I've been away this last week - hence the lack of postings - so I've spent more time on the road than on the train.
When I say road, what I actually mean is the M6, and as a result of my continual trips up and down what is apparently the dullest road in Britain (according to a survey carried out by Cornhill Insurance), I have 10 questions:
1.Do we really need motorway matrix signs to announce things like: 'Spray on Road, slow down' or 'Don't drive tired, take a break.' Surely they should be obvious. If it's not, you shouldn't be on the road.
2. Why does it seem to take people by surprise that they have to pay when they get to the barrier on the M6 toll road?
3. Why do I ALWAYS end up in the slowest lane of three when I'm in a motorway traffic jam?
4. Why do motorway service stations now seem to think that we might want to buy go-karts, tents, weather stations and new clothes when popping in for a bag of crisps and a bottle of pop?
5. Where have all the free cash machines gone from motorway service stations?
6. Is there a driving instructor somewhere who teaches people it's ok to cruise down the middle lane once it's dark?
7. Has the motorway matrix ever read: "M6 Js 6-9 clear, M6 TOLL congested' instead of the other way round (which is always a tad convieniant?!?)
8. Why do traffic and travel readers never a) mention the traffic jam you're in or b) always forget to mention the 12-mile tailback 15 minutes in front of where you are?
9. Do drivers of a) Range Rovers, b) cheap-end BMWs, c) Jaguars of all sizes and d) chavved-up Corsas with blue lights underneath, have special powers to stop them from crashing enabling them to travel at 100mph safely when it's raining?
10. What's the point of carrying out a survey of the dullest roads in the UK? Does it make YOU want to buy insurance from Cornhill. To nick the phrase from a rival insurance company's dog mascot and tweek it a bit: Oh Noooo!
Thursday, October 26, 2006
Mad as a Donna
If in doubt, blame the media. I dare say Heather Mills-Macca will when her time in court comes, but in the meantime, it's been left to Madonna to make use of the world's most pitiful excuse.
You see, as any new adoptive mum would within days of welcoming the latest addition to the family home, Madonna jumped on a plane from her London home and jetted to America to open her heart on TV about the weighty issue of foreign adoption.
And who did she have this high-brow discussion with? Oprah bloody Winfrey. And we thought Tony Blair was getting good at avoiding grillings by swapping Radio 4's Today programme for 'You Say, We Pay' on Richard and Judy.
Her main bug appears to be that the media have shown a massive interest in her adopting a young lad from Malawi. And she claims the media have done all the orphans in Africa a great dis-service with their reporting on the issue.
How so Madge? Because it's pointed out that you don't appear to have jumped through the same hoops as anyone else seeking to adopt from the country? Surely pointing out such loopholes exist can only serve to protect orphans in Africa from rich people whose motives are much more sinister than yours.
Or is it because they've got to little David's dad? Hmmm, an orphan with a Dad, that doesn't quite ring true, does it? If the Dad is to be believed, David was in an orphanage just until he got money together to look after him. Madonna doesn't buy into this version of events.
But what of Madonna's motives. She's a woman of unimaginable wealth, and much of that imaginable wealth will now be spent on one child. I can't help but think that she'd have been much better off acting as a silent donor, spending whatever money she's going to spend on David on the poor as a whole. I'm pretty sure Bono or Bob Geldof could have helped her.
It's great that she wants to give a little stranger the best possible start in life. But don't go blaming the media when they start asking questions - it's been there often enough when you've needed it.
You see, as any new adoptive mum would within days of welcoming the latest addition to the family home, Madonna jumped on a plane from her London home and jetted to America to open her heart on TV about the weighty issue of foreign adoption.
And who did she have this high-brow discussion with? Oprah bloody Winfrey. And we thought Tony Blair was getting good at avoiding grillings by swapping Radio 4's Today programme for 'You Say, We Pay' on Richard and Judy.
Her main bug appears to be that the media have shown a massive interest in her adopting a young lad from Malawi. And she claims the media have done all the orphans in Africa a great dis-service with their reporting on the issue.
How so Madge? Because it's pointed out that you don't appear to have jumped through the same hoops as anyone else seeking to adopt from the country? Surely pointing out such loopholes exist can only serve to protect orphans in Africa from rich people whose motives are much more sinister than yours.
Or is it because they've got to little David's dad? Hmmm, an orphan with a Dad, that doesn't quite ring true, does it? If the Dad is to be believed, David was in an orphanage just until he got money together to look after him. Madonna doesn't buy into this version of events.
But what of Madonna's motives. She's a woman of unimaginable wealth, and much of that imaginable wealth will now be spent on one child. I can't help but think that she'd have been much better off acting as a silent donor, spending whatever money she's going to spend on David on the poor as a whole. I'm pretty sure Bono or Bob Geldof could have helped her.
It's great that she wants to give a little stranger the best possible start in life. But don't go blaming the media when they start asking questions - it's been there often enough when you've needed it.
Saturday, October 14, 2006
Passport to hell
IT'S the strangest things which amuse me when I'm listening to the news on the radio - often the strangest people they dig up for vox pops.
Yesterday, 2,500 people from the Passport Agency went out on strike. On Monday, they go back to work and they've threatened that they will begin to 'work to rule.'
And we're supposed to notice the difference when? Have you ever been to a passport office and not ended up baffled by the rules which the workers there stick to like glue. Like the train staff I was telling you about, if you complain and they don't want to help, they sit back with a smug smile which says 'listen pal, you need me, or else you ain't going anywhere.'
Their strike is being described as 'being over pay' which is a bit misleading. It's not. It's about the fact a pay offer hasn't yet been tabled. It's not even as if a rise has been put on the table and they've rejected it.
Why is this happening? Is it, by chance, because the public sector is pretty much the only place where the unions can still flex what little muscle they have left? If that's the case, let's get privatising things like passports double-quick.
The PCS union boss Mark Serwotka said: "At the same time as the cost of a passport has risen by 50% many staff members have seen their pay rise below the cost of inflation at a rate of just 1%."
But you've had a pay rise, chaps, at a time when, given the way it's become nigh-on impossible to get a passport easily, most private companies would repay such a performance with a P45.
If they were walking out calling for more cash to get better staff to improve the service - perhaps there would be some support. But they're not.
Mr Serwotka's lot went on to boast that their action on Friday delayed the processing of 30,000 passports with 'most interviews' cancelled.
Well done. Tens of thousands of holidays potentially wrecked there. Hundreds, perhaps, of people who need to get overseas ASAP delayed. And they're proud of that fact. Proud of the fact that they're messing with people's lives because 'management haven't made a pay offer a priority.'
And what is they're priority. Well, the bosses say it's improving the service. For once, I think, the public will be on the side of management, and not the annoying dress-down, smoke-break-never-shorter-than-15-minutes, out-bang-on-time, can-i-have-an-ergonomic-assessment-of-my-desk-brigade. Don't expect too many honking horns in support, chaps.
Yesterday, 2,500 people from the Passport Agency went out on strike. On Monday, they go back to work and they've threatened that they will begin to 'work to rule.'
And we're supposed to notice the difference when? Have you ever been to a passport office and not ended up baffled by the rules which the workers there stick to like glue. Like the train staff I was telling you about, if you complain and they don't want to help, they sit back with a smug smile which says 'listen pal, you need me, or else you ain't going anywhere.'
Their strike is being described as 'being over pay' which is a bit misleading. It's not. It's about the fact a pay offer hasn't yet been tabled. It's not even as if a rise has been put on the table and they've rejected it.
Why is this happening? Is it, by chance, because the public sector is pretty much the only place where the unions can still flex what little muscle they have left? If that's the case, let's get privatising things like passports double-quick.
The PCS union boss Mark Serwotka said: "At the same time as the cost of a passport has risen by 50% many staff members have seen their pay rise below the cost of inflation at a rate of just 1%."
But you've had a pay rise, chaps, at a time when, given the way it's become nigh-on impossible to get a passport easily, most private companies would repay such a performance with a P45.
If they were walking out calling for more cash to get better staff to improve the service - perhaps there would be some support. But they're not.
Mr Serwotka's lot went on to boast that their action on Friday delayed the processing of 30,000 passports with 'most interviews' cancelled.
Well done. Tens of thousands of holidays potentially wrecked there. Hundreds, perhaps, of people who need to get overseas ASAP delayed. And they're proud of that fact. Proud of the fact that they're messing with people's lives because 'management haven't made a pay offer a priority.'
And what is they're priority. Well, the bosses say it's improving the service. For once, I think, the public will be on the side of management, and not the annoying dress-down, smoke-break-never-shorter-than-15-minutes, out-bang-on-time, can-i-have-an-ergonomic-assessment-of-my-desk-brigade. Don't expect too many honking horns in support, chaps.
A sorry state of affairs
The website YouTube is right up there with ebay for journalists looking for a story on a quiet news day.
Anyone who's been in the job for any length of time will have written a Shock! Horror! Look what is being sold on ebay story.
And in two years time, any reporter worth his or her salt will be able to recount their first YouTube story - be it kids performing Jackass-style pranks of Government ministers spouting forth about the perils of on-line video in Parliament.
Half of Fleet Street will have notched up their first YouTube story this week with the story about Labour MPs Sion Simon and Tom Watson uploading a mock up of the ridiculously stupid Webcameron video the Tories seem to believe will help win them votes in the future.
Having only been able to sit through the opening moments of the first Webcameron - up to the point where the crying tot appears off-screen only for drippy daddy to break off from adressing the world to ask the kid to return later - I thought the mickey-take had a lot going for it.
It was witty, amusing, and almost totally off message - even for Labour.
But the Tories found offence at the fact that Simon, who dressed up as Cameron, offered up Cameron's wife Samantha for sex.
And here was me thinking the Tories would sell their Grandmothers if they thought it would win them an election.
It's not as if the Tories have a totally blemish-free record when it comes to sex and politics merging.
But how sad it was that Watson subsequently felt the need to apologise. For what? For causing a laugh? For showing up what webcameron really is? No, for offending the Tories. This is an apology to the Tory Party which, in lieu of any acutal policies (another 12 months, folks), resorts to character assassinations of Labour ministers on a daily basis.
Do they all demand apologies? Well perhaps they should.
And perhaps Cameron could start by offering an apology for wasting around a third of Prime Minister's Question Time - the only 30 minutes in the week when the PM is at the mercy of the Commons - on facile questions about whether the PM will give support to Gordon Brown.
But then again, what else can he do? He can hardly debate policy, can he?
Word of advice from someone who's never spent much time inside the Westminister bubble: The Labour leadership contest has got chuff all to do with you. Tell your lot to stop getting their knickers in a twist over political jokes and get them drawing up policies so people can actually judge you on your beliefs rather than the latest spin trick from your backroom boys.
Anyone who's been in the job for any length of time will have written a Shock! Horror! Look what is being sold on ebay story.
And in two years time, any reporter worth his or her salt will be able to recount their first YouTube story - be it kids performing Jackass-style pranks of Government ministers spouting forth about the perils of on-line video in Parliament.
Half of Fleet Street will have notched up their first YouTube story this week with the story about Labour MPs Sion Simon and Tom Watson uploading a mock up of the ridiculously stupid Webcameron video the Tories seem to believe will help win them votes in the future.
Having only been able to sit through the opening moments of the first Webcameron - up to the point where the crying tot appears off-screen only for drippy daddy to break off from adressing the world to ask the kid to return later - I thought the mickey-take had a lot going for it.
It was witty, amusing, and almost totally off message - even for Labour.
But the Tories found offence at the fact that Simon, who dressed up as Cameron, offered up Cameron's wife Samantha for sex.
And here was me thinking the Tories would sell their Grandmothers if they thought it would win them an election.
It's not as if the Tories have a totally blemish-free record when it comes to sex and politics merging.
But how sad it was that Watson subsequently felt the need to apologise. For what? For causing a laugh? For showing up what webcameron really is? No, for offending the Tories. This is an apology to the Tory Party which, in lieu of any acutal policies (another 12 months, folks), resorts to character assassinations of Labour ministers on a daily basis.
Do they all demand apologies? Well perhaps they should.
And perhaps Cameron could start by offering an apology for wasting around a third of Prime Minister's Question Time - the only 30 minutes in the week when the PM is at the mercy of the Commons - on facile questions about whether the PM will give support to Gordon Brown.
But then again, what else can he do? He can hardly debate policy, can he?
Word of advice from someone who's never spent much time inside the Westminister bubble: The Labour leadership contest has got chuff all to do with you. Tell your lot to stop getting their knickers in a twist over political jokes and get them drawing up policies so people can actually judge you on your beliefs rather than the latest spin trick from your backroom boys.
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
A lesson from the Amish
I'm rather embarrassed to admit this, but until last week I'd never heard of the Amish branch of Christianity.
At first, it all seemed rather odd, didn't it? Whole communities living as though the 20th century pretty much hadn't happened. Living life the old-fashioned way, shunning modern advances in technology and even insisting they didn't need the police.
You'd imagine that for such communities to exist, they'd have to denounce everything outside as evil, and lock themselves away from the rest of America.
But that's not the case. And their faith appears to be stronger than ever before. On Monday, for example, the newspapers were full of the story of how members of the Amish community actually turned up for the funeral of the man, Charles Roberts, who killed five school girls in such horrific circumstances.
They turned up because they wanted to show they had forgiven him for what he had done. Their faith said that was what was expected of them, and that's what they had gone to do.
To my mind, no-one will ever come close to understanding why what happened did, or the feeling that community in Nickel Mines must be experiencing. I'm also pretty certain few will ever be able to show such strength in faith.
But what also intrigues me is how such communities can continue to exist in such harmony with neighbouring communities which have embraced 21st century life. Rather sadly for me, the answer to this didn't come from research on the internet, or a trip to the library, but from a five-minute interview I watched on This Morning.
According to the academic they interviewed, as Amish children grow up, they are allowed a year or so to 'let it all out of their system.' By that, the academic said, the teenagers can go out and do the things they don't do within their own community. They can drink alcohol, drive cars, use mobile phones, watch telly - and then return home at night.
They experience the excesses of 2006 USA yet still come home to what some would perhaps describe as a rather primitive community. But the fact they come back shows how strong that community is.
Imagine if divided communities in, say, Jack Straw's Blackburn, tried that out. Say, for example, Muslim youngsters were allowed to try Western things which perhaps their community frowns upon. Loosen some of the rules on clothing, prayers, Ramadan, etc. It's probably not what the founders of Islam intended, but nor I would suggest, did the creators of the Amish denomination create such a thing as sampling the regular world.
Surely such a thing would help both the white population and the Muslim population understand each other a little better? Surely it would help those trying to stamp our Muslim extremism to do just that? Those who others seek to brainwash would perhaps think twice, because they'd have seen how the 'infidel' are real people at heart.
The Amish experience suggests that, if family life is strong enough, and the belief is there, the children come back. There's no reason why it would be any different with any other religion. Surely, that's the way to promote tolerance within communities: get out there and experience it.
At first, it all seemed rather odd, didn't it? Whole communities living as though the 20th century pretty much hadn't happened. Living life the old-fashioned way, shunning modern advances in technology and even insisting they didn't need the police.
You'd imagine that for such communities to exist, they'd have to denounce everything outside as evil, and lock themselves away from the rest of America.
But that's not the case. And their faith appears to be stronger than ever before. On Monday, for example, the newspapers were full of the story of how members of the Amish community actually turned up for the funeral of the man, Charles Roberts, who killed five school girls in such horrific circumstances.
They turned up because they wanted to show they had forgiven him for what he had done. Their faith said that was what was expected of them, and that's what they had gone to do.
To my mind, no-one will ever come close to understanding why what happened did, or the feeling that community in Nickel Mines must be experiencing. I'm also pretty certain few will ever be able to show such strength in faith.
But what also intrigues me is how such communities can continue to exist in such harmony with neighbouring communities which have embraced 21st century life. Rather sadly for me, the answer to this didn't come from research on the internet, or a trip to the library, but from a five-minute interview I watched on This Morning.
According to the academic they interviewed, as Amish children grow up, they are allowed a year or so to 'let it all out of their system.' By that, the academic said, the teenagers can go out and do the things they don't do within their own community. They can drink alcohol, drive cars, use mobile phones, watch telly - and then return home at night.
They experience the excesses of 2006 USA yet still come home to what some would perhaps describe as a rather primitive community. But the fact they come back shows how strong that community is.
Imagine if divided communities in, say, Jack Straw's Blackburn, tried that out. Say, for example, Muslim youngsters were allowed to try Western things which perhaps their community frowns upon. Loosen some of the rules on clothing, prayers, Ramadan, etc. It's probably not what the founders of Islam intended, but nor I would suggest, did the creators of the Amish denomination create such a thing as sampling the regular world.
Surely such a thing would help both the white population and the Muslim population understand each other a little better? Surely it would help those trying to stamp our Muslim extremism to do just that? Those who others seek to brainwash would perhaps think twice, because they'd have seen how the 'infidel' are real people at heart.
The Amish experience suggests that, if family life is strong enough, and the belief is there, the children come back. There's no reason why it would be any different with any other religion. Surely, that's the way to promote tolerance within communities: get out there and experience it.
Friday, October 06, 2006
Hats off to Jack
WHAT made Jack Straw, a man normally so in tune with the Asian community that the majority population in Blackburn feel they are being excluded, make his comments about Muslim women wearing veils yesterday?
The political cynics immediatley linked it to John Reid's recent speech asking Muslim families to keep a close eye on who their children associate with to make sure they don't become terrorists. As with any statement any senior Labour figure will make in the weeks to come, it will almost certainly be presented as a leadership pitch.
I know Jack quite well and have sat through various meetings he has been out, as well as joining him out on the road when he has been campaigning during election time - as a reporter, by the way, not as some Labour Party stooge.
He's a good MP, and one of the few to reach the highest levels of government without abandoning the needs of his constituency. The famous story in Westminister is that, while once in Washington discussing some high-level foreign issue, he took a phone call from his local paper's lobby correspondent (when they still had one) to discuss concerns about wheelie bins back in Blackburn.
During the 2005 election, when various groups arrived in Blackburn to try and kick out Jack on the anti-war ticket (they failed), protests seemed to follow Jack wherever he went. One evening, he was doing a live debate on Five Live from a community centre in an Asian area of the town. The protestors outside (several dozen, none local), were getting noisy and his security people decided to whisk him away through a back door - but he still made sure I came along with him to do an interview he'd promised.
This, to me, only serves to show a) what a pro he is when it comes to dealing with the media and b) how, despite outside influences, Blackburn still backed Jack. the 2005 election result also showed that people respect Jack as a local MP first, and even where they disagree with him on policy, they know he will be open and talk about it.
To that end, I believe his column in the Lancashire (once Evening) Telegraph last night was an attempt to start a debate. To raise an issue which has obviously concerned him for some time. And I think he did a very good job in presenting the case that intergration is a two-way street.
If you look at the papers today, and indeed the paper he wrote in yesterday, you'd think Jack was TELLING Asian women to take off their veils. Not so. He said he asked women to take them off so they could speak face to face. And most, he said, happily did so.
However, he also said he respected the right of women to wear a veil, and he certainly didn't say he'd refuse to talk to them if they kept it on. A point which seems to have been lost by the 'pundits' (also known as gobs in the media) who were quick to condemn him.
One such group is the Muslim Public Affairs Committee - which spent much of the 2005 election campaign failing to get support to get Jack out. Their woman (without veil) was on TV shouting that Jack was 'a joke' and what he said was 'offensive.' But she failed to say why it was a joke or offensive. Unlike Jack, she was just a shallow soundbite.
As, indeed, was Salim Lorgat, left, an Asian councillor in Blackburn. He said people would be 'shocked'. He didn't say why. Nor did he mention he was Lib Dem councillor, whose party is, as a rule, the laughing stock of Blackburn as it jumps from bandwagon to bandwagon.
The interesting comments come from the Muslim Council of Great Britain, which appears to welcome public debate on the issue, and points out the veil issue causes divides within the Muslim community.
But the hypocrisy of some Muslims appearing in vox pops has been staggering.
Faiz Patel is quoted in the Telegraph as saying: "I thought we lived in a free country with free will."
It is, well done.
But then he goes on to say that: "I would not want my wife to remove hers in public."
Surely that's her choice, pal, not yours. Cos, after all, this is a free country, with free will. And if Jack wants to ask women to remove the veil, then he can. He also has no problem with women keeping them on. Unlike Mr Patel, he's giving women a choice.
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
Webcamoron
It's been a while since a politician made me want to instantly puke.
But David Cameron did it almost as soon as I heard the words: "Webcameron."
I mean, who in Tory Central Office - or whatever it's called now - honestly thought it would be a good idea? His jokey warning: "Watch out BBC and ITN, I coming to get you," what was that about?
He's not turning into one of these politicians who believes their failure to connect with the public is more to do with them having to deal with the great unwashed through the media than it has to do with the fact people are sick of them being all style and no substance, is he?
The rickety camera shot is horribly contrived, and the fact he's in the kitchen - that says to me 'I'm a man who is really too busy to talk to you but I'll make the effort.' If he's got something worth saying to attract my vote, he should give me his undivided attention.
Only he hasn't, has he? Nothing worth saying. Not at the moment, anyhow. Cos he's got no policies to speak of. Just a vote-vacuum which attempts to pick people up so dis-satisfied with Labour that they don't really need to hear policies.
So why has he stood up twice at conference to deliver long speeches which in a nutshell, tell us nothing. He is turning into Blair MkII. Remember where Blair was caught out talking about sitting and watching Newcastle United? He was rumbled when people pointed out it was terracing in those days. That was Blair's attempt to be the common man. Cameron's attempt to be a green man involves him going around on a bike. With a car behind carrying his filofax.
You can write off Blair's cock-up as a bit of image spin gone wrong. Loads of blokes bluster about how deep their love of a football club goes. Cameron's attempt, desperate as it is, to appear green is deeper than that. It's an attempt to deceive on the one policy he has let slip: that he intends the Tories to be green.
Blair's famous pre-election quote was 'education, education, education.' Cameron has tried to emulate that with: "Just three letters: N H S." Well done Dave, you've embodied the idea of cutting the crap, of slimming down, in a nice bit of spin. Only it means sod all. Better education can tackle so many social ills: it gives people the power to make informed choices, to live better lives. A better NHS may sound great, but you never WANT to use the NHS do you. You'd always rather not. So in essence, Labour's idea of prevention is better than cure is being turned on its head for the sake of a cheap slogan.
The more Mr Dave opens his mouth, and lets anything fall out so long as it doesn't represent a policy, the more I'm slowly beginning to believe that Tony Blair running the country is no bad thing.
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
Letting off steam
HAVE you ever seen the sign at train stations which basically tells you it is wrong to be rude or assault staff?
It's the one which, at first glance, looks as though they are promoting equal rights for dyslexic - but the idea is that it's as hard to understand the poster as it is to understand why people would assault train staff.
I'd fully agree, if it wasn't for the fact train staff have now taken that poster to be some sort of wonderful right to be as abusive, rude and downright unhelpful as possible.
The customer is no longer king when you travel on our trains - certainly not the Virgin or Northern services oop North anyhow - and the RMT-fortified staff seem to believe we should be eternally grateful just for getting to work.
Last Thursday, I was on the way into Liverpool on the train and it came to a stop at Broad Green, a stop it wasn't even supposed to stop at. For the next 20 minutes it didn't move, until the chappie with the ticket machine came through and said there was a broken down train ahead which may move in five minutes, or maybe five hours.
Asked what I should do, he said: "Get a bus. I've know idea what to do." Perhaps ring ahead and find out how long till the train can be towed away?
Monday morning. Manchester Piccadilly. They've these things called Fast Ticket machines which are supposed to end the need to queue at a ticket office by allowing you to buy your ticket, you guessed it, through a machine. The machine I went to wasn't working. The THREE men in Virgin Trains suits at the customer 'help' desk could see I was struggling. I asked for help. They said 'you'll have to go and join a queue' despite the fact they could actually do it on the computer in front of them. The gob of the three said this while laughing and with his hands behind his head.
He could perhaps have pointed out there were seven other machines, all working, which I could have used, and which I found under my own initiative.
And when I eventually got on to the train - run by Central Trains, the company which didn't realise there would be extra people travelling to Cardiff on the day of a football play-off final being played at a stadium 100 yards from the station - the conductor got annoyed with the length of time it took people to get off and then back on the train.
He shouted: "Come on, hurry up, you're holding the train up." Hang on, when was the last time you heard the customer being blamed for a train being let? What is the purpose of the train network? To get someone on time or to get people to a destination?
Then today, I was at a station where you can't buy tickets. I got on the train. The ticket man never came. I got to Liverpool and tried to buy a ticket from the ticket man at the ticket barrier (whose job, I presume, is to make sure people don't get off trains and the station without leaving the station.) What do you think he did? Thanked me for my honesty? Instantly produced my ticket? No, he tutted. Cos 'it means getting my machine going.'
I could go on, and invariably will. I understand fully why there are campaigns to make sure people don't attack the police/ambulance/fire services when they are attending jobs. They're saving lives. But campaigns to stop us being rude or offensive to rail staff? Perhaps the rail companies would be better off taking money away from ad companies and towards customer training, perhaps therefore making travelling by train more attractive and therefore keeping more services going and therefore employing more train people?
Or am I just being daft?
It's the one which, at first glance, looks as though they are promoting equal rights for dyslexic - but the idea is that it's as hard to understand the poster as it is to understand why people would assault train staff.
I'd fully agree, if it wasn't for the fact train staff have now taken that poster to be some sort of wonderful right to be as abusive, rude and downright unhelpful as possible.
The customer is no longer king when you travel on our trains - certainly not the Virgin or Northern services oop North anyhow - and the RMT-fortified staff seem to believe we should be eternally grateful just for getting to work.
Last Thursday, I was on the way into Liverpool on the train and it came to a stop at Broad Green, a stop it wasn't even supposed to stop at. For the next 20 minutes it didn't move, until the chappie with the ticket machine came through and said there was a broken down train ahead which may move in five minutes, or maybe five hours.
Asked what I should do, he said: "Get a bus. I've know idea what to do." Perhaps ring ahead and find out how long till the train can be towed away?
Monday morning. Manchester Piccadilly. They've these things called Fast Ticket machines which are supposed to end the need to queue at a ticket office by allowing you to buy your ticket, you guessed it, through a machine. The machine I went to wasn't working. The THREE men in Virgin Trains suits at the customer 'help' desk could see I was struggling. I asked for help. They said 'you'll have to go and join a queue' despite the fact they could actually do it on the computer in front of them. The gob of the three said this while laughing and with his hands behind his head.
He could perhaps have pointed out there were seven other machines, all working, which I could have used, and which I found under my own initiative.
And when I eventually got on to the train - run by Central Trains, the company which didn't realise there would be extra people travelling to Cardiff on the day of a football play-off final being played at a stadium 100 yards from the station - the conductor got annoyed with the length of time it took people to get off and then back on the train.
He shouted: "Come on, hurry up, you're holding the train up." Hang on, when was the last time you heard the customer being blamed for a train being let? What is the purpose of the train network? To get someone on time or to get people to a destination?
Then today, I was at a station where you can't buy tickets. I got on the train. The ticket man never came. I got to Liverpool and tried to buy a ticket from the ticket man at the ticket barrier (whose job, I presume, is to make sure people don't get off trains and the station without leaving the station.) What do you think he did? Thanked me for my honesty? Instantly produced my ticket? No, he tutted. Cos 'it means getting my machine going.'
I could go on, and invariably will. I understand fully why there are campaigns to make sure people don't attack the police/ambulance/fire services when they are attending jobs. They're saving lives. But campaigns to stop us being rude or offensive to rail staff? Perhaps the rail companies would be better off taking money away from ad companies and towards customer training, perhaps therefore making travelling by train more attractive and therefore keeping more services going and therefore employing more train people?
Or am I just being daft?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)