Pet Hates Nos. 10 & 11

From http://curmudgeonlyramblings.blogspot.com/:

Well, it's been well over a month since my last moan, so I thought it was about time to have another - perhaps even two, on one day.

The Jimmy $avi£e thing is bothering me a little. There doesn't seem to be much doubt about the extent and horror of what he was apparently up to, but I still can't understand why, out of all the hundreds of people who have reported him since his death, didn't at least one of them manage to make enough noise beforehand to get some publicity for herself?

It's all very well saying how those in power - at the BBC and other media apparently - knew something was going on, but kept a tin lid on it because of the apparent threat that he would withdraw all his charitable works, amongst others. I just can't help avoiding the thought also that there's a lot of bandwagon jumpers out there, who have, being brutally frank, told their stories a bit too late for my liking. Did the fact that he left a large estate influence them?

Nobody feels any sympathy for JS, but I seem to recall a phrase innocent until proven guilty - and he's not here to mount any kind of defence.

The whole story has grown legs and there's now a raft of others similarly accused - although most of them are still alive. Do we have a witchhunt on our hands? The Social Media is now full of various names being bad-mouthed because allegations have been made. We can't condemn them all - at least not until they have been tried.

Enough of that - now an even hotter potato - US gun laws. Sitting here in Europe, it's all too easy for us to look smugly across the pond and preach at our American cousins to sort out their gun laws for once and for all - but it's far from that easy. Guns are a way of life in America, with the right to bear arms enshrined in the Constitution, and one of the most powerful political lobbies being the NRA.

It's not practical or realistic to enact something that tries to round up all the illegal guns - it's way too late for that anyway - that horse has bolted. Lots of stats have been bandied around, but yesterday's Times succinctly summarised the facts:

I suspect Obama will try to clamp down on the more bizarre weapons, which are patently not used for hunting sports, and also take a tougher line on illegally held weapons and perhaps try to control the sale of ammunition. Whatever, something has to give - and perhaps it might this time around.

Pet Hate No. 9

From http://curmudgeonlyramblings.blogspot.com/:

Computers again. Remember what USB stood for? Universal Serial Bus - with emphasis on Universal. It was meant to be the panacea for all the different connections the various manufacturers of all sorts of devices had to connect to computers and each other.

Well, it wasn't long before we had different sized USB's and now Apple are at it too - their new i-Phone 5 has a different size of connection from its predecessor. So soon? Can't they leave well alone for a while? The cynic in me tells me that somehow this will be a revenue generator for them. Changes always have a knock-on effect.

Pet Hate No. 8

From http://curmudgeonlyramblings.blogspot.com/:

Another rant - the second day in a row. this one's about computerised cold calls. You all know the ones I'm talking about - you usually get one timed at 5 pm or 6pm each evening - "did you know ....... payment protection insurance etc etc".

Well, I came back to my desk in Fraserburgh today for the first time since our holiday and, before I could use my desk telephone, I had to go through 30 voice messages. Only one of these wasn't a pre-recorded standard message - and even that was a sales pitch.

Don't you just hate them?

Pet Hate No. 7

From http://curmudgeonlyramblings.blogspot.com/:

It's been a while since I had anything to rant about - is that good or bad? - but today's the day.

This one started off as a specific moan about the treatment we are getting from a well-known Spanish bank - the one that took over a fondly remembered British Building Society, with whom we had held our first and subsequent mortgages - but it could well be extended to a more generic complaint about individual lack of responsibility.

To explain - Jo had fairly substantial funds in a bond which was due to mature on 1st December, 2011. Prior to maturity, we/she received a number of phone calls concerning what was to be done with the funds once they matured. As usual, they were trying to sell specific financial products. Of course, they wouldn't speak to me, as the funds were in Jo's name, so we told them we wanted to see the options they were talking about in writing - could they please post us details?

They weren't too keen on that - they initially said Jo had to come in to the branch in Aberdeen to discuss the options, but when she/we said no, they tried to do it over the phone, but we stuck to our guns and insisted that they post the information to us.

Of course, we had to chase them up as, initially, they did nothing. By this time, the old bond had matured - so what had they done with the funds? When we did finally receive the documentation we requested, we made our choice and wrote back to them.

We assumed we would eventually receive some documentation back to confirm that they had carried out our instructions and we would receive some kind of certificate of deposit/bond - but no, nothing came. Nor could we view anything online - we tried in vain.

After 3 or 4 months we started to get worried - what had happened? This wasn't a small amount of money. We chased up again, but were getting nowhere until we elevated matters to complaint level. Still no joy, however, but then, by sheer coincidence, towards the end of April, we received an end of year certificate of interest earned on a new bond - something that is produced automatically by all banks at this time of year - as they are obliged to do.

We were at least relieved to know that the funds were still there and hadn't gone missing, but we still wanted to know what had happened, so we stepped up our complaints until we received an apology e-mail from a Customer Relations Officer - but still no full explanation.

We chased again and this time we got a letter from a Customer Resolution Manager. In that letter, he mentioned that the funds had been put in to a Saver account earning 1% - this was contrary to our written instructions, so we chased up again and received another apology letter, this time from a Business Manager Complaints. All it said was:

That was dated 18th June. Another month passed and this was sent out when we were away on holiday:

This one was dated 21st July.

We've now written back and told them we want a full, written explanation by the end of this month, or we will, indeed, take up the opportunity of not only taking our case to the Financial Ombudsman, but also to the media. Watch this space.

The way they have passed the buck to each other on this one is incredible - nobody is willing to assume responsibility to follow this through properly - and what's with all these different titles they have anyway?

Grrrr.

Pet Hate No. 6

From http://curmudgeonlyramblings.blogspot.com/:

Default settings this time - and this one's hot off the presses. I've just come from a brief session at Bannatyne's and I overheard 2 chaps talking in the changing room about subscriptions for the over 60's. Mmm, I thought - must enquire at reception on my way out - and I did.

"Oh yes, sir, we do have special rates for over 60's - are you interested in signing up?" No, says I - I'm already a member - and I have been for several years now - and I'm 63. What's available, says I? "Over 60's have restricted hours, sir" - but I'm already on restricted hours. "Oh", she says.

It turns out that I can get longer hours than I'm on now - including getting in from 6:30 in the morning - and pay less subscription! Why wasn't I offered this automatically when I became 60? "Well, sir, not everyone likes the change in hours". What's not to like about getting more hours than I'm currently on (I currently can't go in before 9:30 am) - and paying less?

There is an analogy here with another of my favourite rant topics - banks. Whenever they offer special savings deals, they are usually time limited, but do they contact you at the end of the period and offer you something else? Of course not - that would be too reasonable and fair, wouldn't it? No, what they do is automatically transfer your money to one of their default funds, always attracting lower rates of interest.

Default settings - the cheats' and lazy person's charter.

Pet Hate No. 5

From http://curmudgeonlyramblings.blogspot.com/:

Why don't people understand simple demographics? This may be seen as a political rant, but it's not - it's just simple maths/arithmetic. Since the early post-war (WW II) years, we've heard a lot about the so-called "baby boomers" - my generation that had their teens in the "Swinging Sixties".

We've also all heard the statistics on life expectancy and how much they've improved over the years.

So why are so many people in denial about the urgent need for pensions reform? In the UK, when state pensions started over a century ago, the average working man (generally, women didn't go out to work then) would leave school at 14, find a job and work there until he was 65, when he could retire and collect his state pension - which he would enjoy for just 18 months or so, as life expectancy was so much lower then.

It was a relatively simple matter for the state to fund pensions then - they had more than 50 years of collecting contributions from employees and employers, and only had to pay out for 1.5 years. Surely even the less numerate amongst us can understand that this only requires an annual contribution of less than 3% to fund this? (I always work on the basis that interest earned on savings is negated by inflation).

Compare and contrast with more recent times, where there's been a squeeze at both ends - people want to retire earlier and they live longer. This means we are now looking at a model of virtually equal working and pension life - say, 30 years each. I'll let you do the maths, but I can assure you that, saving for your pension at a single figure percentage rate doesn't buy you many years of happy retirement. 30 years at, say, 5% contribution buys just 18 months of your full salary at retirement - or 3 years if you're willing to live on half what you previously earned. What are you going to do for the other 27 years of retirement?

That's the reality - but, of course, everyone, especially those in the public or private sector who are still fortunate enough to have Final Salary schemes in place, thinks this is none of their concern - after all, it's their "right" to receive a fully-funded pension - and they don't care who pays for it - as long as it's not them.

Certainly, in the public sector, the Government can't go on funding Civil Service pensions at the current rate, but sensible proposals to pay a bit more in contributions and lower the benefits a little are met with scorn and derision. Why, even those apparently intelligent Doctors working in the NHS are now threatening to go on strike over this!

This is not the fault of the current coalition Government, nor even the one before, but it's a subject that successive generations of politicians have studiously chosen to ignore - flying in the face of the blatant demographic evidence in front of their very eyes. Of course, we can blame them, but, at the end of the day, it's all of us who have to face up to the issue of how - and when - to pay for this. Do we just carry on regardless and let future generations try and sort out the mess, or do we act responsibly now? It may already be too late, but surely we've got to try?

And I haven't even started yet on the other potential time-bomb of nursing care for the elderly - how on earth is this going to be funded as increasing numbers live on in to their 90's - and beyond?

Pet Hate No. 4

From http://curmudgeonlyramblings.blogspot.com/:

Getting off the motoring theme and moving on - technology this time - or, more accurately the (ab)use of it - particularly e-mails.

Now, I'm no Luddite - I'm not a complete nerd either, but I do like using modern technology, and e-mails have been a godsend, particularly when you're trying to organise a group of people, as I have often done over the last 20-30 years. I remember the early days of organising our weekly football group - it was perpetual telephone tennis - I call A, who's out, so I call B, who's on the phone. Meanwhile A calls me back but I'm on the phone to B etc etc - you get the picture.

One e-mail can reach everyone in your group in a nanosecond - and they all get precisely the same message - the only scope for misinterpretation is their own.

No, what I'm on about is mostly the (mis)use of e-mails in business organisations and the complete abrogation of responsibility that often seems to go with it. People don't speak to each other - even across workstations. Q - "Have you dealt with such and such?" A - "Didn't you get my e-mail?" - as if sending the e-mail relieved them of the burden of actually having to do some work.

Bah humbug.

Number Three

From http://curmudgeonlyramblings.blogspot.com/:

Still on the motoring theme - this time, driving with lights on. I think it's a good thing, but it seems many motorists don't share my view, judging by the number that flash you with their headlights to tell you that you've got your lights on.

What they don't seem to realise is that car lights are not just for seeing with, but, even more importantly, being seen with. Many don't seem to appreciate how much their own car's visibility is enhanced by driving with lights on - even in daylight and in summer. Especially at a distance, some car colours merge into the background, but not when they have their lights on - they can be seen from much further away.

Remember too that not every driver on the road is in their twenties with 20:20 vision, and anything that can be done to help other cars see you is surely a good thing? The Scandinavians seem to think so anyway - you have to keep your lights on in most of the Nordic countries - and I do appreciate this is partly climate driven, but they've also done a lot of research on it. Hence why Volvos always have their lights on - you can't switch them off.

The Scandinavians are not the only ones who have done research on this - the Americans have too - check out some of the reports via the links at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daytime_running_lamp

So next time you're thinking about flashing another driver to tell him he still has his lights on, think again - and turn your own lights on.

My Pet Hates - number two

From http://curmudgeonlyramblings.blogspot.com/:

Another motoring theme - the target of my ire this time is the electronic information signs on our motorways and dual carriageways - or more correctly those who programme in the messages for us all to read.

I think they forget the reason these boards were put up in the first place was to provide motoring/traffic information to drivers - not to lecture us on our lifestyles and act like something from George Orwell's 1984 (I'm old enough to remember when that was hugely futuristic).

Why is it necessary to put up signs like:

• Don't Drink and Drive
• Fasten your seatbelt
• Don't use your mobile phone while driving

and many other such banalities. For some reason, they seem to be more prevalent in the West of Scotland.

Use them for their correct purpose - information to motorists. If there's nothing to say, then leave them blank - they're just a distraction and an irritant.

My Pet Hates - number one

From http://curmudgeonlyramblings.blogspot.com/:

Welcome to my newest blog - my 9th so far. What's this one all about then? Well, it came to me yesterday as I was heading down to Glasgow. A couple of incidents en route led to me ranting a bit to Jo as we travelled down, and it occurred to me I should commit these occasional pet hates to print to share with you all - I hope you feel privileged.

The first rant is about the self-appointed moral guardians of the road. I could include here those drivers who sit in the outside lane of motorways/dual carriageways at precisely the top speed limit, not allowing anyone else to pass ("undertaking" not officially permitted in the UK), but no - there's far worse than that - and I came across a perfect example yesterday. Road rage almost overcame me.

This type of incident occurs only on dual carriageways when one lane is out of action due to roadworks or, perhaps, a breakdown. The example yesterday is perhaps best demonstrated diagramatically:

Roadworks at Bridge of Dee marked in orange. Moral crusader marked in yellow - swerving in and out between lanes, retaining his place in the queue, whilst also blocking anyone from coming up the inside lane.

Now I understand how everyone feels about cars sneaking up on the inside lane and getting in front of them in the queue, relying on the goodwill of cars in the outside lane to let them out at the roadworks further up, but it just doesn't make road sense to do this.

The effect of not being able to use the inside lane here means that the queue stretches back further, in single file - in the above case, back past the previous roundabout. It makes much more sense for both lanes to be fully utilised and for cars to simply alternate turns at going past the roadworks. If this were written in to the Highway Code and everyone (or most) observed it, then nobody is "sneaking" an advantage, and the queues don't snake back as far.

If you approach Aberdeen on the A90 from the south and take the turning off the dual carriageway to go towards Altens, the road used to narrow down to single lanes eventually, but there was a road sign there telling all cars to use both lanes all the way up, then alternate when they got to the single lane. This was not only good sense - it was also a safety issue if the queue snaked back on to the main A 90 dual carriageway. I've also seen this in other cities too, so why not just make it a general rule of the road?

We would then be using the space on our roads more efficiently and it would be taking the heat out of potential road rage incidents when the self appointed moral guardians take it upon themselves to police the rest of us, just as the yellow car did to me yesterday.

OK - rant no. 1 over - more to follow in due course.