QED
© TMWSC 2012
...
Wednesday, 18 April 2012
18.4.12 Confucius Say
- Why are the pillows in a Travelodge flatter than a squashed vol au vent?
- Why is the stress so different in 'Patrol' from the stress in pronouncing 'Petrol'?
- Is Thai Cheese fitter and more agile than other cheeses?
- How many people have ever actually killed two birds with a stone?
- Football managers should be banned from chewing gum.
- Who at Victoria Plumb decided the best advertising strategy was to use the sides of abandoned trailers in fields alongside motorways?
- The Euro is a currency with Parkinson's Disease.
- No songs should ever be allowed a reference to the 'DJ' in the lyrics.
- Travelodge soap is second in hardness only to diamonds.
- Use of the words "kind of" and "kinda" should be outlawed in civilised society.
- The Co-op should be liquidised in a giant blender, and all/any profits given back to Dividend Card holders.
- Ashley Young should be tied to a post as part of his training, so that he manages rather better at staying upright and not falling over when the breath of a sparrow performing the 'Birdie Song' can ordinarily topple him.
- Ken Livingstone should move to the Polish salt mines and remain underground.
- Why do Mars Bars taste like shit now?
- Lenny Henry has not been funny this century.
- Why do belts have to be removed at airports?
- Goal line technology is a fucking must, so sort it!
- Green taxes are a cuntin con!
- The EU is a bloated, mad, fucked-up, and pointless institution that demonstrates on a rolling basis that it will never ever serve the collected 'community' nor be anything other than a cuntin catastrophe.
- Tom Jones should retire and/or hibernate.
- Why oh why does this series of the 'Great British Menu' need to have forty-fuckin-five episodes?
- Only an idiot would expect the estimate (in 2005) of £2.37billion as the cost of the 2012 Olympics not to end up being ten times that figure.
- What if your brother is heavy, though, Mr & Mr Righteous.
- Is there anywhere that I can go to escape news and pictures of Rihanna?
- Why does Pippa associate with guns?
- With so many benefits available, why should people in the UK work?
- With such useless border control in the UK, why should people not flock here?
- After Labour fucked the UK to within an inch of its life, why is the Coalition being a collective 'twat'?
- Hey, Mr Tambourine Man, Play a Song For Me.
Monday, 16 April 2012
16.4.12 Balance Transfers
I had the misfortune to speak to Barclaycard today. It was my own choice to call, and I'd hoped to make arrangements for a balance transfer. Such a step is sensible, and in fact imperative, considering the 24.9% APR that applies as normal. So, having received a mailing that invited me to take up an offer for a 6-month zero interest period, at a one-off fee of 2.9% (still cheaper than doing nothing) I called.
It was with some disappointment that I found myself talking to someone the other side of the planet, and straining to hear what they were saying. I have no real interest or bias regarding the siting of any call centre by any company. My only real concern is that I can speak English and be understood, and can be spoken to in English and understand. Such a simple expectation is nigh on cuntin' impossible these days. I struggled to hear what was being said, as the pronunciation and accent made demands upon my ears that exceeded those exerted by a weak morse code signal tapped into the knackered earpiece of a 75-year-old deaf cunt wearing soggy earmuffs!
The woman asked me to confirm some details for security reasons, and my full name and phone number seemed reasonable enough. She then went on to request my email address. I politely said I didn't want to receive any emails, so didn't want to provide it. Apparently this sort of obstructive behaviour is unprecedented, because she was gobsmacked. She then wanted my mobile number. I declined, saying that I didn't want any calls, I just wanted to sort out a balance transfer. Again, she was mystified by my non-compliant response. Her 'Okay' was less than convincing, and suggested to me that she was far from 'okay' about it. "It's just for security, you know. We won't call you on it." I thought for 0.63 seconds, and replied: "Then you hardly need it, do you." I was getting mildly frustrated, but sensed we were about to move on to the point of the call, and my transfer.
"I will see what offers we have at the moment. The email address is simply for logging on our system." Talk about not giving up! "I don't want to receive any emails, or phone calls. I like the fact that I can call you when I want something, and all I want is to sort out a balance transfer."
That did the trick, and I was glad (well my ears were) of the pause in the 'debate' while she checked. She then advised that I could give my Barclaycard number, which I did. The next few minutes were gruelling, and without going into detail or relaying personal arrangements, I got so fucking fucked off with Barclaycard that I said goodbye, called my bank, and paid off the whole cuntin' balance. To do this, I called a number which led me to a call centre in England. I spoke to a nice woman who asked how she could help. I told her. She did it. I thanked her. End of call. All by ordinary discourse, with no "pardon", no "can you repeat that", no "I can't hear you properly", no "I didn't catch that", no "what's your inside leg measurement, for security", no "how the fuck can I annoy you today?"
I am sure that the world of customer service and call centre policy is mundane a lot of the time, but I do maintain that the existence of these places is not endorsed when there is little by way of customer service, and the task of liaising with the relevant organisation is made extra challenging. I do not speak 'dolphin', nor do I manage well when being spoken to by someone who's apparently underwater! If the latter were not the case, I could converse with my own farts in the fucking bath. I do not readily understand daleks, lemurs, woodpeckers or cock-a-cuntin-toos. In short I am not Dr Dolittle, nor am I an interpreter for the United Nations. I am not interested at all in race or religion and these are irrelevant. I am interested in sorting something over the phone without my brain being shuffled, pummelled and poked by unintelligible noises.
...
It was with some disappointment that I found myself talking to someone the other side of the planet, and straining to hear what they were saying. I have no real interest or bias regarding the siting of any call centre by any company. My only real concern is that I can speak English and be understood, and can be spoken to in English and understand. Such a simple expectation is nigh on cuntin' impossible these days. I struggled to hear what was being said, as the pronunciation and accent made demands upon my ears that exceeded those exerted by a weak morse code signal tapped into the knackered earpiece of a 75-year-old deaf cunt wearing soggy earmuffs!
The woman asked me to confirm some details for security reasons, and my full name and phone number seemed reasonable enough. She then went on to request my email address. I politely said I didn't want to receive any emails, so didn't want to provide it. Apparently this sort of obstructive behaviour is unprecedented, because she was gobsmacked. She then wanted my mobile number. I declined, saying that I didn't want any calls, I just wanted to sort out a balance transfer. Again, she was mystified by my non-compliant response. Her 'Okay' was less than convincing, and suggested to me that she was far from 'okay' about it. "It's just for security, you know. We won't call you on it." I thought for 0.63 seconds, and replied: "Then you hardly need it, do you." I was getting mildly frustrated, but sensed we were about to move on to the point of the call, and my transfer.
"I will see what offers we have at the moment. The email address is simply for logging on our system." Talk about not giving up! "I don't want to receive any emails, or phone calls. I like the fact that I can call you when I want something, and all I want is to sort out a balance transfer."
That did the trick, and I was glad (well my ears were) of the pause in the 'debate' while she checked. She then advised that I could give my Barclaycard number, which I did. The next few minutes were gruelling, and without going into detail or relaying personal arrangements, I got so fucking fucked off with Barclaycard that I said goodbye, called my bank, and paid off the whole cuntin' balance. To do this, I called a number which led me to a call centre in England. I spoke to a nice woman who asked how she could help. I told her. She did it. I thanked her. End of call. All by ordinary discourse, with no "pardon", no "can you repeat that", no "I can't hear you properly", no "I didn't catch that", no "what's your inside leg measurement, for security", no "how the fuck can I annoy you today?"
I am sure that the world of customer service and call centre policy is mundane a lot of the time, but I do maintain that the existence of these places is not endorsed when there is little by way of customer service, and the task of liaising with the relevant organisation is made extra challenging. I do not speak 'dolphin', nor do I manage well when being spoken to by someone who's apparently underwater! If the latter were not the case, I could converse with my own farts in the fucking bath. I do not readily understand daleks, lemurs, woodpeckers or cock-a-cuntin-toos. In short I am not Dr Dolittle, nor am I an interpreter for the United Nations. I am not interested at all in race or religion and these are irrelevant. I am interested in sorting something over the phone without my brain being shuffled, pummelled and poked by unintelligible noises.
...
16.4.12 What A Dive
A) A lead weight dropped from a tower block
B) A ten-grand prostitute
C) A burst balloon
D) Ashley Young
Which goes down most easily? Here's a clue . . . .
...
B) A ten-grand prostitute
C) A burst balloon
D) Ashley Young
Which goes down most easily? Here's a clue . . . .
...
Sunday, 15 April 2012
15.4.12 Enough Cookery
I think we are at the point where direct action is needed, to stem the flow of fucking cookery programmes on terrestrial TV. Here's a quick run-down of last week's input.
Saturday Kitchen Live
The Little Paris Kitchen: Cooking With Rachel Khoo
Come Dine With Me
Saturday Kitchen Best Bites
Great British Menu
Sunday Brunch
The Great British Taste Tour
Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares USA
Countrywise Kitchen
The Hairy Bikers' Bakeation
How To Cook Like Heston
River Cottage Bites
The Fabulous Baker Brothers
Our Food
River Cottage Veg Heroes
Don't forget, these are programmes on the five main channels without note of the number of separate programmes under these titles. I have not included any of the programmes on food-related issues, or strayed into the realms of other channels, as I'd have to included, amongst very many others:
Embarrassing Bodies
Supersize v Superskinny
Obese: A Year To Save My Life USA
I'm A Fat Cunt, Help Me!
I made that last one up, but you could easily imagine its existence. So, even without Masterchef, Jamie Oliver, The Biggest Loser, Rick Stein, Ainsley Harriott, the 'Cheese Thief', Delia Smith or Gino D'Acampo, we are still swamped with food. This week's offerings see two new entries:
Two Greedy Italians: Still Hungry
The Food Hospital
Direct action - that's what we need. Say 'No' to Nigella !!!
...
Saturday Kitchen Live
The Little Paris Kitchen: Cooking With Rachel Khoo
Come Dine With Me
Saturday Kitchen Best Bites
Great British Menu
Sunday Brunch
The Great British Taste Tour
Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares USA
Countrywise Kitchen
The Hairy Bikers' Bakeation
How To Cook Like Heston
River Cottage Bites
The Fabulous Baker Brothers
Our Food
River Cottage Veg Heroes
Don't forget, these are programmes on the five main channels without note of the number of separate programmes under these titles. I have not included any of the programmes on food-related issues, or strayed into the realms of other channels, as I'd have to included, amongst very many others:
Embarrassing Bodies
Supersize v Superskinny
Obese: A Year To Save My Life USA
I'm A Fat Cunt, Help Me!
I made that last one up, but you could easily imagine its existence. So, even without Masterchef, Jamie Oliver, The Biggest Loser, Rick Stein, Ainsley Harriott, the 'Cheese Thief', Delia Smith or Gino D'Acampo, we are still swamped with food. This week's offerings see two new entries:
Two Greedy Italians: Still Hungry
The Food Hospital
Direct action - that's what we need. Say 'No' to Nigella !!!
...
15.4.12 Hungary's Got Talent
Nothing against the Hungarians, me. But in a development from my recent comments about the rules for BGT, and the participation of the 'under-contract-to-The-Voice-in-Ireland' singer Ryan O'Shaughnessy, I feel obliged to highlight that the programme is Britain's Got Talent, and not Britain's Got Enough Cuntin' Airports For Loads Of People To Fly In And Gatecrash The Auditions.
Unlike The X-Factor, which does not align itself to 'Britishness', BGT has rather succinctly stated that it is our national contest, not some sort of Eurovision fucking come-on-down. The basketball players from Hungary were good. I have seen this sort of act on YouTube, so was not 'blown away' but I recognise they are talented - once. That's right, there's now little point in seeing them again. The main point, though, is that they should really be in Hungary, on HGT.
If Hungary has not bought the rights to such a programme, then perhaps we will have to stage a new programme over here for them, called BRIGHT - Britain's Got Hungarian Talent (?)
...
Unlike The X-Factor, which does not align itself to 'Britishness', BGT has rather succinctly stated that it is our national contest, not some sort of Eurovision fucking come-on-down. The basketball players from Hungary were good. I have seen this sort of act on YouTube, so was not 'blown away' but I recognise they are talented - once. That's right, there's now little point in seeing them again. The main point, though, is that they should really be in Hungary, on HGT.
If Hungary has not bought the rights to such a programme, then perhaps we will have to stage a new programme over here for them, called BRIGHT - Britain's Got Hungarian Talent (?)
15.4.12 TV Buzz Film Review
Last week's TV Guide with The Sun on Saturday contained details of all programmes, and included a star rating for films in the usual way.
***** Brilliant
**** Very Good
*** Enjoyable
** Not Bad
* Give it a miss
This got me thinking, because I found myself less than impressed with the terms for grading films, mainly because the only one of the five scores that was in any way critical of a film was the one-star award. I decided to analyse the weekly input by TV Buzz, and was amazed at the results.
This table shows the spread of films by day and by star rating. Whilst there may have been some small element of duplication relating to some of the satellite channels, this is minimal. A number of films were given no star rating at all, whether through lack of space on the crammed pages, or because the film had not been reviewed, or it was in fact a duplicate entry. Nevertheless, there were 1190 films over the seven days from Saturday 7th to Friday 13th April 2012. The balance in terms of variation by day in the number of films and quality of films was fairly good, as demonstrated by the following.
The real surprise relates to the number of films awarded a single star - just 10 all week, out of 1190. So, less than 1% of films are "to be given a miss" then! There is no way that this split is appropriate.
5 Stars = 9.90%
4 Stars = 26.40%
3 Stars = 33.40%
2 Stars = 29.45%
1 Star = 0.85%
Seeing as 1180 films are somewhere between "Not Bad" and "Excellent", it must be worth looking at the ten failures, for they must be amongst the worst films of all time to be singled out for this special treatment.
1 - Showgirls (1995)
2 - Superman IV: Quest For Peace (1987)
3 - Holiday On The Buses (1973)
4 - Catwoman (2004)
5 - Big Mommas: Like Father, Like Son (2011)
6 - Mutiny On The Buses (1972)
7 - Jaws: The Revenge (1987)
8 - The 41-Year-Old Virgin Who Knocked Up Sarah Marshall And Felt Superbad About It (2010)
9 - The Roommate (2011)
10 - The Invisible Man Returns (1940)
What conclusions can we draw from this survey? Well, there are a number, but without going into detailed analysis of statistics, I feel the following points are worthy of note.
a) The scoring/grading system employed by TV Buzz is flawed because there's no way that less than 1% of films are to be given a miss. By default, that makes over 99% worth watching - clearly a joke!
b) It must be the case that if qualifying for just one star is so difficult, the ten films above must be fucking dire! They must surely represent a level of entertainment akin to watching paint dry.
c) Sequels seem to fair rather badly.
d) The worst film in terms of the ratio of words in the title to entertainment value has to be number 8, above. Any film with such a long and stupid title which is then awarded one pissing star must be even more annoying than the others.
e) The only film above that was aired on the standard terrestrial channels (Channel 4 on Saturday 7th April) was 'Showgirls'. This begs the question - "Why the fuck is Channel 4 putting this shit on, when it's got such a crap reputation?"
As a complete aside to all of the above, I would like, as my parting comment, to highlight one particular film listed in the TV Guide, as it seems its title and star were a perfect pair:
Channel 5 - 3.15pm Trial By Fire
Action thriller with Brooke Burns (2008) ***
...
***** Brilliant
**** Very Good
*** Enjoyable
** Not Bad
* Give it a miss
This got me thinking, because I found myself less than impressed with the terms for grading films, mainly because the only one of the five scores that was in any way critical of a film was the one-star award. I decided to analyse the weekly input by TV Buzz, and was amazed at the results.
| Days | « | «« | ««« | «««« | ««««« | Day Totals | |
| Saturday | 2 | 58 | 53 | 47 | 20 | 180 | |
| Sunday | 3 | 51 | 63 | 46 | 16 | 179 | |
| Monday | 1 | 43 | 51 | 52 | 22 | 169 | |
| Tuesday | 2 | 45 | 64 | 34 | 17 | 162 | |
| Wednesday | 2 | 47 | 51 | 51 | 17 | 168 | |
| Thursday | 0 | 50 | 54 | 39 | 18 | 161 | |
| Friday | 0 | 56 | 62 | 45 | 8 | 171 | |
| Week Totals | 10 | 350 | 398 | 314 | 118 | 1190 |
This table shows the spread of films by day and by star rating. Whilst there may have been some small element of duplication relating to some of the satellite channels, this is minimal. A number of films were given no star rating at all, whether through lack of space on the crammed pages, or because the film had not been reviewed, or it was in fact a duplicate entry. Nevertheless, there were 1190 films over the seven days from Saturday 7th to Friday 13th April 2012. The balance in terms of variation by day in the number of films and quality of films was fairly good, as demonstrated by the following.
The real surprise relates to the number of films awarded a single star - just 10 all week, out of 1190. So, less than 1% of films are "to be given a miss" then! There is no way that this split is appropriate.
5 Stars = 9.90%
4 Stars = 26.40%
3 Stars = 33.40%
2 Stars = 29.45%
1 Star = 0.85%
Seeing as 1180 films are somewhere between "Not Bad" and "Excellent", it must be worth looking at the ten failures, for they must be amongst the worst films of all time to be singled out for this special treatment.
1 - Showgirls (1995)
2 - Superman IV: Quest For Peace (1987)
3 - Holiday On The Buses (1973)
4 - Catwoman (2004)
5 - Big Mommas: Like Father, Like Son (2011)
6 - Mutiny On The Buses (1972)
7 - Jaws: The Revenge (1987)
8 - The 41-Year-Old Virgin Who Knocked Up Sarah Marshall And Felt Superbad About It (2010)
9 - The Roommate (2011)
10 - The Invisible Man Returns (1940)
What conclusions can we draw from this survey? Well, there are a number, but without going into detailed analysis of statistics, I feel the following points are worthy of note.
a) The scoring/grading system employed by TV Buzz is flawed because there's no way that less than 1% of films are to be given a miss. By default, that makes over 99% worth watching - clearly a joke!
b) It must be the case that if qualifying for just one star is so difficult, the ten films above must be fucking dire! They must surely represent a level of entertainment akin to watching paint dry.
c) Sequels seem to fair rather badly.
d) The worst film in terms of the ratio of words in the title to entertainment value has to be number 8, above. Any film with such a long and stupid title which is then awarded one pissing star must be even more annoying than the others.
e) The only film above that was aired on the standard terrestrial channels (Channel 4 on Saturday 7th April) was 'Showgirls'. This begs the question - "Why the fuck is Channel 4 putting this shit on, when it's got such a crap reputation?"
As a complete aside to all of the above, I would like, as my parting comment, to highlight one particular film listed in the TV Guide, as it seems its title and star were a perfect pair:
Channel 5 - 3.15pm Trial By Fire
Action thriller with Brooke Burns (2008) ***
...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)