Sky TV Customer Survey - 4th July

7. Please use this space to provide any other feedback you may have:

I feel ripped off by Sky because you will no longer be carrying Aviva Premiership Rugby, substituting in its stead the RaboDirect Rugby that has been free on BBC and/or S4C for several seasons.  Even in the last two seasons you failed to show some key Aviva Premiership matches such as semifinals which were only available on ESPN.

I hate paying you silly amounts every month so that you can pay ever more millions to line the pockets of football players, and I'm frustrated by the fact that I can't tailor my subscription in any way that's meaningful to me. It's no good offering Sky 1 Sports and Sky 2 Sports as separate products when what I want is split across them.

If you wanted to, you have the capabilities to offer a Rugby subsscription, a Cricket subscription, a Golf subscription, etc. You exploit your monopolistic position and show these sports across a mixture of your channels, instead of as discrete products. So if I want all of the Rugby and none of the football I still have to buy Sky Sports 1 & 2 at disproportionate cost.

You are cross-subsidising football's grossly excessive wages from subscriptions of people like me that don't want it.  I hope one day the Competition Commission will take you to the cleaners for abuse of your market position, which I think has been going on for years.

So when the new BT Sports offering comes on line, Sky Sports will be distinctly optional.  I can live without Super Rugby and I can visit at least two places within 500 metres' walk to see any interesting matches that you still manage to show.  

When you treat your customers like that, don't be surprised when they desert you, no matter how good your customer service agents are. This one was fine, but I'd received the letter telling me of yet another inflation-smashing increase in monthly payments just that morning.

RBS - stop rocking the boat

I love the BBC Radio 4 Today programme, and listen to it every weekday.  But this morning's (23rd February) episode had me shouting at the radio.  Michael Fallon, MP, member of the Treasury Select Committee, and James Barty, of the Policy Exchange, were interviewed by Evan Davis following the Royal Bank of Scotland results announcement - a £700 million loss in 2011 compared with about half of that in 2010.  In the context, that's not actually too bad a set of results.

Evan Davis asked Michael Fallon questions with the drift that we need to change track - sell, hold, or do something else:
(a) the Government should dispose of its RBS shares now and 'cut its losses'
(b) "why do we need to get our money back, we know we've lost the money"
(c) if not then clearly investing in banks is good, and we should buy a couple more
(d) if share price is going to go up why don't we buy more shares
(e) or maybe we should break RBS up into smaller businesses or mutualise

James Barty thought it would be a good idea to give away the shares but with a clawback for the Government when selling.  This would remove the Government overhang of 83% of the shares, and reduce political interference in the bank's management, but it's never been tried in this country.  [Given the known track record of public sector information systems, it could even be a struggle to identify eligible reciipients in a reliable way].

Here's a link to BBC iPlayer - the segment starts at 07:52 (1hr 52mins 15sec into the recording). 

Harm is already being done to the financial sector in this country, with the media fanning the flames of an anti-business culture. The Government is damaging the valuations of banks by imposing stricter banking regulations far faster than competing countries.

The drift of the interview was disappointing, and the questions badly thought out.   It's really unhelpful to the aim of recouping the full public stake in RBS, for the BBC to probe for ways to destroy the value of assets that we're seeking to sell. Stephen Hester has charted a course - stop rocking the boat.

EHIC - passing off?

She Who Must Be Obeyed asked me to renew our E111 European health insurance forms today, and I knew that these have been replaced by something new.  I used Google and found e111-nhs.org and nhs-ehic.org.  The first is a site with Universal Check Services and seems to cost £14.99 per application.  It mentions at the bottom of the form that it has no affiliation with the NHS, Department of Health or any other official Government body.  The second also admits that it has no connection with any Government department, and seems to charge £8.99 per application.  There's another one - e111.org.uk, but at least this doesn't use NHS in its web site name.

Now, all of them are offering a service of 'checking' your application, but the online or telephone application service is simple, free and connects directly to the people who will actually process your application.  All you need is your name, address and a permanent (not temporary 'TN') National Insurance number.  It will even work out your proper address from your house number/name and postcode.  The National Health Service Business Services Authority (NHSBSA) EHIC site is at https://www.ehic.org.uk/Internet/home.do.

I don't think that the 'checking' services should be allowed to use NHS in their web site names.  To me there's a nasty niff of 'passing off'  of their sites as something official, and could catch out people who are short of time or patience to read the small print.  How dumb do you have to be to need someone else to check your name, address and NI number?   Of course, our lawmakers and Google encourage this by allowing the sites to place their ads at the top of the search results, instead of excluding them altogether.  Regrettable - either Her Majesty's Government or Google could stop this practice dead in its tracks.

Another raid on my future pension

Much of the excitement around today's European Court of Justice ruling in insurance premiums has focused on the effects on motor insurance policies.  Young male drivers are dramatically more likely to kill or injure themselves or others than young women, and currently their premiums reflect this fact.  From December 2012, this will be illegal, and on the face of it, women will have to cross-subsidise less safe male drivers.

At the other end of the age range, pension annuities for men currently cost less for the same annual income than those for women, because men have a lower life expectancy.  This ruling will mean that they have to pay more. At the moment, the less well (impaired lives) or the older annuity buyers receive more for the same pot of money, but this could be judged discriminatory too.  We have a whole profession dedicated to this calculation - actuaries - and they could now become an endangered species.  Or they could be employed to find crafty ways and cunning proxies for age, sex and state of health, to circumvent the ruling.

 The Gordon Brown raid on pensions dividend income, poor investment returns, the financial crisis, and now this new ruling, all conspire to reduce my future pension further and further.  Those lucky enough to have a public sector pension won't be affected.  I bet that applies to the ECJ justices.

BBC2 - The Spice Trail

I'm fascinated by the subject matter, but the presentation was so bad that I had to switch off after 25 minutes. The simpering gushing blather of Kate Humble made this unwatchable.  The travelogue was fine, the content fascinating, the pictures wonderful, and Kate H is great when she's doing voiceover.  But when she gets into the act, projecting herself to the forefront of events, it's stomach churning.

It's not Blue Peter, it's not CBeebies, it's a programme for allegedly intelligent viewers on the BBC's alternative prime channel.  From treading the pepper, to cheering the snake boats, to drinking tea made with Ayurvedic medicines, it's quite nauseating.  I nearly switched off after 15 minutes, and after 25, couldn't stand it any more.  What a shame that the BBC has made an infantile mess of a fascinating subject, instead of treating its viewers like adults.  Maybe episodes 2 and 3 will be better, but I don't hold out much hope.  I'm sorry but this gets my "BBC at its worst" vote.

While available on BBC iPlayer, it's here

Fed up with the Harlequins Bloodgate saga

In a very British form of torture, the General Medical Council is hearing the case of Dr Wendy Chapman, who was suspended after she was involved in the "Bloodgate" scandal resulting from the Heineken Cup quarter final between Harlequins and Leinster in April 2009.  She's been suspended from her job, without pay, since then.

This is disproportionate and unfair treatment, and the reason that it's so unfair is that it's taken so long.  Justice delayed is justice denied.  Everyone else involved is back in business apart from Dean Richards, who according to The Guardian on 16 August 2010, is acting as a consultant for Premiership teams and still doesn't know the exact terms of his suspension..

I'm not a Harlequins supporter, and have no connection with anyone involved.  It's not as if Harlequins cheating was sensible - the player brought on to kick was crocked - and it didn't pervert the result of the match.  I think enough is enough.  GMC: please let Dr Chapman get on with looking after patients.  

iTunes 9 - too much to manage

iTunes has encountered a problem and needs to close.  We are sorry for the inconvenience.
Too bloody right.

I upgraded my iPhone 3GS to the iOS4 operating system in the week of 23rd June, shortly after the update became available through iTunes.  The download and sync failed, and I ended up with a phone that couldn't make calls, load software, or anything else.  I tried uninstalling and reinstalling iTunes - no use, then uninstalling and reinstalling all of the Apple components on my PC - again no use, and finally, under the guidance of the help line, creating a new user account and uninstalling and reinstalling everything.  At last, I was able to make the update (even though that failed a couple of times).  Every uninstall/reinstall is a long process, including restarting the PC and a couple of hours a time is not too far of the mark.

Unfortunately, to get my phone back to my own user account and user name, I had to reset it to factory settings and so I will have lost some content - photos.  Very annoying, but at least the phone was back in action.

The real irritation now is that iTunes falls over while syncing music and/or podcasts.  I'm losing content because it stops downloading podcasts that I haven't listened to for a while - the reason I haven't listened is because I can't get them onto the iPhone.

The process suggested on the web site to fix this is too time consuming to be bearable, but it was failing tonight on file 4 of 220 that it meant to sync.  The file was downloaded at about 22:30 this evening. I have a few thousand files that may or may not be the cause of the issue.  Or not at all.

iTunes is now such a complicated set of software that if anything goes wrong, there's no way to fix it.  Now I daren't buy that lovely iPad because I may not be able to sync it.  Shame.

Give football referees the 10 metre rule and the power to sin-bin

Uruguay v France, the second match of the 2010 FIFA World Cup was a dire 0-0 draw, largely because the referee, who had a good game and made lots of good decisions, was hampered by players who stood their ground arguing the toss after free kicks were awarded.  This shouldn't be allowed.  It's just a professional foul, stopping any quick attacks, running the clock down, or giving enough time for defensive walls to set up.  

If players had to move immediately to 10 metres distance from the point where the kick is awarded, much of this nonsense would go away. If trouble makers could be removed for an immediate sin bin, discipline would get even better.  And how about a red card for diving?

Not a hope.  

Follow-up on 'Administrative Cruelty'

After my original post on 12th November, I've had an exchange of e-mails with the manager for Customer Services at Wiltshire County Council.

In his initial e-mail, he made a good and acceptable apology and then continued, "we have put measures in place to improve the service for those people, like you, who need to register a death. Salisbury now have a dedicated line for death enquiries which is given priority. This will ensure that Customer Services can help customers to reach the right person much more efficiently. We have also reminded Customer Service staff that, whilst there is a general agreement that calls will be returned in 24 hours (if there is nobody available at the time), in the case of death enquiries, these calls are given priority and will be returned as soon as possible. In the context of your call, it was insensitive to give you the impression that you may have to wait 24 hours as it would have almost certainly been picked up and dealt with immediately. I apologise for this."

I replied that "I think there is still some distance to go to make the process as simple as it once was.

"As a general principle, it’s good to answer the phone immediately but it’s much more important that the right service should be answering the phone. This is particularly important in the case of a death, where emotions can be raised, timescales to organise funerals can be tricky, and the process should be as seamless as possible. If the call centre had actually been able to make the appointment rather than just quiz me to establish what I knew already – that I should register the death at Salisbury – then it would have been the right service. As an alternative, technology-wise, it should be a trivial matter to arrange for the call centre to pick up calls that couldn’t be answered at Salisbury, rather than make all calls pass through the call centre...

"A Customer Services call centre has a role for people that don’t know what to do, or whose relatives didn’t die in hospital. But the bereaved are given a useful booklet at Salisbury District Hospital. It sets out the requirement very clearly. It should have the direct number for the Registration Service. Anything else, any different number, any other mandatory step in the process, is an unfair and insensitive imposition on the bereaved, and not without cost for the council tax payer. I hope that the council will make the process as simple as possible for future customers."

He then responded "I have to say that I totally agree with the points made and I know that the current process is by no means perfect.

"It is a knotty problem to untangle as the previous process of being able to ‘direct dial’ into the Registration team worked well when Customers got through but there were a lot of complaints from customers not being able to get through.

"That said, now that the Registration Team in Salisbury have released another line specifically for death enquiries, it seems to me to be a sensible next step to start making that number available to the public. This is a proposal I am going to put to the Registration Operational Managers. "

I think that's a very fair response, and would like to thank Wiltshire CC for the consideration given to the points I raised. I hope that the right decisions are made - and that I don't have a reason to use the service again. Of course, any feedback is most welcome.

Administrative cruelty

What happened? My Dad died on Monday morning, about 07:15. I'd been due to start a new contract at 09:00 after a year without serious work. The hospital called at 07:10. Instead of heading to work, I drove to Salisbury, and on the way, took a phone call from the hospital, confirming what I'd expected. Arriving there, I did what was needed, including contacting my brothers before the body was removed to the mortuary.

What happened next? The medical certificate wasn't ready until Tuesday afternoon. The doctor had gone home after working the weekend, and nobody else could write up the paperwork.

And so? To register the death and arrange the funeral, I needed the medical certificate and an appointment with the Registrar of Births Marriages and Deaths in Salisbury. Knowing that the certificate should be ready, I called the number given by the Salisbury District Hospital bereavement booklet. It turned out to be a number in Trowbridge, not the local Register Office.

Guess what! The lady on the line asked me lots of questions and then concluded that I'd need to speak Salisbury Register Office to make an appointment. She wasn't empowered to do anything except pass me through. But their number was engaged. If I'd been given their number, I could use Ring Back to connect me as soon as they became free. "But we don't offer Ring Back on that number!".

So we had a little discussion about the meaning of life, and she tried again. Still engaged. And then the excruciating moment. "I could take your number and then they should get back to you within 24 hours". At this point, I thought my head would explode. I explained to the lady on the line that I would call her back in 5 minutes, 10 minutes, 15 minutes, 20 minutes, and so on until I had my appointment. We talked, and at the fourth attempt, she put me through.

Finally, speaking to the Register Office, I reached someone with competence and who was actually able to help me. We arranged the appointment, and I was able to register the death that had happened 30 hours before. By the way, none of the information that I had given to Trowbridge was passed on to the Register Office. So the whole imposition of the call centre was completely pointless for the 'client'.

One of my brothers remarked that if Dad had been a Muslim, it would all have been done and dusted by sunset the previous day.

I cannot praise enough the feeling of safety and reassurance given by the staff at Salisbury Register Office. They know how to deal with real people. But I feel that the imposition of a call centre that is not empowered to do anything positive between the bereaved 'client' and the service provider is cruel, pointless, costly, negative, foul and criminal.

Now it may be that this is an interim stage in the centralisation of bookings into Trowbridge. If that happens, then there is a point to the call centre. But until it happens, it is (to repeat myself) cruel, pointless, costly, negative, foul and criminal.

I'm not a Wiltshire ratepayer. I live in Hampshire, my father lived in (East) Dorset, but Salisbury and its crematorium are in Wiltshire, and the focal point for all of the stages of the process. Wiltshire County Council have introduced a disgraceful and cruel process to stop bereaved families from meeting their statutory obligation - to register the death. Shame on you.

Greedy Times?

The hikes in the annual subscription for The Times/Sunday Times have outstripped the rises in the cover price. Since 2001, the cover price has doubled, but the subscription rate that we pay has almost trebled.

Annual subscription
06/06/2000: £91
23/05/2001: £91
17/06/2002: £91
4 x 12 weekly subscriptions: (add 8% for yearly rate)
24/11/2003 - 24/10/2004: £96
25/10/2004 - 10/09/2005: £120
11/09/2005 - 20/08/2006: £144
21/08/2006 - 16/07/2007: £156
17/07/2007 - 16/06/2008: £192
17/06/2008 - 16/05/2009: £216
17/05/2009 - 16/04/2010: £240 (about £260 a year)

Some cover prices gleaned from Google:
Oct 2001: 40p weekdays, 70p Sats, £1.20 Suns - £3.70 per week
Oct 2002: 45p weekdays, 80p Sats, £1.40 Suns - £4.45 per week
Sep 2006: 65p weekdays, £1.30 Sats, £2 Suns - £6.55 per week
Sep 2007: 70p weekdays, £1.40 Sats, £1.80 Suns - £6.70 per week
Aug 2008: 80p weekdays, £1.50 Sats, £2 Suns - £7.50 per week
Jan 2009: 90p weekdays, £1 Sats, £2 Suns - £7.50 per week

Barclaycard on the ball... and then not

Barclaycard contacted me on Saturday morning (7th) to ask if I'd just done a transaction for £1,000 with a mortgage provider on my business credit card. No! Then did you do £2,000 with an energy utility on Friday? No! What about all the other transactions? One other was fraudulent, a Pay As You Go phone top-up - I don't have a PAYG phone. Top marks for picking up the untypical transactions, two of which weren't what I would consider as suitable items for a business account.

The disclaimer form arrived today - and included a number to which it could be faxed after completion. And guess what - no answer (multiple times), number busy, no answer. Less than top marks for that.

Bloody Gillette

They've just put their prices up again. Over £6 for four Mach3 Turbo blades. The girl in Superdrug wanted nearly a tenner for a pack of five. The pattern seems to be the same each year. Shops run out of the blades at the current price, racks empty. It's strange how they all seem to run out at the same time.

Then Hallelujah! Some fancy new device arrives, with even more expensive replacements, accompanied by another stupid and no doubt very pricey advertising campaign. If you can get them, the supplies for your existing razor are jacked up at the same time. This pattern seems eerily familiar - every year? And the price seems the same pretty much everywhere - in this country and abroad. The marketing department from hell.