Do you realize how much trouble can be caused when politicians get messed up with music? I am not talking about asking your local council leader to DJ your party, though that might be disastrous too. Politics showed its most foolish side in the US state of Oklahoma, with a brouhaha about selecting the official State Rock and Roll Song (their capital letters, not mine). Oklahomans are not short of official songs to represent their state, so you might think they must be pretty slick when it comes to approving a new one. They already have an official State Folk Song (“Oklahoma Hills”, Jack and Woody Guthrie, adopted 2001), and an official State Country and Western Song (“Faded Love”, Bob Wills, adopted 1988). Of course, they have long recognized the most pro-Oklahoma song any of us are ever likely to hear. Way back in 1953 they proclaimed the official State [Open Category] Song should be “Oklahoma”, the theme from the musical “Oklahoma” by Rodgers and Hammerstein. If you are not familiar with the song, it begins by bellowing the name “Oklahoma!” as loud as possible, and then rapidly listing a lot of reasons why Oklahoma is great, including the immortal lines:

And when we say Ay yippy yi ki yea,
We’re only saying:
You’re doin’ fine Oklahoma
Oklahoma you’re okay.

I doubt there was much controversy on the day in ‘53 when they picked that song. Returning to the present day, I imagine most people were surprised at the political ructions caused when the state’s citizens were asked to vote on what should be their official state rock and roll song (sorry, I meant official State Rock and Roll Song). The overwhelming winner was a mellow ditty called “Do You Realize??” by Oklahoma’s best known veteran oddball rockers, The Flaming Lips. Official confirmation seemed assured when the Oklahoman Senate unanimously endorsed the choice. But when the decision was sent to the Oklahoman House of Representatives to ratify, it failed to garner the 51 backers needed to pass the motion, with 39 Representatives deciding to vote against the song. What angered them so much? It was not the anodyne lyrics, which include such lines as:

Do You Realize - that you have the most beautiful face
Do You Realize - we’re floating in space

Apparently, some of the Oklahoman Representatives got upset with the bass player’s choice of apparel when observing the Senate’s vote. He wore a t-shirt with a hammer and sickle emblem, which some took to imply the band has communist sympathies. Others did not like that the lead singer apparently swore at a previous public event. That puts the important work of politicians into perspective, does it not? Are politicians there to sort out the big things, like crime, or healthcare or even keeping the streets clean? Or are they there to vote for or against an official state song (sorry, I meant official State Song) which was picked by the public, because they do not like what the band members wear and one naughty word they said?

I imagine most people outside of the US know pretty much nothing about Oklahoma. In addition to trivia about state songs (or should that be State Songs?) and The Flaming Lips, I only know three things about Oklahoma (and I have been there):

1. They have a big cattle market.

2. It is flat.

3. One of their public buildings was blown up by a terrorist. He killed 168 public workers because he had a grudge against government. The terrorist was of the white, Christian, American variety.

I was only in Oklahoma one night, but I did conclude that some Oklahomans must be as knowledgeable about the rest of the world as I am about Oklahoma. Whilst waiting for my car to be retrieved from the hotel garage, I engaged in a conversation with the hotel’s porter. He told me, without prompting, that he was intending to join a mission to bring God to the sinful continent of Europe. I will not dispute that Europe is full of sinners, but you think he might have found some sinners closer to home. Hopefully American evangelicals are now more aware of global warming and will soon restrict their missions to locations within the range of an electric car. When I told the porter that European sinners might not be susceptible to the persuasive skills of an Oklahoman teenager on his first journey outside his home state, he refused to be discouraged. The porter was still not discouraged even when I suggested Europeans who spoke English might consider themselves superior to him, and that the others would not comprehend his brand of monoglot oratory. He said he did not understand the last bit of that sentence, to which I replied: “hence inadvertently demonstrating my point on both counts”. He did not understand that either. Practicing what I myself was preaching, I gave up on discouraging him and instead asked him what he was doing about bad people in the USA. He agreed there were plenty, but told me all the evidence pointed towards there being a lot more bad people in Europe. I decided there was little value in asking about where he got his evidence from. Needless to say, I did not give him a tip.

It would be unfair to judge Oklahomans based on one conversation with a teenage hotel porter, just as it would be unfair to judge the worthiness of a song based on one errant fashion decision or a single slip of the tongue. The Gospel according to Matthew says that Jesus taught the following:

Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye’, when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.

Those are wise words, whatever your religion. If I understand them correctly, then I should not judge Oklahomans in general or the particular Oklahomans who sit in their House of Representatives. However, the words of Jesus are wise simply because people often are quick to judge one another. Some Oklahoman Representatives made some foolish judgments about a rather innocuous rock band. Did they realize how the story would be reproduced all around the world, and the negative publicity it would create for Oklahoma? Did they realize that, outside of the USA, more people are familiar with the back catalogue of three-time Grammy winners The Flaming Lips than they ever will be with any of the good work done by the people sitting in Oklahoma’s House of Representatives? Did they realize that, outside of the USA, and probably by most people in the USA, and probably even by most Oklahomans, their behaviour would be judged to be rather silly and backward? What should have been a minor attempt to garner good publicity for Oklahoma has turned into a bigger story about the foolishness of Oklahoman politicians. Luckily for the people who voted in the state poll, The Flaming Lips, and for lovers of music and democracy in general, the good news is that common sense will prevail. The Governor of Oklahoma has intervened to set things right. Governor Brad Henry has announced he will sign an executive order to make “Do You Realize??” the official State Rock and Roll Song. He said of The Flaming Lips:

A truly iconic rock’n'roll band, they are proud ambassadors of their home state. They were clearly the people’s choice, and I intend to honour that vote.

Perhaps once he has done that, he can get back to more important business. If you live nearby, you can show your support by heading down to the Oklahoma History Center on Tuesday at 2pm, when the Governor will be making it official. For everybody else, you can enjoy the pleasing words and music of Oklahoma’s new official State Rock and Roll Song by taking a look below. Enjoy.

The ruba’i is a poetic form of olden times,
Lines 1, 2 & 4 must rhyme,
Popular in Persia in the 11th Century,
Most famously by Omar Khayyam.

Choosing to twitter or to tweet,
Is a thoroughly modern conceit,
You tell your friends what you are doing,
In only 140 characters, complete.

The ruba’i was liberating -
Poets excused from conventions so grating.
Before, every single line had to rhyme,
Which proved very irritating.

Twittering is freedom of a sort,
Sharing knowledge of no import.
You follow what twitterers are up to,
Without giving it a second’s thought.

How about twitter and ruba’i combined?
Poetic trivia you might find.
Writing them with exactly 140 characters,
May prove to be quite a bind.

With ruba’i 140 characters long,
It is easy to get the numbers wrong.
A carriage return after every line,
Except, that is, for the last one.

The plural of ruba’i is rubaiyat.
You should also know that,
I wrote a series just for twitter,
They are as much use as the rest of the tat.

The 140 rubiyat I named my composition,
But twittering is not my decision.
Tweets will be made by my blogs,
Which does mean some repetition.

My twitter username is web2wit,
Though I doubt I will ever get into it.
Very much like my chosen label,
Twitter might be fun or just stupid.

No more 140 character ruba’i for a while;
A charming but difficult style.
Lyrical ditties with strict limits;
My goal is to provoke a smile.

It is amazing what insomniacs can buy at 4am in the morning, thanks to teleshopping. Kitchen knives that never need sharpening. Chess sets with figures from The Lord of the Rings. Devices that giver you a flatter tummy by pumping electricity through your muscles whist you watch television (hence sparing more time for teleshopping). Collections of self-help books and CDs that guarantee to make you a millionaire by the end of the year - apparently all you need to do is launch your own line of self-help books and CDs. Of course, all of it is overpriced tat that does not biodegrade and which will be cluttering up your garage for decades to come. So imagine my surprise when I found a real gem at 4.13am on the Thursday before last: the Wonk-tel News Spectacles. At just £39.99 including postage and packing, this marvelous wonder of modern science, as demonstrated by a serious-looking person wearing a white coat, promised to help you read the news the way it really should be written. I can tell a good deal when I see one, so I ordered mine straight away. After all, the first thousand customers also received the Wonk-tel News Magnifying Glass and a special travel case for free!

This week, I’ve been reading the news with my new Wonk-tel spectacles, and I have to say they really have given me a new perspective on the news. Take this story, which reads as follows without the glasses:

No.10 apology over ’slur’ e-mails

Downing Street has apologised for e-mails sent by one of Gordon Brown’s senior officials which reportedly discussed smearing top Conservatives.

Put the Wonk-tels on, and it says the following…

“A civil servant apologized to his bosses in 10 Downing Street (not to the taxpayers who pay his wages) because he was caught doing his job, which involved orchestrating smear campaigns against political opponents by fabricating sexual innuendos. Apparently, the PR cretin circulated his disgusting fantasies about opposition leaders using his official email address. In future, he promises to be more careful and will only be sharing scurrilous, vile made-up gossip when briefing friendly hacks down the pub or using his personal email. During the day, he promises he will just be staring out of the office window, killing time before his real work begins. He will also be careful not to repeat his mistake of forwarding offending material to such a wide distribution list that it was eventually forwarded to his arch-enemy with a well-known political blog. 10 Downing Street is keen to be seen taking action, because if it smells bad now, it will obviously smell a whole lot worse when the emails, which have not been published yet, are finally made public. As a consequence they will be firing the goon but quietly arranging to get him another job doing the same stuff elsewhere, except they will try to make it seem honourable-yet-proactive by making it look like he resigned.”

Did you see the difference? I could not believe my eyes! I re-read the story, using the magnifying glass, and it had the same impact. What a revelation. Better still, the prediction about the resignation turned out to be spot on. Here is some more of this week’s news.

Tony Blair tells Belief radio programme he thinks about Iraq every day

The Wonk-tel glasses helpfully add…

“and every night he goes to bed sure that going to war was the right thing to do and that there really was a serious threat of weapons of mass destruction being launched at the West in less time than it takes to make a cup of tea. Yes, he really is that bad at making decisions and he really is that good at spinning them so they sound like they were the right ones after all.”

Wow! Move over Jeremy Paxman, these Wonk-tel glasses really do cut through the bull. Here is another story…

Ian Tomlinson assault video ‘raises obvious concerns’, says Met police chief

Sir Paul Stephenson says video of police striking Ian Tomlinson during G20 protests should be investigated fully

The Wonk-tel magnifying glass explained the story thus…

“Sir Paul Stephenson, the Metropolitan police commissioner, was left scratching his head and wondering whether his force is composed of brainless gorillas after video footage made using a mobile phone plainly shows a police thug in riot gear needlessly shoving a man in the back, causing him to fall heavily. The victim of the unprovoked attack, Ian Tomlinson, was a paper seller trying to make his way home from work, and had unfortunately been caught up in the protests about the G20 summit in London. Stephenson wondered about his bad luck. The police not only assaulted an innocent man, from behind, as he walked down the street with his hands in his pockets. Far worse, the victim selfishly had a heart attack, maximizing the publicity for this instance of casual needless police brutality that would otherwise have gone unreported. There was seemingly no CCTV footage of the assault, which happened in the City of London, a small portion of the planet subject to extraordinary levels of constant surveillance. Despite this, an honest citizen still managed to capture the events and decided them to share them with the Guardian newspaper and the rest of the world. Police efforts to limit the damage caused to their reputation will involve distracting attention from this disturbing incident. This will involve three steps:

1. The police’s anti-terror chief will show himself to be a nincompoop by carrying top secret documents in plain view instead of inside a folder or briefcase;

2. A careless and overzealous PC will drive a car at 90mph on a 30mph road, without using his siren or flashing his lights, causing him to hit and kill a teenage pedestrian; and

3. A former police inspector will be jailed for an extensive fraud involving illegal dumping of 175,000 used tyres.

If that fails, the police will just resort to the usual tactics of releasing positive video footage for shows like “Stop, Police, Camera, Action!” and “Greatest Police Car Chases” and “The Police Doing a Great Job and This Camera Proves It!”. All such footage will be carefully screened and any incidents involving beating up innocent people or knocking down pedestrians will be carefully lost. In addition, the police will be calling for more anti-terror laws to stop pesky photographers compromising the security of the nation by taking photos that reveal their incompetence and stupidity.”

Strong stuff! I really looked forward to re-reading the final story…

Jade Goody ‘represented wretched Britain’, says Sir Michael Parkinson

Jade Goody represented “all that is wretched about Britain today”, Sir Michael Parkinson has said days after the reality television star’s funeral.

For those of you who missed it, the news was that television interviewer and personality Michael Parkinson directed his “say what I like and like what I say” Yorkshireman routine at Jade Goody, the reality TV star who recently died from cervical cancer. He said that Jade Goody had been a media chattel, as well as being “barely educated, ignorant and puerile”. Apparently, some people think that Goody deserves more reverential treatment because she made a lot of money and that must count for something. Oddly, this is all Wonk-tel had to say about Parkinson’s polemic:

“Of course she was ignorant and puerile. The only people unsure of that must be either (1) lucky enough to have totally missed the Goody media barrage when it was at its peak, or (2) have similar educational deficits meaning they do not know what the words ‘ignorant’ and ‘puerile’ mean. Parkinson, like most people in the media, diplomatically forgot to mention that Goody gave a shameful impression of modern British intolerance and rudeness when she repeatedly bullied Bollywood film star Shilpa Shetty during her last major television ‘reality’ show appearance on Celebrity Big Brother. Goody’s inexcusable screaming, ranting and hectoring was interpreted by many to be racism. As a result, the show generated by far the greatest number of complaints in British television history. It is derisory that some are trying to recast her as a positive role model, simply because she unluckily got cancer and died. Whatever next? Hitler not so bad after all - the poor chap only had one ball?”

Powerful stuff. These Wonk-tel news specs really do work. But I had better be careful when I use them. Best not wear them when updating the CV or re-reading this blog. Heck knows what they would say about me…

Readers, I wrote this letter not for myself, nor for its recipient but for you. If you have ever been frustrated by the goons who run the businesses who make your life a misery, add this to the list of rants that nobody notices much. It probably will not change the world, and it almost certainly will not improve the service offered by Isobel McKendry or her sales team at the Intelligent Finance branch of the newly nationalized Lloyds-Halifax-Bank of Scotland-plus any other struggling bank they merged with recently. It did, however, make me feel a tiny bit better in the face of their raving absurdity.

Isobel McKendry
Head of Service
“Intelligent” Finance
Lloyds Halifax Bank of Scotland Uncle Tom Cobbly and All
PO Box 17316
Edinburgh
EH12 1AY

2nd April 2009

Your Ref: MK/Securities

Dear Ms. McKendry,

Re: Insurance; how I have it and will not be buying it from your business

I refer to your recent letter of 27th March 2009. Please see the enclosed photocopy of my home insurance policy. Per my conversation with a customer services representative at date of writing, this should satisfy my obligations per terms and conditions F.13.1.8, which reads: “You must show us details of the insurance and proof that it is still in force, if we ask you.”

Of course, the thought that comes to mind is, why exactly are you asking me to provide proof of my insurance now, after years of being a good customer? Is it a random request, asked of a sample chosen by computer? No. Is it because you have some good reason to believe I do not have insurance? No. Is it because of a recent telephone conversation where I got extremely bored of telling a member of your sales team that I do not want to buy insurance from your business? Yes. Is it because you run your business like draconian maniacs who have shut the door long after the horse bolted? Possibly.

You may not have understood the most important part of that last paragraph, so please let me reiterate. I do not want to buy insurance. Just to reiterate, I do not want to buy insurance. Just to reiterate, I do not want to buy insurance. Apologies if this letter is becoming repetitive, but I can assure you, it is a lot less repetitive than talking to one of your sales team. And just let me reiterate, I do not want to buy insurance.

As you can see from the attached schedule, I have the insurance I need per the terms and conditions of my mortgage. I do not need any other insurance. I do not need to tell you why I do not want any other insurance. I do not need to justify my decision not to buy insurance. I especially do not wish to pay for a telephone call and find my time is spent talking to a member of your sales team who keeps asking me to buy insurance. And just let me reiterate, I do not want to buy insurance.

There are all sorts of insurance, of course. There is insurance in case you die, insurance in case you fall ill, insurance in case you crash your car, insurance in case you fall off your skis, and insurance in case your house gets swallowed by a gigantic lizard beast from another planet. I have to admit I am not sure if my buildings insurance covers me for that last eventuality. Will that be a problem? I do hope not. But just let me reiterate, I do not want to buy insurance.

Good for you that you double-checked that I have buildings insurance. You cannot be too careful with money. I know I am. As a qualified chartered accountant, and company director of my own small business, I am glad to see that you are now being careful with the taxpayer’s money that was poured into your business after it failed so spectacularly. If only your business could have bought some insurance to protect it from the consequences of the utter incompetence of its management team. At last reckoning, their mismanagement has resulted in a £10.8bn loss and about £200bn of what is euphemistically called ‘toxic’ debt. Your business took such awfully misjudged risks that it not only needed to be rescued by Lloyds Bank, but the massive black hole in its numbers then forced Lloyds to be rescued by the taxpayer. Of course, you cannot buy insurance for such eventualities. All you can do is sit back and wait for the taxpayer to cover your losses, and try to be more careful in future. I can see you hard at work on that last point. And just let me reiterate, I do not want to buy insurance.

As part of your new risk-averse approach to customer service, will you be asking me to provide proof of my building insurance on a regular basis from now on? Will this be based on the vindictive whims of your sales staff, or is there a more fundamental pattern in how you intend to annoy your customers? I notice your letter asked me “to provide details of the insurance company who are providing you with the buildings cover along with the proof that the cover is still in place.” If you want me to send you a photocopy of the policy statement, why not just say that? It would save everybody time and money if you made your requirements plain, instead of sending a vaguely-worded letter which forces me to call your contact centre and be kept on hold whilst someone finds out exactly what it is you wanted from me. And just let me reiterate, I do not want to buy insurance.

Following the nationalization of your bank, you may have taken a misguided view of life in the public sector, and be engaged in a vain bid to make work and increase job security by aimlessly multiplying unnecessary calls and paperwork. However, I understand your ultimate goal is to eventually return to profitability, and wasting my time, along with your own, will not help you do that. And just let me reiterate, I do not want to buy insurance.

You letter refers to the recent telephone conversation with your sales team. Let me tell you a little more about how that went. If you do not believe me, just listen to the obligatory recording ‘for security and training purposes’. I wish I had recorded it too. I certainly received a thorough training experience: I was trained never to speak to a member of your sales team ever again, if I can possibly avoid it. The conversation began with me asking if I could rearrange my mortgage. As the entire premise of the “Intelligent Finance” product is that credit and debit balances net off, I wanted to go through an artificial exercise of increasing the total value of the mortgage (a liability for me) and the value of the money held in the netting savings account (an asset for me) with a consequent net exchange of value of exactly zero. Rearranging the mortgage would hence have no impact on the amount owed or the interest paid. It would not increase the risk to your business, or the burden on me. In exchange, you would have charged me a fee for this service, which I would have paid. Amazingly, I was refused. However, that is your choice, and I have no complaint about that. You are now being careful with money and it is your right to refuse. It is also my choice not to buy insurance. I was, however, very perplexed by the attitude of your sales representative. The conversation went something as follows:

“Do you have life insurance?”
“No.”
“Why not?”

Forgive me if I misunderstood the relationship between a customer and your business, but I was not aware that I needed to explain and satisfy your sales staff about why I do not have or want to buy insurance. I gave an explanation why I did not want insurance, which would have satisfied most sane people. Any normal person would have concluded from my answer that I was not going to be buying any insurance under any circumstances. However, your sales representative persisted:

“But what about your dependents?”
“I don’t have any.”
“But who will get the house?”
“You can have it.”

Have you noticed a pattern yet? I did. I noticed I was talking a lot about insurance when I phoned to talk about a mortgage. The conversation went on (and on)…

“Do you have critical illness cover?”
“No.”
“But what if you fall ill?”

Good question. What if I fall ill? Here was my answer:

“You can have the house.”
“But how will you live?”
“I’ll live like everyone else who does not have a job and cannot afford a house.”

I would have thought that would be a satisfactory answer for a business like yours. What if everything went disastrously and unpredictably wrong? Then I will do nothing and let the taxpayer bail me out. That should sound familiar, as it is precisely the business strategy followed by your executive team. Still, this was not good enough for your sales representative, who said:

“I had a company director on the telephone yesterday and we paid out under his critical illness cover…”

There you have it: a statement that belongs in the hall of fame for bad financial advice. I should buy insurance because somebody else had insurance and it paid out for him. Insurance, as I understand it, is about risk. I perceive the risk of what adverse events might happen, I look at the cost of the premiums, and I judge how much would be paid out, and by considering all three I make a reasoned evaluation about whether insurance represents good value. Apparently, though, this is misguided. I should just find out if one of your call centre staff ever spoke to anybody who ever received a payout from an insurance policy and, if they did, I should get a policy too. Is this mis-selling? On balance, I would have to say no for two reasons. First, the advice is so inane that only an imbecile would be influenced by it. Even the executive management team of your bank would know better than to evaluate risk based on a gossipy story about one person they had never met. Second, and more importantly, I did not want to buy insurance, so no selling took place, whether mis-selling or otherwise. And just let me reiterate, I do not want to buy insurance.

I thought this utterly painful conversation was nearing an end when the insurance interrogation was suspended long enough to inform me that my mortgage application had been denied. The delightfully one-sided nature of information flow was underlined when I asked:

“Can you tell me why I was denied?”
“No.”

At this point, as you can imagine, I was at least thankful that this tedious dialogue had come to a seeming end. I had been asked a lot of superfluous questions about insurance and my attitude to insurance, the sole purpose of which I can only assume was to sell me insurance. My attitude to buying insurance had not changed since I first entered into a mortgage contract with your bank, so I guess you will have to learn to live with it. I had wasted my time, and the cost of the call, but seemingly that was all. However, to my surprise, there were yet more questions about insurance:

“Do you have buildings insurance”?

The question in my mind at this time was not whether I have buildings insurance, which of course I have. As you point out, it is a stipulation of the terms and conditions that I have insurance. The question in my mind was “why I am wasting my time and paying for a call to answer this stupid question when I have already been refused the product that I had phoned to ask for?” So my answer was:

“Is there a financial regulation that obliges you to ask me that?”
“Don’t know.”

Of course your sales representative does not know. She is just reading a script from a screen. She is not qualified to give good advice and if I bought a bad product there would be lots of shirking of responsibility and saying it was all my fault, whether that is a bad mortgage product or a bad insurance product. The dialogue should hence be limited to areas that are relevant to dealing with the customer’s queries, and not some ill-judged attempt to sell insurance, or, worse still, an ineptly executed attempt to manage the risk to your bank. My response was rather flippant:

“Then I don’t think I have to answer, and I’m not going to tell you.”

That was the end of the call, because I hung up. My attitude to the query is straightforward. If you want to ask me a stupid question, you could at least have the decency to pay for the call, instead of wasting my money as well as my time. I mean, asking people if they have insurance is not exactly a sophisticated approach to risk management, is it? Here is a tip for you: some people lie. The people who do not have insurance will probably lie about it and say they do. I did not lie. I just refused to answer the question. And just let me reiterate, I do not want to buy insurance.

When I spoke to another customer service representative today, she read the little notes on the screen about my earlier call with your sales team. The little notes said that I had no insurance. I think we can agree that note is in error, and suggests a woeful approach to listening to your customers’ answers whilst cross-examining them. Given that you are such poor listeners, please let me reiterate that I do not want to buy insurance.

It does not take a logician to point out that my refusal to answer a question does not justify the incorrect conclusion that I do not have insurance. That means your records are in error. I do have building insurance. I never said I do not have building insurance. You now know I have building insurance because you have the photocopied schedule (much like every other schedule for every other year I have had the house and the mortgage, would you like to see them all?). Perhaps you should also go back and listen to the recording of the conversation and explain to your sales representative the difference between a customer refusing to answer her stupid question and a customer answering her stupid question in the negative. And just let me reiterate, I do not want to buy building insurance, because I have it already.

Ironically, my main reason for trying to rearrange the mortgage was to bolster my application for a visa to escape this country, which I find to be run by utter nincompoops that have destroyed its economy and then punish the taxpayer for trying to make a living. As the ‘Head of Service’ you will also appreciate the irony relating to my call. I called in the hope of obtaining a service from your business, was hassled about a lot of services I did not want, was refused the service I did want, and subsequently made to provide you with paperwork to justify my continuing to receive the service I already had. I will now manage the risk of this recurring by never talking to one of your sales team again. This should considerably reduce the time and money wasted on not buying insurance and not sending you documentation per F.13.1.8 or any other annoying clauses in the terms and conditions. And just let me reiterate, I do not want to buy insurance.

The good news for you is that I will be retaining my mortgage with your bank. I will not be transferring it anywhere else. Now that you are government-owned, your bank will always offer a leading rate of interest to borrowers, because the government is just as desperate to help the voters who over-borrowed from your bank as they are desperate to maintain jobs for employees of a bank that was too generous in its lending. I fully intend to take advantage of that low lending rate by continuing to borrow as much as I can for as long as I can under the current mortgage agreement, and will do nothing that violates any aspect of the terms and conditions, no matter how annoying you are. I will be paying my mortgage back as slowly as possible and generally doing nothing to help you rebuild your withered capital base. With a bit of luck, the pound will keep on falling, making my liability smaller and smaller and hence easier to repay with the income I intend to make overseas. And just let me reiterate, I do not want to buy insurance.

However, there is also some bad news for your bank. The bad news is that my company definitely will be closing its business account. That asset will be transferred to another bank which was not so horribly mismanaged (though I admit the choice is poor), has not been nationalized, and which can pay a better rate of interest on deposits. I hope this gives you an opportunity to reflect on whether this obnoxious attempt to sell insurance, followed by the spiteful demand for paperwork to support my existing mortgage, has helped to increase the profitability of your business. I think you should conclude it had the opposite effect. And just let me reiterate, I do not want to buy insurance.

Yours sincerely,

Eric R. A. Priezkalns

P.S. Forgive the comical use of a postscript, but I did not want to spoil the flow of the letter. Let me assure you that it is of no consequence to me whether you read this or not. My primary goal in writing this letter was to amuse the readers of my website, and to warn them about your derisory approach to “service”, which I can see from your letter is part of your job title but will otherwise assume you have no responsibility for. In the unlikely event that you actually have some responsibility, and this letter prompts you to do something to prevent atrocious experiences like this happening to your other customers, that would be an unexpected bonus.

P.P.S. Just let me reiterate, I do not want to buy insurance.

+++ Update +++

To be fair to HBOS, I have since been called by not one but two people, both of whom had obviously listened to the recording of my rather painful conversation about-but-not-about insurance. Both took my complaints very seriously. Is this evidence of a big business that really does try to respond to its failings in handling customers? It makes a nice change to think so!