Frig Society

This week, British soldier Lee Rigby was murdered in broad daylight on the streets of Woolwich.  The response has been staggering to observe on social media, as it was always likely to be, given the general veneration that the British public hold for their armed forces.  The EDL decided to go on patrol in Woolwich on the day of the event, UKIP supporters have been out in force on Twitter and closet racists have seen these events as an opportunity to come crawling out of the woodwork.  The shift into such nationalist thinking is concerning enough, but for me, the most alarming thing about the Woolwich attacks is attempting to reconcile the nature of the attack with the state of the assailants after the events.

The following is a ten minute interview with an eyewitness, clearly in some distress, who describes the graphic nature of the attack.  He talks of the assailants hacking the victim, trying to remove organs and claiming that the scene was like a horror movie.  Other reports from the day suggested that the victim had been decapitated.

Contrast that with these pictures of the attackers, post-attack.

Attacker one explaining political motives with bloody implements and hands. No blood on coat.

Here’s a shot of the other assailant, again post-attack.

Beige coat, no indication of any blood spatter

Despite being the perpetrators in a bloody attack, both assailants have managed to keep clean clothing.  It’s only Michael Adebolajo who shows any sign of being involved in a bloody attack, with his hands and implements caked in blood.

Here’s where it gets really interesting.

This video, from YouTube, depicting Michael Adebolajo during the same rant, doesn’t appear to show blood on his hands.  Most of the newspaper pictures and TV footage of the same event do show blood.  There is also no blood on the knives.

What is going on here?

The British news has been flooded with reports of the death of Margaret Thatcher, former leader of the Conservative Party and Prime Minister between 1979 and 1990. Public sentiment is mixed; reflecting the highly divisive nature of the woman, her policies and in many cases, the divisions she created in the country at the time.

Brixton, Liverpool and Glasgow infamously had informal gatherings to mark her passing, provoking much criticism amongst Thatcher’s stalwart supporters. Much of the press coverage and social chatter is merely a reaction to a reaction. “How dare people disrespect the dead?!”. The uncharitable may suggest that it provides a rare opportunity for Thatcher’s supporters to care about something. Personally, I find it to be a massive double standard. The right did not hold back when Hugo Chavez went to his grave, and they seemingly have no problem with demonising live unfortunates today. Such commentary is gratuitous, self-indulgent and diverts attention from the genuine issue of Thatcher’s legacy to the Britain of today.

Conversations with people who were adults in the seventies usually end up with the same sentiment being expressed – “Someone needed to sort the unions out”. My memories of the 1970s largely consist of being a toddler and terrible terrible wallpaper; I’m not in a position to argue that point. I accept that something needed to be done to normalise industrial relations. I can’t accept that Thatcher’s chosen path was the only way to achieve it.

A good example of a gratuitous Thatcher policy was the privatisation of public industry. The British people were told that it would be less expensive, offer more competition and that it was impossible to run nationalised industries anyway. These claims were as untrue now as they were then. In 2012, EDF, owned by the sovereign state of France, posted £1.6billion profit for the UK alone. Thanks to privatisation, the UK energy consumer is subsidising French government spending, when it could be using those revenues internally. How, under any stretch of the imagination, was this a good deal for the British people? Approaching the same thing from a different angle, what right-minded capitalist would EVER dispense with a permanent money spinner such as power generation?

The privatisation of the rail network, initiated by Thatcher and completed by Major, has been another disaster for the consumer. The commuter faces above inflation rises every year for the privilege of being crammed into a packed train, while the tax-payer subsidises the part of the industry that doesn’t make any money.

Thatcher was a disaster in other policy areas. Her solution to the industrial relations problem was to destroy industry. To provide some balance, the manufacturing sector was in decline, but when something is broken – you fix or replace it; not destroy it without consideration for what comes next.

Today, manufacturing represents less than 10% of GDP. We’ve transitioned from a capitalist economy which owned the means of production to an outsourced economy which does not, with little prospect of reversing the balance of payments in this brave new globalist economy.

Right-to-buy was arguably Thatcher’s most popular policy, yet it’s another example of destruction without restoration. Councils were never allowed to reinvest in new social housing stock; the paltry discounted revenues that they received for their stock had to be used to pay back debt to central government.

Those on the right love to talk about Gordon Brown spending the UK gold reserves, for two reasons. First, it perpetuates the myth that all Labour can do is spend, spend, spend. Second, it implies that the previous government were economically competent. There was, after all, gold in the bank to spend. I’ve got some sympathy with the first view, but utterly reject the second.

Anyone will have more cash in the bank if they sell all their assets. The problem with this particular get-rich-quick scheme is that you cannot use your assets once sold, which is precisely the situation that Thatcher’s gratuitous privatisation plans placed us in. She wasn’t economically competent. Aptly enough for a shopkeeper’s daughter, all she was able to do was sell, sell, sell.

Thatcher’s government constituted the largest act of theft from the British people since the land-grabs of the 19th century, orchestrating the systematic transfer of prized national assets from public ownership to nascent corporate kingdoms, muddying simple propositions like “we need to generate electricity for our people” into “we need to generate profits for our shareholders”.

It is unfair to lay all of this on the late PM. We have had four Prime Ministers since. They’ve all built on Thatcher’s policies. Major completed Thatcher’s proposed nationalisation of the rail network, Blair wasted billions in PFI contracts and Brown borrowed billions to buy back into a game at the financial services casino. Cameron just seems intent on completing Thatcher’s dream of destroying the state.

As a resident of the North, I can completely understand the anger directed at Margaret Thatcher. I can’t say its unwarranted, but I can say that it is wasted and somewhat misses the point. The Iron Lady may no longer be amongst us, but her ideas remain, mutating and threatening to infect every part of British life.

The best way to stick two fingers up to this departed icon is to rebuild what she destroyed, to have meaningful communities where you trust your neighbours, help the unfortunate  rather than demonise them, and put the needs of the many ahead of shareholders and central banks.

Thatcher may have started the asset-stripping, yet she’s been absent from political life for 23 years and the practice carries on regardless. I’m going to constrain my ire to the bastards that are robbing us now, rather than those that were robbing us then. I invite you all to do the same.

Some time ago, I blogged about experiences with Europcar customer services.  It’s a bit of a saga – you can find all the links here ( pt1, pt2, pt3, pt4 ).  Last time, I spent some time poring over the numerous inconsistencies of their Vehicle Check In Document and moaning about the fact that Europcar still had some of my money, £152 to be exact.

While this blog has been relatively silent on the subject, I’ve been working away in the background to secure a result.  Specifically, I sent a letter to Europcar charging them for my time in pursuing this matter.  I gave them seven working days to respond and returned the useless £30 in money off vouchers.  In typical Europcar fashion, the response was actually a long time in coming, but I received a letter today confirming that the final £152 that I am still owed will be paid back.  Here’s how they finished the response up:-

In conclusion, I can confirm that a refund of £152.00 has today been processed to your Visa Card and these funds will clear to this account within the next 10 working days.  With regard to your request for further compensation, I must respectfully decline this and advise that no further credits will be processed in respect of this manner and this is our final decision.

I’m not particularly convinced that this is their final decision, by the way.  I’ve seen it all before.  This is the last decision I received:-

In conclusion and with thorough investigation of the facts, I will not be able to consider any further refund of the damage charge, however as a result of your useful feedback I have however, sent you £30 in money off vouchers as a thank you for taking the time to make us aware of your experience.

So, all sorted? I have all my money back; some would consider that a result – until you consider the time spent pursuing money that should never have been taken.  That doesn’t come for free – every hour I have spent in pursuit of this claim is a hour I could have spent on paying work, which is something that Europcar seem to have forgotten.  Perhaps they work for free fuelled by nothing but altruistic fervour, but I certainly do not and neither do most of their customers.  Perhaps they think that the loss of earnings figures I have sent them are north of the mark, yet  I have signed and sealed contracts that prove it.  Perhaps they think I haven’t spent as much time chasing this as I claim.  I can prove that too – pretty much every post or tweet I’ve sent on this has been timed, dated and recorded for posterity.

I am going to have a long think over the coming days about whether to take this further.  As I said before, every pound that has been taken has been returned.  The issue now is that Europcar believes my time is worth nothing, not a great supposition to factor into any “final decision”.

I received some written communication today from Sue Roberts at Europcar.  This relates to the fortnight-long saga that began when I returned a Vauxhall Corsa to Belfast International and was charged £827 in damages ( part 1, part 2, part 3 for anyone looking to get up to speed).

Let’s start with the conclusion and work our way back:-

In conclusion and with thorough investigation of the facts, I will not be able to consider any further refund of the damage charge, however as a result of your useful feedback I have however, sent you £30 in money off vouchers as a thank you for taking the time to make us aware of your experience.

Long story short, Europcar don’t fancy giving my money back.  To be fair to them, they have attempted to justify it by printing out my terms and conditions, including these little stormers:-

You are liable for & will pay to Us (whether You were at fault or not) all reasonable costs of repair to return the Vehicle to the same condition as at the Start of Rental e.g. extra valeting, roadside assistance fees, repairs, materials/ equipment & replacement of the Vehicle.’

You acknowledge & grant permission for Us to charge any credit, charge or debit card nominated at Start of Rental (shown over) with any charges due to Us under this RA at any time during & after the Rental Period’

I like the second one best. Technically this means they can take money out of my account today if they wanted to.  This is quite interesting as there are numerous reviews on the Internet mention damage charges being taken months after the time of the rental.  Thanks to the super-efficient staff at Belfast International, this didn’t happen on this occasion.  They’d taken the £827 damage charge out of my account before I’d even embarked on my plane.  Still, food for thought.

They were also good enough to provide me a copy of the damage sheet. I have reproduced it here.

I have to say, this “proof” that I damaged the car is almost worth the £152 I’m still owed.

The car was checked by someone simply identified as “Paddy”.   It adds some nice local context, I agree – but I guess I’ve been spoiled by the practice of seeing official documents with people’s full names on them.  Whatever – Shakespeare said brevity is the soul of wit.  Let’s see what sort of a job Paddy did.

The first thing to note is that most of the form has not been filled in.   I’m willing to overlook the Customer name and Signature being blank.  I’m guessing that those are things that I’d have filled in had Paddy and I worked collaboratively on this document.  I am somewhat less forgiving about some other aspects of the documentation.

Let’s take a look at the diagram of the car  first.  My problem here is that Paddy doesn’t seem to be using the key supplied on the document.  He’s pointed to a couple of things and marked them MS and MD.  According to the key, M represents soiled and D represents dent less than 25mm width with paint damage or on swage line.  S doesn’t appear on the key at all.  So straight away, I’m a little confused.  Things don’t get any better.

Just below that, we’ve got a section marked:-

Tyre Damage YES / NO (circle)

Nothing done here.  Were the tyres damaged?  Who knows? You’d assume no, but it’s indeterminate.

Moving onto the important stuff now – things that directly affect my rental.  The date has been filled in, but Paddy has gone a bit ‘freestyle’ on the month.  It looks like a 6 drawn over a 2 twice.  It could represent a six, but it’s not actually legible.  I don’t blame Paddy for not simply starting a new Vehicle Check In Document at this point.  With so much work already achieved at this point, who would want to start again?

Time.  Blank.  One of the most important parts of the dispute, something Europcar claim happened at 17:00.  The truth is, they don’t know what time this vehicle was checked in, because Paddy didn’t write it down.

Just when you think it can’t get any better, we get to the one question that is absolutely central to this whole dispute.

Is the vehicle damaged? yes / no (circle)

I’m not an expert in booking returned hired car in, but even I know what needs to be done on that part of the form.  You just circle one or the other.  Paddy didn’t circle either.  According to that form, the question of whether that car is damaged or not is indeterminate.

So, wrapping this Vehicle Check In Document up.

• Illegible date
• No time
• Describing the damage without using the key supplied on the sheet.
• No indication of whether tyre damage had occurred
• No indication of whether the vehicle is damaged
• No comments provided

I’m well aware of the pressures of work, but even so, this document is a shambles.  Europcar know it, which is why they’re referring me to the most draconian sections of their terms and conditions – stuff like “you’ll pay even if its not your own fault” and “we’ll take money out whenever we like”.

I’ve commented on my pre-return ritual before, but one of the things that I just can’t let go of with regard to their alleged damage is the dent.  I have driven my own car around Northern Ireland.  There are a lot of loose stones on the road, etc.  I’ve got stonechips from those before, and I can imagine it’d be easy to get a scratch.  A dent, though?  Getting a dent normally involves hitting something.  I know that didn’t happen, which is why I’m so ardent that I didn’t cause the damage.

Could someone have hit it with their suitcase as they were walking past?  It has been described as being between 25mm and 75mm, so possibly.  The point is moot – it’s still perfectly clear from the T+Cs that I’m still liable.

The resolution that Europcar have arrived at is unacceptable.  They may have the legal clout to enforce their mandatory T+Cs, but I was assured by Sue Roberts of Europcar’s Customer Services that my case would be thoroughly investigated and that noted executives within Europcar had taken a keen interest in the case.  Whatever their investigation entailed, it clearly didn’t involve a quick eyeball of the Vehicle Check In Document.

I don’t mean to sound ungrateful, but their offer of £30 in vouchers is of no interest to me.  I have already spent (in lost income) more money than the £152 still owed just by writing these blog posts.  Not only that, but after the experience I’ve just had with the company, I have no desire to do business with them again.

Every attempt they’ve made to explain something, whether it’s the immediate £800 excess, the proof of the state of the car or their legal position – has just prompted further questions or highlighted further indifference or incompetence.

In this at least, the Vehicle Check In Document is a masterwork, and I’d really like to know how Europcar can say:-

In conclusion and with thorough investigation of the facts, I will not be able to consider any further refund of the damage charge

…when the linked Vehicle Check In Document sheet is their “proof”.

A small update on my ongoing dispute with Europcar.  Started to see some evidence of money moving around – they sent out an invoice detailing my refund as well as a replacement invoice for the amount that they claim I still owe.

A couple of interesting things to note.  Unless there’s some ravenous monster living in my inbox, the replacement invoice is actually no such thing.  The last Europcar thing to actually land in my email account before these two emails was my receipt from easyJet for the booking.

Strange that.  Looking back over all my Europcar hires, I can see that historically,  the company has been exceptionally speedy in letting me know how much money I’ve spent with them.  Earlier invoices all arrived on the day I returned the car or the day after.  So it’s a little perplexing that on this occasion, this highly disputed occasion, that the invoice wasn’t sent out immediately.

The other thing of note is the timing on the invoice.  Apparently, I booked the car in at 16:00 – a good forty minutes before I arrived at Belfast International.  I suspect that this just reflects a time extrapolated from the departure time of the flight – I was due out at 18:00 and the time on the invoice was precisely two hours earlier.

That means that officially, Europcar discovered the alleged damage forty minutes before I got there.  Think I’d have been in the Banbridge area at the time.  Hawk-eye vision from those damage-detectors up at Aldergrove!

The other possibility was that I was driving a DeLorean with a custom-built flux capacitor at 88 miles per hour.  However, I’d discount this for three reasons.  First, they’ve stopped making DeLoreans.  Second, flux capacitors are sadly fictional.  Finally, there are only about three roads in the whole of Northern Ireland where it is even possible to get up to 88 miles an hour.

I’ve written before earlier about Europcar’s failing business processes.  So far, we’ve had poor customer communication and an ostensibly inexplicable decision to charge full excess.  Now we learn that Europcar doesn’t even know what time the car was returned.

Should I fail in my bid to get the rest of my money returned, I shall be very interested in listening to the rationale behind the decision.  Europcar demonstrably can’t get the basics right.   Am I supposed to believe that their damage detection team (or whatever) is the one functioning part of their business?

Previously, on Frig Society

How to make £827 from a single sheet of A4.
How to make £152 from a single sheet of A4.