loddon wrote on Sep 29^th, 2010 at 8:26am:


......and they are continuing to do so with other banks........

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1316083/As-Santander-buys-million-RBS-Na...

NGMsGhost wrote on Sep 29^th, 2010 at 9:49am:


NGMsGhost,
Thanks for your supportive comments.   I felt Abbey National really showed it had lost its way when it dropped "National" and its longstanding logo and adopted an all lower case weak and wobbly looking name in random assorted pale and putrid pastel colours which accurately reflected the abysmal lack of confidence and direction that must have infected the Board.   It was inevitable they would go under.

I agree that the use of the parent company name is more honest than the pretence practiced by the Spanish owners of Scottish Power, another example, but I am lamenting the disappearance of Guardian Royal Exchange, Equity & Law and others into Axa, Commercial Union, General accident and Norwich Union into Aviva, and many more examples in our daily life which I feel all contribute to a steady and even accelerating rate of attrition of words names and phrases which are part of our established national character.   I do not lament the loss of one or two odd names, so much as the wholesale decimation and the fact that so many of our important national companies are now foreign owned such as all the major energy companies.

At least your Natwest account will now be re-branded openly with Santander

Getting back to the matter of 0551 numbers my view is that the only numbers which appear in the 01/2/3 column should be those which are definitely charged at the same rate as 01/2/3 numbers.   If 0551 numbers can be charged differently then they must belong somewhere else, perhaps adding them to the 0844/5 column, if not in the Other Info column.

NGMsGhost wrote on Sep 29^th, 2010 at 1:39pm:



Yes mate, you are now using Santander!!    See sherbert's latest posting above.
 
Quote:


Yes, Iberdrola could have been more honest but chickened out.   Why can we British not produce our own energy?   I thought that Energy was supposed to be an asset of national and strategic importance.

After all of this agreement, perhaps we need a spiky contribution. When Daily Mail readers are cited as an authoritative source of opinion, I must be expected to react.

I am sure that every generation laments the passing of names it has grown up with. Many of those mentioned above were the product of amalgamations of once proud individual institutions, whose passing was lamented by a previous generation.

Some of the comments made and quoted above beg the questions of whether or not one supports the free movement of capital between nations and the direct involvement of governments in the financial services and utility sectors.

Those who may welcome the contribution of Santander to motor racing surely cannot be surprised or unhappy at the fact that it can only achieve its return on this investment by the branding of its interests.

The sense of regret that I have relates to the fact that many of those named above were once owned mutually or publicly. The tipping point was that of nationalisation / de-mutualisation. If one accepts that an institution exists in the open market, I cannot see how one may dictate from where it may obtain its capital, or seek to deny whoever may acquire a controlling interest the right to exercise their will over its branding and operations.

I can understand why we seek to relate the misuse of non-geographic telephone numbers to other gripes that we may have, as it is always good to find any supportive evidence for one's views about an organisation. I cannot however find a general connection, as many of those I fight most strongly over this issue are those who I otherwise support.

sherbert wrote on Sep 29^th, 2010 at 4:50pm:


No you have SCV all wrong sherbert.  It would only be letters to The Guardian and The Independent that he would deem as being worthy of being taken sufficiently seriously in politically correct circles.

Doesn't that surely come across loud and clear in virtually of all his lengthy pontifications that would I am sure land him a job as an Ofcom consultation writer at the drop of a hat were he to ever consider applying for the role.

I would hope to judge any comment on its intrinsic merit, regardless of the source. All organs of the media contain both drivel and perceptive writing. Some have a bigger circulation than others, for a variety of reasons. I hope we accept that one is free to choose one's newspaper, rather than only the wisest amongst us being permitted to buy those with the largest circulation.

It is common currency that Times and Telegraph readers hold views to what could once be called the right of centre, Independent and Grauniad readers to be driven by political correctness and Mail readers to be petty-minded haters of the both the state and disorder. I could go on.

Two quoted pieces which switch in an instant from condemnation of an alleged authoritarian conspiracy to a demand for state intervention in what is essentially a free market situation are typical. I am disappointed that it is only my introductory remarks, rather than the substance of my comments, which attempt to address the topic of the thread, that excite a response.

NGMsGhost wrote on Sep 29^th, 2010 at 6:43pm:

If one is sufficiently interested in my comments to attempt to divine some understanding of the author, then this conclusion is hardly of earth-shattering brilliance. I cannot however see how our choices of newspaper, political affiliations or whatever other loyalties we may have should have any bearing on our ability to discuss issues.

If we keep our little swipes at others declared positions to the margins of our discussions, maintain good humour and keep essentially to the topics under discussion, then any soggy liberalism that may be found within my arguments can be attacked as a weakness in those arguments. I would hope to address other contributions similarly as we engage in discussion of the topics raised. I cannot see what relevance the circulation figures of various journals may have to the content of my comments on the issues being discussed in this thread. Yes I did refer to the Daily Mail, as others have seen fit to quote from it. That was not however the essence of my contribution, but we have allowed ourselves to move well off the subject.

I will attempt to draw us back by re-stating my point that I see no connection between the general conduct of an organisation and a decision to adopt revenue sharing, or as in the case of 0551, expensive non-geographic, numbers. Centralisation of telephone contact is naturally associated with use of non-geographic numbers and this can be either positive or negative in terms of service levels, often depending on the type of service required. Because awareness of the 03 range is well short of what it should be, "non-geographic" still tends to mean "revenue sharing", but prior to 2007 this was the only option available.

I maintain that it is a combination of ignorance, lethargy, a reluctance to make what many still see as a "pioneering" move to 03 and an unwillingness to incur the costs of a number change that leaves so many on 0845 numbers. The benefit in terms of subsidy is modest when taken in context, although there is a visible cost (for many) in moving to 03. Although when looked at properly the increased cost incurred by some BT customers is not really an issue, it appears to be so.

I maintain that one does not have to have a black heart and be motivated by insatiable greed to operate a 0845 or 0551 number. It is however generally a bad decision that needs to be carefully reviewed and changed at the most suitable early opportunity. I believe that the need to make this change is more important for the public sector and also this is where, as has been seen already, it is more likely to be achieved. I do not in any way exclude the private sector and (assuming present plans are executed) will shortly be seen making this point in public.

(I continue to be re-assured that when the Ofcom consultation is published in around a month's time it will contain some radical proposals to seriously address the issues that we are campaigning on - many for much longer than I. I continue to be convinced that progress from there will be slow and difficult and I hope that we will all be ready to engage in a proper and positively focused battle.)