Vattenfall: the next Enron? Swedish energy companies hold customers to ransom

A couple of days ago, it was revealed that the Swedish electricity companies, led by state-owned energy giant Vattenfall, had deliberately reduced their energy output in order to force up electricity prices. As many people had long suspected this, no-one was particularly surprised. The heads of these organisations even admitted it, boldly. This being Sweden, they knew that they could do so without ever having to fear punishment.

Of course, there was the predictable outrage, the expressions of surprise, followed by the usual promises of an investigation (to see whether a crime had been committed).

Those in the know will recall that when the electricity market was deregulated, it was primarily to give people a choice and promote lower prices. It was one of the arguments which was repeatedly used to impress foreigners, how liberal and open our electricity market is. Everybody has a choice.

It's bad enough that more than 60% of the cost of electricity is taxes. Now the energy companies are screwing over the Swedish people and everyone just sits around smiling and pretending that everything is just peachy.

What is surprising is that despite the recent events as reported in the media, no-one has drawn a parallel between the actions of the Swedish energy companies and those of the fallen energy giant Enron. What they have done is identical to what Enron did in California: reduce output so as to drive up the prices and make a killing on two fronts: firstly, from the customers themselves, and secondly, on the stock market, due to increased share prices.

Everyone here thought that the actions of the Enron corporation were despicable. Perhaps this is why no-one is willing to compare the two. Once again, a classic example of how people in Sweden persist in burying their heads in the sand rather than face unpalatable facts.

Will they ever wake up?

What's wrong with this picture?

I saw this photo some time ago, and I still cannot get over it. I have no beef with either woman, but for some reason, I am both appalled and riled whenever I look at it. I mean, here we see the former British prime minister Mrs. Margaret Thatcher, an elderly woman, certainly with aches and pains in her joints, making a very low, awkward curtsey to another woman (Queen Elizabeth II) who is a few months her junior. That in itself is bad enough, i.e., that a woman of this age has such little sense of self-worth and deems herself to be so inferior, after all her accomplishments (good and bad).

But the Queen does not even pay the kneeling woman the courtesy of acknowledging the gesture - oh no - she gazes off elsewhere, at more important distractions, hands firmly clenched in front of her as if afraid she might get infected with something. I wonder how long it took Mrs. Thatcher to straighten up from this position, given her fragile state. A show of concern an/or an attempt to offset the curtsey would have improved the Queen's standing in such a situation greatly.

A picture like this does neither woman any favours. One appears indifferent and superior, the other appears to be slavishly fawning. But it most certainly confirms that subservience is very much alive and well in the UK.

Why am I bringing this up? Because Mrs. Thatcher, despite being old and visibly frail, did exactly the same thing when the Queen arrived as a guest at her 80th birthday party. I mean, the woman could barely stand, let alone curtsey. She must have practised doing it unsupported for several days before her birthday, despite experiencing several bouts of illness in the run-up to the day. I can't think of a more humiliating thing to do on one's birthday.

If that were my mother on her knees, I would be embarrassed, ashamed and very angry with her. Indeed.

The curse that is animal rights activism - a recipe for true justice

Here we go again. After realising that their usual terrorist activities were no longer having any apparent effect, measured in terms of regular news coverage, some animal rights activist (read terrorists) in the UK have begun to send threatening letters to shareholders in the research company GlaxoSmithKline (GSK). They are no longer content to threaten the company and its partners, but find it necessary to sink even further into the gutter than they already were.

I have come upon what may be the perfect solution to the plague upon society that these fanatics have become.

(1) All hospitals should immediately draw up a list of fanatical animal rights activists and their sympathisers. Hospitals all over the country (over the whole world if needs be) should be able to partake of information on this list, in the same way as they do in the case of organ donors, etc.

(2) Anyone who needs medical care, whether at a hospital or at a health centre, should be checked off against this list. If the patient appears on the list then he/she should be refused care with medicine that has been tested on animals – which may well be the bulk of all medicines required. The check should not be regarded as anything more than a routine matter, i.e., it should be regarded in the same manner as the checks which are conducted to establish whether a patient is allergic to certain drugs or has a certain blood type.

(3) Anyone who needs medical care, whether at a hospital or at a health centre, should be checked off against this list. If the patient appears on the list then he/she should be refused care with medicine that has been tested on animals – which may well be the bulk of all medicines required. The check should not be regarded as anything more than a routine matter, i.e., it should be regarded in the same manner as the checks which are conducted to establish whether a patient is allergic to certain drugs or has a certain blood type.

(4) Members of staff who begin to become soft-hearted should harden their resolve by simply considering all the victims who have been subject to crude attacks and been harassed by animal rights activists, as well as the number of hospitals, cars and offices that have been destroyed and lives ruined because sensible people dared to think in a different manner from the fanatics.

Would these people continue to behave in such a despicable manner if such a plan were implemented?