The Disservice Economy and its Bad Goods; Fuelling The Global Money Making Engine: 3

Utilities SmartMeters

This past Summer our phone has been ringing again and again with calls from our utilities provider ‘whose team is in the area right now’ and ‘is ready to fit a spanking new SmartMeter in your home free of charge’. The nuisance levels of the utilities provider’s calls have been a cause of disturbance to our homelife. At one time calls were coming more or less daily with the same burden and tenor – how good it would be for us to have a SmartMeter, and how it would be fitted free-of-charge; and how it will sing and dance for us to our good advantage, etc etc.

Of course nothing was mentioned about why SmartMeters are being fitted to homes; apart from a mantra that government has recommended them and is contributing to their roll out in all areas.

The old classical saying: Beware of Greeks bearing gifts applies here. When a corporate entity offers you something ‘to your advantage’ and free of charge – beware! A person gets these presumed freebies offered here and there now and then; Microsoft for some time now has been going to great pains to roll out Windows 10 free-of-charge to its Windows 7 and other versions’ users; offering a handy no-charge upgrade whenever the software for Windows updates itself on PCs etc.

(It is worth noting, if you are a person considering taking up this free-of-charge upgrade to Windows 10, that it is a package licensed for use on your current PC/Tablet only and the license to use it will expire and be unusable when/were you to try to transfer it to another, say a newer, device, to be this newer device’s Operating System. Worth considering before you decide. You in all likelihood are exchanging for the sake of having an apparently more up to date and so ostensibly better, but nonetheles a tied-in OS, a perfectly good OS and one which remains transferrable and so is inherently more flexible and more durable than is the Windows 10 you will be getting.)

Likewise to Windows 10, having a SmartMeter installed will also tie a utilitites customer into the provider companiy who supplies that customer presently. Should you decide electricity or gas is too expensive from your present provider, you will have to exchange SmartMeters so as to have one installed which is compatible with any new provider’s setups. I would suspect with some certainty that you will be charged handsomely by the exiting provider for its own SmartMeter’s removal from your premises; and possibly you will also be charged by the incoming provider for its version of a SmartMeter should you elect to have one installed from them.

Note: The Smartmeter will not be your own property, regardles whether you paid to have it installed or had it free-of-charge. You wil be paying for installation and maybe some covering costs for SmartMeter manufacture generally, marketing, maintenance etc etc; but the meter will remain the property of the utilities company. Thus were it to be damaged say by an accident in your home you will be liable to pay for another or for its repair.

Which brings me to the point that tells you that you are not able easily to have an already installed SmartMeter removed should you have decided you want to go back to how utilities were deliverd to you and managed before your free-of-charge SmartMeter was installed. It’s a one-way ticket only. Government and industry have spoken jointly; they want SmartMeters in your homes, and while a choice to have one or not to have one remains opoen to citizens at present; be sure that government and industry will have their ways and over some years they will act to do all in their very considerable powers to have you accept one into your home. For water, for gas, for electricity; and maybe more? This is the choice in democracy.

The fact that as usual the marketing pitches of the utilities companies who are wanting quite forcibly-desperately for you to have SmartMeters, is always a sanguine and a sunny set of advantages listed as being the benefits to a customer having them bundled in just one place; this tired old fact – it is the case always in advertising pitches – means that the utilities companies are hiding from you their own motivations and desires which cause them to pitch so fervently to you – have a SmartMeter! On us!!!

These advantages to the customer of SmartMeters are generally said by utilities companies to be:

  • The customer has greater control over his/her consumption of fuels etc
  • Possibly some meter accessories a customer might pre-set to his/her conveneience
  • Off peak cheaper utlitiy is more easily accessed obtainable by customer
  • No waiting-in for a meter reader person to call in quarterly etc
  • Faster fuller-data billing – itemised
  • It’s often claimed SmartMeters reduce bill sizes to customers

The biggest selling point to customers and pressed by the utilities companies because they know customers see this aspect as being the prime advantage, is always that promise of Greater Control over one’s usages and so of one’s bills. The ability to manage for oneself better; what one spends, consumes, when, etc and so reduce one’s bills.

Of course this pitch of a customer having more control is at best a half-truth. There are aspects which having a SmartMeter installed opens up which in fact tend towards lesser control for a customer, and/or else towards a greater control over customers by the utility companies. It remains the case ever that the utility companies, because they always set the tarriffs, also set all the terms and conditions for a customer being able to manipulate a SmartMeter’s workings in his/her own favour; and by this way of their terms and conditions utility companies are able to head-off every one of those potentials for customers who might else use SmartMeters well to their own advantage, and also the uitilty companies will just not offer any even reasonable facilities which they do not like or dissapprove; or else which they just see as acting to take away from those aspects which they, the utility companies, want customers to have and to make use of. This is, ‘just business’.

Whilst the utility companies are calling the shots like this on all the terms and conditions for Smart Meter usage you can be sure that all holes and all untoward customer advangtages have been plugged up firmly by them – all those they have thought of. This sort of preclusive action is standard practice amongst most corporate companies; leaving no room for any loss to their maximum lawful profit/advantage. I believe the corporations generally are cooly callously consciensiously religious about doing this sort of thing.

A customer gets as it were a new toy to play with -at least – for the great majority of SmartMeter owners – for a while until novelty wears thin and bother-fatigue kicks in and the SmartMeter is left by customers to run in a set configuration indefinitely. But the corporate utilities, who have employee-others to wear themselves down with bother-fatigue and whose employment is to weather being so worn down; will demand from their employees that these SmartMeters instaled in homes are gleaned for every piece of advantageous data about customers that they are able to supply.

(Supermarkets in the UK offer loyalty cards – as do many large chainstores with branches. Some small perks are available to those shoppers who use these loyalty cards each time they shop. A few pounds (£) perhaps over the course of half a year say. In return for their ‘loyalty’ shoppers are scrutinised electronically most particulalry; their data being gathered and procesed in great amounts so as to give stores demographics of their customer bases and much much more inside data which stores could otherwise never have obtained elsewhere and so cheaply without some such system attracive to customers such as loyalty cards. The bottom line is that loyalty cards do the stores who issue them far more benefit than they do for their shoppers. Of course loyalty cards are pitched to customers as boons and as ‘something in return for shopping with the store’; and little if anything is heard of as a thankyou for all the data your loyalty card has supplied us with; nor any great public fuss is made about what this data is and what it tells the stores. Hush hush. Trade secrets. Other stores might enjoy some advantage should we reveal anything!! One for oneself. Dog eat dog.)

Likewise SmartMeters will be able to offer utilities companies huge amounts of detailed data about customers; just as loyalty cards do for stores. None of this background is aired at all in any marketing pitches made for placing SmartMeters in the home.

But there remains the ‘public-spirited’ ‘environmental’ and at the same time highly personally arttractive pitch which says that SmartMeters will help you reduce your energy footprint – and, by the way, your bills also. You are being virtuous, doing the general public a benefit by having a SmartMeter fitted in your home; and this is a powerful prompter to have one because of the social thing; which says somewhat in bad faith, you are conscious that you are ‘helping the community’.

Of course most of the time there’s no way of telling how or whether and how much money you might have saved; how much then that you have ‘helped the environment’, if at all. Generally all of us with our money live the most part for today; and are happy to leave tomorrow’s bills to tomorrow. Few amongst us really regulate with rigour what we spend, unless when we are really straitened for cash.

The utilities companies on the other hand, again because their employees are constrained to apply the discipline demanded of them by their bosses so that their employment is retained; carfully, precisely formulate and give their orders to their employees which lay their stratagems so as to maximise money making. Thus the utilitities companies see SmartMeters as useful for dispensing with personnel who arrive on your doorstep to read your meters once every so often; personnel whose wages saved are a considerable saving to their companies when they are laid off and SmartMeters do their work electronically and at no cost.

Likewise the utilities companies obtain via placing Smartmeters in your home a more centralised and a more broad and deep grasp of control over you as customers; your needs and desires in regard to utilities. Customers who fall behind with bill payments, or who are in dispute, are more easily able to have their utilities swiftly cut off; more variant and on and off peak rates in greater subtleties can be programmed to be charged by SmartMeters than by use of old-style plain metering. This is the future – technology in the service of those who hold power so as to marshal and to keep tabs on those from whom their power derives and over whom is weilded. This again is a continuous theme of The Global Money Making Engine and its predations on commonplace private lives and families.

Finally, of course, there is no way back, in particular for SmartMeters everyone will eventually be constrained to have one installed; and generally, with the march of technology, so there wil be a firmer hold and greater grasp of control via mass data mining and surveillances, over a population which is tutored somewhat disingenuously that it is free and democratically governed. The scientists are the technocrats whose knowledge is retained to them as elites; but who are all in the pay and the pockets of the business barons; these same barons, who buy the services of the technocrats. Whenever the busines moguls see a chink, a place into which to intrude and so increase their sway, dominons, powers and wealth, they will be taking it; and in the taking they will regardlessly be diminishing your scope of life and quailty of life palpably so.

This is the drift and tenor of The Gloabal Money Making Engine. It and its adherents have no other greater goals in their visions for life; which represent a crushing and general misapprehension pressing heavily down upon us all.

An Anthropology of Cars

Have you seen those bullish automobiles

Bearing down as their predatory figures chasing speed

For driver-junked adrenalins; they slope forwardly low

Crouched, just as are their animals, concentratedly.

Have you really looked to notice how so crabbedly

Their drivers hunch, so as to shift a gear

Then pull ahead like tautened tiger-springing?

 

A thing

 

Observable to riders and pedestrians;

It takes a hold of them as do possesive chunky tyres

Bite greedily the road

A pure blind tense anxiety of identity

Of man (usually of man, but often woman)

And his machine.

 

A feral team.

 

And vehicles are designed as such to be as so?

Adapted and atractive and addictive

Consensual with the mental connotations fictive

Of latest heroes/heroines; run pursuivant

Hot in the fast lanes

 

Amongst their fired brains

 

Possibly unawares unconscioulsy;

Riding the stallion, goring with the bull,

Blowing away loosed-tresses, negatives from ‘no-go’ days

Released the dream machine to burn off potted octanes

 

Built manufactured styled designed and made-to-look

The part, the vehicle of one’s heart; a diadem

Or broadsword. All point its lines one-way, and all

Apppointed in one way; so styled to kill; its look

The catcher of allurement; ‘whom I want to be’

‘The kind of drive I want myself to be’

 

Agree?

 

Those forward-sloping flashes, long length of bodywork

Aspire; push passions frontwards, cautions

Behind their backs. Those trucks with monster wheels,

Progenitors, begot this first dry thirst for arrowed thrust

Intensity to be the driver of a car’s temptation.

 

Once understood a vamp wheeled out across the nation

And Britain smitten ardently in months by jive

Immoderate and laded on the TV screens

‘A man is not a jaguar without a racey car’

– Says Riley.

 

And wryly

 

The new fast-breed of car a fit, exact, with sympathies,

Enacted and impacted by made manners, regimens,

As packaged and delivered as being ‘what the people want’ (sic)

Accompted content media supposes suitable

 

But a burden led and bled to exponential series

By the good old boys of business buying beers all round

These the market leaders, the day’s bottom-feeders, call all plays

Shove out a fierce and fast deal labelled; ‘irresistible’

 

Calling the tunes is what they do; lars incontestable;

Since – it’s the darling power their dower they all adore

So what might war-torn vehicle drivers hanker for?

And why were roads not racetracks all the sooner?

The Disservice Economy and its Bad Goods; and The Global Money Making Engine: 2

Retail Parking Management Services

This is a service whereby private policing of who parks and for how long is farmed out by a store or a car park owner; so as, ostensibly, to maximise use of car parking space and so for the store to make more money.

It is a relatively new service come on the scene here in UK in the past ten years. I give you an example. A food supermarket in a retail park engages a company to place photographic machinery which takes shots of every vehicle number plate entering and also exiting the car park of the food supermarket.

There are set up on notices in the car park, holding the conditions to which car parkers are obliged to comply so as for them to use the car park without incurring a penalty. These conditions generally limit the time one might park, with no return within another scope of time. There are many more conditions; but they are founded upon this crucial time constraint for the most part.

The marketing logic is twofold for this service being bought and provided. Firstly, because the supermarket store is near other stores with their own car parks; but its car park is often the most convenient for shoppers to park in at this retail park as a whole; there has been, before the private policing was introduced, a number of vehicles parking in the supermarket store car park whose passengers may not have used the supermarket itself during their visit to the retail park. The private policing was introduced so as to deter such vehicles from parking there; and so to move them on to other car parks in the same retail park.

Secondly, shoppers at the supermarket and whose vehicles are parked in it cars park, might once have been able to take their time and shop as slowly and for as long as they wished; maybe often walking to other retailers in the retail park and leaving their vehicles in the car park of the supermarket. The private policing then encourages such shoppers to keep aware of time and/or to move their vehicles to another car park once they have completed their food shop at the supermarket.

The net effects of such private policing and its encouragements and deterrents is supposed to be that there is now room for a greater turnover of vehicles using the supermarket car park; more room for potential customers who formerly, before the private policing services were engaged, were unable to find a parking space at busy shopping times, and who are now more liable to find room. And this potential for greater turnover is assumed or is meant to translate into bigger turnover and so bigger profits for the supermarket store itself.

Now as these kinds of new service go, I very much suspect that charges are laid at the door of the supermarket store for these services being implemented in the supermarket’s car park by the private policing company; and at the same time the proceeds from any monies made as penalties on car parkers there are in large part kept as remuneration by the private policers. Thus there is likely to be a double-win for the private policers, and at the same time some cost to the supermarket to be made up somehow to the supermarket for its use of the policing services.

(Just as many phoneline providers charge a user for accessing his/her voicemails as well them as charging those callers who have left the same voicemails. This is the way our world wags)

Now let us look at these private policing services for car parks.

Firstly one has to ask oneself – is there a real ‘squatter’-type problem of vehicles overstaying a welcome or else cadging free parking at these store car parks whose stores which engage services of this kind?

Would one think that the stores themselves do the statistics and work out the sums which decide the actual state of play regarding this supposed squatter issue? Is it not more likely that figures and statistics in so far as they are actually researched, are being presented to the stores by the marketing arms of the private policing services themselves? Given this is the case, then should anyone take these stats and figures offer very seriously as science? I leave you to your opinions.

Similarly, once the policing services are engaged and set up, is there any work of worth done as research which calculates particularly for each discrete store and its car park, just exactly how much more sales, turnover, profits, are due to any store having engaged private policing services in their car parks?

Ask yourself – would the policing services themselves (be able to) do it? They would require access to the business figures of the stores whose car parks they police. Answer almost certainly, no, they would not do it, probably could not do it.

Ask yourself, would the stores themselves do the calculation? The stores may see an increase in sales (not necessarily though) but without them receiving vehicle figures for those vehicles which parked in their car parks under a private policing regime, stores could not begin to try to assess how beneficial such services might be to themselves. And at best only a correlation between more vehicles visiting and more sales could be determined anyway. Suppose for instance more cars parked but their shoppers in general stayed less time and also bought considerably less goods that they had formerly? It’s possible. Under certain conditions probable even.

And were there sen in fact an increase in income to the store, how might such an increase be parcelled out – as natural growth, as seasonal, as a blip, as due to the car park?? etc etc. Thus any claims for increased takings for a store made by a private policing provider of this kind in its marketing pitches are quite clearly unable to be clearly substantiated in fact.

Now this policing of the car parks is maintained daily and 24/7 365; even though the store’s most busy times of day are say only at best a fifth or so of this time, say averaging at 5 hours daily most of the year.  For the remainder of the time the private policing service is a redundancy in place and still acting and operative.

Every vehicle which enters the car park is snapped by a camera for its registration plate; and the same when it leaves. Penalty notices are sent out to owners of all vehicles who incur them by overstaying or by returning to soon. Thus for the sake of five hours daily of greater access to parking for incoming customers, the store pays for 24/7/365 surveillance of its car park; and the policing services at the same time are reaping all income from transgressor vehicles 24/7/365 also to boot. Thus this is an unnecessary service provision for much more other time than it is a necessary service, if it is one at all.

There is a good measure of uncharitableness in such measures and in the extent of their being engaged and enforced by stores for their car parks. To a person caused to have to pay a large penalty in UK£ because s/he parked at a time when few vehicles were present in a car park, and in doing so broke an imposed and somewhat arbitrary private rule, it might well often look like sour grapes on the part of the store and policing service: as if their message was ‘I don’t want anyone, you included, taking any gratis advantage of my parking space at any time; even though most of the time it’s no skin off my nose for you to enjoy hospitality at my car park”.

In short, these private policing services are for the most part a wheeze, a smartarse snare calculated so as to maximise income for their suppliers (and their engagers?) – a mere income-generating machine at great general disservice to the public.

I have no doubt about the ethics of such services. The facts speak for themselves.

The penalties which they impose are considerable in size, when they are set against the nature and duration of most ‘offences’ under their rubric. And – it is claimed by the providers – much of these disproportionate charges of penalties are necessary to be levied so as for them to be able to offset the high cost of the technical equipment by which their surveillance of car parks is done automatically – for the most part.

So we have a situation in which little human labour is required to maintain surveillance. A piece of IT churns out regularly and at set times as appropriately lists of those vehicles and their registrations which have infringed; and their owners are sent out penalty notices also sent automatically on pro forma letters automatically generated. Once a private policing provider of this kind has an IT setup and is feeding into this setup 24/7/365 data of discrepancies from car parks across the UK; how much understanding does it take to see that this is an abominable imposition made possible by a calculated and unethical abuse of the new technologies?

Their money is tainted money. The public in general is abused.

Not only the income from payments of penalties but also that income from had the hire of their services by retail stores, are suspect in terms of righteousness. Their business-model is obnoxious. The labour of hands which they put in is inequitable to the size of the remunerations they extract for their effrontery. Ordinary people across the nation are being ensnared by their terms and conditions; for offences which have been pulled out of the air, created anew, and with no sanction other than the powers of property law supporting their nefarious schemes, set up by smart dealers who saw a new smart wheeze for making a fast buck without them having statute law levied against them.

There is access for these private policing companies to databases held by UK government on which all licensed registered vehicles details are kept; hence everyone who abides by government rules in these regards is vulnerable to such a (dis)service offered to them. This government data is protected by Data Protection Law but because these private policing services operators are able to claim an unlawful breach of contract has occurred, because a driver has not adhered to terms of these operators for parking, this means these operators are by law allowed access to these data. This access I believe would be without charges to them, since a Statute law has been infringed; thus another string in their bows aimed at low-cost mass imposition of petty private regulations bearing penalties for breach, laid on a general public across the nation.

No doubt in their financial calculations such gratis access to this data is assessed by them as bearing a cost to themselves to administer. This is the way our world wags. Thus for this intrusion into the personal data of those who fall foul of them, they are able to lay charges on these from whom they squeeze penalties.

Legal contracts are made with motorists whenever motorists park in retail store car parks who engage such private car park policing services. Legal contracts are made even though those few signs dotted around car parks of this kind hold, what is for the common person, a considerable amount of small print text in legal jargon. As for who ever reads them when as shoppers they climb out of their vehicle for some groceries – God knows?

Perhaps 90% plus persons are unaware that they are putting theselves under binding contract law simply every time they park in a store car park. But the Great British law recognises it as fact and binding. Nor perhaps do the same percentage realise that their vehicles are being photographed going into and coming out of such a store car park; blissfuly unaware of Big Brother uses of technology on their daily routines – this time so as to churn out huge incomes to scoundrels for a little nefarious effort. Guys and gals at the end of a computer terminal sitting awaiting income coming flooding in.

A vehicle owner is able to phone in so as to pay ad hoc penalties sometimes. S/he may pay using credit/debit card. This too becomes a liability in law to those unaware of this feature of the small print. In law it represents adequate opportunity to rectify an infringement on the spot. Penalty charges rise of course when such rectifications on the spot are not on one’s radar and one misses their opportunity.

Much of this business-model setup has been contested in UK’s highest chambers The House of Lords; which House unaccountably found in favour of these hangers-on.

The business-model represents an opportunist window wherein a scheme on the whole is adding to the general public burden, just as does a new tax devised and implemented by government adds to it, such as the spare bedroom tax and VAT added to items previously exempted. It is a niche industry found out and then exploited massively.

There being no personnel on the ground to speak to or to negotiate with its rigidities in the car parks are wholly inflexible because base don written instructions and not on human relations or conversation. This to is not only a very economical labour saving wheeze then; but it;’s very lack of personnel needed works in its favour in that there is never anyone around to converse with about the details etc.

It is a scheme which is generating income purely out of new impositions having been placed on people who did not have them on them formerly. Its economic benefits to its retailer hirers of the service is at best dubious – no-one is able to do the sums with any certain assurance.  It is a new and a privately inspired and managed way of marshalling people in general, pushing them here and there and making cash by doing so. It lives off the backs of ordinary folks, and lives off them pretty nicely thank you. Ordinary folk are pushed about by smart privateers who are doing so for the most part solely to generate large income and for no public nor pretty much for any other private benefit to their hirers. No social benefits; nor any locally to their clients; no palpable discernible benefits. A perfectly lawful dastardly wheeze. Another Great British disservice.

Worst of all concerning this scheme hatched by clever degenerates so as to be a lawful abuse of UK citizens in general, is the social knock-ons. It says to other stores around it: This is my car park – I don’t want your customers using it. And other stores around it are thus slightly loosened from any former genial social cement between themselves and the regulated car park retailer. And one retailer at a retail park does it; and many follow since they do not want to be at a disadvantage of an overflowing car park but few customers. Driver customers themselves become less friendly in attitude to the stores who employ such means. Especially once stung by a few minutes infraction paid for through the nose by them.

The whole thrust of such disservice services is to weaken social congeniality – which itself is a general thrust of most of the disservice services of the bad goods I am writing about in this series.

Such disservices are each all-for-me-and-none-for-you wheezes which tend to depend for their powers to generate income upon weakening the social fabric somewhat; no-one doing a favour to anyone any longer, so to speak. Favours have to be costed.

It is in short petty regulation dreamed up and craftily based of statute law property rights which shield it from illegality; but which do not shield it from public opprobrium and from a gross ethical dubiety. Lawful poncing on statute law.

The Disservice Economy and its Bad Goods: Powering the Global Money Engine 1

I have listed in a Word document file in the course of the past half an hour over 100 discrete absurdities of economic life whose crazy adverse consequences I have experienced personally recently here in UK; a 100 plus number of items which I am pretty sure will ring on your bell also wherever you are in the global marketplace.

There was little strain upon me to have listed a 100 plus items of such bad jokes; and from off the top of my head. This is because there are so many abuses to choose from, and because these stupid inconveniences and bear pits continue to be encouraged to spring up and multiply like dragons teeth daily by those persons who presume to govern us and by those others who casually and arbitrarily hold non-accountable sway over our lives.

I intend over the course of some weeks, step by step to itemise and describe individually each of the 100 plus items of absurdity I have been able to list. There are many more; and I’m sure you can do your own sets of explications.

1. Uninsured Drivers’ Insurance
This item is advertised as offered for sale by a number of UK motor insurance companies. The blurb I myself read told me that over 1 million drivers in the UK drive without owning motor insurance. The insurance sales line was for a prudent driver to insure against being in an accident involving one of these million uninsured drivers. So it’s a bit of a scare approach…. What if….????

Kindly lookers-on might adjudge this pitch to be insurers plugging a hole they have discovered in the marketplace, and in adequate road safety protection for conscientious drivers?

Firstly I ask; is the statistic offered correct? Was it backed up by any source information? Not that I was able to discern, no. So, to begin with we are taking on trust an insurer setup which aims to be, and stands to gain from, informing us and thereby causing us to take fright at such a 1 million driver statistic.

I point out secondly that given the statistic is correct, what of the dereliction of government and of law enforcement in this 1 million insurance-less drivers being allowed to have accumulated in UK. 1 million drivers are perhaps 5% of all drivers in UK? One driver in every 20 one meets with daily, thereabouts: An epidemic of serious law breaking.

Consider the revenues lost. Non-insured drivers will not hold current road tax licenses; one needs to show proof of insurance to obtain this license in UK. Nor even do they perhaps hold a driver’s licence to drive; nor probably do they hold an MOT roadworthiness certificate for their vehicles. All this represents loss of revenues on a large scale to government; and it also represents loss to insurer companies, repair garages, and others of otherwise appropriate lawful expected income.
I ask: is the solution to be found in insured drivers taking out additional insurance as it were on behalf of those who drive without insurance? Is such a surrogate cover for the accidents of uninsured drivers in fact coming close to condoning drivers being uninsured? Helping also to normalise the situation of insurance-less driving in the UK? De facto alleviating, detrimentally so, the pressures placed quite rightly on police and authorities to tackle with vigour this epidemic of insurance-less driving in UK. Thus are insurers usurping de facto the proper place of law and order; by means of a private sector intervention which appropriates a situation which should be solely, wholly, within public sector space.

This intrusion of private enterprises into areas which have de facto been by way of an indifferent dereliction vacated by public authorities, areas appropriated privately but which de jure belong only in the public spheres; this effrontery is a common thread to be found in many of the examples I am going to follow through with as I write of them some more. The overstepping the mark by private business into areas either in a remiss state of public neglect; or else into areas into which pubic reach ought to have expanded, but it has been tardy of, even sometimes deliberately held back from, keeping abreast of – this state of affairs is a trigpoint which locates the precise social economic character of the present era.

Further, should not a normal fully comprehensive driver’s insurance policy already be sufficient to cover for uninsured drivers bumping into a driver? If not, then the name of fully-comprehensive given to such a policy is a misnomer. And if fully comprehensive insurance is not sufficient; then has it been so in the past; previous to the insurers offering uninsured drivers’ insurance?

I do believe that here in the UK there is a scheme, and has been for years, run by government, using public funds, which kicks in so as to cater for and care for those who meet accidents from uninsured drivers. If this is so, then for the most part uninsured driver insurance is redundant, unless a driver wishes to have heavy cover or over an d above protection?

All in all I believe uninsured driver insurance to be by and large approaching the status of a scam. It appears to me to be a provision of an additional and a quite unnecessary service; and being offered simply to generate revenues for insurers from premiums from policies in numbers otherwise not likely to have been sold. Given that insurance companies I believe almost across the board will not pay out whenever an insured person holds duplicated insurances; or else when a person has been compensated elsewhere for the same injury or loss; then what use might uninsured drivers insurance be to drivers overall?