Cost of Living Crisis?

It cannot be denied that we are currently living in a period of rapidly rising prices especially energy prices food prices and fuel prices. The rate at which these items have risen in recent months is incredible and is in my view more than the stated rate of inflation which is I believe is said to be around 10 percent now.

To read most newspapers or to listen to the television, they are telling us that we are in a cost-of-living crisis and that people cannot afford to eat, heat their homes, buy fuel et cetera. The news portrays a doomsday scenario that we are all suffering.

I wonder from my experiences if that is correct or not. It is no doubt the case that a lot of people are finding it harder to make ends meet. I am not for one minute suggesting that that is not the case. What I am queering is whether it is as much of a doomsday scenario as the media would have us believe.

Back in 2007 when the financial crash hit Britain, and the world. One of the things that I observed was overnight the “ boy racer” types were no longer driving their cars on the roads. You know the sort of person I mean with the souped-up cars speeding from traffic hold up to hold up and wasting fuel and burning rubber.

In fact, overnight in 2007 the number of cars on the road reduced whether during rush hour otherwise stop those were my observations from the many hours I spent  leisure cycling and cycling to work each day in central London. Clearly in 2007 people certainly were not using their motor vehicles stop I believe the only explanation for that was that people could not afford to use their cars owing to the financial crash.

Let us look forward now to 2022 and the situation and now. I have not noticed any reduction in the volume of traffic on the roads since the early part of 2022, before the rampant inflation. Indeed, the roads are getting busier, both at rush hour, and more significantly on evenings and weekends when people are more likely to be out in that lecture time. It may well be that it is because of the time of year, namely summer, but the number of boy racers driving around the east London stroke Essex border area are increasing. There is a considerable amount of ridiculous acceleration from Bourne hold up to another and very wasteful driving scene. This would suggest that certainly at least amongst at that age group stroke title person they are not feeling the credit crunch and feel able to afford to waste fuel unnecessarily.

I accept that not everybody is in that position. However back in 2007 there was a rapid reduction in the number of people I saw driving compared to 2022Ulster

An even more significant feature, and warn that did not exist in 2007, are the number of Deliveroo / Just Eat type of  delivery drivers. I noticed as I returned home from work this afternoon. There were seven such motorbike riders sat outside the local subway store waiting for orders to deliver. There were a similar number if not more outside the local McDonald’s. Outside of many fast-food shops, especially the chains there are always numerous delivery drivers. These drivers are regularly collecting and delivering orders. I appreciate the pay they receive is minimal and it is not an attractive job, and my comment is not a reflection on the delivery riders. However, people are obviously willing to pay to have food delivered to their door. If the situation were as bad as the media would have us believe, then even if people were able to afford takeaways, they would not be paying for them to be delivered. We have here but two examples of people spending money unnecessarily:  

1.  buying takeaways rather than cooking food themselves, which would be cheaper and

2. the fact that they are willing to pay for people to deliver that food to them rather than walking to the local shop.

This to me seems to suggest that the current cost of living crisis is not as bad as the media make it out.

I do not live in an area that could be described as posh with people on high salaries. It is an area with poor housing mediocre quality of health and some of the least financially well-off people in society. Despite this those around me seem to have money to spend unnecessarily on fuel by driving in a wasteful manner and  they can both afford takeaway food and to pay for its delivery.

If the cost-of-living crisis was as bad as the media painted to be, then how are people able to afford to waste fuel and to not only by takeaways but pay for delivery of them rather than walking to the takeaway shop to collect them.

For some time now I have been volunteering and helping at a Community Food Surplus Hub which distributes food to people in the area. Whilst it is correct that since around March 2022, we have seen an increase in the number of clients attending, we have not seen the huge increase in numbers that might be expected from reading or listening to the media. Speaking socially with our clients, it is correct they are finding things harder now than they did before the cost-of-living crisis hit. However, from what has been said to me by numerous clients it is a case of finding things more difficult rather than not being able to eat at all.

Society changes overtime and whilst in the past even a household telephone was considered a luxury, today a mobile phone is considered an essential given so many things are only available online. However, when  paying for Netflix, Cable TV et cetera  people make choices of where their priorities lie. Certainly, living in London having a motor vehicle is not an essential. The public transport in London is exceptionally good, and cheap, when compared to elsewhere or alternative options. People may choose for their convenience to have motor cars. Some people may  choose to buy football season tickets and other items that cannot be considered essentials.

It is also correct that some people cannot afford any of these things at all. I do not want to suggest that people are not finding things harder now than they did say 12 months ago. People are generally having to make choices and do not have as much disposable income as in the recent past. That is undeniable, but it doesn’t necessarily amount to a crisis.

However, when you look around this situation is not the crisis stop the media painted to me it is a difficulty rather than a crisis.

The Emperor’s New Clothes & Other Hypocrisy

So as the COP 26 climate change conference opens in Glasgow, and we are repeatedly getting messages about global warming and what needs to be done. I thought I would just have a look at some of the seemingly contradictory things that are being said.

Firstly, I would say that I am not in any way a climate change denier. Climate Change is happening there are so many examples of that that it would be unrealistic to suggest there isn’t some form of climate change.

It is also clear that we do need to take drastic actions to reduce our climate changing behaviour and to reduce our personal carbon footprints. However, the actions we take need to be realistic and proportionate. A couple of examples that concern me about things which in their own sound fine but when taken together with other factors make them in my view unrealistic are as follows.

Electric Cars

From 2030 petrol and diesel engine vehicles will not be sold in the United Kingdom. We are going to have to buy electric vehicles from their north quite clearly there will be a lot after that before electric vehicles are compulsory there will be a runoff period from 2030 when people still have petrol- or diesel-powered cars because not everybody could afford to buy a brand-new car.
My concern about electric cars is where is the energy going to come from to power these vehicles. Yeah, I hear you say the energy is going to come from electricity, but go back one step further where are we going to get the electricity from?

At the present time we have only just managed to supply the current demand for electricity in this country new power stations are needed they are not being built. Every time a new power station is proposed we end up with delays of years owing to public inquiries et cetera nobody wants a power station built near them. The environmentalist will say that we should be using solar power wind power or wave power. However, when any of these schemes are proposed others object to them and progress is painfully slow. Given the lag between proposing a new power station and it being operational we are not going to have these power stations in place by 2030.

Domestic Heating

When you are in the issues around domestic heating supplies the situation becomes even more unrealistic. The government are saying that all households will have to install heat pumps to replace bare gas boilers in the future stop these heat pumps will either need to be ground source heat pumps or air source heat pumps. Leaving aside the costs of the pumps for the moment [I will come back to this at a later point in this blog close brackets. The heat pumps are not able to supply all the heating needs for a house, especially in cold weather. Also, it takes quite some time for the heat pump to produce enough extra heat 2 raise the temperature in your house. It is not like a gas boiler where you were just the thermostat and the room heater almost instantaneously.

To overcome these problems, it will be necessary for people to have an additional source of heating in their home, namely electric heating.

Now every house that currently has a gas boiler also needing an additional electric heater is going to provide considerable extra strain on the power stations in this country. New partner you may of course remember in the previous section about electric cars I raised the issue of providing the power for those cars. Now not only do we have all those cars to provide electricity to charge, but we also need huge amounts of electricity to supplement the output of the heat pumps.

As I have said previously there simply is not the capacity in this country at the present time to achieve this. It should also be borne in mind that we currently already must import. a huge amount of electricity into the UK. I understand the amount we currently import is 24,556 giga Watt hours of electricity. This predominantly comes from France via. Undersea cable.

However, it should also be borne in mind that France is going to have similar problems to the UK, namely switching to the use of non-fossil fuels. It is reasonable to expect that the French will have more demand for their own electricity and will therefore be unable to supply unlimited amounts to the UK.

Also, is it worth being so reliant on an overseas nation for our energy supplies. We are currently seeing the French threatening to detain UK fishing boats and blockade port if they don’t get their own way. By increasing our reliance on the French for power supplies, we are giving them increased power. To dominate the UK.

Costs

The next issue that concerns me is. The whole issue of cost. At the present time, an electric car costs upwards of 30,000 pounds. That is out of the price range of most people. I appreciate that the cost of. Electric cars are likely to come down over time, but until that cost does come down, people are not going to be able to afford electric cars.

At present. Driving an electric car once you have paid the purchase price, is relatively cheap because there is no fuel duty on the electricity you use. However, as more people move towards electric motor vehicles, The government will lose out in huge sums of money that they currently get from duty on petrol and diesel. These sums will have to be replaced. The government is not going to be able to suddenly take a huge drop in income given the services they must fund. Effectively all the money the government pay out for services is taxpayers’ money and must be raised in taxes from somewhere.

If the Chancellor gives with one hand, he takes away with another.

The net effect of this is that we will almost certainly have road pricing in the future, I.e., Charging per mile driven, whether that is only on major roads which all become toll roads, or whether we all must have some form of black box device in our cars remains to be seen.

In relation to heat pumps, they. Can cost at present. In the region of 6 to 10,000 pounds or more. If you have a ground source heat pump, then there is considerable cost. In installing the necessary underground piping. That of course assumes that you do have sufficient area to install that piping. Most homes in this country probably do not have sufficient outside area that could be dug up for the paving to be installed.

However, that is not the only cost involved with. Heat pumps. As I mentioned earlier, they do not heat a house as well as. Gas or electricity stop. The. Homes need to be fully insulated. This again is a significant cost for a lot of people, especially those with older style homes. Homes will also need to be triple glazed too. I’m sure they are more efficient. Finally. The size of radiators in the home will also need to be increased. This. As a significant cost again. It may also be that. Houses need under floor heating which. Will be a Hitchcock used.

The government recently in its statement on Green Energy stated that it would make grants available towards these costs. However, they are. Only making 30,000. Grants available per year of up to £5000. Those grants. Over three years will only amount to 90,000 homes. Whereas we have over 60 million people living in this country. The £5000 grants will also not even cover the cost of a heat pump, let alone the installation new radiators, new insulation, under floor heating etcetera

The cost simply of moving to electric cars and to heat pumps to heat homes. Ah, far outside. Most householders’ ability to pay. If people cannot pay. What are we going to do? As I mentioned earlier. The government money is your money, so it is not simply the case that the government can pay for this to be done. It seems at present we are legislating, so that people will no longer be able to have their own motor vehicles and will be back to Victorian times with no heating in their homes. In fact. it will be worse than Victorian times because people will not be able to burn a fossil fuel to keep warm full stop

I have not even mentioned the effect on the economy. Look at all the HGV vehicles on our roads. The cost of electric HGV vehicles will be incredible. The transport companies will have to pass that on to the consumer and thus we will end up with huge increases in. Transport costs and therefore huge increases in prices of goods. This is on top of the increased cost. Everyone is going to have for buying electric cars, installing heat pumps, running those heat pumps, et cetera.

The reality is that the current green proposals are a bit like the Emperor’s New Clothes. It is simply talking. Everybody is getting carried away with things that in reality do not work.

Yes, we need to move to more environmentally friendly methods and processes. It is no good moving towards more environmentally friendly methods and destroying the economies of the world to do so. There must be a balance between. Climate change prevention and not destroying. The economy and society with it.

Any proposals made need to be ones that are. effective and can work. At present. It seems that nobody is thinking about the effectiveness of these ideas. It is great to say we need electric cars or that we need heat pumps, but without the infrastructure to support them or the ability to pay for them, it is a nonstarter.

Insulate Britain, with their protests, are demanding the government pay to insulate every home. What is not being asked is where that money is going to come from. As I have said previously. The government do not have does not have money of its own. It is. Your money that is raised via various taxes. Protesters always seem happy to spend other people’s money.

Overseas Aid

Another theme that was being discussed in the media. Today was that developed nations. Need to be giving huge amounts more aid to developing world countries to enable them to install. Green facilities. Again. The question must be where is this funding coming from?? As we have already established, the cost of electric cars, heat pumps, insulation, et cetera in the UK is huge and is going to be crippling. Where is the extra money going to come from to pay? For similar. Cost in third World countries?

We do need to act. However, action needs to be action that is not going to destroy our society.

People to stop and to take a realistic look at what is being done and what realistically can be done rather than jumping on the bandwagon of the latest green initiatives proposed by some academic.

Some very small changes that we should be talking about are things like for example:

Stopping FIFA and UEFA from expanding European and world football competitions. We are seeing, for example, UEFA increasing the number of teams playing in the European Champions League. Those teams are flying across Europe, every week of the football season. Now, that is doing horrendous damage to the environment. A simple way around that would be to have the European Champions Cup played over a month in one host country. That way, all the teams taking part would need one flight to that country and would be based there for the period.

I notice that no. Commentators are. Caring to take on the football authorities. They are too powerful, and football is too popular to try and. Forced to change.

I notice in the recent budget the government reduced air passenger duty. Four flights wholly within the United Kingdom. This on the face of it, seems a strange. Policy when we are trying to reduce our carbon footprint. We should be encouraging people too. Travel in the United Kingdom via more green methods, e.g., the railways. I do not know the logic behind. This moves in the recent budget. It seems at odds with the government other pronouncements and. Suggest a luck of joined up thinking.

We still see. The very rich. And famous flying by private jet around the world for holidays, weekends, away and other. Jones. Nobody seems to call those people out.

Football teams, for example, often fly to warmer climate during a break in the football season. Again, unnecessarily increasing the carbon footprint. In fact, recently, I understand Manchester United flew to an away league game at Leicester! Yes, flew! No one is calling this waste out, but instead you are expected to bankrupt yourself to pay for a heat pump that won’t heat your house.

Again, at this time of year we will start to see lots of houses covered in thousands of Christmas lights and other decorations. The same BBC and ITV News programmes that berate us all year over our carbon footprints and lecture us on what we need to do to save the environment, will be running features, about how wonderful these houses look. They are praising the householders for doing so. What about the extra electricity being used? All those lights are increasing our carbon footprint. Why are we praising people and celebrating people wasting Electricity?

Terrorism

Now, you may ask, what has this post got to do with terrorism. The actions of Insulate Britain or similar groups cannot be considered as terrorism surely?

Well if you look at the Crown Prosecution Service website and their definition of terrorism which is:

“Terrorism is the use or threat of action, both in and outside of the UK, designed to influence any international government organisation or to intimidate the public.  It must also be for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.”

Now, let’s break that down

Terrorism is the use or threat of action – well insulate Britain are both threatening and indeed using action.

both in and outside of the UK – Their actions have affected roads around the M25 and ports. This is obviously within the UK.

designed to influence any international government organisation or to intimidate the public – The actions are by their own admissions intended to influence the UK government (to insulate properties). Whether the actions are designed to intimidate the public is a moot point, and irrelevant here as the actions meet the influencing government criteria.

It must also be for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial, or ideological cause – This is again obvious from their own admissions. They are advancing either a political or an ideological cause and as such meet this part of the criteria.

So, by the definition of terrorism, Insulate Britain are also a terrorist organisation and their actions such be treated as acts of terrorism!

Let’s consider this situation. One of the Civil Service Unions is unhappy with pay negotiations and its members decide to strike in support of a pay rise.

Terrorism is the use or threat of action – The threat of, or actually striking.

both in and outside of the UK – Obviously any actions must by definition be in or out of the UK!

designed to influence any international government organisation or to intimidate the public – Obviously a strike is designed to influence the employers, who are the UK government.

It must also be for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial, or ideological cause – The strike could be seen to be advancing either a political or ideological cause – i.e., that civil servants should be paid more.

Thus, a simple threat of a strike is now deemed to be a terrorist and the Union a terrorist organisation.

Think about any sort of protest and it is likely to be covered by this definition of terrorism.

You could probably argue that a group of football fans being escorted from train station or coaches to a football ground whilst chanting football songs is covered by this definition:

Terrorism is the use or threat of action – The chanting whilst walking as part of a group is action/

both in and outside of the UK – Obviously any actions must by definition be in or out of the UK!

designed to influence any international government organisation or to intimidate the public – The chanting could be said to be intimidating to the public and fans of the home team.

It must also be for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial, or ideological cause – It could be argued their ideological cause is the support or promotion of their team and their belief their team is the best.

There you go, you are now a terrorist be going to watch your team play away with others!

I have not even mentioned the use of chants such as the famous Millwall one:

          “We Are Millwall

          Super Millwall

          From The Den

          No One Likes Us

          No One Fights Us

          We Are Millwall

From The Den”

Or the Newcastle chant (v West Ham)

He’s only a poor little hammer

His clothes are all tattered and torn

He came for a fight, so we set him alight

And now he won’t come anymore

Both chants, along with many others could be seen to be intended to intimidate and as such it could be argued they are acts of terrorism.

In fact, we talk about some football grounds being intimidating places for teams to come, simply because of the noise the home fans make. So, are they all terrorists committing terrorist acts? Well according to this extraordinarily wide definition of terrorism, the answer must be yes.

Football, Financial Fair Play, Administration & The fit & Proper Test

So, with the sad, but inevitable news Derby County have gone into administration after years of grossly over spending, there are many calls on social media railing about how the “authorities” should have stopped this.

In this blog, I am going to share a few of my thoughts on the topic and explain why I am of the view the authorities get unfairly blamed. I come at this from someone who has seen four teams I watched suffer financial problems.

Newcastle United – whilst not necessarily financial problems, they have an owner who is hated by the fans and seems to do all he can to avoid spending his money on the club.

Darlington – they have had numerous financial crisis dating back to 1982 and partially contributed more recently by the costs of their then ground at Darlington Arena

Leyton Orient – so nearly went out of existence, and did fall out of the football league under the owner of Albanian Bechetti

Spennymoor United who did go out of business before a new club was formed in the summer of 2005

Reading that list, perhaps you should be worried if I start watching your club. It seems that I may be an albatross.

The first thing that should be born in mind is that the number of football clubs that go out of business is far below the average across all business types. Football clubs do get into financial trouble, but few actually are wound up. In recent years, Macclesfield Town are the only EFL/ EPL club I can thing of to be wound up and even then by the time they had been wound up they had ceased to be in the EFL.

Those complaining about the “authorities” on social media not doing enough all seem to not understand the difference between the Football Association (FA), English Football League (EFL) or English Premier League (EPL). The FA are the governing body for football in England. The EPL and EFL run competitions that clubs compete in and all three are separate organisations.

All these organisations have separate rules for clubs in their competitions. I have seen for example people complaining Manchester city got treated differently by UEFA for breaching the UEFA version of Financial Fair Play, compared to how Derby or Sheffield Wednesday were treated by the EFL for breaching EFL rules. That is a bit like complaining someone in Russia got a different sentence for a public order offence there to someone in England for a public order offence here

The starting point here is that all these organisations are governed by English Law and must act in accordance with English Law. The Companies Act governs the ownership and running of Companies in England. All football clubs in the EPL or EFL are Companies.

Various people suggest that the “authorities” (often not specifying which body they mean) should have prevented an owner from buying a club. Firstly, they are looking back with hindsight. Yesterday, the owner of Fleetwood Town appeared in Court charged with financial crimes. He has not been convicted and people are saying the authorities should not have allowed him to pass the “fit and proper test” (FPT). At the time he bought the club there was nothing to suggest he was not fit and proper and indeed the mere existence of criminal charges is not reason to say he is not fit and proper given he has not been convicted of anything. The FPT can only be carried out on information known at the time it is applied. The “authorities”, do not as far as I am aware have the ability to travel forward in time and use hindsight.

It has repeatedly been said on social media that the FPT is not fit for purpose. I think this is partly because people do not understand what its purpose is or what the EFL or EPL can actually do, given they are limited to acting in accordance with English Law.

If say the leader of Russia, wanted to buy Derby County and purchased the same, the EFL (or EPL as appropriate) have no power to stop them doing so. The purchase of a company is governed by Company Law. So if Mr Putin bought the shares in Derby County, he in English Law owns the football club.

So, what is the FPT and what is the point of it. The FPT basically looks to see who is funding / owning the club and are they good for the money and of good character. So in my imaginary situation, what can the EFL do if they decide Mr Putin does not pass the FPT? They cannot legally prevent the takeover by Mr Putin as that is a matter governed by the Companies Act. What the EFL can do ultimately is not approve the takeover and as a final resort, they can remove the football share from Derby County. As they did in 2020 from Bury.

Withdrawing the football share would have the effect of expelling Derby from the EFL and ultimately, the may find themselves having to apply to re-join the football pyramid in the 10^th tier, the Midland League or similar. This is a league where generally gates of 100 people are considered good. Almost certainly it would mean the end of the club as it could not operate at that level and maintain the ground at Pride Park. Back in 2012, Darlington ended up in 9^th tier (for financial reasons) and had to move out of the Darlington Arena, and out of Darlington for several seasons.

If the EFL says someone has not passed their FPT and that person refuses to relinquish control of the club, then if the EFL removes the football share it effectively brings about the end of the club in football competitions. Thus bringing about the very situation the FPT was supposed to guard against!

So those calling for the FPT test to be stronger appear to fail to see that the consequences could be that more clubs go out of existence.

The FPT test in reality acts as no more than a check or an obstacle to someone running a club. It does not and cannot prevent someone buying a club. To think it does is to show a complete lack on English Law.

Football fans also need to look at themselves, its everyday on social media you see fans demanding their chairman spends more money, eg why doesn’t he put his hand in his pocket and buy x” OR “We need a bigger squad” etc. This is exactly what the owner of Derby County has done, and finally he reached a point when he can’t or won’t continue to throw good money after bad and turns off the tap of money. Fans then turn on the owner, calling him corrupt and saying it’s the EFL to blame for not doing enough in their FPT to stop such a person becoming the owner of the club.

Fans create huge pressures on their clubs to spend money chasing the unlikely dream of promotion, Europe etc. The reality is that only 3 or 4 clubs in a division n can achieve promotion. All the other clubs are not going to reap rewards for their excess spending and are heading like Derby and so many others to financial disaster.

In this respect the situation at Newcastle United is interesting. Mike Ashley operates on the basis the club will not spend money it does not have and insists on paying transfer fees upfront, rather than spreading the debt over several years. To be honest, this is a laudable approach and financially very prudent. The situation at Newcastle is much more complicated than that and the contempt shown by Mike Ashley towards the fans, with his refusal to do interviews, issuing false claims of taking cup competitions seriously etc cause huge resentment with all fans.

Also, he has not spent any money on ground maintenance or improvements and as such the stadium is looking shabby and run down. Even the corporate sections are looking shabby and run down and are not attractive to the prawn sandwich brigade, they running down the value of the club.

Derby County over speculated and paid the price. Newcastle United under Mike Ashley are spending the bare minimum to retain their place in the EPL and are letting facilities run down. It is clear Ashley is hoping someone will buy the club and have to pay for the refurbishment of facilities.

The situation at Orient a few years ago was again one of an owner stopping funding a loss making enterprise after losing £millions over the previous couple of seasons. The owner it has to be said tried to interfere in team selection and got through several managers. However, it should be remembered that the club, like all professional football clubs is a business. Owners of a business can run their business in any way they like. This seems to be something that many football fans fail to appreciate. The claims its “our” club not the owner’s club is emotional nonsense that football encourages because it breeds customer loyalty. You wouldn’t continue to shop at Tesco every week if you got awful produce at a high price. You would look around for a better grocery supplier. However, football promotes this idea of tribal loyalty from its fans and thus fans turn up week in week out even when the product is rubbish and you are treated like crap. An example of this is the huge crowds Newcastle continue to get despite the anger at the owner and the way he treats the fans with open contempt.

Back in the early days of football when players largely played for their local teams, it is understandable that people had a tribal loyalty. These days few clubs have local players and there is a large number of foreign mercenaries playing for teams that have no loyalty at all to their current team. These mercenaries demand a move when there is a sniff of an extra 50p a week from another club. The same is true of managers, and even owners. They have no loyalty to the business, but they want fans to have blind loyalty and to pay up their money every week.

This blind loyalty to a club is why fans are treated so much with contempt. The prices charged for football over the last 40 years for admission have risen far faster than inflation, but fans continue to pay stupid prices willingly.

This alone suggests the average football fan either is not discerning about the product or does not think about finances.

Most football clubs that get into financial trouble is because of overspending by the owner rather than because of any criminal or improper financial dealings. Yes they are some sharp accounting practices at some clubs in relation to the presentation of their accounts, especially in relation to Financial Fair Play (FFP) rules. This overspending is encouraged or even demanded by fans, until the proverbial hits the fan. Then the same fans blame the “authorities” for not stopping the owner buying the clubs years before, even though they have no such ability in English Law. For these powers to exist, the government would need to change the law before the football “authorities” could try to prevent such takeovers. This seems to escape the football fan who brainlessly lashes out at the EFL, EPL or FA instead

Another regular call when clubs like Derby get into financial trouble is that Manchester United, Man Chester city, Chelsea etc should bail them out. Again those making such calls seem to want to reward a club for its financial mismanagement. No one says Tesco should bail out Mr Patel’s corner shop when it is losing money. So why should football businesses bail out other badly run businesses?

Another cry is that the EFL / EPL should run/ finance a club that is in administration until a new buyer can be found. Firstly, those making such calls fail to think about where such money would come from. It would have to come from the other clubs in such competitions. This would penalise the well run clubs who have managed their finances accordingly and reward the profligate club in administration by making the well run clubs pay to bail out the profligate. This would mean that effectively clubs are paying their rivals to compete against them and allowing the profligate club to pay wages for players the well run club decided were too expensive.

This is without the clear and obvious conflict of interest there would be is the EFL / EPL were to run a team or teams in that competition

This is a long rambling post, but to sum it up I am trying to say:

1. Football Clubs are businesses and the owner can run them as he wishes. He takes the rewards or bails out the loss making club.

2. When a club ends up in administration, it is the owner who loses most if not all of the money he has put into the club.

3. Fans are merely customers and do not have any right to demand an owner run a club the way they want. They can however, vote with their wallets, i.e. stop funding the club if you do not like the way it is being run.

4. The EFL / EPL can do little under English Law to stop someone buying a business. Their ultimate sanction is to remove the football share which will cause the immediate and inevitable collapse of the business – they very thing fans want to prevent happening.

So, what can the EFL / EPL do? The first thing would be to tighten up the FFP rules and for the EFL / EPL to work together and end the situation where if a club breaches FFP in the EFL, but gets promotion to the EPL then do not get punished until or if they are eventually relegated. Sanctions should apply whichever division a club are in.

The FFP investigations need to move at a faster pace, to try to reduce the time lag between the breaches of the FFP rules and the punishment

Punishments need to be made far more sever, both in financial terms and in terms of points deductions. For example make a minimum 30 point deduction for breaching FFP, with the ability to increase the punishment depending on the seriousness of the breach.

Allow the points deduction to be used over more than one season – for example if a club ends a season (in which they were sanctioned for breaching FFP rules) on 50 points and if they had 10 points deducted they would be relegated, then the remaining 20 points deduction would apply the following season. Thus making the punishments so swingeing that clubs would not risk breaching the FFP rules. In addition the rules on FFP need to be tightened up to allow clubs less wriggle room.

Taking The Knee At Football & The Crowd Response

There are so many issues to discuss here, and I am not going to attempt to cover them all in this blog.

Let me start by saying that I oppose racism by anyone. Racist behaviour can be by anyone towards someone of a different race.

I wrote a personal block about this in August of 2020. That blog post was entitled Black Lives Matter. It is the story of one of my ancestors, the son/ grandson of a freed black slave, so the whole topic is one that has a real and personal link to my family history. This is perhaps not the case for many of those who rioted in the UK last summer “in support” of a movement founded on the death of a convicted criminal in the USA. I urge you to read (or re-read) that article I wrote.

Out of that protest came the sight of footballers adopting the gesture of the Black Lives Matter movement in taking the knee. This is a Marxist organisation who have on their website  a demand to

 “defund the police”

and also contains the outrageous and false statements

The police were born out of slave patrols. We cannot reform an institution built upon white supremacy.

Now it is clear there are issues currently involving footballers and the abuse they face on social media. it is not just racist abuse, there are all sorts of abuse handed out by keyboard warriors. Most of it is unfair and a lot is very offensive. No reasonable minded person can condone such behaviour or to justify why anyone should have to receive such abuse.

If, footballers want to highlight this issue, then no one can deny it is a just cause, but one may question why footballers choose to make the gesture of a Marxist organisation that want to defund one of the pillars of a democratic society. This causes many people to take offence at the gesture, not the issue. Imagine if instead the footballers chose to use a different gesture, say a Nazi salute, It won’t happen? Well it did on many occasions

England famously doing Nazi Salute v Germany

Ireland doing Nazi Salute

Derby County doing Nazi Salute

These three images are only a sample of the occasions it was done. It was pre World War 2 and was supported by the footballing authorities, rather like the current gesturing by players is.

It is not surprising that football fans object to players making gestures associated with a Marxist organisation whose views they oppose. It would be the same if the players made Nazi salutes instead.

If players want to indulge in political gestures, then they must accept that not everyone shares their political views. To hear current England manager, Gareth Southgate complaining that his players should not have to face distractions from football such as the fans booing the taking the knee gesture is rather ironic. There is a simple way of the players not having to deal with the distraction of the booing, and that is to stop making a gesture which is associated with a Marxist political organisation.

Again, Gareth Southgate talks about some people not getting the message. Has it never occurred to him, that it is him and his players making gestures in support of a Marxist organisation that wants to defund the police and talks about white supremacy,  that have not got the message.

As I said earlier, no reasonable person can object to players wanting to take action to end the online abuse they sadly get. However, making the gesture associated with the Marxist Black Lives Matter movement is not the way to do this. It offends a large section of the fans and as a result the intent of the players is lost in the row over booing.

I am sure this article will upset people on both sides of the debate, some will see me as supporting “racists” by not condemning the booing of the players, others will see me as supporting the players by not sufficiently condemning the players. To all those people on either side, I would refer them to the quote often mistakenly attributed to Voltaire

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”

The players have the right to protest , but equally the crowd have the right to express their views. I  will always defend the right of both parties to express their views.

Perhaps the way forward is for footballers to find a way to express their views that does not use gestures associated with a Marxist organisation  who want to defund the police and preach about white supremacy. The actions are not supporting their cause, and indeed, sadly seem to give more motivation to the keyboard warriors to anonymously abuse players. It is of course not the case that those booing the gestures are necessarily the offensive keyboard warriors.

Sometimes, to win the war, it is necessary to change tactics. That is not an admission of weakness or failure, rather it is a sign of strength.

Black Lives Matter

The story below of James Brown and his non violent protests and bravery when facing persecution and prosecution for standing up for his beliefs in the face of racism and an establishment determined to silence criticism.

I make no apologies for publishing this article from the Isle of Man Today newspaper website. Read the article and I will explain more about why I have chosen to publicise the story.

James Brown – a pioneer for many reasons

The scenes in the House of Keys in 1864 were worthy of a big-budget historical drama.

On March 16 that year, a certain James Brown, the mixed-race grandson of an American slave, stood before the House charged with contempt for a series of ’scandalous and libellous’ articles.

The defendant – a newspaper editor, activist and soon-to-be political prisoner – offered absolute defiance.

’Who, may I ask, do you represent?’, Brown asked the unelected clique of landowners.

’Not the people. No, you represent yourselves.’

Contempt, the members discovered, didn’t cover it.

Brown did everything he could to aggravate his audience. He dared the court to hang him from the top of Castle Rushen.

’You may imprison me,’ he said, ’but I tell you fearlessly that I will never retract one iota of what I have said or published.’ He was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment.

Last week UK Chancellor Rishi Sunak lent his support to the ’Banknotes of Colour’ campaign, which will see non-white figures appear on British banknotes and coins for the first time.

The news arrived in the same week as the 205th anniversary of the birth of James Brown – if his story was better known, perhaps he might find a place on the shortlist.

Despite the Isle of Man’s claim to the ’oldest continuous parliament the world’, its members were not elected by the people until 1867.

Brown’s imprisonment began a series of events which saw the old order crumble. By the time the dust had settled, the House of Keys was finally elected by public vote.

It was a watershed moment in the road to democracy in the Isle of Man and an extraordinary event in black British history.

Even without the climactic events of 1864, Brown was a rare example of black social mobility in Victorian Britain.

Born into the black and mixed-race community in Liverpool in 1815, he moved to the Isle of Man with his Manx-born wife Eleanor in 1846 and eked out a living as a jobbing printer.

He went on to make his reputation – and a good living – as a newspaper proprietor.

When the first issue of the Isle of Man Times was published in 1861, he was living with his extended family in a large townhouse in Upper Douglas.

The colour of his skin might have set him apart but Brown fitted perfectly into a Manx tradition of radical journalists campaigning for political reform.

The Times made its intentions clear from the outset by demanding a democratically elected House of Keys: ’How much longer will [the Manx people] be content to have no voice in the working of those laws which are to bind them and their children after them?’

He stood on the shoulders of campaigners like Robert Fargher (pictured), founder of rival newspaper Mona’s Herald, who was imprisoned three times in his campaigns for popular elections.

When Fargher died in August 1863, the reform movement needed a champion. It was James Brown who stood up when the moment came.

On paper it was a simple thing. Douglas Town Commissioners needed new powers to manage the infrastructure of a town which was rising to become the de facto capital.

But it cut to the heart of the democratic problem in the Isle of Man: the directly elected Commissioners were overruled by the unelected House of Keys, whose members refused to ’invest individuals, who are merely tradesmen, with royal authority’.

The Times didn’t hold back in its reporting: ’The Town Commissioners and the inhabitants of Douglas should at once represent to the British Government the tyranny exercised by the House of Keys, and apply henceforth that the members of that house shall be elected by the people, so that taxation and representation may go together.’

This was one of the articles which saw Brown summoned to the House of Keys.

Brown’s ’Diary of a Political Prisoner’, which he wrote while incarcerated, was rediscovered by chance in 2008.

It is reprinted in full in the fascinating book ’The Struggle for Manx Democracy’ by Dr Robert Fyson, which deserves a place on every Manx bookshelf.

One of the highlights of the diary is Brown’s first-hand account of his day in court: he insisted that the members had no right to put him on trial and spent more than an hour reading out the offending articles, one of which ended with a call to arms: ’Let the people at once, this very day, meet and protest against the despotic power exercised by these self-elected noodles’.

Brown was the right man in the right place. You get the sense that he knew what he was doing – provoking the members into making a fatal mistake. They took the bait and sent him to Castle Rushen.

Brown’s advocate appealed to the British courts, which ruled that the House of Keys, sitting in its legislative capacity, had no powers to commit Brown for contempt.

He was triumphantly released from Castle Rushen having served seven weeks of his six-month sentence. When he sued for damages for wrongful imprisonment, the members who had convicted him were forced to pay their share of his compensation.

They were out of pocket and out of time. The pressure for an elected House of Keys had been building for decades from the British Government and the Manx public.

The rotten system had no defenders left after this humiliation. The self-selecting clique of legislators finally submitted to democratic elections. The first took place in 1867, with roughly 40 percent of the adult male population eligible to vote.

Despite his key role in the campaign for reform, Brown was never a hugely popular figure.

His position as a newspaper proprietor left him exposed to the petty jealousies and rivalries of the trade; other papers didn’t celebrate his victories to avoid endorsing one of their competitors.

He also faced racist abuse, with some of the worst examples coming from an unlikely source: Mona’s Herald published outrageous attacks on Brown in the aftermath of his triumph.

There was a deeper story underneath: Brown wasn’t the only editor put on trial by the Keys on that fateful day in 1864.

Also charged with contempt was the son of the pioneering campaigner Robert Fargher, who struck a very different note before the House: after apologising and promising to retract his stories, he was released with a warning.

In hindsight, Fargher had missed the chance to fulfil his father’s life’s work. So when Mona’s Herald attacked Brown, it seems that the owners weren’t so much reflecting public opinion as stoking a family feud.

For his part Brown toasted the shining example of Robert Fargher for the rest of his life. Fargher’s descendants, however, didn’t always show Brown the same courtesy.

Profound democratic change is never instantaneous; in this case it was decades in the making. But between March 1864 and June 1865, Brown struck an irrevocable blow against the unelected House of Keys and set the island on the road to democracy.

But when the crucial moment arrived, it took James Brown to fearlessly speak truth to power

He wasn’t the first editor to be imprisoned in the Isle of Man, nor would he be the last – that distinction went to Samuel Norris in 1916, at least as the Examiner went to press. There were many more battles to come in the fight for reform.

http://www.iomtoday.co.im/article.cfm?id=57074&headline=James%20Brown%20-%20a%20pioneer%20for%20many%20reasons&sectionIs=news&searchyear=2020&cat=Local%20People

Right, hopefully you have read the story of James Brown, a man who was prepared to and did go to prison for his beliefs.

Despite all the unfair treatment he suffered , he never resorted to violence or physically destroying property.

Unlike other more violent protestors, James Brown actually succeeded in changing the law. Very rapidly after his stand, the Isle of Man introduced proper free and fair elections with universal suffrage.

As a lawyer, I admire his bravery in the face of a kangaroo court in reading all the “offending” articles out so the court had to hear them again, and they were entered verbatim into the court record.

“Stand Firm Brave Defender”

There is another reason for my publishing this story….James Brown is a direct ancestor of mine. It is an honour to be a descendant of such a brave and honourable man who effected change by peaceful means.

Headless Chickens and Pointless Hate

So, its been over 12 months since the Referendum on leaving the European Union. Its been a momentous time. In the time since then we have had the prime minister ( Cameron) resign and a new prime minister in May installed. A Labour party that seemed in meltdown after the local elections. A Snap general election a few weeks later that saw Labour run the Tories a close second leaving the loser Corbyn feeling powerful and the winner May trying to survive like a boxer on the ropes.

However, put that to one side and lets look at what the vote to leave the EU has meant to each of us in practice. During the referendum campaign we were told that a vote to leave would be disastrous and we would need an emergency budget, businesses would leave Britain immediately and basically the world as we Bits know it would end.

So, what has happened? Well the FTSE has risen, showing there is confidence in  British businesses still.

What businesses have fled Britain as a result of the Brexit vote? To date, none have .  It is true that we have not left yet, but no business has said it is leaving the UK. There is a lot of sabre rattling, but so far no action.

What  about the exchange rate? It is correct that it has fallen against the dollar and the Euro. Is this a problem? It means it is cheaper for our businesses to export goods, so should mean our businesses are able to sell more abroad. It also means that imported goods will be more expensive, thus encouraging British consumers to buy British, Another win for the UK economy. Obviously, it means your holiday money doesn’t go as far, so holidays abroad are dearer. Again, there may be a positive in this in that it may encourage more spending in the UK as people have staycations either by choice or forced by financial issues.

So, despite the headless chickens and the scare stories, it seems that in practice little has changed so far. We still travel to and from Europe and despite what some people have you think, we still will after Brexit is complete. We travelled to and  from Europe before the EU was formed. The only practical difference is that we may walk through a different channel at passport control.

So despite all the rhetoric and hate speech by people on both sides, no one has taken anyone’s future away and in practice little has happened. The whole EU issue is the biggest red herring out there. It is sad to read peoples hate filled posts on social media, in the papers and listen to hate filled rants on the radio about this topic.

So, let me now turn to the “negotiations” to leave the EU. There seems to be a lot of media posturing on both sides. Both sides seem to be trying to debate in the media rather than with each other face to face.

Whether you are a Remainer or a Brexiteer, it is in the interests  of Great Britain to support the negotiators on behalf of the UK. Why I hear the Remainers ask? You want Britain to be part of the EU ( I am not going to re hash those arguments). 

Let us assume for a minute that at some time in the future Britain decides it wants to change its view and remain/ re-join the EU. If Britain does not leave the EU now, then our negotiating position with EU in any future matters becomes very weak. The strength of our hand ( and that of every other country) in any negotiations is they will leave the EU. If we now do not leave the EU, then the rest of the EU will know our threats are idle ones as we had the chance to leave and bottled it. We become a neutered party at any EU negotiations.

If we do leave the EU and then choose at a later time to re-join, there will be negotiations to re-join. If we negotiate a weak position  on Brexit, then we have no hand with which to negotiate in future and as such we will end up with a poor deal.

If however we negotiate a strong deal on Brexit, then when negotiating to re-join we will be in a strong position and have a good hand to renegotiate the terms of our re-entry.

It therefore seems to me that the best interests of Brexiteers and Remainers are served at this stage by a strong negotiation on Brexit and getting the best possible deal.

Why Are The Toys Thrown Out of the Pram?

 

So, we have had a referendum and the population have decided they want to leave the EU. A straight forward question was asked, do you want to remain in the EU or to Leave the EU. The options on the ballot paper were remain or leave. There was no other options and like all elections in this country, the voter does not have to give a reason.

In this country we generally run our elections (and referendums) on a first past the post system. We did have a referendum about changing the voting system a few years ago and the current system was the the preferred choice.

In an election with only 2 choices, there is no question of other voting systems, one option will get more votes than the other. So, you would have thought that it was simple in a democracy that one outcome is chosen by a majority of the voters. Sadly the reaction of some of the remain voters (and I make it clear, it is only some of them) is so anti democratic it is incredible.

Reading on social media, it is mainly younger people who have reacted in this way, perhaps goaded on by some senior politicians and commentators.

Those who voted leave have been called many abusive terms, including:

Racist

Bigoted

Low Life

Scum

Ill Informed

Thick

Disgusting

Anti Democratic

Neanderthal

It has been said that the older generation:

Have Destroyed the Country

Have Destroyed the future for young people

Have Destroyed Europe

Have Acted selfishly

Know nothing about Europe or the EU

Are Stupid

Are out of touch

What those making such allegations and throwing such abuse have failed to grasp is that the majority of those who voted did so to leave the EU.

Now democracy means that you accept the majority decision whether that is for you or against you. You do not have to like the decision of the majority, but it is the decision of the majority.

As well as the abuse and insults we also have a petition calling for the government to hold another referendum, and then presumably another one ad nauseum until the majority vote to remain. Now, ignoring the decision of the majority in a 2 option election is not democracy, but this seems to have passed by those remain supporters. Many of them talk about the EU having protected democracy and our rights, but then they ignore democracy and the rights of the majority!

Another thing that intrigues me about this is the fact that it is predominantly younger people acting in this way. I have many friends young and old who voted remain and who accepted the decision reluctantly.

I think it is significant and a reflection on older generations that the younger element of voters have behaved in a way that can only be described as throwing their toys out of the pram. Why ?

Well for many years now, probably the last 30 years, it has been frowned on to discipline children ( no I do not mean corporal punishment). We have moved increasingly to a world where children are treated as little princes and princesses who can do no wrong. Children are not disciplined for doing wrong, or even for disobeying openly their parents. This results in children and young people growing up being used to getting their own way at every turn.

For many of the younger voters, it has come as a shock to realise they can’t get their own way this time. Hence the tantrums and the throwing of the toys out of the pram. The older generations have to take a lot of the blame for having raised a generation who think the world revolves around them and their desires.

As the dust settles on the referendum results, the more sensible people will realise the sun still rose and set on the United Kingdom on both Friday and on Saturday and that in reality very little has changed. In fact absolutely nothing has changed as Britian has not given the relevant Article 50 Notification to the EU and even after it does there will be a period of at least 2 years  ( extendable by agreement) before things change in reality, if at all.

Britain will still be trading with the EU and vice versa. Britains will still travel to the EU and vice versa. In reality the only difference will be you go through the opposite channel at passport control. This used to happen, and will still happen. There are no border controls within the EU, so once you have entered the EU you will not notice any difference. Indeed now when you enter the EU you have to show your passport , as you will after the UK leave the EU. We never needed visas to travel to EU countries before the open border policy was introduced and there is no reason to think we will afterwards.

There were so many scare stories (and lies / false information) spread during the referendum campaign that it was hard to find what was true. Some of those supporting Brexit for example suggested that leaving the EU would mean we were no longer bound by the European Convention on Human Rights and would no longer be subject to adverse rulings by the European Court of Human Rights. Both are nonsense as the Convention and the Court are nothing to do with the EU. Indeed the Convention was formed in the aftermath of the Second World War and Britain was a driving force behind this. The Convention came into effect before even the European Coal and Steel Community, which was the forerunner to the EU. So its nonsense to suggest Brexit would stop Britain being subject to the Convention or the Court. We would have to withdraw our signature to the Convention for that to happen, and it will not happen.

I know I have criticised young people in this thread, as well as the older generation. Well, one member of the younger generation posted this on Facebook today. A gesture of

reconciliation towards those who voted on different sides. Only to be told by a member of the older generation and a practicing Christian that it was too early! This was posted on the younger person’s wall and not in anyway directed at any one person. The said member of the older generation took it on himself to post the response prolonging divide and hatred. Someone who has clearly forgotten the teachings of his religion about loving thy neighbour and about turning the other cheek. Another example of the older generation making the situation we find ourselves in worse.

Whilst I am on my soapbox ( again), let me mention the opinion polls. In both the last General Election and this referendum, the opinion polls generally called the result the opposite way to the outcome. You may wonder why that is. Is it because the polls are  conducted in a defective way? It may be, but I think there is another reason for it. The way the election and referendum campaigns were conducted by many on the left of the political spectrum has been to harass and bully and shout down those who hold views they disagree with.

For many years for example, many people have been concerned about the rising tide of immigration. However the reaction of many on the left ( not all I hasten to add) has been to  shout down those concerns as being those of “racists” or “little Englanders”. Very often those concerns have not been racist at all, but borne out of a concern for the effect it is having on the country and the lives of the individuals. Sometimes the views were borne out of racism, but sometimes they weren’t. Instead of their being a sensible debate about the issues, people were silenced by bullying, name calling and insults.

This silences any form of sensible debate about people’s concerns. Whether right or wrong, people are concerned about issues. To bully people into silence does not solve the problem, it just stifles debate. The writing has been on the wall for many years as the rise of UKIP has shown. The more those on the left tried to stifle debate, the stronger and more popular parties like UKIP became. Nigel Farage for all his faults (and there are many) at least gave a voice to the immigration issue and to the EU questions. Foolishly those on the left and indeed many in the Conservative Party as well failed to heed this warning and continued to shout down anyone who raised concerns re EU or immigration.

It was the same with anyone who professed support for the Conservative Party as opposed to the Labour Party. They were shouted down. Rather than deal with the issues people raised about why for example they did not support the Labour Party, the left preferred to bully and insult those who did not agree with them.

No where was this more evident than in the run up to the last election when opinion poll after opinion poll suggested a Labour majority, but on election day the Conservatives won with a majority of seats. Why? I would venture to suggest those who were voting Conservative simply kept quiet and voted Conservative for fear of being heckled and shouted down by the bullying behaviour of many on the left. People would not say they were going to vote Conservative for fear of the abuse they would get. Debate is one thing, but the abuse is something different. The accusations of the Conservative party as being bullying, the party of hate, the nasty party etc simply silences their supporters in the debate, but the election is a secret ballot and those conservative supporters ensured their voices were heard.

Exactly the same thing happened in the referendum campaign. The majority were heckled and abused for their views, so kept their heads down and did their business where it matters, at the polling station.

Unless and until there is a realisation that the tactics of the Unions in the early 1970s at mass meetings where votes were by a show of hands will not work when there is a secret ballot then there is I would suggest going to be an increasing swing away from the left which is a shame. In particular, the lack of public debate allows the growth of extreme ideology because it is not challenged by debate. Bullying people to keep out of a debate only pushes those views underground. If your opponent is wrong, then this should be exposed by debate and argument, not by bullying and intimidation in public.

So, it may be that some of the younger generation have thrown their toys out of the pram and behaved in a very undemocratic way, but a large part of the blame for this situation must come from the generations that brought them up and treated them like spoiled individuals who expect always to get their own way.

 

Final thought, one of the things we have heard since the result is announced is some people claiming to regret voting Leave, one person for example said they voted leave but never thought it would happen so they voted leave when actually they wanted to remain in the EU. Whether this is genuine or not I do not know, but if it is it beggars belief at the intelligence of some people. What do they think a vote is for?

Autoglass : An Apology For The Title of My Previous Post

You may recall that I made another post about the continuing saga of the cowboys at Autoglass and their totally inept and incompetent staff. Their inability to replace a window in a mainstream car because they are incapable of ordering the right parts and are unable to send technicians who are competent to do the job.

Last night I made a post entitled Autoglass – The No Service Cowboys . Following events today and communication from Autoglass I realise the post I made was totally wrong and unfair on Autoglass. I should have entitled my post last night

Autoglass – The Lying No Service Cowboys

After posting my blog last night, I posted a link to it on twitter and also made a post on the Autoglass Facebook page linking to the blog post.

This morning I received a Facebook message purportedly from a CHLOE at Autoglass, apologising for the situation and promising to look into it and get back to me today.

Guess what then happened? Yes….. absolutely nothing at all. No contact whatsoever from Chloe or anyone else at Autoglass. They have my 2 twitter account details, they have my Facebook details and they have my personal email address. They therefore have numerous different ways of making contact.

Sadly Autoglass tell lies – repeatedly. Given the history of their being strangers to the truth, their staff signing documents as the customer despite the customer being present and available to sign the documents, their false promises etc.…I have to say I was not surprised that Autoglass promise something and then do not deliver it. They have an excellent track record in this.

What puzzles me is why the lying cowboys at Autoglass bothered to contact me to make promises they do not intend to honour.

If you read the previous blog posts about Autoglass I have made,

Autoglass Better at Forgery Than Car Window Repairs

Autoglass: An Apology (They are an apology for a reputable company)

Autoglass the no service cowboys

You will recall that I received communications via their twitter account @autoglass that contradicted the advice I was given by Legal Counsel  from Autoglass and which was repeated despite my pointing out that Legal Counsel had given contradictory advice. The advice from Legal Counsel was correct and that from the social media operative was completely wrong in every respect. The person operating the twitter account claimed to be called…CHLOE.

Yes, that is right , the same name that the person sending the Facebook message used.  I wonder if there is such a person as can anyone be so incompetent and dishonest and remain in a job…..unless of course their being dishonest and telling lies is the purpose of their employment at Autoglass.

It seems to me that perhaps the name CHLOE is a generic name for their customer responses and it is an acronym standing for

Communicating

Huge

Lies

Only

Everytime

So Autoglass, why did you go out of your way to contact me this morning promising to give me a response today and then not deliver on your promise?

You have lied yet again

I also note that Autoglass have deleted my post off their Facebook page. Seems like they want to hide the truth. A bit like previously when they tried to communicate via twitter direct message because they have something to hid from public scrutiny perhaps?

I have no doubt that some of you may think I am being unfair on Autoglass. When I spoke recently with my insurers about the saga with Autoglass, they told me that they have a dedicated team dealing with the problems arising from Autoglass!

The respected BBC Watchdog programme have even produced an episode dealing with the lying cowboys at Autoglass. You can watch the programme online here It is a most illuminating programme and one that shows I am not the only one that thinks that Autoglass are lying cowboys.

That episode of Watchdog was broadcast on 25 June 2015, some 11 months ago. In response to the programme, the lying cowboys at Autoglass issued a statement that said

“…we take any customer complaint extremely seriously and always try to learn from any mistakes we make. We have made contact with the customers you have brought to our attention to apologise to them personally and to resolve any outstanding issues…”

It seems that Autoglass do not learn from any mistakes they make. They continue to lie and to deceive their customers and say they will do things then fail to do what they say.

I wonder what the excuse Autoglass will come out with for todays broken promise?

Given they still have not responded to any of the previous complaints, I am guessing they wont provide any explanation. Still, I am sure the Financial Ombudsman Service will be interested in the fact that not only do Autoglass not respond to complaints at all, but they do not follow their own complaints procedure and they tell lies to complainants in response to complaints posted online.

Perhaps I should run a sweepstake as to what the next lie the cowboys at Autoglass will tell?

A quick google search reveals the following reviews for Autoglass

Wrong glass twice and 5 weeks wait.

I went to autoglass as my insurance company referred me to them. I described to the technician which glass was broken and heard nothing for 5 days. I rang again the week after no reply to my query. The third week they attended, wrong glass they took a photo of the shattered glass. OK these things happen 2 weeks later they ring me to arrange appointment. I discussed with them the glass which is broken and guess what!!! Wrong glass again.
I am now in week 5 and ask the technician to get a manager to phone me, he said they would but they did not. I rang Kia directly in the afternoon and picked up the glass the next day, got independent glass fitter to install. So within 2 days I got the glass and had it installed independently. Autoglass need to get some customer liaison

 

Sounds familiar?

Ignored

After querying why the operative apparently deliberately cracked my windscreen my email was ignored. I have had no further contact despite sending another email.
The chat line operator also offered no help.

There are so many to choose from

Ignored

After querying why the operative apparently deliberately cracked my windscreen my email was ignored. I have had no further contact despite sending another email.
The chat line operator also offered no help.

More?

Poor Communication, Service and Customer Care

My Passenger Window was Smashed and I was placed in contact with Autoglass through my Insurance. The First available appointment was in Nine days time. This was an Unacceptable time to wait as the use of the Car was critical.
A complaint was placed and I was informed I was a Priority and that the waiting time would be reduced to Six days. I was also offered a Temporary fit of a Plastic Glass which would allow the Car to be used.I was informed that I would be contacted asap with an appointment time. There was no further contact from Autoglass at this point.
I contacted my Insurance Company to complain and they offered to contact Autoglass on my behalf to investigate.
Soon after this call Autoglass confirmed to my Insurance Company that a Fitter would be around to fit the Temporary glass prior to correct glass being fitted on the original appointment date, being Nine days from the first contact from Autoglass.A day and time was verbally corresponded to me via my Insurance Company however no email confirmation was sent by Autoglass. Due to the appointment conflicting with my Business opening hours I was forced to close my premises in order to ensure that I was available for the Temporary fit appointment.
On the day prior to the Temporary fit appointment I contacted Autoglass as I was concerned that I had not received any official confirmation of the appointment for the following day.
Autoglass responded that there was no appointment scheduled other that the original appointment and that they could not explain for the lack of notes attached to my complaint put forward by my Insurance Company.
I again complained to Autoglass directly and it was at this point the Excess Fee charge was removed to acknowledge the Nine day delay.
Finally the day came for the fitting and the Autoglass fitter was prompt and fitted the glass quickly.
The Glass fitted was not like for like as my care has privacy glass. This had been something I had asked about prior to the appointment as I wanted confirmation that it would be the same a before the incident. The Autoglass Operator I discussed this with assured they had placed my requirement on my appointment notes. It was explained by the fitter that this was ‘an after sales product’ and was not part of the arrangement the service Autoglass offered.
I made my Insurance company aware and they immediately looked to rectify this with an alternative supplier.
I am still awaiting contact from Autoglass with a compensation offer for all the failings that have been acknowledged by Autoglass on my final contact with them. Guess what…. this was over a week from writing this Review.
Autoglass fail with the Co-ordinating of their Service process along with their Customer Care so Badly that I would be Embarrassed to be associated with them

Still more?

Terrible

Cancelled appointments, lack of communication, problems with billing…just a nightmare from start to finish. Trying to communicate via email seems impossible as they don’t respond.
This should of been quick, simple and pain free. Far from it.

The list is seemingly endless

Bad service

Two home visits broken tags on windscreen.Two visits to Croydon depot. Still had problems. Head office never reply to my complaint .Had to do it twice. 16 April till 5 May

 

Those are just a sample selection of reviews posted in the last 8 days. There seems to be a pattern here. It also seems to confirm what my Insurance company told me about the problems there were having with the cowboys at Autoglass.

One really can only come to the conclusion that Autoglass really do not care at all about their customers and that the customer complaints procedure they post on their website saying the following is merely window dressing and meant to tick boxes rather than being something Autoglass subscribe to

Make a complaint

Did we get it wrong?

You should receive excellent service from Autoglass^® as we always aim
to do our best; however there are times when things go wrong.

If you have a complaint, we will take it seriously, work hard to resolve the
problem and do everything possible to make any necessary improvements
to our policies, processes and procedures.

Please make us aware of your complaint using one of the ways listed below and an experienced Customer Service Specialist will be happy to help you.

Here’s how to get in touch:

By phone

Call us on 0800 011 3896. (We’re open Monday to Friday, 8:30am-5pm, and on Saturday 8:30am-12pm)

Email

Our email address is customer.services@autoglass.co.uk

Letter

Send your letter to our Customer Service Management team at:
Autoglass^®
1 Priory Business Park
Cardington
Bedford
MK44 3US

Fax

Send your fax to the Customer Service Management team on 01234 279494

What will happen with your complaint?

Autoglass^® operates a single step complaint process. This means that once we’ve provided a decision to you, if you are unhappy with our decision you can choose to refer your complaint directly to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS).

As part of our complaints promise we will:

• Treat you fairly.
• Have a dedicated expert to take responsibility and deal with your complaint.
• Use your experience and feedback to make our service and products better.

If you’re unhappy with the outcome or we’ve been unable to resolve your complaint within 8 weeks you may ask the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) to carry out an independent review.

You can contact the FOS in these ways:
Financial Ombudsman Service
South Quay Plaza
183 March Wall
London
E14 9SR

0300 123 9123 (free from most mobiles)
0800 023 4567 (free from landlines)

You can send an email to:
complaint.info@financial-ombudsman.org.uk

Or you can log on to their website:
www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk

 

I think this complaints process was written by Hans Christian Andersen with fairy tales like

You should receive excellent service from Autoglass^® as we always aim
to do our best

Clearly Autoglass’ s best is not good enough. It is a million miles away from being even an acceptable service.

an experienced Customer Service Specialist will be happy to help you.

That will be the Customer Service Specialists that do not contact you I presume.

As part of our complaints promise we will:

• Treat you fairly.
• Have a dedicated expert to take responsibility and deal with your complaint.
• Use your experience and feedback to make our service and products better.

Words fail me. Even a politician seeking election would be ashamed to tell lies like this.

Elsewhere on their website they state:

Our complaints promise

At Autoglass® we strive to deliver an outstanding service to all our customers. We always aim to do our best; however there are times when things go wrong.

If you have a complaint, we will take it seriously, work hard to resolve the problem and do our very best to make any necessary improvements to our policies, processes and procedures.

Please make us aware of your complaint using one of the ways listed below and an experienced customer service specialist will be happy to help you.

I presume this is a comedy website, as this is a complete joke of a statement and couldn’t be further from my experience of these cowboys

So Autoglass, what are you going to do next? The ball is in your court.

Freedom Fighter or Terrorist or Both

For those who have been living incommunicado, Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela died on 5th December. Ironically his death was announced during the London premiere of the film about Nelson Mandela, the Long Walk to Freedom.

The World’s media and politicians have done what they do at the death of any famous person. Yes, the overdone hype and hysterical grief has been nauseating. Irrespective of who dies, the media seem unable to do anything other than go overboard about the death. This is even more so when one considers that the death of a 95 year old is not unexpected. The death of someone like Diana, Princess of Wales, was more shocking and newsworthy in that it was unexpected.

The out pouring of grief and tributes to Nelson Mandela portray a rather distorted view of his life and his achievements. There has been a large degree of airbrushing and manipulation of the truth.

He was released from prison in South Africa in 1990 after 27 years in prison. At the time of his release, South Africa was on the brink of a civil war on racial grounds. The Apartheid government was on the brink of being overthrown. The black movement was both powerful and divided. Powerful in that the apartheid government was clinging to power, and divided in that there was a lot of horrible infighting. Remember the Necklace murders?

Prior to and following his release from Prison, Mandela led the ANC in their negotiations towards free , fair elections in South Africa. He achieved the seemingly impossible in that between his release from prison in 1990 and his death in 2013 civil war did not break out in South Africa. To my mind that is an incredible achievement and that peaceful transition to majority rule in South Africa post 1990 is to be remembered.

His words of forgiveness and reconciliation after his release from prison are remembered by many

“Great anger and violence can never build a nation. We are striving to proceed in a manner and towards a result, which will ensure that all our people, both black and white, emerge as victors.” (Speech to European Parliament, 1990)

“Without democracy there cannot be peace.” (South Africa, May 9, 1992)

“Reconciliation means working together to correct the legacy of past injustice.”  (December 16, 1995)

“I can rest only for a moment, for with freedom come responsibilities, and I dare not linger, for my long walk is not yet ended.” (From Long Walk to Freedom, 1995)

“For to be free is not merely to cast off one’s chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.” (From Long Walk to Freedom, 1995)

“If you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to work with your enemy. Then he becomes your partner.” (From Long Walk to Freedom, 1995

NELSON MANDELA QUOTES

However, to remember him only for  these sound bites and his actions post 1990 is to airbrush out important parts of history.

ANTI APARTHEID MOVEMENT

Whilst Nelson Mandela was incarcerated for terrorism offences, others carried on the anti apartheid struggle. It is to underplay the work they all did if we give all the credit to Nelson Mandela. He himself never claimed the praise or the glory for the struggle against apartheid. He recognised the limited role he was able to play.

In the UK for example, we had the continuous protest outside South Africa House. (Incidentally a protest that would not be able to happen now under the latest legislation passed by recent Labour and Tory governments!), the trade unions, student unions etc. with their boycotting of companies that traded with South Africa – e.g. student boycotts of Barclay’s Bank. The sporting ban on teams going to South Africa or on musicians playing Sun City in South Africa.

Perhaps one of the things that did the most to raise awareness in the UK was the song by the Special AKA, “Free Nelson Mandela”. This song perhaps did more than anything in the previous 20 years to make the public aware of Nelson Mandela.

This of course is not to suggest that it was only because of those in the UK that Nelson Mandela was released.  The ending of apartheid was as a result of the efforts of people across the world and in particular in South Africa.

By the time Mandela was released from prison the tide had turned against the South African Government, and Mandela was effectively a charismatic figure head for the anti apartheid movement.

He was however, either shrewd enough or magnanimous to realise that bitterness and armed struggle was not the way to get black majority rule in South Africa. It is to his credit that he managed to prevent a civil war and bring about peaceful change. Virtually no other African country has undergone such a peaceful change to black majority rule / independence

TERRORIST

What cannot be ignored is the fact that Nelson Mandela remained to his death a convicted terrorist. Now of course one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. Mandela as part of his campaign against apartheid supported the use of violence and terrorism to achieve that end. It is clear that he was a thorn in the side of the authorities and they tried everything they could to stop him.

However, terrorism is not the appropriate response in my view. Ghandi in India brought about change by totally peaceful  methods. Mandela was not content to take peaceful action. He wanted to use violence and terrorism to force his will on others. There is nothing democratic about terrorism.

Mandela played a key role in bringing the ANC to the view that force had to be met with force if black liberation were ever to come to South Africa.  After calling for a general strike in May 1960, Mandela had vanished underground.  The strike attracted less support than Mandela hoped, and he began telling friends “the days of nonviolent struggle were over.”  In June 1960, Mandela proposed to the ANC executive the undertaking of an armed effort against the South African government: “The attacks of the the wild beast cannot be averted with only bare hands,” he said.  The ANC executive initially decided, however, that the time was not ripe to take up arms.
Eventually, Mandela’s arguments won over the ANC, which voted to establish a separate and independent military organ,

Umkhonto we Sizwe, or “Spear of the Nation” (or MK, for short).  In June 1961, Mandela sent to South African newspapers a letter warning that a new campaign would be launched unless the government agreed to call for a national constitutional convention.  Knowing that no such call would be forthcoming, Mandela retreated to the Rivonia hideout to began planning, with other supporters, a sabotage campaign.  The campaign began on December 16, 1961 when Umkhonto we Sizwe saboteurs lit explosives at an electricity sub-station.  Dozens of other acts of sabotage followed over the next eighteen months.  (Indeed, the government would allege the defendants committed 235 separate acts of sabotage.)  The sabotage included attacks on government posts, machines, and power facilities, as well as deliberate crop burning.

Mandela spent much of the early months of the sabotage campaign at the Rivonia safe-house, where he went by the name of “David.”  At Rivonia, Mandela met with other leaders to shape strategy and plan a possible future guerrilla war against the South African government.  His goal, he always said, was not to establish a government ruled by blacks, but to move to a multi-racial democracy that would abolish repressive laws that separated African families, restricted their travel, imposed curfews, and denied other basic human rights.  In February 1962, Mandela left South Africa to garner support from foreign governments for the goals of the ANC and to receive six months of military training is Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. 

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/mandela/mandelaaccount.html

 

It should not be forgotten that Nelson Mandela admitted to the acts of sabotage at his trial. It was therefore by his own words that he is a terrorist, not by the words of an unjust government.

The aims of Nelson Mandela and his colleagues to establish a multi racial democracy is one that today we would say is an honourable one. Back in the 1970s or early 1980s for example, the majority view regarding racism was very different.

One of the undoubted facts of history is that it is always written by the winners. Have you never thought how come the good guys always seem to win? So it is with Nelson Mandela, the history is written by those who opposed apartheid and so he is feted as some sort of saint and his past is airbrushed from history.

Indeed the quote I used earlier from his speech in 1990 to the European Parliament should be looked at again.

“Great anger and violence can never build a nation. We are striving to proceed in a manner and towards a result, which will ensure that all our people, both black and white, emerge as victors.” (Speech to European Parliament, 1990)”

Now, ask yourself how that sits with his acts of terrorism for which he was jailed?

 

History often distorts the truth. The reality is that Mandela had many great qualities, but he also had other less pleasant qualities.

The same is true of everyone. Indeed, the person I and many people regard as the greatest ever Britain, Winston Churchill is remembered as a great wartime leader and the man who saved Britain from Hitler and the Nazis. He was indeed a great wartime leader and it is his leadership that did help defeat Nazi Germany.

However, Churchill was also a person with some very unpleasant views.

For example, this on the use of chemical weapons. Something that would result in War Crime charges being brought today. Indeed it was partially the use of chemical weapons that resulted in the invasion of Iraq

I do not understand the squeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poisonous gas against uncivilised tribes.
Writing as president of the Air Council, 1919

Or how about his views on Ghandi and on India itself:

It is alarming and nauseating to see Mr Gandhi, a seditious Middle Temple lawyer, now posing as a fakir of a type well known in the east, striding half naked up the steps of the viceregal palace, while he is still organising and conducting a campaign of civil disobedience, to parlay on equal terms with the representative of the Emperor-King.
Commenting on Gandhi’s meeting with the Viceroy of India, 1931

(India is) a godless land of snobs and bores.
In a letter to his mother, 1896

Or how about his views on Racism in particular in the USA and Australia

I do not admit… that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America, or the black people of Australia… by the fact that a stronger race, a higher grade race… has come in and taken its place.
Churchill to Palestine Royal Commission, 1937

On Hitler in 1937:

One may dislike Hitler’s system and yet admire his patriotic achievement. If our country were defeated, I hope we should find a champion as admirable to restore our courage and lead us back to our place among the nations.”
From his Great Contemporaries, 1937

From the Guardian

Then there was his decision as home secretary to use troops against unarmed striking civilian miners at Tonypanddy in Wales.

These quotes/ views/ actions are like those of Nelson Mandela airbrushed out of history because they do not portray the image of the subject those who write the history want us to have.

All history is subjective and the truth is rarely fully told by any one party. Most people have a less pleasant side as well as the pleasant one people want you to remember- similarly with those portrayed as evil in history, there is usually a more palatable side to them as well.

 

One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter is a common statement.

Last night someone said to me

Mandela was a courageous freedom fighter who inspired South Africans to overthrow the evil Apartheid system.…..

Now, try changing a couple of names there

Osama Bin Laden was a courageous freedom fighter who inspired Muslims to (attempt to) overthrow the evil Western system….

Why is one deemed to be acceptable and one not to be? I would suggest it is because of your view on the “Evil” system, not because of your views on the actions.

You oppose the latter view and support the former? Why? Both used terrorism to support their views.  Thus you are not condemning terrorism because you think it was fine for Mandela to use terrorism to achieve his ends.

What you are doing is condemning Osama Bin Laden because his views were not the same as yours. If terrorism was fine for Mandela to use, then surely it is fine for Bin Laden to use as well?

Alternatively, terrorism was not an appropriate action for either party to use. We should be condemning terrorism no matter who uses it, irrespective of the cause behind it. As someone once said:

“Great anger and violence can never build a nation.”