The Rule of Tony

I met Tony many Moons ago

I was stuck within a System surrounded by Containment Play

I was God, I was female I was a drug addict

Today the Downfall of Behaviour versus Planet has begun

Electronic Device Hacking vs vs. v.s. Personal Worth

  1. I deserve privacy

I deserve privacy so does

Hacking of consumer electronics

The hacking of consumer electronics is a common practice that users perform to customize and modify their devices beyond what is typically possible. This activity has a long history, dating from the days of early computer, programming, and electronics hobbyists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacking_of_consumer_electronics

Hacking of consumer electronics is assigned to Governments today whom we pay tax or hold an agreement with on avoiding Tax

Some pay little to no Tax by law in exchange with value obtained through hard work

Some pay little to no Tax against the law through in the know

To live a life Worldwide where zero potential of Hacking of Consumer Electronics, all Governments need to be taken down and people’s ability to hack into in to another is removed and never challenged through technology


I met Tony stereotype and we shopped together and went for many dinners meals

Mexicans, suited dinners, steakhouses…

With no Governments, how can we enjoy shopping for clothing and going for dinners meals, trade is done independently from factory to outlet

They can pay Tax to themselves to invest within the same company, never the consumer flow trade flow it delivers


Are you managing these? It manages itself through thought-leadership thought-provoking leadership

It can not fail per business due to the root-cause supplier holding the worth of the consumer flow trade flow it delivers

https://i2-prod.liverpoolecho.co.uk/incoming/article23544570.ece/ALTERNATES/s1227b/0_SCAN_1_1.jpg; https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/nostalgia/gallery/35-fascinating-photos-factory-workers-23544521

Tony and I are at home, we have no Social Media


Factory Acts

The Factory Acts were a series of acts passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom beginning in 1802 to regulate and improve the conditions of industrial employment.

The early Acts concentrated on regulating the hours of work and moral welfare of young children employed in cotton mills but were effectively unenforced until the Act of 1833 established a professional Factory Inspectorate. The regulation of working hours was then extended to women by an Act of 1844. The Factories Act 1847 (known as the Ten Hour Act), together with Acts in 1850 and 1853 remedying defects in the 1847 Act, met a long-standing (and by 1847 well-organised) demand by the millworkers for a ten-hour day. The Factory Acts also included regulations for ventilation, hygienic practices, and machinery guarding in an effort to improve the working circumstances for mill children.

Introduction of the ten-hour day proved to have none of the dire consequences predicted by its opponents, and its apparent success effectively ended theoretical objections to the principle of factory legislation; from the 1860s onwards more industries were brought within the Factory Act.

Health and Morals of Apprentices Act 1802

The Health and Morals of Apprentices Act 1802 (42 Geo. 3. c. 73) was introduced by Sir Robert Peel; it addressed concerns felt by the medical men of Manchester about the health and welfare of children employed in cotton mills, and first expressed by them in 1784 in a report on an outbreak of ‘putrid fever’ at a mill at Radcliffe owned by Peel. Although the Act included some hygiene requirements for all textile mills, it was largely concerned with the employment of apprentices; it left the employment of ‘free’ (non-indentured) children unregulated.

It allowed (but did not require) local magistrates to enforce compliance with its requirements, and therefore went largely unenforced. As the first attempt to improve the lot of factory children, it is often seen as paving the way for future Factory Acts. At best, it only partially paved the way; its restriction to apprentices (where there was a long tradition of legislation) meant that it was left to later Factory Acts to establish the principle of intervention by Parliament on humanitarian grounds on worker welfare issues against the “laissez-faire” political and economic orthodoxy of the age which held that to be ill-advised.

Under the Act, regulations and rules came into force on 2 December 1802 and applied to all textile mills and factories employing three or more apprentices or twenty employees. The buildings must have sufficient windows and openings for ventilation, and should be cleaned at least twice yearly with quicklime and water; this included ceilings and walls.[1]

Each apprentice was to be given two sets of clothing, suitable linen, stockings, hats, and shoes, and a new set each year thereafter. Apprentices could not work during the night (between 9 pm and 6 am), and their working hours could not exceed 12 hours a day, excluding the time taken for breaks.[1] A grace period was provided to allow factories time to adjust, but all night-time working by apprentices was to be discontinued by June 1804.[2]

All apprentices were to be educated in reading, writing and arithmetic for the first four years of their apprenticeship. The Act specified that this should be done every working day within usual working hours but did not state how much time should be set aside for it. Educational classes should be held in a part of the mill or factory designed for the purpose. Every Sunday, for one hour, apprentices were to be taught the Christian religion; every other Sunday, divine service should be held in the factory, and every month the apprentices should visit a church. They should be prepared for confirmation in the Church of England between the ages of 14 and 18 and must be examined by a clergyman at least once a year. Male and female apprentices were to sleep separately and not more than two per bed.[1]

Local magistrates had to appoint two inspectors known as ‘visitors’ to ensure that factories and mills were complying with the Act; one was to be a clergyman and the other a Justice of the Peace, neither to have any connection with the mill or factory. The visitors had the power to impose fines for non-compliance and the authority to visit at any time of the day to inspect the premises.[1]

The Act was to be displayed in two places in the factory. Owners who refused to comply with any part of the Act could be fined between £2 and £5.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factory_Acts