Had a good night out last night at the MEN in Manchester. Mötley Crüe are in their middle of their farewell tour and their main support act is Alice Cooper.
Surprisingly, I’ve never been to an Alice Cooper show before – and I don’t really know why. I like his music, and I certainly like him as a person (he has his own radio show over on Planet Rock). I’d been waiting for him to tour, and the alert came through that he was supporting Mötley Crüe… well, the rest is history, as they say.
Actually, thinking a bit more about why I haven’t seen him before, I think it was hearing more of his music on Planet Rock that did it. I realised there was a lot more to him than I had always believed.
He has a brilliant collection of musicians with him at the moment, but even at 67 Alice can still mix it pretty well. As he says on his radio show, he doesn’t smoke, doesn’t drink, and he keeps fit – and you can see how that works for him.
Since his show was shorter than I guess it would have been had he been headlining, he basically played most of his major hits (of which there are many), including No More Mr Nice Guy, I’m Eighteen, Billion Dollar Babies, Poison, Feed My Frankenstein, and of course School’s Out. The whole show was a huge pantomime, with Alice donning various costumes and using various props, such as a guillotine, where he is beheaded; and a Frankenstein monster.
It was a really entertaining show, and I wish it could have gone on for longer.
At this point, I should mention that there was another support band on first, called The One Hundred. God help us if this is the future of rock music – although this is obviously a personal view, they were bloody awful. If nothing else, they were totally out of place alongside the likes of Alice Cooper and Mötley Crüe.
It’s a trend these days that concerts have three acts – the main band and two support acts. Although I have seen some good support bands, as the number of such shows increases, so does the number of mediocre support acts I have endured. In some cases, all these bands do is reduce the amount of time the headliners are on stage for, and I’m not sure I like that. Mind you, it can go the other way, too. Earlier this year I went to see Black Star Riders (my primary reason for going) at Rock City, and they were supporting Europe (my tertiary reason for going). Supporting both were The Amorettes (my secondary reason for going). We left before Europe had finished – they were so tame.
Anyway, I digress. Mötley Crüe came on and did a brilliant set. All the old favourites from their 30-year career were there., such as Girls, Girls, Girls, Same Ol’ Situation, Smokin’ in the Boys’ Room, Shout at the Devil and so on.
As I said at the start, this is their farewell tour, and much has been said of the legal contract they have all signed which says after this there will be no more Mötley Crüe. It’s funny how time affects different people in different ways. Alice Cooper is nearly 70 and looks fit as a fiddle. Mick Mars – Mötley Crüe’s guitarist – is either 60 or 64, and the poor guy looks much older due to his ongoing health issues, which mean that he can’t bend his back properly and is in pain much of the time. Tommy Lee almost didn’t make these UK gigs due to tendonitis flaring up a few weeks ago while the tour was still in the US.
In spite of all that, they gave the fans a night to remember.
This article is from 2011, but it has had a run of hits lately.
At the time of the original article (2011) I had noticed on one of the forums that someone was saying they’d heard that from next year (2012) it will be an offence to park too far from the kerb (or next to dropped kerbs), and you’ll be fined depending on how far away you are.
As an aside, in that first link a clown of a councillor (Alistair Thompson, Conservative) says:
It is utterly ludicrous to expect our traffic wardens to go around measuring how close people are parked to the kerb.
What about people with wheelchairs or Zimmer frames that need a space to get out of the car?
Yes Alistair, old chap. Including those people. Just because you are infirm doesn’t mean you can go around behaving in a way which is likely to cause inconvenience, and possibly injury or death in the right circumstances, to others. Parking in the middle of the road is stupid, ignorant, and dangerous – whether you have a Zimmer frame or not.
The Traffic Management Act (2004) (TMA) is a detailed document, but the version here contains all amendments which have not yet been approved.
The thing is, even under existing laws (and that includes those that were existing before 31st March 2008), it has pretty much always been an offence to park “inconsiderately”, with the police having tow-away powers in order to deal with it. I have always told my pupils that parking more than 18 inches (or 45 centimetres) away from the kerb is too far, and since I read the stories several years ago about councils enforcing it I have added “you could get a parking ticket” to my explanation.
Let’s face facts here: 50cm is half a metre. It isn’t a parking position in any shape or form – it’s in the middle of the road where most people would be driving, and it is extremely inconsiderate to leave your car there, not to mention dangerous. I’m not sure if the TMA specifically mentions 50cm, or if that’s a limit set by the councils when applying the TMA to inconsiderate parking. To be honest, I don’t care – though I’m sure plenty of people out there will.
Can you get a fine for parking too far from the kerb?
Yes.
How far is too far?
I don’t know the exact figure, though 50cm keeps cropping up. A story from a few years ago (which I cannot find) reported wardens out with tape measures making sure no one was more than 18 inches (45 cm) away. If you “park” anywhere near that far away from the kerb – which amounts to not even moving closer to it when you stop – you really do deserve a fine!
Why do people park so badly?
They do it because they are bad drivers who can’t control the car properly. I can’t imagine that anyone would park like that on purpose. Can you?
A 98-year old man was given a renewal quotation of £20,000 on his car insurance in Wales. The story in Wales Online makes much of the fact that the chap in question, Ron Jones, is an Auschwitz survivor who used his car to sell poppies.
This has nothing at all to do with Auschwitz (Mr Jones was a PoW, and in a separate part of the camp to the gas chambers) or poppy-selling.
But it has everything to do with being 98 years old. The insurance company involved, Ageas, says that Mr Jones should not have received the quotation, and they’re looking into it. In fact, he should not have received a quote at all as he no longer meets their eligibility criteria.
The article also says that Mr Jones “used to pay between £200 and £300 a year”. This is as misleading as the stuff about Auschwitz and poppies, since Mr Jones’ most recent premium was ten times greater at £3,000 – no doubt as a result of his age. Mr Jones is undoubtedly someone to be admired for what he did for the country and for what he had to go through. And his poppy-selling is also worthy of admiration. But that doesn’t alter the fact that he is 98 years old.
A few weeks ago there was chaos in Nottingham – throughout Nottinghamshire, in fact. An 87-year old driver had managed to get on to the wrong carriageway of the M1 at around 2am on a Monday morning and collided with a Transit van going the proper way. The passenger in the van, 27-year old Michael Luciw, was killed. He was a “father, son, brother, uncle, grandson and nephew”. He had a baby daughter. The M1 was closed for virtually the entire day as major carriageway repairs had to be undertaken and congestion across the county was massive. The 87-year old was named as Albert Newman, and he also died in the incident. Heaven only knows how he managed to get on the wrong carriageway in the first place, since all the junctions are designed to make that extremely difficult on that stretch of the M1 for any decent driver.
No matter what the do-gooders might say, elderly drivers become an increasing risk the older they get. It doesn’t matter if, like Mr Jones, they can claim never to have had an accident. Advancing years coupled with deteriorating faculties mean that the risk of having a catastrophic one increases, and that means innocent people like Mr Luciw (and his daughter who will never know him) become the main victims. You just have to face the fact that 87 is one hell of an age to still be driving – most people die long before that – and 98 is even more worrying.
I know it sounds harsh, but Mr Jones isn’t a victim in all this. Nor is it a case of ageism. It’s just facing facts.
Please note that all my “Darwin Awards” posts are my own take on situations and have no connection with any real award. I just like the term, as it describes people who are idiots very appropriately.
The deception was successful until you take into account the fact that he was caught. And that he had no insurance. And that he was “over the prescribed limit” suggesting he was drunk. And that he tested positive for drug-driving (that may have been the positive test they refer to). And that he was in possession of a prohibited lock knife.
His friend is also now a nominee for the 2015 Darwins. I mean, how could anyone be so stupid?
Reading the forums, it never ceases to amaze me how many ADIs who started their careers with a franchise vehemently try to deter new instructors from choosing that route.
A new ADI who is doing this job as their intended main source of income needs to get work as quickly as possible. In any given location in the country, an established franchiser is always going to be able to attract pupils more reliably than a newly-qualified instructor will be able to. That franchiser might overdo the sales pitch a little, by “guaranteeing” a full diary (then again, who is to say that they’re wrong – in the current climate it wouldn’t surprise me in the least if franchisers were able to do that), but it still remains that they have already done the advertising and their machine is up and running.
The driving instruction industry is so well-established and profit margins so well-defined that, at the top end, you simply cannot charge whatever you like because you’ll price yourself out of the market if you do. The only scope you have is to reduce your prices, but since the profit margin is so tight you will quickly start feeling the pinch if you drop below the going rate.
Within this established industry you have fairly stable overheads to cover – notably your car, fuel, and pupil generation. If you are solo, a car is going to cost between about £80-£150 a week just to have sitting on your driveway. Fuel will run to £50-£100 a week if you are working 30 hours. Pupil generation is more difficult to cost, but a small advert in Yellow Pages might cost £600 for a year, and that works out to about £12 a week, so let’s just go with that. Overall, you could easily be paying £200 in business overheads.
If you went with a national franchise then you might have to pay £200 just for the car. Fuel would still be needed, but advertising would be taken care of. It seems like no contest, doesn’t it? Pay £200 on your own, or around £280 with a franchise. But this is where the established solo ADIs are very misguided when they start dishing out advice. Because they do not take into account the all-important turnover, which is obviously the primary key to success as a driving instructor.
There is virtually no chance that a newly-qualified ADI will be able to generate 30 hours of new pupils on their own within a realistic advertising budget (in my first year I did the Yellow Pages thing and got literally zero response; and I also spent £150 on three separate monthly ads in a local free newspaper, which also got zero response), and especially not if they’re charging the local going rate for lessons. Inevitably, they will cut their prices to try and attract business, but at best they will only get maybe 10-15 hours of work (and that after many weeks of trying). So in an area where the going rate for lessons is £25, they will be charging perhaps £20, giving them a turnover of up to £300 a week. Their weekly pre-tax profit will be a mere £100 (or £5,200 a year).
If that same newly-qualified ADI went with a franchise and could therefore charge the going rate of £25, and if the franchiser delivered the promised 30 hours of work, they would have a turnover of £750 and a pre-tax profit of £470 (or £24,400 a year). Suddenly, the franchise option isn’t quite as unattractive as it first seemed, is it?
Just about every new ADI gets it into their head that they’re going to corner the market and have work coming out of their ears. And just about every new ADI quickly discovers that this is nonsense after several months of trying. The surprising thing is that no one ever seems to learn from this. Many stick at it – and then go back to salaried employment as bankruptcy looms. And it all happens because they couldn’t see beyond paying slightly more to a franchiser and getting the work, choosing instead to forge ahead alone and get no work at all. Worse still is the fact that those who survive then persist in passing on the same misguided advice to those who come after them. My favourite line from those who haven’t got a clue what they’re talking about is:
Why pay money to a franchiser when you could have it in your own pocket?
If a franchiser is guaranteeing work, you’d have to be nuts to risk going it alone, especially if you have no knowledge of how to get the work by yourself. Most new ADIs definitely do not have that knowledge. Unfortunately, they’re also dumb enough to listen to stupid people who don’t do this job as their sole source of income, and yet who offer highly misleading “advice” as if they did.
Once you are established, and generating your own work through referrals (where previous pupils recommend you to family and friends), it makes perfect sense to consider going solo. It’s still not as black and white as the “experts” would have you believe since work can fluctuate dramatically, but at least you are likely to be able to take the financial risk by this time. Newly-qualified ADIs usually do not have that luxury.
I was doing a bit of online research for some recipes for a slow cooker I just purchased. One recipe called for coconut milk, and I noticed one of the comments underneath:
I forgot coconut milk, will it still work with passata?? HELP PLS
This is what coconut milk looks like compared to passata. In case anyone is wondering, coconut milk is the one on the left.
Furthermore, coconut milk tends to come from something called a “coconut”, like this.
Passata, on the other hand, is commonly made from things called “tomatoes”, which look like this.
This gives rise to a distinct difference in the colour region when you compare coconut milk alongside passata. There are also a few notable differences between the plants which produce them.
Coconuts grow somewhere between 15 and 30 metres in the air at the top of palm trees in various tropical and subtropical locations around the world (if you’re still stuck, coconut palms are the ones on the left). Each coconut – once it is removed from its tough outer casing – is hard and woody, and weighs nearly 1.5kg, and each palm can produce fruit for 70 years or more. On the other hand, tomatoes grow pretty much anywhere you want them on bushes usually no more than about 1-2 metres off the ground. A tomato plant can live for a few years, though they’re mostly treated as annuals and new ones planted each year. A typical tomato is soft and squishy and weighs in at around 100 grams. Every 100 grams of coconut contains about 6g of sugar and over 30 grams of fat, compared with about 2.5 grams of sugar and virtually no fat in the same amount of tomato. There are a lot of other nutritional differences.
I wonder if the person who asked that question ever tried the recipe using passata instead of coconut milk?
Note the more recent addendum at the end of this article. Also note the original publication date – 2015.
Regular readers will know that I started taking card payments for lessons a couple of years ago. I initially opted for PayPal’s system because I liked what it was offering, but although I purchased a card reader from them I never actually used it and sent it back for a refund.
PayPal Here, which was what the system was called, was brand new at the time and I don’t think the people who were dealing with it knew how it worked. I was given copious amounts of conflicting information, but the bottom line was that there was a strong likelihood that any payments I took using PayPal Here would be tied up for 30 days at a time (i.e. “held in reserve”) until I could access them. To a driving instructor this is totally unacceptable.
As a result of this confusion, I went with iZettle.
Now, I need to make it absolutely clear that in the two plus years I have been using iZettle I have had no complaints at all. I have taken close to £40,000 and probably only had to go the the bank a handful of times, whereas before I’d be going several times a week to pay in cash or cheques. But this perfect time came to an abrupt end two weeks ago.
During my time with iZettle I have used an HTC One M7, then the M8, and now the M9. All these phones have worked flawlessly, including the M9 I bought almost a year ago, both with the main iZettle app and the beta version I was trialling for them. However, on 7 October the iZettle app was one of several for which a routine update was flagged. I did my usual “update all”, and my phone reported a 505 error and the message “this app could not be installed” for the iZettle app. I uninstalled the previous version and tried again, but to no avail. Now I was relying solely on the beta app to run my business – not a good position to be in. I should point out that the app has updated without problem on the M9 several times this year.
I ran through every suggested fix for the 505 error offered by Google, checking for remnants of previous versions, and running clean-ups, but still the app would not install. The Android marketplace said it was compatible with my M9, but it just would not install on this high-end, modern device running the latest version of Android. So I turned to iZettle. Their reply was:
I was unable to find your handheld device on our compatibility list. Unfortunately given the case we cannot fully guarantee the device functionality.
A cold wind of apprehension blew over me. I wrote back and explained that it had been fine up until this last update, that the M9 is virtually identical to the M8, and that there had been no system updates. I further explained that my business depended on iZettle. They came back with:
Thank you for getting back to us and for your feedback,
Although the M9 is almost identical to the M8 is still a different android device that currently is not supported by our services. As I mentioned on my previous message unfortunately we are not able to make any promises for when or if we will be adding your handheld device to our compatibility list.
So that was it. After two years of loyal custom it was “f— you”. They have not responded to my third email informing them that their app is incorrectly listed in the Android marketplace as being compatible with my device. My previous opinions concerning iZettle were obviously wrong, and they are unprofessional and untrustworthy.
When 3rd parties talk of “compatibility” – and particularly with card readers like the iZettle – what they are referring to is the version of the Bluetooth stack used on the phone and the one used by the device in question. Indeed, iZettle alludes to this with their new Pro Contactless reader, where they say:
Please note that the Card Reader Pro Contactless should work with most Android smartphones and tablets which have Bluetooth and an Internet connection, and where the iZettle app can be downloaded.
I have the older version of this reader (two, in fact, as I needed to be covered in case one of them got damaged). But my problem has nothing to do with Bluetooth – I just can’t install the app, and that points to poorly written software. But let’s go along with this “unsupported” thing for a moment. When you look at their compatibility list, [Note: As of 2020 they say they’re compatible with all smartphones and tablets. I can assure you that in 2015 they were officially compatible with about six plus the iPhone and refused to even discus any problems outside that tiny number, even where there had been compatibility previously] it essentially distils down to all Apple iPhones and iPads, all Samsung Galaxy devices, two Nexus, two Sonys, and two HTCs (but not the M9)! And apart from the Samsungs, only up to Android 4.4.2 and 4.4.4 (latest version is 5.1.1). Can you believe that? And even if you have a phone that isn’t on the list – of which there should be many, according to that last quote – with which the iZettle system works, then iZettle’s abysmal support agent who wrote to me has effectively said that it could stop working at any time if it isn’t specifically on the list!
iZettle is an absolute joke, and I advise anyone thinking of going for a card reader not to go anywhere near them. I also apologise for not knowing this sooner – my previous reports of iZettle have been highly positive, and that just goes to show how wrong you can be.
iZettle effectively destroyed my business overnight. It is only because I don’t get caught out that easily that I quickly found an alternative solution and managed to minimise the catastrophe that not being able to take card payments has become to my business. That solution was PayPal Here – more on that in a separate article soon, and note the Q&A below.
Shortly after I wrote this article iZettle saw it and contacted me. It turns out that the 505 error being returned was down to having the beta version of the app installed. iZettle tell me that they forgot to change the package name on the beta app when the new main app was released, and that meant that there was a conflict – hence the error being produced.
After uninstalling the beta app – which iZettle wanted me to trial for them, remember – the main app installed with no trouble at all.
Fair dues to iZettle – they fully admitted to their error (eventually, and after virtually destroying my business) – and said that the reply I got from support was not correct. Unfortunately, that incorrect information was all I was given over a period of two weeks, and it was delivered several times before iZettle support refused point blank to enter into any further dialogue over it. The subsequent damage done to my business during those two weeks – and what action I had to take as a result – cannot be undone. Nor can the lack of trust created by people who would cut off a customer like that ever be repaired.
How long does it take for iZettle deposits to appear in your account?
Too long, compared to PayPal Here. If you take a card payment with iZettle, the transaction is “initiated within 1-2 business days”. Weekends and bank holidays are not business days. Then – and I don’t think iZettle uses the Faster Payment system – it can take a further “several days” for the money to show up in your bank account. It means that over Easter, for example, you could take a payment late Wednesday/early Thursday, and the transaction at iZettle’s end won’t start until the following Tuesday. Then, your own bank could take the rest of the week, and since they may not class weekends as business days, either, you might not get your money until the following Monday. Also remember that iZettle is based in Sweden, and they have bank holidays, too.
Admittedly, this is a worst case scenario, but I can promise you that it was not uncommon to wait a week for money to show up. With PayPal, you get it immediately – every day of the week.
Is iZettle reliable?
When I used them, there were several occasions where the system was playing up, resulting a delay to payments of a day or two. Not many, but several. I have also read of several problems since then. I have had zero problems in the years I have been using PayPal Here.
And then there was the serious problem that nearly destroyed my business overnight…
Quite frankly, I would not use iZettle if they were the only card reader provider on the planet.
Who owns iZettle?
When I had all these problems, iZettle was privately owned and based in Sweden. In 2018, PayPal bought them out. So they are owned by PayPal. And quite frankly, the sooner PayPal assimilates the brand completely, the better.
Update 2023: PayPal has discontinued PayPal Here and now only offers iZettle (or Zettle, as it calls it). So, it went exactly the opposite way to what I had hoped and expected. iZettle is still based in Sweden, and it still has the inferior payment system it had before. PayPal gave me less than one month’s notice – in early March 2023 – that the PayPal Here service would cease to function at all in early April. As a result, I no longer use PayPal.
I would not touch iZettle again if you paid me, as I think I have made clear.
To add to the gridlock caused by road works – arranged by Nottingham’s incompetent council – an incompetent motorist decided to increase congestion today by “[becoming] wedged on the [tram] tracks” on Lenton Lane. You can’t beat a good euphemism.
I have yet to find a version of the story which makes it clear that the retard who was driving had entered a tram-only area and had actually fallen into the track cut out. The phrase “became wedged” doesn’t tell the half of it.
Whoever it was should be banned for life. If you’re stupid enough to do something like this, God only knows what else you’d be capable of if you were allowed to carry on driving.
This came in via the newsfeeds, and it looks to be quite serious (I’m basing that on the fact I’ve never seen such an alert before).
The Dridex malware is apparently able to harvest bank details from your computer and already UK losses are stated to be around £20 million. Dridex is spread through attachments in emails, but it can only do so if the attachment is opened.
A typical infected email might come through as an order confirmation (for something you have never ordered) with an invoice attached. Come to think of it, I’ve had quite a few of these in the past – not necessarily Dridex – but I never open them if I haven’t ordered anything that tallies with the email details.
Advice is to install good antivirus software and – if you’re infected – contact your bank and credit card company immediately. You’re also urged to report the problem to Action Fraud using the details in the link I gave above.
Apparently, only computers running Windows are at risk.
I don’t have a particular problem with the first two, though I do have some niggles about the satnav thing. But that last one is a real no-no as far as I’m concerned.
At the moment a candidate is expected to do one manoeuvre from turn in the road, reverse around a corner, parallel park, and reverse bay park. Before independent driving was introduced, they used to have to do two of these manoeuvres on their tests. I always supported independent driving, but I wasn’t happy at the loss of the manoeuvre – I saw it as a dumbing down of the driving test. But what they are proposing now is that instead of a candidate having to do either a turn in the road or reverse around a corner, they’d have to either drive forward into a bay and reverse out of it, or reverse and rejoin traffic (parallel park and reverse bay park are still in there). A monkey could do those things.
Pupils struggle with the reverse around a corner, and it is a significant source of test failures. However, as per this article:
Ministers want to improve the driving test pass rate, which is languishing below 50 per cent.
There’s the rub! The proposed changes are not intended to improve the driving test. They’re intended to make it easier.
Personally, I cannot understand why DVSA would want to actually test someone on something as mundane as stopping on the right side of the road. All of my pupils get to do it at one time or another, usually when we’re pulling up outside their house; but sometimes when we’re going to do a parallel park on a particular road I use, or if I need to pull over urgently and talk about something and there’s nowhere to do it on the left. I should also add that the roads we do it on are quiet urban roads – not busy A roads.
As usual, some instructors seem to be confused over what the Highway Code (HC) says. They are suggesting that it is illegal to park facing traffic so DVSA is wrong to ask candidates to do it. Here’s the actual HC wording:
Parking (rules 239 to 247)
Rule 239
Use off-street parking areas, or bays marked out with white lines on the road as parking places, wherever possible. If you have to stop on the roadside:
do not park facing against the traffic flow
[rule continues]
The section this is in in the HC is titled “Parking”, and the first bullet point says “do not park…” The $64,000 question is: if you stop temporarily, are you parking? Look at the next rule:
Rule 240
You MUST NOT stop or park on:
[rule continues]
a road marked with double white lines, even when a broken white line is on your side of the road, except to pick up or set down passengers, or to load or unload goods
[rule continues]
So, although Rule 240 says it is illegal (i.e. you MUST NOT) to park on a road with double white lines, you can stop to pick up or set down passengers, or to load/unload goods. Considering how that works in the real world, a lorry or van might stop and take up to 30 minutes – maybe more – to load or unload goods and not be breaking the Law, though if the same vehicle stopped and its driver went into the newsagents – even for less than a minute – then it would.
In Rule 239, though, there is no Law to break (i.e. do not). And since the distinction between stopping and parking has been made in Rule 240, it follows that pulling over to drop someone off (or to be tested on how well you do it) isn’t actually wrong. Even if you parked up and left your vehicle you wouldn’t be breaking any Law – you’d just be going against HC advice.
DVSA is not doing anything wrong in asking candidates to pull up on the right. It’s just so pointlessly simple an exercise that you have to question it as a replacement for the original manoeuvres.
But as I say, the government wants to increase the pass rate, and this is the way they’re going to do it.
