UNICOM... or is it UNICon?

Do NOT shop where you see* this sign!


*For one (of many, petty) legal reasons, the company in question's logo, no matter how 'fair use' for journalistic purposes it may be valid to share, has been removed by demand of some very expensive lawyers... for some reason all over this 'case'.

----
STOP PRESS - Moving a post up from 1/9/10 to 11/04/14 takes some doing, but I think in this case worth it, even if also OT to Junkk's main remit. I just think it shows the power of patience, persistence and people joining together, which the internet has revolutionised on blogs, FaceBook, Twitter, etc.

The reason is summarised in a comment kindly shared today:

"It took time but we got there in the end.

Ofcom have just announced that they are investigating Unicom's Sales and Marketing tactics and their requirement to offer 12 month contracts.

The BBC have already filmed an item about them for Rip-off Britain which will be shown in the new series and Radio 4 are doing an item about them"

Ofcom investigates phone firm Unicom after complaints

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27026272

17.04 - Just listened through. Very disappointed. Superficial investigation at best, with the lamest, tamest 'expert' possible to locate, dealing in generalities and neither host nor he getting their teeth into the meat of real abuses. All topped off by a breezy 'these three cases have been swallowed by Unicom... aren't we clever?'. Er, no. There are many more, worse, and longer that were either lazily ignored or venally suppressed. And no pulling in otelo, OFCOM or Government to explain their sorry selves. I hope someone does take them up on their invitation to write in with more. I might even do so myself. But given I am fighting the BBC Complaints system, which makes Unicom's seem ethical, not sure it would be worth it.

---
Chanelling my inner Churchill, it with luck heralds the end of the beginning, and the beginning of the end for what is clearly a seriously messed up situation that has caused misery, legally, with clear indifferent oversight by authority, for too long.
----
O/T, but as it goes to the state of this country and governance in general, I'll allow it.

I have not had much fun with bullies lately, but when a smug bean counter from a service company I pay invokes some legals when they screw up and says 'there's nothing you can do about it', that makes me see red.

So, for a start, Unicom, there is the power of the internet. They used to say good personal stories reach 3 others, but bad ones reach over a dozen. Let's see if I can do a tad better than that.

Google can be your friend. Starting here.

So if you're up for a fight between a David (though it seems I may not be alone) vs. a Goliath, read on.

A long time ago, our house alarm kept going off. So we called out the engineers.

Who said it was not our system, but the line.

So we called our telecom supplier, Unicom.

They said there was nothing wrong with the line. So we called back the engineers.

They insisted all in our house was fine.

So we called Unicom back and said the line was definitely at fault. They said it was not, and if we called them out and it was our problem, we'd be charged like a wounded bull. Fair enough... IF it was us getting it wrong.

So a BT engineer (go figure) lobs up, tears our house apart, and eventually finds the fault... on a pole halfway up the street. Insult to injury, in putting it all back together in the house he has disconnected a line so I have to call back the alarm engineers a 3rd time.

These folk kindly only bill me for one call out: the first.

Hence I get back to Unicom and after working through a myriad of departments end up with a customer service bod who concedes my point that if I get charged for a false call out, they should cover the inaccurate no-fault claims. We agree the engineer invoice should do it. Sadly, and to my backside-covering, contact-report obsessed shame, I did not confirm it in writing.

Because nothing happens. And when I chase I find it has been 'escalated' first of all, and when I show little by way of being impressed with that, it ends up with 'compliance'. Who seem happy to write endless letters reneging on our deal.

So I involve OFCOM. Who bounce me to yet another (why??????!) quango, sorry 'ombudsman', otelo.

But they bounce me back because they can't get involved because I have only been told to go fish by an administrator when they need a note of deadlock from a manager. Which Unicom, playing the (very rigged, with the authorities who in theory are acting on our behalves, totally complicit) system, seems unable, unsuprisingly, to provide.

So, enough is enough. I decide that whatever else, I'm off. So I move to another supplier.

But, quicker than you can say customer service #fail, I get a note from UNICOM 'retentions', pointing out that I am on a 3-year contract, and I will be slammed with a bill for nearly a grand if I move.

I look at my contract, and lo, it was signed in June 2006. Sorted. By 5 months.

Oh. no. In the minute-pt type of this contract (so small that when they sent it by email it was unreadable on screen), it says that a) you are required to give them 3 months' notice, and at the end of the last contract, with no one mentioning a thing from their side at first sale, or prior to the point of renewal, it gets automatically renewed.

Now, it maybe be 'legal', but where I come from it ain't right. And I am going to raise as much of a stink with UNICOM, OFCOM and Otelo as I can until one or other feels the warm glow of public loathing is getting uncomfortable, or if they still feel like digging in, then the media and our elected representatives.

Maybe in their corporate overlord minds 'I can do nothing', but in other ways there's still fair few options I have open.

UNICon... you are so on.

Addendum:

Had another conversation with Otelo, who accidentally sent me a 'you are on your own' notice the last time. After an initially terse few words, the officer in question has proved quite reasonable. I now have a case file and number.

Addendum 2

It would appear big business is flexing its muscles with an ever more 'sympathetic' establishment which, coincidentally, also seems less and less keen on the principles of free speech.

I have been approached by the owners of the complaint thread that was linked above:

Many thanks for your contribution to Review Centre!

As a consumer review website we encourage people to express their opinions (both positive and negative!) of the experience that they have had, but we must also take into consideration any concerns of businesses affected by these reviews.

I have received contact from a representative of Unicom Phone Company regarding reviews published on Review Centre. I have included a copy of the review you have written for your reference - (included below).

They have expressed their concerns regarding the review content and so we have temporarily removed your review from www.reviewcentre.com while we ask you to confirm your position on the matter.

Please let us know which one of the following options you would like to take by 26/02/2010

You would like the review to stay on Review Centre in its original form.
You would like to write the review differently on reflection as some of the information is now not relevant.
You are happy for the review to be deleted as the matter has been resolved.
If you wish to stand by your original review (or an edited version), we ask that you provide your contact details for our records (full name, address. telephone number, plus any evidence to authenticate your review).
Information collected is to validate the authenticity of your review and will not be passed to anyone without your expressed permission.

Please be aware that representatives of Unicom Phone Company may at some point in the future choose to take the matter further.

We look forward to hearing from you soon

Thanks again!

Your Review

Looks like I am joining a 'select' club

http://junkk.blogspot.com/2009/12/unicom-er-make-that-unicon.html

Noting the legal, if unethical stance taken, I have also written to them as follows:

Meanwhile, for the record, might I just ask a few questions of you or whomsoever you feel might be qualified to respond meaningfully:

1) At the time of signing the contract, is it not the obligation of the salesperson to make clear all relevant and pertinent t&cs to the customer?

2) Even if in writing, and a carbon copy left, is there not an obligation to make these in a form that is both reasonable and readable?

3) In the case of a renewal after a signed dated contract, especially one where the original is taken away on the spot, is there no obligation to issue to advise the customer, in good time, when this becomes due again?

To which I have replied:

Disputes are tricky things. Just as it takes two to tango, so there will (almost) inevitably be variations on the circumstances between protagonists that will be as different as night and day.

You guys are not journalists, I accept. But I was very relieved to locate the thread on this bunch that you had hosted, and find so many, with such similar stories, all in the same boat.

It seems unlikely we were/are all chancers trying to bilk some poor, honest company.

In fact most seem to have been screwed over in some way and simply wished to have the option of withdrawing our custom.

I do note that the entire thread, at least as I linked to in my blog, has now vanished. I hope there has been a record kept.

There is now a rather worrying trend in the UK where freedom of speech and various out-dated libel laws are (ab)used to serve the nefarious interests of those with money and no ethics. Supported, too often, by the very government and its agencies that we pay to protect us from abuses.

I would be interested in knowing what the Unicom 'rep' had to say. That these reviews were false? Misguided? Or just that they were hostile and they didn't like them. Was any factual rebuttal offered?

As to your questions, as far as I am concerned it can stay on as 1). However I do need to update my blog entry as linked, as things have indeed moved on a tad. I have now an otelo complaint log and do need to respond to that. Though that [Unicom] think that customers are here to dance to their systems is half the problem. I don't have floors of pencil pushers dedicated to wearing the other side down into giving up.

I don't think you need to worry about the content of my blog, though it seems I might. In the circumstances I am surprised they have not approached me directly, though my first response would be to ask which part they found inaccurate.

Actually I wrote nothing on your thread that anyone could take issue with, surely. In fact, all I do is share a few perfectly legitimate questions to seek clarification of the legal and or ethical business validity of their actions. Ironically none answered to date. Hence no evidence is required, though I have plenty, which I will be sharing with otelo now, having had a few other, better things to do than jump though endless box-ticking hoops designed to encourage giving up.

Might I ask if other, fellow, posters, have been so approached? And if they are as impressed with the service thuggery of this sweetheart outfit as I am?

And as it sounds like it came from them, what, precisely is meant by 'Unicom may want to take this matter further'? On past evidence I am presuming that conceding they have screwed up in just about every way, and feel it best to part company now as amicably as possible and go our separate ways, is not what this cabal of litigious bean-counters has in mind, despite the already vast PR hole they have already dug, and seem evidently keen to excavate further.

I am now turning to the otelo documentation. I really have better ways to spend my day, but principle matters now.

Addendum 3

One for the 'when in hole, keeping digging' files.

I decided, as I tend to, to check back to see about 'progress'.

I checked back to see what has happened. And was moved to write to reviewcentre.com

You have got to be kidding me!

http://www.reviewcentre.com/reviews140628.html

After all the horror stories and zero ratings... this is all that is now up!????

1 Review For Unicom Phone Company

· ElizabethAdams 1st Jul 2008Reviewer rating:

Good Points: Excellent customer service, with very friendly and helpful staff.

Bad Points: None.

General comments: I have always found Unicom Phone Company to have excellent customer service, with very friendly and helpful staff.

I did try to add another of mine, asking where the scores of negatives and zero rating went. It is now advised as 'approved', though there does seem to have been a bit of editing first.

Your comment on Unicom Phone Company has now been approved and can be seen at :
http://www.reviewcentre.com/review387349.html#all_comments

Maybe they are still nervous of lawyers. I think the derisory tone still comes across.

Addendum 4

Just as otelo have and now are proving ever more interested, involved and helpful, so things are moving in other quarters.

reviewcentre.com have not stood still, and it seems some if not all critical reviews are going back up. Mine included. They have kindly offered advice on where a few comments of mine above might have been 'colourfully worded' in ways that may have distracted from the total rectitude of the facts and value of opinions as to how I felt as the victim of the corporate treatment meted out.

I sense Unicom have lazily tried default suppression and a heavy hand, and have merely uncorked a genie.

In case they get suppressed again, a few goodies:

For over a year now we have told them we are not paying their cancellation fee,that their contract is not legally enforcable and if they think otherwise then simply take us to court! However, despite receiving in excess of 50 telephone calls and letters all threatening court action , baliffs and debt collection agencys and even a copy of the court claim form that they " will be sending" they have not as yet done so. Remember, you do not need to do anything until such time as you receive an official Court Summons!!!!! Meanwhile, hang up on them if they call!!

Had the typical hard sales phone call and made a meeting for her to come down for 4.00 to discuss services.

4.20 some random guy walks in with the usual really hard sales pitch. I told him I wanted to think about it and would not sign there and then. I asked for some of their paperwork to read through and also a copy of the contract - didnt get anything based on the company or agreement just a leaflet saying how much they can save me.

In my opinion a very rude sales guy, who also asked me for some of our corporate wine for his girlfriend. Wouldnt touch with a barge pole.

I entered into this contract without the knowledge i would be tied in for three years, apparently I had to read the small print to be aware of this. I have been with the company three years now and rang them to terminate my contract, I was told this had to be in writing. I then did this and as the letter was received 10 days after the start of the three month notice period I have been tied in for another three years.
You have to ask yourself why they have to have such restrictive tie in periods.

Had a line fitted at my new offices to be phone,fax and broadband, after 8 weeks they could not supply broadband on the line so cancelled contract.
Now being taken to court for not paying the £115 installation charge and another £100 for cancelling the contract.
Beware of the 1 year rolling contract, you have to cancel by giving 3 months notice before the end of the contract or will roll on for another year,or they will charge £100 cancellation.

many customers including ourselves feel that Unicom are a company operating with staff who have no knowledge of contract law. We cancelled our contract on the basis that they were unable to maintain uninterupted telecoms supply to our business. They then argued that we had entered into a three year contract and had seen terms and conditions that allowed them to take in excess of £3,000 in cancellation fees. Having previously taught contract law..and knowing that we had not seen any such terms I was amused..but I was not amused when then took £2,7000 from our account via a Direct Debit. We decided to take them through the courts but now they are wanting to settle..check switchingon.info* ( a web site set up to cover their antics) to follow our progress and that of others.

Please please please do not sign a contract with this company.
My husband is a builder who signed with Unicom at the side of a road where he was building an extension, he was given little time to read any of the small print. We realised that there is a 3 yr rolling contract when we tried to change (then you can only end the contract with 3mt notice pre the actual end of the contract), we feel the salespeople have no customer skills, no communication skills.

Today I have just paid 450 inc interest and 2.5 charge for using a card to get away from this company, PS I DIDNT WANT TO RATE THEM ANY STARS AT ALL BUT YOU HAVE TO TO BE ABVLE TO POST YOUR VIEWS

I had phoned Unicom in January 2009 to cancel one of our three phone lines I was told that I had three months to run before the contract could end. I then rang in May and was told that all three of our lines had been rolled over for another three year contract and I should have put the cancellation in writing and I had been told this when I phoned in January. So now we are stuck with a line that is not being used and being charged which is now a lot more than BT. Check out Unicom on Moneysavingexpert. [I did, but the search threw up no results... another example of corporate shenanigans underway?]

This company fails to point out that it is a 3 year rolling contract and is buried in the small print so unless you have a good memory or a 3 year diary you will be with them for life.

Unicom is fine until you find a better deal only to be told that your contract was recently automatically renewed for a further 3 years. It is Unicom policy not to remind customers or send renewal notices when contracts are coming to an end. Unless you have an extraordinay good memory or an exceptionally long diary and give the 3 months written notice prior to the end of the 3 years you could be with them for a lifetime! Either that or pay up the massive termination fees.
Why do Unicom choose to not send renewal notices?
I have been in business for 30 years and all the other companies I have dealt with do!I would NEVER recommend.

In the interests of balance, it should be said that there are a few who love 'em to death, with 5* ratings and long, detailed, heartfelt and in no way corporate reasons why Unicom Phone Company (no 'TM' too?) are the bee's knees:

I have always found Unicom Phone Company to have excellent customer service, with very friendly and helpful staff.

There are many others now aware, and involved, including my current MP. Also our PPC knows the main players in the Free Speech movement and has kindly introduced me to them.

Links

Defamation Act
FreeSpeech Blog
Libel Reform
switchingon.info - *the site is now closed. It apparently achieved what it needed to do. Shame others yet to enjoy this aim are not to benefit from the experience of others, but one can empathise in light of what can 'go down'.
Business Zone - Top 10 ways to deal with customer complaints - Or....

Addendum 16/10/10 (yes, it still lumbers on - had a 'final judgement' from Otelo that needed to be bounced back as the adjudicator had clearly not read any details on the case) -

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/consumertips/household-bills/8067565/Renewal-rip-offs-dont-roll-over.html

Patience can be a virtue.

Addendum 05/07/11 - More as a memo to self, in dealings with the authorities, it is worth bearing in mind today of all days that oversight bodies claiming powerlessness yet finding in favour of client partners is not now easily explained away by 'but they lied to us'. Especially when imposing penalties, under the guise of impartiality, on those individuals being abused that they in theory are there to protect.

Addendum 14/09/11 -  a great deal of water has passed under many bridges but suffice to say that, recently, our issues were totally resolved, in our favour and to our satisfaction. This is not to say that others are or will be as lucky.


One day I'll get time to share what went down, in case it helps.


Perhaps more relevantly, I feel it is important to share major developments that will, with luck, help for those caught up and facing further distress:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/ofcom-bans-rollover-phone-contracts-2354028.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14900185

Addendum 11/12/14 - Fellow 'rebel' Mary has kindly shared what seems a clear new victory at high level, and inspiration to others still fighting. Quite why anyone still needs to fight given the wealth of evidence and testimony countrywide who knows, but here you go:

http://www.johnhealeymp.co.uk/news/December/telecoms-bill-dropped-after-john-s-debate-over-shameful-mis-selling/

"also exposed the failures of the communications industry ombudsman – set up to be the consumer’s champion – which sided with the company"

Not over yet, clearly. I suggest those in office get their fingers out and COORDINATE!

New discussion URL -

WHICH! - http://conversation.which.co.uk/technology/ofcom-auto-renewal-contracts-ban/comment-page-1/

Another worthy URL as folk still in dire straits and seeking help: http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=3578981&highlight=unicom

How to spoil a Friday

Sometimes it's good to share. This is not one of those times.

Pandora: BBC faces Ofcom row over interview edits

I share this not to give ammo to those would use it in defence of a rather extreme climatically optimistic view (which it will, even though it is just about reporting standards), but in the hope that the Nixonian notion of 'don't get caught' rarely applies. If you don't want your dirty laundry hung out for all to see... don't soil it.

If (it still looks in the realms of "what might be", but the Indy is not a great fan of those from a CO viewpoint and has chosen to share) this pans out as billed I must again raise my eyes to the heavens at the sheer, unprofessional ineptitude of those who are allowing personal or corporate agenda corrupt the spirit of objective information sharing.

And 'But Ch4 did it first!' won't cut it outside of my licence fee demand.

Who are these folk? How are they paid? Why? Is there ever an accounting?

Just lay all it all out honestly and let the public decide. The minute you start figuring you know better, then try and rig it, and then get caught, it just makes everything a whole lot worse to try and explain for those working along, steadily sharing what we know, what we think we know and what we don't. And then what we think might help now, just in case.

It will be interesting to see if this escalates as billed. If proven it has to. If not, then it will rumble along anyway I'm sure. But it would have never been an issue if the desire in some quarters to 'enhance the narrative' had not overcome professional standards.

Thank heavens I do not have to pay... for.. all... th..

Oh.

Daily Mail - QED. BBC investigated after peer says climate change programme was biased 'one-sided polemic' - That's how many million choking up their meat & two veg in suburbia?

Broadcast - BBC2 show ignites contributor row

Gaurdian - NEW - The battle caused by Climate Wars

For some reason, the author has posted this in the Guardian (I usually enjoy having a debate there, but on this issue it's really not worth it. I've just left one where 'they' are asking why someone who might have a different view to the group is allowed on, and to voice an opinion. Bless):

I must say it makes for an interesting read, even if some links to 'a bloke's blog' seems rather... unconvincing in support.

I must say on first reading I was unclear (great communicators that they are: 'Maybe that's our fault for not being clearer' - that's what £3.5B gets you, I guess) whether he was saying the climate debate was a done deal, or it wasn't..'...even if the scientific consensus is that global warming is a reality', '..makes clear, it is that there is still a furious debate going on out there.'

As to the rest, with bitter irony it mostly makes this committed environmental campaigner weep... or feel like buying a Hummer.

Don't know what to make of this

I tend to steer clear of Climate Changey stuff as it inevitably ends up so far at two extremes as to be essentially useless as information and simply overall unpleasant to be amongst.

However, I do feel this worth posting, as I was alerted to it by a rather coy reference on BBC Breakfast News, which also seemed to be having trouble with the 'censure' bit being followed by the 'did not mislead' bit.

Channel 4 to be censured over climate film

As soon as I finish this sentence I might hop over to the Ch4 site to see how they spin it. What's the betting there might be a different order of emphasis?

... well there's a surprise. Nothing. At least, that I could find. And what a woeful site! Some of the news items are months old!

Thing is, I really don't know what to make of it all. At best there seems to be some value in news creators being told not to tell porkies, and also for those who would deny the deniers to get to grips with the fact that there are many who are not yet convinced of various 'facts' and consequent solutions, and that sulking is not going to cut it in rebuttal. I'd suggest tackling the arguments rather than the persons making them, and lock down the science rather blowing it out of proportion such that subsequent errors don't prove a gift to those seeking to spin another way.

As for the BBC, I'd also suggest getting a little more balance in, and a little less theatre in trying to help the public assess it. Lord Monckton and Roger Harrabin, while undoubtedly well-informed by now (so many miles flown in the pursuit of knowledge), are hardly well placed to reassure me that what I am getting has been sifted for even the most basic factual rigour.

Addendum - Global warming and the arks of the 41st century - seems about the right place for it

Addendum 2 - OFCOM ruling - that only a person with too much time, or no life, could love.

BBC - Climate documentary 'broke rules' (on e way of looking at it)

The Register - Climate Swindle film: bruised egos, but no offence (another way)

The Times - Channel 4 censured for programme that said climate change was a fraud (and another, reflecting the Guardian article referred to above. Ain't news reporting grand these days?)

Ch4 - All I could find: CHANNEL 4 APOLOGY OVER CLIMATE CHANGE DOCUMENTARY
The broadcasting regulator, Ofcom, has made serious criticisms of a Channel 4 documentary which challenged the consensual theory within the scientific community that human activity is the prime cause of global warming and climate change.

The regulator has found The Great Global Warming Swindle, which was aired last year, failed to meet obligations to be impartial and to represent a range of views, and was ‘unjust and unfair’ in the way it treated and represented individuals. But, concludes Ofcom, the programme did not mislead audiences ‘so as to cause harm’.

Read our five-minute guide to climate change

Indy - C4's climate change documentary 'was unfair but not misleading'

Indy - Michael McCarthy: Ofcom's judgement failed to address the key question... was this programme accurate?

Gaurdian - Why does Channel 4 seem to be waging a war against the greens? -

Gaurdian - Watchdog's verdict on Channel 4 climate film angers scientists -

Gaurdian - The public has been swindled - Might be time to pop over to another chann... paper route. This is getting... predictabel... partisan... etc. Sure it will be 'over there', too.

Telegraph - Channel 4 censured for misrepresenting scientists on climate change

Telegraph - Climate change fanatics censor inconvenient truths - a minority view perhaps - I have to say that the whole thing is rather embodied to me by one 'side' using the term 'deniers' and the other 'fanatics', with no sesne of anything other than these entrenched views existing... or being allowed to. Me, I'm a climate* dunno'er, but best to err on caution. But none of this lot get my voet to speak for me.

The Times, so far, seems to have missed it.

BBC - Newsnight - A Great Channel 4 Swindle? - always good for a laugh

Ch4 - It's not we who make the public sceptical on climate change - If I were to take anything as a member of the media from this sorry affair, it is:

1)Don't take sides
2)Don't pander to agendas
3)Don't chase ratings
4)Don't make things up
5)If you get it wrong, apologise, put it right... and don't do it again.

Which does of course applies to all sides in this 'argument'. I for one am fed sick of the extremes and, sadly, my first thought is to ignore the whole sorry lot.

* as in Probably Man-Worsened

Gaurdian - The great lunar rockism con - What strikes me most is how many replies have been deleted.

Telegraph - NEW - Channel 4 defends itself against green censorship

All the news that's fit to be... branded

BBC Mark II: Mr Byford gives the corporation's journalism a makeover

A long piece. I am sure that in there, somewhere, amongst the MBA-speak and brand-babble, there might be something about using funds in addressing the quality of the actual journalism.

Your licence fee at work.

Coincidentally on the matter of our public-service news reporting, I listen to a BBC News reader ask the CEO of the travel company (whose coach was rammed by a rogue truck driver) 'Should we be asking if our children can be safe when they travel overseas?'.

From the ridiculous, I move to this:

PR: The dark history of spin and its threat to genuine news

So if they are not being stupid or acting as agenda-driven mouthpieces, they are being bought (Fancy buying a toy that makes the sound of bubble-wrap? The solution, according to the BBC, is to buy bubble wrap. Or... and here's thought, keep all that you get sent and reuse it when required... with a few stress relief pops at the edges (so it still functions) as you re-wrap).

But sorry, that's all we have time for. Now, back to the skateboarding turtle...

Addendum:

The Register - Earth to Ofcom: They're our airwaves. Give them back - Priceless, if depressing.

Times - BBC rings changes with news revamp - universal appeal. Not.

There's being done. And there's being seen off in being done.

The bbc-is-biased blog is proving a tad too addictive, especially for my objectivity. But from this thread on some climate wheeze the Beeb has/had, can I really get my jaw of the ground that the head of Ofcom's boss has the CV he does, and yet is expected to oversee this little lot???!

I await confirmation before commenting further.

This, by the way, was my contribution (so far):

If the BBC really is trying to push the climate agenda with the aim of reducing personal environmental footprints on the part of viewers, the choice of Ross is astounding.

His 'performance' during Live Earth (which worked soooo well) was positively cringe worthy to anyone sincere in trying to share positive solutions and/or encourage reasonable self-sacrifice by positive example.

I'm afraid this all smacks/ed of simply yet another celebrity-fest for some local D-listers to play with lots more toys and uber-cool global A-listers in a very exclusive, self-serving crib.

And it's not like Live Earth even cranked up much by way of the great God 'ratings'.

As awareness went, about all I can recall is a Spice who took one week to forget she was ‘doing it all for her baby’ to getting her own private jet on tour in case she and the power sisters had hissy fits (and I’m sure half of the entertainment crew will be flying along for the ride, if they are not up in helicopters over the Antarctic to show us what ‘we’ are doing by er, taking helicopters to visit the Antarctic).

The use of 'celebrity' to promote the notion of restraint is facile. They have nothing but money and time, and the demands of screen time ensure that they have to seen with loads of 'stuff' and in as many exotic locations as possible all of the time. Popping out of the limo to walk a bit or claiming you offset your trips just doesn't cut it. Just one tabloid shot of a Lemar of Siena or Richard Branson in their new Aston, on a beach in Barbados or lighting the touch paper on a tourist spaceship undoes any positive awareness their brief dalliance with ‘doing their bit’ may achieve. The media is totally complicit because it’s a quick and lazy way to look like you are concerned and ‘doing’ something whilst getting the faces that attract the viewers and some backstage cred in the 'green' room. Message is secondary.

Yes, I think we do need to do all we can to understand and educate on what climate change is all about, and what can and should be done to address what ever it is possible and prudent to do to mitigate any adverse affects.

Having another, now possibly to be aborted, party was never going to be it.

Shame about the waste.

CAN ROCK 'N' ROLL SAVE THE PLANET?

For most of the reasons you articulate... no.

Is it any wonder we are cynical when such as a Spice Mum is up there 'doing it for [my] child' and then next week getting a personal jet to tour in 'cos she and the powersisterhood might have a spat en route.

It's not the message (though I think we are beyond needing any more awareness or consciousness raising) but the choice of messengers.

How can one empathise with someone who makes squillions and, with the best will in the world, pretty much would need to be a saint not to use them to consume and/or travel? All supported by a media industry that demands such excess to have stuff worth watching, reporting upon and getting invited along on for the ride.

The reaction to the latest 'we're in with the in-crowd and you're not' ,BBC Green Elite in The VIP Green Room notion, Planet Relief, is but another case in point. At least some news (if not ents) editorial staff are at last questioning their roles in all this.

There's a sucker trusts the system every minute

Bearing in mind our ongoing discussions with OFCOM regarding the big idea, one does tend to wonder about how the authorities draw the distinction between awry, 'ripped 'off and outright fraud these days:

Richard and Judy quiz ‘con’

And what they ever do about it.

Guardian - You say, who pays? Richard and Judy show faces inquiry over teatime quiz
Indy - Revealed: Richard and Judy quiz scam
BBC - Richard and Judy in quiz apology
Times - Richard and Judy apologise for quiz
Mirror - RICHARD & JUDY'S FOUR YEAR CON
Times - Probe into Richard and Judy phone quiz
BBC - Madeley 'livid' over quiz scandal
Guardian - Richard and Judy quiz controversy deepens
Indy - Richard and Judy pull plug on phone-in quiz
Observer - Richard and Judy scandal grows
Guardian - We must stop TV companies ringing up the profits

Times - BBC feels the heat as cookery programme calls are investigated

Oh, this just gets too delicious.
And OFCOM and ICSTIS get paid how much, by whom to do what, exactly?

Guardian - BBC axes pre-recorded Saturday Kitchen episodes
Guardian - Premium-rate phoneline scandal reaches BBC
Mirror - NINE PHONEY TV PHONE-INS
Times - Host who was in two places at once
What a link! Shame there is no comment function! I just wonder why the solution to defrauding viewers is to give 'a stern telling to' to the scum-buckets who bilked them
Times - City’s new police chief spells out the true cost of fraud
Times - BBC show must hand over pudding tapes
Times - I have dialled the future – and won
Telegraph - X Factor's voters paid too much
Daily Star - Factor phone votes 'rip off'
Daily Mirror - REFUNDS AFTER NEW TV VOTE BLUNDER
Daily Mirror - NINE PHONEY TV PHONE-INS
Indy - 'X Factor' vote blunder made ITV £200,000
Telegraph - ITV suspends premium rate phone-ins
BBC - ITV suspends premium phone-ins
Times - ITV pulls the plug on phone-ins after series of scandals

As a participant in a voter-driven reality TV show, who was the
cause of some to commit funds to these guys pockets in support
of what they thought was fair contest, I am intrigued as to how this
still seems to be more 'slap wrist, don't do it again' as opposed to
what it seems to me to be clearly: fraud. Why?

The Sun - Lid lifted on TV phone scandal

Sad to see so many readers saying it is participants' own greed and fault. These were competitions entered into in good faith. How many of these smug individuals go to the bookies? Would they feel the same if the arrival of the winning nag was predetermined?

You may like to add Sky and Ricochet to your investigation. Along with the competence of OFCOM or ICSTIS to handle much less police these scams.

I am now four months into a complaint regarding Sky's Big Idea. So far the former has managed to claim it has lost the evidence I supplied and I have not heard back on a request to resubmit the forms. The latter has never replied.

We are dealing with the crime of fraud here are we not?

Why is it being treated like a wrist-slapping, don't do it again? The amounts alone are vast. The principle even more important.

Times - Company in phone-in inquiry wins betting deal So the whole fraud thing is OK? I wouldn't bet on it.

Guardian - Police may be called in over fixed TV shows
G Media Talk
Mirror - WATCHDOG WARNS OF LEGAL ACTION
Guardian - A Watershed moment

An interesting collection of responses from the more intelligent end of the liberal media. Wish I was so smart.

I look forward to all your faces when some aspect of your life is compromised by what the Mirror quotes 'Phone-in watchdog' as saying: 'This is 'semi fraud''. Which errs on being a little bit pregnant in my book.

Someone invites you to take part in a process involving your time and/or money on a set of stated criteria that you agree to, possibly involving calculated risk. Only they are not as stated and the other side has had no intention of honouring them. Tough. Apply that basis to every aspect of your relationships in life.

I was a contestant in a show on SKY (interestingly the BBC this morning stated they were the only major not involved - tell that to the OFCOM and ICSTIS gusy I'm dealing with... if painfully....slowly) that did not feel kosher as a viewer-decided contest to many of those who invested time (and hence money) and money in taking part. And when it came to voting a lot of folk felt they were part of an honest process.

How we chose/choose to spend our money is up to us, so long as it falls within the laws of the land.

Let ye who would cast nasturtiums make sure ye don't suffer from hay fever at a later stage.

Times - Endemol loses its shine over scandals
Times - Channel 5 faked winners of phone-in quiz and put staff on air as contestants
Times - Eckoh chief reluctant to take all the phone-in flak

A dish best served cold

If you go back in these blogs a fair way, you'll find I was less than impressed with the way SKY's Big Idea competition was handled.

I took part in the online Forum for a while with similarly unhappy contestants, but when it got a bit nasty (either a resident psycho or, more likely, production house minion, PR or lawyer) decided to move to more fruitful areas.

Today the OFCOM paperwork arrived. I'm going to enjoy this. We may even yet profit.

Especially when I read this the same day: ITV Play rapped over 'unfair' quiz

It's a bit broad, but 'rule 2.11 of the broadcasting code, which states that "competitions should be conducted fairly".' And if they can be nabbed on this, then I'd say we're looking even better.