The Real On-Line Criminals
This article about unfair terms and conditions in agreements with on-line retailers is enlightening.
The companies they name and shame are Microsoft, Netflix and Apple. I never deal with any of these on-line.
I think the only company, I regurlarly give money to over the Internet, that doesn’t have physical presence, is WordPress, where I host this blog. I just give them a few dollars for extra storage and so I can use video. But as Facebook found with Instagram, I would vote with my fingers and move, if they did something I really didn’t like.
The article on the BBC, does give the name of a project that rates the Terms and Conditions of web sites call TOS; DR. It’s here.
Professional Theft – Dutch Footballers at Euro 2012
They have definitely underperformed in this tournament, as they are ranked fourth in the World at the moment.
I wonder what the man on the Amsterdam Omnibus is saying?
Professional Theft – PIP Breast Implants
It has been reported that Prof Sir Bruce Keogh, the NHS medical director has looked in to the sub-standard breast implants supplied by French company PIP and has said that despite their double-than-normal failure rate, they did not appear to be linked with increased levels of cancer.
It would appear that where the NHS is concerned, the organisation has offered to remove any implants it made, but the problem in England lies with the 95 % of women, who had the operation done privately.
I’ll give an example here. Suppose I had taken my Jaguar to an approved dealer after the air-conditioning pump had failed and it had been replaced by a sub-standard import, non-approved part. If I’d have noticed this, I’d have asked the dealer to replace it with the approved part at no charge and I suspect that Jaguar would have backed up my demand.
The NHS seems to be fulfilling its similar obligations, but many private clinics seem to be washing their hands of the whole thing. Surely, to use a sub-standard part and probably charge for the kosher one is theft. I call this professional theft, where the customer is milked by a professional, who should know better.
And when the report from Professor Keogh doesn’t take a robust attitude to those of his profession, who didn’t put the best interest of the patients first and insist they replace the offending implants, some might think he is putting the doctors before the patients.
In my view these women should have their implants removed and replaced and those done outside the NHS, should be paid for by the skimping clinics and doctors involved.
The Anonymous Widower 