tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27094832813602032162024-02-21T13:43:32.239+00:00Beetwaste's World of LettuceWho are you? Where ya been? Where ya from?Chris A Tyehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00878857472284328129noreply@blogger.comBlogger60125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2709483281360203216.post-40828610867749257312014-11-03T22:40:00.003+00:002014-11-03T22:40:43.142+00:00Moved the blog...I've done bugger-all on this blog for nearly 2 years. Various reasons for that, but mainly because I ran out of stuff to say.<br />
<br />
I might start writing stuff again. But, I'll be doing it on my personal website, because I've worked out how to install WordPress.<br />
<br />
So, any further updates will be over on my own site;<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.beetwaste.co.uk/">www.beetwaste.co.uk</a><br />
<br />
Ta!Chris A Tyehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00878857472284328129noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2709483281360203216.post-66230649969853230802013-01-08T16:14:00.001+00:002013-01-08T16:14:09.397+00:00Welfare<p>There’s been a lot of twittering about the welfare state this week. In the week that child benefit ceased to be a universal benefit, and the week that the Government are voting to cap benefit rises at 1%, it’s a major topic of discussion.</p> <p>First, let me make it clear. I believe in the welfare state. If I lose my job, I agree completely that the Government should throw me a safety net whilst I find a new job. Certainly, in the past there are many examples of the Government not doing this enough. The Miners are a prime example. Thousands of people unemployed, with no hope of a similar paid job. Areas of the country left to rot. A national scandal.</p> <p>But. When I hear on the radio, a woman complaining she is losing her child benefit (it’s her child’s actually, but never mind), and then going on to explain that it affects her because she is putting away to pay for education, I get angry. Child Benefit, surely, is to ensure your kids have clothes, shoes on their feet, food at lunch. It’s not to give your kids an unfair advantage over poorer families when they leave school. If you are putting it aside, then… and I’ll spell this out… “YOU DON’T NEED IT.” If you haven’t got £20.30 a week spare when you earn £60,000 a year, then you are spending TOO MUCH.</p> <p>In fact, the majority of complainants seem to be people on 4 times my salary complaining their kids will lose out. Er, no they won’t. You earn over £60,000 a year. When you are on holiday this year, tell me you don’t earn enough whilst I’m sat at home counting pennies. It’s a middle class non-problem. </p> <p>That’s not a complaint about my salary, by the way. I earn a reasonable sum, not as much as I would like, but combined with my wife’s salary we’re ok – still way off £60k a year mind. We are entitled to absolutely zero benefits. Nothing. And I’m not really complaining.  EVERY penny I’ve ever had is mine, I’ve earned it through graft. I never felt it was my right.</p> <p>I repeat that statement. “I never felt it was my right”. I’ve worked in many jobs over the years, and not always in desirable areas. I’ve met many people for whom state assistance is a way of life. Two, three generations of families who are all so used to the welfare system that they plan it into their lives. This creates two problems. Firstly, it creates a class of people entirely dependent on state support. Secondly, it means that the employers of people who do work, but are subsidised by state support, don’t have to give their employees a decent pay rise. Why bother with a 4% rise, if the Government will fill the gap with tax rebates?</p> <p>It’s barmy. It’s crazy. It encourages state interference, and means we have to spend more to administer the system. It also keeps people trapped in low-end jobs. I’ve seen so many people working 16-hour weeks, because any more hours and they’d lose tax credits, so they never progress, never get on, continue to be reliant on the state.</p> <p>That’s why I agree with welfare reform. That’s why I agree with scrapping universal benefits – pension excluded – and means testing them. Some say that people on higher wages get bitter about this, but seeing as high-end tax payers just had a reduction I don’t see the problem! It does, however, create a subculture. That means all benefit claimants get treat as scroungers. That’s just not the case. (there’s very little in <a href="http://www.libdemvoice.org/that-shirkersscroungers-versus-strivers-rhetoric-32543.html#utm_source=tweet&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=twitter">this article</a> I disagree with)</p> <p>However, I think, what we actually need, is a proper discussion and debate about what we want the Welfare state to do. It cannot continue as it is. It costs too much. The problem is, there’ll never be a proper debate. Labour say pay out more. The Tories want rid of it. The Liberals sit between the two. The Press go for headlines that are designed to wind up the public. People with jobs complain they don’t get anything back. The low paid and jobless complain they don’t get enough. Everyone has a viewpoint, and so we just end up with a blazing row and nothing ever gets done. We need to decide what we want the Welfare state to do, and stick to it!</p> <p>So, Welfare reform is required. It won’t happen. It’ll continue to keep people locked in low pay. It’ll continue not to be fit for purpose. It’ll continue to label claimants as scroungers, and it’ll continue to cost the entire country a fortune without solving the real issues of low pay and poor conditions by employers .</p> Chris A Tyehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00878857472284328129noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2709483281360203216.post-61588478993371598572012-10-05T23:30:00.001+01:002012-10-05T23:30:13.716+01:00Jimmy bloody Savile<p>So.</p> <p>I was in Leeds on the day of Sir James Savile’s funeral. I was at a union meeting. I nipped out during the lunch break, and applauded his gold coffin as it left the Queen’s hotel, along with many others, all filmed by ‘Look North’. I finished my meeting, and wandered over to Leeds cathedral, and watched on the big screens as many people gave heartfelt speeches, about what a generous, caring chap he was.</p> <p>And I believed them. This was Jimmy Savile. The guy who arranged treats for kids on Saturday nights. The guy who was on the radio. The guy from Top of the Pops. He raised millions for Stoke Mandeville hospital. Yes, he was a bit  mental, but in a likable way. A good egg.</p> <p>And now, in the last few days, it appears he was actually a perverted old sod, fond of young girls.  If this is true – and it’s yet to be proven – then I feel like a mug. I’m disgusted, but at the same time I feel foolish. I was taken in.</p> <p>Funnily enough, my first reaction was one of digust that people would turn against such a generous old chap. How dare they sleight a dead man. I suspect my reaction was wrong.</p> <p>If he is a genuine ‘kiddy fiddler’, then I would quite happily take a JCB through his grave, to dig up the dirty old sod and stick his 45-degree seaview up his arse. He wants a seaview, he can have one from the bottom of the North Sea. </p> <p>I’m disgusted. I feel let down. I feel taken in. I suspect others feel the same. I suspect this is not the last time it will happen in my life.</p> Chris A Tyehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00878857472284328129noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2709483281360203216.post-7287081497331121732012-09-03T16:38:00.001+01:002012-09-03T16:38:35.079+01:00No-del<p><img src="http://www.triangle.eu.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Yodel-Logo_RGB-e1295948881306.jpg" width="430" height="156" /></p> <p>I can’t believe I’ve never actually written about Yodel before. But I note, mainly via Twitter, that this rotten delivery company is still causing misery to it’s customers up and down the country, so here I am, putting my experiences in writing, so you all know what to expect when you order from a company that uses Yodel as a courier.</p> <p>I should, first of all, lay out my expectations of a delivery company. First, they should deliver the parcel Bit obvious, but the clue is in the name, DELIVERY company. If I am not in, they can either leave it with a neighbour, leave it in a secure place – there is a coal bunker at the rear of my house that I am happy fits the bill, as I live in a rural location – or leave a card, with instructions of how I can claim my parcel. This is what every other delivery company does. UPS, Citylink, Parcelforce, DPD, whatever. No problems with any of these companies. Well, asides from an issue with DPD, but it was resolved relatively quickly and easily, and again, if you do this I am not unhappy. I’m not a difficult person to please. I want the basics, done well. Anything extra is a bonus. All four of the following examples failed to make this basic level.</p> <p>I can start off with an experience that can only be described as a bit slack first, to whet your appetite. I ordered a book from Amazon. You need to know, by the way, that I generally use the back door for entering and leaving my house, never the front. It’s how my house is laid out, it’s easier that way. Anyway, I had a knock on the door one evening. It was my neighbour, asking if I knew about the parcel laying up against the front door. No, I didn’t. No card. Luckily, as I have already mentioned, we live in a rural spot and no-one had bothered pinching it. Yodelfail = not a secure area.</p> <p>It gets better. </p> <p>My very first experience with Yodel was last December. I ordered a mobile phone. I had a choice of courier, wasn’t really bothered so went with the default option. DHL. Or, Yodel, as this particular branch of DHL was now part of the countries crappest delivery service. How was I to know? Anyway, I’m sure you can guess that the phone didn’t arrive when expected. The online tracking, however, seemed to indicate that it had been signed for. Had someone at Yodel stolen my phone? </p> <p>Well no, actually. I rang Yodel, who were useless (although I appear to have been lucky to get through to them) so rang the mobile phone company, who investigated and discovered that Yodel had delivered the phone straight back to the return address. Brilliant. I’ve got a new contract (which had been set up – I had the details from Orange) and no phone. Mobiles4U had to cancel the old contract, and order me a new phone. Which I asked to be delivered by Royal Mail. It arrived the next day. Easy. Unless you are Yodel.</p> <p>I once made the mistake of ordering an incinerator bin on eBay, without checking the vendors choice of courier. I got home from work one day, and found a message on my answer phone. “Hi, this is <yodel driver>, I’ve only got one parcel so wanting to check if it’s OK to leave it at the petrol station. thanks.” This was followed by another message. “Hi, this is <yodel driver>, I’ve left your parcel at the petrol station.” The petrol station in question is 8 miles away. I pass it on the way home from work. Indeed he had left it there, as I discovered when I went to collect it the next day. I’ve since discovered that Yodel drivers get about a quid for every parcel, so if they’ve only one it’s hardly worth driving the 16 mile round trip. Which would explain the shite service, and exonerates the driver somewhat. Yodel clearly have a flawed business model.</p> <p>My wife is not immune from these jokers. She ordered some books from Amazon. She was off work, unusually, so paid extra for next day delivery to ensure she’d be in for the delivery. By the end of the day, the books were still in Yodel’s depot. They clearly couldn’t be bothered to deliver that day, obviously it was a bit out of their way, and they don’t understand the concept of next-day delivery. I reckon that means ‘deliver the day after it was ordered’, in case anyone from Yodel is wondering. So she rang Amazon, cancelled the order, and now refuses to buy anything else from them, other than Kindle downloads. They have offered a different courier, but it’s too late. Yodel have guaranteed that Amazon have lost a customer – and we used to buy a lot of stuff from Amazon.</p> <p>And that, my dear reader, is the way to deal with No-del. Don’t use them. Admittedly, that’s tricky. It means you have to first check with your online company who their courier is. If it’s Yodel, go elsewhere. The more people do this, the more Yodel will lose contracts. It’s the only way. It’ll either bankrupt them, or force them to change their business model. Again, from memory, my wife went to an Argos shop to buy her Kindle, and my Wii-Fit came from Game, who were the only people I could find who didn’t use Yodel. That’s £250 of business straight away, that has been chosen based on courier.  Yodel lost someone business, and other firms gained it by using someone decent. I got my items, and frankly can’t guarantee this with Yodel.</p> <p>If you complain about them on Twitter, they will monitor your tweet and the customer help-person will get in touch to try and sort out your problem. I gather these people are quite good. Certainly better than their useless call centres. However, it shouldn’t come to this. </p> <p>I recommend you watch <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/watchdog/2012/03/yodel.html">this Watchdog episode</a>. It also contains a response from the company. But they’re still unreliable. And I also recommend you do a search on twitter with #YODEL. You’ll find stories of no delivery, damaged parcels, items thrown over fences, cards left indicating no-one at home when they clearly were, item left in porches that don’t exist. The list is endless.</p> <p>You know what to do. Say no to Yodel!</p> Chris A Tyehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00878857472284328129noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2709483281360203216.post-89289118959505819892012-07-09T11:57:00.001+01:002012-07-09T11:57:21.451+01:00What’s to be done about retail banking?<p>Or to put it another way. What do you want from your bank?</p> <p>Ed Miliband thinks he knows. He’s come up with a plan to <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/jul/09/ed-miliband-banking-industry-reform?CMP=twt_gu">restructure the banking industry</a>. It’s a useful discussion point. Key to his plans are splitting up the banks, forcing the biggest five to sell off up to 1000 branches, to create a further two banks. </p> <p>I don’t know whether I agree with him or not. Personally, I reckon making two new banks would just create another two problems for the future. He is absolutely correct, however, to suggest that the culture of banking needs to change, and from top to bottom. Investment banking got us into trouble, but retail banking is not currently experiencing it’s finest hour.</p> <p>To go back to the original question. When I ask people what they want from their bank, I get various responses. More and more people are online banking, certainly people I know. They want a web presence, and a branch if they have a problem, or to pay in a cheque. Other people prefer face-to-face contact. However, they all say the same thing. They want their bank to look after their money.</p> <p>The conflict arises when you ask people how they want the banks to do this. I’ve come to the conclusion that people want the following.</p> <blockquote> <p>- Free banking</p> </blockquote> <blockquote> <p>- Highest interest rates</p> </blockquote> <blockquote> <p>- Lowest charges</p> </blockquote> <blockquote> <p>- No-one trying to flog stuff to them.</p> </blockquote> <p>The last one in particular is an odd one. When it come to money, people think, believe, that they know best. It’s their money and no-one is going to tell them what to do with it.</p> <p>Well, sorry folks, but therein lies the problem. Banks are owned by shareholders. Shareholders need to make money, short-term. So banks need to make money. Additionally, branch networks and complex IT systems don’t pay to run themselves. Someone has to pay for them. This costs money. Therefore, the current business model for banking means that to pay for free banking, you will get charged when you mess up and you will be approached with new products. Think of it another way. You don’t contribute significantly to ITV, your licence fee pays for BBC, so ITV advertise and try and flog you stuff to pay for their programmes. People get this. When the bank tries to do it, people moan.</p> <p>Personally, I don’t subscribe to the free banking model. It ensures that the wealthiest will never pay for their account, which will be subsidised by the people who are struggling financially and pay loads of charges, the charges ensuring they will never get out out their predicament. It traps the poor into staying poor, and benefits people with money.They might argue that’s fair, and they shouldn’t have to subsidise people incapable of running their own financial affairs. I disagree strongly.</p> <p>So, Ed, here’s my plan for the banks. </p> <blockquote> <p>- The big 5 should, indeed, sell off branches. But, the new banks should, actually, be demutualised building societies. No shareholders. The destruction of the building society sector has been to the detriment of the industry as a whole. Building societies belong to the people who invest in them, not shareholders, so they are more accountable. This also means they can look longer term instead of having to provide short-term profits to keep shareholders happy.</p> <p>- Free banking has to end. I’ve argued this with so many people, but the UK is unusual in having a perceived free banking sector. Banks raise revenue in other ways, not always transparent. I point to PPI mis-selling as an example of how trying to raise funds in a non-transparent way leads to problems. Charge for bank accounts, make money transparently, charge different amounts for services used, i.e.. an online only account will be cheaper than one with branch access. Different banks would, hopefully, have to offer diversity, this should mean people have an excuse to move around and finally, the banks would have to put customers first, not profits.</p> <p>- Banks have to return to the old days, and become a service industry again, not a sales industry. Bonus-led sales of financial products is simply not sensible. It leads to mis-selling. It leads to dodgy practises. It leads to poor service. For example, if your bank makes money from insurance, and nothing from children's savings accounts, what do you reckon they’ll try and fill the diary with first? </p> </blockquote> <p>I actually believe these three points would make a massive difference to the industry. The key is service and long-term, not quick bucks and short term profits. Banks must make money, all businesses must make money, but if that profit is sustainable and not bonus-led money grabbing, the industry as a whole will start back on the road to respectability. As it was in the old days. It’s what everyone wants, customers and staff alike.</p> Chris A Tyehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00878857472284328129noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2709483281360203216.post-77832165270165620052012-06-18T16:54:00.001+01:002012-06-18T16:54:27.476+01:00Stupid cars<p>The Micra is knackered.</p> <p>Driving home last week, I pressed the brake pedal and a fairly unpleasant and expensive-sounding grating noise came out of the front of the car. That usually means the brake pads have worn out. Frankly, the brakes have been fading badly for a week or two, so it wasn’t much of a surprise, really.</p> <p>Now, the Nissan is 14 years old, so I begrudge spending much cash on it. So I went onto eBay, and ordered replacement pads and discs for £30. Reasonable. The discs are scored, mainly due to worn out brake pads scraping against them. Replace the lot. Easy-peasy.</p> <p>As if.</p> <p>The bits arrived Saturday, and on Sunday I jacked up the car and made a start. Driver-side first. Without getting into mechanics, the brake comes in two bits, you remove the first bit to replace the pads, but the second bit is fastened to the strut. This is done by two bolts. These bolts seize up, and are a pig to remove. In this case, the 14-year old bolts gave up on life and broke, leaving the brake attached and no means of removing the bolt. In addition, part of the calliper has seized and so the brake calliper needs replacing.</p> <p>Never mind. I’ll try the other wheel, I thought, and at least I only have to pay the mechanic to rectify one side. No such luck. Although the bolts came off so I could remove the calliper, this is also seized and needs replacing. Fantastic.</p> <p>Anyway, I’m now awaiting delivery of two new brake callipers, 4 bolts, left handed drill bit to drill out sheared bolts, and a couple of other bits. Price is now up to about 90 quid, and that assumes I can remove the said bolts. Lovely. Probably be about 4 hours labour – minimum – in a garage, and I don’t want to think of the cost of that!</p> <p>The car, since it’s MOT last September, has cost me about 800 quid in repairs, including replacement gearbox and clutch, welding, front struts, and various other bits. By the end of the week, it’ll have had a complete front brake overhaul. </p> <p>I suspect it’s days are numbered. Shame, because I actually like it. </p> Chris A Tyehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00878857472284328129noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2709483281360203216.post-54658978788865744282012-05-21T13:20:00.001+01:002012-05-21T13:20:41.660+01:00Olympic Torch relay.<p>The Olympic Flame is in our country. We are all meant to cheer.</p> <p>Some people lit a flame in Greece, flew the flame over to Britain, and it’s going to spend the next 70-odd days wandering around the country. Lots of worthy people, who were nominated for doing good things, or winning competitions, or however, get the chance to carry a glorified fag-lighter a mile down the road, before using it to light another one. They get to keep the torch, for about 300 quid, after which time it appears most of them want to flog it on e-bay (one is currently hitting nearly £70,000 at the time of writing). For charity, granted. So far.</p> <p>Now. I’m not easily impressed by things. I never have been. If, for example, you have a firework display, it’s unlikely to impress me unless it resembles the New Year’s Eve celebrations at Sydney Harbour Bridge. So some random people carrying a torch around the country, in an attempt to make the London Olympics a national event, won’t move me. At all. In the slightest.</p> <p>Incidentally, <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/may/16/torch-nazis-lit-olympic-flame">Nazi Germany came up with the torch relay</a> in 1936. Which, I reckon, sums it up.</p> <p>Go ahead, call me a miserable sod. Fact is, the Olympics will be great. But it might as well be in Sydney for all I care. Getting tickets was a farce, it’s sponsored by big businesses whilst small local firms don’t get a look in, and the best views are on the telly. Which is where I’ll be watching it. Hence, it could be anywhere in the world.</p> <p>Oddly enough, I’ll be off to France on the day of the opening ceremony. Which, I believe, is where the damn thing was supposed to be!</p> Chris A Tyehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00878857472284328129noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2709483281360203216.post-18562989388453268372011-11-28T17:28:00.001+00:002011-11-28T17:28:46.886+00:00Racist Tram Woman<div style="padding-bottom: 0px; margin: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; display: inline; float: none; padding-top: 0px" id="scid:5737277B-5D6D-4f48-ABFC-DD9C333F4C5D:2c1c10d5-9239-4fa5-a01b-d7f66633555e" class="wlWriterEditableSmartContent"><div id="19d6e94c-6d9c-4c03-a19e-243ce083ec25" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; display: inline;"><div><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBM0FmilDTA" target="_new"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjCqi0vc5arFbSfT5pnQxYRzwhnKUOZxUXkcn0zb1nvAKpnm6DfQWDzp22OrZV7HQspTBJzxY38QOnMNbOD5rl5nTTLjb8rGJsSNyprmhdGtUtCuUKTHf00TchcfRTTWDMvu8ATUODr-1I/?imgmax=800" style="border-style: none" galleryimg="no" onload="var downlevelDiv = document.getElementById('19d6e94c-6d9c-4c03-a19e-243ce083ec25'); downlevelDiv.innerHTML = "<div><object width=\"448\" height=\"252\"><param name=\"movie\" value=\"http://www.youtube.com/v/EBM0FmilDTA?hl=en&hd=1\"><\/param><embed src=\"http://www.youtube.com/v/EBM0FmilDTA?hl=en&hd=1\" type=\"application/x-shockwave-flash\" width=\"448\" height=\"252\"><\/embed><\/object><\/div>";" alt=""></a></div></div><div style="width:448px;clear:both;font-size:.8em">Racist Tram Woman. Overnight Twitter sensation.</div></div> <p>Before you press ‘Play’ be aware that this video ain’t for the kids – the language is vile. And to be fair, so is this woman. Spouting off her racist bile. She’s been on Twitter all day. She’s truly nasty, and it’s a shame for her kid.</p> <p>But let’s dig a bit deeper, shall we? I have a suspicion – can’t prove it, but I’ve seen it before – that she’s been ‘doing’ something. Drink, drugs, maybe both. Slurring words, shouting, no sense of surroundings, the signs are there. Not an excuse, but might explain some of it.</p> <p>And you then ask the question, how did she get like this? You aren’t born a bigot. You don’t wake up one morning and think ‘Hey, wouldn’t it be fun to hurl racist abuse on a packed Croydon tram’. Nope, she’s clearly been brought up this way. Parents, friends, media. All contributed.</p> <p>Listen to the rant. It’s about immigrants coming over. Polish people, people coming to ‘her’ country and taking the jobs. </p> <p>Lets compare it to the right-wing press. <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1306213/England-populated-country-EU.html">England is the most overpopulated country in the EU</a>, says the Mail. <a href="http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/284639/Brussels-orders-Britain-to-let-in-more-migrants-from-around-the-worldBrussels-orders-Britain-to-let-in-more-migrants-from-around-the-worldBrussels-orders-Britain-to-let-in-more-migrants-from-around-the-worldBrussels-orders-Britain-to-let-in-more-migrants-from-around-the-worldBrussels-orders-Britain-to-let-in-more-migrants-from-around-the-world">'Brussels says let in more immigrants'</a>, screams the Express. <a href="http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/284561">'90% of Immigrants live in England'</a> says the same paper. <a href="http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/features/2911175/Suns-massive-poll-highlights-voters-anger-over-immigration.html">'Poll highlights anger over immigrants'</a> according to the Sun.</p> <p>I’m not saying that the right-wing media are responsible for this nasty lady’s behaviour. But lets face it, we could carry on for weeks with headlines like this, and it reinforces the views of people just like Mrs racist-tram-lady. </p> <p>Can I suggest, instead of threats and lynch mob rule, as some of Twitter seems to be calling for, it would be better to arrest this woman on the current laws that protect people against racist abuse, and then do something about the culture that leads to it. Things like, as an example, newspapers trying to scare the crap out of people with stories like those above?</p> <p>***I read she has been arrested. Good. That’s how democracy and the rule of law works in this country.</p> Chris A Tyehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00878857472284328129noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2709483281360203216.post-37205792355951925562011-11-28T13:17:00.001+00:002011-11-28T13:17:27.097+00:00Strike while the iron is hot<p>Most of the public sector unions are on strike on Wednesday, it seems.</p> <p>Their beef, apparently, is that they are losing out on their pension. As the husband of a public sector worker, I understand this concern, and I agree with it. I’ve always been a private sector worker, and our pensions were sacrificed and flushed down the toilet years ago, while we all sat back and accepted it. Ultimately, she will have to work longer, pay more, and get less pension at the end of it. One of those, the government might have got away with. All three is a bit much.</p> <p>However, I can also report that Mrs B won’t be on strike on Wednesday. That’s because she’s not in a union. She left, for a variety of reasons. </p> <p>* The price, £14 a month, which is extortionate – my union manages to charge all it’s full time members £8.80, incidentally.</p> <p>* She recently had some concerns, and went to discuss these with a union rep. She couldn’t find one. The contact she had went to an answerphone, and when she rang it, a recorded message said ‘Please don’t ring this number for union matters’ – or words to that effect. Remember, £14 a month, and she couldn’t find a rep.</p> <p>* The union insisted on sending out a load of Labour party literature with its magazine, praising this particular political party. She doesn’t rate any of the parties, but least of all Labour. She had also indicated she didn’t want to donate to the party via her subs. </p> <p>* The final straw came with the union rallies earlier this year, with reports of a senior rep from one of the local branch offices heading to protest about austerity cuts. In First Class. With a nice meal. Clearly austerity measures aren’t affecting this particular union, remembering the subs of £14.</p> <p>So she left this particular union. And as she’s not found a replacement, she still has no representation. Which is a bit sad, really. Seems to me that the traditional, Labour party, TUC affiliated unions aren’t too bothered about the minor but important things that affect their members, but have decided to crank up for a strike to prove to the Government that they won’t be pushed around. Seems to me that they need to sort out their priorities.</p> <p>There seems to be a lot of propaganda put about, but there is no doubt that the Government have changed the terms they are offering, since the original strike ballots, and it also appears that the unions are refusing to discuss the new offers. That’s my impression, and that’s why I reckon they are just after causing a strike for striking sake, so they can all pat each other on the back afterwards for a job well done, while their members are all a day’s wages short, and the pension plans are still going to happen.</p> <p>What these unions haven’t grasped, then, is that it’s not 1979 anymore, it’s 2011, and the world has moved on. Grown up people sit down and discuss their problems like adults, and I’d suggest these dinosaurs all do the same. </p> Chris A Tyehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00878857472284328129noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2709483281360203216.post-50934069383688617032011-07-11T15:31:00.001+01:002011-07-11T15:31:04.161+01:00Customer Service is really easy<p>Anyone who works in a customer service environment, this is for you.</p> <p>It’s the Great Yorkshire Show this week. Because Harrogate Sainsbury’s is on the showground, it shuts for the week. So, whilst out and about today, myself and Mrs B took a trip to Morrison's.</p> <p>Now, we were once regular Morrison's customers, but we switched allegiance because not only did they consistently run out of the stuff we wanted, but the quality was deteriorating. Especially the fresh stuff. So today was a fantastic opportunity for Morrison's supermarket. We were returning.</p> <p>Now, it’s fair to say that Morrison's will not close down without our custom, but it’s also a good bet that we are not the only customers they will get this week, who normally use their main competitor in Harrogate. So, as a former supermarket manager I would have built this week up to a crescendo. The staff would be under no uncertain terms, that this is a fantastic opportunity to shout about Morrison's. To tell everyone how good they are. To make people like me question why I don’t go there every week.</p> <p>Bearing all this in mind, then, allow me to transcript the encounter Mrs B had today, with a lady who was on the lottery kiosk. </p> <p>Mrs B: “Hi, I’d like the lottery, please. Here is my completed ticket.”</p> <p><tap tap tap></p> <p>Lady: “Four.”</p> <p>Mrs B: “Four what?”</p> <p>Now slightly sarcastic lady “Four pounds.”</p> <p>Increasingly agitated Mrs B: “Four pounds<em> please</em>.”</p> <p>And that’s it. The very first assistant we came across was a rude, miserable old grump. No manners. No attempt at any. It’s all over. Morrison's have lost an opportunity to obtain approximately £3,000 of custom over the next twelve months. And, I’ve just told you all how crap I think they are. Remember, I’ve worked in customer service roles for years, much of this in supermarkets. I’ve made errors, but I’m passionate about service. That’s why I get so angry when people just can’t be goosed with even the basic niceties.</p> <p>So, the moral of this story is, the one time you screw up customer service – and I only mean basic stuff here, like ‘please’ and ‘thank you’ - is the one time it could be important. And yes, I’m sending a copy of this to the top dogs at Morrison's. You’ve got three days left to make your new customers want to come back. It’s up to you.</p> <p>Enjoy the show!</p> Chris A Tyehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00878857472284328129noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2709483281360203216.post-4130165255142656472011-06-13T14:49:00.001+01:002011-06-13T14:49:55.704+01:00BBC TV Centre<p><img style="display: block; float: none; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto" src="http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/53379000/jpg/_53379516_tvc002.jpg" /></p> <p>Many people are getting sad and upset about the imminent sale of BBC TV Centre in London. But I’m not.</p> <p>Well ok, I’m sad for the Blue Peter garden, and it’s interred animals. Asides from that, though, BBC TV Centre is a big ugly 1950’s building down south somewhere. I never saw it, other than when it was on TV. I always thought it looked a bit like a hospital, and that big ugly brick wall that faces the main entrance never evoked any feelings of awe. It’s hardly York Minster, is it?</p> <p>Frankly, as a kid the place didn’t feature in my life, even if the programmes made there did. And, if I may draw a comparison, I enjoy a glass of milk without feeling any fondness for the Arla foods depot in Kirkstall Road, Leeds. If you see my point.</p> <p>As a kid, I was more saddened when Radio Humberside shut their old studios above the post office in Jameson Street, Hull. That’s because it featured as a part of my childhood. I knew that the nondescript first floor building was the home of Tex Milne’s ‘Country by Request’ and it wouldn’t be the same when it went. And, I guess some people feel the same about TV centre.</p> <p>But not me. It’s just a building, and in the digital era of 2011 it’s a big expensive white elephant that eats my licence fee, when it could be far better spent improving the CGI effects on Doctor Who. Thanks for the memories and that, but ta ta, now.</p> Chris A Tyehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00878857472284328129noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2709483281360203216.post-103126642210541862011-05-23T15:49:00.001+01:002011-05-23T15:49:58.123+01:00Beware Egyptians bearing gifts<p align="center"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhExm2PCSes4MbcJDRVgsKcZP_D4JMRs-lVkKUkpeSptQf8ryau8SbjuCFo07Ao6YjKkO9BHXV6y8dt78udonTB24ey7d1xbMFdeJwGRLOKUAscjAUZ_a1Nn6Zu__9YJku06j5qunp3308/s1600-h/KC%20Stadium%5B3%5D.png"><img style="background-image: none; border-bottom: 0px; border-left: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; display: inline; border-top: 0px; border-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px" title="KC Stadium" border="0" alt="KC Stadium" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiy6opUvNvDIL3lkLBrXhsyeo2LyFwtlsNLzokc0ciiji7mDnLAMnVsH-wEaZ01tPUghiiFO-vn-7XkFl_IjqOHwPA6oFptV7pl0qy32Xeelep7CcQD7f_popYVS6xwaWfq63K6G6nfAr8/?imgmax=800" width="255" height="256" /></a></p> <p>I don’t live in Hull anymore, but as I lived there for 34 years or so, what goes on there still interests me. Especially when it concerns sport in the city. I’ve always supported Hull FC rugby league team, and take a close interest in Hull City. So, when I see what appears to be happening regarding the KC Stadium, and the current owner of Hull City, I get concerned. Particularly for the future of my rugby league team.</p> <p>A brief potted history of the KC Stadium, home of Hull City and Hull FC, may be in order here. It was built by the council using funds raised by the selling of council-owned shares in the local telephone company, and to this day is owned by Hull City Council. The stadium is managed on behalf of the council by the Stadium Management Company, or SMC, which has a 50 year lease on the ground. </p> <p>Now this is not a perfect setup. It doesn’t make money. But it’s not meant to. It ensures that the City of Hull has an asset that is the property of the people who built it, and also, in my view, helps secure the clubs in it. Both clubs pay rent, and have no worries about the day to day running of the ground, such as stewarding, refreshment facilities, that sort of thing. The SMC look after that, so the clubs can look after the important things like players, fans, merchandise. Hull FC have posted profits for the last 6 years since moving to the ground. That tells me it’s a good setup.</p> <p>The current issue concerns the owner of Hull City football club. Assem Allam is a self-made millionaire, who became rich by running a company to the west of Hull. When Hull City got into financial trouble following their relegation from the Premier league, he bought the club. All good so far. He has always maintained that this is due to wanting to help repay the city that helped him get rich. This may be true. I’m not convinced.</p> <p>If indeed this were the case, I believe he would be quite happy to continue to rent the KC, and work with the council. Except he hasn’t. He wants to build a flash sports village, and to do this he wants to buy the stadium, with all its facilities and the fairground next door. If he can’t buy the stadium, he’ll shift the lot to Melton, near his business and several miles outside of Hull to the west. Melton is a rotten location for a football club, as no-one without a car will be able to go. It’ll also render the stadium in Hull something of a white elephant, tenanted only by the rugby league club and probably running at a loss to Hull City Council. Hull FC could not make the stadium pay on their own.</p> <p>In short, then, it’s a threat. “I want the stadium, and if you don’t sell me it I’ll shaft you”. Not exactly the words of a benefactor. And, remarkably,  he’s changed his view of rugby league as well. On 4th March, he gave an <a href="http://www.thisishullandeastriding.co.uk/sport/Allam-d-consider-investing-rugby-Hull-club/article-3297635-detail/article.html">interview</a> in which he offered to buy Hull FC but only if the clubs merged, because he didn’t want to show any bias towards Hull KR, the other Hull-based Rugby League club. Yet, shortly after the council’s Liberal Democrat-run council lost power to Labour, he appeared at Craven Park with several Hull councillors and the East Hull MP, having invested £1million into the East Hull club. He claims the investment is because he realised “he had done nothing for the people of East Hull”. Except that he has, because Hull City are representing the whole city. Incidentally, he’s done nothing specific for the people of West Hull yet, because he doesn’t own the stadium, a point he seems to forget.</p> <p>I wonder what really changed his mind? Seems to me like he’s seen an opportunity to butter up the newly elected councillors, who I would suggest need extra money to spend having promised the people of Hull that they won’t make the huge budget cuts the Lib Dems were threatening to make. Truthfully, I don’t know, I’m just guessing. But I know that the Hull FC fans in particular are dead against this on the RLFans message board. As tenants of Hull City, as we would be, there’s no way our club will get the equal treatment we currently receive. For example, what happens if both teams have a game on the same day? Guess who’s moving their game. It won’t be Hull City.</p> <p>So, I believe this is bad for Hull. This is because it will sell off a facility that was conceived as a community facility for our two professional clubs, and the community at large. I believe that the extra facilities Mr Allam proposes, will be inaccessible to most Hull people because as a private enterprise they will need to run at a profit. I don’t believe Mr Allam will wish to continue the partnerships with Hull College, for example, as it’s not in his interest to do so. I believe that my Rugby League club will be disadvantaged, and seriously worry that the investment in East Hull paves the way to a forced merger of our clubs, as Mr Allam has already stated is his preferred option. I believe that veiled threats to move Hull City away from the stadium prove his lack of interest in being a city benefactor, as if this were to happen I cannot believe that Hull City fans would be happy about this.</p> <p>See, I remember David Lloyd, who promised this and that, and eventually ended up almost bankrupting both hull City and Hull FC, and in fact locked the Tigers out of their ground. I forsee this happening again, for short-term financial gain. I believe the stadium needs extending, but not at the expense of putting our sporting heritage at risk again.</p> <p>In short, Mr Allam, thanks for saving City, but you’ve done your job. If you really care, you’ll provide loans to the council to build the village, extend the ground, but I don’t want you to own the ground. The fact you won’t commit to the extension unless you own the facility tells me you are a businessman first, and actually you are looking for cash profits before being a benefactor. That makes you a liar. I can’t, therefore, trust a word you say.</p> Chris A Tyehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00878857472284328129noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2709483281360203216.post-57767552513582207532011-05-16T16:36:00.001+01:002011-05-16T16:36:34.414+01:00Give it a rest, Radio 1<p>Have you ever bought a live music album?</p> <p>I avoid them, in most cases. Yes, I know there are exceptional ones, like ‘The Who – Live at Leeds’, but in the main, live albums are rubbish. You get all your favourite songs, but sung slightly out of tune, and with a background noise of screaming idiots. Great when you are there watching, but rubbish on a CD.</p> <p>As a result, I feel duty bound to advise Radio 1 that they really need to put a lid on their ‘Big Weekend’. The ‘Big Weekend’ being a free music festival, that replaced the old and creaky roadshows that used to turn up at a seaside resort near you. Places like the boating lake, Cleethorpes. The Big Weekend is, it must be said, a giant step up from Dave Lee Travis arriving in a big caravan on a random beach in Newquay, with Smiley Miley giving out goodie bags. It still feels the need, mind, to visit places like Swindon, Maidstone, Bangor (Wales), and this year, the music capital of the UK (or not) Carlisle. </p> <p>I should emphasise this important fact, incidentally. The festival itself is actually very good. This year, the line up included the Foo Fighters and Lady Gaga. Ellie Goulding put on an excellent performance. The acts are top notch, and if you got a ticket you are very lucky.</p> <p>My problem, then isn’t the festival. It’s the fact that for the entire month either side of it, Radio 1 have to go on about it. Constantly. Chris Moyles presents his show for a week from Carlisle. The Chart Show takes every opportunity to play a poor, out of tune live version of a song in the charts. Edith Bowman has to mention it in every second sentence. For crikey sake, after the event they go on about how bloody magnificent it was, and how everyone loved it, and how wonderful Radio 1 are for bringing us this incredible event. Here’s another live song from the big weekend, out of tune and inaudible for the screaming crowd but aren’t you lucky to be listening blah blah blah.</p> <p>Well, I’m not lucky. I’m bored of it. I commend you, Radio 1, for bringing live music to the masses but there really is no need to be so self-bloody-righteous about it. In fact, you made me listen to Chris Evans and Nick Hancock on Stray FM last week. Stray FM!  I officially became to old to listen to Radio 1. And, for this, I will never forgive you. Now, take your big weekend and deposit it in a dark pit until next year.</p> Chris A Tyehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00878857472284328129noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2709483281360203216.post-21906314384277422522011-04-11T16:07:00.001+01:002011-04-11T16:15:25.391+01:00AV or not AVBy crikey, it's been a while since I wrote a blog post. Hello again! <div><br /></div><div>So, the AV referendum campaign properly kicks off about now, the No2AV people have a broadcast in which they are going to tell you that AV is rubbish, and we should stick to the old system of electing people. I, on the other hand, reckon they are wrong, and here's where I tell you why I think that. </div><div><br /></div><div>So, in simple terms, what's wrong with the current system? You vote for a candidate, and the one with the most votes gets in. Right? Well yes, if there's only two candidates. If there are three, or more, then that's not always the case. Have a look at the results for Harrogate in the 2010 election, in terms of percentages; </div><div><br /></div><div>Conservative 45.7%</div><div>Lib Dem 43.8%</div><div>Labour 6.4% </div><div>BNP 2.1%</div><div>UKIP 2.0% </div><div><br /></div><div>Ok, so that tells me, if you do the maths, that 54.3% of the people who voted, didn't vote for the winner. The majority of people in Harrogate didn't vote for the person who is their MP. How's that fair, then? If you look at Hull North, it's even worse. 39.2% of the voters elected Diana Johnson. That means nearly two thirds of the people who voted didn't vote for the winner. In fact, around 21% of people voted right wing, that's Tory, BNP, UKIP. </div><div><br /></div><div>I don't think it's fair that you can get elected with less than half the electorate voting for you, because in some cases, you only have to impress those people who would vote for you anyway. You can get away with ignoring two thirds of the electorate. The Alternative Vote system, in my opinion, goes some way to rectifying this. </div><div><br /></div><div>At this point, by the way, it would be good to address one of the main arguments of the No2AV campaign, namely that the AV system is too complex. I find it insulting that I'm considered too thick to work out how AV works. It's this easy; </div><div><br /></div><div>* you get a ballot paper </div><div>* instead of an X, you rank the candidates in order of preference. 1 for your favourite, 2 for the next, then 3, and so on. </div><div><br /></div><div>That's all you really need to know. Actually, in my opinion, if you can't put people in order, then should you be voting? I believe that is really easy, and that everyone can understand it. </div><div><br /></div><div>After that, it's down to the vote counters. They worry about the complexities of it. Except it's not complex. They count all the papers. If no-one gets 50% of the vote, they take the person who finished last, look at who they placed as their second choice, and divide them into the other piles. And they repeat this, taking into account the third/fourth choices if necessary, until someone gets a majority. </div><div><br /></div><div>I think this is a better system, because whoever wins has agreement of the majority of people who voted for him/her, and therefore has a stronger mandate. I also believe it means that every candidate has a greater responsibility to address every constituent, not just the supporters of their own party. If you voted Tory in North Hull, then Johnson had no reason to make the effort to secure your vote, because you are a minority. If your second choice could mean she loses, I guarantee your views will take on a sudden new importance. Labour voters in Harrogate will be the difference between winning and losing. </div><div><br /></div><div>I've heard other arguments against AV.</div><div>* It's too expensive. It'll cost vast amounts of money for flash counting systems. </div><div>- Well, actually, no it won't. It's no different in terms of logistics than the current system. All you need is pencil, paper, and a load of volunteers to do the counting. It might take a bit longer, but so be it. </div><div><br /></div><div>* No-one else uses it. </div><div>- True, not many countries do. But the Labour party elects it's leader using AV. I remember using it to vote for the NUS president when I was at university. It's used in all walks of life. Why not in government? Saying we shouldn't do something because someone else doesn't isn't an argument. Maybe _they_ are all wrong? </div><div><br /></div><div>* Most AV supporters actually want PR. </div><div>- There might be some truth in that as well. I would prefer Proportional Representation to AV, but either system is far superior to the current one, in my book. We don't have PR as a choice, so we'll vote for what's in front of us and worry about PR at a later date. </div><div><br /></div><div>* Minority parties will decide who gets into power. In fact, it could allow the BNP in. </div><div>- The BNP don't want it, which tells me they don't think they'll do well. But so what if it did? It puts pressure on the main parties to address the issues that make people vote for these smaller parties, surely? Personally, if people are more likely to vote for a party because they want them to win, as opposed to now when people vote for who they think will beat the party they want to lose, , then that's a good thing. </div><div><br /></div><div>* There'll be more coalition governments. </div><div>- We've had 4 coalition governments, compared to 2 in Australia over the same time frame. They have AV. We don't. Says it all. And what's wrong with coalition governments anyway? The alternative is majority government that steamrollers through unpopular policies unopposed, and I hate that. </div><div><br /></div><div>So, that's my view. You might agree, or not. But it's a chance to change our voting system from the rubbish system we have now. Any improvement is good, surely? And AV is a definite improvement. You know what to do.</div>Chris A Tyehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00878857472284328129noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2709483281360203216.post-50096854306866984732010-12-13T12:34:00.004+00:002010-12-13T13:26:51.193+00:00Christmas Number 1<a href="http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/hs782.snc4/66271_134615973253732_134615893253740_157966_1670893_n.jpg"><img style="TEXT-ALIGN: center; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 316px; DISPLAY: block; HEIGHT: 306px; CURSOR: hand" border="0" alt="" src="http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/hs782.snc4/66271_134615973253732_134615893253740_157966_1670893_n.jpg" /></a> Yep, it's christmas. Which means, we have a 'race' for Christmas Number 1. So I thought I'd have a look at the contenders.<br /><div></div><br /><div>Now, last year, the bland, instantly forgettable Joe McElderry was pushed into 2nd spot by a concerted campaign led by Facebook users, to get 'Killing In The Name' by Rage against the Machine to the top spot. It worked. And, I reckon it worked because it appealed to a large audience. Rock fans went for it, and the lyrics seemed to make a point. 'F-You, I won't do what you tell me'. Well, apart from buy the Rage single. </div><div></div><br /><div>So, I guess it was inevitable that this year a similar thing would happen, or at least be attempted. But, before we look at the competition, we should see what this years favourite is. It's by Matt Cardle, the winner of the X-Factor, a nice, likable and more-talented-than-last-year chap. He's singing <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bTesvOLhfA">'When We Collide'</a>, a cover of a Biffy Clyro song. Except it's not called 'When We Collide'. Clearly Simon Cowell thought this was more marketable than the correct title 'Many of Horror'. The arrogance of the man to assume he can change the name because he doesn't like him is, I suggest, one of the main reasons people seem to have it in for the X-factor. However, it's a pleasant tune, if over-produced to the level of blandness, and it should shift half a million copies or so. Incidentally, the link above is for the live show version, which is better than the dull recording. Just.</div><div></div><br /><div>As far as the main contenders are concerned, I'd suggest that way out in front is the <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZThquH5t0ow">campaign to get "Surfin' Bird"the 1963 hit by 'The Trashmen' to the top spot</a>. It's got over 600,000 followers on Facebook, and got a good head start. It's playing it for fun, there's certainly no political message here. Fact is, some people want a fun novelty record at number 1 this christmas, and good luck to them.</div><div></div><br /><div>Another contender would be the <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fYvfEMUJl8&feature=fvst">re-recording of 4'33" by John Cage</a>. A bit pretentious perhaps, but the idea that Radio 1's chart show would have to play 4 and a half minutes of silence, in place of an X-factor tune, is quite amusing. Proceeds go to a variety of charities, but with only 80,000 facebook fans, I reckon they left it too late.</div><br /><div></div><div>Since the X-factor final, it would appear that Biffy Clyro fans have got upset. The original <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAh--lH0H3U">'Many of Horror' </a>is doing very well in the chart, with a fair few people wanting it to do better than the X-factor cover. One thing that is certain, it's going to be a Merry Christmas for Biffy Clyro's accountants and bank manager, one way or the other.</div><br /><div></div><div>If you fancy an outside bet, Corey Taylor, frontman of Slipknot (the bloody excellent American metal band) has relased a christmas song, with the profits going to the Teenage Cancer Trust. A bit of fruity language might well keep this one out of the headlines, but for a Christmas hater like myself, the lyrics to <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=od7GUy9XS7c">X-M</a> @ $ sum up the mood perfectly. Give it a listen, better still buy it and make it a Happy Christmas for a good charity. Just don't play it in front of the kids.</div><div></div><br /><div>So, who's going to win? I'd bet heavily on X-Factor. I suspect last year was a one off, and at this stage the other runners are being trounced by the X-Factor single, which went straight to Number 1 on iTunes on pre-orders. Astonishing, that people pre-ordered a single, without knowing who was singing it or what the song was, based on the TV show it was on. Whatever. I won't be buying it, and by January I'll have forgotten all about it.</div>Chris A Tyehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00878857472284328129noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2709483281360203216.post-78185295939904510862010-12-09T15:04:00.003+00:002010-12-09T15:36:19.681+00:00Student feesI'm sat watching the tuition fees debate.<br /><br />Whether you agree with increased tuition fees or not, there's some straightforward facts about the new proposals.<br /><br />* The students pay nothing before they go to university<br />* The students pay nothing unless they are earning over £21,000 per year, compared to the current £15,000.<br />* Part time students will also be entitled to deferred fees, unlike at present<br />* On a salary of £21k, the annual repayments will be around £270/year<br />* After 30 years, the fees will be written off if not repaid<br />* If you lose your job, or leave work, you pay back nothing.<br /><br />I think that's a good deal. In many ways, better than at present.<br /><br />What irritates me, is the number of people complaining and protesting without knowing any of these facts, egged on by a Labour party who implemented the Browne report that effectively recommended these proposals, and have no fixed, sensible alternative proposals. I support <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_0" class="blsp-spelling-error">anyone's</span> right to protest, but you should do this based on a sound knowledge of the facts and not on something you heard in the pub. Furthermore, the argument that lower class people are going to be put off higher education because of the fees is surely not true - the proposals above mean that anyone can still go to university from a poor background, because the fee payments will only apply afterwards, if they earn a better wage - in theory - than they would earn without going to university.<br /><br />As a Liberal, clearly it bothers me that we are, rightly, taking a battering for changing our minds. But the alternative is the break up of the coalition, another election, and either a Labour government who will continue as they left off and plunge our country further into debt, or a pure Tory government who will make deeper cuts, unchecked by a Liberal influence.<br /><br />It would, of course, be very helpful if the press and media would concentrate on reporting the facts, and not on concentrating on reporting how angry everyone is. Right now, there is an excellent debate taking place in the house of commons, yet the main news channels are showing the protests and clashes with the police.<br /><br />When our country is back on it's feet, I wish to see an increase in investment in higher education. Right now, I reckon this is a decent proposal, that's been amended for the better.Chris A Tyehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00878857472284328129noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2709483281360203216.post-12216066985039247312010-09-30T17:52:00.002+01:002010-09-30T18:13:26.132+01:00Tyred outA blog entry for anyone with a car.<br /><br />I mentioned it before, but we've got a Toyota Yaris. Nice car, I'd recommend one to anyone looking for a small car. However, it's not been a happy bunny for some time now.<br /><br />Put simply, the handling has been atrocious, in fact at times I'd call it dangerous. Bouncy, no grip - especially in the wet - and noisy. We took it to a garage a while ago, and they checked everything. "Nothing wrong", they said. "But it might be your tyres."<br /><br />Now, the tyres were quite new, so we left it because everything was checked and so we were happy nothing was going to break and kill us. Until, on the way to work one morning, the car lurched and almost put Mrs B in a ditch. Back to the garage. "Nothing wrong, other than we've adjusted the tracking. We reckon your tyres aren't up to it."<br /><br />This was the second time the tyres had been mentioned. The garage's reasoning was that the tyres on our car were for winter use, and were ideal for certain types of road. The driving we were doing was not what our tyres were suited for, and this was causing the problems. However, as the tyres were still quite new, the handling was slightly improved, and replacing all four at one go wasn't something I was keen on doing on cost grounds, we left it.<br /><br />And so to today. A couple of weeks ago, the car started displaying symptoms I've had on a previous car that related to a damaged wheel bearing. The car handling was affected, the car was noisy, and the car was performing badly at higher speed. So in it went. Guess what? "Nothing wrong with it. We reckon it's the tyres."<br /><br />Now, you'll notice that the garage has never offered to replace the tyres, which I find odd. Maybe they don't want my money. But, after the third suggestion, we bit the bullet and went to the tyre supplier who fitted the tyres in the first place.<br /><br />The tyres on the car were a budget brand, so I didn't expect razor-sharp handling. I've used budget tyres before. These were a brand called 'Admiral'. Anyway, I explained this to the tyre company guy, and he looked a bit puzzled but suggested a better brand. Which they duly fitted. One painful credit-card experience later, we left with 4 new tyres.<br /><br />Guess what? It's like a new car. Who would have thought that cheap, poor quality tyres would make such a difference to the car? It handles better, accelerates better, is quieter, and doesn't cry at 70mph on the motorway anymore.<br /><br />So, to our moral of the day. Don't put cheap, budget brand tyres on your car. It'll cost you more in the long run, because your car will be undriveable, and may well try to kill you.Chris A Tyehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00878857472284328129noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2709483281360203216.post-44052925539605111122010-09-13T12:13:00.003+01:002010-09-13T12:26:29.775+01:00Tom Briscoe is still better than Peter FoxNow, I'm doing OK at the moment, in general. I have a job, a roof over my head, food, water, and all the things that people in some countries struggle for. So, I consider myself a lucky bloke. In the scheme of things, then, losing a rugby match isn't a really big deal. However, I've been properly fed-up since Saturday night. All because my team, Hull FC, lost to cross-city arch rivals Hull KR.<br /><br />I'm trying to keep it in perspective. But when a big part of your life is spent following a team, it becomes a big deal, and losing has a really negative affect on your mood. Especially when it's a big game. And this one was, a play-off game with the loser going out. Not only, therefore, are we out of the playoffs, but we were knocked out by a better organised, harder working, more disciplined team. This hurts. When that team is Hull KR, it rubs salt in the wound.<br /><br />So I've been a grumpy-arse all weekend. I'll get over it, I'm sure, but I don't have to be happy about it. It's a stupid game anyway...!Chris A Tyehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00878857472284328129noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2709483281360203216.post-52235161531997937392010-08-16T16:46:00.003+01:002010-08-16T17:07:58.020+01:00It's not CricketI'm not a fan of cricket, and never have been, but yesterday marked the highlight (in my opinion) of the upper Nidderdale social calendar. The Dave Challis 6-a-side trophy. In short, it's a cricket competition that involves, predictably, teams of 6. This year, a team from the Pateley Bridge butchers entered. The Sportsman's Arms always turn up in fancy dress. The team from Studfold Farm caravan site always take things too seriously, in a light-hearted way - if that's possible.<br /><br />It always seems to attract a half-decent crowd as well. I suspect this is less to do with the cricket, and more to do with the £1.50/can beer tent and the outstandingly tasty barbecue. The buns on offer in the pavilion are of a superior standard as well.<br /><br />The beer, I have to say, is definitely the main attraction for me. However, it's a pretty relaxed day. You can spend the 7-8 hours wandering around chatting to the other locals who frankly, you never really see during the remainder of the year due to the remoteness of the area. Or you can sit back and enjoy the beer, as we did. Either way, no-one really minds because it raises a fair few quid for the club and, I believe, the local school. Hence, the belated realisation I was diddled out of a fiver change at the burger tent shall remain unchallenged, because the cash isn't lining some corporate pocket.<br /><br />On top of all this, I won a set of spotted pastel-shade coasters on the tombola, which to be fair is a half decent and useful item. Previous tombolas at local events have yielded such items as a bottle of Blue Nun 'wine', a red Ikea glass vase ornament thingy, and best of all, a two-handled child's training cup. Which is still in the cupboard, waiting for me to donate it to another tombola (if any local people reading would like it, I'll happily drop it at your house!)<br /><br />Last years event managed to pay for the renovation of the pavilion toilets, very nice they were too. Hot water and soap provided! Best thing is, the sun made an increasingly rare appearance, and on a sunny day, surrounded by fields of sheep and cows, it's an incredible venue for cricket.<br /><br />Incidentally, I have no idea who won. If anyone at all!Chris A Tyehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00878857472284328129noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2709483281360203216.post-67166402684306669512010-07-26T16:25:00.004+01:002010-07-26T17:24:09.479+01:00With just a fewwwwwwwww clicks, you'll ... not save anything at all, actually<div align="right"><a href="http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/11/12/article-0-049270C9000005DC-848_468x367.jpg"><img style="TEXT-ALIGN: center; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 468px; DISPLAY: block; HEIGHT: 367px; CURSOR: hand" border="0" alt="" src="http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/11/12/article-0-049270C9000005DC-848_468x367.jpg" /></a><span style="font-size:78%;"> image: Daily Mail</span><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><div align="left">I'm a bit deflated.</div><br /><br /><div align="left">I just got my new home insurance quote, from the company I work for. Now, it's not gone up, but neither has it decreased. But I know how these things work, because I used to work for the retentions (cancellations) department of the same company. So, I'll let you into the Beetwaste method of getting cheaper insurance.</div><br /><br /><div align="left">Firstly, go onto 'Confused.com' or some similar website - I'd deliberately avoid the annoying, singing Italian-style idiot, because it winds me up. You get a list of prices, make sure the new quotes are covering you for the same things (essential - how much are you covered for? Specified items? Excess? If it's not the same, be aware of the differences) and it is imperative that you look shocked at how much money you could save (as they do in the adverts).</div><br /><br /><div align="left">Now, here's the clever bit. You don't set up the new, cheaper policy. Oooh no. You ring your current insurer, tell them how much cheaper everyone else is, and can they do anything about it. A word of advice, by the way. If you are nice to the telephonist, it will pay dividends. Believe me, I was always more inclined to help the caller who asked politely, than the idiot who rang up claiming that I, personally, was responsible for ripping them off for the previous 10/15/20 years (delete as applicable) and even though we'd written to them every year advising them to call if they were unhappy with the price, it's all my fault that they couldn't be arsed to do so.</div><br /><br /><div align="left">Here's an example of what to say;</div><br /><br /><div align="left">"Hi, I've been looking around on 'Go-compare-the-confused-money-super-meerkat.com.uk' and discovered there are several companies offering me cheaper quotes. Can I review my cover with you to see if you can match/beat these other prices?"</div><br /><br /><div align="left">This is why you need to be clued-up on what you are covered for, because the telephonist will now explain why their price is actually better value, despite being more expensive. However, they may well suggest ways to make it cheaper, such as removing unnecessary elements of your cover that the very-same-company's sales team persuaded you was essential only a year earlier. At this point, incidentally, if you've asked three times and they say they can't reduce the price, they mean it. Not everyone is entitled to a discount, and if there's one available you'll get it.</div><br /><br /><div align="left">If all goes well, your current company will reduce your price and everything will be hunky-dorey. If not, well you've still got the other prices to fall back on - make sure before you cancel anything that the comparison site you picked gives an accurate price. Not all of them do, you'll have to ring them up for that.</div><br /><br /><div align="left">So anyway, it's time for me to do the same. I got some prices, ready to ring up and discuss. Wound myself up to do it and everything.</div><br /><br /><div align="left">Guess what?</div><br /><br /><div align="left">My new quote was already 20 quid cheaper than the cheapest price online. So I couldn't ring up and barter. </div><br /><br /><div align="left">Bummer.</div></div>Chris A Tyehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00878857472284328129noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2709483281360203216.post-77043934540163952272010-06-28T09:51:00.002+01:002010-06-28T10:22:29.206+01:00football is rubbish<a href="http://www.jamesprickett.co.uk/images/england1024x768.jpg"><img style="TEXT-ALIGN: center; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 633px; DISPLAY: block; HEIGHT: 456px; CURSOR: hand" border="0" alt="" src="http://www.jamesprickett.co.uk/images/england1024x768.jpg" /></a><br /><div></div><br /><div></div><div>Interesting world cup. I've deliberately tried not to talk about it, but now we're out I might as well. England were rubbish. Utterly. We played 4 games, won one, and played badly in 3 of them. In fact, the Algeria and Germany games rank as amongst the worst ever England performances. Hence the picture of the Women's England team, who are actually good and I suspect would run rings around the shower we just watched for two weeks.</div><div></div><br /><div>Everyone will have their opinions about why we were bad. Some people say we play too many games, but Tevez plays in England and got two (well, one and a bit) goals against Mexico. So I don't buy that at all. There are some really obvious points though. First, Wayne Rooney, probably the best footballer in England at the present time, was invisible for all four games. His only notable contribution to the World Cup was slagging off the fans for booing them.</div><div></div><br /><div>In addition, the defence was all over the place. It's a bit difficult to work out why. Losing Rio Ferdinand was a major blow to the team, and his replacement in Ledley King got injured after the first five minutes of the first game. In addition, Dawson was sat on the bench, having given up his holiday at short notice, and is probably wondering why he bothered. And as for John Terry. Quite what got into him during the Germany game, who knows. He was out of position for every one of the England goals, which is baffling for a player of such talent and experience.</div><br /><div></div><div>Which I suspect solves the problem of why we were so rubbish.We had a team of individuals who just weren't able to play as a team, for whatever reason. I suspect that's down to the manager, because it's his tactics, his team, his player choice, and it looks like he got it badly wrong. He appeared unable to change the team formation, when it became obvious that 4-4-2 wasn't working. His substitutions invariable replaced like players with like. Defoe off, Heskey on. Lennon off, Wright-Phillips on. Taking into account also, that midway through our limited time in South Africa, the manager and players were clearly at odds, this would seem to confirm that the blame is with Capello.</div><br /><div></div><div>Anyway, it makes no odds. We were rubbish, and all four games were dull, dull, dull. But the last two weeks weren't excitement free zones, you know. I watched Wigan-St Helens, and after the England-Germany match, watched Warrington-Leeds. Both Rugby League matches, both outstanding games of their sport. Both with video referees, so the ref can't make idiot mistakes like disallowing Lampards goal, or not spotting that Tevez is 3 miles offside.</div><br /><div></div><div>Each to their own, I guess. I was brought up watching Rugby League, so I suspect I'm a little biased. But honestly, the last two weeks have just reminded me why I continue to watch it, why I continue to advocate it, why I will always maintain that despite it's failings as a world sport, Rugby League is a country mile ahead of the round ball game. Give it a go. Support who you like, preferably your local side. Although, as a Hull FC fan I must warn you off supporting Hull KR...</div><br /><div></div><div>Find out about it here...<a href="http://www.therfl.co.uk/">http://www.therfl.co.uk/</a></div>Chris A Tyehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00878857472284328129noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2709483281360203216.post-62642245711750869632010-06-07T10:29:00.002+01:002010-06-07T10:33:28.064+01:00Why reinvent the wheelHaving read the absurd, deranged, but oh-so-predictable ramblings of Peter Hitchens in yesterday's Mail, I almost made it the subject of a blog entry today.<br /><br />But then I read this;<br /><br /><a href="http://enemiesofreason.co.uk/2010/06/06/peter-hitchens-depresses-me-but-i-wont-kill-him/">http://enemiesofreason.co.uk/2010/06/06/peter-hitchens-depresses-me-but-i-wont-kill-him/</a><br /><br />...and I figured, why bother. It says everything I was going to say anyway, and probably does a better job of it. Read and enjoy. And save your money, by not buying the Mail!Chris A Tyehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00878857472284328129noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2709483281360203216.post-17570780933718787712010-05-24T09:51:00.001+01:002010-05-24T09:51:36.619+01:00new pc<p><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg_TYUZwq8vCuivkaso56KJJ10ElrJEwlh5h-JrfWp7tXYRuxOfqMz-duvFpIjuPPJz4NH3hukkvg_uf8V2mYvBhqW0BxxnaLs3sVvDxq7A9jIF417tegVC4dZtPgt1ufsD_bePEwsv1r0/s1600-h/ibm-pc-5150%5B3%5D.jpg"><img style="border-bottom: 0px; border-left: 0px; display: block; float: none; margin-left: auto; border-top: 0px; margin-right: auto; border-right: 0px" title="ibm-pc-5150" border="0" alt="ibm-pc-5150" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj4NF3ADn3HwSlwSf04Q2JLtgoBNLItRPs5wJ6RVOtO4FDBBp-dbVv2K57GdTKXY8CP3WM5ctBqgOvKhlFvpJ-Got066xPuPYZpbEJSJ0wpgUwPxs8I7BUZNbvw23O9H2M_sEckDFPERUg/?imgmax=800" width="244" height="207" /></a> </p> <p>I got a new laptop last week. An exciting moment, for someone who loves gadgets, but after a week of using it, is it any good?</p> <p>I have to confess, as far as PC’s are concerned I’m not their number one fan. That all goes back to the old days of computers. When my Spectrum got old and pointless, it was replaced with a CBM Amiga A500, which at the time was about a million years ahead of the PC in terms of usability and hardware specification. Amiga’s had a palette of over 4000 colours, had stereo sound (sort of), and a multi-tasking operating system. By the Amiga 1200, this had improved significantly, and was streets ahead of Windows 3.1. </p> <p>Ah, Windows 3.1. What a badly written, unusable, pointless pile of old trollop that was. Microsoft daren’t make it any good because Apple kept taking them to court over any remote similarity to their Mac operating system. I was forced to use it at university, when actually it was easier to ignore it altogether and use the command line interface of MS-DOS.</p> <p>Of course, things improved. Windows 95 was OK, if unreliable, as was 98. Windows ME was more reliable, but a bit dull. Then came Windows XP, which was big, clunky, but reliable and usable. By then, my Amiga was using up garage space, and Windows had taken over in my life, begrudgingly. In fact, a couple of years ago I discovered Linux, and have been using this in preference.</p> <p>However, time moves on. In our house, there are 3 PC’s. One is an elderly desktop that runs Ubuntu Linux. One is an even older laptop, that is held together with string and runs Xubuntu Linux – just. The third runs XP, and Kubuntu Linux. They are all old, slow and barely keeping up, so it was obvious that they had to go and be replaced. Therefore, last Monday, off to PC world I went, spent an hour looking at PC’s, and came home with a spanky-new Dell laptop. With Windows 7. </p> <p>Now, Windows 7 is something that’s passed me by a little bit. All I really know about it, is that the TV adverts are stupidly irritating (“I’m a PC, and I’m out of time”, “I’m a PC, and my work here is done”, “I’m a PC, and I need a swift punch in the face”). I’ve not seen it, not used it, not bothered with it. But, here’s the thing. It’s excellent.</p> <p>Ok, it’s still a Microsoft operating system, so it insists on updating itself at the most inopportune moments, as well as constantly popping up warnings every time you want to do something. It’s the Labour party of the computing world, it wants to manage your entire life. It knows best. But asides from that, it’s so much better. It boots up far more quickly than XP, although it’s still quite new so we’ll see how long that lasts. It looks excellent, nothing like Windows in fact. It’s far easier to pick up than it ever was. I’m a big fan of the dock at the top of the screen, all the main programs I use are stored there as opposed to in a menu somewhere. Mind you, that’s a straight Mac rip-off, and I’m amazed they’ve been allowed to keep it in!</p> <p>In short, it’s actually usable. So, I’ve put off installing Linux for now. I’ve even kept with Internet Explorer for now, because it’s actually quite good. The Windows Live Writer is included, and I’m using it to write the blog today. Yes, it really does come with rather nifty blog writing software. Whether it’s any good, well we’ll see when I hit ‘Publish’!</p> <p>So, finally, let me recommend two pieces of software you’ll need  to finish the Windows 7 experience. Firstly, there’s no Outlook Express for your e-mails, so you’ll be needing Mozilla Thunderbird. Easy to use, works the same, totally free. Secondly, you will want a music player. ITunes works, Windows Media Player is included and is ok, but you really, really need to look up ‘Spotify’. It’ll play your old back catalogue of MP3 files on your hard disk, but it basically lets you – legally – stream music from online, and the range of bands and artists signed up to it is huge. The free version has adverts, if you don’t want that it’s a fiver a month, and to use it on your mobile it’s a tenner a month. Have a look, while I go and enjoy the glorious weather!</p> <p><a title="http://www.mozillamessaging.com/en-GB/thunderbird/" href="http://www.mozillamessaging.com/en-GB/thunderbird/">http://www.mozillamessaging.com/en-GB/thunderbird/</a></p> <p><a title="http://www.spotify.com/uk/new-user/" href="http://www.spotify.com/uk/new-user/">http://www.spotify.com/uk/new-user/</a></p> Chris A Tyehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00878857472284328129noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2709483281360203216.post-62957247920750744692010-05-10T11:15:00.003+01:002010-05-10T11:44:55.443+01:00Interesting times<div style="text-align: center;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/05/08/article-1274798-097B22A3000005DC-857_306x491.jpg"><img style="display: block; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 306px; height: 491px;" src="http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/05/08/article-1274798-097B22A3000005DC-857_306x491.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><span style="font-size:78%;">image: Daily Mail</span><br /></div><br />It's been a bizarre week or two. Probably the most interesting election campaign I can remember, right up to the exit polls coming out at 10pm on 6th May. Utter disbelief, that after all the polls in the previous weeks, it looked like - and indeed, was correct - that we would end up with less seats than before. Even though we increased our share of the vote.<br /><br />So, we are into hung-parliament territory. I believe this is a huge moment for British politics, and after all the scandal of recent times, it has presented a great opportunity for the MP's to grow up and act like adults, for a change. However, I have to say that I didn't see Liberal-Tory discussions coming.<br /><br />I'm a Liberal Democrat party member, and have been for years, so I know full well that most Liberals would naturally want an alliance with Labour, they are very uneasy about teaming up with the Tories. But I've been thinking about this for a day or two, and I reckon this might suit me very well.<br /><br />Whilst I remain a Lib-Dem member and supporter, I'm probably slightly right of centre, whilst the party are left of centre. This has often presented me with the odd dilemma. For example, I'm not a particular fan of European matters, whilst the Lib-Dems are staunchly pro-Europe. I've got a harder opinion of matters such as capital punishment; I'd have few complaints about bringing it back, whilst most Liberals would be horrified about this.<br /><br />I do, however, stick with the Lib-Dems, because from experience, they have always been far more tolerant of differing opinions than the other parties, probably because everything is debated properly. So, if a policy makes the manifesto, I know that the party members at the conference had a democratic debate on it. I like that. I've also long held the view that although I'm not pro-European, I'd rather be represented by a party that wants to be there, than a party that exists to make it difficult.<br /><br />Therefore, if the Lib-Dems make a coalition with the Tories, it may, strangely, more reflect my brand of politics. With one huge, enormous, universe-sized caveat. And that's parliamentary reform. The Tories are opposed to it, but I'm afraid any deal must at the very least, promise a referendum on this subject, primarily involving a change to our discredited, unfair voting system. This is why I came to the Lib-Dems in the first place. It's just not acceptable that a party that obtains a quarter of the vote, only gets 57 seats out of 649. Asides from the Lib-Dems, other parties have reason to want a change. UKIP got 4 times the number of votes - nearly 1,000,000 - than the Green party. Even the hateful BNP got more votes than the Greens. Seats in the commons: UKIP = 0, BNP = 0, Greens = 1. Crazy.<br /><br />Check out some other results. Harrogate and Knaresborough, the Lib-Dem candidate came second with 44% of the vote, whereas in Hull North, Diana Johnson won with 39% of the vote. 13,000 Labour votes = win, 23,000 Liberal votes = lose. That's not fair. Not in my book. And that's not counting the 4,000 Tory votes in Hull North, that count for nothing at all.<br /><br />That's why I want a voting system that means every vote counts, that's why I want Nick Clegg to insist on making this a part of a deal with whichever party, and that's why I'll continue to support the Lib-Dems.<br /><br />And I promise to lay off the politics in the next blog entry!Chris A Tyehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00878857472284328129noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2709483281360203216.post-43096426805267258312010-04-19T15:28:00.002+01:002010-04-19T15:55:55.698+01:00There's an election on, you know<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjIr8wA-mFv25mHNkrdoVl6xze3ZAjRk2mgOhm1LYV1ZebQlxsXKDXWv1b-hUdXJ4-ex_kQTjj9axfVZaF60pf6Dos62nHN_l3PyFLRrF0At5HBdqHUH2S57abBZN8dYM8FVw6b3OqqpOc/s1600/n539609918_1235.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 200px; height: 205px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjIr8wA-mFv25mHNkrdoVl6xze3ZAjRk2mgOhm1LYV1ZebQlxsXKDXWv1b-hUdXJ4-ex_kQTjj9axfVZaF60pf6Dos62nHN_l3PyFLRrF0At5HBdqHUH2S57abBZN8dYM8FVw6b3OqqpOc/s400/n539609918_1235.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5461862371566679666" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><br />I've just been leaflet-dropping for the Lib-Dems, in a very rural area that takes a lot of walking. I suspect most of the people around here are Tory, but what the heck. At least they know we exist.<br /><br />I've been a Lib-Dem supporter for years. A fully paid-up, card carrying but not very active member. Therefore, you'd expect me to be wanting you to vote for them. Well that's true, but at the end of the day I'd like you to make up your own mind. Maybe it's the Liberal in me, but ultimately I'll give you the info about us, and hopefully you'll agree.<br /><br />If you don't, then fine. But last Thursday, people got to make their own mind up, for the first time in years. Normally, you see, people vote the way the newspapers and press tell them to, in my opinion. Most of the press are right-wing, a couple of papers are socialist leaning, but none of them are particularly Liberal. So the third party generally gets a hard time in the press.<br /><br />But, for an hour and a half last Thursday, something changed. Three party leaders turned up on TV, and Nick Clegg from the Lib-Dems had a good night, as reflected by the opinion polls the next day. Three party leaders were talking about policy without any bias from an outside source, and people made their own minds up.<br /><br />I suspect the papers won't like this, and will now be taking the liberals seriously. May I present, for example, the Mail on Sunday. Headline; "Clegg Nicks the Top Spot", a pretty positive headline. But let's turn to page 9. We get the following headlines;<br /><br />"Most would vote Orange... but they will get Brown"<br /><br />"His wife is Spanish, his mother Dutch, his father half-Russian and his spin-doctor German. Is there ANYTHING British about Lib Dem Leader?"<br /><br />"Clegg's 'secret' lobbyist past"<br /><br />"Billionaire convicted of fraud in France laid on banquet in honour of Liberal Democrat leader"<br /><br />In other words, you can't trust the Lib-Dem leader, he associates with crooks, had a dodgy (perhaps, maybe, possibly) job in the past and by the way, he's not even British. Vote for him, and Brown gets in again. Are you scared yet?<br /><br />The leader column, though, is almost deserving of a complaint to the PCC. Headline; "the charming Mr Clegg leads a loopy army" and goes on to point out that "Behind him in the shadows stand dense ranks of beards and sandals, with beliefs so loopily Left-wing that New Labour long ago abandoned or rejected them".<br /><br />Well, I believe I'm quite intelligent, have no beard or sandals, and anyway if I did, so what? Disgraceful journalism. Insulting, xenophobic and scare-mongering garbage. And no specific mention of any policies.<br /><br />Well, maybe I'm old fashioned, but I reckon people are intelligent enough to make their own decision based on facts. And that happened after the last debate. Even if we'd have done badly, people finally got to make a decision on their own. And this election is all the better for it, so the press had better get used to it!Chris A Tyehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00878857472284328129noreply@blogger.com0