Victimless

Good to see that politicians haven’t made any resolutions to talk more sense…

On BBC News today, there’s a story about plans to add the £15 “victim support” surcharge to lesser offences like speeding, driving and using a mobile, shoplifting etc. According to the politicians quoted, these are all crimes “with victims”.

Under the plans, a fine of £60 for speeding, using a mobile phone while driving or not wearing a seatbelt would be increased to £75.

Government officials deny the move amounts to a stealth tax.

They argue that such offences are not “victimless crimes”, saying thousands are killed or injured on Britain’s roads every year

Now I’m sorry, but how the scrambled fuck is speeding not a victim-less crime? And while I don’t like the offence, I don’t see how driving while using a mobile actually has a victim.

In both those cases, if your speeding or use of a mobile causes an accident (or worse) then it’s not the speeding or the use of a mobile that gets charged – it’s driving without due care and attention, death by dangerous driving, or one of the other offences I can’t currently remember.

If I’m caught speeding, the “victim” is me – I’m the one penalised by the action of the crime. If I’m not caught speeding, nothing whatsoever happens. I’ve not driven away from the scene of an accident, I’ve not harmed someone else, I’ve not broken, stolen, or conned something. I’ve just got to my destination faster.


Not An Emergency

As always, I despair of people’s idiocy when it comes to calling 999. (And regular posts and Twitters from Reynolds reinforce this too)

In this case, a woman calling 999 because her cat has been playing with string for two hours. I have no idea whatsoever what makes this an emergency in anyone’s mind (or what passes for a mind in this case) but I do think that anyone who thinks it’s an emergency deserve a punishment served up by a stun-gun.


Timing and Communication

The news today about the military buying 21 more Chinook helicopters “for use in Afghanistan” is – to me – a bit weird.

Fair enough, they’re being purchased, and that will help with troop movements and the like. Except even the most conservative estimates say the first ten won’t actually be “in theatre” (i.e. being used) until 2012 at the absolute earliest, and more like 2013/2014.

All of which doesn’t quite add up with the previous statements from Brown, Obama et al that the troops will start being pulled out of Afghanistan in – um – 2011.

So I wonder which date is more likely to be the correct one. My cynicism says it’s more likely to be the latter one.


Tiger Woods and Accenture

First of all I have to say that I really don’t give a tin shit about Tiger Woods, who he has (or hasn’t) shagged, or anything else about the situation. Not my business. Don’t know him, will never know him, don’t really care what he does with his life, wife, others, or anything else.

However, I did find it funny today that Accenture have decided that in light of his activities and revelations, Tiger Woods is no longer ‘the right representative’ for them.

For those who don’t know, Accenture used to be Arthur Andersen, a global outsourcing and consultancy company.

In my experience, consultancy companies come in all full of themselves and how great they are, fuck you up all over the place, charge extortionately for the privilege, and then screw off with the money, leaving a shitpile of fuckuppery behind them.

As such, I’d say that Tiger Woods right now is the perfect person to represent them…


Take Responsibility

Apparently, the EU is caling for a volume limit to be put on all MP3 players. A report last year warning that up to 10m people in the EU face permanent hearing loss from listening to loud music for prolonged periods.

Stories like this drive me mental. People need to take responsibility for their actions – not be told everything they can and can’t do. Fine, put a warning on the boxes (or even on the display when the volume goes past a certain level, as my Sony MP3 player already does) that loud volume for long periods fucks the hearing. But let people decide, and take that responsibility.

After all, these things are (or at least bloody well should be) down to personal choice. It’s not the MP3 players decision, it shouldn’t be a government/EU decision.  If someone decides that their music needs to be at absolute top volume all the time, fine, they’ll have issues in later life. Let them make the decision.


Places to avoid

If you were planning on going to Nottingham this coming weekend, this story is a pretty good explanation of why you really should change plans


Banks, Overdraft Charges, and Sanity

I’m sure I’m not the only person to actually be quite pleased that the banks won their case about overdraft charges this week – but it’s pretty hard to find anyone else who’s actually willing to say so. If the case had been lost by the banks, it would likely have ended up meaning that everyone had to pay a fee for having a bank account – and thus the people in credit subsidising those who weren’t.

I do, however, think that the banks take the piss on just how much they charge for going over the overdraft limit and so on. Fine, a fiscal penalty makes sense – but £30 per refused item? £15 for going over the limit? That’s a pisstake right there.

I can see the point of some of the people who were (rightly, in my opinion) furious with the banks for charging £30+ when they went 50p over their limit. That’s a punishment that’s out of proportion with the “crime”. As with many of these things, I would like to see some fuzzy limits in place, rather than rigid “10p over and you’re fined” limits. For example, if someone goes a couple of pounds past their limit – and these accidents can and do happen, it doesn’t take much for an unexpected item to drive you close to (or over) that limit on occasion – then they shouldn’t be charged. That policy shouldn’t be publicised as such, but would (again, in my opinion) help provide a far better response from customers.

Yes, you will always get the people who take the piss out of a system like that. But if you’re going to have that bit of fuzz round the edge of the limit, it’s more likely to benefit than hinder. If I’d gone (for example) £3 over my overdraft limit, I’d probably take far more note of not being charged than of being charged. It might make me think “Blimey, that’s reasonable” – or even just “Ah, they’ve fucked up and not noticed” – but at least I wouldn’t be getting pissed off with the bank and ranting about it to all and sundry.

If you go tens (or hundreds, or thousands) of pounds past your agreed overdraft though, then you should expect to pay. I don’t have an issue with the fact that people are charged extra when they’ve done that. That’s just business on the part of the banks. And if someone’s so stupid they don’t read the terms and conditions, or think they won’t get charged, then (as always, in my opinion) then they’re not really fit to have a bank account in the first place. Take some fucking responsibility for your actions.

This year, as I’ve said before, hasn’t been a great one for me, workwise. I did end up over my overdraft for a while, and I did get charged for it. Things are back to normal now, and I’m back in credit. But I didn’t object to the charges (other than their extortionate levels) because I’d got myself in that position – one could argue that fate and shit luck had a part to play, but that’s by the by – and I knew I’d get charged.  The only part that rankled was that I’d tried hard to fix things and extend that overdraft limit well before the situation arose, but fell foul of long-standing problems with my bank that I keep on being assured have been fixed, only to be bitten on the arse by them again and again.  So I’d tried to organise a fix, but hadn’t been able to do so. If I had been able to, I’d have been fine – I never went past the extra amount I tried to set up. Even so, I knew I’d get charged for going over that limit.

But never once have I been tempted to think “I’ll try and get a refund on all my bank charges over the last ten years” or whatever. When I’ve been charged (and it hasn’t happened often) it’s been because I’ve fucked up, or been in the shit. Or both. I’ve always known (roughly) what those charges would be, and they’ve been expected.

I don’t know why people think they can get their overdrafts “for free”, without being charged by a bank to borrow that money. Banks are in the business of lending money – they’re not (and never will) do it for free. And if you think they will, then I’m sorry, but you’re a fucking idiot.

So yes, I’m pleased that the banks won the case. I think that for once it’s actually the correct result.