The banks around the world that are reporting multi-billion-dollar losses in the alleged fraud involving financier Bernard Madoff seem to have given up hope far too easily of ever seeing their money again.
The banks around the world that are reporting multi-billion-dollar losses in the alleged fraud involving financier Bernard Madoff seem to have given up hope far too easily of ever seeing their money again.
Posted by Jon McKnight on 16 December 2008 | Permalink
Black people in the United States of America have been called some things in the past 400 years, none of which I will dignify by repeating in this column.
Posted by Jon McKnight on 05 November 2008 | Permalink
Whether Lewis Hamilton emerges as World Champion or not after today's Brazilian Grand Prix, the real winners will be those of us who have had no choice but to watch Formula One on ITV.
For when the chequered flag goes down on the winner of today's race, it will also mark the end of a frustrating era in which ITV thought it acceptable to deprive viewers of hours of live race coverage so that it could show them adverts instead.
As regular readers of this column may remember, ITV viewers lost four hours, six minutes and four seconds of live race action last season - the equivalent of more than two-and-a-half entire races!
That statistic - the first to be compiled - was produced by this column during a whole season of sitting in front of the TV with a stopwatch. Hardly fun, but someone needed to do it to expose just how much contempt ITV felt for the fans it was supposedly serving with its F1 coverage.
Miracles do occasionally happen, though, and ours occurred on 20 March this year when, out of the blue, the BBC announced that it had bought the rights to Formula One coverage for next season.
This column's report on it is here and includes a pic of Roger Mosey, the BBC's Director of Sport, who we fans can thank for it.
From next season, we'll be able to watch uninterrupted coverage of a sport in which even hundredths of a second count - something that ITV chose to ignore when it showed us five ad breaks per programme despite the live event continuing unseen by us.
I do hope, though, that the BBC's commentators include at least one former Formula One driver who can, like Martin Brundle, give us a true insight into what might be going through a driver's head as events unfold.
But for now, we should celebrate victory over the ITV spoilsports who've ruined our viewing for years.
Jon McKnight
Posted by Jon McKnight on 02 November 2008 | Permalink
Why does Direct Line use an 0845 number for its car insurance Customer Services? And why doesn't it allow customers to e-mail it?
The Customer Services woman I've just spoken to after a seventeen-and-a-half-minute wait on hold couldn't answer either of those questions.
So I was forced to speculate myself.
Could it be, I asked her, that Direct Line makes huge profits every year from forcing customers to ring expensive 0845 numbers when it could have used an ordinary landline number that almost everyone could ring for free as part of their bundled calls packages?
Could it be that Direct Line doesn't allow customers to e-mail it because that would be free, fast, and efficient - as opposed to having them waiting ages on over-priced phone lines?
All I'd wanted to do was e-mail a PDF of a proof of no-claims bonus to Direct Line. It would have taken seconds and cost nothing.
Yet I had to wait, listening to the most mind-numbingly repetitious music on hold, for more than a quarter of an hour before I even spoke to a human being.
No, I couldn't e-mail it, she said, because they don't ue e-mail. And no need to check the date of this posting; I am writing in the 21st Century.
The woman was happy for me to fax her, had I had a machine to hand, but couldn't accept that a scanned and e-mailed PDF of a document had exactly the same status and properties as one that had been faxed.
If Direct Line is unable to answer its phones more quickly than that, why doesn't it make its customer service line a freephone number? That would mean that instead of the customer paying for Direct Line's inefficiency, the firm would pick up the tab itself with a huge phone bill.
But I suspect that the firm would simply begin answering quickly, as it should, to avoid the costs that it doesn't mind passing on to us.
If more people complained about it, she said, Direct Line might take notice.
I know readers of this column do like a challenge, so there you are!
Jon McKnight
Posted by Jon McKnight on 31 October 2008 | Permalink
Bradford & Bingley shareholders who feel that no-one has considered them or listened to their complaints since the bank was nationalised in a behind-closed-doors scandal will finally get a chance to have their say, thanks to MPs.
The powerful and influential Treasury Select Committee has announced an extra hearing, in November, into the goings-on that led to Bradford & Bingley's 940,195 shareholders losing all of their money.
The new hearing, announced today, is in addition to the hearing that will see the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Governor of the Bank of England and the Chairman of the Financial Services Authority summoned to appear before it to answer tough questions about the banking crisis.
As reported in this column, the committee has invited the public to submit questions to the committee about the banking crisis generally - but the announcement of the new and separate hearing suggests that the demand for answers from aggrived B&B shareholders has already been overwhelming enough to merit it.
The new hearing is into "the performance and actions of two banks that have recently been nationalised: Northern Rock and Bradford & Bingley", according to an official press release from the committee.
The date has yet to be decided, but the committee will invite written evidence on the specific topic of Bradford & Bingley when it announces the date and witnesses for the hearing.
Further written evidence, it says, will be invited at a later stage in the inquiry. Details about the submission of written evidence will be given in a subsequent press notice.
This column, the home of the Bradford & Bingley Shareholders' Campaign, urges all of Bradford & Bingley's shareholders to submit questions to the special committee hearing as soon as the date is announced... unless, of course, they're happy to have had their shareholdings peremptorily "extinguished" and wouldn't dream of tackling the perpetrators or demanding redress and compensation!
For the record, here is the committee's press notice in full:
22 October 2008: For Immediate Release
TREASURY COMMITTEE ANNOUNCES NEXT STEPS IN BANKING CRISIS INQUIRY
The Treasury Committee announced today that it will take evidence from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Governor of the Bank of England and the Chairman of the Financial Services Authority at the start of its inquiry into the Banking Crisis, and also set out plans for the next steps in its inquiry.
Initial hearing
The first public evidence session will take place at 4.00 pm on Monday 3 November 2008 in the Grimond Room, Portcullis House, with the following witnesses appearing together:
The Rt Hon Alistair Darling MP, Chancellor of the Exchequer
Mervyn King, Governor of the Bank of England
Lord Turner of Ecchinswell, Chairman of the Financial Services AuthorityAs previously announced (in the Committee’s press notice of 14 October, the Committee is inviting members of the public to send in questions they would like to see put to the witnesses, which can be sent to bankingcrisis@parliament.uk up to 48 hours before the start of the hearing.
Further information about submitting questions is given in Note 2 at the end of this announcement.
Listed financial institutions during the current period of heightened instability
The Committee has decided that, during the current period of heightened instability, it would not be appropriate for the Committee to take oral evidence from listed financial institutions. The Committee does expect to take evidence from such institutions at a later stage in its inquiry.
Topics for further hearings planned for November
The Committee plans to hold three further hearings in November on the following topics:
The Committee will invite written evidence on these three specific topics when it announces the dates and witnesses for these hearings. Further written evidence will be invited at a later stage in the inquiry. Details about the submission of written evidence will be given in a subsequent press notice.
1. PRESS NOTICE ISSUED ON 14 OCTOBER 2008
For details of the Committee’s press notice issued on 14 October, see:
http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/treasury_committee/tsc0708pn74.cfm
2. GUIDANCE FOR SUBMITTING QUESTIONS RELATING TO HEARING ON 3 NOVEMBER 2008
Questions can be submitted up to 48 hours before the hearing, which will take place at 4pm on 3 November. The Committee regrets it cannot accept any other form of submission apart from email to the following address: bankingcrisis@parliament.uk
Submissions should take the form of questions rather than statements and should be no longer than 100 words. If you wish to remain anonymous, please state clearly at the beginning of the email.
The Committee regrets that not all questions submitted can be guaranteed to be asked.
FURTHER INFORMATION:
Committee Membership is as follows: Rt Hon John McFall (Chairman), Nick Ainger, Mr Graham Brady, Mr Colin Breed, Jim Cousins, Mr Philip Dunne, Mr Michael Fallon (Sub-Committee Chairman), Ms Sally Keeble, Mr Andrew Love, Mr George Mudie, Mr Siôn Simon, John Thurso, Mr Mark Todd, Sir Peter Viggers.(Press release ends)
DON'T FORGET! This column will publish the date of the meeting as soon as it is announced, and give details of how to submit questions or written evidence.
Keep checking this column for details and all the latest news on the Bradford & Bingley Shareholders' Campaign - and if you can mention it or even put a link to www.jonmcknight.typepad.com on appropriate forums or message boards, it can only add to our strength.
Jon McKnight
Author of Sort The Bastards!
Posted by Jon McKnight on 22 October 2008 | Permalink
At last, Bradford & Bingley shareholders are about to get a chance to have their say about the needless nationalisation that robbed them of their investments.
With 940,195 Bradford & Bingley shareholders deprived of millions of pounds by the nationalisation that many consider unnecessary, the committee can expect a lot of questions!
TREASURY COMMITTEE INVITES QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC TO PUT TO THE CHANCELLOR ON THE BANKING CRISIS
Following the unprecedented financial intervention announced by the Chancellor over recent days, the Treasury Committee today announces it will undertake an urgent inquiry into the banking crisis.
John McFall, Chairman of the Committee said:
“This inquiry will take a fundamental look at the causes of the present banking crisis, the current responsibilities of the banks and the Government to the taxpayer, and the future shape of the financial and regulatory landscape.”
Given the public concern about the stability of the UK banking system and commitment of such a large sum inherent in the Chancellor’s proposals, the Committee is asking members of the public to send in questions they would like to see put to the following witnesses, who the Committee has invited to appear as soon as possible.
Witnesses:
The Rt. Hon. Alistair Darling MP, Chancellor of the Exchequer
Mervyn King, Governor of the Bank of England
Lord Adair Turner, Chairman, Financial Services Authority
Questions should be emailed to the following address:
bankingcrisis@parliament.uk
The date of the hearing will be announced in due course.
John McFall, Chairman of the Committee said:
“Taxpayers are naturally very concerned about the scale of this investment. The Committee hopes that by providing people with the chance to have us put their questions to those in charge, we can provide a constructive way of engaging the public on a matter of such deep concern to the whole country.”
FURTHER INFORMATION ON SUBMITTING QUESTIONS
Questions can be submitted up to 48 hours before the hearing, which will be announced at a later date. The Committee regrets it cannot accept any other form of submission apart from email to the following address:
bankingcrisis@parliament.uk
Submissions should take the form of questions rather than statements and should be no longer than 100 words. If you wish to remain anonymous, please state clearly at the beginning of the email.
The Committee regrets that not all questions submitted can be guaranteed to be asked.
Full written submissions of evidence for the inquiry will be solicited at a later date.
Posted by Jon McKnight on 15 October 2008 | Permalink
Bradley & Bingley boss Richard Pym is refusing point-blank to answer any questions about the reassurances he gave shareholders only two trading days before the bank was nationalised and they lost all their money.
"Many of your questions relate to the nationalisation of B&B plc and, therefore, you should direct your questions to The Government, which is B&B's single shareholder.
"All statements made by the Company prior to nationalisation were entirely accurate."
1 - Why have you declined to give any interviews or make any Press statements since the nationalisation?
2 - There are 940,195 Bradford & Bingley shareholders who believe the nationalisation was not necessary at the time and want to know if you share their view. What do you have to say to them?
3 - You issued statements a few days before the nationalisation in which you reportedly said Bradford & Bingley was "well capitalised" and "fit for purpose going forward". Is it correct that as the CEO of what was then a listed company, your comments were subject to regulation and therefore had to be accurate so that shareholders were not misled?
4 - Will you confirm that the statements you made were indeed accurate?
5 - As nothing happened to the detriment of Bradford & Bingley's trading position in the few trading days between you issuing those encouraging statements and the nationalisation being imposed, were you (with hindsight) wrong in your assessment of Bradford & Bingley's trading viability?
6 - If you still believe you were correct in your assessment of B&B's trading viability, do you think the nationalisation was unnecessary at that time?
7 - What do you have to say to people who read your statements, believed them, and bought shares in Bradford & Bingley on the strength of your personal reassurances, only to have their shareholdings "extinguished" by the nationalisation a few days later?
8 - If you now believe your assessments of B&B's trading viability were wrong - or, if you believe they were correct and that, consequently, the nationalisation should not have been imposed - have you considered offering your resignation as a matter of honour or in a gesture of protest?
9 - Did you lose your own personal shareholdings in Bradford & Bingley as a result of the nationalisation or were you able to sell them in the knowledge that they were about to become valueless - in which case, at what stage did you sell them, and how much did you receive for them?
10 - As the nationalisation was only rumoured after trading on the stock market had closed for the week, were you able to dispose of what were about to become valueless shares before the market closed on the Friday - and if you were aware of the nationalisation, why did you not warn other shareholders so that they, too, could sell their shares and recover something of their investment?
No-one is suggesting that Mr Pym acted improperly at any time. Indeed, the only answer his press office has given - ie that the statements he made on the Thursday were correct - support this column's and other shareholders' belief that he was telling the truth when he said the bank was still viable.
Posted by Jon McKnight on 10 October 2008 | Permalink
We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to ensure investors in Bradford & Bingley receive a fair price for their shares.
Bradford & Bingley was a going concern and could have continued trading or have been bought by another company. In nationalising the company and taking the shares into Treasury ownership, the Government have effectively stolen from the shareholders of the company. Recompense is due and the Government must make a fair and reasonable payment for the shares it has compulsorily acquired.
Posted by Jon McKnight on 09 October 2008 | Permalink
Bradford & Bingley shareholders who lost a fortune when the Government unexpectedly nationalised the bank, "extinguishing" their shares (to use the official terminology), may take some comfort from the knowledge that at least one MP shares their belief that the nationalisation was ill-timed and unnecessary.
Posted by Jon McKnight on 06 October 2008 | Permalink
An open letter to Gordon Brown on behalf of Bradley & Bingley shareholders
Posted by Jon McKnight on 04 October 2008 | Permalink
The shocking news that Bradford & Bingley's 940,135 shareholders have had their entire investment seized and confiscated by the Government raises a number of serious but unanswered questions.
Posted by Jon McKnight on 29 September 2008 | Permalink
The Chancellor confirmed this morning that shareholders in Bradford & Bingley were at the bottom of his priority list and probably won't get a penny.
Posted by Jon McKnight on 29 September 2008 | Permalink
Even Bradford & Bingley's most senior Press Officer doesn't know what's going on! Asked by this column to explain why shareholders weren't even consulted about the takeover, and to say what has happened to the shares that almost a million of us still hold, this is all she could say:
Afraid I can't answer all your questions as we have not been updated by the Bank of England. the reason why shareholders haven't been consulted is because the Government has taken us over and they seem to put savers and borrowers ahead of shareholders. if you'd like further information i suggest you contact either the Chancellor or the PM.
Nickie Aiken
Head of Group PR
Bradford & Bingley plc
Posted by Jon McKnight on 28 September 2008 | Permalink
The nationalisation of Bradford & Bingley is the most blatant case of legalised bank robbery this country has ever seen, with almost a million shareholders likely to lose a fortune.
Surely, at the very least, B&B's board should have called an extraordinary general meeting for shareholders to decide the way forward.
If Gordon Brown had walked up to me in the street, pulled a gun, and run away with £3,700 of my money, he'd be sitting in a cell right now and the country would be facing a General Election.
Posted by Jon McKnight on 28 September 2008 | Permalink
Posted by Jon McKnight on 24 August 2008 | Permalink
David Davis's resignation as Shadow Home Secretary and as an MP has been described by almost all political commentators as unprecedented. It is also pointless.
Cheering and rare as it is to see any politician so motivated by principle that he will sacrifice a flourishing career for it, it's hard to see what David Davis can possibly achieve by triggering a by-election.
He says he'll be standing to campaign against the Government's plans to be able to detain terror suspects for up to 42 days before having to charge or release them.
That, in itself, is a laudable aim. But even if Mr David stood and won back his seat with 100% of the votes, all it would indicate is that a lot of people in this country (or, rather, a lot of people in Haltemprice & Howden) agreed with him.
He says that would give him a mandate. But a mandate for what?
If Gordon Brown, realising that he'd won the Commons vote on 42 days through arm-twisting and horse-trading with those in search of political favours, had decided to resign himself and stand again to determine whether he had a mandate to press ahead with the policy, that would have been understandable.
Because if he'd won - "if" being the word, of course - he would at least have been in a position to do something about it.
David Davis isn't. Even with a mandate, he couldn't have done a thing about it even if he magically got his job back as Shadow Home Secretary.
David Cameron already agrees with him on 42 days. There isn't a vacancy for Tory leader, and isn't likely to be one.
So if Mr Davis does win his mandate and returns to the Commons, he'll be about as effective as an MP with a Chivers factory in his constituency who claims he has a mandate to raise the price of jelly.
The Government, unlike a jelly, is not expected to wobble.
The one factor that Mr Davis seems to have overlooked is that the Government's chances of getting the 42-days legislation on to the statute books are said to be very slim indeed, as the Lords are unlikely to pass it.
Yes, the Government could invoke the Parliament Act and push it through regardless of democracy, but Gordon Brown might well face a vote of confidence in his Premiership if he tried that.
So the only person whose resignation could have made a difference on this issue is still sitting comfortably in Downing Street, while David Davis, whose resignation won't make a blind bit of difference, has simply rocked the Tories' boat just as it seemed to be making full speed ahead for a landslide win at the next General Election.
David Davis may consider himself to be a brave if self-appointed people's champion, but Goliath's reaction so far appears to be a teenagerish "Whatever".
Jon McKnight
Posted by Jon McKnight on 13 June 2008 | Permalink
Elderly patients and people on low incomes are being ripped off in a new telephone scandal that's using Britain's GPs as unwitting accomplices.
Callers to local GPs' surgeries are finding that the old landline number has been replaced with a "lo-call" 0844 number that means many patients have to pay for the call for the first time.
Author of Sort The Bastards!
Posted by Jon McKnight on 06 June 2008 | Permalink
Public Health Minister Dawn Primarolo's plans to outlaw cigarette vending machines and ban the display of cigarettes in shops are encouraging... so far as they go.
Author of Sort The Bastards!
Posted by Jon McKnight on 31 May 2008 | Permalink
As a consumer campaigner and journalist, I dearly wanted to put this complaint about US Airways to the airline itself before sharing its shortcomings with the travelling world.
But anyone who's tried to contact US Airways with a complaint will share my frustration at not being able to talk to a human being and being lost, instead, in a maze of obstacles that the cynical among us might think the airline created to prevent us getting redress.
It's a pity, really, because US Airways only launched its service from London Heathrow to Philadelphia a matter of days ago on 29 March and was clearly proud of it, if the press release was anything to judge by.
I was looking forward to my flight, particularly as the press release boasted that US Airways would be using its "flagship international aircraft, the Airbus A330" on the new route.
Flagship it may be, but everything wasn't all right on the flight.
I knew I shouldn’t have accepted Seat 13. It certainly wasn’t lucky. First, it was so close to the seat in front that I couldn’t even open my laptop’s lid, never mind tilt it to the angle I needed to see the screen.
“I’m sorry,” said the stewardess, “but there aren’t any spare seats.”
I protested that it’s a perfectly reasonable requirement to be able to use a laptop on a flight, and that no-one had warned, either verbally or in its advertising, that it wouldn’t be possible.
If I’d known I’d be stuck on a flight for eight hours without being able to write my column, I wouldn’t have flown US Airways.
The stewardess then remembered a seat, 10 rows back and with a splendid view of the back of the toilets. There was plenty of legroom there, admittedly, and there was no problem about using a laptop, either. But it meant leaving my wife 10 rows away and out of sight, when we had booked adjoining seats and wanted to enjoy the flight together.
Before I decamped to the laptop-friendly seat, my wife had another disappointment. The in-flight entertainment system on her seat and mine was malfunctioning and didn’t respond to the remote control. Unless she’d wanted to listen to Spyra Gyra in Spanish for the rest of the flight, it was useless.
The stewardess said she’d restart both of our systems. Ages passed, then eventually both screens went blank and restarted. After what seemed an eternity, my wife’s screen burst into life with, er, Spyra Gyra in Spanish.
“I’m sorry,” said the stewardess when we pointed this out. “There’s nothing we can do.”
Then the meals came around. My wife had booked the vegetarian option, and that’s what she got. I hadn’t ordered the vegetarian option, as I don’t like vegetables, but I was given the vegetarian meal, too.
There wasn’t a single item I could eat. I called the stewardess, pointed out that an error had been made, and asked if I could have a chicken meal like most of my fellow passengers were eating.
“I’m sorry,” said the stewardess, “but you’re down on our list as both wanting the vegetarian option.”
I showed her my booking confirmation e-mail and she agreed it showed that my wife only had ordered the vegetarian option. She said she’d talk to the Purser and see if there were any chicken meals left.
She never returned. Everyone else around me finished their meals, stretched their legs, and waited for the stewardesses to clear their trays.
“Finished?” asked a different stewardess when she came by. I told her I hadn’t even started, as it was the wrong meal and her colleague had been trying to source another one all that time ago.
“I’m sorry,” said the stewardess, “but I think she probably forgot. She’s had all those teas and coffees to serve.”
She asked if I’d like the snack element of the meal instead, “to keep me going”.
She found one and I did manage to eat a bread roll about twice the size of my nose, and a crunchy biscuit that was gorgeous. But I remained the hungriest passenger on the aircraft.
Having been the producer of a TV series about aviation for Discovery Real-Time last year, as well as a journalist who campaigns against poor service and has a consumer self-help manual coming out soon, I confess to being deeply disappointed with my first experience of flying with US Airways.
They don’t warn people that their seats are too close together for them to be able to use their laptops unless they’re the lucky few with a view of the loo; they don’t ensure their in-flight entertainment equipment is working when a passenger is faced with an eight-hour flight without it; and the booking system for their meals leaves something to be desired (ie a meal, in my case).
When I was studying for my Private Pilot’s Licence, things that were not working were described as U/S, an abbreviation for unserviceable.
So which airline was I flying with - US Airways or U/S Airways? Fellow travellers might understand my confusion.
In other circumstances, I’d simply never fly with them again. But, unfortunately for me, I’m booked on the return flight from Philadelphia to London with them.
I’m not looking forward to it. I want to spend those eight hours writing, too, and I’d like my wife to be able to enjoy the same in-flight entertainment that everyone around her was able to. And call me demanding if you wish, but I’d really like to be able to have a meal on board like everyone else.
So that's the complaint. But US Airways doesn't know about it yet due to the minefield of obstacles preventing an aggrieved customer putting a complaint to a real person who could do something about it.
The airline's website doesn't list a phone number for Customer Services, just a fax number and an e-mail option.
I tried ringing Reservations and was eventually, most reluctantly, given an unpublicised number (866-523-5333) for Customer Services. But having held on the line for 22 minutes the first time and 12 minutes the second, it was clear they didn't want to take my call or hear about the problems they'd caused me.
The tedious wait for an answer was punctuated with messages urging people to e-mail Customer Services instead through the website.
But when I tried to do that, as an Englishman holidaying in Miami, the web e-mail form wouldn't allow me to put my UK address into it without chopping vital bits off. Had I been American, no problem, but I'd like to think US Airways cares about its foreign passengers, too.
The media centre in Arizona might have been a good bet if I'd been able to e-mail them. But they don't publicise an e-mail address either, which is pretty unusual in public relations these days. Wonder why?
And all this happened on the airline's flagship international aircraft. If that's the case, what on Earth must it be like on the others?
Jon McKnight
Author of Sort The Bastards!
Posted by Jon McKnight on 12 April 2008 | Permalink
What on Earth possessed Hastings Direct to choose Harry, the animated version of King Harold, as their mascot?
Cute he may be, and his singing of the company's phone number 0800 00 1066 sounds all very avuncular, but it's hard to imagine why an insurance company like Hastings would risk pinning their success on a figure whose leadership skills and achievements can hardly inspire confidence.
Oh, to have been a fly on the wall at the marketing meeting when Harry was chosen!
Did no-one have either the historical knowledge or the courage to point out that Harold lost his eye, his life, and his kingdom in the most catastrophic failure ever to beset this country?
He was, without a doubt, the biggest loser in British history.
Just three little words, uttered at the right time, would have saved Hastings Direct from themselves: "William the Conqueror".
What other gems can we expect if the culprit who thought that one up branches out into other industries? Canute water-repellents? Icarus Airlines? Herod's Kindergartens?
Jon McKnight
Author of Sort The Bastards!
Posted by Jon McKnight on 09 April 2008 | Permalink
David Cameron's admission that he broke umpteen laws while cycling in London highlights a serious inequality between the rights and obligations of motorists and pedal-pushers.
The Tory leader's confession was only wrung out of him after The Mirror newspaper obtained film of him pedalling through red lights, going the wrong way around Keep Left bollards, and cycling across a pelican crossing when the light was red.
But the problem is much wider than that.
If you're a pedestrian and a car hits you, the car can be identified from its number plates; the driver will have had to pass a test of competence; the driver will have insurance, or be prosecuted if he hasn't; and if the driver is at fault, he can be banned from driving by a court.
Not so if you happen to be injured by a cyclist.
Bicycles are not subject to any kind of registration regime, so there's little chance that anyone could identify a bicycle involved in a hit-and-run.
Telling the police that the bike had two wheels and a frame is hardly going to help them find it, whereas it would be a piece of cake if they had to bear registration plates like every other type of vehicle.
That very anonymity is probably the main reason why cyclists like David Cameron feel free to break every rule in the Highway Code with apparent impunity.
Cyclists don't have to pass any kind of test, either. And while the Highway Code is full of rules that also apply to them, the lack of a regulatory regime means many cyclists never pick up a copy in their lives, never mind abide by it.
Cyclists don't have to have any kind of insurance, either. So if a cyclist hits you, perhaps riding along the pavement or the wrong way on a public road, you have no chance of receiving proper compensation.
Unless the cyclist happens to be an eccentric millionaire and is therefore worth sueing, hough I suspect that many of them are either too poor to afford a car or wish they were living in Victorian times when cycling seemed such a sensible idea.
If the cyclist is at fault, there is no chance whatever that the cyclist can be banned from cycling as a way of protecting the public. He could be penalised for being drunk in charge of a cycle, of course, but there is no such thing as a cycling ban.
It's frustrating enough that cycles are given priority at traffic lights in so many of our cities, but what makes it worse is when they ignore the cycle lanes we've all had to pay for and continue to wobble along in traffic, either forcing us to crawl at a snail's pace or tempting us to edge on to the other side of the road to overtake them, which must cause a fair number of accidents.
In Plymouth, for example, the council spent hundreds of thousands of pounds installing cycle lanes on the main road between the city and Tavistock, yet cyclists don't use the cycle lane and struggle up the hills on the main road, causing annoyance and disruption for motorists.
Surely cyclists should be forced to use cycle lanes where they exist and should be fined, heavily, if they use the roads instead. But with no number plates, how could they ever be identified and prosecuted?
Jon McKnight
Author of Throw The Book At Them! – The Art Of The Well-Aimed Complaint
Posted by Jon McKnight on 21 March 2008 | Permalink
The nightmare is nearing an end. ITV's don't-give-a-damn-about-the-viewers reign as the sole provider of Formula One Grand Prix TV coverage to the UK will be over at the end of this season. And not a day too soon.
The commentary and the coverage itself was fine. But ITV showed its utter contempt for viewers by running ad breaks during the live races - a policy that robbed viewers of four hours, six minutes and four seconds of live race action.
That's the equivalent of more than two-and-a-half entire races.
Imagine if ITV had dared to show ads during live football matches - not at half-time, but during the matches themselves. There would have been uproar. But because it was F1, ITV just carried on regardless, more interested in how much it could charge advertisers for airtime than the fact that the ads would ruin the enjoyment of the very programme viewers had tuned in to see.
Shocked by ITV's indifference to its viewers, and by Ofcom's decision to turn a blind eye to ITV's flouting of its own regulations, this blog launched the ITV F1 Ads Campaign and the Formula One Roll of Shame, updated after every race to show which advertisers had decided to buy airtime knowing that it would ruin viewers' enjoyment of the race.
Thanks to this morning's revelation, that campaign is now redundant.
The BBC will be resuming coverage of F1 from next season for at least five years, which will mean uninterrupted overage of every race, as well as live coverage on the web as well.
It feels almost as if a hostile force has agreed to leave and the occupation of the sport we enjoy will be over.
Despite having worked for the BBC for a few months last year - after I launched the campaign, and quite unexpectedly - I've never had anything against ITV or the commercial necessity that it had to sell ads during its F1 programmes.
But it did not need to sell them during the live race itself - and Ofcom should not have allowed it to.
There is media speculation that ITV wasn't attracting enough viewers for its F1 coverage, which is why it decided to give up the contract a year early.
I have no way of telling if that's the case. But if it were true, could the lack of viewers be due to the fact that fans who tuned in to ITV's coverage gave up in disgust - and in their droves - when ITV plonked five ad breaks right in the middle of the races, denying them almost a quarter of an hour of coverage in a sport in which even hundredths of a second make all the difference?
Poetic justice, perhaps.
Sitting here with a stopwatch to time the ad breaks in every single race of last season, sometimes in the very early hours, was hardly fun. But it did expose the magnitude of ITV's contempt for us by compiling, for the first time, statistics detailing the precise amount of race time ITV robbed us of.
As a reminder, here's a race-by-race breakdown of how much we missed of each race last season:
RACE TIME MISSED
Australia 06 mins 56 secs
Malaysia 14 mins 31 secs
Bahrain 14 mins 22 secs
Spain 14 mins 24 secs
Monaco 14 mins 15 secs
Canada 17 mins 15 secs
USA 14 mins 20 secs
France 14 mins 29 secs
Britain 14 mins 29 secs
European 14 mins 20 secs
Hungary 14 mins 20 secs
Turkey 14 mins 23 secs
Italy 14 mins 28 secs
Belgium 14 mins 27 secs
Japan 11 mins 20 secs
China 14 mins 21 secs
Brazil 14 mins 24 secs
TOTAL TIME LOST LAST SEASON: 4 hours 06 mins 04 secs!
One man who should take the credit for rescuing Formula One for the fans is Roger Mosey (pictured below), the BBC's Director of Sport. His shrewd negotiations snatched the sport away from ITV and saved it for the nation, without adding a penny to the licence fee.
I doubt if anyone will erect a statue to him, but Roger Mosey has made an even bigger contribution to UK fans' enjoyment of Formula One than Lewis Hamilton did in his astonishing debut.
And I hope we all remember Roger's contribution when the BBC takes over and we get to see Lewis Hamilton racing rather than an ad for Ronseal, or those little ad-break bumpers that tell us that Honda or Sony have sponsored the programme without mentioning that they're simultaneously spoiling it.
Bless you, Roger.
Jon McKnight
Author of Sort The Bastards!
Posted by Jon McKnight on 20 March 2008 | Permalink
Just noticed that ITV was promising to show live Formula One coverage on its itv-f1.com website this season - a new initiiative that I thought might give some consolation to those of us who object to having our coverage of F1 punctuated with irrelevant TV commercials.
But no such luck. Instead of showing the race on the web without commercials (which would have cost ITV nothing) it simply simulcasts its TV coverage with the ads still in.
An opportunity wasted. And confirmation, if we ever needed it, that ITV has little but contempt for us, its viewers.
Jon McKnight
Author of Sort The Bastards!
Posted by Jon McKnight on 16 March 2008 | Permalink
As the countdown begins to today's Australian Grand Prix, viewers of ITV in the UK can look forward to missing more than FOUR HOURS of the live race action this season.
And in a sport in which even hundreds of a second can make all the difference, we can expect to miss a breathtaking 14,764 seconds, if the amount of live race action we were deprived of last season is anything to judge by.
That's because ITV inists on showing TV commercials during the live race action itself, instead of grouping the ads into the two parts of the programme that come before and after the live race.
ITV clearly puts the interests of its advertisers before the interests of mere viewers like us, and advertisers are so determined to put their commercial messages in front of us that they don't seem to realise - or give a damn - that they're spoiling the very event we tuned in to watch.
Elesewhere on this blog you'll see chapter and verse on who the offenders were - and why I believe ITV are in contravention of Ofcom's rules on the showing of ads during live events.
I won't repeat them now, but remember that this blog has produced the world's first comprehensive set of statistics showing precisely how much of each race we fans were cheated out of by ITV.
As a reminder, here's a race-by-race breakdown of how much we missed of each race last season:
RACE TIME MISSED
Australia 06 mins 56 secs
Malaysia 14 mins 31 secs
Bahrain 14 mins 22 secs
Spain 14 mins 24 secs
Monaco 14 mins 15 secs
Canada 17 mins 15 secs
USA 14 mins 20 secs
France 14 mins 29 secs
Britain 14 mins 29 secs
European 14 mins 20 secs
Hungary 14 mins 20 secs
Turkey 14 mins 23 secs
Italy 14 mins 28 secs
Belgium 14 mins 27 secs
Japan 11 mins 20 secs
China 14 mins 21 secs
Brazil 14 mins 24 secs
TOTAL TIME LOST LAST SEASON: 4 hours 06 mins 04 secs!
No-one else has ever bothered to sit down with a stopwatch and detail this shameful deprivation of viewers' enjoyment, but I offer it here for the record.
I won't be doing it again this season as the point has been made, but I would urge any fellow fans who care about this to raise the matter with ITV and with Ofcom - and not least with the advertisers who are paying to ruin our pleasure.
Enjoy the season... or at least the bits of it that ITV deign to let you see.
Jon McKnight
Author of Sort The Bastards!
Posted by Jon McKnight on 16 March 2008 | Permalink
Warren Mitchell, celebrated for his portrayal of Alf Garnett in Til Death Us Do Part, treated audiences in Plymouth to a rare stage appearance last week as the star of Visiting Mr Green.
Yes, he was playing another bigot, but one who redeemed himself by the end of the play and was, throughout, an engaging character it was impossible not to warm to.
With only one other actor in the cast, he was on stage throughout the performance, shuffling about with the aid of a stick and sometimes a human arm for support.
He looked every inch the 86-year-old widower he was portraying, and it was almost painful to watch the efforts the actor made even to get in or out of a chair.
Like the rest of his performance, it was utterly convincing.
So it was something of a surprise to see the actor, not the character, emerging from the Stage Door of the Theatre Royal in a wheelchair pushed by an assistant.
It would appear that Mr Mitchell is, sadly, every bit as frail in real life as the character he was playing.
Quite how he found the energy to act so splendidly and for so long, despite his difficulties, is a testimony to the professionalism of one of our finest veteran actors.
Speaking sometimes rather more quietly than his co-star, despite them boh having radio mikes, he had the whole audience leaning forward in their seats to catch every word he uttered.
Not a line fluffed, not a syllable slurred. It was a measured, touching and involving performance.
Let's hope it's a long time before death parts us from him. And in the meantime, catch him if you can on the UK tour of this absorbing play.
Jon McKnight
Author of Sort The Bastards!
Posted by Jon McKnight on 28 January 2008 | Permalink
God help Barack Obama... because support from Senator Edward Kennedy certainly won't.
Barack has a serious chance of becoming the 44th President of the United States, but having Kennedy declare his support for him could kill his chances overnight.
With a supporter like that, who needs enemies?
Senator Kennedy, for those who might need reminding, is less famous for being the brother of the two assassinated Kennedies, John Fitzgerald and Robert, than he is for being the man (I use the word loosely) who drove his car into a river at Chappaquiddick and escaped to tell the tale.
What a hero he might have been. The Kennedy who actually cheated death. The man who fought his way out of a submerged car. Except that he, er, omitted to take young Mary Jo Kopechne with him.
She was left to die in the car, which she did. And Senator Kennedy wandered off, his own skin intact. Hours later, he thoughtfully reported the accident to the police, though it was, of course, rather too late for his poor passenger to have any chance of being rescued alive.
Memories of this outrage (other people's memories, rather than his own) have dogged Kennedy's attempts to run for President himself, which seems about as near to justice as Mary Jo Kopechne is ever likely to get.
But what has Barack Obama done to deserve support from a man like that?
Every vote may be precious, but so is every life. Including Mary Jo Kopechne's.
Jon McKnight
Author of Sort The Bastards!
Posted by Jon McKnight on 28 January 2008 | Permalink
Talk-show hosts David Letterman and Jay Leno are reported to fear for the future of their programmes because of the strike by writers in the US.
This is extraordinary.
I'd always thought that talk-show hosts - especially world famous ones like Leno and Letterman - were employed in their limelight roles because they had the gift of the gab, could put guests at their ease (or on the spot, just as easily) and were never, ever lost for words.
Now, we're told that both men depend on a whole team of writers to write their lines, their gags, their seemingly effortless asides and, most shockingly, their scripts.
Scripts?
Why would any talk-show host worth his title want one of those? And what about spontaneity? Don't viewers deserve and expect that?
But, it seems that without the writers, Messrs Leno and Letterman don't have a clue what to say.
Whatever they're paying them, I could do their jobs for a tenth of the pay. And I wouldn't need a script.
Jon McKnight
Author of Sort The Bastards!
Posted by Jon McKnight on 01 January 2008 | Permalink
When a product's recommended by 97% of the readers of a magazine as influential as Marie Claire, we could all be forgiven for rushing out and buying that product, safe in the knowledge that those readers are sophisticated, switched on, and almost unanimous in their endorsement.
But before we choose Pantene Pro-V for precisely that reason, let's take a closer look at that claim.
In a much-aired TV advertisement it says, in large letters on the screen, that 97% of Marie Claire readers would recommend the product to a friend.
In smaller letters at the bottom of the screen (fancy that!) it says that the claim is based on a survey of 304 Marie Claire readers.
In other words, the product isn't recommended by 97% of Marie Claire's readers but by 97% of only 304 of them - ie, a mere 294 readers.
And how many readers does the magazine have?
332,705, according to the latest official returns from the Audit Bureau of Circulation.
Which means that the percentage of Marie Claire readers who actually recommended Pantene Pro-V to their friends was not 97% but a rather less impressive 0.08 of a percent... or less than one reader in every 1,132.
Whatever Pantene might do, the advertising claim simply won't wash.
Jon McKnight
Author of Sort The Bastards!
Posted by Jon McKnight on 01 January 2008 | Permalink
Just saw Sir Paul McCartney performing Got To Get You Into My Life on Jools Holland's turn-of-the-year TV programme... but credited on screen as "Jools Holland's Rhythm & Blues Band featuring Paul McCartney".
Surely not.
Important as Jools is, I'm pretty sure I was watching Paul McCartney singing his own composition and merely being backed by Jools and his fellow musicians.
Jon McKnight
Author of Sort The Bastards!
Posted by Jon McKnight on 01 January 2008 | Permalink
So stunt motorcyclist Evel Knievel has finally failed to cheat death. At least he didn't end up under a bus, although, during his career, rather a lot of buses ended up under him.
Jon McKnight
Author of Sort The Bastards!
Posted by Jon McKnight on 01 December 2007 | Permalink