gibberish

Ok.  Let’s get Raef out of the way early.

He dressed up like this…

…to sell thongs.

Prick.

He said “People who are size 16 are that size for a reason, because they eat cake.”  Well, as Marie Antoinette said “Let him eat cake.” Tittyboy. (She didn’t say the last bit).

Aside from that he was just your average run of the mill, run of the mill posh contestant.

Lucinda, on the other hand, rises above her poshness increasingly and is my current idea of the winner.

Claire has been on a “debooting” regime and is becoming not only marginally likeable but a contender too.

Michael Sophocles however is the real villian of the piece this, and pretty much every, week.

When, having gained a six hour “passion” for selling Wedding cakes, someone said no to his extremely hard sell approach that lacked entirely in sympathy, he exclaimed “You’re making a mistake.  I mean God above…” and then gave the camera a wee insight by claiming they were all “dum dums.”  Takes one to know one Michael.

Frankly there is only one word for this tosspot.

“Goodbye.”

I don’t like this little nyaf very much.  He has a habit of making you want to punch him, very hard, very often, in the testicles and follow that up with a bit of bashing them between breeze blocks.

Sarah had to go, in due course, but not this week.

Her only crime was averageness.

Whatever.

This bad?  I found this on Steven Tait’s increasingly excellent blog and laughed out loud almost throughout it.

]

Here’s another two that James McLaughlin did when he should have been working - if he was working late. Outstanding

So’s this. Damn. I’ll need to think of some myself.

I told you this was a great event.  Particularly because Alfredo Marcantonio showed us a reel of commercials that were all low budget but brilliant.  Here are a few of them.

I’d never seen this VW Karmann Ghia ad before but it really is a classic.

]

He showed this too.  Which made us all laugh.

And this cracker for Carling Black label.

He showed a different ad from this one for the x show.  But this is a pretty good alternative…

I think it is.  Unfortunately it’s the German version but the voiceover is short and very very sweet.  It says.

“What does the man who drives the snowplough drive to get to the snowplough?

]

Got a nice cheeky note from an old friend and mentor, Roger Stanier, who now works at Lowe in Londinium this morning.

It made me laugh.  The cheeky monkey.

Not a classic week really. Raef hardly made an arse of himself at all.

Well, it’s all relative.

He’s been keeping a low profile but still managed to pop up with an absurdism. When Sir Allan challenged one of his prepostrous ideas - selling ice cream to an ice cream maker - Sir Alan suggested that this was like selling the might Sir Alan himself a satellite receiver

Unbelievably ArseRaef didn’t take the bail out option but instead reaffirmed his own oafishness by claiming “If I had absolute belief I’d still turn up [to sell it to Sir Alan].”

Lucinda surprised us all by metamorphosing from a rubbishy, wee, lazy but quite nice, posh bird into a right-on team playing team leader - actually the best in the series so far - and was rewarded with defeat.

Her boardroom performance was not brilliant but she managed to survive Irish bitch Jennifer’s assault. Lindi Mngaza (certainly not “Eyeless in Gaza” if you consider the eye-bling) blew it big style.

The Boot, Claire Young, toned down the bootishness quite well and got a pure spot of luck with a big sale at the last minute to keep her in for a near future firing.

Prick of the week? Oh deffo Michael Sophocles. He may yet out-Raef Raef.

Who’ll win. God knows, they’re all pish in different ways. Actually, for me Lucinda moved significantly up the leaderboard as she showed that she can manage and, you know what? That’s what this series is about.

Tittyboy Raef kept his profile well below the radar (Yah) until the final seconds this week, when he blew it by being spotted wearing a preposterous pink skinny rib v-neck that only posh folk would be seen dead in as the house awaited the survivors of the eviction coming back.

Clearly Simon (nice but nasty) found himself well out of his depth - surrounded on one side by the barking Doberman that is Claire (by the way what is the difference between a Doberman and a woman with PMT? You can reason with a Doberman) and on the other by ‘butter wouldn’t melt in my handsome blue eyed mouth’ Alex who totally shafted him from the start.

Claire annoyed Sir Alan so much that I sympathised with him. She is a gobby boot. See you as you get fired next week Claire.

Those of you who have been following my discussions with Nationwide Building Society will no doubt be interested in the latest round of this debate. I recieved a letter this morning from a chap further up the food chain in which he stated that my previous letter was “somewhat inappropriate . Whatever the fuck that means. I think actually it meant (fuck off and stop annoying us.) Needless to say it was wholly missing in terms of wit, charm, eloquence and answers. rather it said. We’re passing the buck to Churchill who underwrote the claim. But, of course, I didn’t purchase from Churchill. I purchased from Nationwide who, as we all know are not like the nasty old banks. They’re the good guys, the people’s champions. The only big mutual left

Here’s what I had to say this time round.

17 April 2008

(Name withheld)
Nationwide Building Society
Insurance Claims Department
Kings Park Road
Moulton Park
Northampton
NN3 6NW

Claim No 60980390/01
And CL2152383

Dear (staff name withheld)

I received your letter dated 17 April this morning in which you fail to acknowledge a single point that I made to you in my letter of 11 April to your colleague.

However, you do state that you feel its content was “somewhat inapropriate”.

What does that mean exactly. Do you think it is somewhat innapropriate for me to ask for an explanation as to why either of my claims are not being honoured?

Is there some form of three line whip at Nationwide Building Society whereby staff are taught to stonewall and blank specific, very specific, points made in letters of complaint from their customers.

Actually (staff name withheld), I find your response “somewhat inappropriate”. In fact I find it wholly inappropriate. In fact, I find it dismissive and to be quite honest, timorous.

It’s a bit like you’re saying “Go away you horrible big bully and stop being nasty to us. We don’t know why we won’t pay you. It’s just that the computer says no all the time.”

But I’m afraid I’m not going to go away because (and I’m making an assumption here) I’m in the situation where I’ve paid you insurance premiums for years and my kitchen is burned down and you won’t pay for it to get fixed… and you’re not.

Step outside of the walls of your cosy office in Kings Park Road for a minute, and into the real world, and you might get a hint of why I am not a very happy bunny and why I won’t go away.

So, I’ll ask you again. Could you possibly take the time to explain why you consider payment of half a claim an “Act of goodwill?”

Could you take some time to address my issues?

Could you act in a way which resolves my dispute as opposed to hiding from it?

I note you have opted for the last recourse of the corporation. - hiding behind the Ombudsman. But how can I go to the Ombudsman, as you suggest, when I only have my side of the story? You have given me no reasonable reasons for your refusing to honour my claims.

The point is, I have put forward a case and you have made no defence.

So, please could you defend yourself more effectively - or settle my claim.

I notice that you have passed the buck onto Churchill Insurance, but I didn’t buy it from Churchill Insurance I bought it from Nationwide Building Society. I believe they call that White labelling and I believe my contract (at the very least morally) is with you.

I patiently await your response.

Yours sincerely

Mark Gorman

My mate, Tim Maguire, shot these very tasty commercials in the Seychelles for The Union advertising Agency.

]

]

And he poses a very intriguing question.

How on earth do you make 12 commercials on 35mm film for £16,000

You’ll have to get in touch with him direct to find out.

For those of you who have had the misfortune of making an unsuccesful insurance claim of late or who have been following the saga of our two claims from the Nationwide Building Society that spend millions of pounds advertising that they don’t act like the banks who as portrayed in their ads as moneygrubbing scum, this letter that I wrote to them upon our claims being rejected again may be of interest.

11 April 2008

(Name of staff member withheld)
Nationwide Building Society
Insurance Claims Department
Claims Team 1
Kings Park Road
Moulton Park
Northampton
NN3 6NW
Dear (Name of staff member withheld)

I received your letter dated 10 April, never have I read a correspondance so overburdoned with farcical comments and patronising platitudes.

I have made several hundred photocopies of it and tomorrow morning I shall take the train into Edinburgh and place them in various public conveniences in the city centre for people to use when toilet roll runs out as the nonsense that is contained on those two pages ranks alongside Hillary Clinton’s recent misspeaking.

Actually wiping one’s anus with those letters places them on a category higher than the contents really deserve, but at least whilst the user is waiting to apply the paper to the job in hand they might have a right good laugh reading Nationwide’s authorised tosh.

I will not take the Mondial claim any further because you seem to have found a neat get out clause. But, just for the record I will once again remind you that we did not inform you of my father’s condition because he was not in the travelling party, none of the travelling party was unfit and more importantly, as I have told you and Mondial on numerous occassions, two consultant’s told us, indeed recommended to us, that we went on holiday, post diagnosis. We were told my father had six to nine months to live, and that the holiday would be important for us to build up a bit of energy for what lay in store later in the year.

The holiday was three weeks after the diagnosis and so, acting on their advice, we confirmed that we would travel and booked the insurance.

But it is your job as insurers to unearth the most appropriate terms and conditions to invalidate a claim.

So, hey, you win.

Well done.

Sleep well tonight.

Your thoughts were so touching and comforting when you said in your letter

“I am sorry that I cannot bring you more welcome news in such a difficult time for you.”

Awww, bless.

And if you’re looking for a good place for your summer holidays try Lagos in Portugal. It’s lovely. But expensive for four days!

Now. The kitchen claim. That’s a different matter entirely and it ain’t job done “screwed another sucker behind the façade of a nice letter” yet.

I do not accept your findings and do not find your “goodwill” gesture.

Goodwill?

Goodwill is doing the job. Actually, no it isn’t. Goodwill is doing more than the job.

How dare you suggest that replacing half a kitchen is goodwill.

Can you begin to fathom how insulting, patronising, cheap, tacky and irritating the use of that word in the context of this situation is? No? Well I’ll tell you.

It is very insulting patronising tacky and irritating.

Goodwill is honouring more than your side of the bargain.

And lest it is unclear let me spell out to you what that bargain is.

Step 1 Our house goes on fire (not part of our plans that Saturday in dim and distant January, not part of the plans at all. Oh no; that was definitely one of the things most of us would plan not to do.)

Step 2 We discover part of our kitchen is burned

Step 3 Loss adjuster visits, agrees with us and signs off our claim

Step 4 Replacement parts for the damaged area of the kitchen cannot be sourced therefore our entire kitchen is rendered damaged. I think it’s called a write off in insurance parlance. It’s just like if you crash the front part of your car and it is irrepairable (like our kitchen) the car is written off and you’re required to replace the whole car. Not cut off the back end and weld on a new front end. That would be silly.

Step 5 You ignore this technicality and spend the next 4 months conjuring up reasons to only pay for half the kitchen as an “act of Goodwill”. I don’t want half a kitchen (Name of staff member withheld) I want a whole one. Just like I don’t make half an insurance premium payment I make a whole one.

It really is very, very simple.

Step 6 You see my point. (at last) You stop acting like half the cost of kitchen will bring Nationwide Building Society to its knees (you’ve got a credit crunch to do that) and act like a courteous, mutual society – not like corporate, moneygrubbing nincompoops.

Step 7 I convince the friend of mine who had £75,000 in savings in your organisation but moved it away upon hearing of my story, to move it back again – as an act of “goodwill.”

Come on (Name of staff member withheld). This is just silly. I don’t want to shell out half of the cost of a new kitchen. I just want my old one back the way it was. But it’s been discontinued. That’s unfortunate. That, frankly is your problem.

Assuming you see the error of your ways and steps 5 – 7 unfold I will not have to bring in the insurance ombudsman and I will go round the cubicles of Edinburgh’s Public Conveniences and uplift the aforementioned bogroll.

Oh, and you may have noticed that as an ”act of goodwill” I have refrained from swearing at any point in this letter.

Yours sincerely

Mark Gorman

Ian Stringer was rightly fired.

He was inept. Handsome, perhaps, but inept.

But on this occassion it wasn’t so much the main Apprentice programme that horrified us in Gorman Heights, it was the follow up show hosted by Adrian Chiles which , in some ways, almost exceeds the wonderment of its parent. Which leads me to my main conclusion from this week’s show

It stemmed from what at first seemed like a perfectly innocent question.

Ian Stringer’s Dad was asked by Childsey.

“Did he let you down dad?” in a jocular Black Country fashion only for Stringer’s Dad to stun both me and Jeana with his emphatic answer.

“Yes.”

Accompanied by a slightly evil looking toothy, smarmy grin.

What I say to that is that Mr Stringer Senior is a disgrace to his son and I think we should leave this week’s Apprentice review at that

Poor show Dad. Very poor show.

(Other than to say that Raef continues to blind us with inanity.

Anyone who says they will give “110%” is in my book a poor arithmetical judge. Or, simply a fool.)

An anti-painkiller ad by masochists.

Very good fun indeed.

Thanks to Will for pointing it out to me.

Spencer Davis Group song gets an outstanding airing in this brilliant new commercial for the VW Polo. Sublime demonstration of the benefit of owning a Polo. The best ad I’ve seen in a long time and a firm favourite in the Gorman household

You may have read my views on the scandal that is insurance in the UK. Basically as the insured you are guilty until proven innocent and the strategy of insurance companies is not to pay up unless it is the last resort - like having to come home from your holiday ‘cos your Dad died (of course that was all planned) or your kitchen going on fire (because we’re pyromaniacs).

Well, our latest issue was just that - and here’s the photographic evidence that was good enough for the Loss Adjuster, but not the insurance company, as you will read below.

Amazingly, the following letter has, believe it or not, actually elicited a sympathetic response.

No result yet, of course, but at least some consideration.

See what you think. This was my letter to Nationwide Building Society on March the 12th.

Dear Sir/Madam

I write to you in a state of some disbelief.

My understanding of the economics of insurance is that we, the underwritten, undertake to pay you, the underwriter an open ended premium to ensure that if something unexpected happens to us, the cost of that eventuality (less an agreed excess) is paid out to put right the unfortunate occurrance that we have paid for.

You, I understand, set the premiums on the basis of a risk analysis. So that, you pay out less than you collect and make a profit.

We, the underwritten, do exactly the same.

We calculate that if the risk of paying out endless monthly premiums is worth the security of knowing that in the eventuality of something going wrong we will be looked after.

We assume the people we are paying are as good as their word.

In the past year I have lost all of that faith.

Firstly, my father died whilst I was on holiday and had to bring my family home from Portugal.

My trust in Mondial was misplaced (as we were treated like cheats when in fact the reality was precisely the opposite - it was Mondial that was cheating).

We were fed nothing other than lies.

Nationwide, who we bought this policy from, positions itself as the good guys - not the money grubbing swine that the banking network is. So, why is it that when our kitchen goes on fire; when you send out a Loss Adjuster to validate any claim – and he does; when you find out that our kitchen has been discontinued you come back to us and say…

“It’s normal practice to settle for half the cost of the full replacement kitchen.”

Why is that?

Which half were you planning to replace? Top or bottom? Left or right? Inside or outside? Handles? Worktops? Or don’t those count?

What would you have said to me if I had only paid half my premiums?

Would you have settled my claim?

I don’t think so!

And what’s that about quick settlement of claims? The fire was on the 5th of January. It’s now the 12th of March.

And can we have the door back that you’ve had for a month trying to find the kitchen that matched it?

You are being very unfair, very unreasonable and frankly ridiculous.

Please could you respond wearing your sensible hat and tell us when our fully validated claim will be processed with some dignity.

Yours faithfully

Mark Gorman

PS. One other thing. You have replaced the washing machine (minus the excess) but you seem to be treating this as two claims when quite clearly it is not. The washing machine caused the fire, therefore the whole thing is one incident and should be treated as such. In other words, for the avoidance of confusion we have no intention of paying two excesses. Just like we don’t make two monthly payments.

I like PR.

It makes the media world work and several of my pals work in PR.

But I was speaking at a business networking event today and shared the platform with a PR guy who made a perfectly good presentation until he uttered the immortal line that PR “Sprinkles a bit of Pixie Dust.”

Had I have been in more trivial mode I might have laughed until I choked on my own vomit.

Instead I spotted an acquaintence in the audience and discretely raised my eyebrows heavenwards.

The move was reciprocated.

What a laugh we had last night. The Mrs , myself and Ria. The Apprenice is, in so many ways, the greatest thing on British TV.

It’s about class first and foremost - and anyone who enjoys the programme and disagrees is kidding themselves.

It’s about emotion.

It’s certainly funny.

It’s about arrogence.

It’s about banal stupidity and therefore viewer superiority.

It’s about good versus evil.

It’s about double guessing Sir Alan.

It’s about Margaret and Nick.

It’s about life.

It is life affirming.

Oh, I love it so much. It makes me laugh so much I could cry.

But last night (week one) it was most certainly about class. Working class hero Alex, and team leader, versus a couple of fucking toffs. (You can probably see where I’m coming from on this one).

The Apprentice, is visceral television. One (you) has (have) to scream at the screen because the antics are so outstanding.

So, surprise, surprise I was shouting for the adequate Northern (and educated) team leader in favour of the useless twat (and educated), toff pricks, who let their team down.

Nicholas Delancey- Brown and Raef Byanyu to be precise.

Can you really, honestly see Raef Byanyu on the shop floor with Sir Alan. No, don’t be bloody ridiculous. He is a twit. A big bally twit. Twitty twit, twit, that’s what I bally say!

And as for Nick Delancy whatsisname, he’s back to Arsingale-on-Bandit on the first ruddy limo that he could find.

Being superiorly inferior.

See ya. Woudnae wanna be ya!

I heard an excellent (and time saving) recruitment technique last week.

What happens is you split your pile of respondents’ CV’s into two and throw one of the piles randomly into the bin.

The ‘binees” might claim this is unfair but surely you wouldn’t want to employ anyone as unlucky as them - no matter how good they were.

Would you?

I’ve seen (and heard on the radio) this ad far too often.

In the trade we call it “A pile of shit that’s beautifully lit.”

I know that selling cars must be hard.

Hard to differentiate and hard to be as good as Honda. Oh how the Ford boys must hate the Honda jibes.

But this is toe curlingly, truly awful. Actually, no, it’s worse, much worse than that…

It’s just. You know. Embarrasing.

Sorry to inflict it on you again.

This is the “director’s cut”

LOL

]

How could I possibly support such a notion?

An ad campaign that says life is better without the ads.

I’ll tell you how…

Put together a hugely compelling idea, a brilliantly to the point proposition, fabulous direction and a song to kill for. (Gene Wilder as Willie Wonka.)

And this is what you get. Advertising at its best.

The irony is that it’s anti advertising. But, you know what? That ultimately is why it is genius and will win lots of advertising awards.

LOL.

And you know what? I was able to repeat view it on our temporarily working Sky + (2 months now - a record!).

]