There aren't many upsides to having a not very active bank account, but at least you don't get phoned up by the bank all the time (actually I did the other day, but they haven't troubled to phone back). But my wife does.
Which is interesting. We haven't given them this phone number. And it's not in the book under the name they have. So how did they get hold of it? They have had to actively seek it out .... he doesn't know that we KNOW that.
My wife asked them. He didn't know (I didn't get the name clearly but I don't think it was James this time, it has been him several times before when we lived elsewhere). Or he wouldn't say. We'll call that a fudge rather than anything else. But the lies do come later.
We asked him to delete the number from his records. He said he would. I believe that to be a lie. Even if he wanted to or was able to, his managers wouldn't let him. Because then they couldn't pester us.
We tried the being nice "we know you've been told by your manager ... you've got a horrible job .... but we don't want phone calls" etc. No good. He persists even when it's clear we have no interest in what he wants to say.
He asks if we are satisfied with the service we get from the bank. We say no, the major problem being that they phone us up out of the blue when we do not want it. He doesn't take the hint.
We explained that we know that they phone up because they want to interest us in new "products". He says they don't. So that is lie number 2. Much as it would be lovely to believe what he says - that he sits around thinking about us and worrying that we are not happy with our bank account - it is difficult to believe that the bank would under-employ him in that way. We know he has to make a certain amount of phone calls to show that he is trying to sell some new product (God help him if he has a target quota of positive responses, he's on a loser at this house).
At least this time he didn't try to say - as James once did - that it is not secure having money in their bank and we should move it (over the telephone, for goodness' sake, who the hell is this man, what proof of who he is can he give us?) to an account in which we can't just get at OUR money, we "just" have to phone up to organise it, how is that an improved service?, when the clear answer to insecurity is we should take the whole lot out of this insecure bank. We like having our money on call without having to phone up and all the identity checks that would involve. Oh that time we had "too much" money. He'd sharp complain if we had too little - oh no that's right he'd actually love it as then he can charge us for an overdraft; no we're not falling for that one. We will keep a sufficient float, thank you, he doesn't know our circumstances and we aren't telling him.
Even his own words don't make logical sense, we are doing well he says, so why do we need something different? There was a lot more that was self-contradictory but mercifully I've forgotten it.
Apart from the bloody cheek of the banks trying to advise us how to manage our money, when they can't manage their own. Socks under the bed full of money have never looked so attractive.
Showing posts with label political. Show all posts
Showing posts with label political. Show all posts
Friday, January 07, 2011
Friday, April 10, 2009
Let There Be More Light
The salesman from npower came round again to the doorstep, promising to save us money again. What does he think he's doing?
1. He can't possibly know that he can save us money unless he knows things he shouldn't. So he's a liar or he's invaded our privacy. He hasn't done any research, he doesn't know who's not got gas and he doesn't know who owns their house and who doesn't. He doesn't know anything.
2. All the companies say that. Therefore at least all but one are lying or deluded. Or their salespeople are which is just as bad.
3. He expects you to take his word for it! If you ask for a leaflet or something with information to work it out, he hasn't GOT any, let alone any to give out.
4. Who buys off the doorstep like that? You need time to think about it.
5. He's on commission. OK some people on commission really do have a good product, but you still have to have an element of caution. He doesn't care whether you get the right product or if the price will go up as soon as they've locked you into a contract. His money's made.
6. He's got a rotten job. That's no excuse to go around making stuff up. And what confidence do you have in someone if that's his best shot? He's not interested in providing a service (like putting in a gas pipe).
7. Why isn't the pricing simple so you can understand it? Because then you'd see if you had a good deal or not. The power companies aren't competing on price like supermarkets. They couldn't reliably promise to if they wanted to, because of the speculators and the international situation. The point of privatisation was stated to be that competition would drive prices down and thereby be better for consumers. Balderdash and piffle exposed.
1. He can't possibly know that he can save us money unless he knows things he shouldn't. So he's a liar or he's invaded our privacy. He hasn't done any research, he doesn't know who's not got gas and he doesn't know who owns their house and who doesn't. He doesn't know anything.
2. All the companies say that. Therefore at least all but one are lying or deluded. Or their salespeople are which is just as bad.
3. He expects you to take his word for it! If you ask for a leaflet or something with information to work it out, he hasn't GOT any, let alone any to give out.
4. Who buys off the doorstep like that? You need time to think about it.
5. He's on commission. OK some people on commission really do have a good product, but you still have to have an element of caution. He doesn't care whether you get the right product or if the price will go up as soon as they've locked you into a contract. His money's made.
6. He's got a rotten job. That's no excuse to go around making stuff up. And what confidence do you have in someone if that's his best shot? He's not interested in providing a service (like putting in a gas pipe).
7. Why isn't the pricing simple so you can understand it? Because then you'd see if you had a good deal or not. The power companies aren't competing on price like supermarkets. They couldn't reliably promise to if they wanted to, because of the speculators and the international situation. The point of privatisation was stated to be that competition would drive prices down and thereby be better for consumers. Balderdash and piffle exposed.
Monday, December 01, 2008
Remember Me
I am not a big shopper. I don't have many store cards. In fact, now I have one less. I used to have one with a clothing store, name begins with B, you know them.
So I was going past the other day and they had an offer on of 20% off for all card holders. Well that had to be worth a look. The only problem was that when I found something and took it to the desk, the card wasn't recognised. Yes, it's all paid off, not missed a payment.
Phoned up. (Call centre in India, possibly. Certainly no-one who could do anything, of course, been there with npower yada-yada and others.) It had been cancelled 3 weeks before. (Nobody bothered to tell me, warn me.) Hadn't used it enough.
OK, I know it's a loyalty card. It's supposed to encourage "repeat business" in the jargon. But if it gets cancelled - no warning, remember, no "if you want to keep your card active, let us know", no offers "as a valued card member, we'd like to suggest ..", nothing, not even a note "it's 20% off next Thursday" (I happened across it, recall), you know that might have produced a sale, I think, then what is it?
It's the second time it's happened (I went back once and filled all the forms in again for a new one - but you don't want to keep doing that) and therefore what I have now is a disloyalty card. Which is surely no good to anyone?
(And all this in the middle of the worst recession for ages - do they want to sell?) Really.
So I was going past the other day and they had an offer on of 20% off for all card holders. Well that had to be worth a look. The only problem was that when I found something and took it to the desk, the card wasn't recognised. Yes, it's all paid off, not missed a payment.
Phoned up. (Call centre in India, possibly. Certainly no-one who could do anything, of course, been there with npower yada-yada and others.) It had been cancelled 3 weeks before. (Nobody bothered to tell me, warn me.) Hadn't used it enough.
OK, I know it's a loyalty card. It's supposed to encourage "repeat business" in the jargon. But if it gets cancelled - no warning, remember, no "if you want to keep your card active, let us know", no offers "as a valued card member, we'd like to suggest ..", nothing, not even a note "it's 20% off next Thursday" (I happened across it, recall), you know that might have produced a sale, I think, then what is it?
It's the second time it's happened (I went back once and filled all the forms in again for a new one - but you don't want to keep doing that) and therefore what I have now is a disloyalty card. Which is surely no good to anyone?
(And all this in the middle of the worst recession for ages - do they want to sell?) Really.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
The Sun Has Got His Hat On
... which is fine, he can do that. But I wish he wouldn't bang on the window so early in the morning to ask me to come out to play.
I do like the long days of summer, that it's light when you are ready to get up and stays light until you're nearly ready to go to bed. (Already the nights have drawn in a bit, beginning to get dark at about half nine and it's only July, but hey.)
But when the bedroom faces east and the sun shines in through even thick dark curtains and wakes me up it can be a bit tiring and increase the chance of me needing an afternoon nap or falling asleep in Eggheads. 4 o'clock, I ask you. Even nearly five is still very early for those of us who really do need our eight hours at least.
Time to have British Double Summer Time? Then it wouldn't get light till six and would still be good at ten?
I do like the long days of summer, that it's light when you are ready to get up and stays light until you're nearly ready to go to bed. (Already the nights have drawn in a bit, beginning to get dark at about half nine and it's only July, but hey.)
But when the bedroom faces east and the sun shines in through even thick dark curtains and wakes me up it can be a bit tiring and increase the chance of me needing an afternoon nap or falling asleep in Eggheads. 4 o'clock, I ask you. Even nearly five is still very early for those of us who really do need our eight hours at least.
Time to have British Double Summer Time? Then it wouldn't get light till six and would still be good at ten?
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Bicycle Race
On the news today, a story about how Britain's cyclists are to be helped in their Olympic efforts (sigh) by technology designed for the Eurofighter. A helmet will give them a Heads Up Display while they are competing, showing info to help them in their quest for a medal. Mentioned was the power they are producing so they can find the "sweet spot" behind the leader. Other details I didn't catch, or possibly they didn't want to name.
Hang on. Is anyone else a bit disturbed by this?
Surely the Olympics are about the best athletes not about who has access to the best technology? (I leave aside the area of drugs for the time being.) There's already sufficient technology in the fact of the equipment available - the bike - to make competition an uneven playing field. (Compare motor racing: the best drivers are the best - but they have a huge technological advantage, everyone knows it, and the sport is diminished by it.)
I daresay there is an uneven playing field in the area of training facilities, nutritional advice (I'm still not talking drugs but I might be) and I daresay that the athletes of some countries which are poorer than GB are already at a disadvantage. And we are adding to this?
Now if the cyclists by training discover the sweet spot, fine, more power to them. If training improves their skills on pacing themselves and whatever else, good. The pursuit of excellence.
If the technology helps train them to know the sweet spot, well maybe, they still have to do it themselves to some extent, I suppose. (Thinks: this might have been the intention. Not clear.)
But if this is to be used in a race, no. Unless it is freely available for all athletes to use (or not, if they prefer not to).
I call on the British Government to put pressure on Team GB (or whoever is organising this initiative) to make this technology available to anyone who wishes it. In the interest of fairness.
We don't want to be a nation of cheats, do we? Oh.
Hang on. Is anyone else a bit disturbed by this?
Surely the Olympics are about the best athletes not about who has access to the best technology? (I leave aside the area of drugs for the time being.) There's already sufficient technology in the fact of the equipment available - the bike - to make competition an uneven playing field. (Compare motor racing: the best drivers are the best - but they have a huge technological advantage, everyone knows it, and the sport is diminished by it.)
I daresay there is an uneven playing field in the area of training facilities, nutritional advice (I'm still not talking drugs but I might be) and I daresay that the athletes of some countries which are poorer than GB are already at a disadvantage. And we are adding to this?
Now if the cyclists by training discover the sweet spot, fine, more power to them. If training improves their skills on pacing themselves and whatever else, good. The pursuit of excellence.
If the technology helps train them to know the sweet spot, well maybe, they still have to do it themselves to some extent, I suppose. (Thinks: this might have been the intention. Not clear.)
But if this is to be used in a race, no. Unless it is freely available for all athletes to use (or not, if they prefer not to).
I call on the British Government to put pressure on Team GB (or whoever is organising this initiative) to make this technology available to anyone who wishes it. In the interest of fairness.
We don't want to be a nation of cheats, do we? Oh.
Sunday, January 28, 2007
Bringing Up Baby
I have been quite distressed lately about the row over Catholic adoption agencies, especially since the Church of England joined in. However, I have been distressed for the opposite reason to what some people assumed.
I'll break my thoughts into a few statements.
1. I cannot accept that homosexual couples do not how to bring up children properly ie lovingly. (One of the News Quiz panellists joked that he had a gay dad - well not really but that his dad listened. Another said he wished he had had a gay dad because he liked musicals and then he would have been taken to more of them.)
2. I have been told that it is hard enough as it is for homosexual couples to adopt - given the choice between gay and straight the current position is that straight wins every time. So discrimination already exists?
3. Adoption is still done everywhere by Social Services - at least it better be - they are trained. What the agencies can do is recommend couples. So it is part of the process, but only part. This job could be taken over by other less prejudiced organisations.
4. Even if you believe homosexuality is a sin, whatever happened to "love the sinner"? Discrimination is not love in my opinion. The Gospel is surely about love. It is not about putting up barriers to people's happiness and well-being.
Therefore it seems to me that if some agencies cannot comply with the law on equality then they are indeed in the wrong game. They should disband immediately and go away to pray. For forgiveness, to start with.
I'll break my thoughts into a few statements.
1. I cannot accept that homosexual couples do not how to bring up children properly ie lovingly. (One of the News Quiz panellists joked that he had a gay dad - well not really but that his dad listened. Another said he wished he had had a gay dad because he liked musicals and then he would have been taken to more of them.)
2. I have been told that it is hard enough as it is for homosexual couples to adopt - given the choice between gay and straight the current position is that straight wins every time. So discrimination already exists?
3. Adoption is still done everywhere by Social Services - at least it better be - they are trained. What the agencies can do is recommend couples. So it is part of the process, but only part. This job could be taken over by other less prejudiced organisations.
4. Even if you believe homosexuality is a sin, whatever happened to "love the sinner"? Discrimination is not love in my opinion. The Gospel is surely about love. It is not about putting up barriers to people's happiness and well-being.
Therefore it seems to me that if some agencies cannot comply with the law on equality then they are indeed in the wrong game. They should disband immediately and go away to pray. For forgiveness, to start with.
Monday, January 22, 2007
The Church Prays for Colombia
This is a slightly expanded version of an article under the above title to be published in the new issue of Frontline Latin America, out shortly.
Last Tuesday, members of Wesley College added their prayers to the work being done to expose and combat intimidation and exploitation in Colombia in a short service of thanksgiving and intercession.
The service began with a recollection of slavery by way of a reading of Psalm 137 and a rendition of “Swing Low Sweet Chariot”, and celebrated the bicentenary of the Anti-Slavery Act.
Next followed a reflection on modern trafficking and a recitation of a litany of empowerment, and then as part of a meditation on current oppression, staff and students of the Methodist theological college stood in silence as the names were read of 8 murdered trade union leaders from Colombian Coca-Cola bottling plants.
After prayers were offered for the men and their families and for a quick end to the intolerable practices in Colombia, the service concluded with the Lord’s Prayer.
If anyone wants to get a copy of FLA, then I can put you in touch easily.
Last Tuesday, members of Wesley College added their prayers to the work being done to expose and combat intimidation and exploitation in Colombia in a short service of thanksgiving and intercession.
The service began with a recollection of slavery by way of a reading of Psalm 137 and a rendition of “Swing Low Sweet Chariot”, and celebrated the bicentenary of the Anti-Slavery Act.
Next followed a reflection on modern trafficking and a recitation of a litany of empowerment, and then as part of a meditation on current oppression, staff and students of the Methodist theological college stood in silence as the names were read of 8 murdered trade union leaders from Colombian Coca-Cola bottling plants.
After prayers were offered for the men and their families and for a quick end to the intolerable practices in Colombia, the service concluded with the Lord’s Prayer.
If anyone wants to get a copy of FLA, then I can put you in touch easily.
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Racism on the Telly
Questions in Parliament, Gordon Brown apologises in India, headlines all over the tabloids - just how important is Jade Goody?
Racism is important and should be challenged. But why are we so worried?
Because Jade is a role-model and people will copy her? In that case we should get her off.
Or because she is representative of the typical Brit, prone to casual stereotyping as well as deliberately insulting behaviour? In which case we really should be apologising, in addition to voting her off.
Or is she such a figure of fun that racism will be weakened by her joining into it? (Or are the Great British Public too stupid to realise her lack of actual talent or indeed anything desirable at all? Hmm, tricky one.) We could explain that she has made a whole career out of being thick and we are exposing racism as typical of this? But I guess it didn't work when Johnny Speight wrote Alf Garnett into TV history.
One tabloid headline called Jade "The Dim Reaper". Another pointed out that there still are problems in Iraq and Afghanistan and that these might be more important issues.
There is a lot of racism in Britain. How do we reduce it?
Racism is important and should be challenged. But why are we so worried?
Because Jade is a role-model and people will copy her? In that case we should get her off.
Or because she is representative of the typical Brit, prone to casual stereotyping as well as deliberately insulting behaviour? In which case we really should be apologising, in addition to voting her off.
Or is she such a figure of fun that racism will be weakened by her joining into it? (Or are the Great British Public too stupid to realise her lack of actual talent or indeed anything desirable at all? Hmm, tricky one.) We could explain that she has made a whole career out of being thick and we are exposing racism as typical of this? But I guess it didn't work when Johnny Speight wrote Alf Garnett into TV history.
One tabloid headline called Jade "The Dim Reaper". Another pointed out that there still are problems in Iraq and Afghanistan and that these might be more important issues.
There is a lot of racism in Britain. How do we reduce it?
Friday, January 12, 2007
Killer Coke
This is the briefing paper I took to the Methodist Students' Council. Permission is granted for it to be circulated, providing no amendments are made to it.
Complaints against Coca-Cola
1. India
Coca-Cola is taking water from locals.
It takes three litres of water to make one litre of Coca-Cola. Several community campaigns in India.
In the state of Rajasthan, Coca-Cola established a bottling plant in 1999. There has since been " ... a serious decline in water levels. Locals are increasingly unable to irrigate their crops ... wells in use for drinking, cleaning, washing and sanitation are now in anger of drying up altogether." Water levels were stable from 1995-2000, then dropped 10 metres in five years.
Source: Graph produced by Ministry of Water Resources, Rajasthan.
Locals fear that Kaladera could become a 'dark zone'. (term used to describe areas that are abandoned due to depleted water resources.)
Activists in Chiapas, Mexico fear the same thing is about to happen there.
Land Contamination
Coca-Cola's plants provide a sludge-like waste which the company has sold as "fertiliser". Tests show that it has dangerous levels of cadmium and lead. Contamination, specifically lead, has spread to the water supply.
The Centre for Science and Environment tested Coca-Cola beverages and found levels of 30 pesticides 30 times higher than EU standards. Levels of DDT 9 times higher than EU limit.
Source (all above): War on Want, 2006. Quotes BBC, The Guardian, The Independent on Sunday
Other Reports: Ethical Consumer magazine, January 2006.
Also confirmed by eye-witness account; Sam, exchange student with Wesley College. Sam is a resident of Tamilnadu.
2. Colombia
Coca-Cola increasingly associated with union-busting activities. Eight employees in Colombia have been killed by paramilitaries. A lawsuit has been filed (June 2, 2006) under the Alien Tort Claims Act in the USA against the company and its bottlers.
Also being sued on behalf of 14 truck-drivers and other transport workers for its part in the torture and intimidation of trade unionists in Turkey.
Similar stories from the Punjab, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Peru, Chile, Russia.
Source: War on Want, 2006.
Action against Coca-Cola
Some of the largest unions in the world, within and outside the IUF (International Union of Food Workers based in Switzerland), support the student movement to ban Coke products from the campuses. For example, UNISON, the largest union in the UK and the 1.4 million-member International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the world’s largest Coca-Cola union, which represents more than 18,000 Coca-Cola workers, supports the students’ campaign to pressure Coke. Europe’s Food Production Daily reported on Feb. 9, 2006: “Coca-Cola is now facing a labour relations problem in the US, after the Teamsters Union joined protesters calling for boycotts against the company over alleged human rights violations in Colombia.”
Over 23 U.S. universities, including the University of Michigan, New York University and Rutgers University have cancelled or suspended Coca-Cola's supply contracts, costing the company millions of dollars in previously guaranteed revenues, but also, and more important, countless students say they will not drink Coke beverages, thereby breaking the cycle of consumption of this optional product that is tainted with the blood of Colombian workers.
Bristol University students are beginning a campaign. Other universities have voted to terminate commercial relations.
Campaigns as noted above.
Supported by Locals?
It has been said that unions in Colombia and elsewhere do not support colleges and universities banning Coke products.
In Colombia, the Central Unitaria de Trabajadores de Colombia (CUT — the TUC of Colombia), issued a public statement from their acting President, reaffirming their commitment and their backing of SINALTRAINAL’s struggle.
In addition, CUT Vice President Fabio Arias said: "Coca-Cola has been a persistent violator of trade unionists’ rights and for this reason various universities in the United States have taken measures to protest against their conduct…The CUT supports the University of Michigan, in the United States, in discontinuing the sale of Coca-Cola within their campus, as a result of accusations of violating human rights and trade union rights in Colombia.
Workers in India want other countries to support their struggle by boycotting Coca-Cola.
Complaints against Coca-Cola
1. India
Coca-Cola is taking water from locals.
It takes three litres of water to make one litre of Coca-Cola. Several community campaigns in India.
In the state of Rajasthan, Coca-Cola established a bottling plant in 1999. There has since been " ... a serious decline in water levels. Locals are increasingly unable to irrigate their crops ... wells in use for drinking, cleaning, washing and sanitation are now in anger of drying up altogether." Water levels were stable from 1995-2000, then dropped 10 metres in five years.
Source: Graph produced by Ministry of Water Resources, Rajasthan.
Locals fear that Kaladera could become a 'dark zone'. (term used to describe areas that are abandoned due to depleted water resources.)
Activists in Chiapas, Mexico fear the same thing is about to happen there.
Land Contamination
Coca-Cola's plants provide a sludge-like waste which the company has sold as "fertiliser". Tests show that it has dangerous levels of cadmium and lead. Contamination, specifically lead, has spread to the water supply.
The Centre for Science and Environment tested Coca-Cola beverages and found levels of 30 pesticides 30 times higher than EU standards. Levels of DDT 9 times higher than EU limit.
Source (all above): War on Want, 2006. Quotes BBC, The Guardian, The Independent on Sunday
Other Reports: Ethical Consumer magazine, January 2006.
Also confirmed by eye-witness account; Sam, exchange student with Wesley College. Sam is a resident of Tamilnadu.
2. Colombia
Coca-Cola increasingly associated with union-busting activities. Eight employees in Colombia have been killed by paramilitaries. A lawsuit has been filed (June 2, 2006) under the Alien Tort Claims Act in the USA against the company and its bottlers.
Also being sued on behalf of 14 truck-drivers and other transport workers for its part in the torture and intimidation of trade unionists in Turkey.
Similar stories from the Punjab, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Peru, Chile, Russia.
Source: War on Want, 2006.
Action against Coca-Cola
Some of the largest unions in the world, within and outside the IUF (International Union of Food Workers based in Switzerland), support the student movement to ban Coke products from the campuses. For example, UNISON, the largest union in the UK and the 1.4 million-member International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the world’s largest Coca-Cola union, which represents more than 18,000 Coca-Cola workers, supports the students’ campaign to pressure Coke. Europe’s Food Production Daily reported on Feb. 9, 2006: “Coca-Cola is now facing a labour relations problem in the US, after the Teamsters Union joined protesters calling for boycotts against the company over alleged human rights violations in Colombia.”
Over 23 U.S. universities, including the University of Michigan, New York University and Rutgers University have cancelled or suspended Coca-Cola's supply contracts, costing the company millions of dollars in previously guaranteed revenues, but also, and more important, countless students say they will not drink Coke beverages, thereby breaking the cycle of consumption of this optional product that is tainted with the blood of Colombian workers.
Bristol University students are beginning a campaign. Other universities have voted to terminate commercial relations.
Campaigns as noted above.
Supported by Locals?
It has been said that unions in Colombia and elsewhere do not support colleges and universities banning Coke products.
In Colombia, the Central Unitaria de Trabajadores de Colombia (CUT — the TUC of Colombia), issued a public statement from their acting President, reaffirming their commitment and their backing of SINALTRAINAL’s struggle.
In addition, CUT Vice President Fabio Arias said: "Coca-Cola has been a persistent violator of trade unionists’ rights and for this reason various universities in the United States have taken measures to protest against their conduct…The CUT supports the University of Michigan, in the United States, in discontinuing the sale of Coca-Cola within their campus, as a result of accusations of violating human rights and trade union rights in Colombia.
Workers in India want other countries to support their struggle by boycotting Coca-Cola.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)