About six weeks ago I visited my sister and her family. During the visit my twelve year old niece asked if we could all help with her homework from her RE class.
The task set for the homework was to ask four people if they believed in god and why (or why not). I have to say I was appalled that such a biased question had been asked, and not only that but many people's beliefs are very much private and the school was assuming that they would wish to discuss them.
I was quite happy to say I am an atheist, but that the reasons why would take up more than the few words the school would expect and to be fair I don't feel I need to explain myself to them.
I checked the school's RE curriculum and found that basically they preach Christianity (I don't think that is too strong a word) and make a brief mention of Islam - beyond that there may be five minutes a year where they mention atheism and other faiths.
Therefore it doesn't surprise me that they phrased the question in this way but I feel it would be better if it were to be multi part. Firstly, would you mind me asking about your views on religion, secondly if OK then what religion if any do you follow and finally, would you like to say a few words on why this is your choice.
My brother in law wrote to the school explaining that he was not happy with this homework that had been set and received a rather abrupt response that the purpose was to provide a topic for discussion in class. Clearly the teacher felt that by rigging the question the discussion could be kept in line with the school's RE curriculum.
Furthermore my niece was then taken out of class whereupon the teacher expressed surprise that she had not completed the homework, despite the fact that her father had explained why.
So here we have a school which promotes a biased view of religion, uses homework to reinforce the bias and finally takes issue with those who choose to have their own opinions.
Perhaps if should be renamed the 'George Orwell School of 1984'
Footnote:
My nephew attends the same school and is three years older than his sister. He has managed to ignore the indoctrination and has chosen to be an atheist. I must add that he made this decision independently and was not to my knowledge influenced by my atheism, certainly I had not discussed my views or beliefs regarding this with him until after he had made his views clear.
Monday, October 31, 2011
Saturday, October 22, 2011
Capitalist Church
On Friday the protests in London under the name 'Occupy' led St Paul's Cathedral to close.
I presume the protesters are happy because it would appear that the church were not as focused on the fact that their flock would not be able to worship there but more that they were losing money. Apparently the takings from the various sources within - including the 'donation' for entry - average at nearly 23,000 pounds per day!
This has uncovers an aspect of the church that it would rather was kept hidden, it's capitalist element.
Why as the protesters ask has it closed now, because any 'risks' were no different on previous days? Surely it must be because the loss of revenue is hitting it hard and if it closes there will be less outlay. They clearly don't worry about their flock! But then they can worship their IMF elsewhere.
I presume the protesters are happy because it would appear that the church were not as focused on the fact that their flock would not be able to worship there but more that they were losing money. Apparently the takings from the various sources within - including the 'donation' for entry - average at nearly 23,000 pounds per day!
This has uncovers an aspect of the church that it would rather was kept hidden, it's capitalist element.
Why as the protesters ask has it closed now, because any 'risks' were no different on previous days? Surely it must be because the loss of revenue is hitting it hard and if it closes there will be less outlay. They clearly don't worry about their flock! But then they can worship their IMF elsewhere.
Friday, October 21, 2011
Annoying Sales Calls
Am I the only one who has noticed an increase in so called 'information' and 'survey' phone calls?
Tired of being pestered by sales calls I signed up to the Telephone Preference Service (TPS) which companies based in the UK are supposed to check their phone number database against so they don't call numbers which are subscribed to the service.
Trouble is, companies are getting wise to this.
Some are employing call centres outside the UK which are not subject to the same rules - this is complying with the letter of the law so to speak but certainly not the spirit.
The other way round that is increasing is by claiming it is not a sales call, merely a survey to determine opinions or an information call. These types of call are not apparently restricted under TPS as a shirty call centre agent told me last night.
In reality however, they are sales calls. For example, I had one purporting to ask me about my views on personal and home security. Before partaking in the call I pressed the agent and they did admit that as most people would admit to being concerned about say being burgled, the call would then go on to how they, an alarm company, could help you. Even after I advised the agent that I had an alarm with which I was very satisfied they still tried to sell me their product, claiming a number of ways in which it was better than what I already had (in their opinion).
Last night the call was on the subject of mis-sold Payment Protection Insurance on loans and credit cards - purportedly an information call but what these people do not seem to realise is that we are wise to it. If it was purely an information call and they would earn nothing from it, then why would they run up phone bills and pay agents wages - I cannot see these companies being truly altruistic.
Despite saying that I had not had PPI (white lie but no worse than theirs) and that I was not interested in the service or 'information' they persisted. Doesn't that sound like they have sales targets to achieve?
I think in future I should follow the approach demonstrated in this YouTube video - it may not terminate the call any quicker but you may feel better. Substitute No for Yes if you wish!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33BCEPMGggU&feature=related
Tired of being pestered by sales calls I signed up to the Telephone Preference Service (TPS) which companies based in the UK are supposed to check their phone number database against so they don't call numbers which are subscribed to the service.
Trouble is, companies are getting wise to this.
Some are employing call centres outside the UK which are not subject to the same rules - this is complying with the letter of the law so to speak but certainly not the spirit.
The other way round that is increasing is by claiming it is not a sales call, merely a survey to determine opinions or an information call. These types of call are not apparently restricted under TPS as a shirty call centre agent told me last night.
In reality however, they are sales calls. For example, I had one purporting to ask me about my views on personal and home security. Before partaking in the call I pressed the agent and they did admit that as most people would admit to being concerned about say being burgled, the call would then go on to how they, an alarm company, could help you. Even after I advised the agent that I had an alarm with which I was very satisfied they still tried to sell me their product, claiming a number of ways in which it was better than what I already had (in their opinion).
Last night the call was on the subject of mis-sold Payment Protection Insurance on loans and credit cards - purportedly an information call but what these people do not seem to realise is that we are wise to it. If it was purely an information call and they would earn nothing from it, then why would they run up phone bills and pay agents wages - I cannot see these companies being truly altruistic.
Despite saying that I had not had PPI (white lie but no worse than theirs) and that I was not interested in the service or 'information' they persisted. Doesn't that sound like they have sales targets to achieve?
I think in future I should follow the approach demonstrated in this YouTube video - it may not terminate the call any quicker but you may feel better. Substitute No for Yes if you wish!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33BCEPMGggU&feature=related
Monday, October 10, 2011
Pressure Selling
I have just received a replacement credit card for one that is expiring.
As is standard nowadays you must activate the card in order to confirm it's safe receipt. I am all for that and it should hopefully reduce fraud a little.
What I do object to however is the fact that with many card issuers they delegate the task of handling these calls to one of the 'Credit Card Protection' companies. They activate the card for you and then launch into the sales pitch about how many calls they take each day from people who have lost their cards or had them stolen.
Without pausing for breath they then go on to say that they will send you a registration form for their product to provide protection against all these things such as loss of cards, loss of passport, loss of mobile phone, loss of cash, loss of house or car keys, and also the theft of any of these items. They say that one phone call will enable you to ensure that all your providers are notified.
I thought the government had already given one of these companies a reprimand for this type of selling but clearly it continues.
What they omit to mention is that many people have home insurance which covers against some or all of these. More importantly they forget to tell you (and it is in the small print but boy is it small) is that you are only covered for the other items IF your credit cards are stolen or lost in the same incident. Even then there are some pretty strict rules regarding reporting the loss or theft and then there are a number of organisations (and I believe the mobile phone companies are amongst these) who will only take the call from the owner and not a third party. Many more require you to confirm in writing yourself. So what are these companies offering - a handsome profit for themselves.
It is time banks and credit card companies got back to being suppliers of the service we want and not marketing gateways for many others.
As is standard nowadays you must activate the card in order to confirm it's safe receipt. I am all for that and it should hopefully reduce fraud a little.
What I do object to however is the fact that with many card issuers they delegate the task of handling these calls to one of the 'Credit Card Protection' companies. They activate the card for you and then launch into the sales pitch about how many calls they take each day from people who have lost their cards or had them stolen.
Without pausing for breath they then go on to say that they will send you a registration form for their product to provide protection against all these things such as loss of cards, loss of passport, loss of mobile phone, loss of cash, loss of house or car keys, and also the theft of any of these items. They say that one phone call will enable you to ensure that all your providers are notified.
I thought the government had already given one of these companies a reprimand for this type of selling but clearly it continues.
What they omit to mention is that many people have home insurance which covers against some or all of these. More importantly they forget to tell you (and it is in the small print but boy is it small) is that you are only covered for the other items IF your credit cards are stolen or lost in the same incident. Even then there are some pretty strict rules regarding reporting the loss or theft and then there are a number of organisations (and I believe the mobile phone companies are amongst these) who will only take the call from the owner and not a third party. Many more require you to confirm in writing yourself. So what are these companies offering - a handsome profit for themselves.
It is time banks and credit card companies got back to being suppliers of the service we want and not marketing gateways for many others.
Bombardier - Round Two
I was in Derby at the weekend and came across a number of people under the 'Socialist Worker' banner.
They were trying to address the Bombardier situation in a couple of ways. (For history, please see http://scepticalcurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2011/07/bombardier-saga.html)
The first was to ask people to sign a petition to the government to save the jobs at Bombardier.
I have no idea why they feel another petition will achieve any more than those that have gone before but if they wish to spend their time this way that is their choice. Furthermore we have seen from petitions to both the present govenrment and previous governments that they are frequently ignored. I remember signing the online 'e-petition' for a number of causes, some of which I had replies to telling me I was wrong and the government was right, others have simply been ignored. That is democracy for you.
The second approach was to demand that the government nationalise Bombardier.
Bombardier in the UK is ultimately a division of a Canadian group of companies.
Therefore if we wished to nationalise it we would first of all have to buy the company from it's parent company. I have no idea how much this would cost but given that our government has a massive debt to address I very much doubt that buying the UK arm of Bombardier would be viable.
Let us assume that the UK does buy Bombardier and nationalise it - then what? We will own a company that still doesn't have the ThamesLink contract and therefore we could still not save the jobs that at present are to be lost. All we have gained is more debt, more risk. Look at the banks that we the taxpayer own - not a pretty sight.
I suspect that 'Socialist Worker' are then proposing that all contracts for rail are awarded in future to National Bombardier or whatever they call them. This would be in breach of so many rules that I believe it could not be done.
This approach could be adopted by other countries, so all those that buy from UK companies are instructed to buy from their own national companies - so Rolls Royce as a local example would lose a lot of work as theur aero engines are supplied to many airlines across the world, including a number of countries which do produce their own engines. BAE systems is another one, they supply many international markets and if they lost that work then they too would be at risk of even greater job losses.
Apparently Bombardier have already been invited to tender for the upgrade of Cross Country Trains rolling stock but they don't believe they can do the work in Derby, or possibly the UK at all, as they don't have the necessary machinery or expertise. So just giving the company contracts may still not achieve anything.
I feel for those at Bombardier that are to lose their jobs but unfortunately it seems that many people are proposing solutions which are not fully thought out and are clearly flawed.
They were trying to address the Bombardier situation in a couple of ways. (For history, please see http://scepticalcurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2011/07/bombardier-saga.html)
The first was to ask people to sign a petition to the government to save the jobs at Bombardier.
I have no idea why they feel another petition will achieve any more than those that have gone before but if they wish to spend their time this way that is their choice. Furthermore we have seen from petitions to both the present govenrment and previous governments that they are frequently ignored. I remember signing the online 'e-petition' for a number of causes, some of which I had replies to telling me I was wrong and the government was right, others have simply been ignored. That is democracy for you.
The second approach was to demand that the government nationalise Bombardier.
Bombardier in the UK is ultimately a division of a Canadian group of companies.
Therefore if we wished to nationalise it we would first of all have to buy the company from it's parent company. I have no idea how much this would cost but given that our government has a massive debt to address I very much doubt that buying the UK arm of Bombardier would be viable.
Let us assume that the UK does buy Bombardier and nationalise it - then what? We will own a company that still doesn't have the ThamesLink contract and therefore we could still not save the jobs that at present are to be lost. All we have gained is more debt, more risk. Look at the banks that we the taxpayer own - not a pretty sight.
I suspect that 'Socialist Worker' are then proposing that all contracts for rail are awarded in future to National Bombardier or whatever they call them. This would be in breach of so many rules that I believe it could not be done.
This approach could be adopted by other countries, so all those that buy from UK companies are instructed to buy from their own national companies - so Rolls Royce as a local example would lose a lot of work as theur aero engines are supplied to many airlines across the world, including a number of countries which do produce their own engines. BAE systems is another one, they supply many international markets and if they lost that work then they too would be at risk of even greater job losses.
Apparently Bombardier have already been invited to tender for the upgrade of Cross Country Trains rolling stock but they don't believe they can do the work in Derby, or possibly the UK at all, as they don't have the necessary machinery or expertise. So just giving the company contracts may still not achieve anything.
I feel for those at Bombardier that are to lose their jobs but unfortunately it seems that many people are proposing solutions which are not fully thought out and are clearly flawed.
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
Sales Truths
Isn't it amazing how much difference there is between what a sales person offers and what you actually get?
My most recent example is with a well known company called BT, you may have heard of them. In late August this year I received a phone call from BT about their broadband offerings. Apparently I could switch my broadband supplier to them immediately and sign up for BT Total Broadband, or if I signed up for BT Infinity I could have the high speed of their new fibre system but would have to wait until 1st October for this.
Knowing people who have been lucky enough to get BT Infinity and the speeds they report, I was excited. Fortunately however I did not contact my existing broadband supplier to start the switch over process at any point.
The sales person who called was very keen that I sign up there and then, I wouldn't be receiving another call when BT Infinity was available. I enquired and was told that whilst I could wait until I was ready to switch, the 'wonderful offer' would have expired so I would have to take on the standard contract terms - a risk I was prepared to take.
As I say, I am glad I didn't sign up then, because although I have seen the installation of new BT cabinets in the local area and engineers connecting them to the existing cabinets, when I check on availability ( I was told available from 1st October 2011 ) I find that BT Infinity is NOT in my area and is presently expected to be available from 31st December 2011. Somewhat of a discrepancy!
What would have happened if I had contacted my existing supplier to terminate the contract ( which you have to do to get the MAC code for the new supplier ) - I would have been cut off without any broadband.
I would then have had to resort to my 3G dongle - which only offers about 1.5 meg and of course costs a fortune if I exceed my monthly data limit.
It is another case of buyer beware - it is not always a good idea to sign up to 'special offers' by phone even if they are from a supposedly reputable company!
As an example of a previous instance try this - I once worked for a company implementing an Oracle system. In 1997 when the salesman made his pitch he was specifically asked about a particular feature and confidently said this was available in the current release of the day.
After installation it was necessary to place a support call with Oracle to ask how to configure it, only to be told it was NOT available but may be in the next release.
I understand from my former colleagues that even now in 2011 it is still NOT available, and I think even the promise of a future release has been dropped!
My most recent example is with a well known company called BT, you may have heard of them. In late August this year I received a phone call from BT about their broadband offerings. Apparently I could switch my broadband supplier to them immediately and sign up for BT Total Broadband, or if I signed up for BT Infinity I could have the high speed of their new fibre system but would have to wait until 1st October for this.
Knowing people who have been lucky enough to get BT Infinity and the speeds they report, I was excited. Fortunately however I did not contact my existing broadband supplier to start the switch over process at any point.
The sales person who called was very keen that I sign up there and then, I wouldn't be receiving another call when BT Infinity was available. I enquired and was told that whilst I could wait until I was ready to switch, the 'wonderful offer' would have expired so I would have to take on the standard contract terms - a risk I was prepared to take.
As I say, I am glad I didn't sign up then, because although I have seen the installation of new BT cabinets in the local area and engineers connecting them to the existing cabinets, when I check on availability ( I was told available from 1st October 2011 ) I find that BT Infinity is NOT in my area and is presently expected to be available from 31st December 2011. Somewhat of a discrepancy!
What would have happened if I had contacted my existing supplier to terminate the contract ( which you have to do to get the MAC code for the new supplier ) - I would have been cut off without any broadband.
I would then have had to resort to my 3G dongle - which only offers about 1.5 meg and of course costs a fortune if I exceed my monthly data limit.
It is another case of buyer beware - it is not always a good idea to sign up to 'special offers' by phone even if they are from a supposedly reputable company!
As an example of a previous instance try this - I once worked for a company implementing an Oracle system. In 1997 when the salesman made his pitch he was specifically asked about a particular feature and confidently said this was available in the current release of the day.
After installation it was necessary to place a support call with Oracle to ask how to configure it, only to be told it was NOT available but may be in the next release.
I understand from my former colleagues that even now in 2011 it is still NOT available, and I think even the promise of a future release has been dropped!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)