Well .... no, actually. Sunday afternoons are supposed to be a time to relax and chill out and catch up with the rest of the week. Not this last one! It was completely wasted trying unsuccessfully to sort out student finance for young Alice who is off to uni in the autumn. She had made her application for finance on-line. Now I and Mrs Journeyman had to fill in our bits. Not too onerous you might think. You would be wrong. In the sensible, ideal world, which I like to try and promote, we would have logged into Alice's account using her registration number and filled in a few financial details. Simple (as the meerkats would say). Unfortunately the Student Finance Company has never heard of meerkats. It has, instead, designed the system to be as complex as possible, presumably with the intention of putting off a large proportion of would-be applicants from applying at all!
Firstly both I and Mrs Journeyman needed our own individual registration numbers. Why this was necessary, when neither of us is applying for funding and when our details will have to be linked to Alice's application to make any sense at all, completely eludes me. However, I bow to Big Brother and try to register. The system says I am already registered! How this can be also completely eludes me. I have never applied for student finance on-line before. The last time was five years ago and then I filled in a simple paper form - I am quite sure I didn't get a registration number. The system flatly refuses to let me apply for a new registration number so there is no option but to phone. The good news - the office is open until 5.30pm on Sunday. The bad news - I'm held in a queue - for nearly half an hour - listening to the recorded message going round and round. And to make matters worse - after stating the obvious, that they were very busy, it said "you may like to visit us on-line"! That was the whole point of my call. I'd tried to be helpful and do things on-line but their system didn't work.
At last someone answered. After taking about a dozen bits of personal information which had no relevance to the case, the lady at the other end informed me that I was indeed already registered. She started off by being quite helpful - she actually told me what my number was. Then things started getting nasty! Having already guessed that Mrs Journeyman would need a different registration number to me, and anxious not to lose the person on the other end, as it had taken so long to get through to her, I asked for a registration number for my wife. You would think I had asked for a consignment of radioactive plutonium or something similar. She had to speak to my wife. I explained that I was upstairs in the bedroom and that Mrs Journeyman was in the kitchen cooking tea, and that I could provide all the information she might need. That was not good enough. She had to speak to Mrs Journeyman in person - because of the Data Protection Act. Now, much as I dislike this iniquitous piece of legislation, I do have a rough idea what it is for - to prevent organisations disclosing sensitive information to persons who are not authorised to receive it. But the caller had obviously not been briefed on this. Try as I might to point out the obvious - that I was offering to give information rather than request it - she stuck to her guns. Rather than lose her, I had to run around the house with the mobile phone looking for my wife. She was then asked the same questions as I had been. When she finished she passed the phone back to me and I said to the nice lady, "there - I could have told you all that couldn't I!" I got no response.
So we now had two individual registration numbers. Nearly at journey's end? No! Read on. We input one of the registration numbers and the computer then demanded to know the answer to a riddle - "a memorable place other than where you live or were born". Now, even if we restrict the places to England, there is probably about a million to choose from. The chances of me hitting on the exact one the computer has in mind are pretty slim. I tried one at random - and of course it didn't work. With most systems there is a facility to reset your password if you have forgotten it (or in this case, never had it). But on this site, no, this facility did not exist. Mrs Journeyman was asked for "an inspiring person" - again, a bit like looking for a needle in a haystack. In the end we had to get Alice to print off two copies of the application form (at vast expense in both paper and ink) to be completed and sent in manually.
If the government is as committed to e-commerce as it says it is, it really must do something about making the systems useable.
Tuesday, 11 May 2010
Tuesday, 4 May 2010
Cheese Sandwich - Licensed to Kill
The Times reported on Friday (30.4.10) the very sad tale of a two-year-old boy who had his lunchtime sandwich confiscated by staff at his day nursery. The reason - it was a cheese sandwich. The mainstay of British workers' lunchtime sandwiches for many years. Good old Cheddar. Mainstay it might be, but it was not on the authorised list of approved sandwich fillings. If his mother had thought to add a lettuce leaf or some tomato it would have passed the healthy eating test but plain Cheddar ...... definitely not. It obviously escaped the attention of these morons, but by adding a lettuce leaf or a piece of tomato, the size and nature of the cheese involved would be altered not one jot. If a certain sized piece of cheese is inherently unhealthy then it will be just as unhealthy whatever else is added to it.
In my professional capacity I am supposed to promote and encourage healthy eating but with the food gestapo blindly taking unilateral action like this without thinking what they are doing, the whole subject gets a bad name. The little boy in question went home completely traumatised, not to mention hungry. Was that healthy? Certainly not. These people had fallen foul of the common failing of many in authority whether individual or corporate. They see a problem and solve it ...... never mind what other problems their solution may cause; never mind whether the action is proportionate or not. It solves the problem doesn't it .... so it must be good.
I seem to remember a gentleman by the name of Adolf Hitler once had a little problem with some Jews. I leave you to draw your own conclusions.
In my professional capacity I am supposed to promote and encourage healthy eating but with the food gestapo blindly taking unilateral action like this without thinking what they are doing, the whole subject gets a bad name. The little boy in question went home completely traumatised, not to mention hungry. Was that healthy? Certainly not. These people had fallen foul of the common failing of many in authority whether individual or corporate. They see a problem and solve it ...... never mind what other problems their solution may cause; never mind whether the action is proportionate or not. It solves the problem doesn't it .... so it must be good.
I seem to remember a gentleman by the name of Adolf Hitler once had a little problem with some Jews. I leave you to draw your own conclusions.
Saturday, 27 March 2010
Change for change's sake
One thing I can't get my head around is the obsession of government, both national and local, with change. Virtually every management course you see advertised has a section within it called "Managing Change" or something very similar. What the courses obviously don't explain is that this is how to manage change if you have to, but that change is not compulsory.
The age-old proverb, which I agree with wholeheartedly, says "If it ain't broke don't try and fix it". If things are running well don't mess them up. But these new would-be managers come back from their courses determined to put what they have learnt into practice. If they can't actually find something that needs improving they take something that is working well and experiment with that. They seem to think that if they can make something good even better they will be able to bask in the glory of a job well done. But in the majority of cases they just end up with a total disaster and a huge bill.
The National Audit Office has just reported that since May 2005 the Government has reorganized 91 departments at an annual cost of £200 million. Since 1980 25 new central government departments have been created and this was so successful that 13 of them no longer exist! Departments have been "re-branded" with huge amounts of taxpayer's money being spent on designing new logos and reprinting stationery. Departments have been moved, on a whim, from London to the far ends of the country, with most of the staff refusing to go. This means not only huge relocation costs but also significant recruitment costs of new staff and the loss of all the years of accumulated wisdom and experience which gets left behind. And for what???
www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7066201.ece
In my own local authority of Follyville consultants recently spent over a year holding meetings and workshops with staff with a view to restructuring a department to improve efficiency and capability. They came up with a plan which was then debated and approved. But then the "powers that be" decided there was not enough money in the budget to put the plan into effect. Of course there wasn't ...... they had spent all the money on the consultants! What a gross waste of everybody's time and taxpayer's money.
When the Government points out the size of the National Debt, as though it is somehow the fault of the people at large, they should stop for a moment and consider the fact that a large part of that debt is not caused by providing extra services to the public but on buggering up the perfectly good services that were in place already.
The age-old proverb, which I agree with wholeheartedly, says "If it ain't broke don't try and fix it". If things are running well don't mess them up. But these new would-be managers come back from their courses determined to put what they have learnt into practice. If they can't actually find something that needs improving they take something that is working well and experiment with that. They seem to think that if they can make something good even better they will be able to bask in the glory of a job well done. But in the majority of cases they just end up with a total disaster and a huge bill.
The National Audit Office has just reported that since May 2005 the Government has reorganized 91 departments at an annual cost of £200 million. Since 1980 25 new central government departments have been created and this was so successful that 13 of them no longer exist! Departments have been "re-branded" with huge amounts of taxpayer's money being spent on designing new logos and reprinting stationery. Departments have been moved, on a whim, from London to the far ends of the country, with most of the staff refusing to go. This means not only huge relocation costs but also significant recruitment costs of new staff and the loss of all the years of accumulated wisdom and experience which gets left behind. And for what???
www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7066201.ece
In my own local authority of Follyville consultants recently spent over a year holding meetings and workshops with staff with a view to restructuring a department to improve efficiency and capability. They came up with a plan which was then debated and approved. But then the "powers that be" decided there was not enough money in the budget to put the plan into effect. Of course there wasn't ...... they had spent all the money on the consultants! What a gross waste of everybody's time and taxpayer's money.
When the Government points out the size of the National Debt, as though it is somehow the fault of the people at large, they should stop for a moment and consider the fact that a large part of that debt is not caused by providing extra services to the public but on buggering up the perfectly good services that were in place already.
Thursday, 4 March 2010
Material Chaos
You would think that in this material world of ours, retailers would make it as easy as possible for people to buy things. Apparently not. The latest trend is to make it as difficult as possible for people to buy things.
On returning home from a weekend in London, Mrs Journeyman and I stopped in at Lakeside. (It was pouring with rain and that was the only place we could think of to walk a bit without getting wet). On passing through House of Fraser (as you have to do to get from the covered car-park) we noticed a display of the latest (and last) Michael Jackson DVD. Our daughter is music-mad and had a birthday coming up the next weekend so Mrs Journeyman went to buy a copy.
First she had to swear an oath that she was over 21 and then give her name and address (? so they could come chasing after her if she had committed perjury).
What is that all about? We are talking about a DVD, not alcohol or drugs, and a PG rated DVD at that. This is advisory guidance that it may not be suitable for children under 12. It is not mandatory - but even if it was, where does the 21 come in? Although Mrs Journeyman looks young for her age, it is quite obvious that she is over 21 and well over 12. And why do they want her address?? To pass on to "Big Brother" who keeps a list of anyone purchasing a Michael Jackson DVD in case they might be seditious agitators?
On questionning the sales girl, she admitted that she thought this was completely over the top but, after having gone to check with the manager, returned to tell us that this was now "policy".
Once more I have to ask the question I am renowned for ...... Why? Luckily, at the time we were the only customers at that counter but in the run up to Christmas this "policy" is going to cause absolute mayhem ....... and for what benefit? Perhaps, if any senior management from the House of Fraser are reading this, they would care to enlighten me.
On returning home from a weekend in London, Mrs Journeyman and I stopped in at Lakeside. (It was pouring with rain and that was the only place we could think of to walk a bit without getting wet). On passing through House of Fraser (as you have to do to get from the covered car-park) we noticed a display of the latest (and last) Michael Jackson DVD. Our daughter is music-mad and had a birthday coming up the next weekend so Mrs Journeyman went to buy a copy.
First she had to swear an oath that she was over 21 and then give her name and address (? so they could come chasing after her if she had committed perjury).
What is that all about? We are talking about a DVD, not alcohol or drugs, and a PG rated DVD at that. This is advisory guidance that it may not be suitable for children under 12. It is not mandatory - but even if it was, where does the 21 come in? Although Mrs Journeyman looks young for her age, it is quite obvious that she is over 21 and well over 12. And why do they want her address?? To pass on to "Big Brother" who keeps a list of anyone purchasing a Michael Jackson DVD in case they might be seditious agitators?
On questionning the sales girl, she admitted that she thought this was completely over the top but, after having gone to check with the manager, returned to tell us that this was now "policy".
Once more I have to ask the question I am renowned for ...... Why? Luckily, at the time we were the only customers at that counter but in the run up to Christmas this "policy" is going to cause absolute mayhem ....... and for what benefit? Perhaps, if any senior management from the House of Fraser are reading this, they would care to enlighten me.
Friday, 26 February 2010
Marriage - Civil Partnership - Is there a difference?
Much in the press recently about marriage and civil partnerships. Lord Alli is proposing an amendment to the Equality Bill, currently being debated, to allow civil partnerships to be registered in churches, synagogues etc. Apparently this is legally prohibited at the moment but certain smaller denominations want to venture into this area. The amendment will make it clear that this activity is permissable not mandatory. Fair enough.
What I don't understand is the strange editorial in the Times on 24 February, written by a gay man, running down the whole idea of marriage and suggesting a further amendment to the Equality Bill allowing civil partnerships for heterosexual couples. Doesn't he realize we've had these for many years ........ they are known as Registry Office Weddings! And many people use them. They give the option of a religious (in a church) or a non-religious (in a Registry Office or one of the new civil venues) (civil) wedding.
According to the writer of the editorial the institution of marriage is in steep decline and heterosexual couples would jump at the chance of a civil partnership along the lines of the French model. Now I know absolutely nothing about the French model for civil partnerships but, according to the journalist, following the French model could "result in hundreds of thousands of couples, many with children, entering into legally protected partnerships that otherwise they would not". Apparently, the difference between this civil partnership and a civil wedding is that the former can be ended by a letter from either partner. Excuse me! ............. He's only just stated this is a legally protected partnership. Where exactly is the protection if the arrangement ceases on the receipt of a letter? If this is what they want, they might just as well just live together in the first place as many seem to do anyway. We don't need a strange grade of existence that is neither one thing nor the other. What we need is marriage (whether hetero- or homo- sexual couples) and not-marriage. Simple.
What I don't understand is the strange editorial in the Times on 24 February, written by a gay man, running down the whole idea of marriage and suggesting a further amendment to the Equality Bill allowing civil partnerships for heterosexual couples. Doesn't he realize we've had these for many years ........ they are known as Registry Office Weddings! And many people use them. They give the option of a religious (in a church) or a non-religious (in a Registry Office or one of the new civil venues) (civil) wedding.
According to the writer of the editorial the institution of marriage is in steep decline and heterosexual couples would jump at the chance of a civil partnership along the lines of the French model. Now I know absolutely nothing about the French model for civil partnerships but, according to the journalist, following the French model could "result in hundreds of thousands of couples, many with children, entering into legally protected partnerships that otherwise they would not". Apparently, the difference between this civil partnership and a civil wedding is that the former can be ended by a letter from either partner. Excuse me! ............. He's only just stated this is a legally protected partnership. Where exactly is the protection if the arrangement ceases on the receipt of a letter? If this is what they want, they might just as well just live together in the first place as many seem to do anyway. We don't need a strange grade of existence that is neither one thing nor the other. What we need is marriage (whether hetero- or homo- sexual couples) and not-marriage. Simple.
Monday, 11 January 2010
More Stupid Policy - Insurance
I've just tried to renew our house and contents insurance policy. The guff accompanying the renewal notice says this can be done very simply by phoning the number stated. So I do ....... and give my name and details of the address and policy number....only to be told that the policy is in my wife's name and despite the fact that I am also listed on the policy I cannot renew the policy without confirmation from her. Of course she is out, as this is the only time I get to get any serious matters dealt with. The fact that I am also listed on the policy apparently does not make it a joint policy (so what is it then??).
The reason they cannot renew on my say-so is apparently due to the Data Protection Act (that iniquitous instrument which prevents anyone being in the slightest bit helpful over the phone despite the government's pressure for everyone to transact business by phone or online). I politely point out that this is complete rubbish as I am giving him the information, not the other way round. I am not covered by the Data Protection Act and I'll tell him anything he needs to know. As usual with these brainwashed automatons, he refuses to see logic. The best he can offer is to convert the policy to a "joint" one ........ but that will involve talking to Mrs Journeyman ........ who, of course, is not in!!
So we have to phone back later and, of course that particular gentleman won't be there and we'll have to start all over again...... thus wasting our time, his time, and extra phone calls. And the government really can't see why the country is going down the tubes. It beggars belief.
The reason they cannot renew on my say-so is apparently due to the Data Protection Act (that iniquitous instrument which prevents anyone being in the slightest bit helpful over the phone despite the government's pressure for everyone to transact business by phone or online). I politely point out that this is complete rubbish as I am giving him the information, not the other way round. I am not covered by the Data Protection Act and I'll tell him anything he needs to know. As usual with these brainwashed automatons, he refuses to see logic. The best he can offer is to convert the policy to a "joint" one ........ but that will involve talking to Mrs Journeyman ........ who, of course, is not in!!
So we have to phone back later and, of course that particular gentleman won't be there and we'll have to start all over again...... thus wasting our time, his time, and extra phone calls. And the government really can't see why the country is going down the tubes. It beggars belief.
A Follyville Christmas
Thursday 7 January
Slightly quieter today ..... but still like a chicken shed. Thank goodness I have not had to come in for the past two days. Change my voicemail message to inform callers that as we are now "hot desking" I won't be in the office much to pick up any voicemail messages, so they are better off sending me an e-mail. Survive till lunchtime and then go home. Conclude that four hours is about as much as anybody can reasonably be expected to take of this. Pity the poor buggers who have to be here all day!
Friday 8 January
Snowed in at home.
Monday 11 January
Can't face it - take a flexiday!
Slightly quieter today ..... but still like a chicken shed. Thank goodness I have not had to come in for the past two days. Change my voicemail message to inform callers that as we are now "hot desking" I won't be in the office much to pick up any voicemail messages, so they are better off sending me an e-mail. Survive till lunchtime and then go home. Conclude that four hours is about as much as anybody can reasonably be expected to take of this. Pity the poor buggers who have to be here all day!
Friday 8 January
Snowed in at home.
Monday 11 January
Can't face it - take a flexiday!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)