Joint Accounts and Credit Cards

The petition is entitled Abolish joint bank/credit cards etc accounts &/or make the banks take responsibility for the misuse of these accounts from either party and the explanatory notes say

"It is becoming an everyday occurance where people are taking & stealing from joint accounts or trying to gain money by putting the other party into huge debts, & getting away with this. It seems that people who are honest are having to pay back the money, when it should be the person who is responsible for causing all the problems. The banks & the government should also take responsibilty for what is happening, as well as education the public of this"

We all make mistakes. We all, sometimes, trust someone we shouldn't trust. We all, sometimes, have our trusts abused.

I'm not quite convinced that this should be solved by preventing all people from having shared accounts. You know, couples who've been married forty years or so ...

The possibility of making banks liable if one of the parties misuses the account/card is probably more viable, though I'm not completely sure.

But I definitely don't think that just because some people are not trustworthy, all people should be prevented from trusting.

Product Placement

The petition is entitled Allow understanding of the effectiveness if product placement as a form of marketing communication and the explanatory notes say

"Product placement in films and television programming is being increasingly used by marketers to counteract the fragmentation of the media and the sophistication of audiences. HELP US!!!"

Does anyone know what the petitioner is asking for?

I don't think anyone's dis-allowing understanding of the effectiveness of product placement. After all, the marketers seem perfectly aware of it, seem to understand it, don't they?

I suppose he's probably asking for some kind of restriction to be placed on product placement as a form of advertising - but I don't really see how such a thing could be implemented, or justified. (OK, one should be sure that the BBC doesn't end up using it. But that's about all.)

What do you want, man?!?

Bookmakers

The petition is entitled enforce a law that makes bookmakers have to lay a bet to lose a certain sum and the explanatory notes say

"The betting world is full of many shameful operations, that restrict some punters from betting more than very small sums. I believe that any bookmaker granted a license, should have to display on thier premises/website a "we will lay any horse to lose" sign. Therefore customers would know where they stood"

Does anyone understand what the petitioner's requesting?

I think he's saying that he wants bookmakers to be forced to make some specific bets. I certainly can't see why they should! Further, what does this request have to do with his first sentence, about "restrict[ing] ... punters from betting more than very small sums"?

Me no understandee!!

Credit Card Interest Rates

The petition is entitled Regulate the Interest Rates Charged for Credit Card Balances and the explanatory notes say

"The government should strictly limit the rates of interest charged for outstanding credit card balances to at most 3X the going bank rate extant. This would assist in avoiding Personal Bankruptcy as being the only way many people can escape their credit card debts. With interest rates of 5 & 6 X the bank rate, i.e. at present some are charging 25%..29%, it then becomes impossible for a customer to clear their balances when so much has to be found to pay the interest charge, especially when their income may be fixed, or have even dropped."

Broadly speaking I cannot see why Person A should be prevented from making a commercial arrangement to suit themselves merely because Person B can't make sensible provision for their circumstances changing or their ability to pay!

I very much dislike any kind of legislation which aims to protect people from themselves - I want to run my life my way, thank you very much, not be restricted unless what I'm doing is impacting on the rest of society.

Pah.

Sunday Trading

At present, there are two open petitions asking for Sunday trading to be banned, plus one closed one requesting the same, plus another closed one wanting all Sunday trading restrictions to be cancelled. The PM's office has responded to one of the closed ones saying "After careful consideration of all the views and evidence we received on this subject, it was clear that there is no substantial demand for change to the present regime. Most respondents believe the current situation strikes the right balance between all the interests involved."

So why bother with the open petitions? And why two of them?

Admittedly, they're not quite the same. One is entitled Keep the Sabbath Holy. Shops should be closed and no professional games of sport played on that day and has no explanatory notes. The other is entitled Reintroduce a ban on Sunday trading and the explanatory notes say

"The country needs to chill out a bit. Sundays are now as manic as Saturdays, everyone needs some time to rest and spend with family and friends. Ban all shops from opening on Sunday except for small local stores."

So OK, they're coming from, ah, rather different perspectives. But given that the original petition on the subject only got 143 votes ... what do they think they're doing?

I love the idea of professional sport being a particular problem. Other people work on Sundays too ... if you're that fussed, perhaps you should be suggesting that factories that run 24-7 at the moment be stopped on Sundays, for example ..

Premium Line Phone Numbers Again

Two petitions substantially identical to each other and to a third petition I've already talked about ...

The petition is entitled make all premium rate numbers announce thier charges and ensure that there is sufficient time to disconect before charges commence and the explanatory notes say

"Many telephone users have been tricked into calling premium rate numbers that may charge ridiculous prices as soon as the connection is made. Telephone companies could be made to ensure that all premium rate calls are preceded by an announcement stating what the terms & charges for that number are. There could then be a sufficient delay that a user could disconnect before the connection is put through. Many of the premium rate numbers are nefarious in their primary task and many people who can ill afford the loss have been "robbed" by these "services""

As I said in Premium Line Phone Numbers, Ofcom makes it clear that where it's more expensive to call an 0870 number than to call a national number, they have to tell you so, for free, at the start of the call.

Then there are the "09" numbers, which I now realise are probably what the original petitioner meant. Ofcom also has information about them, but directs people to the industry-funded regulatory body ICSTIS for further information. These, it appears, one is expected to know are expensive. They pertain to "services" like TV voting, charitable fund-raising, horoscopes, etc. I suppose, therefore, that the petitioner asking for them to have a message like the 0870 numbers are required to is not being unreasonable.

It's a pity he didn't just check for similar petitions, though ...

Then we have the petition entitled Prohibit Premium Rate Phone Charges and the explanatory notes say

"One of the greatest exploitations of the British public today is the cost of Premium Rate Phone Charges. The telephone is a means of communication and should not be used as an additional revenue earner by anybody over and above the normal business of a telephone service providor. Ofcom has been negligent in this area judging by the numerous press disclosures."

Why "shouldn't" telephones be used for additional revenue generation, if it is mutually agreeable to both sides of the deal? And if Ofcom have been negligent, complain about Ofcom's negligence in some relevant forum, not try to ban the things altogether! And finally, as I say, the 09 numbers seem to be regulated by ICSTIS, not Ofcom ...

In short - why shouldn't people be able to call premium-line numbers if they want to - just because other people are too ignorant to know that calling a number can be expensive, and check what 09 means before dialling it? And why can't people blooming well check for duplicate petitions before making yet more new ones?

Loan Interest Rates

The petition is entitled Cap the rate of interest (APR %) that any bank or financial services company offer on unsecured loans and the explanatory notes say

"The amount of interest payable on unsecured lending today can be huge. I would like to see the rate capped at 10% above the Bank of England base rate. Some lenders, especially in the sub prime market, seem to charge what ever they want to. This again amounts to rip-off Britain !"

I really dislike - you've probably gathered - the concept of legislation to protect people from themselves, except in exceptional circumstances.

If you want a loan, shop around for the best interest rates. If you can't get it at a good interest rate, do without. Capping interest rates would merely mean that some people who can currently get loans wouldn't be able to - because without the insurance of, say, nine out of ten people paying the high interest back to compensate for the tenth who defaults on the loan, the companies wouldn't lend to any of the ten.

Petrol Pricing and Rounding Errors

The petition is entitled Fuel Pricing to the Whole Penny and the explanatory notes say

"Lets put a stop to fuel companies charging 91.9p, 90.5p, for fuel by the litre. Lets get them to make it to the whole penny after all check your wallet. Anybody out there .1 of a penny."

Anybody out there ever bought 1l of petrol? Anybody out there think this pricing format is actually harming anyone? Anybody out there actually think this matters?

No? You amaze me!

Printers and Ink

The petition is entitled Force printer manufactures or enable competitors to price replacement ink cartriges at cost + small profit margins and the explanatory notes say

"At present manufacturers of domestic computer printers price their printers artifically low in order to recoup profits on replacement cartridges. These cartridges are now chipped to show ink levels and thereby cause copyright issues if copied( Epson 600 and Canon 4200 for example and others did not require chips to show ink levels ). This stops genuine competition and legal action is now pending against ink providers stifling competition. Prices of a single set of replacement inks can cost the price of a new printer including a full set of inks. Given the goverments targets on greenhouse gas emissions are strict surely it must be a gross missuse of resources for it to be cheeper to buy a printer complete with full set of cartridges than to replace the cartridges."

The petitioner is quite correct that printer manufacturers make their money on consumables rather than the initial unit, which is sold at a loss or very low profit in order to make demand for the consumables.

The situation is not, by any stretch of the imagination, limited to printers. The other high-tech example I'm aware of are game consoles, where manufacturers make their profits from the games, not the consoles themselves. But the practice goes back a lot further - Gillette is the company most often cited (am I sad? Why yes. But this is a topic which comes up among the techies more often than you might think.), and I believe it goes right back to Gillette - King Camp Gillette, or whatever his silly American name was.

So I think it would probably be a mistake to legislate purely on printer cartridges. I suppose they might be said to have a much larger environmental impact than other such consumables, and consequently might justify the specific legislation. But in most respects I'd rather see some way of stopping this bloody practice in its tracks - it's annoying both in terms of cash (the money I spend on both razor blades and printer cartridges make it highly personal!) and of sheer waste. Only I can't quite see a logical way of doing it.

One point that the petitioner may not have noticed is that a printer rarely comes with a "full" set of ink - "in-box" cartridges sold with printers are usually only about a third full.

I wish I could think of a good way of legislating against this practice. But I suspect it would be all-too-easy to either unjustifiably penalise manufacturers of other consumables, or else create loopholes that would let them get away with things. Pity.

Gambling Advertising

The petition is entitled ban gambling advertising via all forms of media and the explanatory notes say

"People can find out about gambling through more obvious means and advertising is not neccessary to support it and draw the most vulnerable members of society into it, i.e. the poor and the young. I grant that gambling is as harmful, if not exceedingly more harmful than cigarette smoking; and so its subsequent associated advertising should be made illegal. Gamblers with problems do not need any further encouragement. In addition this will prevent excerbating problems with new large and super-casinos."

I have either never seen or never noticed advertising for gambling companies particularly, and so I'm afraid my first thought about this petition was "ooh, will that mean $person (names changed to protect the marginally innocent) will have to throw away his increasingly disreputable poker website t-shirt?! Please?" I can't even remember - though I see the t-shirt very often - which site it's advertising; I am clearly blind to such adverts.

More seriously, it doesn't sound like a bad idea. Much as I've vaunted the free market in previous blog posts, advertising is a slightly different matter. As the petitioner says, someone who can use Yellow Pages or Google can find betting shops or websites. So really, the only thing wrong with this petition is that it made my brain do something silly.

Fruit Machines

The petition is entitled ban all fruit machines in pubs and the explanatory notes say

"The only people who win from fruit machines are the people who make them, so if you, like me, are fed up of watching your friends and loved ones put pounds upon pounds into these things, and never win anything back, then please, sign this petition."

People choose to use these things. If your friends and/or loved ones are actually having problems, then it's time to contact Gamblers Anonymous, not try to legislate away the problem (which will only lead to them gambling some other way, anyway, I should think). Fruit machines - however aggravatingly mesmeric I may find them - appear to provide pleasure to many, and without a much better reason to get rid of them ... Nah.

Premium Line Phone Numbers

The petition is entitled abolish Premium line numbers as these can be another source of rip-offs and scams and the explanatory notes say

"I think this goes without saying.."

Premium-rate phone numbers can indeed be annoying. This is why, if I have to phone a company who wants me to ring them on an 0870 number, I look at Say No To 0870 to see if I can find a normal number to ring them on.

In general, one does not have to ring premium-rate numbers; one chooses to. We all know that they can be more expensive, furthermore, Ofcom makes it clear that where it's more expensive than a national number to call the 0870 number, they have to tell you so, for free, at the start of the call.

If one then chooses to give the company money, I cannot for the life of me see why the government should stop one.

Adverts on Satellite and Cable TV

The petition is entitled ban adverts on pay per view satelite/cable TV and the explanatory notes say

"If i pay to watch football on satelite/cable TV i believe i should not be subjected to adverts"

Now tell me, pray, why the Government should have this sort of power over commercial TV? I don't have a problem with a legal watershed (well, I don't think I do ... actually, in principle I'm not even sure about that, but never mind), and certainly I don't have a problem with the government restricting toe content of adverts.

But services you pay for are a contract between you and the supplier; assuming the supplier haven't hidden the fact that there are going to be adverts, I see no reason why the government should interfere. If you don't want the ads, don't subscribe to the service. Negotiate a (doubtless more expensive) service without them. Or something.

Sensationalising and Trivialising by the Media

The petition is entitled restrict the all public media from being allowed to sensationalise triviality on the one hand or scaremonger on the other and the explanatory notes say

"No more sensationalising of triviality. For example: what a celebrity wears, eats, sleeps with is not a matter for News At Ten or newspaper front pages.

Scaremongering. For example: bird flu will kill us all; global warming will kill the planet; terrorists will kill all of us in the western world (using anthrax, ricin or some weapon we have overlooked); it will be illegal to celebrate christmas; and so on.

The media is to blame for a lot of the failings of our society. They create vain, selfish, frightened children who grow up wanting everything without working for it, who have awful social skills and a general ignorance of anything older than they are.

I use the term "media" to include televison programmes, radio, newspapers, magazines, web sites, adverts (on TV, radio, posters, billboards, etc) and anywhere that can reach a public audience."

A number of things stand out about this. The first question has to be "how do you ban the press from sensationalising things without curtailing the freedom of the press?

If you don't personally like what the media are like, I suggest finding new media. The internet is particularly useful for this; if I want trivialities about what celebrities are wearing, there's Go Fug Yourself (trivialities and bitching - what else do you want?); if I want more sensible news I cast my eye over the Graun or the BBC. It works for me.

Blaming the media for the failings of our society is ridiculous: if parents and the education system can't teach children to critically judge the media, then that is their failing, not the media's.

Sensations sell papers. Don't like it? Don't buy them.

Portacabins

The petition is entitled ban the use of portable cabins for use as permanent office space and there are no explanatory notes. I guess because the petitioner is stuck in one and is too frozen to type more.

This just seems a trifle pointless. If a specific portacabin is unsuitable for office space, get Health and Safety riled up about it. I don't like the idea of banning specifics instead of making generalised requirements which can apply to everything.

Fast Food Adverts

The petition is entitled legislate that fast food outlets should either show adverts that accurately reflect the meal we actually get, or serve meals that are the same as those shown in the advert and the explanatory notes say

"Ever wondered why your burger, or sandwich, or other fast food meal looks like a very poor cousin of that shown in the advert or glossy pictures in the window? So have I. It's time this practice ended. Not only would it be a useful tool in the war on obesity, it would make these fast food providers either improve the quality of the food they serve, or improve the honesty of their marketing.

Now, I will admit to occasionally succumbing to the strange temptation that is a Whopper With Cheese. I must say that I have never looked at one and thought "what! This is unrecognisable! It's not what the picture is!" It's the smell that lures me, anyway, not the pictures. Which to my way of thinking are reasonable approximations of the food, anyway.

No, really. If you don't like the difference between what's pictured on the menu and what you get when you order, stop ordering. Most places you can find some kind of alternative. And if you can't, you should have been better prepared.

First Class Train Tickets

The petition is entitled Scrap divisive First Class travel on Trains and the explanatory notes say

"I request that First Class Travel on Trains be scrapped. I commute into London (for which I pay £150 a month) and find it extremely annoying to have to stand in standard accomodation whilst there are many empty seats in the first class accomodation.

I believe that this separation of the accomodation on Britain's railways is extremely divisive and emphasises all that's bad about Britain's 'class' system.

I believe that all travellers should be travelling 'First Class' and that comfortable travel shouldn't be a privelege to be enjoyed by the few.

Indeed, I look forward to a day when all travellers can travel as one, shoulder to shoulder, in comfort and safety, as they speed to their destination.

Let's throw off the shackles and finally do away with 'First Class' travel.

Liberation now !"

Given the privatisation of the rail network, it's hard to imagine the government trying to take control of this, isn't it? And then - if they implemented "first class" style seating throughout the carriages, there'd be fewer seats, which would be annoying. And I hate it when carriages are so crowded one has to travel "shoulder to shoulder" with one's fellow travellers.

In other words - I love the Loony Left when they give me a grin like this.

Wine Markups

The petition is entitled limit the outrageous mark-ups that restaurants currently allowed with wine-lists and the explanatory notes say

"It is a scandal that leisure/cultural pursuits are so expensive in London. Without a shadow of doubt, one of the most guilty is the criminal mark-ups that restaurants are allowed to the sale of wines. Bottles of £3.99 wine should not be allowed to be resold at £20.00 - unlike most politicans - many of us actually have to foot the bill themselves"

Actually, I don't suppose the markups on wine are nearly as outrageous as those on other products. I bet that at the restaurants in question, you won't get change from £2.50 for a half-pint of Coke - which will have cost the place pennies.

But even if that is the most outrageous example in the world of scandalous over-pricing, you have a choice, Mr Petitioner. Don't buy the wine! If you must have it, buy it for £3.99 in Bottom's Up and drink it at home!

If you want to live in a society that isn't a free-market economy, on the other hand, campaign for that as a whole - and I think I'll take up campaigning against you, because, well, as a system it seems to work reasonably well.

Call Centres

The petition is entitled outlaw call centres and it is another of these splendid petitions with no explanation, no justification, no nothing.

Now, I, too, know the irritation of ringing a company and getting some poor kid in a call centre who has no idea what's going on.

But I like this better than the alternatives, my word I do. Let's assume we've banned call centres. Let's assume we've also banned companies contracting to call centres in India. Let's assume we've somehow managed to enforce this. Now what? Let's say I have a problem with my gas bill. I wish to ring my company to discuss it. But - how can I? Who, exactly, can I ring? Perhaps I should ring their main switchboard operator, who can put me through to whichever deparment is actually appropriate. But there are hundreds of other people trying to ring, too - the poor thing is overwhelmed with calls. OK, they should employ more switchboard operators. Who will, no doubt, all sit in a room with their headsets on, answering calls dutifully and putting people through to appropriate numbers. Lo, and behold, we have reinvented the banned call centre ...