'A blog in support of stupid people's rights (probably the most important...)' blog

Mista_C

Like RobertoMoir above I also work in the IT field and have done for many years. I recently took leave of my previous employer due to some of the practices they took part in that conflicted with my own moral code. Contracts cleverly worded so the replacement of a £5 floppy disk drive would eventually cost the customer £250 by the time the job was complete, hopefully you get the picture.

Some of these customers are corporate clients who have their own teams of laywers to wade through these contracts for this kind of thing, yet somehow it got through their nets. I guess this would make them 'stupid'? There are all sorts of businesses out their devising loopholes to pull these scamming stunts.

Only last year my partner was having trouble with her car. After her spending over £500 at various garages to get the problem sorted it still existing. She even took it to a specialist for her model. I'm no mechanic but eventually I'd had enough of the car haemorrhaging money so I took a couple of weeks off work and decided to research the problem. I found the problem was down to a fault inside the coilpack and replaced it for under £50, no problem since.

There's an implied trust in certain business types, IT and car mechanics being 2 examples. Unless you're willing, able and have the time to learn and understand every service or product you'll ever need then at some point you will need to trust that what you're told is fact.

I would like to wipe the smugness off some of the faces of people who claim others are stupid for not understanding the syntax or context of the legalese. How would I do this? How about we get rid of their PCs GUI, put them back into a CLI and see how they cope? All they need to do is just read the help files and they will know what they're doing, right? From my experience they will more likely not understand the context, syntax or bother reading the help files at all and end up a quivering mess.
Out of curiousity, when was the last time you guys used the Windows help files before jumping in at the deep end and then needed assistance from Google or the MSE "Tech Stuff" threads? I mean the help files are there in front of you so you've all stopped to read and understand them before posting a query haven't you? Do the tech people think you're stupid if you haven't? No, we don't. We spent years learning to understand this kind of thing so you have someone to turn to when you need help. If it was possible to explain everything to everyone in layman's terms and everyone understood it all, RobertoMoir, I, and many others would be out of a job.

There are excellent examples in the "Tech Stuff" thread if you search for something along the lines of "Microsoft scam phone call?". Several instances a week that if people searched and read they wouldn't have needed to ask the question. Are they stupid for not checking for existing posts? Again, no. It's an unknown quantity to them and their first concern is to nullify the worry that they'd just been scammed by, in some cases, a sharp talking business spewing technical terms that they don't understand but may sound convincing to those who haven't filled their heads with every possible variable they may ever need in life.

meher

Being stupid is not a sin; I always say that I defend to death (not mine ) their unbridled right to be and I mean it; not being socially responsible however would be a sin. But there's a tendency for many people to expect the haves to be more socially responsible than the have nots and that is probably why there are often unwarranted comments; speaking for myself I don't selectively apply social responsibility to some people - everyone should be socially responsible. I can't see why anyone cannot be socially responsible - even if they are blind, mentally ill or just someone who chooses not to work. If I'm honest, people who end up using the system are not exactly social status symbols, just don't expect me to prop them up as if they are equals, they aren't when their contributions or lack of it aren't exactly the same and why be so touchy about the reality of the situation. Some people specially the socialist minded people, most of the time dynamic business persons do a lot for the society; they are more often than not, libertarians as well - the kind of people whose sense of responsibility make our vibrant and different lifestyles possible. Some of the cynicism is misplaced.

Money_Saving_Dude

tagq2 wrote: »

2008 came from a decade of smart people becoming fabulously wealthy by persuading less smart people to put money where they cannot afford to put money.

Hmm, that's exactly why we had the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977. Doesn't seem to have done much good. Alternatively, think of how much earlier 2008 would have happened if this act didn't exist.

Fitzmichael

The simplest way to solve this problem would be to change the Companies Act provision that the principal duty of directors is to pursue the interest of the Company/shareholders by adding "so long as the company’s operations do not have an impact on the community or the environment which a responsible citizen would find unreasonably deleterious". That would give the courts sufficient discretion to make directors pause for thought.

Talesin

Shift workers who have disturbed sleep patterns and go to the bank after a couple of hours sleep after a 12 Hourr night shift. Then do actually trust the banks to be honest and give good advice. Like when they phone you up to to 'pop' in for a chat so help organise your finances, then flog you a loan with PPI that is 25% of your repayments. The loan is structured in such a way that when you find out you are being fleeced the only way out is to, yep you guessed it, get another loan. It then works out that after paying a loan for 8 or 9 months you have to borrow what you borrowed in the first place to get out of it. so that's 8 or 9 months spentgiving a bank free money.
It's oh so easy for smarty pants to give it the holier than though attitude and spout pompous guff but, lets face it, banks are run by clever people who understand finance and how to hide the detail.

P.A._Ranoia

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

But sometimes this really isn't practical, is it?

For example, I often get updates for Adobe Reader pop up on my computer. Every time I have to tick the box to say I understand the terms and conditions.
I trust them and so tick the box.

Are you really saying that you read _every_ term and condition of _everything_ that you sign up for?

I certainly do not trust them. Call me an old cynic but why would Internet organisations need to pay, presumably expensive, lawyers to come up with long winded, incomprehensible terms and conditions if they were acting in good faith? This is not necessary for other activities, eg when buying items on the high street one trades under an umbrella of presumed t&c and consumer legislation. Given the number of this type of thing most of us have to agree to to exist in the modern IT society it is completely impractical to read / understand all of them. The fear that organisations are cynically hiding behind small print seems very plausible and real.

Eco_Miser

P.A._Ranoia wrote: »

I certainly do not trust them. Call me an old cynic but why would Internet organisations need to pay, presumably expensive, lawyers to come up with long winded, incomprehensible terms and conditions if they were acting in good faith? This is not necessary for other activities, eg when buying items on the high street one trades under an umbrella of presumed t&c and consumer legislation.

OK, you old cynic:

1. Mostly, they don't hire a lawyer, they 'borrow' an existing set of t&cs.
2. The Internet is world-wide, so they can't rely on that umbrella of presumption and consumer legislation.
3. Americans are litigious. Most Internet organisations are American, and all have to deal with Americans (even if just to say their site is not for US persons), so they have t&cs that (they hope) will stand up in a US court.
4. Even the good guys have long-winded and somewhat incomprehensible licences, to defend what they give freely from theft.

That's four answers to your question. An answer to a different question is 'to hide their business practices in plain sight'.

Mobeer

P.A._Ranoia wrote: »

I certainly do not trust them. Call me an old cynic but why would Internet organisations need to pay, presumably expensive, lawyers to come up with long winded, incomprehensible terms and conditions if they were acting in good faith?...

Because even though they may be acting in good faith, they are vulnerable to being ripped off by others unless they state those terms.

winnanan

Hi Martin, in our household you are routinely referred to as 'St Martin The Moneysaving' but perhaps now we should change that to St Martin the Righteous! Well said Martin, as always you display not only great commonsense and ability but empathy and compassion. By the way you could include overtired carers of the disabled/those with mental health problems etc. I, an educated and allegedly intelligent adult have made some collossal mistakes when sleep deprived and desperately worried. Thankyou for all the mistakes you've helped me avoid over the years, I think you should be canonised or knighted or something! Martin lewis MBE maybe? We are all of us stupid at various times and for various reasons. What a pity our society is so driven by financial success and dismissive of those who are less able that this actually needed to be pointed out!

juliamarsh

My brother was mentally compromised and was sold a loan for a kitchen by an unscrupulous salesman despite the fact he told him he was not working. The salesman filled out the form and got my brother to sign it, and lied to say that he was working. Also included in the loan was some sort of payment protection insurance for if he lost his job so again he was being charged for something that he would not be able to claim on. Needless to say my brother was unable to meet the repayments, following which extra interest was slapped on and court action was threatened. My brother had to go into full time residential care and his house was sold to service this and pay off his debts. This was some years ago, my brother has since died and I do not know whether the unscrupulous kitchen company ever got their money (I hope not!) as the Court of Protection took over responsibility for his finances due to him being mentally incapacitated. I do think that generally people need to have their wits about them and make sure they take responsibility for knowing exactly what they are signing up to, but I agree with you that vulnerable people such as my brother need to be protected.