Category: News

Plod and football

A lovely ridiculous story in the news this morning as some muppet in the government announces that a "Police Pledge" is to be set up. Essentially, this is to force police to do such important things, such as answer the telephone quickly, treat victims nicely and solve more crimes.

So, it’s another set of targets like they already have. Like the NHS already has. And teachers. Which are pointless, ludicrous and involve silly amounts of paperwork to monitor which prevents them actually getting out there and doing their job. I read a lot of police blogs, and also a handful of ambulance / ERT / emergency call centre ones. Across the board, every person blogging and all their same-career commenters are pissed off completely with all of these targets.

Simply, targets don’t help. They just don’t fit with what the job is actually about because the person or people setting them has absolutely no front line experience of the job in question and is only interested in making existing figures look good for their purposes.

What they want to do is appear good to voters by being able to say that their new figures prove everything’s getting better. If you want to know the state of law enforcement, don’t ask a politician. Ask a policeman. Wondering what the waiting time is for an ambulance? For ****’s sake don’t think you’ll get a straight answer from the NHS Trust – ask an ERT or a paramedic. Want to know the best way to give your child an education? How’s about listening to teachers rather than some fuckwit in an office in Whitehall who hasn’t been inside a school since he left at 16?

I’m sure comments will arise on the relevant blogs shortly, so here are some links. All worth a read:

The Policeman’s Blog (Coopersblog)
PC Bloggs
Police Inspector Blog (Inspector Gadget)
Police Locker Room (Sergeant Simon)

And to think that I did once consider joining the police force. And also fancied a career as a paramedic or similar. And I’m still passing thought about teaching. All three do appeal. But not in the UK. Not any more.

And footie. We won yesterday, which is good. Away from home which is better. Against Spurs which makes me even happier given the verbal diarrhoea expunged by The Proud Cockerel before the match. Thanks for the insults, arsehole. They only make you seem so much more of a loser after the 1-4 towelling we gave your abysmal squad. And let’s face it – if we’re **** what does that make a team who lose to us?

I also got an email on Saturday from a mackem *spit* fan who will remain anonymous. Essentially pointing out that Sunderland had risen above Newcastle and that therefore I owed said persona drink as I’d said this wouldn’t happen. My response:

And a Sunderland fan tries to bend the rules… as I’d expect. After all you’re run by a manager who’s idea of levelling the playing field is to break the opposition’s legs.

Checking the table as of our 1-4 away win at Spurs (you may remember away wins, though I know you don’t get them very often) which means we’ve *now played the same number of games*, we’re two points above you.

I spared her the reminder that Sunderland could still end the season holding the record for the least number of points per game in Premiership history, dependant on whether now-relegated Derby pull their socks up. After all, the mackems are the only team with two positions in the Worst Teams In Premiership History table.

Roll on April 20th…

Cash too expensive for you?

In the news today, a story about a woman taking BT to court for charging her a handling fee for cash. In a way I can see her point – most businesses will actually offer you a discount for paying in cash, while BT will charge you more. Also for paying by credit card, debit card, cheque etc.

Thing is – and I hate to say this as I’m not BT’s biggest fan – for once I think they’re right. You set up a direct debit and BT then has to do pretty much bugger all to get your cash each month. If you pay by cheque, credit card, cash in an envelope, babies’ fingers or whatever then they have to process it.

Should her case come through with her victorious then – after lengthy appeals, I’m sure – BT may be forced to drop the charges. Along with every other company that has a similar fee structure in place. This includes most utilities companies, insurance brokers, finance / loan agencies…

So great. Savings all around, yes? Erm. No. All that will happen is that the fee will be removed and everyone’s basic bill increased to cover the cost of getting money from people who don’t use DD.

The poverty argument used in the article is completely moot. “Many people, especially those on the margins of society and who are on low incomes find it very difficult to find any increase for any bill” it says. Simple solution – organise a direct debit so it’s paid from your bank account. Don’t have a bank account? Well get one. The UK is one of the few countries I know of where banking is – if you don’t go overdrawn etc – essentially free.

Her argument that “On a 10 pound note it says ‘I promise to pay the bearer on demand the sum of ten pounds’, not ten pounds plus a £1.50 handling fee” is bollocks. It’s true – it doesn’t say there’s a handing fee. But she’s not paying a handling fee, she’s paying for the time spent by BT on sorting out her payment which they’d not incur if she used DD.

Buy a book from Amazon and they charge you delivery if you spend less than £15. Is that fair on people who don’t want to spend that much? Why should a person who only wants to buy one paperback help reduce costs for someone who wants to buy three? Because it’s cheaper for the company to ship three than ship one. Likewise for BT, it’s cheaper to collect fees by DD than any other method. Rather than the DD users being charged for everyone else, the ones who create the charge pay for it.

Given that any person in the country can get a bank account (illegal immigrants aside) and set a DD up, she hasn’t got a leg to stand on as far as I can tell. The option is there for her to avoid these charges. It’s an option she can take and has the facility to do so.

Unless I’m mistaken? Are there grounds where someone could be refused a bank account / direct debit? And if this is the case – perhaps based on a poor credit rating – wouldn’t they likely be refused a phone connection anyway?

In fairness, my argument falls apart if the charge levied for non-DD payment is out of proportion to the amount it costs the company to retrieve the cash. Then again, BT could always put this down to the fact that it "costs more to chase people who do not pay". A kind of insurance for itself.

Related articles

What a cock

For once I’m glad to see our justice system act in favour of a large corporation in a move that actually goes against the growing culture of suing anything and having no personal responsibility for your own actions. An accountant – I’d assume therefore an moderately intelligent person – attempted to sue Marks & Spencer because he slipped on a grape stuck to his shoe that "could have been picked up inside the store or car park"

What a cock.

If you’re 55 and can’t manage to walk 100 yards without slipping on a piece of fruit that could already have been stuck to your foot then you shouldn’t be allowed out on your own. On the other hand, if you’re a greedy **** who’s out to make some easy money, I find it only disappointing that self-representation reduces the legal bill to a point where bankruptcy isn’t an issue.

Mr Martin-Sklan, you win today’s award for “greediest ****** in the news today”. I only hope this is the first in a slew of cases like this being thrown out. I’m sick of people getting thousands for tripping over paving slabs and suchlike. Have some responsibility for your own personal safety, for ****’s sake.

How ******* petty can you get?

Not content with relying on the handful of police who are actually allowed to patrol our streets and roads when they should be doing important things like filling in paperwork, two pathetic little attention-seekers have taken a photo of Jeremy Clarkson (allegedly) talking on a mobile phone while driving. And then gone to the police.

All without the slightest thought they might have managed to get their names in the papers of a few quid from a red-top for the privilege of course.

It does make me wonder a few things. First of all, they say he was doing 70mph when they took the picture. So to get a photo of him, they’d have had to be level. Which means overtaking him so that the passenger could snap the picture. Which means they’d have to be exceeding 70mph. Are the police looking into that?

Also, why pick on this one man? Was he the only one on a phone? Or do they do this for fun, taking photos of everyone they see breaking driving laws? If so, where is there catalogue of grainy mobile videos featuring undertaking, lack of lane discipline, tailgating and so on?

Whoops, sorry. Taking a few snaps of a guy in a BMW tailgating a Lada doing 68mph in the fast lane wouldn’t really get them into the papers, would it?