Tastes like chicken...

The glorious Allie Brosh of Hyperbole and a Half fame wrote a blogpost in 2010 which featured a drawing in her own inimitable style that has spawned a meme.

Meanwhile, earlier I was browsing Imgur when I came across this utter beauty of an image.



TIME FOR ME TO MAKE MY FIRST EFFORT AT A MEME!

Sherlock: The Reichenbach Fall

Earlier this week Steven Moffat took a turn for the irritating when he told the Radio Times that he'd read a lot of the theories about the apparent demise of Sherlock Holmes which have set the internet ablaze since 10:30pm Sunday 15th January.

I firmly believe(d?) that Molly had something to do with a body swap between Holmes and Moriarty. I've read this week about theories of stopping heartbeats with a squash ball and/or a rhododendron chemical.



But if these are the same theories which Mr Moffat is stating are incorrect and missing important details, then I think it's one of three things.

One: Moffat is antagonising us for shits and giggles. Naughty Steven, tut tut. 

Two: I haven't the fucking foggiest and will not be looking forward to the predicted TWO YEAR WAIT for series three.

Three: there's something wrong with the timeline. The episode opens with John Watson in a counselling session with a therapist. After the titles, a caption on screen says 'Three months earlier' (sorry if this wording isn't verbatim). Moriarty's trial occurs six weeks later.

If the trial lasts at least two days (the jurors return to a hotel room at least once where they're blackmailed), then Moriarty visits Sherlock at the earliest six weeks, two days after the three break-ins.

We are now five weeks, five days before Watson's counselling session.

The next time indicator on screen, bringing us up to Watson being delivered to Mycroft's club, reads 'two months later'.

That would mean we're a little shy of three weeks AFTER the counselling session.

So. I've either misread the times on screen or the timeline in the narrative is screwed.

What say you, Mssrs Moffat and Gatiss? Am I on completely the wrong track and even more off-course than those theories already hammered out on myriad message boards across the Sherlock-obsessing world?

Guest Blogging across the Webbyverse

Recently I was asked to write a regular column for an up and coming style blog, Fashion Worked.

The column is called Sack the Stylist, and each week I cast a critical eye over an outfit which someone has chosen to inflict on the world.

You can see my columns here: Sack the Stylist. Aren't you lucky?!

If you want to write for Fashion Worked too, contact them at @fashionworked.

Shooting Stars: A Response

I got on my high horse about the cancellation of Shooting Stars recently.

I received a response from Auntie on Thursday 24th November.

Thanks for contacting us regarding 'Shooting Stars.'

We understand you're unhappy the series has been decommissioned.

'Shooting Stars' has been a great addition to the BBC Two schedule, however, we regularly have to make difficult decisions with regard to which shows to commission and unfortunately sometimes they will prove to be unpopular with sections of the audience. In future there will be less space on BBC Two for comedy/entertainment panel shows so sadly 'Shooting Stars' won't be returning. We'd like to thank Vic and Bob for everything they've brought to the channel over the years.

Thanks once again for contacting us.

Grrr.

My Name Is

Thanks to Jenny the Bloggess's tweet of Saturday, I too have had a mini rant about people getting my name wrong. It's on "hello my fucking name is", (click) but if you can't access that site because of all the expletives, I have recreated it here for your delectation. Bon appetit!

My name is Sarah. It has been for over thirty years thanks to my parents. Most people have their parents to thank for their name.

However, despite this, my mother often gets it wrong. I'm the youngest of three: my brother Simon is six years my senior and Samantha (Sam) is five years older. Simon gets called Simon by our mother. Good for him. Sam gets called Si- Sam. Mum's train of thought for remembering her children's names must go chronologically. Ergo, I get called Si-Sam-Sarah. Always have done. Love you too, Mum.

Through my life, I have encountered many people who ask if my name is with a H or without. It's with. WITH! If it weren't, I’d be Sara, pronounced Sarr-rarr. Stupid people. That's a completely different name.

However, things took a surreal turn six years ago. I got a job in a call centre. I have targets to hit, partly made up of quality checks. To hit my quality scores, I have to say certain things including introducing myself. (That's pretty much common courtesy anyway.) In my time in the job, I've been called the following, by customers and colleagues alike:

Sharon – Okay. It starts with the same letter. I can cope with a little brain fart.
Amanda – Weirdly, quite a few different people call me this. I must 'look' or 'sound' like an Amanda.

I can’t work out the train of thought in these:
Tracy
Charlotte
Rebecca
Ginny
Elizabeth

Don't they listen?! I'm Sarah! SARAH! It's an easy, common name! DON'T MAKE ME HURT YOU!

Shooting Stars

You may be aware of the terrible news this week that the BBC are not commissioning any further series of Shooting Stars. I found out from Bob Mortimer's tweet on Tuesday, and here's the BBC news report to rub it in a little more. (I know in the grand scheme of things, it pales in comparison to war, famine et al.)

This has made me an unhappy bunny. I'm not alone either. On the Twitters, a flurry of tweets from famous types including such luminaries as Al Murray, Peter Serafinowicz and and Mark Gatiss hit the mark much more succinctly than my own "WT FUCKING F?! This makes not #POTBBC :-(". (#POTBBC is a hashtag which stands for 'Proud of the BBC'.)

Inspired by the official Shooting Stars Twitter account (click for the tweet), I have logged a complaint with Auntie:

I am extremely dismayed to learn of the corporation's decision not to commission further series of Shooting Stars.

First, let me state that I am a great supported of the BBC in all its formats & firmly believe the cuts foisted upon it by the Tories are abhorrent & uncalled-for.

However, Messrs Moir & Mortimer are two of the UK's greatest surreal comedians who deserve better treatment than this. Their show is hysterical to say the least. Their treatment of celebrities is irresistible yet by cancelling the programme, will be.

Although other panel shows such as Mock The Week and Have I Got News For You provide much-needed levity in these severe times, they do not fill the niche which ‘Stars does. It is unique, original and fantastically absurd. Where else can one view a full half-hour of such outside of an Eddie Izzard or Bill Bailey concert?

I urge you to seriously reconsider the decision, taking into consideration the argument that Shooting Stars is hardly a panel show in the general sense of the term.

Want to join in? You can contact the corporation directly here. I don't see the harm in you taking part in the Radio Times' poll here either.

I know. I can't believe it either.

A change in circumstances

I’m currently experiencing something I never have before, but which many before me have and will in the future. It’s stressful, not entirely unexpected and certainly not wanted.

In April, I will be made redundant. My employers are moving the offices to Surrey. I can’t commute that distance and I don’t want to move out of the area.3

I’m certainly not happy about it but I understand the thinking behind it. I thoroughly enjoy my job despite the odd oddball here and there. I can say with absolutely certainty that my employer is the best one I’ve worked for to date. I’ve been employed by good and mediocre organisations before so I know and appreciate what I’ve got here.

When I leave I’ll have been in this job for over seven years, where I’ve made friends, laughed a lot and learnt plenty. I’ll exit with more experience, obviously, and a veritable wedge of certificates from the many training courses provided by the company. Will this happen elsewhere?

Anybody want an administrator / call centre monkey?!

"Gizza job!"

Nails Inc.

Last week, one seemingly fed-up Nails Inc. customer started a bit of a mini-avalanche on their Facebook page in regard to their freight charges. They offer a choice of freight options: free if you spend £50 or more (before freight); Royal Mail at £4.95; or DPD couriers at £5.95.

Nails Inc. customers are already paying £11 per bottle of varnish, which is a lot but the quality is there. However this customer complained that the freight is a lot in addition to the cost of the polishes, which I assume (note: I do not know for certain) do not cost anywhere near that to manufacture.

Various people, commented that they could ship a bottle or two via Royal Mail (including packaging) for a fraction of the freight charge Nails Inc. offer for the same service. I believe this. I use Royal Mail for mailing packages for friends’ birthdays and Christmas at various locations around the UK.

At least twice, Nails Inc. countered this increasing number of complaints with the following statement:

Many thanks to everyone for their comments regarding postage on www.nailsinc.com We are taking these very seriously and will feedback as soon as we can.

Yet still the complaints came. Yesterday, their response to this was:

Thank you again to everyone for the feedback on our postage and packaging. We would like to confirm that we have not increased the cost for delivery – the cost remains at £4.95. We have changed to ‘Royal Mail Tracked’ which is still an excellent recorded delivery service.

Which did not go down well. I decided to enter the fray as well, with a piece of my mind left on Facebook;

You might as well just charge us £5 and come clean that you're shafting your customers.
Why not take the lead from other online retailers such as Amazon who offer a variety of delivery options?
I didn't take advantage of the latest Lucky Dip because your delivery costs seem to be non-negotiable.
You said you would listen to your customers (your source of revenue) but less than a week later you're not doing a thing to help us help you maintain your sales.
I think your polishes are really fantastic but on Friday I went to Boots instead & treated myself to three just-as-lovely No.7 colours instead.

and this post.

Why this post? Because last week during the initial set of complaints, I noticed one user complaining about the poor customer service provided by Nails Inc. I too have been on the receiving end of this, and would like to share it with you. (I have removed the majority of pleasantries for the sake of brevity.)

From: Sarah
Sent: 14 January 2011 11:10
To: customerservice@nailsinc.com; support@nailsinc.com
Subject: Email Address Amendment
Importance: High
I have registered for email newsletters using my personal email address,
personal.email@genericISP.com, this morning, then created an account to place an
order but the system would not accept my personal email address again and I've had to use my work address, work.email@genericcompany.com . I then tried to amend the address in my profile to my personal address which was rejected again on the grounds of duplication.

Please can you arrange for my account profile to be amended so the address is personal.email@genericISP.com.

From: support@nailsinc.com
18/01/2011 15:59
Thank you very much for sending us these details through. I have passed this on to our web team to rectify for you.

From: Sarah
Sent: 11 February 2011 09:17
I am still unable to change my address. Please advise.

From: support@nailsinc.com
15/01/2011 10:28
We have passed you query through to the web team again to see what their progress is with updating your address.
I apologise if this is taking longer than we expected.

From: customerservice@nailsinc.com
23/03/2011 10:17
We apologise for the delay in getting back to you on this.
We were told that this email amendment had been made by our web team but as you say it obviously has not been changed. We have put this case through to them again to resolve and they will come back to us as soon as they can. In the meantime, if you would like to make a phone order with us for any of our products online please give me a call on 0203 405 1451.
Thank you for your patience on this matter and we hope to resolve this soon.

From: Me
01/04/2011 18:25
To whom it may concern.
Further to the below issue which is still not resolved (as originally requested on Friday 14th January 2011) I now have a further problem. This morning I received the latest newsletter and a discount code as my birthday is this month. I appreciate the
discount and already know what I will use it on.
However when I logged into the site this evening, my account no longer shows me as an Ultimate Reward Scheme member (which was purchased on 14th January, order reference [redacted]).
Nor do any of my previous orders* appear in the order history.
As a result my accumulated Ultimate Reward Scheme points are not available to me at
the checkout.
Please can you ensure that my account is rectified as soon as possible, and my missing points returned to me.
*The missing orders are: [redacted for brevity]
I look forward to hearing from you on Monday 4th April.

You may be able to tell from the final email I had lost my temper at this stage. Also there are no further emails as they did not reply on 4th April, I ended up calling them instead to find out what had happened.

This is where it gets silly.

Because my personal email address was already on their files from when I signed up for the newsletter, they transferred all my order history and Ultimate Reward Scheme details over, rather than simply changing the address on my account from my work one to my personal one.

Also, it took from 14th January until 1st April for Nails Inc. to rectify this. The only thing in their favour is their politeness in dealing with me. Yes, they responded to my repeated emails in a timely manner and courteously but I wonder would my problem had been fixed if I had not persisted in chasing it. I never got an email from them which was unprompted by me.

You're lying to me

Customers. I love them. On the whole the people I have to deal with are friendly, personable and understanding members of society. They understand that I am not a disembodied voice without feelings and I think the same of them.

Unfortunately it has often been my experience that you always remember the odd horrid caller because it sticks out in one's memory. These are the ones who make you grumble about your day come vodka O'clock.

I know it can't be all bad, I've been doing this job for over six years now. But it's conversations such as this which get me down.

Female caller "Hi, I'm calling to chase an order for trial products placed with you."
Me: "No problem. Do you know on what date they were ordered?"
FC: "Um... I have an order number here?"
Me: "Okay. The number is...?"

The caller reads out a number to me which is not a number I recognise. It should be 8 digits long, beginning with a 2. I explain this to her.

Me: "Do you know roughly when the order was placed? Perhaps in the last week? This month?"
FC: "This month, definitely."
Me: "Okay, let me just look up May's orders. The consumer's surname is...?"
FC: "Jones."*
Me: "I'm sorry, there aren't any orders this month for that name. Which product was ordered? Maybe I can locate the order that way."

She tells me the product, parameters and pack size.

Me: "Unfortunately there aren't any orders on your account for that consumer name or item. Would you like to place an order with me now?"

I hear a bit of a scuffle as the female caller passes the receiver onto her male colleague, whom I recognise as the owner of the store.

Owner: "Why is the order not on my account?! I have an order number here for it, I was offered free trials for the product as I was told the revenue boxes were out of stock!"
Me: "I apologise. Let me double check for you. Please can you tell me the parameters again?"

The owner tells me and I see that there are no trial or revenue packs which match the consumer name or parameters and I explain this to the customer. He repeats that he was offered trials because he was told the revenue packs were out of stock.

Often a caller will snap at us because they are trying to save face in front of their consumers. As politely as I could, I explained to this caller that the product in question is our most popular item which rarely goes out of stock in either revenue or trial packs. Unfortunately on this occasion it makes the owner flip. He then snaps at me and refuses to believe that we generally do not have out of stock issues with this product.

Tellingly, though, he says he will call back and slams the receiver down rather than placing an order with me. I have interpreted this as he cannot get away with a complete about-face with me regarding the way he has just lost his temper, but will be able to act as nice as pie with the next person he speaks with here and will place a seemingly regular order for the trial product.

I have a bit of a catch for him. It is not unusual for my colleagues and me to send a group email out to one another warning of a potentially irate caller on the warpath. I have done this because it's pretty much all I can do. It takes an extraordinarily nasty caller to have a team leader telephone them back and give them what for.

*It's not Jones.

Never Argue with a Woman

One morning, the husband returns the boat to their lakeside cottage after several hours of fishing and decides to take a nap. Although not familiar with the lake, the wife decides to take the boat out. She motors out a short distance, anchors, puts her feet up, and begins to read her book. The peace and solitude are magnificent.

Along comes a Fish and Game Warden in his boat. He pulls up alongside the woman and says, "Good morning, Ma'am. What are you doing?"

"Reading a book," she replies, (thinking, 'Isn't that obvious?')

"You're in a Restricted Fishing Area," he informs her.

"I'm sorry, officer, but I'm not fishing. I'm reading.""Yes, but I see you have all the equipment. For all I know you could start at any moment. I'll have to take you in and write you up."

"If you do that, I'll have to charge you with sexual assault," says the woman.

"But I haven't even touched you,' says the Game Warden.

"That's true, but you have all the equipment. For all I know you could start at any moment."

"Have a nice day ma'am," and he left.

MORAL: Never argue with a woman who reads.