The Spectator's Notes

14 March 2009

Charles Moore's reflections on the week

It is not what you say, but what you do. Rumour reaches me that the City editor of the Guardian has taken to hoarding household supplies against the day of financial collapse which he sees coming.

TV Licensing (contd). A judgment handed down by the Appeal Court last month begins with these heartening words: ‘It is one of the glories of this country that every now and then one of its citizens is prepared to take a stand against the big battalions of government or industry.’ The case in question is that of Lisa Ferguson. Miss Ferguson switched her gas supplier from British Gas to npower. She informed British Gas, but they continued to bombard her with bill after bill, though she owed them no money. They threatened to cut off her supply, start legal proceedings against her and report her to the credit rating agencies. She wrote twice to the Chairman of British Gas, receiving no reply. In desperation, she sued British Gas for unlawful harassment. As Lord Justice Jacob put it ‘British Gas says... that it is perfectly all right for it to treat consumers in this way, at least if it is all just done by computer.’ It tried to prevent the case going to trial. Miss Ferguson persisted, and the court found that her claim must be heard. Just as I learnt about this case, I heard from yet another reader who has been intimidated by TV Licensing because, not having a television, he does not possess a television licence. Mr G tells me that TV Licensing have two postcodes, one of them inaccurate, for his property. The computer ignores his letters of explanation and keeps demanding money for the postcode which is wrong. When he complains, TV Licensing tells him that he, not it, must sort it out with the Post Office, which provides the database, and then puts the phone down on him. The judgment should strike fear into the BBC and all others who think that they can blame computers and go on menacing with impunity.

On a country walk recently, we emerged on to a road, near a layby. There was a sign in the hedge announcing the penalty for dropping litter there. Last time I looked, the sum was £100. Now it was £100,000. I was struck by how counterproductive this Zimbabwean inflation was. Obviously no one is really going to be fined £100,000 for dumping an old fridge in the hedge, so one gets an overwhelming sense that the law is posturing rather than enforcing — and therefore feels more inclined to dump the fridge.

Previous page 1 | 2 | 3

More articles from: Charles Moore | this section

Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (2)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Post comment

Language police

March 15th, 2009 2:13pm Report this comment

It's perfectly possible that Adams' vanity is overwhelming and that he inhabits a world of callous self-importance -- but I don't see that the phrase 'not just' proves it. Substitute the equivalent 'not only' ('... not only pizza delivery men ...') and you have a sober factual claim, maybe true, maybe false (the former more likely in my view), but not inherently self-important.

WSM

April 9th, 2009 9:18am Report this comment

Re: "Rumour reaches me that the City editor of the Guardian has taken to hoarding household supplies against the day of financial collapse which he sees coming."

A quick google suggests the City editor of the Guardian is Julia Finch, who is a "she".

Post comment