Category Archives: Caveat emptor

Truth Hiding in Advertising

Truth in Advertising

“What does having the fastest Internet in Canada mean to you?”

That’s the question asked in Shaw’s latest advertising campaign to lure customers to purchase (or upgrade) their Internet services from Shaw. The image that goes with this question is of someone downloading their ‘favourite program’ while they rush out to talk the cabdriver, rush back to collect the laptop and rush out and into the cab.

The question posed and the images create an impression of impressive speed for Shaw Internet services.

What Truth lies in the Question?

The fact that you are paying for the fastest Internet in Canada does not mean you are getting the speed you are paying for. That is why contracts for internet services have within their wording the proviso ‘up to’ however megabytes per second you are paying for. Should you test the actual speed of your internet services you will almost assuredly find that, as speed tests of the actual speeds versus ‘up to’ speeds have demonstrated, you are not getting the speed you are paying for. Hence the need for the ‘up to” proviso to protect the service provider from refunds or price adjustments.

The images of the show being downloaded in the time it takes to rush out to the cab and back falls under both ‘up to’ and more importantly the excuse “it is them not us”. For most of us it doesn’t really matter what our download speed is, the limiting factor is what the download speed of the site you are downloading from (uploading to) is.

Except for a very few sites, the download and upload speeds are such that paying for higher or highest speeds is a waste of money.

Does paying for the highest internet speed mean you can download a show in the time shown in Shaw’s internet commercial? No, but should you contact Shaw to complain  “it is the downloader, not Shaw” that prevents you achieving downloading a program in the time promised (an implied promise) in the Shaw commercial.

“What does having the fastest Internet in Canada mean to you?”

For all but a select few it means you have bought a ‘mirage’ and are paying too much for your internet.

For me “What does having the fastest Internet in Canada mean to you?” means that the Federal Government needs to stop paying lip service to competition and bring meaningful competition into the markets where monopolies, or effective monopolies, exist (Cable, newspapers, wireless, banking, internet services, TV and radio ownership, news and information programming, etc) .

It is well past time the Federal Conservatives remembered that they are in Ottawa to serve the best interests of ALL Canadians and not just the interests of the wealthy and big business.

Unfortunately for the future of Canada and Canadians. putting the best interests of Canada and Canadians as a whole above the interests of the wealthy, business and those special interest groups they favour, is not part of the Conservative’s Ideology. And as we all are well aware, if it is not part of the Conservative’s Ideology it cannot be Reality and therefore does not exist in the Conservative Universe.

Ignored to Death

During a conversation several members of the homeless community posed a question of ethics, an ethical challenge about the behaviours and actions of the people, institutions and organizations in dealing with an individual – and the fact that these types of behaviours and actions were not unique to this individual.

The ethical challenge applies not just to those directly involved but included the governments whose actions have created the conditions in which these behaviours can or will occur. It also included all of us who have created the ethos [the fundamental character or spirit of a culture] of British Columbia and Canada.

The ethos of a community, a province and a country are not created by words or piously beating our breasts and declaring to the world how wonderfully pure we are and impure others are. No, the ethos of our society results from our actions AND our inactions. The ethos of Canada is the sum total of the behaviours of ALL of us, not some mysterious them.

Mr Dix, before you begin blaming the Liberals and declaring how innocent you and the NDP are – you are at least as culpable, as blameworthy, as the Liberals. It was you Mr Dix who ran around the province taking the politically popular position of extinguishing the HST and ignoring the devastating negative consequences extinguishing the HST who have on the most vulnerable, those most in need of help in BC. An ethical opposition would be focused on speaking for the most vulnerable for they have no voice that will be heard to speak for themselves. An opposition focussed on scoring political points so it can gain power and form the next government is an ethically challenged Political Party.

I originally met George shortly after becoming homeless. At least at one point I was the homeless one and George the housed person. I cannot say who the real George was because I did not met George until after he suffered a traumatic brain injury. Yes at the time I met him George could be a little crusty. And yes, George did use illegal substances.

Flash forward to the first half of 2011 where George and I had a conversation, with George speaking about his feeling that after more than a decade he was starting to get to where he was before his brain injury.

The next time I ran into George, he was fresh from the hospital where he had just lost some toes to circulation problems. Regular meals at the Salvation Army, nagging by the Salvation Army’s parish nurse and others who knew George, led to him turning up at the Salvation Army almost dancing. He was so happy he was nearly dancing because he had just come from a check-up where he was told that his physical health had improved so much they would not have to remove more toes as expected.

When I saw George again recently it was quite a shock because he looked terrible – death warmed over terrible – looking like a walking corpse. He was fresh out of the hospital where he had an operation on his stomach. The operation has left George feeling unwell, in a lot of pain and thinking (as do most who see him) that he will, sooner rather than later, be dead.

Hardly surprising then that he is not a fount of sweetness and light. George shares his discomfort, pain and fear through angry, loud, abusive verbal outbursts that include a lot of swearing and are unpleasant and offensive to be on the receiving end of. Which makes George a royal pain in the ass to deal with.

Been there, experienced that, wanted to throttle George.

And while I can understand and sympathize with “I don’t have to put up with being sworn at like that”……..being an obnoxious, loud, verbally abusive, swearing pain in the ass does not deserve the death penalty.

Dumping George onto the streets is imposing the death penalty because in his current state of health he will not survive being homeless on the streets.

Nobody wants to deal with George so they try to dump him on someone else. A situation the Abbotsford Police found themselves caught in when the hospital, which George had been more or less dumped on, phoned the police to remove him for his swearing and angry verbal attacks. Normally, if there is no place to take someone in Abbotsford that someone ends up on the street.

The Abbotsford police ended up taking George to Chilliwack to find a place for him to stay for the night and avoid having George die as a result of being dumped onto the streets by police.

Since them George has been in the hospitals in Chilliwack, in Hope and back in Abbotsford because no one wants to deal with George and get rid of him as soon as they can dump him on someone else.

The homeless community, noting George’s absence and concerned about whether George was alive, enquired about what was going on and what George’s current fate was. They raised the question of ethics when another member of the homeless community supplied information that George had gone from the Chilliwack hospital to the Hope hospital to the Abbotsford hospital where George currently was.

Last year Dallas, who had struggled with drugs and recovery, found himself in the shelter and depressed as he again struggled with addiction. Not the ‘I am so depressed’ that most people have experienced and think of when they hear someone is depressed, but the life sucking black hole that is true DRESSION. Dallas sought help as he spiralled down into DRESSION, at Emergency at the Abbotsford hospital.

Only to be turned away as he hadn’t tried and was not threatening to kill himself or someone else. So he left the hospital and tried to kill himself. Unfortunately he was successful.

Ted’s feet had been frostbitten and not treated. When using Ted is loud, verbally nasty, tries to physically intimidate people and is a bully. When circumstances resulted in me applying antibiotic and bandages to Ted’s foot one evening, the, the black damage of frostbite on his toes together with the bare, open flesh where the frostbite damage had resulted in the loss of skin and flesh was such a concern I managed to get his foot looked at by a nurse the following day.

During the course of the examination Ted stated that his foot was not as painful as it had been. I enquired if that might be because of the high level of drugs he had ingested and he conceded it might be. He knew he could lose toes, foot or leg to the frostbite damage, vowing he would rather die.

Because Ted is a royal pain in the ass and very unpleasant to deal with, Ted is another who the system and society strives not to deal with. Ted did find a rather unique way to get help, robbing a bank in Abbotsford, walking down to the bus stop and having a seat until police arrived to arrest him.

The countdown has already begun for the next person slated to be ignored to death in Abbotsford.

 

A society is ultimately judged by how it treats its weakest and most vulnerable members”

Hubert Humphrey

“The moral test of a government is how it treats those who are at the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the aged; and those who are in the shadow of life, the sick and the needy, and the handicapped.”

Hubert Humphrey

Concerned for Council’s P3 not for Citizens Pocketbooks or Wellbeing

Note: An Addendum has been added to the end of this piece.

On November 19th the voters of Abbotsford will be voting Yes/No on using a P3 to finance, design and build an upgrade to Abbotsford’s water supply/infrastructure.

The use of a P3 has proven highly controversial and generated a great deal of opposition to private control of Abbotsford’s water supply and the higher cost to taxpayers of using a P3 to finance/design/construct the upgrade.

The large sign pictured is one of two that are erected at the corner of George Ferguson Way and Tretheway Street in Abbotsford, diagonally across the civic plaza and employee parking lots behind Abbotsford City Hall and was up as incumbent councillors were in the all candidates meeting (November 8th) denying the city was using intimidation and threats, or deceptive information to mislead voters to believe the vote on November 19th was about whether the water supply would be upgraded or not, in order to get voters to vote Yes to the P3.

The smaller sign sprouted on the corner of Clearbrook Road and Maclure Road on November 10th.

Given: that the November 19th in Abbotsford vote is only about whether or not to use a P3 to finance, design and build an upgrade to Abbotsford’s water supply/infrastructure and that the November 19th vote has NOTHING to do with whether Abbotsford needs to, or should, upgrade its water supply.

Then: the clear intent of this sign – “On November 19 Say YES to Water” – is to deceive voters into voting yes for Abbotsford’s Mayor and Council’s P3 proposal by misleading voters into believing the vote on November 19th is about whether or not to upgrade Abbotsford’s water supply/infrastructure.

And that: the appearance of the second, smaller sign makes clear that there is an organized attempt being made to deceive the voters of Abbotsford into believing that the P3 vote on November 19th is about whether Abbotsford’s water supply is upgraded/expanded and thus deceive voters into voting Yes to the P3 based on the false belief created about the purpose of the November 19th by this organized effort to deceive.

1. Who are the ‘concerned citizens ‘ who paid for these signs which are clearly designed to trick/deceive voters in Abbotsford into voting yes to the P3 by causing them to falsely believe that the November 19th vote is about whether or not to upgrade the water supply, when in truth the vote is only about whether to use a P3 to finance, design and build the upgrade?

2. How many more of these signs are posted around Abbotsford to deceive voters into voting yes to the P3 proposal put to referendum by Abbotsford’s Mayor and Council?

3. Can any group of ‘concerned citizens’ put up signs designed to trick and deceive voters into voting the way the ‘concerned citizens’ want them to vote during a municipal election and/or on referendum issues?

4. Or are the signs of these ‘concerned citizens’ being treated in a special manner because the signs refer people to the City’s site promoting the P3 and the signs are intended to deceive voters into voting Yes to the P3 proposal of Abbotsford’s Mayor and Council?

5. Does not the existence of these misleading signs bring the validity of a Yes vote and approval of the P3 into question as the signs will cause people to vote Yes based on false information?

6. If anyone can post misleading and/or deceptive signs or the ‘concerned citizens’ posting the signs are not required to identify themselves – do we not require the laws governing municipal elections to be changed to prevent the use of clear deception to bring about a desired result on a referendum or who is elected to civic office?

 Addendum:

The signs referred to in the story have suddenly been joined by numerous other signs that have appeared across Abbotsford. Given the cost the signs represent it is clear that someone (or several someone’s) is spending a great deal of money in an attempt to deceive voters into voting Yes to the P3 by creating the false belief that a yes vote is a vote to increase the water supply while a no vote is a vote against expanding Abbotsford’s water supply.

It appears someone (or several someone’s) is prepared to spend a great deal of money and go to extraordinary lengths to ensure that the mayor and council’s P3 plan is approved.

Which raises several new questions:

Who are these wealthy ‘concerned citizens’?

Why are they spending so much money to ensure mayor and council’s P3 passes?

What, if any, effect did these ‘concerned citizens’ and their deep pockets have on the decision to go with a P3 despite the overwhelming evidence it was the poorest choice to u for the upgrade?