Moanbile

After 2 weeks of trying, a long phone-call to the network and five visits to their shops, today is the day that I finally managed to get Vodafone's 'plug-n-play' 3G broadband to work on my laptop. A little slower than Vodafone's claim that it would take me 12 seconds.

I want to set up a couple of web ventures and need to do some research online (as well as find a developer and look down the back of the sofa for some startup capital for I have none), and I need to use the downtime that I often have at weekends - but I am often not at home at those times, so I wanted to get some 3G broadband. Not only that, but I agree with Stephen Levitt that mobile broadband is a very, very good thing in principal for people who have a lot of travel time and a lot to do online. With 3G up and running, there would be no more need to subject myself to sub-par bars just to get free WiFi.

Vodafone's excuse for this is that it doesn't work on some laptops. Particularly Sony Vaio laptops. Now these aren't exactly rare things, so wouldn't it have been good if they could have mentioned it, perhaps? Anyway, working it now is.

The only trouble is that it is not giving me anything like the claimed 7.2mbps. It is marginally faster than when I used to use dial-up. Living in London and in an area where there is supposed to be very strong 3G signal for Vodafone, I don't really think that is up to it. So they're going to get a 3G card brought back to them.

Which brings me back to the original solution. I am left with no alternative but to find pubs that offer free WiFi and set up my ventures whilst out of my skull on the beer I have to drink to justify staying there. Centuries ago it was said that drink was the scourge of the working classes, but I'll wager that even they didn't see it being so literal a problem.

Big Auntie

The BBC is showing more of the big brother characteristics of a normal state broadcaster than it would like to admit, according to Vindico's attempt to get on to Question Time. Read his post to check out the information that they require from you before they'll let you get into the 'unscreened' audience for Question Time and tell me if you think it's unbiased...

Also, if you're local to Blackheath and Greenwich, here's a post from Greenwich Watch with a link to the Facebook group 'no to Greenwich congestion charge'.

Empty void

I'm afraid that today (Friday) you will be left with an empty void where the Major's insights can usually found. There are far more important things to focus on:


Happy Birthday Mrs Gripe. Thank you for being such a wonderful (and tolerant) wife. I hope to make your birthday (and your Friday) a very special day. xxx

Surplus to requirements

You don't need me to comment on the news on days when the news parodies itself. That happened today - police taking delivery of Tony Blair's £100k bomb-proof BMW 7-series were surprised when they opened the 'impenetrable', 'secure' container andfour asylum-seekers jumped out. It seems that the asylum-seekers were less pleased at jumping out of a container into the middle of Scotland Yard.

You couldn't make it up...

Revelations

A special bonus for you - 2 posts today.

It is time to reveal the man behind the pseudonym. Well, sort of.

I have been invited to contribute to Little Man, What Now? and will be doing so under a sub-pseudonym, Bertrand Boer-Waugh.

If you visit the blog you will be able to see my posts, particularly yesterday's one. If you haven't read their blog yet, you should. It's good stuff.

Archbishop chooses religion over faith

Not a good day for the Archbishop of Canterbury, for the Anglican Communion, or for open-mindedness. The Episcopal church has had to put ordination of gay bishops on hold, along with blessings on same-sex marriages, in order to avoid the Anglican church dividing.

This is a classic example of the conflict between religion and faith. All faiths are largely similar in their values, and all are forces for good. Religions, on the other hand, are the man-made political institutions that purport to represent the faiths but often pursue a separate agenda to them. It is religions, not faiths, that have done harm.

Agreeing to exclude a group of people from a spiritual body just to keep the body together is a shameful act. Let's not forget that it isn't that long ago that people were issuing threats if women were allowed to become vicars. Only a century before that, it was up for debate whether some ethnic minorities should be allowed in (and interestingly it is the same ethnic minorities that are at the centre of the resistance today). For a Christian body to find it controversial to treat people the same reflects very, very badly on Christianity and goes completely against the spirit of the faith.

This post is not about homosexuality. It is about the response to it. Let's be clear: Dr Williams is making the preservation of an institution more important than upholding the faith that the institution represents. This is wrong. As a spiritual leader, you have an obligation to uphold the values of the spirituality, not to compromise them in human politics. This is what Rowan Williams should be doing. The gospels are all about Jesus confronting the religion of the day - he wasn't worried about the popularity of what he was saying, or whether it would cause a divide in the religion, and gave no compromise. Ask the monks in Burma, or Ghandi, how they feel about appeasement in the face of their values.

For how much longer will people within the religion try to use the teachings of Jesus, the core of which is 'Love Thy Neighbour As Thyself' let's not forget, to justify their exclusion of others from their church? It's a depressing reality that the church lags society by about 50 years. A true church should not be lagging society, it should be leading it.

Yeah, thanks

And thanks to my one respondent for damning me to more horrific hospital visits.

A plague on both your houses

Never assume that all the gumph you hear about western democracy translates into open and honest government. If you are in danger of assuming it, look at Greenwich Council and Ken Livingstone.

It appears that Greenwich Watch, Little Man, this blog and many others are on to something when we predict that all of the games played with the Blackwall Tunnel are a cynical plot to create enough of a problem in Greenwich to permit a triumphal entry of the congestion charge.

It's like those films that are supposed to have a clever twist, but actually the ending is pretty obvious to anyone with half a brain. The decent man loses again, Ken screws over the Gripe household (earning himself the nickname c**t) another time, and the whole farce carries on for another revolution. I may be bored of writing about it, but I'll be on the front line when we resist this hairy trucker (rhyming slang) and his plans to bleed us dry of yet more money.

You may win this time, Ken, but it's not over between us. I will have my day. Ya ha ha ha ha.....

The Sleuth, The Whole Sleuth...

Miss Marple wants to be more careful if the entire UK population does indeed get put onto the DNA database. While slothfully tangled in the duvet eating breakfast in bed, I have just witnessed her sneak into the murder scene in the library at the back of a stately home, while the police were at the front door trying to gain entry. Not content with breaking and entering, she proceeded to wander round the murder scene picking up all sorts of objects without wearing any gloves. She must have left a fingerprint and DNA trail that even the most useless police officers could follow.

I wonder whether all of the smug 'if you've got nothing to hide' brigade would condemn the octogenarian busybody if she were to be hauled up on charges. After all, it's not like she hasn't got form. She leaves a trail of murder wherever she lives. After all of the deaths in her village, the population must be decimated - and yet the fresh meat to cull in each episode must mean that people continue to move there. Perhaps this is because the programme didn't go out live, or perhaps they didn't check the relevant part of UpMyStreet.com. Bet they're regretting it now, from the other side.

Anyway, I've wandered off the point. Perhaps I've been looking at this whole DNA database thingy the wrong way. Yes, the loss of freedoms undermine our case for being the 'free world', but just look at the benefits. Long after Miss Marple, Hercule Poirot and Dr Mark Sloan are in The Clink, we can turn our attentions to TV property developers and celebrity chefs. Then the great society that we all crave will truly be born, free from their menaces.

Major change of direction?

It is now 2 1/2 months since I started on this journey. Credit (or blame) can go to Roberto, an esteemed colleague and friend who led by example. My first readers (excluding the one or two friends who read by a combination of coercion and emotional blackmail) came on 27th July, when Roberto showed me how to get Facebook to import my blog entries. Together, we journeyed far around the world, and have explored and moaned about many topics since then - 113 topics to be precise. Hasn't it been fun?

I suppose those two comments are the basis of this post. They're questions for you. You see, I've got regular visitors (and even some subscribers) - I hope that I succeed in what I want to do: give something to ponder and raise a chuckle. But one day stands out in the history of this blog as the most read: the dreaded hospital trip. It had 4 times more visits than my next highest day. It even got dugg.

I'm don't want to be a crowd-pleaser, but at the same time, I am left with a couple of questions. Do I need to cover more topics, or less. Is the tone right? Most importantly, do I need to become an insect-snorting maniac?

I'd love some feedback if you're able to give me some. If you think I should do more of the same, if you would like to see some changes. Anything would be great. Just leave a comment and let me know. And thanks for reading. It's been emotional.

Big Trouble In Little... Peru

Strange things are afoot in deepest, darkest, southern Peru. It appears that everyone has become ill in a small town where a meteorite struck. This could, in many ways, be alarming. Perhaps H.G.Wells is uncannily accurate in his prediction that lifeforms do not react well to extra-terrestrial bacteria and viruses.

Or, on the other hand, it could be total crap. I say this as a person who has a good knowledge of (and a deep love of) Peru after three visits there and a year living and working there as a teacher and interpreter in the high Andes and in Lima. One of the things that should be celebrated most about Peru is the industriousness of those who feel indignant at not sharing in the successes of the capital city, Lima. They conjure up all sorts of ways to get a piece of the action. This includes, in extreme cases, faking phallic tourist attractions. Let's see if there is any proof this time...

Menzies the Merciless

The Liberal Democrats have clearly lost their heads under Sir Menzies Campbell. The man is clearly detached from reality, judging by his plans for redistributive tax.

So, apparently the point at which you become a snout-in-the-trough fat cat stealing from society is at a household income of £70,000 per year. Let's repeat that - a HOUSEHOLD income of £70,000 per year. Has he given this even a moment's thought?

Let's look at the type of people who might have this income. Two graduates living together might concievably be earning £35k each, from which to pay their student loans and rent a modest flat. They will be taking home £4,300 between them per month, or £4,000 after optimistically low student debt repayments. In London, their basic living costs will be at least £1,000 plus bills and council tax, so call it £1,400. That leaves £2,600. Now take into account the fact that they will have to top up their own pension (unless they work in Whitehall or parliament). Contributing 6% would be modest. Out of gross contributions, that would work out to be about £300 per month for both of them. So £2,300 left for both of them. Deduct £200 for their travel per month, and £100 because being fat cats they have probably indulged in that classic emblem of bling - a clapped-out small car. That leaves £2,000 per month. Now deduct £400 for their groceries for the month, leaving £1,600. Let's assume that they need to save a small amount for the future and for a deposit on a house. £500 per month will give them combined savings of £6,000 per year (so that after only five more years these idle rich will have saved enough for a deposit on a flat). Assume that they take one 2-week holiday in Europe every year, so £1,200 each per year. That's another £100 each per month. So we now have £800, or £400 each, per month left over.

That is £400 to clothe themselves, for any entertainment, for gifts that they need to buy. I don't know about you, but I don't classify that as having 'done "too well" under Labour'.

This is another example of how people currently under 30 have been completely screwed over in the last 10 years as part of the massive wealth transfer to the older generations and part of the massive cost transfer to younger and future generations. Leave alone, Menzies, and stick your lefty nose somewhere else.

More on Northern Rock

A few follow-on thoughts from my previous post on Northern Rock and on the housing market today.

1. If Northern Rock are facing being put out of business, why in the name of all that is fiscally prudent are they running longer opening hours to allow more people to withdraw more money?
2. There was a letter into Metro this morning saying that it is the banks' fault for over-lending in sub-prime markets and that it isn't fair that customers should be punished by higher interest rates. Sorry to pass the buck back to you, but if you are pushed closer to default by a rise in interest rates then you have borrowed too much. Yes, the banks must take some responsibility for over-lending, but you too should take responsibility for over-borrowing.

1. Another letter to Metro slated property developers for making profit from doing up flats and houses and making them inhabitable again. The correspondent said that they were to blame for higher house prices. I'm afraid that in your ignorance you have blamed the wrong people. Property developers are putting their own funds at risk to make a small profit on each property. Furthermore, they are not raising house prices. By making more places inhabitable/desirable, they are in fact increasing the supply of homes and therefore diluting house price rises.

What is most interesting of all is how the Labour government has presided over a Thatcher-style credit boom while it has been increasing its tax take.
Sorry to get all 'political and stuff'.

You wouldn't steal a handbag. Copying car designs is theft.

I'm no kleptomaniac but I'm confident that I could give McClaren a few pointers on how to steal better.

Ferrari yesterday dedicated their victory to 'an English gentleman in a print shop in Woking'. It turns out that the whole 'spygate' saga came to light because the wife of Mike Coughlan took a Ferrari technical dossier into a print shop in Woking and asked to have some pages copied. The owner thought that there was something suspicious about a dossier from Monza turning up in a small Surrey town where a rival team was based, and contacted Ferrari.

Now, McClaren pay their drivers millions per year, and they have just been fined £50m by the FIA. A colour photocopier would set them back less than £5000. Given the amount of money involved in R&D on a car, you would presume that the team (or the individual) would regard £5k to be able to do it in the office (or at home) to be very, very cheap.

One thing that I certainly wouldn't do is walk into my nearest print shop and openly ask to copy part of the document. Does this rank as one of the stupidest things anyone has ever done?

Offensive offender

An unusual and unforeseen experience befell me today. I was sitting in the ruins of Reading Priory, which are next to Reading prison (famously the place where Oscar Wilde was imprisoned for homosexuality). From the place where I was sitting, you can see the windows of some of the cells on the top floor. Immersed in my book, I heard:

Male voice, shouting: Wwwaaannnker

[I look up]

Male voice, shouting: Yeah, you. W*nk*r.

At this point, I was thinking 'OK, so now I am going to get in a fight with someone from the other side of a prison wall'. I paused. 'Again', I added to my thought.

Unsure as I was about how to deal with being heckled from within a prison, I returned to my book. Unsatisfied with this reaction, he continued his monologue.

Male voice, shouting: Is that a map, mate? Are you lost? Do you need directions?

Now I don't know about you, but I don't spend much time loitering outside prisons. Particularly prisons for homosexuals. So I don't really expect to be seen by people loitering within prisons. Less so sworn at by people languishing in their cells. And what was he doing at 10:45am on a Sunday morning still within his cell? Shouldn't he be tending the vegetable patch? Or, more pragmatically, in the chapel finding his faith and improving his chances of parole?

Heckled and helped by a prisoner within 10 seconds. What a Sunday morning for me.

You are the Rock upon which I build my bank

Sorry Jesus for ripping your line off in my title.

I'm really amazed at how stupid people can be when it comes to banks. Witness the drama being made out of the Northern Rock situation. People have so far withdrawn £1bn from the bank since its announcement that it was using Bank of England emergency funding. If ever there is a self-fulfilling prophesy, this is it.

It's quite simple. The banking system is fundamentally solvent but illiquid because they make more interest lending your money than they pay you for depositing it with them by lending it out for longer. If you go and demand your money, they have to give it to you - but they have given it to someone else as a loan for a long time. So they keep some deposits lying around in cash to ensure that enough people can get their deposits in normal circumstances. Its liquidity relies on lots and lots of confidence in the system, and lots of interbank lending on the money markets to back it up.

By panicking and pulling their money out, people are going to send a liquid bank solvent. It's the same 'me first' attitude that saw us run out of petrol last year because a few people started panic buying and the rest followed like drearily stupid sheep.

I wonder if this will hit Ginko Bank again...

Epitaph: I told you I was ill

Thanks to the late Spike Milligan for the title of this post.

I am helping Mrs Gripe with her revision for her acupuncture degree as she has an exam tomorrow. We are looking at syndromes.

I was reminded of how spurious the application of the word syndrome can be. In particular I am thinking of a western medical syndrome that is rather permanent in its effect. It's called Sudden Death Syndrome. Not really a syndrome in that it's characterized by, well, suddenly dying. Now I recognise the tragedy of that, but is it really a syndrome? I wonder when there will be a No Syndrome Syndrome.

There'll always be an En-ger-land

You couldn't script this stuff. England goes to football world cup expecting to win it. Packed with oodles of talent. And Theo Walcott. Turns out average performance and quarter final exit to first big team. Then the assistant coach takes charge. Qualification looks like it may be in doubt despite the new oodles of talent.

Then two matches close together. The new big stars all injured or suspended. Some players brought in from lower in the pecking order, and others recalled from the wilderness. Including Emile Heskey, chief fodder for the boo-boys for so long. And what happens? 6 points. 6 goals. Owen proves why we can't do without him, and Heskey earns his place over Wayne Rooney. And also provides an aerial threat that is superior to that offered by our 6'7" striker. Classsic.

Also, congratulations are due to Scotland for a top performance. I hope to see you joining us in the finals.

My wings are like a shield of cack

Two friends of ours have just been ripped off by Ryanair. They were at the end of their holiday and were due to fly back from Santiago de Compostela with Ryanair on a £20 flight on Thursday. Ryanair cancelled the flight and told them that they wouldn't be able to fly until Tuesday. They also have them no help with food or accommodation, meaning that they would be out of pocket for that time. The bigger problem was that they were due to start new jobs on Monday. Since Ryanair was the only airline to fly from there to Blighty, they had to get a standby flight to Barcelona and fly home from there. It took them 24 hours and EUR1000 to get home. Worse still, when Thomas phoned Ryanair to complain , he was told that he could only complain by fax. He asked for written confirmation of what happened, so that he could claim from his insurance company, and was told that he would have to pay EUR20 plus postage to get that.

They said that Ryanair told them that they wren't liable because it was a technical problem, and therefore not the airline's fault. I can't believe that any company would so willingly waive its ethical responsibilities to its customers, let alone a company whose whole business model is aimed at budget passengers - who often can't afford that sort of unforeseen expense. They said that behind them in the check-in queue was a family of seven. How much will it have cost them to stay an extra five days and nights?

Where does this leave my friends in terms of trading standards? They were sold a cheap journey that eventually cost them more than a schedule airline fare.

The key to a successful budget operation in any industry is volume. In the long term, that can only be achieved through accuracy and availability. This means minimizing errors and ensuring that where they do occur they are rectified without customers - who have already identified themselves as price sensitive by flying with a budget airline - having to pay more.

This is penny-pinching by Ryanair. If it is not, i.e. if the cost is too great for them to bear because too many customers need this sort of help, then they need to change their business model. Either way, such sharp practice as this will not work in the long-term.

To the gate staff at London Bridge

This is some guidance to the staff who look after the main gateline for platforms 1-6 at London Bridge railway station. If a passenger is pulling a case that he says won't fit through the electronic barriers, let him through the 'with luggage' gate. He is not of the devil. He just wants to get home. And when he lets himself through the open gate, don't shout at him. He isn't doing anything wrong. He doesn't understand why it is such a key battle for you to stop people going through the gate, he just wants to make his journey a little easier. Try helping him, and maybe the world will be a better place.

If you are Ali from the gateline, then when (in response to you shouting at him) he asks you to remember customer service, try to remember that he is your customer, you are not his customer. This means that shouting back 'You remember your customer service' to him is in its essence a toothless and unnecessary exclamation that doesn't really stand up to scrutiny.

If you are Brian from the gateline, try not to threaten the passenger with the words "I'll knock your f***ing block off, you f***ing c**t". Also try not to threaten that the next time you'll check his ticket, because he has a ticket - a valid ticket - and therefore does not fear your threat.

If you are Southeastern Rail and you run the station that the gateline is part of, then please have a look at the situation. If the battle that the staff want to fight in not letting anyone with luggage through the 'with luggage' gate is a valid one, then please explain to your customers why this is - it isn't clear to us why these individuals want to argue. If you agree with the customers that there is no reason for them to fight the battle with such determination, then try to stop them doing it. Your posters telling your passengers that you do not tolerate abuse of your staff have much less credibility when your staff shout and swear at your passengers, and even threaten them with violence.

Let's see if we can bring some civility and service ethos back to your railway system.

Hustings

As promised, here is a short review and opinion of the four Tory candidates for Mayor of London. I am doing this for three reasons:

1. Because it is the only party that is likely to have much competition for its candidacy (Labour will stick with Ken, and in the absence of anything on their site I am guessing that the Lib Dems will stick with Simon Hughes).
2. Because any alternative to Ken Livingstone should be explored and hopefully followed.
3. Because that nice Mr Cameron could do with having some attention distracted away from his policies at the moment.

So, here they are. I will spare my personal preference until the end:

Boris Johnson





In many ways, Boris Johnson should be the credible candidate for these elections. I was also surprised by the quality of his campaign statement - I was expecting 'an inverted pyramid of piffle'. But I think he will find these elections difficult, because as far as I can tell no-one takes him seriously. This may be the moment that he finally wakes up to the fact that his class clown act, lothario misdeeds and (albeit entertaining) TV satire presenting has meant that people don't see him as a leader.

Victoria Borwick



Victoria 'Last time Ken ran London it took a woman to stop him' Borwick appears to be the toughest candidate - her reference to Thatcher (quoted above) and her Giuliani-style 'zero tolerance' stance on how to sort the city out is very reminiscent of him. One element that I don't like about what she has said (and I agree with Boris about) is talking about scrapping the congestion charge without proposing an alternative is bonkers and just comes across as populist. If she hasn't got an alternative then she should talk about reforming it (an idea which also has plenty of scope).

Andrew Boff




I really don't have a lot to say about his policies. He talks a lot about devolution of power, which is important in London, but doesn't really address the issues of crime etc very well.

The only thing that I can say about him is that if the Tories gave us, in Michael Portillo, the Harrison Ford of politics, then in Andrew Boff they have also given us the Graham Norton of politics.

Warwick Lightfoot



Apart from telling us that he went to Oxford, and that he will deal with the problems facing London, Mr Lightfoot doesn't really tell us very much about things. His leaflet reminds me of the TV adverts that Peruvian presidential hopefuls were running during the 2000 election: 'We have problems - let's move forward, with xxx' without anything said (apart from an occasional mention of giving bowls of rice to poor people) about how to move forwards.

Despite this, I have high hopes indeed that Warwick Lightfoot will turn out to be the man who removes Ken from City Hall. Not for his policies or even for himself. I hope that he will remove Ken through scandal by turning out to be his secret love-child. Have another look at his photo and tell me what you think.

Conclusion

None of the candidates have really given much detail on how they would solve problems and still cut spending, apart from one reference to £8m of wasted spending.

For me it is between Boris and Victoria Borwick. If he can be taken seriously, then I think that Boris would be the more credible candidate, but I can't see it happening. So it is Victoria Borwick who looks best. Let's hope she moderates her populist stance on the congestion charge.

Running for the hills

I was going to grace you with an amusing and insightful piece analysing each of the four Tory candidates for Mayor of London, but that will have to come tomorrow. For in a move reminiscent of the cold war, I am running for the nuclear bunker. We appear to be about to go to war with Russia.

Let's hope for the best, but start stockpiling the baked beans and bogroll in case.

Shining whit

I am a peaceful man by nature and I try to see (despite many of the posts in this blog) the best in things and in people. But I have to say that if I had the chance, I would put that five-bellied, quarter-witted numbskull agitator Bob Crow against the wall and blast his brains out with a blunderbuss.

What is the point of him? Yet again there was a strike on the tube over nothing, yet again he was deliberately trying to cause trouble for its own sake, and yet again when the strike finally ends (after getting the same assurances before as after the strike) the lazy Number-One-Hits that pretend to maintain tube lines hold off from hauling their rabid arses back to work for another 12 hours. Genuine safety checks would have meant firing most of them before they got back into work, not allowing them to carry on their stupid wannabe comrade crap back into the underground system. Have they forgotten the photos a few years ago of tube engineers drunk at work and sleeping on the lines during shifts?

No-one outside Bob Crow's own mirror could possibly think that the man is anything other than complete rabid festering turd. The thing that is worst about him is that despite being a former card-carrying communist he isn't even a decent one. If Marx were alive today and writing a column in the Observer or the Morning Star or some such, he would haul Bob Crow over the coals in the same way that he pulled apart the French socialist revolutionaries in The Communist Manifesto. He doesn't advance anything that his proclaimed doctrine should try to advance. I am no communist (far from it, as you will find out in tomorrow's post) but I have a deep interest in Marx and have actually read many of his works. Under Crow, workers' protected rights basically means that they continue to be bound to the apparatus of the employer, be it bourgeois or state. Meaning that they don't have the freedoms that Marxists argue that they should have. In fact, he has a perverse incentive - to maximise union membership (surely the aim as witnessed by all of the union consolidation over recent years) he must take big, 'bold' public action against 'the system'. His incentive is to appear to be taking action, not to be working for the long term achievement of the members' rights. Hence the fact that every other union called off their strikes based on the guarantees that they got, and RMT only called their strikes off after they got identical guarantees repeated to them. Clearly public posturing. Even Ken Livingstone proclaimed this strike pointless, and readers who know me well will know how much pain it causes me to use him on my side in an argument.

I have tried to find out how much the pork-porting reprobate has enriched himself thorugh his leadership of RMT. It is not a matter of public record. Does anyone know? I will bet that the smug fool has a 7-figure asset base out of his posturing.

You are soooo busted

The garage I used in Lee Green are losers. This is the story of how I will have my revenge on them. They were due to collect the Gripemobile yesterday, between 9am and 1pm, to take it in for repairs. Mrs Gripe had an emergency appointment and needed to leave home at midday, so I called them at 8:30am:

Major: Hello, you are due to take my car in this morning. My wife has had a problem and needs to go for an appointment. She needs to leave at 12 - please can you ensure that you come in time for that.
Monkeywoman: No, we can't do anything like that.
Major: But I've just told you the circumstances, my wife needs to go to an emergency appointment. You are only 5 minutes away, I'm sure that they can do it.
Monkeywoman: No, we can't. Don't use your wife's situation on me. You'll have to rebook for 10 days time. I'm not going to help you.
Major: That's not acceptable. I'm not going to wait 10 days. All you need to do is send a driver up the road in the next 2 hours.
Monkeywoman: But our drivers are on a job now and they have to get to the next person before 11 because we promised her.
Major: So you do do that then.
Monkeywoman: Alright, we do, yes, but our drivers are all on the road.
Major: And they don't have mobile phones?
Monkeywoman: There is only one driver and he is deaf and dumb.
Major: You are telling me that you only have one deaf-mute driver...
Monkeywoman: Yes, what's wrong with that?
Major: Nothing's wrong with it, but your story sounds very improbably given how hard you've been trying not to help me.

Monkeywoman: Alright, I will try but it's probably not going to be possible.

To give the garage its credit, I had a very humble phone-call about an hour later, saying that they would do what they could. They did turn up in time for Mrs Gripe to get to her appointment. It also turns out that the driver was indeed deaf-mute, so it wasn't made up - which is what it sounded. Nonetheless, it is terrible service to have a refusal and then to be argued with when you try to reason with the person on the other end. And it doesn't inspire confidence about the repairs when all they want to do is argue with you.

Anyway, what they don't know is that I am employed by the insurance company they were working for as their in-house strategy consultant. Which means that I have a very good relationship with the MD and with the people who maintain the approved repairer network. So they will be getting a dressing down. It's nice to be able to do some mystery shopping once in a while.

[I have removed the garage's name from the post as I have taken it up with them and have resolved the issue with the owner and passed it on to my company.]

Bunch of useless, lazy...

Why exactly are London Underground workers striking again? Is £40k for a 35-hour week for an unskilled job not good enough for them? And all week, on the week back to work? I can't believe them - they totally warrant the description of them from the classic song.

During the 2002 strikes, I was at Kings Cross when the strike started, having missed the last connection before the strike started. I went to the gates that had closed off access to the Northern Line, intending to cut through to the Thameslink station. Passing the Northern Line platform, I
heard a train so I went to look. It turns out that they were running a service to take themselves home. I mean, deny us the service and still run it for yourselves at our expense?

I was pretty incensed, so I decided to get on the train with a plan of refusing to get back off. Thankfully they didn't clock me until we had set off, so I sat enduring their old-school socialist solidarity songs. When asked for my view, I was pretty frank - and was especially candid about my view of the suggestion that they should earn £90k per year. One of them responded "well, that's no different to a CEO seeing his shares go through the roof". OK, so it wasn't a good idea, but I couldn't let that stand and pointed out to him that steering a company into massive growth, and running a train sort of on time, were hardly equal achievements and hardly deserved comparison.

That was their view, though, that they should get lucky on their earnings because some other people do - and hang the expense. Can't anyone stop them and frog-march their crapulent arses back to work?

I will finish with a quote from the great song about them: 'They're all greedy ****s, I'd like to shoot them all with a rifle."

Evil, my donkey

Some interesting, if possibly a touch brown-nosing, coverage of Google in this week's Economist. In a leader and a briefing, they write about the company's motto 'Don't be Evil', and discuss the concerns that many parties have about the growth of Google, of its privacy issues and of its staff issues too. Just in time for Google's birthday.

As the Economist notes, it will be interesting to are how well Google's approach holds firm once their earnings growth stalls or market conditions tighten against them. I'm sure that is a long way away but it will be important to watch.

Also interesting is their strategic diversification and their apparent strategic flexibility. There are always blind-spots in any strategy, and the more diverse the strategy the greater the number of blind-spots. I will look forward to seeing how they handle that.

One thing that is striking is how often Google is talked about as if it holds the monopoly on genius, particularly with the algorithms that it employs for advertising (its core revenue). I wonder if people think that they are more hallowed than they are. They are very impressive, yes, but they are not infallible.

Here are two screen-dumps of this blog, taken at the same time on 2nd September. As you can see, one is advertising stair-lifts for the elderley and disabled, and the other is advertising skiing. Now I can appreciate the diverse nature of posts on this blog, but surely no-one is going to be interested in both adverts. Since Google's ad placement strategy involves minority and diverse pages, shouldn't it be able to handle things like this and even far more obscure ones?

Yes, Google outperforms the other search engines, but the performance is still not massive. I saw today that the PPC for Google is 3.6%. Is it possible that Google's algorithms are more about redundancy than about relevance? After all, if you throw enough brown stuff at the wall, I'd guess that about 3.6% of it will stick.

Beautiful game

I was in Liverpool earlier in the week, and that - along with the football (soccer, for the benefit of the transatlantic readers) yesterday - reminded me of the Everton v Blackburn game last weekend, which I was listening to on Radio Five Live whilst driving. At the start, they were discussing the minute's silence in honour of the Rhys Jones murder, and discussed whether the players' minds would really be on the game. This just served as a reminder that football commentators should commentate on, well, football, and leave news to the professionals. They just can't do it. Rhys Jones' murder has been a horrible tragedy, that goes without saying - and the club's response has been very good. But for the commentators to suggest that footballers who are paid £50k or more per week to win games would be distracted from the game by the murder of someone they had never met is crazy - they way that everyone always wants to be involved in some way in these things just devalues the tragedy completely.

It reminds me of finding out about 9/11 on Talk Sport - my boss at the time refused to retune the radio. As if there wasn't enough anger and sadness to feel from the events, having to listen to them being debated and sensationalised by people who struggled to formulate a complete sentence in English, and listening to their predictions of world doom if George Bush were to be assassinated during the day, just added to the anger.

So, football commentators of the world, I beg you, stick to what you are qualified to discuss.

On the subject of football, I hope that they don't sack Martin Jol after the draw yesterday. It was negligent, yes, to give away 3 cheap goals. But the season is still young, and he has given us European football twice and our two highest Premier League finishes in his two full seasons in charge. Talk of replacing his is crazy and I really hope that they don't do it. To help him out, I have some thoughts to contribute.

We scored three goals yesterday. One came from our star striker's first of the season. The other two came from defenders. So, to put it another way, 2/3 of our goals came from defenders while at the other end we conceded 3 cheap goals. Wide, expansive play with defenders galloping up the wing is fine, but you do sometimes have to leave people behind to defend. Just a thought.