliation?

The whole thing is descending into farce, which is an insult to the victim and to thoughts of getting to the truth in the name of justice.

 

Lord Who is charged with being a bit creepy

So, Lord Rennard (who?) is accused of behaving inappropriately towards some of his female colleagues a few years ago.  Serious accusations, of course, and they should be investigated.  But, but, but …… was this really the most important news of the weekend, justifying the lead position on the BBC News and in many newspapers?  Did it really require Nick Clegg and his Liberal Democratic Party to be put in the stocks as if they were an affront to human decency?

 

Or is this perhaps related to an important by-election this week, where the Lib Dems are facing an uphill battle to retain Chris Huhne’s Eastleigh seat?  A succession of Labour politicians have called for an independent investigation rather than the internal Lib Dem investigations that have been announced.  Why?  Apart from political opportunism it is hard to think why they are getting involved in this.

 

Lord Rennard’s name sits on a different list from that of most of the famous people who have found themselves accused since the Jimmy Savile revelations first emerged - Max Clifford, Stuart Hall, Jim Davidson, Freddie Starr, Garry Glitter, Dave Lee Travis, and others.  But there appears to be an insatiable appetite for further names to be dragged through the dirt, so the list will grow.  As a non-watcher of TV soaps I had no idea who Michael Le Vell was until he was arrested recently, but I’m sure his will not be the last name in the entertainment industry to be exposed to the glare of unwelcome publicity. 

 

Then we have the case of Britain's most senior Roman Catholic cleric, Cardinal Keith O'Brien, who is to step down as Archbishop of St Andrews and Edinburgh, following allegations, which he denies, of inappropriate behaviour towards priests dating back over 30 years. Cue inevitable jokes asking for clarification of what exactly inappropriate might mean in this case.   I'm not sure I can take much more.

 

Finally, is there an email ‘black hole’ or is it just me?

I am getting a little concerned about the number of people I know who seem to have disappeared from the face of the email earth.  And not just people I know, but people I class as friends who I have known for many years.  The first time I realised I was writing to someone and getting no response I put it down to my perhaps having the wrong email address.  But it keeps happening.  I have now resorted on a couple of occasions to that old-fashioned way of communicating – sending a handwritten letter.  But still no responses.  I am begining to get a complex about this and wonder if I have, inadvertently, so offended these people that they no longer wish to acknowledge my existence.

 

But before you jump to conclusions, I should add that none of them were on the Moan’s distribution list, so this cannot have been the cause of the problem.

 

Fingers crossed that I hear from them soon – no offence was ever intended and I miss not knowing what is happening in their lives.