You are here: Home | News | Morrisons appoints new corporate technical services director
Morrison's has appointed Andrew Clappen as its new corporate technical services director. Clappen is replacing technical director Liam Pope, who is retiring after more than 25 years at the supermarket chain.
Previously senior vice president for food safety, quality assurance and regulatory affairs at Canadian retailer Loblaw, Clappen will be responsible for food safety, trading standards and compliance issues in his new role. He will report to Morrison’s corporate services director Martyn Jones.
In a separate move, Morrison’s has recruited Allison Taylor as loss prevention director to head up a new loss prevention unit. Taylor joins the supermarket from Dixons.
Commenting on the appointments Martyn Jones said: "These appointments are part of Morrisons ongoing development from a family business to a FTSE-50 company. hey will ensure we have the right people and processes in place to satisfy our external stakeholders."
Tagged as: morrison's | loblaw
Should your colleagues be reading the Retail Bulletin? Let them know about us.
Source: www.theretailbulletin.com
Allotment holders concerned over future of plots (From Watford Observer) - Watford Observer
West Watford allotments considered as part of Health Campus development
10:28am Tuesday 19th June 2012 in News By Mike Wright, Chief Reporter
Allotment holders in West Watford vented their anger after learning their plots may be lost in the Health Campus development.
Watford’s elected mayor, Dorothy Thornhill face heated questioning from residents at a meeting last night as the council agreed to look at letting developers use Farm Terrace allotments as part of the £1bn scheme.
Allotment holders were sent letters last week saying their plots were now to be considered as part of the scheme after originally being protected due to the worsening economic climate.
The Health Campus project promises to redevelop the land around Watford General Hospital, with a new hospital as well as new homes and leisure facilities.
The move comes as Watford Borough Council is in crunch negotiations with two developers over which of them will get the final contract.
At a meeting of the council’s Liberal Democrat cabinet last night, which was well attended by allotment holders, councillors and the mayor voted to look at options including using all the Farm Terrace land, half or none of it.
Before the vote the mayor addressed the allotment holders, saying nothing had been decided over the Farm Terrace land and they would be fully consulted over any changes.
Dorothy Thornhill said: "At the moment as it is at a very early stage which may take years. I have done you the courtesy of telling you that things have changed from what you understand."
When pressed on why the allotments were now being considered for development, the mayor said she did not know the exact specifics.
However she told allotment holders her understanding was that the Farm Terrace land could be crucial to the whole Health Campus being a viable prospect for developers.
"My understanding is that it is in order to make the whole package stand up," said Mayor Thornhill.
"They are (the developers) taking a massive risk. I know we like to paint the developers as the bad guys."
In a report to the cabinet on the progress on the Health Campus officers said the tough economic climate had not helped the project by two tranches of funding totalling £13m had boosted the project.
Yet councillors were told the inclusion of the allotment site could be crucial for the viability of the scheme.
The report said: "Without the inclusion of some of the allotment site, delivery would be very much more difficult and the end result far less advantageous from the perspective of providing a new quarter for this area of West Watford.
"Viability would be impacted. As members are aware there are also pressures to provide other community assets such as a primary school.
"Utilising a significant portion of the allotments will greatly assist to develop a viable and better masterplan."
Following the meeting Watford Borough Council shed more light on why the allotments may need to be used in the Health Campus.
Among the reasons developers have given for why they may need the land are in case the hospital needs to be expanded beyond what it is currently planned.
Developers are also facing a more than £30m costs to clear the site of waste, build a bridge over the railway, level the land for building and put in flood prevention measures.
Therefore the companies vying for the Health Campus contract have said they may need the extra land to offset the mounting costs of the project.
The allotment land has also been mooted as a site for a new primary school.
Comments(3)
TRT says...
10:55am Tue 19 Jun 12
gusgreen says...
11:30am Tue 19 Jun 12
TRT says...
11:49am Tue 19 Jun 12
Source: www.watfordobserver.co.uk
Supermarkets are accused of failing to adequately stock shelves - scotsman.com
Supermarket shelves are so poorly stocked that the typical shopper can find everything on their list just eight times in every 100 visits, research claims.
There are so many gaps in availability that undercover investigators, visiting a different Tesco branch every week for a year, got a full basket just three times.
Waitrose was no better, Asda only marginally so, and even the best of the five major chains, Morrisons, could only offer every item on a list six times in 12 months.
The problem is getting worse according to the annual Grocer 33 table, an influential round-up of a full year of mystery shoppers testing supermarkets.
The Grocer magazine sends investigators to a different branch of Asda, Morrisons, Sainsbury’s, Tesco and Waitrose every week with a list of 33 everyday items to buy.
As well as monitoring the price and service, it also looks at the availability of items, which include the kind of things every shopper buys like tea, bread and milk.
In the past 12 months, out of 250 visits, the list could only be completed 21 times, which works out at 8 per cent.
Morrisons was best with six full baskets, Sainsbury’s provided five, Asda four and both Tesco and Waitrose just three.
There were 53 baskets - more than one in five - returned with three or more items missing, with Tesco the worst culprit, having been the best the year before.
In the previous 12-month period, there were 38 full baskets, and all but Morrisons managed double figures for the number of times they returned all 33 items.
Analysts blamed the problem of increasing breakdowns between the supermarkets and their supply chain and underestimating customer demand for promotions. Suppliers are not keeping as much stock during the economic recession to avoid the costs of wastage if they do not sell everything.
This also means that they have less to supply the supermarket chains when several of them order the same thing at once unexpectedly – possibly one chain runs a promotion and others decide to copy.
There is also a problem with different branches having different needs when such a promotion is run, said The Grocer.
A chain may order an extra 100 units of one product for each of its branches when running a promotion like a “buy one, get one free” deal.
But while one branch could sell out within a day, another could be left with unsold stock for a couple of months, said the publication
Alan Braithwaite of supply chain consultants LCP said: “Promotions lead to massive volatility in demand. The spike could be fivefold in one store and 25-fold in another.”
The Grocer’s editor Adam Leyland said: “Five years of intensifying promotion-based price wars, combined with an increasing disconnect between supermarket and supplier planning, and just-in-time stock inventories, have resulted in major shelf gaps amid ever-more erratic sales.”
Yet despite the lack of full baskets, supermarkets can point to The Grocer’s figures showing an average 95 per cent of the 33 items are available at any one time.
Sainsbury’s said its own figures showed it had improved over five years, adding: “We performed well against our targets.”
Email to a friend
Print this pageComments
There are 4 comments to this article
Because FOOD SHORTAGES ARE COMING, like electric and gas shortages will be coming.
FEATURES 18 Jun 2012 Editor's blog - Article 10, protection of sources and police pressure to reveal them It is worth quoting a recent ECHR fact sheet on the protection of journalistic sources in detail, given the disturbing events of today, when it has emerged that it is by admission “normal practice” for Strathclyde Police to browbeat journalists in an effort to pressure them into revealing the sources of news stories that may cast them in a negative light. “The European Court of Human Rights has repeatedly emphasised that Article 10 safeguards not only the substance and contents of information and ideas, but also the means of transmitting it. The press has been accorded the broadest scope of protection in the Court’s case law, including with regard to confidentiality of journalistic sources,” the fact sheet begins. It then quotes the landmark Goodman case, which enshrines the Article 10 entitlement of journalists to protect their sources. “The protection of journalistic sources is one of the basic conditions for press freedom,“ it says. “Without such protection, sources may be deterred from assisting the press in informing the public on matters of public interest. As a result the vital public-watchdog role of the press may be undermined, and the ability of the press to provide accurate and reliable information be adversely affected. An order of source disclosure ... cannot be compatible with Article 10 unless it is justified by an overriding requirement in the public interest.” The Goodwin case, perhaps unsurprisingly, originated in the UK. What has emerged through The Firm’s reporting of on Operation Rubicon, the Scottish investigation into phone hacking, police corruption, breaches of data protection and matters arising out of the Tommy Sheridan trial is that Strathclyde Police’s major investigation, backed by significant resources, is beginning to look like nothing more than an elaborate smokescreen, concealing a less than half hearted effort by the police to investigate themselves. Whilst in England, numerous Chief Constables, Deputies, Superintendents and all manner of major figures have been obliged to resign due to the findings of Operations Elveden, Weeting, Tuleta and the Leveson Inquiry, the only action that has arisen from Rubicon in almost exactly a year of activity is the arrest of Andy Coulson for perjury, a matter which could have been dealt with at the conclusion of the Tommy Sheridan perjury trial seven months before Rubicon was initiated. All in all, not much to show for a year’s work, in this reporter's view. The Firm reported this afternoon that the officer leading the inquiry, DS John McSporran had, according to sources, stated that Rubicon was not looking into police corruption or phone hacking, contrary to the extensive remit provided by the Crown Office. The police were made aware of the claims before the story went to press, and in due course DS McSporran provided a carefully hedged statement which was also duly reported, and as far as the public interest function of journalism is concerned, all was more or less right with the world. And then the phone went. A “media manager” from Strathclyde Police called and asked The Firm repeatedly to disclose the source of the original story, seemingly unaware that there is not a court in Europe that would support the notion of the police obliging a journalist to do so. The inappropriate nature of the request was of course duly pointed out, but the officer in question said that they “did not see a problem” in being told the source. “I need to speak to the Chief Constable about this,” I told the caller. “No, you don’t.” Hmmm. “Who do you report to?” I asked. “I report to the Deputy Chief Constable” “I need to speak to the Deputy Chief Constable immediately please.” “No you’re not [sic]” I was told. “I’m not putting you through to the Deputy Chief constable. Why can’t you deal with this with me? You are being utterly unreasonable.” The identity of the media manager has been established and the entire issue is now subject to complaint raised with the Deputy Chief Constable who, one would anticipate, would immediately disavow such a prima facie breach by the state of the ECHR protections afforded to journalists, and confirm that he supports the protection of journalists' sources fully throughout the organisation, including its media managers (whatever they are…). Public interest has prompted me to publish this blog and open the debate out to those elsewhere in the media or public life who may have insight into what ought to be a rogue incident, but which may in fact be more widespread. You see, the practice of applying pressure to seek sources from journalists is evidently routine, something the media manager was prepared to confirm in writing by way of email follow up. “I am writing to request that you confirm where the comments attributed to John McSporran came from. I deal with journalists every day and most will be good enough to confirm where they have got their information in order that we can answer their enquiry as accurately as possible,” a subsequent email read. “I would reiterate it is normal practice for us to ask journalists where they have got their information from. They are not obliged to tell us however most usually do in order to assist us in answering their questions and confirming or otherwise if that information is in fact correct or incorrect.” One finds it hard to believe that most journalists would be “good enough” to confirm the identity of their sources under any circumstances. If applying this pressure is indeed “normal practice,” perhaps Lord Leveson may want to ask another question or two of Chief Constable Stephen House, to ask him why. Lest we forget, House also told the inquiry in the full glare of planet Earth that Strathclyde Police officers were “taking money”, something that has not resulted in any subsequent arrests by the officers of Operation Rubicon. Another news outlet today reported that Liberal Democrat leader Willie Rennie has claimed that Scottish Government phones have been hacked, less than a week after the First Minister told the Leveson inquiry that he believed illegality was rife across many, many newspapers. The evidence in the public domain that attests to the possibility of police corruption is everywhere. According to The Guardian’s review of “Enquirer”, a performance play based on interviews conducted with figures operating in the prevailing media environment, well kent face Jack Irvine is “alarmingly unguarded about his time as launch editor of the Scottish Sun,” and openly boasts of bribing the police. "I had a black book of cash payoffs," he says, adding that payments were made to ambulance crews, social workers and royal staff. "Is it illegal to pay cops?" he asks, seemingly in all innocence.” If such alleged corruption is capable of discovery by any member of the public enterprising enough to visit the theatre, yet has not been unearthed by a significantly resourced team of police who have been at it for a year, the actions of a police force that not only trample over the basic protections of the free press, but are also confident to do so in writing, warrant further scrutiny. One also has to look afresh at the low arrest rate arising from Rubicon and ask what exactly is happening there. I understand that Rubicon personnel will shortly be subject to redeployment to cover the Olympics, and if that is the case there may not be much more fruit to be borne from its labours. If its sole legacy is the new practice of hunting journalists' sources, the present, far less the future of journalism in Scotland is fragile indeed. Steven Raeburn Previous Feature : Statement from Roseanna Cunningham on racist crime Print this document See all news LATEST NEWS Strathclyde Police spin chief joins "No" campaign - 18 Jun 2012 Exclusive: Rubicon chief says police not looking into phone hacking, sources claim - 18 Jun 2012 Rubicon Chief: inquiry "has never deviated" from investigating phone hacking - 18 Jun 2012 UK wide electoral reform floated - 15 Jun 2012 Law Society of England and Wales supports marriage equality - 14 Jun 2012 See all features LATEST FEATURES Editor's blog - Article 10, protection of sources and police pressure to reveal them - 18 Jun 2012 Statement from Roseanna Cunningham on racist crime - 12 Jun 2012 Jubilee? #Jobbielee: Power and the People - 04 Jun 2012 Austin Lafferty - The essence of private practice - 30 May 2012 Supreme Court, Assange and the Vienna Convention - 30 May 2012
I would like to see the shopping list they use, I have never had a problem filling my shopping list in Sainsburys or Asda, I never use waitrose or Morrisons and only occasionally go to tesco.
Tae the supermarket here we go To fill our trolleys, in we throw, Tatties, pickles, name yer poison, And its something tae keep the boys in, Haggies and neeps, and raspberries too, Bit help me boab there nae stew, Roun fae Tesco to Sainbeeraies dance, O the staff are in a trance, We hive goat yer stew in stock Sae stop complainig an gai it a sock.
Your view
Please sign in to be able to comment on this story.
Source: www.scotsman.com
Owners of Udinese agree takeover of Watford - The Independent
The Olympic Torch Relay: One of those twice in a lifetime experiences
The Torch weighs exactly 1kg, which is no big deal to hold briefly aloft, but if you carry two bags ...
Source: www.independent.co.uk
Watford Supporters Trust statement regarding takeover (From This Is Local London) - This is london Calling
Watford Supporters Trust statement regarding potential takeover by owners of Udinese and Granada
11:33am Tuesday 19th June 2012 in Latest Sport
Watford Supporters Trust have released a statement regarding the pending takeover of the Hornets, where among other things they raised concerns about the Golden Boys becoming a "nursery club" for Udinese.
The statement read: Over the past few months the board have been very active in making contact and holding discussions with a number of people, which has included attending executive meetings, meeting senior employees of the club and members of the board and maintaining close links with the media. We have been active in trying to make sure that all promised payments have been made and that developments (such as the new pitch and the SW corner) are fully funded, whilst at the same time trying to ensure that funds for more peripheral activities (such as possible future revenue streams) are not likely to cause short or long-term financial problems.
In this respect we have been seeking to increase the transparency in the operation of the club and its dealings and in so doing we have also had several discussions with Mr Bassini.
We were not prepared however to fuel any of the rumours, particularly since we have had a reasonably successful season and we are continually trying to maintain stability in the club after considerable instability in many ways.
It is always difficult at a time of rumour and speculation and we have been investigating the rumours for substance, including speaking to Mr Bassini. The culmination of the rumours you will now have seen as emerging stories in the press regarding the possibility/probability of a change in ownership of the club with the new owner likely to be Signor Pozzo who owns Udinese in Serie A and Granada in the Spanish first division. There is still uncertainty about this and it is not a done deal at the time of writing. This is a fluid and rapidly changing situation after a period of comparative calm on the surface.
Will this be good or bad for the club?
At the moment there has been no sale although it may be imminent. If the club is sold to Sr Pozzo we will have an owner with a general interest in Football. There is a strong possibility that he would want to bring some of Udinese’s younger players on loan to Watford, which is what he has done with Granada. This has implications for Sean Dyche’s control over player recruitment and the academy development of young players. Two or three talented young Italians who have to fight for their place in the team may have advantages in introducing players who have a high technical proficiency. However, if they have to be played under instructions from the owner, who currently seems to see Udinese as the focus of his operations, then this would be bad and we would simply become a nursery club for Udinese. It should be noted that Granada just missed relegation last season. It is also unknown what he would think about the community involvement of the club and any withdrawal of support from the Community Trust would be a serious undermining of the role and position of the club in the community, something that Watford FC is rightly admired for.
It is unclear just how much money Mr Bassini has put into the club and there is considerable secrecy over the finances. There are indications that some of the conditions of the purchase of the club by Mr Bassini have not been met in full, e.g. delays in payments and deadlines. While this in itself is not necessarily a cause for concern, it is indicative of having to operate very close to financial limits and it is possible that the operation has been financed through player sales. Again this is not necessarily a cause for concern because it is fundamentally what we were doing before Mr Bassini took over - but previously there was complete transparency, which as sole owner Mr Bassini does not need to embrace. However, such failures could trigger action by the bond holders to take back the club or to take control over key assets against which the sale has been secured, such as the ground. It is also of concern that if there is a cash flow problem that the pitch replacement could not be completed or the club could acquire a debt that it could not pay on time.
The Trust Board have been aware of events unfolding having been in close contact with the club and having spoken with Mr Bassini. While rumour and speculation should not be a reason to react prematurely we have been monitoring the situation and have been in regular contact with a number of key people. We will be using our influence to try and ensure that any deal will protect the club and its interests. If there is a new owner we would seek a very early meeting with the new owner and/or his representatives and we would want to see members of the current board retained on a future board to ensure continuity and representatives who would champion the Watford Way and what the club stand for.
We need an owner who will buy in to the values of the club and provide an extended period of financial and organisational stability. The Trust will do everything in its power to ensure that this is what happens.
Comments(8)
a1derek says...
11:39am Tue 19 Jun 12
pete50 says...
11:41am Tue 19 Jun 12
StephenKilamanjiro says...
11:42am Tue 19 Jun 12
WFCinexile says...
11:52am Tue 19 Jun 12
KL Massive says...
11:54am Tue 19 Jun 12
Colin West's mullet says...
11:56am Tue 19 Jun 12
llloydwithathirdl says...
11:59am Tue 19 Jun 12
wfc cassiobury says...
12:08pm Tue 19 Jun 12
Comment now! Register or sign in below.
Or
Source: www.thisislocallondon.co.uk
Comment now! Register or sign in below.
Or