Tesco - Attacking Free Speech

A group of authors have signed a letter to The Times calling on Tesco to 'exercise restraint' over their ongoing libel action in Thailand. The protest has been organised by English PEN, a campaign group for freedom of expression. The full letter to the newspaper reads as follows:

Sir, We are writing to urge Tesco to exercise restraint over libel actions that we understand to have been recently launched by its subsidiary Tesco Lotus in Thailand. The claims have been brought against three critics of Tesco Lotus. One of these critics, Jit Siratranont, faces two years in jail accused of criminal defamation, and a civil damages claim of 1.1 billion baht (£16.6 million). While we accept the need for Tesco and other corporations to protect their reputation, we are concerned by this disproportionate response.

The offence of criminal defamation is considered by most international watchdogs to be incompatible with the fundamental right to freedom of expression. Its deployment now by a subsidiary of a UK-based company, which prides itself on “upholding basic human rights” and which “supports in full the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights”, sends an unsettling message around the world.

As writers we greatly value the tradition of free speech in Britain, and we would like to think that a leading international business such as Tesco would be concerned with exporting these values along with its groceries. We urge Tesco to impress its critics with the force of argument, not the threat of imprisonment.

Lisa Appignanesi

President, English PEN

Mark Haddon

Jonathan Heawood

Director, English PEN

Nick Hornby

Anthony Lester, QC

Marina Lewycka

Deborah Moggach

The supermarket is currently engaged in a libel battle with two Thai journalists for making critical comments about the retail giant. A libel battle that, according to one human rights expert, would be 'unable to succeed' if the action was taken in the UK.

Judging by some of the comments in The Times piece, many people are turning off Tesco altogether. Perhaps this is the start of a wider ranging boycott of the retailer. This case could, if it proceeds, be their McLibel. I for one will not shed a tear.

Thai Critic of Tesco in UK

Tesco won't be happy. Kamol Kamoltrakul, one of the Thai men currently being sued for defamation by Tesco, is currently in the UK as a guest of Index on Censorship. From The Guardian:

Kamol Kamoltrakul wrote one of his monthly columns in a Bangkok business paper last year on Tesco's aggressive expansion in the south-east Asian state. The threat from western superstore chains to Thailand's thousands of "mom-and-pop" retailers has been a controversial issue there for the past seven years.

His own English translation of his article, which he hands over, does not read in a particularly inflammatory style. It does contain a mistake: Kamol says: "The shocking truth is that 37% of [Tesco's] income comes from Thailand." And he goes on to make the case that Tesco's Thai profits are mostly returned to the UK "because of the complexity of accounting which can deduct a lot of expenses and show low profit". Kamol now says the 37% figure was a slip based on a misreading of figures and the correct number is more like 3.7%. But on the more general point, that Tesco ships profits out of Thailand, he claims: "I think I'm right." An economist by training, he says the limited information in the company's local financial reports suggests, for example, that they pay hefty royalties to their parent for use of the Tesco name.

Tesco said yesterday that royalties were charged by Tesco Stores Ltd to its Thai operations and to other foreign operations "for the provision of know-how and the use of brand and trademarks". This was described as "perfectly normal practice" in compliance with all relevant tax laws and agreed with both UK and Thai tax authorities.

Tesco said yesterday: "Tesco does not have a policy of using legal action to silence its critics. In fact until now we have never had to issue legal proceedings to defend our reputation. The ongoing cases in Thailand and the UK are entirely unrelated. Neither has anything to do with restricting free speech and it would be deeply misleading to suggest they do. The right to free speech does not of course imply the right to defame us.

"In Thailand Tesco Lotus has been seriously defamed in a sustained and malicious campaign over a number of months. In the UK, the Guardian made a series of very damaging allegations relating to Tesco's tax affairs despite our clear indications to the paper in advance that these were utterly false and that we would defend our reputation if necessary. The Guardian was given the opportunity to retract the allegations but chose not to do so.

"In both cases we have been left no option other than to take legal action - a step we would not consider unless we believed it was entirely justified. We still hope the matters can be resolved by agreement, but if not we will have to resort to the courts to restore our reputation."



This is the line that Tescoo has been sticking to ever since their actions have been revealed to the public. I wrote to Tesco and complained about their attempts to suppress free speech, threatening to boycott their stores until they drop the action. The response was essentially lifted from a statement prepared by their spokesperson (click on image):

There is no justification for this action. The consequences of a successful claim by Tesco is particularly worrying. Should they succeed, attempts to criticise large corporations, debate their impact on society or question their business practices will be seriously compromised. Considering the power that these organisations have in this increasingly privatised world, that should be a concern to everyone, Tesco shopper or otherwise.

Tesco - Every Little Helps

Capitalists often tend to claim that capitalism and democracy go hand in hand. That for people to be free from state tyranny, the best option is to reduce the power of the state and put public industry in the hands of capitalists who are free from the constraints of government bureaucracy. This would then, according to Milton Friedman's acolytes, lead to greater economic stability and prosperity. However, as we have seen in countries such as Chile over the years, in order for capitalism to truly thrive, civil liberties must be curtailed and a new authoritarianism must rise up. It is in this context that we see the latest efforts by the corporate world to replace state tyranny with corporate tyranny.

Tesco's operation in Thailand (Tesco Lotus) has taken the rather dangerous step of attempting to shut down the right to free speech in regard to it's operations in the country. According to reports:

Tesco Lotus, one of the biggest retailers in Thailand, has filed two staggering defamation cases against a Thai columnist and a former member of Parliament, sending a strong message to civil society and the press to tread carefully before criticising the retailing giant in Thailand.

Tesco Lotus is suing columnist/academic Kamol Kamoltrakul and former Thai National Legislative Assembly (NLA) member Jit Siratranont for 100 million baht and one billion baht, respectively, after they criticised and questioned the aggressive expansion strategies of Tesco Lotus in Thailand.

Put aside for one moment, the laughable concept that to defend against allegations of aggression, one must act aggressively. What exactly did they say that caused such offence?

Siratranont, currently the secretary general of the Thai Chamber of Commerce, was quoted by British newspaper "The Observer" as saying in a speech to 150 activists: "The large-scale expansion of the big retailers must be exercised with great care – not too aggressively and too rapidly - to reduce the potential tension, which could lead to serious conflict. There is also the need for the small retail traders to adjust to changes. Tesco Lotus must take all of this into account."

Kamol was sued for an article published in the Thai-language "KrungThepTurakit" (BangkokBizNews), which expressed generally the same concerns about Tesco Lotus' aggressiveness, and also what the columnist suggested was the retailing giant's weak social responsibility in Thailand.

Hardly worthy of a defamation case. Slowly but surely, across the globe, a new style of tyranny is spreading. This tyranny protects the rights of the rich whilst destroying civil liberties. Oh yes, they may tempt you with 'competitive prices' and the illusion of 'choice', but they simply want you to buy their goods and shut up. Totalitarianism is back, and we're the ones paying for it.

Tesco - Every Little Hurts

Tesco must be scared. After yesterday's revelations in The Guardian, there are rumours that the corporate giant is considering suing the newspaper. Perhaps they are just pissed because they have been rumbled. Who knows?

Tesco - You Pay Tax So They Don't Have To

I was going to post on this myself, but RickB at Ten Percent beat me to it. Go read his post on how Tesco are "pulling an Enron".

OFT Claims Supermarkets Involved in Price Fixing

The UK's big four supermarkets and dairies colluded to keep the price of dairy goods artificially high, the Office of Fair Trading has claimed.

The alleged deal led to consumers overpaying for milk, cheese and butter by an estimated £270m, the OFT said.

It accused Asda, Tesco, Morrisons, Sainsbury's and processors including Dairy Crest and Arla of involvement. The supermarkets denied the claims.

Question is, is anyone really surprised?

Tesco- Cherry Picking Inequality

Gertuida Baartman, 39 -Paid 38p an hour to collect apples, pears and peaches in Western Cape. She is a widow with three children and works for six months a year when the fruit is in season. If it rains she can not work and has to beg for food. She struggles to feed her family and pay for school fees, books and uniforms. Her family are forced to live on bread and potatos. Gertruida lives in a two-bedroom shack with her children, her parents, disabled brother and sister's children.

Terry Leahy, 51 -Appointed chief executive of Tesco in 1997 and is set to receive £11.5m in shares. The annual report revealed his salary rose from £3.9m to £4.6m last year. He grew up on a council estate in Liverpool and was educated at the University of Manchester. He was knighted in 2002 for his service to the food retail industry. Sir Terry lives in Cuffley, Hertfordshire, with his wife and three children where Tesco plans to open a new Tesco Express.

Ms Baartman, who is paid 38p an hour to pick apples, pears and peaches in Western Cape, protested about pay and conditions at the meeting last year. But she said yesterday that after speaking out then, she lost her job and was only re-hired after union intervention, despite assurances from Tesco that she would be protected from victimisation.

...a spokesman later mounted a robust defence of the company's behaviour which also came under attack from a War on Want resolution demanding independent auditing of foreign factories. The defeated resolution won the support of 10 per cent of shareholders.
Tesco insisted that the company had conducted ethical audits of its fruit suppliers and that farm workers were paid at rates set by the South African government.

Hmm, and I'm sure no pressure is put on govts. by Tesco to set wage levels, I am sure absolutely no lobbying has ever occurred on Tesco's behalf. Good to see the 'ethical audit' scam being punked, not so ethical as to want outside assessment is it?

Tesco Goes 'Green'

It's times like these I wish I had a scanner. I had to laugh when I saw the advertisement for Tesco in today's Guardian. It said:

Double Green Clubcard Points.

On 'green' shopping.

Perfect.

Now you can be eco-friendly.

Not to mention eco-nomical.

And what was in the picture above this heart warming sentiment? A pineapple. Now, I may be wrong, but wouldn't they have to be flown into the UK? As far as I am aware they are not an indigenous species. Still, good try Tesco, but you're still a symbol of all that's wrong with the capitalist system.

Tesco Bans School

The monolithic den of consumerism strikes again (from Kent News):


A MOTHER has blasted supermarket giant Tesco after it banned all pupils from a nearby secondary school.

The Tesco at Ashford’s Park Farm estate says no pupils from Christ Church High School are allowed entry – unless accompanied by an adult – in a bid to clampdown on shoplifting.

Parent Jua-Nita Beech was horrified after her 11-year-old son Trevor was prevented from entering the store – despite the school saying only one case of shop-lifting has been reported.

She said: "It seems crazy to me to ban all the children from the school when it is only a small minority that have caused any trouble in the past.”

A Tesco spokesman said: “We apologise for any offence that may have been caused.

"As a responsible retailer we sometimes work with the local community to help counter anti-social behaviour. The steps have been taken in good faith."

Another reason not to shop at Tesco.

Big Supermarkets Likely to Escape Punishment

With the release of the interim report by the Competition Commission, it would appear that once again the supermarkets are going to escape censure. Despite the evidence to the contrary, it looks likely that it will be business as usual for the big four. Meanwhile, the workers at the bottom of the chain, will continue to be hurt by the tactics of Tesco, Sainsbury's, Asda and Morrisons.

According to The Guardian, the report claimed that

there was little evidence that the grocers were using their muscle to squeeze suppliers' profits and that food and drink manufacturers, and wholesalers, were in "reasonable shape".

And yet, it is clear that the policies of companies like Tesco, are really hurting the food producers, as well as damaging the high street. By developing out-of-town sites, the big supermarkets are doing a great deal of damage to town centres all over the country. With their huge, free car parks enticing shoppers away from the fee charging car parks in the town centres, it is little wonder that shoppers have turned in droves to these monolithic, temples of consumerism. And now, with the introduction of mini versions of these stores appearing in high streets, small, independent traders are really starting to feel the squeeze.

As I said at the top of the post, those at the bottom of the chain get hurt the most. Perhaps the best example of how the producers are being squeezed, is in the dairy sector. In 1995, the proceeds from milk sales were divided as follows:

As you can see, the farmer received a large chunk of the sales from milk, approximately 24.5p from an average selling price of 42.1p. The retailers, on the other hand, received a pretty small amount of income in comparison. However, there is a massive shift in the figures for 2005:
Although still receiving the largest chunk, the farmers have seen their share drop from 58% in 1995, to 36% in 2005, a drop of 22%. Meanwhile, the retailers have seen their share jump from 3% in 1995, to 31% in 2005, a massive 28% increase. The processors have, however, remained pretty static in their share, hovering around the 33-39% mark. As you can see, it is the farmers at the bottom of the chain who are clearly being squeezed. In fact, the NFU dairy chairman Gwyn Jones claims that:

farmers are losing an average of 2p a pint.

Furthermore, Sir Stuart Hampson, chairman of Waitrose owners the John Lewis Partnership, has claimed that if the trends are not reversed, the UK could be importing milk by 2011. This would, naturally, be disastrous for farming in the UK (not to mention the subsequent impact on the environment). And it is not only the farmers who are being hurt by the actions of the giant supermarkets.

Only last month, War on Want reported that Tesco, Primark and Asda were guilty of exploiting the workforce in Bangladesh. The workers producing the garments for these corporations work 80 hours per week in dangerous conditions, all to enable the 'savings' to be passed onto the consumer. War on Want also reported that starting wages at the factories were as little as £8 a month, barely one third of the living wage in Bangladesh. Without this exploitation of the workforce, the large corporations would not be able to maintain their competitive edge. They need to squeeze costs wherever possible, and the savings normally hit the workforce rather than those that sit on the board.

In such circumstances, it is hard to blame the consumer. After all, there are many low income families out there who rely on Tesco's prices to ensure meals are on the table. However, there is always a price attached to anything that is purchased. That price is felt by those who work in the factories, or plough the fields, to enable those that control the capital to continue their growth. Furthermore, the situation may seem harmless to some, but imagine if this situation is taken to its logical conclusion. If we allow ourselves to sleep walk into a society that is dominated by one retailer what would that look like? There would be nothing to stop a solitary retailer raising prices and squeezing the consumer. Why would have nowhere else to turn to to provide for our needs. We would have no choice but to accept the prices the supermarket sets. And, in such circumstances, it would not be unrealistic to expect the supermarket to mark up it's prices as high as possible. In short, we would all be losers.

Unfortunately, no matter how many enquiries are instigated, it is unlikely that the picture will ever change. The government is totally enthrall to their capitalist masters, and they are hardly likely to bite the hand that feeds them. It is up to the workers to unite against those that control the capital and force change. We cannot, and must not, rely on the politicians to force this change, they have too much to lose. The continued exploitation of the proletariat must end, the consequences of their continued dominance are too frightening to contemplate.

The Choice Illusion

One of the great illusions of the capitalist age, is the illusion of choice. We are constantly told, by those in power, that choice is a good thing. It is often used as an unarguable statement. After all, who would argue with the idea of choice? However, we are never really offered a choice. From the ballot box to the supermarket, choice is an unobtainable illusion. For the corporations, this illusion is necessary to maintain profits and build brand identity. In effect, the corporations benefit from our lack of ability to ‘choose’.

Fast food outlets such as Burger King and McDonalds claim that they offer their ‘diners’ a choice yet, how can this truly be the case? To truly offer a choice, the consumer would have to be fully informed. This would mean informing the consumer where the products were sourced, their nutritional values and their environmental impact. But of course, such legislation would lead to extra costs and a subsequent loss of business as consumers discover what it is they are actually eating. In effect, choice would lead to the collapse of their business models and must therefore be resisted at all costs. It is this reason, and this reason alone, that many major players in the food industry are determined to obstruct plans to truly offer the consumers choice.

Many leading manufacturers, including Tesco and Kellogg’s, are pulling out all the stops to prevent them being forced to give clear nutritional guidelines to the consumer. Choice scares them. They know only too well, that when the consumer becomes informed about the products they buy, their habits change. The giveaway sign that they are scared is the use of the threat of job cuts. At a recent lobbying event for MPs, Kellogg’s European president reminded them that Kellogg’s was a ‘large employer in the UK’. However, the likelihood of this threat amounting to anything is pretty slim. Kellogg’s currently has its largest manufacturing plant at Old Trafford and the UK is its largest market in Europe. Are Kellogg’s really going to give up their largest European market if MPs reject these attempts to obstruct consumer choice? Of course not. But then it would be a little unlikely that our elected representatives would place choice of the consumer above the interests of a corporate giant.

Corporate Watch: Tesco

Thankfully the numbers of people who are beginning to realise the hellish vision of the future that is sponsored by Tesco. Groups around the country are coming together to fight back against this corporate behemoth. Unfortunately, it appears that the British public is only concerned with how much money they save without realising the true cost of shopping at the nation's biggest retailer. This is a company that is destroying the agricultural community in this country by using their muscle power to get the deal they need while financially crippling the producers. I support any action taken against Tesco and I have been boycotting them for 2 years now. With this in mind, I have added a link on the right to Tescopoly who are leading the fight back. From the website you can lobby the government and Tesco to commit to stopping unfair practices, just click the link on the homepage. Join in by changing your shopping habits and telling Tesco to stuff their destructive methods.