Category: Trade

Dependency

It’s not unique. Charle Dickens wrote about it. We don’t like to admit it. We have a dependency on bureaucracy. Our complex society runs on it.

Whatever we do when it comes to the meeting of an individual with an organisation, it’s inevitable. Irrational people deny this fact or say it’s only true of public bodies, like government departments. It’s as if the generally high performance of modern computer systems renders them completely invisible.

One apt illustration of a dependency on systematic bureaucracy and digitisation combined can be read in a carefully constructed e-mail from the CEO of Sainsbury’s this weekend.

“I’m writing to update you on the technical issue that has affected our Groceries Online deliveries and some services in our stores this weekend.”

This could have come from any large complex organisation that exists in today’s digital world. When outages happen, we all sit patiently for affected systems to come back online with the full services that we normally take for granted. A sudden reversion to traditional cash transactions was a shock to the average post-COVID consumer.

This weekend my experience of one major hotel chain was that they would not accept cash at all in their restaurant. My “paper” money was useless. It sat in my pocket.

What we have is the power of utility. Systems become so good that we build ever more dependency into them doing the right thing, every time. The problem is that systems are often programmed to do certain tasks exceptionally well but as soon as there’s an unexpected deviation outside normal parameters the situation does not go well. 

An illustration of that experience can be read in the public version of the interim report on UK NATS[1]. After the event, and similar unfortunate events, there’s a cavalcade of calls for more contingency, more resilience, more planning, more training, more checking and so on.

That list is perfectly sensible. But wouldn’t it have been better if those actions had been taken up-front? I often saw this discovery in my time doing systems certification audits. Companies who spend a lot of money upfront to build software that was well characterised and tested were not guaranteed success, but their chances were greatly improved. Those who hit the road with over-confidence, marketing hype and rigorous cost cutting had a high probability of negative outcomes. It’s not a simple cause and effect but good system architecture, robust software and a management that understood the need to spend time and money judiciously do well.  

Just think. If a runner ran a marathon without a strategy, training, basic fitness, planning and sound motivation no one would expect them to be winning anything unless they were exceptionally lucky or unbelievably talented. Not many in the latter category.

There’s a lesson here. It’s been copied over and over. Saddy the almost completely invisibly of complex system that work well in everyday life means we soon take them for granted. And the result is?

[1] https://www.caa.co.uk/publication/download/21478

14-years

All political parties have factions.  If the aim is to corral all liberals, social democrats, conservatives, or socialists and keep them under one roof it’s always going to be a hard job. Even as we speculate about the shelf-life of the traditional political ideologies, they remain powerful.

Liberals can be particularly difficult in this respect. It has been said that getting liberals to go in one direction is like trying to herd cats.  However, that picture is a dubious one in times when great injustices must be addressed, or a good cause strongly fires campaigning spirits.

What’s fascinating is the decline and fall of “normal” conservatism. That mild mannered compromise between self-interest, traditional values and deference has slowly fallen apart. It could be because of its poor fit with modern society but it’s more likely to be because it has ripped itself apart from within. Factions have strengthened and the core beliefs that formerly bonded people together have fractured. Brexit may have been both symptom and cause.

There’s the case that populism has been radically amplified by modern media. A crescendo of views and all we hear and see is the peaks and troughs. Anything in the middle is drowned out.

So, the current Prime Minister’s (PM), let’s remember we’ve had a few, calls for unity. It’s a trumpet sounding in an anechoic chamber. Not likely to be heard, except by himself and those standing next to him. Their smiles are professional smiles. Their hopes are forlorn.

Analogies are fun. Another one came up this week as the Parliamentary byelection results appeared. The British electorate could be compared to a sea going super tanker. That is, being big and having so much momentum, changing direction takes a long time. Once that direction has set there’s not much that can be done in the short-term. That national super tanker maybe going slightly left of centre whatever happens. Of course, a crude analogy isn’t necessarily true. It’s more of a prediction of what might happen if pivotal events do not intervene. That’s easy to say. It’s less easy to anticipate such dramatic earthshaking events.

One thing I can feel confident about is that this is not a re-run of 2019. No way. Nor is it a re-run of 1997. A vital ingredient is missing. We have no charismatic political leaders. Vision is in short supply.

Facebook has a habit of throwing up pictures from the past. One it threw my way this week was of me standing in Crawley town looking every bit a parliamentary candidate. That was 2010. I looked at the image and thought – if only I’d had some inclining of what was to come in the next 14-years.

If only I’d anticipated how badly the coalition would turn out for liberalism. If only I’d anticipated what foolish gamblers Cameron and Clegg were in thinking a national referendum would silence the Europhobic hordes. If only the Labour Party hadn’t gone on a doomed left-wing romp. If only the reality of Johnson’s unfitness for office had sunk in earlier.

Looking back provides lessons. It doesn’t predict what will happen next. We all to often get hooked on linear projections based on where we stand now. Forecasting is as much a mystery as ever it has been. That said, I think doing the maths is better than looking at the tea leaves or seaweed. A narrative for the future could read – don’t think “that’ll never happen,” think change is natures way of keeping us on our toes.

Here’s a prophecy. This one has good and bad. Long talked about and feared by those who milk the status quo, Proportional Representation (PR) will be implemented for national elections in the UK in the next 14-years. The dated model of big tent political parties will crumble. Ballot papers in years to come will have something for everyone. So, what’s bad about that transformation? Populism will not die. It will just eke out an existence in many new forms.

EVs

I do find the anti-EV campaigning on social media a bit peculiar. It’s a bit like the arguments for smoking that were made in the 1950s and 60s. Combustion engine vehicles are slowly but surely going to become history. The time for that change is the subject that should be discussed and not whether it’s a good idea or not[1].

One “argument” out there is that adding together all the elements that make-up an electric vehicle there’s a lot of environmental cost in their production. There’s no doubt that nothing is for free. For example, mining lithium and cobalt are not nice in every respect. There’s the concern that demand could quickly eat-up global supply too.

The “arguments” I’ve seen fall apart when considering not only the vehicle production environmental costs but the lifetime costs of an EV when compared with an internal combustion engine vehicle. 20-years of belching out toxic emissions stacks-up. 20-years of using renewable electricity is a far better solution. In theory the potential for recycling valuable materials is high with EVs too. However, we have yet to see if that works successfully in practice.

Other “arguments” look to demean the performance of EV’s when compared to conventional vehicles. Naturally, the time taken to recharge is one of the biggest gripes. For a conventional fuelling at a petrol station a tank can be filled with 500 miles worth of fuel in 15 minutes. For a current EV more preparation, planning and patience are needed to achieve a lesser range.

Some EV performance figures are far superior to conventional air breathing vehicles. Acceleration is one. Powerful electric motors unencumbered by complex mechanical transmission systems react immediately to demands[2]. EVs use power better.

There’s another gripe or moan and that’s about weight. Taking two comparable vehicles, in performance terms, the electric one will be heavier. That’s the technology we have now.

It’s a different kind of weight if that makes any sense. What I mean is that an EV is roughly the same weight whatever the state of the machine. Whereas a vehicle that uses liquid fuel varies in weight according the amount of fuel on-board. Of course, all vehicles vary in weight depending on the payload they carry (goods or passengers or both).

What’s a little difficult to take from the anti-EV lobby is that those who complain about EVs impacting roads, due to their weight, are rarely the same people who express concerns about heavy diesel delivery trucks or Chelsea tractors thundering down residential roads.

There’s one hazard that must be managed for all types of vehicles. A view of a serious fire involving either an EV or a conventional vehicle quickly shows what that threat can do. What we have now less experience dealing with EV fires. They can be severe and difficult to supress.

Regulation is often reactive. The fire threat is real. In this case maybe we do need fire suppression systems in integrated household garages. Multistorey car parks packed full of EVs are going to be a real challenge if a major fire sparks off. That said a fire started with a “diesel-powered vehicle” can be just as challenging[3].

[1] https://www.ft.com/video/95f86c5d-5a94-4e63-bbe8-6cc5ffb59a2b

[2] https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a38887851/why-are-evs-so-quick/

[3] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-67077996

Space

Eutelsat OneWeb is a growing global connected community. That’s what the publicity says. Once upon a time I wrote about OneWeb. I wrote about it in the context of Brexit.

One of the touted benefits of Brexit was autonomy, in other words, British innovation leading the way to benefit Britain above all others. It’s that aggressive assertion of sovereignty that was at the core of Brexit. Remember, it wasn’t so long ago that this was part of Brexiters fantasies? 

In the Brexit turbulence the UK Government walked away from the EU’s Galileo programme. The UK no longer participates in the European Galileo or EGNOS programmes[1].

Then in 2020 the UK changed its original post-Brexit position and scraped building a national alternative to the Galileo satellite system[2]. At that time, Business Secretary Alok Sharma offered around $500 million of UK public money to acquire part of an organisation in trouble, called OneWeb.

OneWeb is a commercial Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellite constellation now with an element of Government ownership. It’s network of satellites doesn’t have a global positioning capability, like Galileo.

To get its satellite network up and running, an expensive business, OneWeb merged with French company Eutelstat. Today, if we look at the 2020 investment made with public money the financial situation doesn’t look good. That doesn’t mean to say that things will not turn around in future years[3].

The Times newspaper has taken a nationalist view of the circumstance[4]. It’s a point that the intellectual property is not in the hands of the UK Government, but the investment could still turn out to be a useful long-term commercial bet. It’s gambling with public money.

As an aside, I’ve been looking at buying a new dishwasher for the kitchen. It’s made me aware of a capability that I had no idea had been developed. Namely, the connection of dishwashers via the web. I think this is what is called the Internet of Things (IoT). So, imagine that, British dishwashers connected by space as a Brexit potential benefit.

However, if there’s a change in the UK Government’s political direction after the next General Election there’s a strong possibility that the UK will return to the EU’s Galileo programme with some manner of partnership. When we get to 2026, we may look back on the decade behind as a vacuum, much like the vacuum of space. A time when an uncertain direction cost a great deal.

[1] https://www.gov.uk/guidance/uk-involvement-in-the-eu-space-programme

[2] https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-scraps-plan-to-build-global-satellite-navigation-system-to-replace-galileo/

[3] https://www.politicshome.com/thehouse/article/oneweb-uks-gamble-satellite-startup-pay-off

[4] https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/656bd77c-c106-47c3-840b-674e9efc4f0e

Food

Food security matters. Much like energy security matters. Much like access to basic commodities. There are fundamental matters of supply that must not be ignored. International trade is a two-way street. But it must be a two-way street on the level. It’s possible to imagine a set of scales where there’s a balance between both sides. Maintaining that balance is a dynamic business.

It’s easy to understand how aggrieved farmers in Europe feel if they are subject to unfair competition. It’s the same in the UK. If say, meat comes into the UK, produced at a lower standard than domestic produced meat, and that undercuts farmers prices, that’s unfair and unwise.

News doesn’t just concern agriculture. Over the last weeks discussion about the UK’s ability to produce basic commodities, like steel, has occupied minds. Imports maybe cheaper. The trouble is that countries jeopardise domestic security and merely offload environmental concerns by increasing dependency on others beyond certain points. A sensible balance must be struck.

Political, marked trade imbalances are a nightmare. British farmers may not be so overtly militant as some on continental Europe, but they have a strong interest in influencing what laws say. Bandwagon jumping politicians from the far-right and far-left are taking advantage of the discontent that exists. None of these empty barrels have answers. That doesn’t stop them making a lot of noise.

Post-COVID, in all sorts of industries, there’s been, and still is, significant supply chain problems. For example, the price of farm machinery has gone through the roof. Although general inflation appears to be slowly coming down the hike that has happened, has happened. It’s bedded in.

Looking at the gap between input prices and outputs shows an unhealthy situation[1]. Producers have been squeezed. Their margins have been squeezed. It’s certainly not a good time to be a milk producer[2]. Even with optimism for the longer-term, today’s bills still need to be paid.

In the UK, there’s an often written about concern surrounding the power of the established major supermarkets[3]. These are almost monopolistic in their position in the marketplace. On the walls of their food warehouses pictures of smiling farmers and clean, shiny tractors are all the rage.

Because so much food goes through the doors of the supermarkets, if farmers want to protest, they are probably a better target than the UK Government. Alternatively, British farmers may need to work to reduce the influence of the middlemen. Going direct to the customer may not be for everyone but more could be done.

In a General Election year, it unlikely that politicians will pick a fight with British farmers. Their ears may prick-up for a short while. That’s a good time to make the case for domestic production.

[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/agricultural-price-indices/agricultural-price-indices-united-kingdom-november-2023

[2] https://www.nfuonline.com/updates-and-information/dairy-producers-braced-for-an-uncertain-future-nfu-survey-reveals/

[3] https://www.statista.com/statistics/280208/grocery-market-share-in-the-united-kingdom-uk/

Look ahead

Much as I support the UK Government’s position on hormone injected beef, the exit from negotiations on trade have wide implications. Maintaining the regulations that ban the use of hormones in beef is a good move for farmers and consumers.

However, for cheese exports the collapse of talks is tragic. Zero to 200% is one hell of a tariff jump. The UK will be in a worse position with respect to trade than it was pre-referendum. That’s with a strong ally, namely Canada[1]. Brexit has made us worse-off.

Yet, the Brexit supporters that remain, still herald Brexit as a wonder. Logic plays no part in their thinking. It’s easy to respond in an angry way to this self-inflicted blindness. It does no good. The stubborn streak in those who have dug a big hole is a thick one. And the hole is getting ever bigger.

Clearly, there’s no urgency on the part of Canada[2]. On the UK side the urgency is much greater. The need to stimulate growth to bring about a recovery in the British economy is much needed. Sadly, the legacy of a decision made in 2016 has made created a weak negotiating position.

For a long time, the UK has been given a soft landing due to transitional arrangements. Now, these arrangements are drying up. Far from the propaganda of the Brexiters, trade deals are not easy.

The problem is a reference back to the past is like crying over spilt milk[3]. How to go forward when the relationship between different States has been significantly changed is no simple matter. The situation is not irrecoverable but the avenues that can be explored are limited.

So, I caution of a never-ending lament. Brexit will need to be rectified. The means to do it are tortuous and may take a long time. The means to undo the mistakes of the past may face opposition from many quarters. One of the predictions for the European elections, this year, are that there will be a swing to the political right. Several right-wing political parties across Europe are on the ascendancy.

Instinctively these right leaning political parties are likely to less internationalist and more focused on immediate domestic concerns. So, third parties, like the UK, may not be high on Europe’s future agenda. On the UK side the major political parties have gone quite on Europe. There’s plenty of campaigning on international issues, like climate change and military conflict but little on enhanced working together.

There are many national news stories where solutions are best arrived at by greater communication, cooperation, and coordination. This year, so far, the signs are that these three “c” are going to take a back seat. Ironic, isn’t it. Facing greater international challenges than for decades, States choose to look inward. This myopia will continue until leaders speak positively of the future. Vision is needed.

[1] https://www.reuters.com/markets/canada-britain-pausing-free-trade-agreement-talks-2024-01-25/

[2] https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-uk-trade-cheese-1.7094817

[3] https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/cry-over-spilt-milk

Hero to Zero

How to go hero to zero in 30 seconds. I hired a large van for a week. From a company that had done a good job for me in the past. I had a lot of confidence in their offer. Fine their location had changed. Once the company was in Redhill in Surrey. The office was easy walking distance from my house. Now, they have an office in the small town of Dorking. So, it’s a short train ride away.

The Surrey towns of Reigate and Dorking are separated by about 8 miles. They both sit under the North Downs. The main A25 road links the two towns and probably has done for centuries. Without delays that’s about 20 minutes door to door. Normally.

Moving house is one of the most stressful events in life. That’s what we are currently about. It’s a move further West. It’s a move to take us away from the dreadful mess that the M25 motorway has become in the last couple of decades. From 3 lanes to 4 lanes, it’s got worse not better. Why do we think we can build our way out of traffic jams?

So, for the last week I’ve been driving a large van backwards and forwards from Reigate to Newbury. The hired van was everything I needed. Only about 7000 miles on the clock and plenty of space. If I had one niggle it was the need for a reversing camera. Beepers are just not enough.

The rental company, named after a famous starship, that went where no man has gone before, was topping my hero list. What I needed when I needed it and at a good price. With only a minor inconvenience when picking-up and dropping-off. Or, so I though.

Named storms are popular this year. Driving through one of them is no fun. Traffic slows and the inevitable bump or blown down tree holds everyone up. Nothing moves the way it does on a sunny day. It’s times like these when planning can be more guess work than science. Whatever a satnav calculates.

In my wisdom I thought – let’s try a cross country route home. Get off the habit of using the M4 and M25 motorways. Programmed the satnav and away I went. Leaving Newbury lunchtime thinking that getting the van back to the rental company by 5pm would be no sweat.

My route took me from Newbury to Basingstoke and then to the M3 motorway. Then towards London and coming off the motorway to take the Blackwater valley route to the Hogs Back. Those references are for Surrey residents because they will know what I’m talking about. Trundling along the Hogs Back I then hit the main A3 into Guildford. Now, my logic went like this. I’ll avoid the Wisley junction reconstruction or permanent hold-up by taking the main A25 all the way back to Reigate. So, I did. All going well until I reached the closure of that main road[1]. At that point I was committed to getting back to Reigate to unload my packing boxes. Can’t carry them on the train.

When road closures happen in Surrey, at rush hour the mess is insane. The diversion I took up over the North Downs and back down again onto the A217 road was miserably slow. What’s worse is that I knew I had to turn around and go back to Dorking to return the rental van. The clock was ticking. 

Anyway, enduring the tedious frustration of doing a short journey, by miles, over a long time wore away at my generally cheerful disposition. Thus, I was glad to get back to the rental company office in Dorking only about 20 minutes late, after 5pm.

I was committed to leaving the van and taking the train home. That trading estate rental office closes at 5pm. A dark and empty parking space was free, but nowhere could I see anywhere to drop the van’s keys? It seems inconceivable to me that an international rental company would not have a key drop. I searched the plot. There was nowhere. All there was an unhelpful notice on the door of the company’s office. So, I locked the van, kept the keys, and walked to the train station. Idea being to return the keys as soon as the office reopened next morning. Seemed logical.

Next morning, I got up early and set off for Dorking. Sadly, the closure of the A25 was still an on-going problem. All the rush hour traffic had the same issue to contend with on their way to work. This is why I’m happy to be leaving Surrey. A short journey turns into a tedious trek at the drop of a hat. The county’s roads are unable to cope with the levels of traffic. But, as planned I get to the Dorking office of the rental company at 8am when the office opened. Enterprise were still in my hero category as the van was inspected and the mileage typed into a company handheld device. I would have given them 10 out of 10. Job done.

In the warm, in the rental office, just as I thought the paperwork had been done – hold on a moment it’s charging you an extra day for a late return. Computers do these sorts of things. They have no awareness of the world other than the numbers they crunch. Unthinking beasts.

I’ll have a word with my manager. Those were the words spoken. Me being me, I though that’ll be no problem given the effort I’ve made to return the keys. Let’s face it if there was a drop box last night they would be doing exactly as they are now. Van returned in 100% condition and keys in hand.

Then to my surprise the office manager, who insisted on using my first name, says no we are going to have to change you for an extra day. In 30 seconds, Enterprise went from being my number one van rental choice to a huge bottomless zero. I argued the logic of my position and the unforeseen local conditions that prevailed. I outlined the best efforts that I’d made.

Then I got the most galling response – it’s company policy. I suggested that the office manager might use a little judgement or digression in this case. I hit nothing but a stone wall. The computer says so. The charge is the charge. No deviation possible. It’s astonishing that an office manager can’t make a reasonable judgement. If that’s Enterprise company policy I don’t want that kind of service. Other companies are available.

What didn’t help either was the prospect of the return journey in my car knowing that the main Reigate Road was closed. As per my prediction the short journey home again was awful.

Hero to zero – Enterprise. Hero to zero in 30-seconds. My future business will go elsewhere.

POST: This quote from the Enterprise website is meaningless. “We understand that things don’t always go to plan so, if you are running a few minutes late we won’t charge you for an extra day, we give you a grace period of up to 29 minutes to cover unforeseen delays“.

Part 2.

Change is always welcome. The above rental made me think twice about using the services of Enterprise. In my new town, they have a much more easy to get to office. It’s a 20 minute walk from the house. So, I ate my pride and booked a big van for a couple of days. The job was much the same as before. It’s all part of a house move that is lasting far too long.

Here I am renting from Enterprise Rent-A-Car once more. This time I’ll drop the label “zero”. From picking up the van to dropping it off everything worked as it should. My large commercial van took a heavy book case and a king sized bed from Reigate to Newbury without a hitch.

[1] https://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surrey-news/live-a25-traffic-updates-after-28495765

Global

Our everyday life is built on an assumption of freedom of navigation. It’s not always easy to relate to this reality but there it is. Goods move around the globe. I illustrated this uncomfortable fact the other day by saying let’s just sit down and look around. Observe the room.

Sitting in my living room. How many items came to us by ship? Over the ocean. All the electronic goods for sure. The furniture? Some yes and some no. The carpet, maybe not. The curtains, the material for sure. Books? Some yes and some no. Radiators? Surely, made in the UK. However, even the items that were manufactured in the UK needed materials that were imported. Strip away all the imported goods and materials and there’s not much left. The cupboard would be bare.

Now, look at what I’m wearing. My clothes all got here by container ship. I’m not wearing up market attire only everyday wear. Down to my underwear it’s imported. If I did an inventory of my wardrobe there’s not much that was made here.

Take the cup of tea in my hand. Well, the cup might be domestically manufactured but the tea doesn’t grow here. True the milk in my tea is well and truly English. No sugar. I never take sugar.

My point is clear. The days when everything in an Englishman’s home was manufactured in the England have long gone. That day was a long time ago. Almost a pre-industrial period. Our imperial past was such that imported goods have always been a huge part of everyday life.

Today’s automatic assumption of the freedom of navigation stems from post-war settlements. Agreements and institutions flourished in the post-war period. They created and reinforced conventions that assured freedoms of navigation by air and sea. Something we all too easily take for granted. Almost totally ignore.

Since Reagan and Thatcher, it would be hard to find an international management school that didn’t emphasis the benefits liberalised markets and global supply chains.

Post-war the world went from a period when freedom of navigation that was secured by air forces and gunboats to a period when it was secured by agreement and mutual interest. Obviously, the subject is not entire so simple since conflict has always been occurring somewhere on the globe.

National sovereignty remains at the core of the agreements that exist. There is no such thing as world government and international law can be brittle to say the least. Amongst those who benefit from it, there’s a strong interest in upholding and protecting freedom of navigation. Those acts that disrupt or challenge freedom of navigation will always meet a response.

So, this week’s developments to protect international shipping routes through the Red Sea should come as no surprise. It’s a different matter as to whether they are right or wrong. Or whether the military action that has been taken will work.

Our western tendency to expect a rational response to a rational action maybe flawed. However, the aggressor in this case has interests that may not make any sense to us.

Chat

Yesterday afternoon, at the till in a major supermarket and the man in front of me was getting stressed. I was standing in line waiting without a care in the world. In front of the man, in front of me, the till assistant, or checkout operator, dependent on how you see it, and a customer were locked in day-to-day conversation. Just being sociable. From what I could hear that customer may have once worked in that supermarket at some time.

The man in front of me was getting grumpy. He turned back and muttered his disdain for the shop’s staff because they were holding him up. Their everyday conversation was an afront to him. They were wasting his valuable time. Not overly aggressive but he had an agitation that often comes from a degree of unwelcome stress. He was in a hurry or at least heavily felt the pressure of time.

When I got to the till the assistant asked: What did he say? I quickly paraphrased what was said. Conscious that I had no desire to inflame the situation that had now passed by. Reactions can be unpredictable. We live in an era of polarisation.

The gentleman working at the till was into small talk. He clearly loved to chat to customers. Then for me he put that in context. He said that when it gets to about ten, in the evening, people are more than happy to talk as they pack their shopping. With some people it’s the only conversation they have in a day. He was proud that staff were encouraged to be warm and friendly.

Now, there’s a contrast. The life of Mr busy, busy, busy verses the life of the forgotten. That division is at the heart of one of society’s biggest troubles. A tribe that is over-employed, anxious, and living on the edge and a tribe that is lost, lonely and forgotten.

One prone to exasperation and being impatient. The other desperate for social contact and empathy. How on earth did we construct a society that tries to work on that level? Not only that but supermarket managers are desperately trying to automate everything[1]. Already there’s three types of automation in that you can do your own till check in a couple of different ways.

The milk of human kindness shouldn’t be sneered at. Wow. You see how quickly I reverted to Shakespeare without even knowing it. That simple phrase has its origins in the play Macbeth. The play that I was forced to read at school. The play that did nothing much to lift my appallingly bad grades at English. To Lady Macbeth, the “milk of human kindness” was objectionable. To her real men had no need of it. We all know where that led. Don’t go there.

So, next time you are standing in a short que, stomping your feet, imagining the clock spinning around, give it a rest. If you find yourself thinking this is too much, I can’t deal with it anymore, do a double take. Relax. Breath slowly. Dig deep and discover some small talk. It might be more meaningful than you first think.

On another subject. I agree with Graham Nash[2]. A day in the life[3] is a truly great song. It’s life as a musical tapestry. The song wanders around the mind using hardly any words but painting a picture all the way up to the sky. I’ll not heaping yet more praise on The Beatles, they’ve enough for several centuries. That said, May 1967 was a magical moment. Even if I did only know it with toy cars and in short trousers. It’s not the daily news but I’ll bet there’s probably now more holes in Britain’s roads than ever.

[1] https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20170619-how-long-will-it-take-for-your-job-to-be-automated

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Nash

[3] https://genius.com/The-beatles-a-day-in-the-life-lyrics

Beware

There is some corrupt b****** out there in INTERNET land. They would dip their hand in your pockets and take whatever they can in a second. It’s downright evil. The wild-west element of the INTERNET has never gone away. It’s a global problem.

I’ve never had a Netflix account. Maybe that’s unusual. It would be nice to have one but, personally I’m not convinced that the costs are warranted. Not today. I’m slow to step on the streaming bandwagon. I still have a pile of DVDs and CDs. Yes, I’m a primitive. In some things an early adopter but when it comes to services that require regular payments, I’m cautious.

As regular as clockwork junk e-mails turn-up saying that I need to update my payment details, or my Netflix account will be suspended. Followed by an exclamation mark. On closer inspection they are amateurish cons. In fact, it’s good that the junk mail filter can see through them as they come in.

This kind of fishing is criminal. Somewhere there’s a group on con artists thinking up ever more devious ways of taking money from people. The amateurish ones may not be a threat to me, but I wonder how many people they do catch. Even one in a hundred thousand would net a nice return for virtually zero outlay.

It may be the case that lots of people think that they are not so stupid as to fall for these blatant entrapments. What’s concerning is that cybercrime is becoming ever more inventive. We’ve yet to see what developments in intelligent algorithms will do to this landscape.

The best advice around is to never ever, I mean never ever, give personal payment details in response to an unwanted request. Most honest organisations make a point of saying that they will never request bank details in unsolicited e-mails. Unjustified urgency and a threatening tone are another sign that something is wrong.

Electronic means, namely the digital economy is not as robust as the traditional over the counter transaction. Organisations are aware of this fact. Warnings saying that they will not take responsibility if money is transferred to an incorrect bank account are commonplace.

The digital economy has been a boom for the major banks. High Streets up and down the country now have grand imposing buildings that are coffee shops, restaurants and, in the case of my town a kitchen showroom. Banks have retreated from face-to-face relationships. The responsibility for being aware of the potential for cybercrime has been firmly placed on the shoulders of the individual.

Talking to people remains important. Certainly, if a request for payment seems strange or unexpected there’s no substitute for picking up the phone, however tedious that process can be. Notes, and paper records still matter or, at least, they still matter to me.

NOTE: Useful information can be found here http://www.actionfraud.police.uk/