Rise of the "Experts"

It seems that no problem is insurmountable if you have a celebrity to help. From dating, cooking, running a shop / restaurant / hotel / holiday resort / charity, developing new products, making a football team better or sorting out your brass band nothing guarantees success more than the addition of a celeb. They swan in wallop some new paint / clothes / equipment / uniforms / instruments into the mix, call upon one of their "celeb" chums to assist with the revamp then watch as success returns. Well I say success. In TV land success is measured not by "success" but rather by participation in a climactic "event" where they can demonstrate their improvement. The big finish where the celeb has to get their prodigies to perform their act / cooking / dance / concert or whatever at the Royal Albert Hall in front of a bemused audience. And, of course, they always (I mean always) come through, defying the naysayers, proving the doubters wrong. So, on TV at least, involving a celeb in the struggle assures success. 

There's an interesting subset of these type of shows. The celeb that has to learn a new skill. This usually involves them being coached (in much the same way as a poodle) by some faintly dusty expert, in a vital new skill be it singing, dancing, playing an instrument. Again their proficiency is demonstrated by a performance at the Royal Albert Hall*. The  twist is that events always conspire so that the expert has to call on another "celeb" expert (think Mike Batt) to assist. Despite this things always turn out brilliantly. The event is a roaring success, complete with vague indications that the celeb is some sort of undiscovered genius who could easily turn their hands to any thing they chose. Truly we are blessed to have such greatness living amongst us.

Which is, to be blunt, utter fucking cobblers. We never get to see the complete basket cases, who've also applied to appear on the show that a celeb couldn't save or improve, no matter how many of their "famous friends" they called upon**. It seems to me that these "failures" are all carefully screened so that they can't actually fail, to the extent that the climactic challenge demonstrating their redemption is so loaded in the celebs favour that even Sir Percy Ware-Armitage would be ashamed to participate in it. Now you might think "How can you presume that?" Simple. If adding a celeb (complete with a camera crew) was all you had to do to rescue something from the abyss don't you think people like Zavi / Mothercare / Woolworth's or whoever would, at the first sign of trouble, add Sue Perkins to the board of directors? 

But this isn't the point. We aren't expected to analyse, we're just expected to clap, awed by the celebs greatness, vicariously sharing in the hollow things these programmes define as demonstrating "success". We know our place. Sat, slack jawed, in front of the TV.  

  


*Presumably these shows are stuck through as a job lot by the Royal Albert Hall.  
**Except for Jesus. But he doesn't do TV any more, so it's a moot point  

Same. Same? Same.

I've been told that I'm not qualified for a junior, temporary, first line, IT support role.
Had smoke blown up my hole by Grafton.
Been knocked back by some crowd called Fluent Technologies with no explanation.
Heard nothing from PMC.
Watched as Van Rath IT recruitment (ha) fill CW Jobs with positions that don't exist.

So much the same as usual.

Sporadic Posting Continues Unabated.

so I'll keep this one short and snappy.

"meh" 

Just in passing

So I was watching The Gadget Show and a thought struck me. Okay "struck" is the wrong word. I sat there wondering "why"? It is a truly fecking dreadful programme. All that superficial bollox about gadgets being cool (and by extension making you cool if you own one of them - right) wrapped up in reviews which suffer from my pet hate - "Top Gearization". You know the scripted bonhomie, the unnecessary, carefully stage managed, zany challenges designed to prove something crushingly irrelevant. Now this format might have been interesting the first few times on the progenitor show, but watching a tired copy, of a tired original, doesn't make for interesting or informative TV. But on the other hand, if you were in the position where you had to attempt to sell the notion that having an indestructible vacuum flask (or what ever other piece of ephemeral tat they've been given to review) renders you the most sophisticated person in Christendom, as well as exponentially increasing your chances of getting laid, then making the resultant TV show "interesting" or "informative" isn't going to be among your priorities. 

Nor is making it any good.  

Worst Agency? We have a new front runner

You'd think you'd reach a point in dealing with Recruitment agencies when you've heard it all. And I thought I had. Until I had this conversation earlier today

"How long have you been unemployed for?"

"About 11 months"

"Ah"

"Ah?"

"That might be awkward"

"Awkward?"

"Yeah we need proof you've been looking for work"

"Sorry?"

"We don't like unexplained gaps in employment"

"Er it's not unexplained I got made redundant"

"Yes but have you been looking for another job?"

"Well I am speaking to you about another job. So clearly I am looking for another job. Otherwise I wouldn't be speaking to you"
  
The way 2010 is shaping up, Chapterhouse, last year's winner of the "Worst Recruitment Agency" award, will be doing well to retain their title. 

And my point was?

Nothing very profound really. Just that sometimes because you can do something it doesn't necessarily follow you should do something. Of course it is entirely understandable that the media have leapt to use these tools (twitter / text commentary) not because they offer additional information, but rather because they tick the big box labelled "interaction". Obviously it's not real interaction. Rather these constant appeals for texts or emails are designed to cast the viewer or reader in the role of a virtual Greek chorus, to be called upon to laugh or wail at the appropriate moment. It doesn't add anything, beyond texture. And why would it? All the public can bring are opinions. But this conceit allows the media to claim that they are "reaching out", that they are "interacting" with their audience. And they are, but in a way that has been contrived to keep the audience at a safe distance, disconnected from any real influence. Email the studio? Text the presenter? Like they really give a fuck what you think. They are in charge. Not you.

Now you might think that, even by my standards, this is fairly cynical. And I suppose it is. But then I think about the "news" programme Sky News show on week nights at 7 pm. If you want the prime example of how the mainstream media views the idea of "interaction" and it's role then I suggest you tune in. The concept for the show (as it is) is that they use the internet to drive the content for the programme. It sets the agenda. Which, when you think about it, doesn't sound too bad. But they don't do this. It seems to me that this programme is entirely contrived so that Sky set the news agenda, while at the same time allowing them to protest the contrary. Once you strip away the usual mix of the "funny" and the "quirky" (Two words that should never appear in an news programme. Unless of course the presenter has been beaten to death by someone brandishing a sign emblazened with these two words) you are left with something much less mundane. And something altogether more cynical. They claim that the agenda for the programme is set not by the stories importance, but by the number of people who click on the story on the Sky News website. They even have a "top 5 most clicked". And "big deal" says you. But the point is that Sky get to pick the stories that appear on it's website. Despite the claims that it's a virtual free-for-all it isn't. Only clicks on the Sky News site count. Which is rather like those fecking award things where you can only select from an already preselected and filtered list. And lo the Greek chorus is called upon again. To click the video. To show the surfing dog. And you feel empowered by doing so. Sky (and the rest) are listening to me, and people like me. 

And of course they are. After all that's what being "interactive" is all about. 

To say this is unbelievable tells half the story. It's unbelievable the way that "only" the entirely predictable can be. Of course this whole approach raises some fairly fundamental questions. Does Osama Bin Laden, for example, sit pondering in his cave, worried that his latest statement has only entered the Sky Top 5 at number 2, behind the tennis playing Duck at number 1? (Perhaps if he'd plugged it on the Jonathan Ross show. Or got his arse into gear and appeared on Loose Women or that fucking loathsome Titchmarsh thing). And of course I'm exaggerating, but at it's core there is something thoroughly worrying. Sky (and the rest) are just, for all their bold claims to the contrary, trying to drive you to their website. They don't care what you think, The whole "interaction" thing the media crow about is window dressing, allowing you to believe that you've contributed something of value to the debate. That you've somehow been "engaged". When the reality is that all you are is a click through, to be totalled up, collated and used to sell advertising space. 

Interactive? I think not. 

Angry Since 1967 LIVE - Text Commentary

12.35pm More aimless surfing. And it's still raining. It has the look of being on for the day. There's a big damp stain on the wall of the house opposite. Their recently repainted blue border offering the only patch of colour in an otherwise monochrome scene.  

12:36pm The battery low warning icon has just started flashing in the bottom right hand corner of my PC screen. 

12:37pm Some late period Porcupine Tree just wheeled into view on itunes. The dangers of playing on random. Skipped to the next track which is ELO's "Hold On Tight".

12:42pm And now it's "Röyksopp's Night Out" 

12:49pm This is, I'm sure you'd agree, pretty dull all the same.

Angry Since 1967 LIVE - Text Commentary

12:25pm Just checked the date for "Prince Charming" on Wikipedia, discovering No Doubt did a cover version of "Stand And Deliver". 

Experience the full horror here.

Angry Since 1967 LIVE - Text Commentary

12:19pm Fired up itunes. First track? Adam and the Ants "Prince Charming". Ridicule is nothing to be scared of. As relevant today as it was in 1981

Angry Since 1967 LIVE - Text Commentary

12:16pm Surfed across to Facebook. Then looked out of the window again. It's still raining

Angry Since 1967 LIVE - Text Commentary

12:13pm Opened blinds and looked out of the window. Jesus it's grim here today. 

Angry Since 1967 LIVE - Text Commentary

12:11pm Spent the last couple of minutes editing that first post to remove the obvious spelling mistakes

Angry Since 1967 LIVE - Text Commentary

12:09pm It seems that any event regardless of how trivial now demands a live text commentary. Let's go! 

Another "weakly" update.

And it's weekly update time. Be still my thumping heart. Nothing to report. Really. The job market has gone on it's Easter hiatus. Nothing unexpected about that. 
What is of interest though is that today is another one of those "special" anniversaries. It's a year today that my "gardening leave" became "unemployed".  
A year? Hard to believe. It won't be long now until I buy a donkey jacket and start proclaiming "I can do that." 

Angry Since 1967 will be back shortly. In the meantime, we are returning to our trade test transmissions

Some assembly required.

Nothing to report. Okay that's not entirely true. There is, but it's all so depressingly familiar and predictable that I can't be arsed putting it here. I was thinking of doing a quick "cut out and keep" do-it-yourself Angry Since 1967 kit designed to fill the gaps when I'm having one of have my posting lulls. 

All you'd do select any of the words that occur the most regularly on this blog such as 
"Recruitment" 
"Agencies"
"are"
"a"  
"bunch"
"of"
"useless" 
"self-serving"
"fuck"
"wits",
and then add them into a sentence. The result? You get your regular fix of Angry Since 1967s customary (and barely coherent) bile without me having to actually post anything.

Now why did it take me so long to think of this?  

The fasten your seat belt sign has been lit.

And here I am, back again. None the wiser, no further on. This coming weeks highlights include the first anniversary of being put on "gardening leave" more horseshit from agencies and a grey cloud hanging over me, like some big grey cloud thing. Yes my normally sunny and positive (some would say "chirpy") disposition has completely fucking evaporated. 

Two things have really wound me up. First is the depressing date rolling around on Tuesday, the second is that after a year of this I am precisely no further on from where I was this time 365 days ago. And it's not like it's for the want of trying. Powerless is the word I'd use to describe it.

Strap yourselves in. I'm expecting turbulence.   

Updated updates. Update

Anyway my job hunt takes me to distant climes this week, so I doubt I'll get a chance to update this over the next few days. On my return expect the gurning to recommence, albeit with a very faint Geordie accent. 

My "wear sunscreen" moment.

After the events of this week, when I was treated like a participant in an episode of "The Chuckle Brothers", complete with a "to me, to you" moment, I thought it would be a good time to reflect on this whole recruitment agency thingy. Way back at the start of this adventure I was given some advice about using agencies, how they work and the pitfalls I might encounter. 

• Agencies have their own goals, targets and motivations. These may, occasionally and only for short periods, broadly coincide with yours.
• The only time they will be interested in assisting is when they've already placed you in a job.
• You are a drain on their resources until they land you a job. 
• As they provide this service for free expect a standard that reflects it's cost.
• The staff turnover within agencies is enormous. Don't expect to speak to the same person twice. 
• They won't read your CV. They word / phrase spot. Therefore aim low. Keep it punchy.
• There is no such thing as a "good" agency, but there are plenty of bad ones.
• Remember they are doing you a favour. There is no "obligation" on their behalf. Nor can you treat them as if there is. 
• Complaining ends the relationship. 
• Be persistent, but not too insistent. 

9 months on and I'd add

• Accept that agencies will advertise the same job, subtly amended, under a variety of guises just to maximise the number of people likely to apply.
• They advertise jobs that don't exist.   
• The jobs they advertise generally have little resemblance to the "actual" job.
• Many of the jobs advertised will have had the job descriptions filtered and then amended to suit the needs of the Agency, not the employer.  
• The agents you speak to have no real idea about the minutiae of the jobs they claim to be experts about. Any "expertise" is a facile bluff.
• They will tell you bare faced lies.
• They will tell you what you want to hear, especially if they think they can benefit.
• They will not follow through on promises.
• Treat that they say with healthy scepticism. 
• Sharp practice is endemic. And, I'd say, encouraged.
• Cut out the middle man. If you can, apply directly to the Employer.
• They will not volunteer information, however it is possible to extract more information than you'd otherwise be privy. Guile is a tool. Use it.  
• There are no good agencies. They are all crap. Not "crap" in the "with a little tweaking they'd be better" sense, but rather in the "institutionally incompetent to the point it's been formalised then fully incorporated into the organisation's structure, where a dedicated management team exists whose sole purpose is to ensure bad practice is actively pursued and that any signs of professionalism are completely eradicated from the business" sense. 

But probably the most important thing I've learned is that you have to put these considerations aside and actively participate in the charade. No matter how much it might stick in your craw. 

Exasperation. That's what you need

With apologies to Roy Castle.

So (predictably) my phone call didn't go well. But then I spied another job. With another agency. And, shockingly, when I rang, they rang me back. And when I sent my CV across 10 minutes later I got a call suggesting some amendments. "Come in and see us and we'll talk about the interview"

I was dumbfounded. So off I went, with an unfamiliar feeling in my gut. I think it's called "hope".

That didn't last. The girl I went to see wasn't there. So I was passed from pillar to post, around the office, until someone drew the short straw. And then it dawned on me. "Here we go again". So I filled in their forms. I listened to the person who'd no idea about the job, who I was, or what I was talking about, (par for the course then) tell me "I'd" be in touch. (Presumably this refers to the collective "I" rather than her specifically)

For. Fuck. Sake. 

Foul mood? Yeah that just about covers it.  

"...they're giving none away"

Just a couple of things in passing. I was in HMV this week. I did my semi-regular Dark Side of the Moon price check. The 30th Anniversary edition was on sale In Belfast this week for an eye watering £20. £20 for a 7 year old re-issue of 37 year old album? They are, quite clearly, "having a laugh". Perhaps I shouldn't extrapolate from this one example, but it strikes me as peculiar that so many seen to think that only reason for their decline in sales is internet piracy. To the point I've had to conclude that they can't be that naive. And so rather than consider pricing as a contributing factor it's just easier to blame a faceless bogeyman - the internet pirate for their ills. Which, rather neatly, allows them to sidestep any culpability. But the point is moot. Whatever the reason, I think it's a mindset that is, inevitably, leading to tears. 

Saw this article about Independent record shops on the BBC website. More interesting is the link to this website. Now the site has the faint whiff of Euronics about it, but it seems their hearts are in the right place, so it gets a thumbs up from me. Well, kind of. The link to a pdf called the "Record Store Survival guide" has set my "Spider sense" tingling. But I'll come back to this - when my head isn't filled with "redoing CVs again, for the nth time".

"...banging your head against some mad buggers wall"

Anyway the job I mentioned here is still being advertised. This despite the rather significant fact the closing date for applications was the 10th January. Sharp practice? Wash your mouth out with soap and water.

The crowd I was whinging about last week finally sent me a copy of the job description they'd promised. Despite being grilled about C#, Java and HTML the actual knowledge requirement was summed up in the phrase "software technology skills". Clearly the agency knows more about the company and their requirements than the company itself. 

I've been talking this week to another agency. They rang on Tuesday about an "exciting opportunity". It's always refreshing to speak to an agency that isn't based in Belfast (or Northern Ireland for that matter) as they always come across as more focused and more professional. So when they said they'd send me details, I had them before I'd got off the phone. Twenty minutes later I'd emailed a reply, keen to know the next step. Then I rang them. Then I rang them again. And then four times yesterday. As soon as I post this I'm going to ring them again. But now in hope more than expectation. In fact it's not hope. It's resignation. 

And this is the thing. The old familiar feeling of banging my head against another wall. Sorry scrub that. As an agency is involved I'm banging my head against a wall in front of the wall I should be banging my head against.

If you want to know what exasperation looks like, this is it.

A week without mp3s. Another update.

A while ago I posted this and posed the question, who, exactly, is Spotify aimed at? Just to give you a flavour (and so that you an avoid all that difficult clicking on a link malarkey) here are the highlights.


'...is it that I can't stomach the fact that Spotify is a half-arsed, knee jerk response to the idea that the music industry will only survive if it gives music away for free?' 


'...if you are a listener who can cope with the music being free, but interrupted with commercials, then are you really going to buy the same track so that you can hear it without the commercials?'


'...Isn't it (Spotify) just a place where people can hear things that they might like, but that they'd never actually buy? If that's the case then what's the point exactly?" 


And lo and behold someone has come (broadly at least) to the same conclusion. Warner Brothers have decided to stop licensing music to free streaming services (story here) as they aren't making any money from it, as surprise surprise no bugger wants to sign up for the premium service.  

The fact that Warner Brothers thought that a service as flawed as Spotify could be a viable source of revenue demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of how people work. If you give something away, it will, despite the compromises and restrictions you impose, always be more attractive than a "premium" version. People, especially the casual listener Spotify is pitched at will either work around these limitations or go elsewhere to get their content free. And if that means back to the radio or piracy then that's where they'll go. Further, and as I've mentioned before, the basic motivation behind Spotify that music must be given away, punctuated with the odd ad, simply reinforces the perception that it has no intrinsic value.  

Back to the drawing board I'm afraid. 

You should also be wary if

• that website you're about to spend thousands on, doesn't have a physical address.
• the album has the suffix "Part 2".
• they claim to be "The Drifters".
• the term "fun pub" is used.
• the sign says "students welcome."
• they can't be fed after midnight.
• you can't get them wet. Ever.
• the only reading material is bound in human skin and has the word "Dead" in the title.
• the celebrity endorsement is by Sue Pollard.
• you get a free laptop / games console just for signing up.
• you just have to pay the tax on your flights.
• they don't have any, but they can order one in for you
• they don't have any, but they do have one that's "just as good."
• it says "Amstrad"
• it can be enjoyed as part of a "balanced breakfast."
• it requires you to have a "healthy lifestyle."
• it's full of natural goodness.
• it contains no non-artificial ingredients.
• it's not just any food, it's Marks and Spencer food.
• the letters "q" and "u" have been replaced with "k" and "w."
• words ending in "y" have been changed to end in "ie"
• the supermarket has prefixed it with the word "value".
• you're told the colour of the wiring isn't important.
• you get a vote of confidence from the chairman.
• people around you start spelling words out.
• you're linked with the QPR job.
• there is a TV programme where you can win £100k simply by dialling a telephone number and naming something you'd expect to find in an envelope that begins with the letter "R".
• you are related (no matter how remotely) to Jessica Fletcher.
• there's a flash on the box saying "as seen on TV".
• beside their picture, is the name of their TV character and the TV programme they appear in.
• it's been called a "stunning return to form."
• there's a no obligation, 30 day, free in home trial.
• they've been dead for 20 years yet the latest "greatest hits" album features new tracks.
• it's described as a "re-imagining" 
• a group of kids and their pet dog turn up in a van and start investigating paranormal activity.
• your friends start avoiding daylight and develop a dislike for garlic.
• your neighbour has taken delivery of a food processor and 10 tonnes of fertiliser.
• it says "too raunchy for TV".
• it's cheaper when there are none in stock.
• you win a competition you didn't enter.
• it's a DFS sofa not in the sale.
• your house was built on an ancient Indian burial ground.
• a recruitment agency says they'll definitely ring you back.
• it includes the word "virtually".
• the manufacturer claims it's the next big thing.
• a serpent tells you it's okay to eat the apple.

You should be wary if

• the cover features "from one of producers of"
• the film gets four stars from Caravanning Monthly.
• this is the only review to feature on the poster or TV advertisement.  
• you have to spend over a certain amount to qualify for the additional advertised saving.
  
• it comes with "free appliances".
  
• the company, for no good reason, uses an umlaut in their name.
  
• they offer you a points / loyalty card.
  
• it says "for illustration purposes only."
  
• it says "serving suggestion."
  
• the product features a nutritional serving / portion size on the packaging divided by any number other than 1.
  
• it's a once in a lifetime offer.
  
• they promise no salesperson will call.
  
• it's risk free.
  
• it's cached in equivocation, such as "up to 100%".
  
• they claim it's 100% natural.
  
• the APR is the sharp side of 2500%
  
• it's void where prohibited.
  
• it produces an oily residue.
  
• it's a miracle. 
  
• it's revolutionary.
• it's benefit has a three letter acronym.
• their ad features a golfer. In a Pringle jumper. And a baseball cap.
• their slogan talks of "synergies" (or any derivative) 
  

Parlez-Vous Anglais?

Well my optimism lasted less than a day. I spotted a job yesterday. I rang the agency and had a long chat. It seemed to go well, and thought it was worth a punt. I was told they'd send me a copy of the job description and some other details "as soon as I get off the phone".  

Needless to say my latest, new, special, recruitment agency buddy hasn't. Nor has he been 'available' this morning to take any calls.

I signed on today as well. They did a job search for me. This time? The language required was French.

Really.

Why do they bother?

Odd and Sods - More More More

Yeah it's February. And it's a Monday. Meaning there's not only a new week to be stained with disappointment, but a whole new month as well. 
In an effort stop this from happening I've spent the last weekend "re-imagining" my CV. The last version (barely a day old) was fine I suppose. This one? It has a motorbike chase in the middle plus a big song and dance number at the end. It's a winner. To hell with getting a job. This needs a movie deal.

Our Survey Says....Exactly What We Wanted (15)

Broadband price comparison website says that you are being ripped off by your broadband provider, so you should come and look at their site for some great money saving deals. And it's easy. All you do is click the link the BBC have kindly provided in their "news" story reporting the results of their survey which found out that you're being ripped off by your current broadband provider. Simples. Or a fat Opera singer singing at you. Or that Iranian guy. Wasn't he in "Sky Captain And The World Of Tomorrow" or something?  Jesus that's a plummet from greatness isn't it? Doing a price comparison website advert? One minute you're rubbing shoulders with Paltrow and Law. The next? Your main rival for the affections of the British public is a computer generated Meerkat

  

Rumours of it's demise have been greatly exaggerated.

I would have posted this earlier but since today's announcement that the recession is over, I've been too busy dealing with calls, emails and people knocking on my front door offering me jobs.  

Of course not.

Yesterday I did get an nice email telling me that I was "overqualified" for a job. Interestingly this position was all but identical to my last job, but with one notable difference. It was much better paid. 

Yes I spoke to them. And no they wouldn't budge. Nor, unsurprisingly, could they reveal who the employer was.

In the old days I'd have shouted "cry havoc" and started a holy crusade. Now? I really don't see the point 

Perhaps I've mellowed? Perhaps I've just become engulfed in resignation? Perhaps I'm just lulling them into a false sense of security? 

Still it was nice to be told that I was "overqualified". The last time that happened I was being interviewed for a job coordinating the delivery of commodes.

Which just proves the last 15 years haven't been in vain.  

A week without mp3 - Another update

Saw this about a "deluxe*" version of mp3 that's due to be launched. The report lists the format's benefits.

"The new file, MusicDNA, can include things like lyrics, videos, artwork and blog posts, which will continually be updated, as well as the music"

"...as well as the music?"

That little "as well as" says it all. 

*This shouldn't be confused with the last "deluxe" mp3 format "mp3pro". Which died on it's arse. 

...all these people are kinda the same

Following the rant last week about crap recruitment agencies I thought it would be illuminating to let you see exactly what I (and other job seekers) have to deal with

Q1) This screen grab was taken (half an hour prior to posting this) from a popular job / recruitment site. 

Study the image, CAREFULLY, before answering the following question. 

How many jobs are being advertised?

a) 3

b) 2

c) 4

d) 1

The correct answer is  

d) 1*

*Claim based on the job descriptions attached to these roles. And yes I did take the liberty of saving copies of the originals away. Just in case.

Cash4OldRope.

Timing is, as they say, everything. I was going to stick a thing here about those "post your gold to us" advertisements. But in the light of this report I think I've missed the boat. Still it's surprising to realise there still people who actually trust and believe companies who appear from no where, whose only point of contact is a telephone number and a website and who use the dead hours on obscure TV channels to advertise their wears. Worse there is still a large chunk of people who don't scrutinise the claims of companies who offer things that are "too good to be true".   

There' s been a long history of this type of TV advertising. Seemingly targeted, (if I was being generous) at the gullible. Of course there may be circumstances when, through no fault of your own, you might see something advertised on TV that could tide you over, or provide you with just that little convenience or service that didn't know existed. However, and unless you live in a vacuum, I find it hard to believe that people still don't deploy any scepticism. Think of all those ads, promising risk free compensation for injuries were you get 100% of your money, or guarantee to help you clear your debts, or free up some equity, or offer cash for your pension, or will refund National Insurance contributions, or exchanging your old mobile phone (for "wonga"), or help you sort out a refund on payment protection insurance, or offering unbeatable deals on stair lifts, baths, time shares in Portugal, arthritis cures, mattresses, kitchens, conservatories, conservatory blinds, electric garage doors, limited edition coins, life insurance and remote electric shutters. Given the fairly negative press the advertisers of these products invariably attract, wouldn't you at least exercise some caution before doing what they ask you to do?  Wouldn't you at least think (as you sit there, for one last time, in your conservatory with the remote control shuttering, now owned by the equity release company, penniless from spending the money released from your pension fund on a time share (complete with remote controlled garage doors) in a Portuguese golf resort and a stair lift, surrounded by the blinds, mattresses, limited edition plates, coins, carriage clocks, free parker pens (fortunately no sales person called or you'd have been rightly screwed), and the piles of compensation cheques made out in pence, with nothing to eat but useless anti-arthritis pills) that perhaps should have been a bit more thorough in your research before you committed yourself to another one. And then, just as you've resolved not to fall for it again it happens. On comes an ad telling you that they'll give you money for your unwanted gold? I mean who wouldn't be tempted? Who wouldn't believe, sitting amongst the "As Seen On TV" debris of their lives, that the promises of free pre-addressed jiffy bags and best prices, made by a actor in a pirate costume weren't anything other than genuine or trustworthy?  

Exactly. 

I almost feel obliged to apologise for a) the very long sentences used in the above and b) this posts particularly laborious English. But, and this is key, if I want to use convoluted language in this blog, punctuated with a smattering of (seemingly) random commas then, as the noted philosopher and singer Bobby Brown said, that's "my prerogative". 

"Meh"

The suspicions, raised in my last rant, have been confirmed. I know it's only 3 weeks into 2010 but already there's a contender for this years worst recruitment agency award. Again I'm not in the form to list the details, other than to say I reckon they would have won the coveted 2009 award with ease. 

And that's pretty much it. Hopefully, next time, my whinging will be back to it's usual caustic best.      

Additional Odds And Sods. Part II

Just a quick warning. There is a swear word immediately following this sentence.

"Fuckers"

Last weekend when I was scanning the job sites I spotted another job. I couldn't believe it. From the description I'd say it was a 85% match for me. And, shock horror, no recruitment agency. The only downside? The closing deadline for applications was "tight". My fault for missing it I suppose, but nonetheless I threw something together. Actually scrub that. I sweated blood, sweat and tears trying to make the best case I could for them to interview me. And, after much effing and blinding, it was ready. All I had to do, once I'd applied, was wait for the inevitable phone call, inviting me across for a chat. 

And so I waited.

And I'm still waiting. 

I don't look at the job sites every day. They really don't change much. So, on Monday, the role had dropped off the site. I didn't think about it, beyond assuming they were diligently checking all the applications they'd received and were drawing up short lists. I didn't expect to see it again. Why would I? 

So guess what has reappeared since yesterday? The same fucking job. With the same fucking advertisement. With, quite incredibly, the same fucking closing date of last Sunday. So much for the "attention to detail" they'd claimed was such an important aspect of the role.  

Worse, but with depressing predictability, an agency has started advertising a remarkably similar job. Presumably to cover all the bases, and to ensure there isn't some nuance or angle missed, they've posted it, with subtle variations, three times.

Magic. 

Additional Odds and Sods.

So.

My er stubbornness with Gigabyte technical support paid off. They replaced my motherboard with a slightly better one. More importantly the Blu-ray ROM drive I've been fighting with since last Christmas is now working as it should. Okay I had to install Vista, (which was surprisingly straight forward) but so far I've had no problems. 

The job hunt continues. Nothing to report really. I think it's too early to say if things have picked up or not. However there is an interesting anniversary coming up soon.

I was poking around on the BBC website again. Yeah it's a dirty job, but someone's gotta do it. I saw this report about retail sales over Christmas. Obviously I'm going to interpret this as supporting what I said about "icing on the cake" in an earlier post, and the thing about HMV's sales increasing simply due to the lack of competition. The other news of Waterstones sales, despite being having a de-facto monopoly on the High Street, dropping away seems to reinforce what I thought about this organisation. That, ultimately, if it survives it will be down to pure, blind luck. And to think I was joking about being a retail analyst. "Go on givvus a job. I can do that."

*Reading over the last few "Odds and Sods" I've realised that I seem to be referencing a certain, discredited, Movie series. You know the one. This is entirely accidental. Now a few years ago this may have been considered quite a cool(ish) thing to do. So much so, people were able to build entire careers (in TV, comedy and cinema) around it. Now, in these more informed, less naive, post prequel days? Well it's a complete social no no. They can't (or shouldn't) be mentioned in polite company. Or in impolite company either. Ever. I'm sure we've all been there though. Someone, unaware of how circumstances have changed. blurts out a reference, expecting an appreciative response. Instead it's greeted with an embarrassed, slightly disbelieving silence. Now If you haven't experienced this, think of the silence you'd reserve for people freely admitting they like Chris De Burgh. 

Only worse.  

2010 - The year they make contact

Not much to report. Things are much the same. I have registered for with a new agency though. I went to see them last week. I had the usual conversation with the stock promises. What was different was the disdain shining from the other side of the desk. Well I assumed it was disdain, it could just as easily have been the post Christmas blues.. 

So you can probably imagine my utter bewilderment when, they actually delivered. They'd set me up with a telephone interview with a potential employer. Flipping hell! 

Long time readers (Hello!) will now be expecting the "but" and I'm not one to disappoint.  But after doing some research about the company and having a poke around their premises I found I didn't think I wanted the job. Ultimately they didn't want me either so it balanced out nicely. Of course these were pre-interview reservations. Afterwards? They had vanished, replaced by certainty. I definitely didn't want it.

Why?

The interview.

Okay it wasn't the oddest I've ever had*. But it was amongst the most baffling. Now telephone interviews are kind of an intangible thing, however they usually follow the generally accepted rules. So it's fairly easy to get a handle on things, what the employer wants, where they are going and so on. However answering questions about famous people, the weeks news headlines and the last book I'd read, asked with the all panache of a Facebook Quiz thrown together by someone with only as passing notion of "English" (And no I don't want it to access my profile thank you), completely threw me. I wasn't even given the opportunity to ask any questions back. Regardless of what they thought of me, I didn't want to work for them. Especially as I was assured there were "no right or wrong answers." (which, if this was really true, would make you wonder why they'd bother asking them in the first place. I mean you'd think they'd be expecting some sort of answer that fell, at least broadly, into a big category called "right" and another category called "wrong". But what do I know? Obviously nothing.) It just struck me that this suggests a company that doesn't know what they want. Meaning I'd never know what they'd want either. Nor would I be told what their goals and objectives were. I'd just be expected to "know". Worse, in my experience, a company that claims there are no "right" or "wrong" answers, is usually a company that actually has a very clear idea of what constitutes "right" and "wrong". They just chose not to tell you what these are until you've done something "wrong". So I was quite relieved when I got call from the agency telling me that I hadn't been successful. 

Okay it was a false start. But it was still a start. 

*Two others stick in my mind - the first when a guy kept asking me about the fleet of refrigerated lorries I ran - I think he was confused about who "Curry's" were and what they did. The second was one of those "whacky" interview things big companies did. The guilty party in this instance was Canon. Myself  (and a hundred others) were loaded into a room and expected to do a "Whose Line Is It Anyway" with a random object that was left on the desk. I thought "Are you fucking serious?" They were. Needless to say my respect for Canon vanished at that point. Perhaps I shouldn't have mimed that. Or I should have have at least done it in the style of John Sessions doing it in the style of a Restoration Comedy. I mean it always made Clive Anderson laugh.

The Nice And Accurate Prophecies of Angry Since 1967, which

turned out to be wrong. Well some of them anyway.

Three years ago to the day, I posted this. And I was wrong about a couple things. Vista wasn't even a heroic failure and the PS3 didn't become the must have console. Inexplicably it was the runt of the the litter, the Nintendo Wii, that conquered all before it. After the failures of the N64 and the Gamecube who would have predicted that? As it turns out no-one did.  

But I did get some things right. Surveys still prove what they were designed to prove, Blu-ray versus HD-DVD (RIP) continued to be prefixed by "just like VHS versus Betamax" so that people would get the point*. More bands released albums that were a "stunning return to form" and of course you can still get a DFS sofa at a massive discount with three years interest free credit.

*You know, way back in the day I can't believe that I didn't post a thing nailing my colours to the Blu-ray camp. It was always going to win the HD format war. Why? Very simple. When Betamax was launched, it took Sony a (fatally) long time to licence the technology to other manufacturers. Too late really as JVC had already signed up the big ones (Panasonic / Hitachi / Sharp) and were busy walloping whatever badge of convenience on the machines they made (Ferguson / Baird / Telefunken / Nordemende / Solara / Sansui and the rest). Sony were left with Toshiba (along with it's Teleton and General guises), NEC, Sanyo (but,shrewdly not their Fisher subsidiary) Pioneer and (the now all but defunct) Aiwa in backing Beta. Guess which companies learnt their lesson from the Beta days (er Sony and Pioneer) and guess which companies hadn't?  Quite unbelievably the main proponents of HD DVD were Toshiba, NEC and Sanyo. To paraphrase. Backing one failed consumer video format could be considered unfortunate. Backing two? That's simple carelessness. 

Chip And Pin(ched) - Update

I posted this back in 2006

According to this report it looks like my doubts about the "much vaunted" chip and pin devices are slowly being realised elsewhere

Good to see them get there eventually. 

This years 50% off bargain is....

the Sharp 32DH500 32" TV. 

Originally £599. And now it's £299. Sounds good! I'll take two!

Except I won't. Why? When I look at the specification of this set then things don't seem to add up. A £599 32" LCD TV that wasn't full HD? A £599 LCD TV that doesn't feature a myriad of clever image enhancement goodies? A £599 LCD set that only has two HDMI sockets? That's fair enough I suppose. It might be one of those "oddballs" manufacturers sometimes produce that sit higher in product range than the specification would suggest. But I can't confirm this possibility as the 32DH500 isn't mentioned on the Sharp website. A search using the model number is equally uninformative. So the only way to judge where this TV sits is to look at the spec Curry's provide and compare it with other TVs they sell. Funnily enough the TVs that match it closest are those priced in the £299 to £350 bracket. Indeed Curry's have other Sharp TVs. One, the 32LE600E is a much better specified TV with Full 1080p HD, back lit LED and more connectors than 32DH500. Yet it sells at £449, considerably less than the £599 they originally wanted for the 32DH500. 

Confusing isn't it?

From the information I've gleaned I'd be forced to conclude that the 32DH500 is a bog standard sub-£300 LCD TV with little to distinguish it from the other TVs at this price point, beyond having "£300 off". I don't think there'd be any disputing that at £599 this TV would have been hopelessly outclassed. And desperately overpriced. I wonder how many they sold at the higher price? 

Now obviously view is based on what I see in front of me, filtered by 20 years experience of electrical retailing. So I think that it's a reasonable conclusion to draw. But I'd have to concede that it is entirely possible this was Curry's most popular TV sub £600 set, and the bald figures on the website don't actually reflect it's real world performance. However the lack differentiation between it and the £300 Samsung's and LG's of this world, beyond the large "saving", triggers some scepticism that the 32DH500 was ever a competitive £600 TV. But it's still a tricky thing to call. After all dry specifications can be used to inform and bamboozle in equal measure. 

Much, I suppose, like advertised savings.  

Attack of the Odds and Sods

I'm currently in negotiations with Gigabyte technical support.  My 18 month old motherboard - which has already been back once, has gone faulty again. Their attitude to "support" is predicated on the assumption that I'm a moron and the "fault" is a figment of my imagination. So par for the course in the IT sector then.

I mentioned way back in the summer that if I was still unemployed by Christmas I'd give an award to the Worst Recruitment Agency I've had the misfortune to deal with. And, after due consideration I'm happy to announce that Chapterhouse are the easy winners. Why? Well there are a few reasons. 13 unreturned phone calls from the guy who was supposedly running the recruitment for a job (he was either in meetings, wrestling yaks, feeding the starving or something), a blank refusal to even look at my CV without first speaking to this guy, but mainly it's due to the PR guff they have on their home page, "....we listen, we explore, we respond." The addition of the word "don't" after "we" would increase it's accuracy 100%

It's Sale time again. And the High Street has been saved! Hurrah for us. Aren't we great? Of course these are "Matsui 180TC*" sales but who cares? Certainly not the media who don't seem to realise that retailers having a couple of good days around Christmas used to be the icing on the cake, not the cake itself.  

This year again there's been the annual "come back to work in Northern Ireland" campaign, aimed at people who left Northern Ireland because there are no jobs in Northern Ireland. A few years ago I signed up for this scheme at Belfast International airport's departure gate "Fill your email address in here and we'll be in touch." Beyond asking me would I consider returning to NI to work, they took no other details. Guess how many emails I subsequently received?  So many I had to tell them to stop sending them three times before they paid any attention to what I'd said? A couple a month? One every few months? An annual email asking if I still wanted to be part of the scheme? Or none? 

Hands up everyone who isn't surprised to learn that, to date, I haven't had a single one. 

*The old Matsui 180TC microwave. If an item has an advertised saving, then it must have been sold at the higher price for 28 consecutive days in the previous 6 months. In the "glory days" when Currys issued their pre-Christmas pricing and merchandising instructions a curious thing happened with the 180TC. One of the most popular microwave ovens would double in price overnight. Guess what happened in the sale? Guess what item was advertised as 50% off? Guess what flew out the door on Boxing Day? Guess why I don't believe the word "sale" or "saving" when it's printed on day glow point of sale? Guess why I think "sales" are little more than a notion based on smoke and mirrors that shoppers pretend not to believe, but that they want do believe? As for the people who queue up outside shops over Christmas to avail of these "savings"? Frankly there are saner individuals in remote institutions, who when they don't think they are Napoleon, spend their evenings chained to their beds.