Saturday afternoon and I’d been sitting in my local pub for at least an hour drinking the remains of my second pint of beer. The local clientele were doing their usual: scrutinising their hand-held devices as though they were personal life-support machines requiring constant tweaking and attention.

Meanwhile, on the pub TV, the sordid details of News International’s phone hacking scandal were unfolding live before my very eyes.

“Jesus H. Christ!” I exclaimed out loud. “This isn’t just affecting a small cross-section of the population, this is a goddamned epidemic of massive proportions!”

The fat lawyer sitting in the corner briefly glanced up at me from his iPhone with an expression that suggested a mixture of contempt and confusion, before taking another quick swig of his drink and refocusing his attention on his brightly lit touch screen.

“Whatever happened to coming to the pub to engage in social interaction!?” I exclaimed.

There was no response.

I looked out of the window at the multitude of passers-by, all of whom seemed to be preoccupied with whatever was on their cell phones.

“Another beer?” asked the barmaid as she punched in a few characters on her smartphone.

“What exactly are you all fucking doing?” I asked somewhat irritably.

“I’m on Twitter,” she said without even looking up.

“And I’m on Facebook,” remarked the fat lawyer – his beady little jaundiced eyes looked up again briefly, as if attempting to burn holes in the back of my inner skull.

“Yeah,” I remarked sarcastically, “cos, so much interesting shit is going down in here right now that all your friends need an update.”

“Do you want a beer or not?” asked the barmaid impatiently – her podgy little pink thumbs sliding over the touch sensitive device.

“No thanks,” I said getting to my feet, “I’ve got walls at home I can stare blankly at.”

Suddenly I felt a vibration in my pocket as I vacated the pub.

Christ, I thought whilst taking my phone out of my pocket to check it, this state of constant connectedness is even starting to affect me now.

I glanced at the screen.

Nothing.

A phantom phone vibration I realised. A condition brought on by modern living. A syndrome I had heard media theorist Douglas Rushkoff talk about, where our nervous systems have maladapted to expect real-time communication at any given moment. An electronically induced nervous tick, if you like, that doesn’t even require the device to do anything electronically other than just sit in one’s pocket awaiting an incoming announcement of no or little value.

It was the final straw for me and a much needed match tossed into the proverbial gunpowder barrel. Whatever happened to using a phone as just a phone?

As I walked up the road I made my mind up. Either I’m going to exorcise the use of a mobile phone from my life entirely or find one that just makes and receives calls. No cameras, no email, no internet, no text messaging, no mp3 player, no fuck all, just a phone that actually phones people.

Does such a thing even exist?

When I arrived home I fired up the internet and within minutes I had my answer: John’s Phone.

Manufactured by John Doe Amsterdam and pitched as “The World’s Simplest Cell Phone”, John’s Phone seemed like the complete antithesis of everything one has come to expect from forth generation mobile phone technology.

Looking like a cross between a television remote and a garage door controller, I instantly fell in love with the simple yet eloquent design. The black business model especially appealed to me with the bomb symbol on the hang-up button.

Not only would this phone suit my needs but it would send a clear message of social rebellion. How amusing, I thought, to pull this baby out of my pocket with everyone around me locked in a state of constant communication.

The more I researched John’s Phone, the more I was determined to get one. Not only was this exactly what I was looking for but, as I saw it, a subversive statement to the drones in the pub.

Whilst the retail price seemed quite reasonable to me for acquiring the limited connectedness I was looking for, I also saw the potential for writing a piece of social commentary about it and the modern day epidemic obsession with always having to be “switched on”. So I applied to acquire a review model and several days later a white “snow” model arrived through the post.

The first thing that struck me about John’s Phone was the simplicity of its design. Clearly, someone had really thought about this. Whilst I quickly realised the appeal this phone might have to the older generation – with its big buttons and hardwired switching on the side – I also began to appreciate many other benefits that this phone might offer to anyone as pissed off as I at being constantly connected.

The way I saw it, possessing this phone was a statement in itself and a means of flipping the bird to “The Man”. An unlocked, quad-band telephone with seriously bad attitude. Any sim card on any network worldwide could be slotted into the little drawer at the side of this unit, and within seconds be ready for use.

I imagined how political activists might find it of value, where one could acquire a temporary sim card prior to a protest, use it to mobilise and then discard the sim card afterwards to avoid traceability.

Also, the hardwired on/off switch might equally be of value to the political dissident. For example, everyone knows that most mobile phones are still technically “on” even when switched “off”. Since this phone doesn’t even have a clock on it, there is no need for it to tick over in the background when one has powered it down. As a result, when the phone is turned off, it is really “off” – meaning that nobody would be able to trace and track your location if you didn’t want them to.

Given its limited functionality it would also be virtually impossible to hack a phone like this. I mean, what could a News International investigative journalist really hope to gain by acquiring unlawful access to John’s Phone? It doesn’t do anything other than make and receive calls, so they wouldn’t even be able to read texts or emails. They also wouldn’t be able to get details of your personal contacts either, since the only address book that John’s Phone has is a little paper booklet located behind a flap in a compartment at the rear of the unit. With its built-in detachable pen, one simply jots down one’s private contacts in the supplied paper address book – a straightforward piece of analogue genius in my opinion.

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it Rupert Murdoch!

Many people might think that having a physical address book is taking things a bit too far, but I would strongly disagree. I have challenged friends to access one of our mutual friends’ phone numbers quicker than me using their smartphones, and every time I have retrieved the information faster simply by opening up the flap at the back and looking at the address book. It also encourages you to remember phone numbers (like in the olden days) since the little display on the top of the unit doesn’t tell you the name of the caller, just the number that is calling you. The unit does however give you the option of setting ten speed dial numbers which, as far as I am concerned, is more than enough to conveniently communicate with those I regularly stay in contact with.

John’s Phone then is essentially a behaviour changer, changing not only one’s own behaviour but the behaviour of one’s personal acquaintances. It encourages communication only when really necessary and forces you to actually talk to people instead of spending valuable time corresponding by text. If someone wants to get in touch with you, they have to essentially call you as their texts won’t be answered.

In fact if someone texts you, you won’t even know about it, for John’s Phone saves texts directly to your sim card and doesn’t even bother alerting you that you have even received a text.

This might also be perceived by some people as taking things a bit too far, however, once you have informed all your acquaintances that a response to their texts will either not happen at all or be severely delayed, it encourages them to stop expecting a rapid response whilst allowing you the freedom to stop being concerned about it. For example, I have not given up entirely on texting, I just don’t worry about responding quickly and my friends have gotten used to it. Instead, every 2 or 3 days (or whenever I have time or can be bothered) I take out the sim card, slot it back into my old phone and check for any text communication. To date, no-one has sent anything that has required a life or death response.

So, what about the phone’s performance?

Well, all I can say is: Wow!

When the folks at John Doe put this baby together they clearly wanted to make the one thing that it does do function really well. For example, I’ve just returned from a week long trip up the Scottish Highlands – staying in remote locations where signal coverage is exceptionally poor and battery life normally drains away rather rapidly due to one’s phone constantly roaming for a signal. Since John’s Phone has only one function, it doesn’t drain battery life anything like a 4G phone as the normal standby time of the unit is a staggering 25 days.

During my trip away I left the phone on permanently to test out the functionality of the device properly, and upon my return yesterday, I was amazed to see that the battery was still approximately 75% fully charged. I also noticed that it was able to pick up a signal in places I had struggled to acquire a signal before, suggesting to me that either phone mast coverage in Scotland has improved drastically over the last few weeks or that John’s Phone is far more effective at picking up a signal.

The quality of sound is also crystal clear and the volume can be controlled easily to suit your personal tastes. Turning the phone up to maximum volume is virtually similar to having a speakerphone function. I mean, it’s so damned loud that everyone around you will be able to hear your conversation clearly too if you so desired.

Another pleasant surprise for me was the lack of interference that the phone seemed to generate when near other devices. For example, I’m used to placing my mobile phone on my computer desk when I’m online. With my old phone I found that every couple of minutes I’d hear what sounded to me like electromagnetic/static interference being picked up on my computer’s speakers, making me wonder what information my phone was relaying to my network provider, or why my network provider needed to communicate with my phone. With John’s Phone I get none of this, and the only time I hear a little static interference is when the phone is just about to ring.

For me, having John’s Phone is a true breath of fresh air and I have no desire to go back to the irritation of possessing a multifunctional mobile device. I’ve always been a great believer in having individual specific devices for carrying out individual specific tasks, and the modern day concept of having one device to perform multiple functions just seems more of a hindrance than an advantage.

It also sends a clear message to those around me that I am able to break the level of connectedness that appears to have been thrust upon us against our wills, and that by not having text, email or internet at my fingertips is not as much of a social impediment as it would first appear. When all is said and done, I am still contactable at the press of a button, and I can still equally contact others just as easily as they can get in contact me.

Where before I used to be constantly checking my previous phone for texts or missed calls – or even checking to ensure that the overly sensitive touch screen function hadn’t inadvertently called someone randomly through bouncing around in my pocket – I find with John’s Phone that I can simply switch the phone onto lock and go about my business without unnecessary distraction. With it’s built in vibration function and single ringtone set on high, it doesn’t even occur to me that I might miss a call, as the volume is so loud it’d be virtually impossible (unless you’re as deaf as a doorpost).

It also gets a few smirks and sarcastic comments when I pull the thing out of my pocket, but I tend to be the kind of person who relishes in that kind of reaction. In fact, the other day one individual seemed scared to examine it up close, fearing it to be some kind of joke gadget that might administer an electric shock.

But as they say at John Doe: “keep things simple” and “stop being so difficult”. Whilst I’m not exactly the kind of person to advertise any kind of product whatsoever, I am, in all honestly, highly impressed with this little device and think it sends a clear statement of non-conformity to an ignorant and subservient society that is clearly becoming increasingly incapable of appreciating freedom and free choice. Whilst many people have taken the opportunity to belittle John’s Phone, there have also been those who seem to admire it for its simplicity, and I have been rather surprised and taken aback by the number of people who “get it”.

One thing I would like to see for it, though, is perhaps a little piece of computer software that allows you to check the sim for text messages when interfacing the device with a PC (and perhaps even to be able to respond to them whilst the device remains synced). This would eliminate the need for removing the sim and placing it into another phone every few days whilst simultaneously allowing one to charge the device via the computer’s USB port.

John’s Phone retails at around €70 – €90 and comes in six distinct different colours. Models can be purchased directly from their website.

George T. Mortimer

(George, and this essay, can be found over at Media Underground)

How To Deal With Speeding Offences

I can hear feet hitting pedals from here

Firstly, it is my belief that there shouldn’t be any speeding restrictions on the roads, merely guidelines.

Okay, so that may sound somewhat controversial and irresponsible, but personally I think it would be a much more healthy society if people learned to take responsibility for their own actions. For example, imagine a world where speed signs such as “20” actually meant “it is advisable that you travel at 20 mph in this area, otherwise, if you go over that limit and accidentally kill someone, you’ll be taken away and executed.”

With that kind of law in place it’d be interesting to see how many people are brave enough to break the speed limit then.

“An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” is the only phrase I like from the Bible and the only one that makes any sense to me. However, in this fucked up and dumbed down Christian society it seems we are to be treated like retarded children, wrapped up in cotton wool, with every measure put in place to diminish personal responsibility and make life difficult and awkward for everyone involved. Not only is it against the law to travel over 20 mph in many built up areas, but it’s virtually impossible without buggering up your vehicle’s suspension whilst driving over a series of speed bumps that look like a range of Munros.

But I digress.

Personally I have no problem with 20 mph zones in built-up areas where kids might be playing. What I object to is hidden speed cameras on the motorway, specifically set up in such a way that you can’t help getting nailed if you drop your attention for a single second.

grrr

You all know the scene. You’re cruising down some duel carriageway at 70 mph when all of a sudden, out of nowhere, there’s a temporary 50 sign slapped up with a white unmarked van parked in the lay-by several yards after it. You slam the breaks on, almost losing control of the vehicle to try get from 70 to 50, but it’s too damned late. The white van is a mobile camera unit and you’ve just been nailed for three penalty points and a 60 quid fine on top of it, just to piss you off further.

But, the reality is that it’s not really about pissing you off, it’s about the government milking motorists for revenue.

According to a recent Telegraph article, speeding tickets are earning the treasury £250,000 every day, with the intention of making £88 million a year without any apparent impact on road safety whatsoever.

My own advice is to do what I did and replace your car with a bicycle. That way you can completely ignore all the rules, skip lights, bounce onto pavements and cycle home hammered whenever you want.

With a bike you have no registration number, and if the fuzz see you doing something illegal, you can give them the slip real easy down some side street that is too narrow for a car and too fast for the foot patrol.

But it ain’t easy getting rid of your car in a country that has deliberately piss-poor public transport. So, you now know you’ve just been caught by a speed camera. What the hell are you going to do?

Well, the first thing you should expect is a Notice of Intended Prosecution to arrive through your letterbox.

This should arrive within 48 hours and will tell you that “In accordance with Section 1 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act, 1988,” you have been given notice that “it is intended to take proceeding against the driver of the after-mentioned motor vehicle.”

The first thing to note here is that you have not actually been prosecuted for anything yet and that it is an Alleged Speeding Offence and a Notice of Intended Prosecution.

In other words they need you to admit your own guilt.

How do they do this?

By providing you with a form where you basically sign your name saying that you were indeed the driver of the vehicle and that you did indeed commit the offence.

So, lesson number 1 is to take the Notice of Intended Prosecution and throw it out with the trash. If it comes by Recorded Delivery, hand it back to your postman and tell him to return it to the sender. Don’t give him any reason, you are not obliged to accept a Recorded Delivery and are not responsible for any mail that comes through your door. Remember, ignorance isn’t a crime in this country…yet.

Now, I know the notice will have some scary words written in it like “£1000 fine” “Procurator Fiscal” and “6 penalty points.” But quit being a big girl’s blouse and grow some balls. Phrases like “failure to fill in this form is an offence under Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988” are only there to frighten you. If you do not respond to the notice in 28 days they will merely send you out another one like this:

—–

Dear Sir/Madam,

ALLEGED SPEEDING OFFENCE

I refer to the after-mentioned vehicle, which was detected by Speed Camera equipment exceeding the statutory speed limit at the time, date, and location, specified below.

PARTICULARS OF ALLEGED OFFENCE

Time of Offence : XX:XX Hrs

Date of Offence : XX-XXX-200X

Location of Offence : XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Make / Model of Vehicle : Ford (UK) Fiesta

Registration Mark : SXXX XXX

Speed Limit Applicable : 60 Miles Per Hour

Speed Detected : 70 Miles Per Hour

Contrary to Section 89 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984

On XX-XXX-200X a Notice of Intended Prosecution, together with a Form B requiring you to supply the name and address of the driver was sent to you by Royal Mail.

To date no reply has been received, I would therefore be grateful of a response as a matter of urgency in order that this enquiry can be progressed.

I have enclosed a further Form B. Failure to complete and return this Form within 14 days WILL result in the matter being passed to the Police for direct enquiry and report as necessary.

FAILURE TO SUPPLY THESE DETAILS RENDERS YOU LIABLE TO PROSECUTION.

[signature]

On Behalf of the Chief Constable.

—–

Okay. Now, I’m not admitting that I actually threw away my first Notice of Intended Prosecution but they need to prove that you received it. So, now it’s time for you to grow even bigger balls. It’s been over 14 days since the alleged offence and if you play your cards right and correspond in a similar manner as I am about to show from my working example, you will get off with this scot-free.

—–

Dear Sir/Madam,

Further to your letter of XX-XXX-200X – I’d like to first of all state that it is not my intention to delay the enquiry into this alleged speeding offence, however, there are a number of issues concerning it which renders me unable to fill in Form B which you supplied.

Firstly, your letter states that on XX-XXX-200X a Notice of Intended Prosecution was issued to me by Royal Mail. This notice was never received by me and your letter of XX-XXX-200X was in fact the first of me being aware that there were any allegations of an offence. Can you confirm that the notice was sent? Was the letter sent by Recorded or Special Delivery? If so I’m sure the letter can be tracked. Living in a block of flats, I have often found that mail can be delivered to the wrong address.

Secondly, given that it has now been almost two months since the alleged offence, I am unable to recall if my vehicle was or was not in the area during that time. Being a keen hill-walker I am often in different areas of the country on my weekends, but cannot recall for certain where I was that specific weekend due to the time that has passed since then.

Please understand that before I can accurately fill in the form, I need to know if I was in that area and if I was driving the vehicle, as sometimes a friend will take a turn at driving if long distances are being covered that weekend.

Your notice states that Speed Camera equipment was used to detect the speed of the vehicle. Can you provide me with photographic or videographic evidence to determine if the vehicle was in the said area and preferably who was driving at the time?

Since receiving the Notice of Intended Prosecution I also decided to seek legal advice given that I am concerned about this being the first of me learning of the alleged offence. From what I was told, in order for the notice to be valid it must be issued within 14 days of the alleged offence. The reason for this, as I understand it, is to serve the notice whilst the alleged offence is still fresh in the memory of the potential defendant. However, apparently even if I have not received the notice within 14 days it may be still valid if it has been posted within that 14 day period. Please can you provide proof that the Notice of Intended Prosecution was sent and preferably proof of its reception, either through Recorded or Special Delivery tracking. Royal Mail should be able to provide this information and I am more than happy to look into it myself if you can provide me with the tracking number of the notice.

I look forward to having this matter cleared up quickly without any negative repercussions and can only accept responsibility when the evidence I have requested has been supplied to me.

Regards,

George T. Mortimer.

—–

Dear Sir/Madam,

ALLEGED SPEEDING OFFENCE

I refer to our correspondence relative to the after-mentioned vehicle, which was detected by Speed Camera equipment exceeding the statutory speed limit at the time, date, and location, specified below.

PARTICULARS OF ALLEGED OFFENCE

Time of Offence : XX:XX Hrs

Date of Offence : XX-XXX-200X

Location of Offence : XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Make / Model of Vehicle : Ford (UK) Fiesta

Registration Mark : SXXX XXX

Speed Limit Applicable : 60 Miles Per Hour

Speed Detected : 70 Miles Per Hour

Contrary to Section 89 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984

I am in receipt of your letter of XX-XXX-200X.

The initial Notice of Intended Prosecution was sent out from this office on XX-XXX-200X. A Certificate of Posting is held on file for this offence, should it ever be required for Court purposes.

The videographic evidence for this offence is rear view of the vehicle and would therefore not be of any help in the identification of the driver. However the purpose of the camera is to identify the vehicle, this it has done. It is your responsibility to identify the driver, under terms of Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. Failure to do so is an offence separate to that of speeding.

I enclose a further Form B for completion.

Yours faithfully,

[signature]

On behalf of the Chief Constable.

—–

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for your prompt response of XX-XXX-200X.

Whilst I appreciate that you may indeed have sent out an initial Notice of Intended Prosecution on XX-XXX-200X, it doesn’t change the fact that I did not receive it. As stated in my previous missive, the first of me hearing about the alleged offence was in your letter of XX-XXX-200X.

I also appreciate that whilst a Certificate of Posting is held on file, it doesn’t exactly guarantee reception of the aforementioned Notice. Proof of posting is hardly proof of reception, and one would have thought that a Royal Mail Recorded or Special Delivery service might have been more appropriate for tracking the item in question.

I understand, however, that you may not be aware that I live in a tenement block where 7 other flats come under the same address as my own. Mail can often be delivered incorrectly and a system for tracking something as important as an Intended Prosecution would have been advisable if the Safety Camera Dept wanted to ensure that the charge remain valid by guaranteeing delivery to my address within 14 days.

Since this has not occurred and you state that the videographic evidence for this alleged offence is the rear view of the vehicle, I am afraid that this doesn’t particularly help me recollect my exact whereabouts on the day of this alleged offence. To be quite honest, I’m not sure where I was at all that whole specific weekend, however, I will point out that it is extremely rare for me to use the road that the alleged offence took place on at any time as I much prefer driving the more scenic country roads.

Whilst I appreciate that the purpose of the camera is to identify the vehicle and that it is my responsibility to identify the driver, I think anyone would have difficulty trying to recall their exact location and interactions two months ago on a specific date and time. Are you sure, for example, that the camera has picked up my registration plate properly and that an error has not occurred? For all I know it could be another vehicle with forged plates.

I do fully understand your point that it is an offence not to identify the driver, but I would also think that it is equally an offence to give false information based on a guess at best.

As I’m sure you understand, I now find myself between a rock and a hard place with this matter and don’t know how to respond other than by truthfully explaining my predicament. It is honestly not my intention to withhold information, but if I am unable to recall that information then what on earth do I do?

To be honest, I feel a little like I am being pressured into accepting this charge when I don’t think it is at all fair given that I cannot genuinely recall my whereabouts that weekend.

As a result, it is with regret that I cannot fill in the Form B that you requested as I would be afraid of giving false information based on an assumption.

I hope this helps and once again I’d like to emphasise that it is not my intention to stall or delay your enquiries into this matter.

Yours faithfully,

George T. Mortimer.

—–

Dear Sir/Madam,

ALLEGED SPEEDING OFFENCE

I refer to our previous correspondence relative to the after-mentioned vehicle, which was detected by Speed Camera equipment exceeding the statutory speed limit at the time, date, and location, specified below.

PARTICULARS OF ALLEGED OFFENCE

Time of Offence : XX:XX Hrs

Date of Offence : XX-XXX-200X

Location of Offence : XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Make / Model of Vehicle : Ford (UK) Fiesta

Registration Mark : SXXX XXX

Speed Limit Applicable : 60 Miles Per Hour

Speed Detected : 70 Miles Per Hour

Contrary to Section 89 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984

I am in receipt of your letter of XX-XXX-200X.

I enclose for your attention ‘stills’ taken from the videographic evidence. I also enclose a further Form B for your attention.

Failure to receive completed Form B by XX-XXX-200X, will result in this matter being passed on to your local Police for direct enquiry and report to the Procurator Fiscal.

Yours faithfully,

[signature]

On behalf of the Chief Constable.

—–

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for your prompt response of XX-XXX-200X and for supplying ‘stills’ taken from video footage of the alleged offence. Whilst this is much appreciated, it doesn’t really clear up the matter and I would in fact suggest that it only adds further to the ambiguity of this incident.

I will therefore hereby outline my concerns in bullet points as follows and suggest that if you are still not satisfied with my honest answers then perhaps it would indeed make sense for you to pass this matter on to my local Police who can then highlight this incident to the Procurator Fiscal. I personally would welcome this as a positive step in the right direction and hope that it would allow us to get to the heart of the matter.

Here then follows my main concerns:

• Whilst the ‘stills’ do indeed show a vehicle similar in colour to my own, the registration number is extremely grainy and not at all clear. I would have thought that a crisper image would have been required to pinpoint the vehicle as being my own. My initial thought is that the first character of the registration plate is a “G” (and not an “S” as assumed) and that the sixth character is not even discernable at all. Given the difficulty in discerning these characters, I do not see how one can be certain that the other characters are interpreted correctly either.

• No driver is visible in the ‘stills’ therefore if it were my vehicle (which I don’t think it is) I am still unable to recall who may have been the driver, let alone why my vehicle would be on a road I generally avoid.

• The make and model of the vehicle is not clear from the ‘stills’. Whilst one would be initially inclined to assume this is a Ford Fiesta, it might equally be a Mazda 121 which is essentially identical to a Ford Fiesta with but Mazda badging.

• Your second photo shows the vehicle alongside two other vehicles to the left. It is therefore impossible from the photo to determine which of these vehicles is travelling at 70 mph.

• Given that it has been over two months now since the alleged offence, I am no further forward to recalling my whereabouts at the time. Whilst I appreciate that you may have proof that the Notice of Intended Prosecution was posted to me on XX-XXX-200X (and I have no reason to doubt that it was) I can quite categorically state that the Notice was never received by me. Therefore, the legal requirement of issuing a Notice of Intended Prosecution within 14 days has not been met and as a result I believe you are legally unable to proceed against me.

Whilst you have highlighted that it is an offence for me not to identify the driver by filling in the Form B that you supplied, I’d like to highlight that I don’t think it is lawful that I should be pressured into giving unascertained information simply to aid the Police in their intended prosecution. Whilst the vehicle looks similar to my own, I cannot recall being in that location, at the designated date and time, and for me to tell you that I was out of fear of reprisal would require that I lie on a legal document. I am not happy about making a vague assumption of this kind, therefore I would much prefer if the matter was either dropped or handed to the Procurator Fiscal for examination.

I hope this clarifies the matter and trust that the appropriate course of action will be taken.

Yours faithfully,

George T. Mortimer.

—–

And so ended any further communication from that specific constabulary. Whilst this working example clearly highlights a number of issues concerning my own case in this matter, the important thing for anyone to remember when confronted with a Notice of Intended Prosecution is what is stated on the 5th bullet point of my last letter: the legal requirement of issuing a Notice of Intended Prosecution must be within 14 days of the alleged offence.

End of story.

George T. Mortimer is the editor and webmaster of the amazing Media Underground, as well as being the author of The Probationer’s Handbook, and The Key of it All. In each article, Mort will be teaching you ways of keeping ‘The Man’ on his toes’, and all from the comfort of your home.

]]> http://sittingnow.co.uk/2009/12/06/mortimers-guide-to-armchair-anarchy-5-how-to-deal-with-speeding-offences/feed/ 4 http://sittingnow.co.uk/2008/11/17/guest-feature-mortimers-guide-to-armchair-anarchy-3/ http://sittingnow.co.uk/2008/11/17/guest-feature-mortimers-guide-to-armchair-anarchy-3/#comments Mon, 17 Nov 2008 02:25:59 +0000 Ken Eakins http://sittingnow.co.uk/?p=271

George T. Mortimer is the editor and webmaster of the amazing Media Underground, as well as being the author of The Probationer’s Handbook, and The Key of it All. Each week Mort will be teaching you ways of keeping ‘The Man’ on his toes, and all from the comfort of your home.

Fun With Finances

A few weeks ago the fixed rate on my mortgage ran out resulting in a rather alarming increase in my monthly repayments to the Halifax Bank Of Scotland (soon to be laughably called Lloyds Trustees Savings Halifax Bank Of Scotland - or something as equally ludicrous due to recent bailout plans). Being the ever-vigilant little investor that I am – and realising the implications that the current economic crisis will have on mortgage rates – I decided to schedule an appointment with the bank to negotiate another fix rate mortgage for a few more years.

The offer they presented to me was reasonable, I thought, until I asked if there were any additional charges.

“It’s £999,” remarked the mortgage advisor as calm as you like, “for transferring from a variable rate to a fixed rate for 5 years.”

“A grand!” I exclaimed. “But I’m not transferring to anywhere, I’m already a goddamned existing customer!”

The mortgage advisor looked contemptuous, almost sneering at my reaction like I was some kind of cheapskate. “It’s the current climate,” he pointed out, “all the high street banks are doing it.”

I stood up, dropped the tropical rain forest he’d spent the good part of two hours printing out and began walking away in disgust.

“You can shove that offer right up your arse,” I remarked, “I can shop around.”

And that’s the first moral of the story. Don’t believe the bastards. Not all the high street banks have such ludicrous charges. After spending an afternoon checking out a number of banks and building societies I settled on the Nationwide who offered me a cheaper rate and a far more affordable transfer fee.

Several days later I emailed a friend telling him about the matter and he came up with a genius idea:

“Next time you go into HBOS (Hair-Brained Office of Shitheads) just stand in the middle of the room and take a dump or something. Or another less drastic wheeze is to write loads of small denomination cheques to yer mates (say £2.50) and get them to write them back as it costs a bomb for banks to process the dear old cheque. That’ll soon eat into those cocksuckers’ £1000 transfer fee.”

Whilst the idea of taking a dump in the middle of the bank’s floor has a certain aesthetic appeal, one could also, I suppose, set up two accounts with the same bank and throw small denomination cheques back and forward to yourself. This could be especially satisfying whenever one receives excessive charges for being overdrawn or having a direct debit bounce.

As you are all probably aware, however, banks are up to no good. Recently I had a two month argument with my own bank about charges applied to my account out of no fault of my own. The bank in question is laughably called Smile and it’s the online division of the Co-operative Financial Services Group – a bunch of crooks who were originally set up “by the people for the people”. This kind of communism has long since died out and the Co-op now functions as a ruthless organisation determined to profit from the little guy on the street.

The problem I had was that pending direct debits were shown as having left my account whilst not reflecting on the balance of the online statement. This can only be considered a deliberate ploy in an attempt to confuse and bewilder the customer so that he/she is never quite sure if they have sufficient funds to cover their bills.

As a result, I was charged a total of £60 for the convenience of them not paying my direct debits, so after a long-winded telephone argument with some call-centre numbskull in an eastern European country, I decided to present my case to the Financial Ombudsman.

The key to successfully retrieving your money is never to back down. If you argue long and hard enough occasionally the bank will offer half of the fees back to you as “a good will gesture,” but when they do, tell them where they can ram it. Register a complaint with the Ombudsman, sit back, keep a copy of all your correspondences, and let the matter run its course. The Financial Ombudsman will contact the bank on your behalf and allow them 8 weeks to respond to you with a final verdict. The Ombudsman will also have supplied you with a next stage complaints application pack, however, you will almost always receive your charges back before it gets to that level since it’s not in the bank’s best interest to be seen to be in constant negotiations with the Financial Ombudsman. When they do refund all your money, hassle the bank for the interest you have lost on money that has been unjustly taken from your account. I can’t guarantee success in this venture but it makes for good entertainment and eats away at their time.

Other fun you can have with finances if you are running low on funds is to pay your bills by cheque. Once you have made out and signed the written order, fold it several times, tear it at the corners and smudge the ink. This will prevent the cheque from being fed into a machine and the bank will put it to the side to be manually processed later. The organisation you made the cheque out to will have it on their records that you’ve made your payment, but it could take up to two weeks for the bank to process the offending item. You’ll be up to date with your bill but the delay will give you time to put sufficient funds in your account to cover the expenditure.