Despite what the adverts say, it's never quite as easy as they make it out to be.
I'm willing to bet that most people who have to submit a personal tax return hate doing it and will procrastinate until the last minute. There have been well-publicised issues with the HMRC online web service when the load increased to such levels as to bring the service down. I'm generally quite cautious and although I'll not deal with my tax return at the last minute, I'll try to get it done well before the final deadline. However, it's still a chore and one that I never feel I have the energy for to tackle it mid-week. It' s a weekend job. I'm willing to bet that it's the last thing most people want to think about when they return from their day jobs during the week.
Full service available except where indicated belowFriday 20 November 06:00 – Monday 23 November 06:00Due to a scheduled upgrade, if you use our HMRC software you will be unable to access our online service between 06:00 on Friday 20 November and 06:00 on Monday 23 November. If you use commercial software you will experience a delay in receiving your online acknowledgement during this time. Your acknowledgement will be sent once the service is restored. Please do not attempt to resubmit your submission. We apologise for any inconvenience this may cause.
So why is their downtime on the weekend? This is the message currently on their website. Surely it's more expensive for them to employ people to run the upgrades during the weekend and if it is indeed more inconvenient for the typical end user (i.e. me) why foot this cost? I think it's because no one has bothered thinking about it. They're not a business and the responsibility to submit a return is not theirs, it's ours. They know we haven't got a choice but to pay. Their IT contractors always upgrade systems on weekends and therefore they're just using the same formula. No one cares if the end user is inconvenienced.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Pointless store polices: buying medicine and beer
Pharmacies are apparently not allowed to sell two tubes of hydrocortizone to the same person in the same transaction.
I discovered this at the Milton Tesco a while back and still don't understand the policy. I know it's not possible to buy large quantities of Paracetamol, as they're scared of facilitating suicide. The logic must be that if someone feels suicidal enough to go through the supermarket check out more than once they must really be serious about it whereas those who don't want it so badly will not want to waste the time to queue twice. I wonder how many lives have been saved as a result of this policy?
But Hydrocortizone is a skin cream used to treat eczema. I ran out and wanted to buy a replacement. I thought it sensible to get a tube for home and one for work so I wouldn't have to carry it about with me. Apparently the nanny state thinks I'm not mature enough to make this decision for myself, and selling two tubes to me in one go would tempt me to treat too much eczema in one go? The mind boggles. The lady behind the counter didn't know. I asked her what would stop me buying another one later on and apparently nothing could, unless they happened to recognise me (*).
So why bother?
It was no big deal as I just picked it up the next time I passed a pharmacy, but why inconvenience me because of a rule that isn't possible to enforce? I'm now really intrigued to know how the government thinks I can abuse myself with two tubes of Hydrocortizone instead of one. I've even Google searched for this and can't find anything.
*This reminds me a little of the Sidney St Sainsburys who refused to sell me beer not because I didn't have ID, but because someone else who was with me didn't. Apparently everyone in a group has to have valid ID to prove that they were over 18. This is crazy because there were parents with their kids buying bottles of wine. Why is this any different? I also asked them what would stop me returning to the store without my friend and they said they could only stop me if they noticed me do this. So on my way out of the store I bought the six-pack of Carling and the till on the opposite end, my friend nowhere in sight. I'd like to clarify that we were both well over the age of majority so no law was broken. I raised this with Sainsburys after the event and they told us it was the law, but I have since checked and they are wrong. They have to have a strong belief that the alcohol was being purchased to supply to minors. I'd admit that this was just a minor inconvenience to me (no pun intended), but yet another example of a policy that isn't enforceable and therefore shouldn't be in place. I wonder how many times someone buying alcohol illegally for youths have been thwarted because they were careless enough to bring the youths with them in the check out queue?
I discovered this at the Milton Tesco a while back and still don't understand the policy. I know it's not possible to buy large quantities of Paracetamol, as they're scared of facilitating suicide. The logic must be that if someone feels suicidal enough to go through the supermarket check out more than once they must really be serious about it whereas those who don't want it so badly will not want to waste the time to queue twice. I wonder how many lives have been saved as a result of this policy?
But Hydrocortizone is a skin cream used to treat eczema. I ran out and wanted to buy a replacement. I thought it sensible to get a tube for home and one for work so I wouldn't have to carry it about with me. Apparently the nanny state thinks I'm not mature enough to make this decision for myself, and selling two tubes to me in one go would tempt me to treat too much eczema in one go? The mind boggles. The lady behind the counter didn't know. I asked her what would stop me buying another one later on and apparently nothing could, unless they happened to recognise me (*).
So why bother?
It was no big deal as I just picked it up the next time I passed a pharmacy, but why inconvenience me because of a rule that isn't possible to enforce? I'm now really intrigued to know how the government thinks I can abuse myself with two tubes of Hydrocortizone instead of one. I've even Google searched for this and can't find anything.
*This reminds me a little of the Sidney St Sainsburys who refused to sell me beer not because I didn't have ID, but because someone else who was with me didn't. Apparently everyone in a group has to have valid ID to prove that they were over 18. This is crazy because there were parents with their kids buying bottles of wine. Why is this any different? I also asked them what would stop me returning to the store without my friend and they said they could only stop me if they noticed me do this. So on my way out of the store I bought the six-pack of Carling and the till on the opposite end, my friend nowhere in sight. I'd like to clarify that we were both well over the age of majority so no law was broken. I raised this with Sainsburys after the event and they told us it was the law, but I have since checked and they are wrong. They have to have a strong belief that the alcohol was being purchased to supply to minors. I'd admit that this was just a minor inconvenience to me (no pun intended), but yet another example of a policy that isn't enforceable and therefore shouldn't be in place. I wonder how many times someone buying alcohol illegally for youths have been thwarted because they were careless enough to bring the youths with them in the check out queue?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
