Ellee Seymour

After listening to Clifff Burrows, president of Starbucks for Europe, the Middle East and Africa, speak at this event about inspired leadership, I thought he might like to read my post about my son David’s first request on waking up in hospital.

It was for a Starbucks banana Java chip coffee based Frappaccino, with no whipped cream. I mentioned how I was a traditionalist when it came to drinking coffee and usually stick to a totally unadventurous filter coffee.

I emailed him the link, not expecting a reply from such an important and busy man. However, he did respond. He was firstly concerned about David’s well being (he is much better now), and then took my lack of knowledge about coffee as a challenge to educate me.

He arranged for a box of goodies to be sent to my house, including four different packs of coffee blends, a fabulous Bodum coffee maker, three bars of chocolate, one of their stylish mugs and a £20 Starbucks voucher for David.

Thank you Cliff, I can tell you I am thoroughly enjoying the tasty African blend and look forward to sampling the others.

I’m just so impressed by this personal touch. I didn’t even get the chance to talk to Cliff at the seminar, I was a total stranger who emailed him out of the blue. How many presidents of global organisations are as caring and responsive as this? Of course it’s good PR, but I believe it is genuine. Who cannot admire a company whose ethos is to “provide a great work environment and treat each other with respect and dignity,” as well as “develop enthusiastically satisfied customers all of the time”.

Of course, that naturally includes me.

My MEP Robert Sturdy is fuming at the way EU Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson has reneged on vital trade agreements with ACP countries.

We have issued the following press release condemning Mandeleson’s proposal for regional agreements to be reached instead:

Conservative MEP Robert Sturdy yesterday condemned Mr Mandelson’s u-turn over the critical trade agreements between the EU and African, Caribbean and Pacific Countries (ACP).

Last month, Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson, repeatedly squashed calls for alternative options to the so-called Economic Partnership Agreements which will define Europe’s trade relations with ACP countries for the next 15 years and are due to concluded by the end of 2007. He said that there was no other legal option which meets WTO compatible market access arrangements.

But yesterday, the Commission admitted defeat by saying that negotiations would not after all be completed by the end of the year. In a surprise move, the European Commission negotiators, led by Mr Mandelson, have proposed sub-regional agreements, which will be signed by just some of the countries within the six regions, with others to follow at a later date.

Mr Sturdy said: "This is complete chaos. Mr Mandelson’s comments on new trade agreements are unbelievably farcical.

“The very idea that other countries in ACP regions would join later would mean they would be signing up to a deal they had never negotiated. Does the EU really think this is a good idea? Weren’t EPAs meant to be all about regional integration?

“ACP countries should not have to choose between a trade agreement which may damage their local and regional markets on the one hand, and barriers which cripple their export markets on the other. There are still choices to be made and last minute policy shifts from the Commission do nothing to restore the confidence of the disconcerted ACP."

EPAs were intended to link trade and development policy, incorporate sustainable development and contribute to poverty reduction through facilitating trade and enable countries to become better integrated into the global economy.

Appropriately designed, they represent an opportunity to revitalise EU-ACP trading, promote economic diversification and regional integration. But negotiations have not gone smoothly.

African countries have expressed concern about this outcome. Anti-poverty activists have argued that even with this scaling down of ambition for the negotiations, the accords reached this year could have an adverse effect on jobs and earnings.

This very interesting comment has been made on my post where I wrote about my difficulties with Tech Guys:

You do realise just how sexist dixons group and pcworld are being, don’t you.
tech ‘guys’!?
I’m a woman and I am a technician. I am not a guy!
As a woman and a journalist with clout, can you not join the many women who are already picking up on this and state that it is out of order.

I do take her point, and I certainly do know of other women technicians. However, I am making an assumption that the name was chosen because of its informal and friendly overtones (even if, in my experience, they didn’t live up to it this).

I have no idea how many women are employed by Tech Guys. It would sound too naff to change their name to Tech Guys and Gals. Do you have any suggestions? Perhaps something simple, like Tech Solutions.

If this is something you feel strongly about, you can follow her lead by protesting to the companies. I shall not as I don’t feel riled about it. But it would be interesting to know the outcome.