British Gas admits agents break into struggling customers' homes(bbc.co.uk)
bbc.co.uk
British Gas admits agents break into struggling customers' homes
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64491243
13 comments
>Centrica boss Chris O'Shea: "Every one of our customers deserves to be treated with respect"
Eventually people are going to tire of being told one thing while another actually happens.
Eventually people are going to tire of being told one thing while another actually happens.
Well, they did say deserves, not "is treated with". He's basically admitting guilt, saying that respect is part of their business and any failure to deliver that is a failure of the business. Relative to quotes like "don't do evil" or "privacy is a human right", I'd say O'Shea's response is pretty balanced here.
Doesn't work quite the same way in reverse though. "Every energy corporation deserves to be paid for their pillaging of the earths resources." Failure to pay for said pillaging has slightly different results.
The absolute worst thing about forced installations of pay-as-you-go energy meters is that they carry the highest per-unit energy price in the country. We force the neediest to pay the most.
It's horrible, isn't it? You're forced to prepay for your energy, and instead of getting a discount, you get shafted.
Sadly this is nothing new in the modern world. Just look at how much taxes are paid by the rich vs the common folk.
This assymetry and the exploitation of the most vulnerable is part of the system we currently live in.
In the UK at any rate, the top 1% of earners pay 33% of all income tax. A full 50% of the workforce now receive more in state benefits than they pay in taxes.
If the top 1% paid their employees more, then there would be less reliance on the state and more people would be paying more tax.
As it stands, people who are in work are still requiring state help because they are not earning enough.
As it stands, people who are in work are still requiring state help because they are not earning enough.
The problem with this is that the wealth of the rich wouldn't pay for much earnings.
I mean people complain about medicine as well. And then you check. If we fully nationalized all pharma, and put their profits at zero (but kept development going) ... that would mostly be a 10% drop in the cost of medicine on average at most (more like 2-3% for the really common ones), 20% for some of the more expensive ones and there would be the exceptional medication getting 25% off.
This is not the price reductions for medicine that people are looking for when they're complaining ...
I suspect this is similar. If you redirected all profits to employees, it would be those sorts of numbers. 10% more. 20% more, with 30-60% of the increase going to the state. 100% and more increases would be limited to some companies that are already paying pretty well, like Google or Facebook.
So this simply does not provide a solution.
I mean people complain about medicine as well. And then you check. If we fully nationalized all pharma, and put their profits at zero (but kept development going) ... that would mostly be a 10% drop in the cost of medicine on average at most (more like 2-3% for the really common ones), 20% for some of the more expensive ones and there would be the exceptional medication getting 25% off.
This is not the price reductions for medicine that people are looking for when they're complaining ...
I suspect this is similar. If you redirected all profits to employees, it would be those sorts of numbers. 10% more. 20% more, with 30-60% of the increase going to the state. 100% and more increases would be limited to some companies that are already paying pretty well, like Google or Facebook.
So this simply does not provide a solution.
What study supports your claim that a nationalised pharma industry could lower prices at most 25%?
Do you know the cost of insulin in the USA and its cost in the EU, although being both private companies?
Do you know the cost of insulin in the USA and its cost in the EU, although being both private companies?
INSULIN is bloody cheap. You want the old bovine insulin in common use 15 years ago, and still in use in much of the world? You can get a bucket of it for ~$200.
There's problems with it. It's not the right variant of insulin, it's very fast acting, requiring you to do the measurement-inject dance every 2 hours or so. It's slightly uncomfortable to have in your veins (because it's not really purified, and includes a couple thousand other proteins, some of which are irritating) ...
Re-inventing insulin the way people want it to work:
1) adaptive. Currently means combining making minute quantities work perfectly, but slowly, which is, of course, a total contradiction.
2) the perfect form of insulin, not just the human form, but variants that actually feel better, for you personally (ie. not the same variant for every patient)
3) VERY long lasting (which is of course also a total contradiction because the dose has to vary over time, however 4, even 24 hours without eating, is doable)
4) Keep developing this further, to get to oral application, but at some point totally adaptive without an implant would be excellent.
5) without using animals, or even animal cells (even though that doesn't really matter)
6) oh and without using cancerous cells, which is the other trick we know
7) so in essence using the newest, most expensive, most patented trick we know, "yeast expression"
8) which necessitates the most expensive protein purification tricks we know
9) administered using an implanted insulin pump
10) all of this approved by doing studies on >5000 patients (who get all medical care necessary for such studies for free for at minimum 2 months)
Yes, this is expensive. And, uh, well of course it is. Now, I get it, the best treatment is the best treatment and the most expensive one, and everyone should get it, and of course doctors will advise the most expensive one, for good reason. But there's currently various compromises available too.
There's problems with it. It's not the right variant of insulin, it's very fast acting, requiring you to do the measurement-inject dance every 2 hours or so. It's slightly uncomfortable to have in your veins (because it's not really purified, and includes a couple thousand other proteins, some of which are irritating) ...
Re-inventing insulin the way people want it to work:
1) adaptive. Currently means combining making minute quantities work perfectly, but slowly, which is, of course, a total contradiction.
2) the perfect form of insulin, not just the human form, but variants that actually feel better, for you personally (ie. not the same variant for every patient)
3) VERY long lasting (which is of course also a total contradiction because the dose has to vary over time, however 4, even 24 hours without eating, is doable)
4) Keep developing this further, to get to oral application, but at some point totally adaptive without an implant would be excellent.
5) without using animals, or even animal cells (even though that doesn't really matter)
6) oh and without using cancerous cells, which is the other trick we know
7) so in essence using the newest, most expensive, most patented trick we know, "yeast expression"
8) which necessitates the most expensive protein purification tricks we know
9) administered using an implanted insulin pump
10) all of this approved by doing studies on >5000 patients (who get all medical care necessary for such studies for free for at minimum 2 months)
Yes, this is expensive. And, uh, well of course it is. Now, I get it, the best treatment is the best treatment and the most expensive one, and everyone should get it, and of course doctors will advise the most expensive one, for good reason. But there's currently various compromises available too.
Okay but what share of the wealth do they control?
“ The richest 1% of Britons hold more wealth than 70 per cent of Britons “
It would make sense if the 1% paid more than the combined bottom 70%
Source: https://www.oxfam.org.uk/media/press-releases/richest-1-grab...
“ The richest 1% of Britons hold more wealth than 70 per cent of Britons “
It would make sense if the 1% paid more than the combined bottom 70%
Source: https://www.oxfam.org.uk/media/press-releases/richest-1-grab...
> In the UK at any rate, the top 1% of earners pay 33% of all income tax.
that statistic is disingenuous without also stating how much of the national income the top 1% earn. i.e. Its obvious that the top 1% pay the most tax because they earn the most.
that statistic is disingenuous without also stating how much of the national income the top 1% earn. i.e. Its obvious that the top 1% pay the most tax because they earn the most.
Actually, the most relevant statistic (which is, of course, much more difficult to calculate) is how much tax each pay relative to their disposable income—ie, the amount left over after necessities such as food, shelter, and clothing have been paid for.
With any vaguely reasonable calculation of this, it becomes painfully clear that the poor pay far, far too much (because they have, effectively, no disposable income) and the rich pay far, far too little (because almost all of their income is disposable).
With any vaguely reasonable calculation of this, it becomes painfully clear that the poor pay far, far too much (because they have, effectively, no disposable income) and the rich pay far, far too little (because almost all of their income is disposable).
I agree with the sentiment.
However, disposable income has a technical meaning. When the ONS publishes disposable income statistics, they mean income remaining after tax (I presume they subtract income tax and NI, but not council tax because that's local). They don't subtract e.g. energy bills or food.
However, disposable income has a technical meaning. When the ONS publishes disposable income statistics, they mean income remaining after tax (I presume they subtract income tax and NI, but not council tax because that's local). They don't subtract e.g. energy bills or food.
I'm open to a different descriptor.
From where I sit, "income after tax" doesn't really seem to fit as the meaning of "disposable income", though I suppose I can see why it would look that way to an office like ONS.
Now, to be clear, "where I sit" is in the US, and I've never seen "disposable income" be given an official usage like that over here; its only meaning that I've known is, much more colloquially, just what I said: the amount of money you have left over each $timePeriod after paying for the basic necessities of life. (How one defines those, specifically, varies greatly from person to person.)
From where I sit, "income after tax" doesn't really seem to fit as the meaning of "disposable income", though I suppose I can see why it would look that way to an office like ONS.
Now, to be clear, "where I sit" is in the US, and I've never seen "disposable income" be given an official usage like that over here; its only meaning that I've known is, much more colloquially, just what I said: the amount of money you have left over each $timePeriod after paying for the basic necessities of life. (How one defines those, specifically, varies greatly from person to person.)
If it's anything like other countries, then they make substantially less than what a proportional taxation would imply.
In the us for example the top 1% pay 6 times the taxes than the bottom 50% on a dollar for dollar basis
In the us for example the top 1% pay 6 times the taxes than the bottom 50% on a dollar for dollar basis
unless you supply the raw figures as well, it remains a sleight of hand.
Let me put this another way; anyone in the 99% would happily swap income with the 1% and then pay twice as much tax on that income than the current 1% do.
Let me put this another way; anyone in the 99% would happily swap income with the 1% and then pay twice as much tax on that income than the current 1% do.
I find any conversation about the "1%" that centers around discussions of % paid in anything to be highly amusing/sad. Talk in absolute dollars and see how things turn out.
Is that earners by PAYE or including dividends and capital gains.
Because if it's just top PAYE owners you're missing out all the truly rich people who're tax efficient.
Because if it's just top PAYE owners you're missing out all the truly rich people who're tax efficient.
[deleted]
As a PROPORTION of their wealth/income what percentage do the Rich pay and the poorer pay?
The poor pay a higher PROPORTION of their income in taxes than the rich pay. But because the poor earn so little it amounts to such a small amount of the total taxes collected.
Your static actually highlights the vast gulf in wealth/income between rich and poor. Shame on u for not seeing that.
The poor pay a higher PROPORTION of their income in taxes than the rich pay. But because the poor earn so little it amounts to such a small amount of the total taxes collected.
Your static actually highlights the vast gulf in wealth/income between rich and poor. Shame on u for not seeing that.
I'm reminded of the Viz[1] mug celebrating the old Gas Board (the precursor of the current privatised utilities):
Old Ladies, If You Don’t Pay Your Gas Bill This Winter You’re Going To Prison
The Gas Board: We'll get our fucking bit - don't you worry
That sentiment is supposed to be comically brutal but seeing British Gas break into people's homes and effectively force them to pay a higher price for energy... right now living in the UK is odd.
1. For those outside the UK, Viz is an adult satirical comic and great British institution.
https://www.moretvicar.com/products/the-gas-board-mug
Old Ladies, If You Don’t Pay Your Gas Bill This Winter You’re Going To Prison
The Gas Board: We'll get our fucking bit - don't you worry
That sentiment is supposed to be comically brutal but seeing British Gas break into people's homes and effectively force them to pay a higher price for energy... right now living in the UK is odd.
1. For those outside the UK, Viz is an adult satirical comic and great British institution.
https://www.moretvicar.com/products/the-gas-board-mug
I remember that, one of many classic and truthful Viz moments.
> The suspension follows an undercover investigation by the Times whose reporter went with agents working for Arvato Financial Solutions - a company used by British Gas to pursue debts - to the home of a single father with three children.
Why am I not surprised to see the name "Arvato" in there. For those OOTL: they have been under fire in Germany for using outdated datasets for credit scores [1], lacked identification requirements for obtaining credit reports [2], cooperated with Deutsche Bahn to use data of fare dodgers for credit scoring [3], and most recently for exploitative labor conditions in their Facebook moderation team [4].
[1] https://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Bericht-Infoscore-nu...
[2] https://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/NDR-Mangelhafter-Dat...
[3] https://www.zeit.de/digital/datenschutz/2016-05/bahn-kundend...
[4] https://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Verdi-kritisiert-pre...
Why am I not surprised to see the name "Arvato" in there. For those OOTL: they have been under fire in Germany for using outdated datasets for credit scores [1], lacked identification requirements for obtaining credit reports [2], cooperated with Deutsche Bahn to use data of fare dodgers for credit scoring [3], and most recently for exploitative labor conditions in their Facebook moderation team [4].
[1] https://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Bericht-Infoscore-nu...
[2] https://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/NDR-Mangelhafter-Dat...
[3] https://www.zeit.de/digital/datenschutz/2016-05/bahn-kundend...
[4] https://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Verdi-kritisiert-pre...
„ That the house of every one is to him as his Castle and Fortress as well for defence against injury and violence, as for his repose“
Sir Edward Coke, Semayne’s Case, 1604
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semayne%27s_case
Sir Edward Coke, Semayne’s Case, 1604
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semayne%27s_case
Help is near! Russian gas flows to Europe via Ukraine rise, while Nuland is celebrating the destruction of Nord Stream:
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/russian-gas-europe-v...
Sorry for the sarcasm, but the whole gas business is so dirty that it would take a 4000 word essay to express it more gently. I hope the US and Quatar enjoy their LNG sales.
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/russian-gas-europe-v...
Sorry for the sarcasm, but the whole gas business is so dirty that it would take a 4000 word essay to express it more gently. I hope the US and Quatar enjoy their LNG sales.
There’s a lot of countries that produce more/as much natural gas as Qatar. They just don’t fit a specified narrative as well.
If we’re going to timidly poke at a big ol’ conspiracy, don’t forget Canada!
If we’re going to timidly poke at a big ol’ conspiracy, don’t forget Canada!
I had no idea prepayment meters existed for gas in homes. There's a case in The Great Ace Attorney revolving around gas in 1900s London, and I had assumed the meter in it was entirely fiction!
[deleted]
[deleted]
Although there's probably reasons in these cases, I'm amazed anyone still uses British Gas; they're consistently the worst energy supplier available and have been for years.
British gas meters are inside the house?
On one hand it's shitty. But I also don't see why I should pay (and pay for them too) if they don't have to...
You don't understand why people should be able to cook food and heat their houses?
This is a governance failure: for letting prices get out of control, for allowing poverty so bad that _people cannot heat their homes_, and then for allowing utilities to shut off people's utilities like this.
It doesn't have to be that way: on that last point for example, in Ontario, Canada, there's a law that says that a utility cannot shut off a house's electricity or gas during the winter for non-payment. It doesn't matter how far behind you get on your bills, it's illegal to shut it off. This would, I think, make pre-payment meters illegal here, and this probably explains why I've never heard of them being a thing.
This is a governance failure: for letting prices get out of control, for allowing poverty so bad that _people cannot heat their homes_, and then for allowing utilities to shut off people's utilities like this.
It doesn't have to be that way: on that last point for example, in Ontario, Canada, there's a law that says that a utility cannot shut off a house's electricity or gas during the winter for non-payment. It doesn't matter how far behind you get on your bills, it's illegal to shut it off. This would, I think, make pre-payment meters illegal here, and this probably explains why I've never heard of them being a thing.
I mean around here in Denmark the alternative is that you get your energy connection terminated and have to pay big fees to get it turned on again.
By your admission it is not illegal to turn the electricity of during summer, but presumably people have to cook there too?
The solution is not to let people use electricity without payment, because that will be abused. Have the bills be paid directly for those on unemployment if you want, raise the benefits to match if you want, but a system where there is nothing that effectively stops you from not paying is going to result it bad outcomes for everyone.
By your admission it is not illegal to turn the electricity of during summer, but presumably people have to cook there too?
The solution is not to let people use electricity without payment, because that will be abused. Have the bills be paid directly for those on unemployment if you want, raise the benefits to match if you want, but a system where there is nothing that effectively stops you from not paying is going to result it bad outcomes for everyone.
[deleted]
Then pay them more for the work they do and they won't have to rely on govt services.
Welfare is essentially a subsidy for crap wages. U either pay them a proper wage (surplus value) or u get taxed for govt services.
Welfare is essentially a subsidy for crap wages. U either pay them a proper wage (surplus value) or u get taxed for govt services.
Well see, they're trying to have it both ways aren't they? If energy suppliers were a nationalized/socialized entity, then it makes sense to fund like that. But instead it is privatized and people paying those bills with welfare monies is basically a wealth transfer from the middle class (via taxes), through the poor (welfare) and ending up in pockets of the company's owners.
Original article (paywalled):
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/british-gas-prepayment-me...
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/british-gas-prepayment-me...
[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-64489147