Big
companies treat us like idiots and should be treated likewise.
When
they put their prices up annually, by inflation plus whatever number they can
think of, or when they renew a subscription assuming you won’t query the direct
debit, they rely on the fact that most of us can’t be bothered to query the new
price and we will simply accept the increase without doing anything about it.
This is not the way to treat loyal
customers but it happens all the time.
On four occasions recently I have baulked
at the latest impost and, by cancelling or haggling, discovered these price
increases are nonsensical attempts to rip-off the unwary.
For instance, Vodafone announced my charge
was going up £2 a month to £27. A lengthy, painful phone call involving two separate
departments eventually led to a charge of £12 a month with 5 gigabytes of data
instead of 2.
The Daily Telegraph on line soared from
£39 a year to over £180. I cancelled the subscription and was immediately offered
the original deal for another year.
Norton, the anti-virus scam, came down
from £100 a year to £40 after I rejected their price increase (apparently it's only £14 at Currys - so much for loyalty).
Meanwhile, in biggest scam yet, Sky said
our TV and broadband package would go from £84 a month to £125.
After many negotiations and hours on the phone,
they offered us the same deal for £110, then £100 if we took their new Sky
Glass TV and eventually – when it was too late – they tried £90 a month without
a new telly.
Instead, we cancelled the subscription (we
were out of contract) and we’ve bought exactly the same package through Currys
for just £64.50 a month.
Admittedly there is a danger that the
transfer won’t go smoothly and we could end up without broadband for a while.
It’s not concluded yet so there is always a chance this will fail one way or
another.
Especially as the new deal means they insist
on replacing a perfectly decent router and Sky box and propose sending someone
out to do the work at their expense (on a Bank Holiday Monday) so it will be unnecessarily
costly for them.
But it’s their own fault.
The helpful Sky call centre chap said
Currys shouldn’t be making us offers like that but the fault lies not with
Currys but with Sky’s nonsensical rip-off price rises.
Sadly, you just can’t trust any of these
shysters. Doubtless other scamsters are playing the same game.
nigel hastilow
A view from north of Watford
Thursday, April 25, 2024
Born yesterday - the unwary customer
Sunday, April 21, 2024
Jethro Tull = screaming agony
WANTED for murder: Ian Anderson, singer, flautist and only constant in the band Jethro Tull. The crime: Murder of a much-loved classic.
We saw Jethro Tull at Symphony Hall, Birmingham, and,
had it been possible to do so without disturbing half a row of geriatric fans like
myself, we’d have left long before “Locomotive Breath” finally chugged into
view.
This was supposed to a celebration of Tull’s seven
decades in the music business but the result was a torture session in which we
were obliged to listen to Anderson’s greatest flops.
Almost all the songs from Tull’s 1970s heyday were omitted (if you must, you can check out the setlist here), replaced by apocalyptic dirges, inaudible lyrics and interminable flute solos performed by someone so well past his prime it was embarrassing to witness.
The first, short, half included “Heavy Horses”
and “Good Morning Weathercock” as well as “BourĂ©e” but other than that it was a
flat five out of ten. We hoped for better from part two and were bitterly
disappointed.
The last straw was the extensive, pointless,
tuneless, gabbling drivel which preceded a perfunctory rendition of “Aqualung”. This was, supposedly, the culmination of the performance. Thesong, one of
Tull’s bona fide five-star classics, was positively murdered. It was
lamentable, awful, I could have cried.
By the time we got “Locomotive Breath” as an encore,
I and many others had lost interest. I couldn’t bring myself even to applaud
the end of the show – though in retrospect perhaps I should have clapped to
celebrate the end of this hideous ordeal.
Sadly, this concert had determined me in the view
that it is no longer worth attending any gig, concert or performance given by
any artist or band older than me. It’s just so unutterably disappointing.
Thursday, February 29, 2024
Taking the taxpayers for idiots
Just heard two whingeing luvvies on BBC Radio 4 blaming ‘Government’ (ie those wicked Tories) for the ‘lack of funding’ which means Birmingham Rep is to receive no grant from the city council this year.
Truth is the city has itself, Tony Blair and the unions to blame for its terrible financial crisis. The councillors involved should be surcharged and made bankrupt for their sheer incompetence. Residents should refuse to accept the planned 21 per cent rise in council tax until those responsible are properly held to account by being made personally bankrupt.The Government is not to blame and when it comes to theatre subsidies, why does The Rep deserve special treatment? Perhaps putting on a few plays people actually wanted to see might make a change. As Samuel Johnson said:
‘The drama’s laws the drama’s patrons give,
For we that live to please, must please to live.’
The time has come for the luvvies to stop whingeing, wringing their hands and blaming everyone else. Perhaps they could make a decent drama out of this crisis - or is that beyond them?
Monday, October 23, 2023
Met Office makes a splash - BBC gets a soaking
I know you can't trust the BBC but, since they ditched the Met Office, they can't even get the weather forecast right. Last week, half the country was under water and I was checking the weather forecast regularly in case the inundation was heading our way. The pix below are screenshots of the forecasts issued more or less simultaneously on the BBC and Met Office websites for exactly the same location, Wickhamford, near Evesham, Worcestershire. The first pair is from Friday, October 20; the second for Saturday, October 21. Only one pair of forecasts was accurate - congratulations to the Met Office. Shame on the BBC.
Happily, it didn't rain much on Friday, which allowed much of the excess rainwater to run off into the River Avon without the need to start putting up flood barriers or evacuating houses.
The same can be said for the following day:
Tuesday, June 06, 2023
Wednesday, May 03, 2023
Talktalk won't talk - or listen
Recently, I wrote this letter to the Head of Complaints, CEO's Office, TalkTalk (CEO), PO Box 672, Salford, M5 0NG and another one a few days later. They are self-explanatory, though not, apparently, to Talktalk:
Letter 1:
About a year ago, I spent three hours talking to your customer services department hoping to persuade them to stop sending me monthly bills which increased by £5 each time for an email service I cancelled at least three years ago. At the time, I could not lay my hands on any of these emails because deleted them in disgust and your operative insisted it was impossible I should be receiving them at all.
Since then, I continue to receive them every month. I am writing via registered post in the vague hope that someone in your organisation will notice that I want them to stop because I want this account properly cancelled, closed, and ceased yet for some reason your organisation is incapable of carrying out this most basic of tasks.
I have spoken to people, emailed you, written letters and even tried to get some sense out of you via Twitter but to no avail.
I enclose the latest bill, together with printouts of two blogs I have posted on this topic – one of them from as long ago as March 24, 2020.
Letter 2:
Further to my letter of April 24 (enclosed), I write to ask if your complaints procedures are deliberately designed to frustrate the complainant to the point at which he continues to pay your company money and abandons all hope of receiving a satisfactory response.
On Saturday, April 29, I received at 10.07 a text message assuring me my complaint had been logged with a reference number CMP-428322 and that you would contact me with further updates. At 16.22 you sent a second message promising to call me between 12.00 and 14.00. You did not say on what day this call would take place.
Nevertheless, eagerly awaiting such a call, I made sure to carry my phone with me at all times but especially between the hours of noon and 2pm. Today, at 14.11 (that is, 11 minutes past your self-imposed deadline and five days after the original promise) I did receive a call. The conversation went thus:
Talktalk: I am calling about your complaint.
NH: You were supposed to have called on Saturday.
Talktalk: You want us to call you on Saturday?
NH: No, I was just saying that is when I expected your call.
That is the end of the conversation because, before I had completed the sentence, your complaints handler had rung off and the line went dead.
Since then, I have received two emails, sent at 14.36 and 14.39. The first announces that you have credited my account with the £80 you said I owed you. The second thanks me for signing up to Talktalk Mail Plus and promises me “sleek new features” etc.
You then sent me a text message at 15.01 apologising for the problem I had with your “service” and saying that, if I did not ring 0345 172 0088 within 28 days, you would close my complaint.
Then I received a message timed at 15.17 announcing my complaint had been closed.
I tried calling the number given but it offers me only two options: Press 1 to “talk about home-phone, broadband or TV”; or Press 2 to “talk about mobile”. As neither of these options was relevant, it left me with nowhere to go (and, as on one occasion I spent three hours on the phone to you without resolving this issue, I was reluctant to try either option in any case).
Had the opportunity arisen at any point, in any of these non-communications with an alleged communications business, I would have said what I said in my previous letter, which is: I want this account properly cancelled, closed, and ceased yet for some reason your organisation is incapable of carrying out this most basic of tasks.
It is still incapable of this simple task and I am in despair.
Monday, April 24, 2023
ChatGPT? More lie CrapGPT
Apparently Cambridge University students and, doubtless, many others are using ChatGPT to write their essays for them. This is misguided for many reasons but the main one is that the thing is inaccurate and lies.
I know this because I decided to test it out by quizzing it
about the characters in three books I have written: Eldred Pottinger,
Marchamont Nedham and (forthcoming book) David Jacobs (not the DJ).
Sadly I deleted the entirely inaccurate, misleading and
ridiculous answers on the subject of the leading journalist of the English
civil war. But here are my conversations with ChatGBP on the other two
subjects:
Me: Who was Eldred Pottinger?
ChatGPT: Eldred Pottinger was a British military officer who
served during the First Anglo-Afghan War in the 19th century. He was born on
June 3, 1811, in County Down, Ireland, and joined the British Army in 1828.
Pottinger played a crucial role in the defense of the
British Residency in Herat during the war. In 1838, he was appointed as the
assistant to the British envoy to Persia, Sir John McNeill, and was tasked with
leading a mission to Herat to help defend the city against the forces of Dost
Mohammad Khan, the Emir of Afghanistan.
Pottinger successfully led the defense of Herat, and his
actions earned him the admiration of his colleagues and superiors. He later
served in other capacities in Afghanistan and India, including as a political
agent in Sindh and as the Resident in Hyderabad.
Pottinger died on September 15, 1843, in Bombay (now
Mumbai), India, at the age of 32. He was posthumously awarded the Knight
Commander of the Order of the Bath for his service in Afghanistan.
Me: That is wrong. The award was made before he died and he
died in Hong Kong.
ChatGPT: I apologize for the error in my previous response.
You are correct that Eldred Pottinger died in Hong Kong, not in Bombay (now
Mumbai), India, as I stated earlier.
Furthermore, Pottinger was indeed awarded the Knight Commander
of the Order of the Bath for his service in Afghanistan before his death in
1843. The award was conferred on him in January 1843, and Pottinger received
the news of his promotion in the summer of that year while he was serving in
Hong Kong.
Thank you for bringing this to my attention, and please let
me know if you have any other questions.
Me: Please tell me about the solicitor David Jacobs who was
friends with Brian Epstein and died in 1968 at Hove
ChatGPT: David Jacobs was a solicitor who was friends with
Brian Epstein, the famous music manager who famously managed the Beatles.
Jacobs was born in London in 1926 and became a solicitor, practicing law in
London. He was a member of the law firm Nems, which was owned by Epstein.
Jacobs was a key figure in Epstein's professional and
personal life. He helped Epstein to manage his finances and advised him on
various legal matters. The two men became close friends, and Jacobs was a
regular fixture at Epstein's parties and social events.
Tragically, Jacobs died in 1968 at the age of 42. He was on
holiday in Hove, a seaside town in southern England, when he suffered a heart
attack and died. His sudden death came as a shock to his friends and
colleagues, and Epstein was said to have been deeply affected by the loss of his
friend.
In addition to his work as a solicitor, Jacobs was also a
talented amateur musician. He played the piano and had a keen interest in jazz
music. He was known for his wit and charm, and was a popular figure among
Epstein's circle of friends and acquaintances.
Me: Epstein died before David Jacobs so that is wrong. And
Jacobs hanged himself in the garage of his home in Hove. He was not on holiday
and he did not have a heart attack.
ChatGPT: I apologize for the mistake in my previous
response. You are correct that Brian Epstein died before David Jacobs. Epstein
passed away in 1967, while Jacobs died in 1968.
Regarding the circumstances of David Jacobs' death, you are
also correct that he died by suicide in the garage of his home in Hove,
England. According to reports at the time, Jacobs had been struggling with
depression and financial difficulties prior to his death.
Once again, I apologize for any confusion or incorrect
information provided in my previous response. Thank you for bringing this to my
attention so that I could correct it.
Me: What evidence is there that David Jacobs enjoyed playing
jazz music?
ChatGPT: While I could not find any direct evidence of David
Jacobs' personal enjoyment of playing jazz music, there are indications that he
had a deep appreciation and knowledge of the genre.
Jacobs was a well-known figure in the London music scene,
particularly in the 1960s, when he was working as a solicitor and socializing
with musicians, artists, and other cultural figures. As a close friend and
business associate of Brian Epstein, he was also connected to the Beatles and
other popular bands of the time.
In his professional capacity, Jacobs represented a number of
jazz musicians, including the pianist and bandleader Stan Tracey. Jacobs is
credited with helping Tracey to secure a record deal with the independent label
Steam Records in the mid-1960s.
Jacobs was also a member of the London Jazz Society, a group
of jazz enthusiasts who organized concerts and other events throughout the
city. He was known to attend jazz performances regularly, and was said to have
a keen ear for the music.
While there may not be direct evidence of Jacobs playing
jazz music himself, his involvement in the music scene and his representation
of jazz musicians suggest that he had a deep appreciation and understanding of
the genre.
Me: If Jacobs played jazz because he represented a band
leader, does that mean that because David Jacobs also represented Stephen Ward,
who was involved with Christine Keeler and was involved in the Profumo affair,
he was also a pimp living off immoral earnings?
ChatGPT: No, it would not be accurate to assume that David
Jacobs was involved in immoral activities simply because he represented Stephen
Ward, who was implicated in the Profumo Affair. A lawyer represents clients
based on their legal needs and is not responsible for their clients' actions
outside of their legal representation.
David Jacobs was a solicitor who represented clients in a
professional capacity, and his representation of Stephen Ward was based on
legal needs. While Ward's involvement in the Profumo Affair was controversial
and ultimately led to his conviction on charges of living off immoral earnings,
Jacobs' representation of him as a solicitor would not imply any involvement or
complicity in Ward's actions.
It's important to remember that a lawyer's role is to
provide legal advice and representation to clients within the bounds of the law
and legal ethics. Lawyers are bound by a code of professional conduct and must
act in the best interests of their clients within the boundaries of the law.
Me: What happened to Nicky Byrne, the man who ran Seltaeb?
ChatGPT: Nicky Byrne, whose real name was Nicholas Simon,
was a British music industry executive who ran Seltaeb, a company that was
involved in artist management, music publishing, and record production. Byrne
was known for his work with a number of prominent musicians, including the
Beatles, the Rolling Stones, and the Kinks.
Byrne passed away in 1993 at the age of 56. His death was a
result of complications from a brain tumor, which he had been battling for
several years.
After Byrne's death, Seltaeb continued to operate for a few
more years, but eventually went out of business in the late 1990s. Some of the
artists who had been represented by Seltaeb, such as the Kinks, went on to find
new management, while others, such as the Beatles and the Rolling Stones, had
already moved on to other management companies by the time of Byrne's death.
Me: That must be wrong because Seltaeb did not manage
musicians, it sold Beatles memorabilia.
ChatGPT: You are correct. I apologize for the mistake in my
previous response. Seltaeb, which was the company owned by Brian Epstein, did
not manage musicians, but was a retailer of Beatles merchandise, including
records, clothing, and other memorabilia.
Nicky Byrne was Epstein's assistant and the manager of the
retail division of Seltaeb, which was responsible for the marketing and sale of
Beatles merchandise. Byrne played a key role in the success of the Beatles'
retail ventures, including the creation of the Beatles' Apple Boutique in
London.
After Epstein's death in 1967, Byrne continued to manage the
retail division of Seltaeb, but the company faced financial difficulties and
eventually went out of business in the early 1970s.
Once again, I apologize for any confusion caused by my
previous response.
Me: How many times was Nicky Byrne involved in legal cases
against Britain Epstein and David Jacobs?
ChatGPT: To my knowledge, there is no record of Nicky Byrne
being involved in any legal cases against Brian Epstein or David Jacobs. Byrne
worked closely with Epstein as his assistant and later managed the retail
division of Seltaeb, Epstein's company that sold Beatles merchandise. While
there were legal disputes involving Epstein and Jacobs during their lifetimes,
there is no evidence to suggest that Byrne was involved in any of these cases.
Me: You are wrong. In the USA Byrne won a payout after
accusing Epstein of breach of contract.
ChatGPT: I apologize for the error in my previous responses.
Upon further research, I have found that you are correct that Nicky Byrne was
involved in a legal dispute with Brian Epstein.
In 1965, Byrne sued Epstein in the United States for breach
of contract, claiming that he was owed a percentage of the profits from the
Beatles' merchandise sales in the US. The case was settled out of court for an
undisclosed sum, and Byrne continued to work for Epstein and Seltaeb after the
settlement.
However, I could not find any information indicating that
Nicky Byrne was involved in legal cases against David Jacobs or that he accused
Jacobs of any wrongdoing. It is possible that there were other legal disputes
involving Byrne that I am not aware of, but to my knowledge, there is no record
of Byrne taking legal action against Jacobs.
Me: Is there a record of Jacobs taking legal action against
Byrne on behalf of The Beatles?
ChatGPT: I couldn't find any record of David Jacobs taking
legal action against Nicky Byrne on behalf of the Beatles. However, it's
important to note that Jacobs was a solicitor who represented a number of
clients in the music industry, including the Beatles and their manager Brian
Epstein, and it's possible that he may have been involved in legal disputes
related to the Beatles or their business affairs.
It's also worth noting that the music industry is known for
its complex legal disputes and contractual negotiations, and there have been
numerous cases of legal disputes involving musicians, their management, and
other industry professionals over the years. However, without more specific
information, it's difficult to say whether Jacobs was involved in any legal action
against Byrne or any other individuals on behalf of the Beatles.
Me: There was at least one case in the royal courts of
justice.
ChatGPT: I apologize for any confusion my previous responses
may have caused. I was not aware of the specific case you were referring to.
After further research, I have found that there was indeed a
legal case involving David Jacobs and Nicky Byrne in the Royal Courts of
Justice in London in 1969. The case was brought by Jacobs, who was representing
Brian Epstein's NEMS Enterprises, against Byrne and his company, Brydor
Productions, over a dispute regarding the management of the Beatles'
merchandise sales.
According to court records, the case centered on allegations
that Byrne had breached his contract with NEMS by setting up a rival company to
sell Beatles merchandise. Jacobs argued that Byrne's actions had caused
financial losses for NEMS and sought damages and an injunction to prevent Byrne
from continuing to operate his company.
The case was settled out of court, with Byrne agreeing to pay
damages to NEMS and to cease his involvement in the Beatles' merchandise sales.
However, the settlement also included a clause preventing Jacobs or NEMS from
taking further legal action against Byrne or Brydor Productions in relation to
the dispute.
I hope this information helps to clarify the situation.
Me: The case can’t have been in 1969 because Jacobs was dead
by then.
ChatGPT: I apologize for the error in my previous response.
You are correct that David Jacobs died in 1968, and therefore he could not have
been involved in any legal cases in 1969.
Upon further research, I have found that the case you were
referring to was actually brought by Brian Epstein's estate against Nicky Byrne
and his company Brydor Productions in 1969, not by David Jacobs as I previously
stated. The case centered around a dispute over the royalties from Beatles
merchandise sales in the United States, and the estate alleged that Byrne and
his company had breached their contract and withheld royalties owed to the
estate.
The case was settled out of court in 1971, with Byrne
agreeing to pay a settlement of £12,000 to the estate. I hope this information
provides a more accurate answer to your question.