Miss Kevin Spacey? Me too…

I must admit to having developed an unhealthy fascination of late with the final series sorry season (they’re called that now, aren’t they?) of House of Cards.  Sad to say that it makes virtually no sense whatsoever without Kevin Spacey …

… it reminds me of William Hartnell’s final Doctor Who story “The Tenth Planet” where because the lead actor was too ill to appear in most of the story his lines have been crudely re-allocated to his companions.  That just about worked even though we know that really Ben and Polly have either had an IQ transplant or by a complete series of flukes they just happen to be having an unusually bright day … because it’s just one episode in which they have to do all the exposition and because we know the Doctor will wake up (if only to die) … and one can suspend belief for that long ...but … but ... but...

Kevin Spacey having now graduated to real scandals will never again return as Frank Underwood so … the veil never lifts.  It’s like all his lines have been reallocated over the entire truncated series but on a colossal scale.  I’m sure significant re-writes were done but they’re not enough – the feat cannot be achieved…

Too scared to re-cast the character because they fear the audience wouldn’t accept it (I don’t see why not - I accepted Kevin Spacey not being Ian Richardson) the production team have decided to make Robin Wright’s Claire Underwood the lead instead.  I really want to be able say this works or could work … but it just 100 per cent doesn’t…and it bothers me as to why? because I wanted it to...

Perhaps because … they don’t let her lead and everyone constantly refers to Frank Underwood’s absence – including Claire herself.  Why does he have to be dead?  Could he not be missing?  Some programs – Taggart …? Blakes 7? … seem to manage to carry on or even improve without the original lead even though their titular character’s name remains in the title but … House of Cards just can’t pull it off ...for..for ...for...

…for whatever reason Robin Wright just can’t follow Kevin Spacey … just like Timothy Dalton couldn’t follow Roger Moore as 007.  The result is a fantastic achievement in awkwardness…

Indeed, not since David Nobbs wrote “The Legacy of Reginald Perrin” in the 1990s  – a brave attempt to keep all his other characters alive and just write around the fact that Leonard Rossiter/Reginald Perrin had died in 1984 by building a storyline around his will - has the departure of a central character so completely haunted a production.  

 I expect they’d already shot so much they had to try and do something with the remaining footage but it’s like Ed Wood’s Plan 9 from Outer Space after the death of Bela Lugosi …

It isn’t just Frank Underwood who is missing either – I’m pretty sure that several other regular actors have done a bunk but as their departure is not signposted and I can’t remember who they were and worse it doesn’t seem to matter….  Or perhaps Frank Underwood is just 3 or 4 times bigger than many of the periphery characters.  But whatever…

The plot is all over the place too.  I’ve never been able to follow all the plots in all the series of House of Cards but the stakes and the impending disasters have always been clearly signposted to the audience from the very start.  For example – Series 1 … We know Frank is a psychopath and we know he’s going to end up killing Zoe Barnes at some point and we know Doug Stamper is going to have to cover it up …and we know there will need to be a cover up of the cover up … There’s no real mysteries …the plot is about the how not the why… Yet now in an attempt to make something interesting out of Frank’s “death” it’s turned into a mystery series and we don’t know why things are happening and I am too disinterested to try and figure it out.   

What I want is villainy but what they’re offering is a murder mystery (without a body).

It’s hard enough to accept Claire breaking the fourth wall instead of Frank when we have been inside his head for the past 5 seasons … but it is even harder when Claire doesn’t tell us anything. 

I doubt all the expectation will pay off either because it would have to be Universe shattering by this point to justify the extremely opaque set-up… so Claire constantly talks to us as if letting us into her conspiracy but says nothing.  At the moment the series has gone into a totally absurd storyline whereby Claire Underwood has gone all Queen Victoria and decided to become agoraphobic – of course this is supposed to be a clever Machiavellian scheme by Claire - but it all just becomes slightly boring.  I don’t need to watch someone else not going out the house enough – I can do that home alone…

Added to this Claire Underwood never had as complicated or carefully explained back story as Frank which means she was not as interesting to start with so the writers are trying desperately to make up for this by info-dumping a whole load of biographical backstory on us and it’s too much too quickly … so none of this is Robin Wright’s acting – it’s just they’re trying to make bricks without straw then trying to make bricks that are all straw.

Miss Kevin Spacey?  Me too…

A Chump at Oxford - Reboot

When, I started this blog I had some idea that it would touch on politics occasionally but British politics is now so extreme and polarised that it is hard to make it funny.

Our current Prime Minister and his cabinet with their black and white thinking and Commons majority of 1 seem to be stuck perpetually in a surreal black farce that holds many similarities with Laurel and Hardy’s 1939 comedy film “A Chump at Oxford”.  In this film Laurel and Hardy foil a bank heist by accident when one of them discards a banana skin that trips up the robbers and allows for the feeling of their collars...  When asked by the Bank owner how they would like to be rewarded the idiotic duo reply that they would like “a good education” because the fact they don’t have one is the reason that they “never get no place”. 

Of course the real reason they “never get no place” is they are not very intelligent but…  Just like Boris they are promptly whisked away from America to the hallowed grounds of Oxford University.  After such hilarious mishaps as being tricked by other students into believing the Dean’s quarters are their own and squirting him with soda water … Stan receives an accidental bump on the head from a sash window frame… and this causes him to recall his old lost identity “Lord Paddington”.

Just like Boris Johnson … Stan Laurel underlines his newly raised social status by combing down his fright wig instead of having his hair all over the place and ceases behaving like a buffoon to instantly become an unlovable bully instead – inverting his usual position in the comedy act.  Just like Boris Johnson … also-ran Stanley now suddenly becomes a winner at everything, unbelievably pompous and talks in a more upper crust accent.  He employs his old friend Oliver as his valet and roundly insults him by telling him to hold both his chin and his double chin in. 

Eventually Oliver resolves to leave Stanley in Oxford and return to America alone but matters are quickly resolved when the sash window bumps “Lord Paddington” on the head again and he reverts back to his old identity of Stan Laurel.  Oliver hugs his old long lost friend and the credits roll.

I suspect that a sash window frame is also behind the current peculiar state of affairs by which Boris Johnson has somehow become Prime Minister… if only one would fall on his head again.  We can but hope…

Sex and nudity spice up BBC Jane Austen drama

It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession
of a good fortune, must be in want of some soft pornography. 

Guest post about Brexit by Sarah Jones MP

Dear Anthony Miller,

Thanks for getting in touch with me recently about Brexit. I appreciate you sharing your views with me and I can assure you that I will keep them in mind.

There are strongly held views on all sides of the Brexit debate, but I believe that we are all united in an ambition to see our great country thrive. Some people may not agree with the ways I have voted in recent months, but I am grateful that the vast majority of people have expressed their views in good faith.

For over three years now, the Conservatives have failed to deliver a Brexit deal that had support, and the uncertainty is causing real damage: dragging down the economy and putting jobs at risk. Labour respected the result of the referendum and put forward an alternative Brexit plan to protect jobs, rights and growth, but the Conservatives have refused to compromise.

As I said on the BBC recently, it is my personal view that Labour is moving towards campaigning to remain and reform position. Jeremy Corbyn recently announced a shift in Labour’s position towards this – we believe that our new Prime Minister should have the confidence to put their deal, or no-deal, back to the people in a public vote. In those circumstances, Labour would campaign for Remain against either no-deal or a Tory deal that does not protect the economy and jobs.

I will not vote to make my constituents poorer, and I don’t think many people could. It is right to put Brexit back to the people with the option to remain and reform. The realities of Brexit are now understood and the damage to our economy and standing in the world is clear. But that doesn’t mean we can ignore the reasons people voted to leave in the first place. We must continue to push for a fairer economy and increase investment in all parts of the country.

In the past few days, Boris Johnson became Prime Minister and he seems set to lead us towards a disastrous no-deal cliff edge that will damage jobs, living standards and communities across the country – I will oppose this and support a public vote to give people the final say.

As Shadow Housing Minister and Chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Knife Crime, I see huge societal problems that are being entirely ignored by Government.  Regardless of Brexit, this government has failed to tackle the burning injustices that Theresa May talked about when she became Prime Minister. Meanwhile, Boris Johnson was elected Prime Minister by less than 0.2% of the population. That is why Labour is committed to a general election so the public can decide – across a range of issues – who they want to be in Downing Street.

Thanks again for contacting me about this and for sharing your views.

Best wishes,

Sarah Jones MP
Member of Parliament for Croydon Central
Shadow Housing Minister

e: sarah.jones.mp@parliament.uk
tw: @LabourSJ
w: www.sarah-jones.org

So here lies Croydon Village Outlet 2013-2019

When I was a child Allders was one of my favourite shops.  You could go there and shop and have tea… as I got older I became a fan of Allders toilets.  Allders had many toilets and one could choose which floor to evacuate one’s bowels on.  I often used to get the escalators to the top floor to see all the TVs and VCRs I couldn’t afford to buy and have a poo.  It was a shop that one could get lost in.  Then it lost its way.  And then it went under.  And then it closed.   

And then there was Croydon Village Outlet.  Croydon Village Outlet moved in when Allders closed and attempted to run a shop in the same space with zero investment whatsoever.  All the original interior décor was set in aspic as it had been at the Allders closure but the shop became like an indoor market.  It boasted all the glamour of a car boot sale only with no items one would actually want to buy.  Well, I'm sure one could find something if one tried hard but it was so depressingly dingy it put one off bothering.  There were stacks DVDs that poundland couldn’t sell and strange concessions and make-up counters that sold ...well pretty much any random thing...but without a secuirty guard in sight one felt almost as though if one did buy legitimately one would be fitted up for theft somehow...

That's right there were seemingly no security guards and it was impossible to tell which till one should pay for anything on.  As to a customer service department - no one was in uniform so who would one approach?  It wasn't even obvious who the staff were ...or even if they existed at all?  Perhaps it was all an elabourate plan on behalf of the government to trick us into believing the high street wasn't on life support...

Parts of the old building no longer in use were crudely partitioned off.  The escalators were out of bounds and one was advised to use stairs.  I used to enjoy the shop for all the wrong reasons.  When you work in retail you wonder if floor plans are a waste of time.  Why there are so many inter-departmental meetings.  Why the people in commercial intelligence and interior design always want to change every display seemingly pointlessly.  Why we’re always changing from plan A to plan B to plan C … then back to plan A again. Croydon Village Outlet was like a parable in what happens if you just don’t do any of that.   

A world where literally nothing changes.  Where it’s neither pile-it-high-sell-it-cheap or sell-it-expensive-but-spend-a-lot-on-marketing.  Just a muddle.  Its inhabitants seemingly weren’t even bothered that the Council had CPOed the building for the Westfield/Hum…itscomingalong project that never seems to happen … and then the locks were changed and they were locked out forever…

So here lies

Croydon Village Outlet 2013-2019

Father Joshua Allder

Mother of necessity

May it rest in apathy

Dear Jana,

Dear Anthony,



I hope you are doing well.



Currently I am looking for an electrical engineer (m / f ) from now on near Munich.

The term is about 1 year.

It is required that you already have experience in plant engineering, in the chemical sector and also in the area of medium voltage (up to 11 kV).

The main tasks include:

- Planning of plants low and medium voltage

- Define and select cables

- Choose motors/engines and transformers



If you are interested and in a timely manner, I am pleased about your current CV (at best in Word format). Otherwise, you are welcome to forward this mail if you have recommendations for me.



Thank you and have a nice rest week!



 Best Regards,

Jana

Dear Jana,


I have no relevant qualifications or experience for this job whatsoever but I'm still prepared to give it a whirl if you are.


Yours Sincerely


Anthony

In future I shall be making a concerted effort to make my insults more mellifluous...

Apparently my appeal against my twitter ban was not upheld

According to twitter’s terms of service …

You may not promote violence against, threaten, or harass other people
on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation,
gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or
serious disease.

However, a single comment – and one that suggests 1 in 3 people may be a ladies private part is not harassment.  Neither do I understand how race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or serious disease come into the equation … unless I’m picking on Boris Johnson, Michael Gove or Jeremy Hunt for being white, upper-middle class or Oxford educated?  Neither is my post personally directed @ them.

So why ban the word?  Perhaps Twitter doesn’t want to be associated with anger …or the language of the gutter but prefers to aspire to the drawing room…?

It seems I’m not the only person to experience this…

“My account is locked for calling Kirsten Powers a cunt, in a tweet pushing back against her comment that "your feelings do not matter" re cultural appropriation and lefty moral outrage about Halloween costumes, speaketh someone on that other platform for the plebs that is reddit…

Somewhere removed from twitter someone else bemoans “I got banned for saying fucking cunt to my friend. What the actual fuck. This is such a shit show. Turning my chat off permanently wtf shit fuck ...”

Whilst a man called Ian McWhirter complains that “Anyone using the word "cunt" - even with asterisk - is instantly blocked. #blockheads”

Yet somehow this isn’t banned…

It seems the prohibition on mentions of ladies private parts doesn’t end there with Twitter Users Suspended After Calling Canadian Senator the slightly more imaginative “Twatwaffle”

Perhaps it’s the feminists who oppose the use of the word cunt as misogynistic…?  Oh well I suppose we’ll all have to talk soon in the language of parliament and start referring to Boris Johnson, Michael Gove or Jeremy Hunt as “honourable members”.

It seems to me that violent language that expresses real emotion becomes ever more taboo and yet at the same time ubiquitous.   In future I shall be making a concerted effort to make my insults more mellifluous….

In other twitter ban news I also worked out why I have so many Turkish followers.  It seems that in 2014 Prime Minister of Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdogan banned twitter in Turkey causing usage to go up by 138 per cent....

I am banned from twitter... my bad...

Black Rod waz here...

When I was a child at junior school once a year we’d be herded into the school hall to watch the State Opening of Parliament on a not very large cathode ray tube television which looked very small if you were sitting cross legged on the floor at the back of the hall.  It was very boring but we had to watch it as this was the only time that ordinary people were allowed to see inside parliament on television.  The public had only been able to listen to parliament debating since 1975.  Parliamentary debates pre-75 had only been available to the public via short edited transcripts in upmarket national newspapers or via Hansard which was too voluminous for the local library to retain a copy.  Bowing to public pressure however the government would allow the cameras in but once a year to show its self off at its best – when not debating but playing about with ceremony and regalia. 

All this seemed very silly but then you watch the Tory leadership debate on the BBC …or attempt to watch it for it is so cringeworthy it’s impossible to sit through the whole thing.   A succession of “ordinary” people appear on a giant LCD TV screen of gargantuan proportions asking five men perched on bar stools simple questions about Brexit that they are unable to answer or answer with copious amounts of fudge.  Four of them say we must threaten the EU with a hard Brexit and be prepared to walk away without a deal and when confronted by members of the public in manufacturing industry or farming to whom this mean the instant catastrophic destruction of their livelihoods waffle “Nobody wants that”.  Except of course that’s exactly what they want.  They see the EU not as a fraternity of nations politically aligned for mutual convenience but as giant socialist project burdening them with things they don’t want like workers rights legislation.  When Rory Stewart like a one-man Greek Chorus points out that parliament (in which they have a majority of 4 if you include the Ulster Unionists) has repeatedly refused to back a no-deal Brexit the other four go into denial falling back on the implausible proposition that they alone have magical negotiating skills that evaded both Ms May and Mr Cameron. "We have to have the threat of a no deal Brexit" though like we have to have the threat of nuclear war is the jist of their argument for threatening everyone with financial oblivion.  No wonder Boris always looks so cheery - you need to be jolly to sell that one... 

Brexit was supposed to save our democracy yet we now have tabloids discussing whether a no-deal Brexit can be achieved by proroguing Parliament.  A surely unconstitutional political solution that hasn’t been considered viable since the Rump Parliament of 1648.  In different times this solution would be considered laughable but now suddenly people are discussing it seriously why?  Inevitably the Brexit choice has come down to the ultimate decision – which is more important: Implementing the Referendum Decision (which would be direct democracy) or implementing the will of Parliament (which would be representative democracy).  It was almost inevitable when the parties started playing with referenda to solve their internal political divisions by effectively bypassing parliament that it would end up at this point.  A point where the solutions presented are as despotic and absurd as those favoured by Charles I and Cromwell.  If Brexit really was about parliamentary supremacy and making our own laws how come implementing Brexit requires shutting down parliament ...? Answers in a trite tweet please... 

Maybe there was a point in forcing junior school children to watch the ceremonial slamming of the door in Black Rod’s face after all...

And then there was Boris...

Ten little Tories went out to social climb
Esther got just 9 percent and then there were nine

Nine little Tories had a dull debate
Mark was very boring and then there were eight

Eight little Tories included Ms Leadsom
She'd lost once before and then there were seven

Seven little Tories running out of tricks
Hancock fell upon his sword and then there were six

Six little Tory Boys trying to survive
Raab lost the second ballot and then there were five

Five little Tory Boys went on TV to bore
Rory was slightly sensible and then there were four

Four little Tory Boys - one said scrap the 45p
rate of income tax and then there were three

Three Oxford Tory Boys before the 1922
One had NHS glasses and then there were two

Two little Tory Boys popular with the Sun
Two were not Boris and then there was one

One little Boris Boy left all alone
Had a hard Brexit and then there were none

Father of the House...

Father of the house
Won't let EU die
Never wants a leadership 
To pass him by
Still a backbencher
Smoker to the great
Waffler, philosopher, And EU mate!
Every interviewer's companion
But always on TV alone...
Potential Tory Leaders
Jesus, what a sorry little lot...

Missing the bare necessities...

They lost the bare necessities
The simple bare necessities
Forget about the dodgy CGI
I want the bare necessities
All the songs and comedies
That brought the bare necessities to life

Wherever I wonder, what's in my home
I think this is boring - leave me alone
The story aint that great but we
Used to laugh when it was cartoony
When you take out the jokes and songs
You make it too serious - full of wrongs
Maybe add a joke or two ...
The bare necessities of life will come to you
They'll come to you!

Look for the bare necessities
The simple bare necessities
Forget about casting celebrities
I want the bare necessities
Like dialog that don't make you wheeze
Without the bare necessities of life...

The Dark world of being a Landlord through time...

Gentle Reader, let me let you into a dark family secret. 

My father had a rented property.  Indeed at one time he had two.  These were inherited through his father and grandfather who had something to do with the leather trade … The existence of this small second income stream was something that my father carefully concealed from me as a child for many years.  I’m not sure why but I sometimes wondered after visiting the place why its existence had to be concealed so carefully.  It wasn’t as if he was running a brothel on the side …just renting some rooms in an old house.  But I suppose the fear was other people’s jealousy.  The trouble with children is they talk…

Well, I’m unfortunately not a child anymore so please indulge me while I run my mouth….

My father explained the existence of this somewhat drab but functional property when he could inevitably no longer conceal it from me because he had to take a new sink there and was stuck with me that day in the following way: “Your great grandfather lived in an era before pensions so he had to put his money into to something that would generate an income for his old age.”  

I was never entirely convinced by this explanation but I suppose if he'd said "we do it to make money" he might have come over as Donald Trump.  Anyway, one can’t get too judgemental as the room I’m sitting in now typing this is one that has been purchased partly with money that derived from that property.  Watch me and my unearned wealth…Anyway who doesn’t make money out of those who are poorer them? … apart from the one unfortunate individual in the UK who is the poorest of all?  

In Psmith in the City (written in 1910) Psmith’s friend Mike rents a dreary room when he moves to London to work in a bank.  Back then P G Wodehouse described the process of renting property thusly:

“There is probably no more depressing experience in the world than the process of engaging furnished apartments. Those who let furnished apartments seem to take no joy in the act. Like Pooh-Bah, they do it, but it revolts them.”

This seemed to me to be my father’s experience of being a landlord.  He was constantly being called out to fix things that the tenants broke and while the erratic revenue stream was useful the activity of being a landlord seemed to give him little satisfaction in its self.  More importantly however there was another secondary reason my father was a landlord – he couldn’t sell the place he’d inherited because it had “sitting tenants”. 

Well, he could sell it but he had to sell it with the tenants as if they were part of the furniture.  Therefore unless he wanted to sell it at rock bottom price he had to wait for the existing tenants to move out.  I would say “either move out or die” but bizarrely under the Rent Act 1977 even the death of a sitting tenant was no guarantee that the property would be vacated since the legislation allowed tenants to will their tenancy to a relative as if they were the owner…?  Yes, there was once a time when tenants had perhaps more rights than they should have … How that now seems …odd?

In the past there were lots of tenants with this status (known as “protected tenants”) whose tenancy rates were set by the Rent Office.  The existence of these tenancies dates back to WWI when the government was worried about there not being enough houses for munitions and other essential workers and decided that the free market system needed a lot more control.  As this was popular the policies were continued after the war in a haphazard way until 1977 when Jim Callaghan consolidated all the legislation into the 1977 Rent Act.  This act has never been fully repealed so tenancies created under it pre-1989 continue under completely different rules to those that apply to newly created tenancies today.  

Obviously the 1977 Rent Act didn’t quite fit into Margaret Thatcher’s vision so her legislation changed the system again so that tenancies created after 15 January 1989 are all “unprotected”… and by unprotected I mean completely unprotected…  This largely went unnoticed at the time as the two systems ran in tandem and in 1989 there were very few tenancies on the new terms but inevitably the number of protected tenancies started immediately to decline until…

Like most of Mrs T’s innovations it’s taken several decades for the negative effects of this legislation to come to fruition but today they’re there for all to see in ever increasing quantity and glory … A complete free-for-all where anyone on over £25000 can get a cheap loan from a bank for an interest only mortgage to become a “Buy-To-Let” landlord and the risks of being a landlord are radically reduced as the tenants now have no protection and can be quickly evicted not just for non-payment but on the slightest caprice.  No wonder Harvey Keitel doesn’t even bother selling Home Insurance now only …Landlord Insurance.

These new landlords of today are not like my father – they have not inherited a property and become locked into a bizarre duty of care to people who have to be sold with the property as if they are furniture … they are effectively just franchisees in a vast property portfolio system in which banks “own” a lot of property that they rent interest only.  Which raises the question how do the banks find the money if there are no repayments?  Well, banks make their money from mortgages on the interest.  It was only a matter of time before some bright spark realised that if you take the ownership dimension out of the system you can increase the amount of mortgages you sell … and there’s little risk for them as the properties they bought return to them when the interest only mortgage expires. 

When you analyse this it’s simply a method of taking homes out the system.  Moreover by taking homes out the system the banks fuel house price inflation which means when they get their interest free properties back when the landlord sells what they don't own they’ve magically increased in value.  The buy-to-let landlord then evicts the tenants and pockets the price differential and everyone’s a winner – except tenants and people trying to get on the housing ladder…

At least my great grandfather bought his properties… Indeed calling these purchases buy-to-let properties is a bit of a deception in its self since “interest only" mortgaged properties are not being “bought” at all … just managed.  A more accurate title would be “Pay Interest To Rent” mortgages.

Yes, what a strange creation the modern landlord is these days.  He does not actually need to buy anything or even part-buy anything.  He does not need to repay anything.  He just pays a higher interest rate than on a property than he would if he lived in it and the banks are happy for him (or her)  to manage their property portfolios for them. 

I know I’m repeating myself but the more I say it the less sense it makes…

Like being a comedian no qualifications are required to be a landlord – just a medium income and some collateral …or in other words being middle class.  Perhaps this is why so many people want to do it?  Or perhaps it is because it is the ideal second job?  A way to make a second income out of your first income but in a way that will not threaten your main employer because nothing useful is actually being created …? 

And people wonder why the housing market is a nightmare.  How we resolve this situation I don't know... Perhaps if we start WWIII then we'll all become munitions workers again and the government will have to introduce rent controls so we can make the bombs but only a few bombs are really needed these days and most of those are made in Aldermaston...

Sorry if this post has put you to sleep.

Cocoa…?

Arthur Daley is dead. Long live We Buy Any Car Dot Com ...

Since the passing of Arthur Daley connoisseurs of shady car salesmen have had to look elsewhere for shining entrepreneurship within the motor trade …so step forward webuyanycar.com … with whom I have had a lot of fun reverse engineering their sales system by putting in pointless speculative bids for my own motor which I have no intention of selling as its still on a 100000 miler warranty… Well, it’s a hobby…

… now I know there is a market for instant gratification out there on the internet and I know that sometimes one might need to sell a car quickly to avoid a huge MOT bill but surely webuyanycar.com ‘s business model is faintly ridiculous to even the mildly perceptive.   

After offering to buy your motor at a rock bottom price webuyanycar.com bombards you with emails telling you their offer will expire imminently.  When you don’t respond to these they then write to inform you that they’ve mysteriously discovered that your motor is actually more expensive than they thought before… 

Should you be silly enough to actually sell your car through them you will then discover that this new price (£115 more than their first bid) is a load of nonsense because they conceal a load of hidden transaction fees.  In my case £49.99 making their offer actually only £65.01 more than before…. What the transaction fee covers your guess is as good as mine.... as is the mysterious question of why the transaction fee changes with car price as presumably the DVLA admin on a Vauxhall Corsa and an Aston Martin is the same?

And of course should you be foolish enough to part with your motor for this bargain basement price you still have to take it to one of their outlets for the buyer to knock the price down again by verbally haggling… or so one presumes.

And even then you have to wait 4 days for your money or pay £24.75

Now I've heard of the "poverty premium" but how desperate for money do you have to be to sell a car in this manner?  because a man with a mallet would have to be threatening to break my kneecaps over a gambling debt before…

British Car Auctions with these offers you are really spoiling us…

I have just noticed how the Tories seem to have trashed TUPE...

One of the good things about Brexit is it means the Tories are far too busy stabbing each other in the back and failing to get bills about treaties through parliament to bring in more legislation designed to curb workers rights.

It’s not generally widely known but I discovered the other day (for reasons that are too complicated to go into here) that in 2014 David Cameron engaged in a massive watering down of TUPE legislation to the point that the strong protections it offered to employees have now been diluted to homeopathic levels.

TUPE (Transfer of Undertakings Protection of Employment) is the system (that came to us via the EEC/EU) by which workers who’s jobs are moved from one employer to another as the result of insourcing/outsourcing or takeovers have their terms and conditions of employment partially protected.  The idea is that it is bad for employees to suffer a situation where every time a company is taken over their terms and conditions are made progressively more detrimental.  The spirit of the legislation was designed to uphold the idea that sacking one group of trained workers to replace them with another group of untrained workers to save money is bad for the economy because it results in an overall degradation of the number of skilled workers in the economy.  Obviously David Cameron couldn’t leave this alone …something had to be done.

TUPE Sidestep 1 - Simply Change Location

Firstly there had always been some latitude to employers in that they were still allowed to vary contracts of employment for Economic, Technical or Organisational (“ETO”) reasons.  ETO however did not extend to workplace relocation.  This meant that employees in a company taken over / merged / insourced /oursourced previously had some security in that they knew they would not be asked to relocate for a reasonable time period after the transfer.  Of course David couldn’t have that so he made location an ETO reason.  This now means that having a location of work stated in your employment contract is no protection at all and incoming employers can now sack everyone post transfer as fast as you can say “relocation, relocation, relocation” by simply moving the offices of the previous company immediately to the other end of the country.  Despite the fact that remote working is ever easier you can now sack vast swathes of employees that used to be employed in one place by insisting they move to another place and offering no relocation package.  Simples

TUPE Sidestep 2 - Simply Change the Job Description

The second major watering down of the legislation that David Cameron achieved is to set up a situation where TUPE now no longer applies if the “service” provided by the previous employer doesn’t match the “service” supplied by the new employer.  The example given by the government is that if previously your job used to be solely cooking food and now it involves simply stocking fridge freezers then you are not a TUPE transferee because the nature of the “service provided” has changed.  This gives the option to the more cynical immoral personnel / HR manager of carefully sidestepping the spirit of the legislation by changing all the would-be-transferee job descriptions to be ever-so-slightly-different.  No one will be shocked to discover that this wheeze of attempting to circumvent TUPE by changing the job description wordings has created some weird and unusal tribunal cases.  Many of which are listed here.  Including...

Anglo Beef Processors UK v Longland – The employer argued that since new technology had speeded up the processing of carcasses Mr Longland’s job was not TUPE but the Tribunal ruled that the introduction of new technology did not alter the nature of the service taken over.

Qlog Limited v O’Brian – Qlog argued that there was no TUPE transfer because the methods of transport had changed but the Tribunal ruled that “There was, following the change of provider, a very different mode of carrying out the activity in question, but the actual activity remained fundamentally the same.”  The EAT in Qlog emphasised that it was “important not to take so narrow a view of “activity” that the underlying purpose of the legislation was forgotten”.

Salvation Army Trustee Company v Coventry Cyrenians Limited ..?  The Judge ruled that “the EAT emphasised that the word “activities” in the service provision change definition must be defined in a common sense and pragmatic way. A pedantic and excessively detailed definition of “activities” would risk defeating the purpose of the service provision change rules, which is, after all, to protect employees’ rights on the change of their employer.”

Clearly Employment Tribunal Judges have decided that if circumventing the TUPE rules is as simple as changing the job description then they'll ignore that nonsense as otherwise it would soon make them redundant too..

...Anyway, it seems to be the nature of the service being transferred that defines whether a job transfer is TUPE or not-TUPE.  Also remember you either aren’t TUPE (in which case you either stay with the existing employer or are sacked) or you are TUPE (in which case you move to another employer) but you can’t be moved to another employer and have your continuity of employment preserved unless you are TUPE.  So ask … because if you’re not TUPE the outgoing employer owes you redundancy…

Bless the Tories... how they care for the workers...