 Poster: A snowHead
|
| Wayne wrote: |
| To emphasise – I have no connection with this TO and had never heard of them until this thread. |
To emphasise – My point was never about the ‘facts’ of the post, but RichardK’s ‘right’ to voice his comment/opinion on an internet forum. That no-one particularly agreed with him and were able to point out where they thought he had made an error, shows that everyone gets an equal fair chance to make their point.
| Mr Marmot wrote: |
My point was about the right to explain a situation or voice an opinion on the internet.
Wayne replied: Obviously not, they may have the right but in some cases not the ability. I did post a question regarding whether a certain site should be censored by an outside organisation or by legislation and (in a so ironic you couldn’t make it up sort of way) the thread was deleted/censored. Hmmmmmmm. |
I support your right to your opinion if your post met the basic rules of decency, fairness etc. etc. (which I’m sure it probably did)
| Mr Marmot wrote: |
Obviously, anyone making claims that they can't substantiate needs to be very careful.
Wayne replied: Agreed – but do you honestly believe this is the case. Some people will take a malicious and vindictive approach to righting any perceived wrong or simply a lack of service they feel they were entitled to. Care and substantiation tend not to disrupt the sweated palmed exercising of their Right to justice. |
Anyone making unsubstantiated claims runs the risk of retribution. The right to justice should be open to everyone. Surely those without care and substantiation will find their sweaty palms smacked by justice?
| Mr Marmot wrote: |
Also everyone reading complaints should be aware that people are more inclined to complain than to praise.
Wayne replied I’ll give you a quote (by Erasmus in 1539) which is just as true now as it was then:
Sad and heuy tydynges be easly blowen abroade be they neuer so vaine and false and they be also sone beleued.
In other words bed news travels faster than good. Or Sh*t sticks |
I’ll give you a quote back; Sh*te only sticketh where it can’th be washedth away [Marmottis 2010]
| Mr Marmot wrote: |
However, if enough complaints about a specific business are made, then it becomes clear that something is wrong.
Wayne replied No it doesn’t. It “May” do. |
Enough was the important word in my statement. How many complaints do you consider is enough to turn ‘may’ into ‘is’?
| Mr Marmot wrote: |
If the internet wasn't available maybe there would be nowhere that people could use to let as many people as possible hear about their dissatisfaction.
Wayne replied Agreed 100%. BUT, if their Dissatisfaction is later proved to be caused by their own misunderstanding of a very simple point should they not then withdraw their comment – yes they should but they hardly ever do. So, should someone not be able to force this issue. |
I agree that, morally, such a person should withdraw their comment and possibly make an apology. But that is my own opinion. I certainly don’t believe that they should be ‘forced’ to do so. It is up to others to draw their own conclusions from the debate on a forum and to make up their own minds. It surely doesn’t matter that the one who many consider to be ‘wrong’ may still believe they are ‘right’
| Mr Marmot wrote: |
The business can also use the internet to defend themselves and answer the specific complaints. No-one is stopping them.
Wayne replied: The problem here is credibility. You see this on the web - I think ABC’s bread is horrid – it smells funny and tastes really bad.
You also see this answer from ABC – no its not, wel sell millions of loafs per day and we have never had another complaint.
So, millions of people are happy and one ain’t. But the damage is done in that it has cast (albeit a small one) a shadow of doubt over the product in some people’s minds. |
Surely it isn’t credible that one person can cast a shadow of any significance on to a group of millions of persons?
| Mr Marmot wrote: |
If RichardK now believes he got it wrong in his particular case he has the opportunity to say so, but he clearly felt strongly enough to make the point in the first place.
Wayne replied: But he has got it wrong and he hasn’t said so.[ |
Agreed
| Mr Marmot wrote: |
Businesses should understand that the customer is not always right but they should be made to feel that they are valued.
Wayne replied: The B&Q near where I live banned (for life) and old guy who was ranting at the sales staff a few weeks ago. They went further and banned him from every B&Q in the UK.
Value, like respect, is double sided. |
Why is it necessary for an old guy to resort to ranting? I can’t recollect this sort of behaviour 30 years ago but, today, it is becoming more common. I wonder if it is because the frustrations of modern living, including a marked decrease in the level of good customer service and an increase in the belief that customers are being conned by business is making people quite cranky? Apart from the out and out ‘nutters’ surely most customers can be placated by just the feeling that the customer’s complaint is taken seriously.
| Mr Marmot wrote: |
If no-one else considers RichardK's opinion is valid then it will be clear for everyone to see, but thank God he has the opportunity to make it.
Wayne replied: OK, but when it’s “proved” that the complaint is unfounded why isn’t it deleted. |
I don’t believe complaints subsequently proven to be unfounded should be deleted. They should be left for all to see along with the debate that proved them to be unfounded. This might educate others so that don’t make the same mistake.
| Mr Marmot wrote: |
There might have been dozens of others who came forward with similar opinions on that particular company.
Wayne replied: (in this specific case) If it was a similar opinion then they would all be wrong. The fact that lots of people say the same thing doesn’t make it right. OK, it may be symptomatic of some mix-up in communication. Volume does not necessarily carry validation. |
In a democracy the voice of the majority should hold sway. If more people agree with something then the number of voices will be larger and the volume will be greater. Surely in a democracy sufficient volume equals validation?
| Mr Marmot wrote: |
I also still maintain that too many companies use the Terms and Conditions to hide all the 'bad news' and to provide scant protection for the customer. The concept of making a fast buck to the detriment of the customer is endemic in this country and it is a worse place because of it. Banks, financial services, utility providers etc etc. etc. They are all at it.
Wayne repliedThey are all at it. Who are “they”? Can you give “any” examples of this (from a TO T&C’s) . |
I gave some examples of ‘they’. I could add many others.
The subject of my original post highlighted my shock in finding that the T&C allowed our TO operator to cancel our holiday with, as I read it, only an hour’s notice for any reason whatsoever with a ‘compensation’ payment of only £40. By the way, they didn’t do this but they had the ‘right’ to do this in the ‘small print’ of the T&C
Wayne wrote: Ski holiday T&C’s are a contract between two entities. You and the TO. They lay out clearly the responsibilities of each party to the contract. They protect you and they protect the TO.
Some group bookings can run into hundreds of thousands of pounds so, as the days of gentleman’s agreements is long gone a contract is needed.
If you don’t agree to the contract, simply don’t enter into it.[/quote]
This point has been made previously. It is too simplistic.
At the weekend I was advised to ‘update’ applications installed on my iphone. Before I could do so I had to agree to new T&C. These ran to 55 pages of text. I had no time for this. I did not have a copy of the previous T&C to compare the ‘new’ with the ‘old’. What was I supposed to do?
Twenty years ago my bank offered me 3 months free life insurance if I agreed to new T&C. I didn’t need 3 months free life insurance so I wouldn’t agree to them. The bank telephoned me every week for two months to tell me I was ‘wasting’ their fantastic offer of free life insurance. I began to wonder why they were so anxious that I sign these new T&C. I spent many hours comparing the new T&C with the old and found that they only change, hidden away in the small print, was the deletion of my right to allow me to authorise a representative of the media to ask the bank questions about my dealings with them. By agreeing to the new T&C, I would be allowing the bank to answer any enquiry, even by an authorised third party, by saying “no comment. This is a private matter between us and our client”
Who has time to read T&C thoroughly? Unfortunately they often do not only provide a reasonable and sensible contract between two parties, but also ways for one side to ‘duck’ obligations that most people would regard as reasonable.
An internet forum is a fantastic way of voicing opinions and complaints, and because if it is ‘open’ then everyone has their chance to ‘put their views’ and form their own opinions from the debate.
Long may it continue.
|
|
|
|
FAQ
excellent