Eric Hobsbawm, Age of Extremes – A Short Twentieth Century – MA Level Review

With this work, Hobsbawm tries to guide us through the history of the twentieth century through his own eyes. This, a period of time other commentators have described as the end of history, has otherwise been acknowledged by Hobsbawm as not his specialist area and as such he notes that not only his, but other historians works on the topic would be influenced by their own life experiences during the period.

It is with this introduction to his work that we can catch a glimpse of the direction this book will take. Hobsbawm was an active member of the Communist Party, and as such it would not be naive of us to assume that this book will focus heavily upon the USSR, the development of communism and a constant attack on capitalism – and this is exactly what this work does.

It is interesting to look at the period that Hobsbawm has chosen as his Short Twentieth Century, starting in 1914 with the start of the First World War and ending in 1991 with the collapse of the Soviet Union. This ensures that the whole work is written in the pretext of the USSR being in existence and the ability to parallel capitalist and liberal democracy throughout the period with communism in the USSR.

Divided into three main sections – Age of Catastrophe (Hobsbawm likes to categorise periods of history into ‘Ages’), The Golden Age and The Landslide.

The first third of the book looks at the two world wars, the rise of communism during this period and to a lesser extent the rise and fall of fascism – both of which have been tied together with a chapter on the crisis of liberal democracy. Hobsbawm brushes aside socialism and social democracy in favour of focusing fully on communism, and especially Soviet, Marxist and Leninist communism – Hobsbawm even goes as far to mentioning the role of Trotsky and Trotskyism in the development of communism only in passing.

Hobsbawm within his introduction to this work correctly makes the point that history should be all encompassing, this means that history should not just focus upon the elites and what did happen, but also upon how decisions and events effected the society as a whole.  It is therefore surprising that this first third of the book is highly a narrative of events and the development of ideology. Hobsbawm notes how the First and Second World Wars were the first truly total wars that effected all aspects of a society (there is room for debate here as a civil war would effect all of a countries society as well), however, he does not examine the extent of the impacts of war upon the people in a country. Take for example the effect of the Luftwaffe’s Blitz upon the peoples of London. There is still a debate here as to whether the war had a unifying impact upon London’s citizens, or whether this united front perpetrated during and after the war was essentially a myth.

But this would go against what the book is really about. Hobsbawm seems to have not gone out with the intention to add to the historiographical debate on twentieth century history – he is, as he mentions, a historian who specialises mainly in nineteenth century history. It is with this context that an examination of the further two sections of the book can be taken. Furthermore, this book is a study of the economical ideological history of the twentieth century, so there is no room for Hobsbawm to talk about world changing events such as the Holocaust, the Civil Rights movement in the US or apartheid in South Africa. Although, perhaps inclusion of events such as the Holocaust would lead Hobsbawm to look at Stalin’s own purges and as such question a Stalinist and Soviet system that Hobsbawm appears to be loyally defending.

The following two parts, The Golden Age and The Landslide are very dependent upon each other in order to piece together Hobsbawm’s train of thought. Whilst the Age of Catastrophe set the background to the later twentieth century, these two parts paint the picture of the state of the world in 1991.

The Golden Age is the period of time, 1950-1975, that Hobsbawm sees as the glorious period of capitalism and also the stability of Soviet communism. Far from living in harmony, both systems – assured of mutually agreed destruction – flourished during this period (this applies mainly to capitalism). The Landslide looks at the beginning of the end of the USSR and communism, the faults of capitalism and the rise of social democracy as an attempt to find the ‘middle way’. As we would have come to expect from Hobsbawm the Landslide begins and ends with the fall and collapse of the USSR as a world power.

Throughout the work, Hobsbawm has attempted to bring into the history of the twentieth century the impact of ideologies on other parts of the world, from Asia to the Far East, to Latin America to the Third World – although it is firstly within Europe and then later in the USA and USSR that key movements and ideologies in the world develop, and it is the combination of these three entities that shape the period. Going back to the Age of Catastrophe, Hobsbawm seems strained to include ‘the rest of the world’ in his chapters, often as a side section towards the end of a chapter. He does pay more attention later in his work to the Third World (Africa) as he devotes whole chapters to this topic.

The other aspect of Hobsbawm’s work is the devotion given to art and culture by assessing art during 1914-1945 and then 1950-1991. Even here however, Hobsbawm cannot get away from his commitment to Avant-garde as he seems to bemoan its demise in the later half of the twentieth century. As this work focuses heavily on ideology and economy, the inclusion of the arts is a rather peculiar one. I have previously mentioned that focusing on economics allows Hobsbawm to sugar over sociological issues such as the Holocaust, but then this narrative of the development of art and culture seems to contradict this.

Hobsbawm also gives attention to the developments in science and technology during the Short Twentieth Century, as even Hobsbawm acknowledges that technology has shaped the world by the date his work was published.

It should be said, that despite his attention to communism (which of course played a huge role in twentieth century politics, economics, culture and society), The Age of Extremes is an extremely good starting point for historians interested in the twentieth century, or for anyone interested in what factors have shaped the world that we currently live in. Although I have only briefly suggested discrepancies in Hobsbawm’s analysis it would be ridiculous for Hobsbawm to try and assess every sociological aspect of the short century in what is already an extensive piece of work. That would be more relevant to multiple volumes. But Hobsbawm’s extensive use of reference material and the powerful construction of the narrative and his arguments are merits to the long career of this esteemed historian.

Is that a cow?

So today I gowned a green paper suit, put around 5 bucket loads of disinfectant on my boots and was told that I should behave because I am representing the government. That’s right. I went on a farm visit.

I could talk about my professional feelings towards the visit- but that is best kept for when I am at work behind my desk. Instead I would just like to say a few things from my own personal standpoint. [Note, these are not the views of RPA, Defra or HM Government :@].

I firstly would like to say I really enjoyed the trip. I gained valuable insights into agriculture that you just can not appreciate when you are stuck behind a desk reading about EU subsidies!

Part of the trip meant we were able to see the lifecycle of the milking process (the farming side of the farm we went to had a rather large daily element). We started off by viewing some Heifers and other pregnant cows. Before I carry on I would like to say that the farm manager who was showing us around explained to us that everything is consumer driven, he also explained that for the majority of farms in the UK, animal health and wellbeing is of utmost importance, firstly because the supermarkets have strict standards (consumer demand…) and secondly because of regulations placed upon farms to abide by strict animal health procedures with the penalty of non-compliance a reduction in subsidy payment.

Anyway, back to the pregnant Heifers. As the farm primarily dealt with producing milk as this was most profitable for them (but not very) then females cows were important to them. The life of a female cow ranges from growing up (year) to pregnancy (artificial insemination or from a suitable bull if AI is unsuccessful), then when the calf is born after a few weeks it is taken away, this female cow then goes into producing milk- which is collected, after a few months the female is impregnated again, starting the whole cycle over again. One cycle occurs between every 1 and a half to 2 years and each female cow goes through around 3 or 4 cycles (depending on the cow and this is specific to this farm) through it’s life (even though cows can live to around 15).

When the Heifer/female cow has given birth the fate of the calf is dependant upon its sex (and if there are any diseases).  Female calves are obviously starting life in the milking cycle. Male calves are dependent on two things. The first is whether there is enough meat on them at birth. If it is possible to tell in the early stages of life that this calf will grow big and strong then it is sold on in market for consideration for the dinner plate. Weaker looking calves essentially have no purpose in the milk or food chain. In some circumstances they are put down because economically they have no use. However, this farm does note that there is a moral side and it is not all about economics. They are therefore more reluctant to kill the calf straight off and are likely to try and sell these calves on albeit at a very low price. Within this context we were taken to see such calves, some of which were only 4 days old, others 10 weeks old. We were told that this is the side of things consumers tend to miss when they buy or demand cheap milk. If you want your milk cheap then only the most productive animal is of economic use, those with no economic benefit are essentially useless.

We were taken to the main housing shed for the cows. This was a large open area, regularly cleaned- in fact it was being cleaned while we were there. It was not overcrowded and there was plenty of room for the cows to move and over the course of an hour I watched as cows had the freedom of movement of the length of the shed.

Finally on our trip we were taken to two different fields so we could assess things such as set-aside land, arable land, environmental stewardship and cross compliance (good agricultural and environmental condition). It should be pointed out that farmers only get subsidy payments without penalty if they keep their land in good environmental condition; there are also extra subsidy payments available for farmers who take part in environmental schemes such as countryside stewardship and planting hedgerows (for example). One of the amazing things that occurred to me was that the first field we were taken to was around 5 and a half hectares. Everyday at work I come across farmers who have fields about 5 times the size of this (and this is only one of their fields/parcels!).  But I thought this field I was in was huge. It made me appreciate how much land some farmers had (this is not the case when it comes to tenant farmers of course). Anyway, the farm manager explained that a lot of the field around Berkshire is of poor soil quality but one of the most popular crops to grow in this soil is corn. This is not the kind of corn that you have a dash of butter on top for dinner. No. The main purpose of this corn was to feed animals- such as those cows on his farm. Now I have heard of the statistic that around 60% of grown food crops in America go towards feeding animals involved in diary/meat farming,but you don’t appreciate how many crops are grown just for animal feed. I only started appreciating this whilst standing in the middle of a 5 hectare field.

I have to admit that despite being a vegetarian on moral and ethical grounds I now feel even guiltier for not being a vegan. It appears that it is pointless to say you will become vegetarian because you disagree with treatment of animals or the effect upon the environment that animal farming causes. If you were really serious about these issues then you’d become a vegan. But can I make this step? Vegetarianism is really easy for me; I have not been tempted to try meat once in over 2 years. But soya milk? I don’t know :-S

***   ***

There are two other points I picked up from the visit. Apparently, there are farms (rather big ones) who are still being screwed over by the larger supermarkets. This is because a contract can be made between the farmer and supermarket, the farmer will then fulfil his side of the agreement but then the supermarket turn around and say “Great, but we are going to pay you £15,000 less”. The farmer has no power in these circumstances. Of course what the supermarket is doing is illegal and of course the farmer does have the National Farmers Union to go to, but then that farmer will lose that supermarket’s contract. Therefore the farmer has no choice but to accept the new terms imposed by the supermarket.

This is not the first time I have seen this kind of undercutting. When I worked on building sites the way things are generally done is that the main builders will contract out jobs to other companies’ i.e. electrical work, plumbing etc. These companies will bid for the work; the lowest price for the quickest work plan will win. However, for a few of the electrical companies I have worked for after they had won the contract and signed the deal the builder has turned around and have said that the electrical company will need to cut their price by 5%. The electrical company (depending on its size) will not walk away because it needs that contract. Therefore two things happen. The first is that the quality of materials used will fall because money is tighter. This may not sound like a lot but the quality of the material can severely affect the quality and speed of the work. Secondly, and most importantly, the wages on offer falls. Most companies do things on price. This means that there is no fixed wage but the amount you take home at the end of the week depends on the work you do. The theory is that the incentive to you is to work quicker and faster in order to make more money. However if after you start working for the builders they ask you to lower your price then you can see situations where a first fix (putting in all the wires and cables whilst the house is being built- a second fix is when the walls and ceilings are up and you put the covers on switches etc) originally was say £500 and took 3 days to do, would now be £450 but still take 3 days to do, or because the quality of the materials falls can take 3 and a half days.

I’m digressing.

The final point I was pondering from my visit was the future of farming in England. We were told that the average age of a farmer was 59/60. We were told that there is a high illiteracy rate amongst farmers and many still didn’t (and refused) to have the internet. Some farms apparently are still running without electricity. Regardless of all this there are enormous pressures placed upon the farming community when it comes to inspections and paper work. A lot of farmers who went into farming straight from school years ago went into an industry that was purely manually based. Now because of the pressures imposed by the capitalist model and especially supermarkets, many farmers are hardly making a profit. The more efficient farms turn out to be those that are bigger. These bigger farms are able to claim bigger subsidy as well (SPS is based on potential land that can be used- the more you have the more money you get).

In the context of the average age of farmers, their illiteracy and the idea of it being purely manual labour, the pressures placed upon smaller farms in terms of the bureaucracy involved with farming (not all bad in terms of environmental care, animal health and food quality) means that many of these farmers may not get the full subsidy they are entitled to because they don’t fill out the relevant forms or make a mistake. On top of all this you have to remember that for a variety of reasons there is not an influx of younger farmers in the industry. Younger farmers would be more open to technology and bureaucracy because that is what the more recent generations have grown up with. But farming is not attractive to a huge majority of youngsters, even to those from a farming background because there is not enough money in it for the amount of work you have to put in.

Therefore could the future of farming be a few large companies? This would be of serious detriment to tradition and raise the entry levels for new farmers, but on the flipside larger farms can employ people to deal with the bureaucracy and then employ people to work on the farm. Could this help save farming? It would provide well paid farming jobs, but then what would be the result of this? Would animal health go down? Well larger farms would be able to experiment with new techniques and use the newest technology. They would also continue to be at the mercy of government regulation which ensures quality. The bad taste left in the mouths of the ethical consumer when it comes to market dominance of companies such as Tescos and Primark may not necessarily reflect if the same was to happen to farming. With Primark for example, they buy their clothes from a producer, they do not operate at the bottom of the chain, only buy from it. Farming would essentially be at the bottom of the chain- control this and you control the quality of the chain (in theory).

The idea of a larger more monopolised farming industry would still create problems. If one company was to collapse this would have a huge impact upon food prices and supply- this would be the same if these companies started demanding more for their product (because there is less competition)- food prices would go up. Finally there is still the problem of entry into the farming industry being higher and those small independent farmers whose families have been farming for generations will be wiped out- do we really want to do this?

Is free market economics to blame for swine flu?

Two of the main characteristics of free-market economics, or should I say capitalism, is the need to produce a product at the smallest possible cost, and to then increase it’s sales as much as possible.

When it comes to capitalism and food, especially meat, these ideas are played out by breeding, growing and culling the most animals at the smallest cost so to keep the price of their meat down in order to sell a lot of it.

It is this philosophy that leads to intensive farming. In these conditions animals, in this case pigs, are crammed together, force fed nutrient less food and injected with unknown quantities of antibiotics. In these conditions they have limited movement, hardly see sunlight and can in no way healthily develop as a free range pig would.

With the outbreak in swine flu, it is these farming conditions that have come under further attack.

One of the reported sources of the outbreak of the swine flu virus is Perote in Veracruz,  Mexico. In Perote there is a huge industrial pig farm which contains around 950,000 pigs. Nearby there is another pig farm called Xaltepec where 15,000 pigs are housed in 18 warehouses.  Both of these farms are owned by Smithfield the world’s largest pork supplier (worth around $1.4 billion). An outbreak of swine flu at one of Smithfield’s farms in Romania cost the company $13 million in 2007.

Johann Hari has written about this issue and has quoted Dr Ellen Silbergeld, Professor of Environmental Health Sciences at Johns Hopkins University, as saying about intensive pig farms as allowing viruses “thousands and thousands of spins [of the roulette wheel], for no extra cost [which] drives the evolution of new diseases.” The ‘roulette wheel’ in this case refers to the fact that there are hundreds and thousands of pigs crammed into the same enclosure that allows viruses to spread from one to the other easily, giving it a chance to evolve into something stronger.

Alongside the problems of cramming so many pigs together is the issue of pumping the animals full of vaccines and other drugs.

Hari has looked at the warnings from Sir Liam Donaldson, the British government’s Chief Scientist, who says “Every inappropriate use in animals or agriculture [of antibiotics] is potentially a death warrant for a future patient.” (also see here)

When you combine the idea of and the techniques used in intensive farming, Dr Michael Greger, director of Public Health and Animal Agriculture at the Humane Society of the United States, concludes that “all this together… you have a perfect storm environment for these super-strains. If you wanted to create global pandemics, you’d build as many of these factory farms as possible.”

Caroline Lucas, Green Party leader and one of the South East’s MEP’s, wrote an article that also cites Dr Greger, this time suggesting that a human/pig/bird virus (like the H1N1 swine flu virus we are currently seeing) was first seen in 1998 at a North Carolina pig farm. This farm had a pig population of 10million and Lucas notes that at this time hog farms [a bit more free range] were decreasing in the area. (More information on the first recognised outbreak of this human/avian/swine flu in 1998 can be found here)

The owner of the pig farms in question, Smithfield, understandably denies any wrong doing suggesting they routinely test their pigs for illness and regularly vaccinate their animals.

However, Lucas has called for a more indepth investigation into the outbreak of the virus and it’s possible connection with intensive pig farming.

Despite Smithfield’s assurances, another potential source of the outbreak has been revealed as La Gloria also in Veracruz, where pig manure pools have been singled out for blame. Problems with pig manure fields come from the smell which attract flies and which help spread diseases further afield, and from water contamination. Funnily enough in 1997 Smithfield were fined $12.6 million for violating the federal Clean Water Act. Concerns that La Gloria is the centre of the outbreak and that pig waste is to blame have been raised by Mexico’s national public health authority.

What is interesting to point out is that the first reported case of swine flu does come from this region, a four year old who has survived. Yet despite this, and despite “residents of La Gloria have long complained about the clouds of flies that are drawn the so-called “manure lagoons” created by such [intensive farming] mega-farms” it has been claimed by Mexican local government (possibly trying to protect industry and tourism is the area) that many of the people ill in this region were only suffering influenza despite these ‘influenza’ outbreaks being the first with unusual spreading patterns in Mexico.

Local residents in La Gloria are still adamant that the outbreak started here though. One report says that a 34 year old local resident called Jose Luis Martinez said “When we saw it on the television we said to ourselves, ‘This is what we had,”‘ he said. “It all came from here. The symptoms they are suffering are the same that we had here.””

Suspicions have also been raised of the inspections taken place in the town and the pig farms, with one source suggesting that none of the inspectors so far have been from the Mexican government.

Regardless, what we do know is that the swine flu outbreak is not the first that has been directly linked with intensive animal farming. Caroline Lucas wrote a report 3 years ago about how avian flu developed in the world’s poultry farms. This report can be accessed here.  There have also been stories of intensive pig farms being responsible for some MRSA outbreaks in the USA.

If the current outbreak can be directly attributed to intensive pig farming, then it is another thing we can blame Thatcher for. It would be capitalisms fault. But as capitalism keeps imploding upon itself as we have seen this past year with the ‘credit crunch’, then this is another classic case of capitalism being it’s own worst enemy; remember the economic destruction caused in Mexico by swine flu- borders shut down, hotels, tourism, schools, businesses shut and collapsing.

Although I could just be jumping ahead of myself here, as Joseph Luter III, Smithfield’s chairman, once said; vegetarians are “neurotic”.

***   ***

I need to become a proper scientist to be able to assess the true threat of swine flu, but on the face of it, I don’t think there is much to worry about… yet.

For example consider the death map , where at the time of writing there has only been only 2 deaths outside Mexico, one of which was a Mexican boy in USA on 29 April 2009 and the other, also in the USA, was a woman in her 30’s who “had chronic underlying health conditions”. Mexico have now admitted that they may have over-reacted to the number of deaths caused by swine flu. The deaths that there have been in Mexico have been attributed to the poor healthcare system when compared with other countries, although a point I am surprised more media sources have not picked up upon is the seemingly slow down in the rate of deaths. As more countries and people become aware of the problem cases can be treated more urgently. A speedy diagnosis and treatment is the first step to recovery.

There are also reports that this virus is at present only a mild strain and a suggestion from Chris Olsen, a professor of public health and head of the Olsen Laboratory, that older people are more immune to this virus than younger people is because they are more likely to have encountered this type of viruses before and have built up a stronger immunity.

But the most concluding statement I have read on the swine flu outbreak and which focuses a lot on the media attention behind swine flu is this one:

“Swine flu is notable because it’s an exceptional event, something above the everyday toll of deaths caused by infectious diseases. A pandemic similar to that of 1918-19, which killed at least 50 million people, would be a catastrophic event because it would double annual worldwide mortality. However, I think the chances of a repeat of 1918-19 are very small. What swine flu, and the media reaction to it, does highlight is our willingness to accept the “routine” toll of infectious diseases with little apparent concern. However, “Mother dies of TB in Zambia and infects her three children” is not a headline that sells many papers.” John McConnell who is Editor of The Lancet Infectious Diseases journal.

***   ***

Avaaz’s most recent internet action is on this very topic, and they have created an online petition which can be found here to put pressure on the WHO to investigate the link of swine flu with intensive pig farming.

For those who do not get Avaaz’s email updates and actions, here are some links they have referenced for further information on the topic:

Biosurveillance report tracing the disease to the Smithfields farm: http://biosurveillance.typepad.com/biosurveillance/2009/04/swine-flu-in-mexico-timeline-of-events.html

Reports on the link between the Mexican factory farm and the flu:
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-wellbeing/health-news/for-la-gloria-the-stench-of-blame-is-from-pig-factories-1675809.html

http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-fg-mexico-flu28-2009apr28,0,1701782.story

http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=can-swine-flu-be-blamed-on-industri-09-05-01

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227063.800-swine-flu-the-predictable-pandemic.html?full=true

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/swine-flu-outbreak—-nat_b_191408.html

WHO pandemic information
http://www.euro.who.int/influenza/20080618_19

FAO, EC and CDC reports on the risks of industrial farming on public health
FAO and CIWF and http://www.cdc.gov/cafos/about.htm

CIWF and PETA video reports of the disgusting conditions for animals in factory farms and the disease ridden manure swamps:
CIWF and PETA

Reports on Smithfield’s animal welfare and environmental damage
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-wellbeing/health-news/for-la-gloria-the-stench-of-blame-is-from-pig-factories-1675809.html

http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/press/releases/new-report-highlights-the-trouble-with-smithfield-article03132008

http://avaazimages.s3.amazonaws.com/SmithfieldJan08.pdf

Reports on UK tax payers subsidising factory farms http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/agriculture/farming/5225298/Taxpayers-forking-out-700-million-for-factory-farming-in-England.html

Shopping!

I really hate going shopping. Shopping turns people into idiots (I wish to use a stronger word but in fear of being disrespectful to a family audience). Take supermarkets. There are people who stand in the middle of the isle, their trolleys at jointy angles, oblivious to the fact that you would like to pass. Some people will park their trolley right next to another shopper’s therefore making the isle even smaller to get down. There are times you try and be polite and let the shopper the other side of this obstacle go first, they go, and don’t say thank you, then as you are to make this same journey yourself a shopper behind you pushes in front as though they are sickened by your display of politeness and humanity.

If you accidently knock into someone, to them it wasn’t a accident, instead you were assaulting them, assuming you believe they are fat ignorant idiots because they are in the crisp isle, you say sorry and the reply is “no you’re not you ****” (replace **** with your choice of derogatory rant).

The worst one in a shop is the one who stops without any warning when you are behind them, or who stands in the middle of an isle or at the entrance to an isle pondering what to buy next.

This is the same when you are walking down a street full of shops. Some people walk in rows of 3 or more people, not one of them moving to let you walk past. People will cut you up as though you are not there, making you half trip (don’t worry no-one will notice). These people walk expecting you to be the one who moves if you are in their way. If they can’t get past slow walking people (who are also a pain) they huff and puff as if they have just completed a marathon.

The above examples are not just a specific group of people, it applies to everyone. Even when you try and be polite in a shop to another shopper, that politeness will only last as long as your patience holds up from a lack of a thank you, and even if you continue your polite streaks, you are still likely to want to punch slow moving people in the head and huff and puff, or stand in the most inappropriate places when considering your next purchase.

Nope, no-one can escape the self-centeredness that shopping puts in you. And that is why shoppers are stuck up idiots. When you shop you are thinking, ‘what do I want?’, ‘what would I like?’, and ‘what do I need?’. It’s all me, me, me, I, I, I when you shop. Even when you are buying something for someone else you don’t just think what would that other person like, you are thinking, ‘how much do I want to spend on them’, ‘how much do they mean to me’, ‘what shows them how much I think of them’ and ‘what shows them that I can afford decent things and that I live in decadence?’. It’s still me, me, me. So how could we expect shoppers to be anything but selfish? It happens to everyone, even the socialist anti-consumerist, fairtrade buying vegetarian. Shopping, no matter what for is still based around self and is one of the only times you focus purely on your self (for most people).

That is one of the reasons I hate consumerism. Consumerism (and capitalism) are all about the self, screw everyone else. And we are all sucked in, even if our only shopping experience is once a week for fairtrade green-teabags and a bag of carrots, and it is something that is now so vital to our society, culture and economy that will never end.

Chain Store Reaction dot Com

Hello all. I have not been able to write anything new on here for a short while because my internet access has been limited to just my mobile- not the best place to write hours worth of jibber jab. I am however in the middle of hand writing random bits’n'bobs to put on here when i have a chance.

Regardless, using the wonderful power of StumbleUpon i have come across this website: http://chainstorereaction.com/. It is an American (but still useful) website that allows you to email any of the companies listed about human rights and slavery- it is a very useful tool and ideal for those who want to do their bit, but want to do it sitting down and with the least effort possible. I urge you all to email any of those companies you feel passionately against or know abuse their worker’s rights.