SSE are very sorry...

Every week it's something.

A former regulator was interviewed on Radio 4 today and he said what we need with these utility companies is "supervision", not "regulation". He said that regulation is mostly being alerted by the public of fraudulent/improper dealings after they've occurred and then levying fines, whereas supervision is providing strict guidelines as to what is and is not allowed and ensuring that the companies adhere to them.

It's easy to say sorry and not that hard to pay a fine when there is no legal force to compel the company to compensate those who have been defrauded. The former regulator is right that the system needs changing.

And there goes another flying pig…

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Who guards the guardians)
The head of the Audit Commission was found out making dodgy expenses claims and we all remember the excessive claims of some MPs and MEPs (including the Kinnocks).
Customers have been ripped off not only by banks and energy companies but by many other firms. The mantra that 'only the little people pay taxes' still holds good.

Pigs and troughs! The thing that astounds me is the blatant lack of shame at being caught. Greatnan

They are sorry they got caught and that's the sorry truth of it.

I'm trying ever so hard to remember which govt and PM voted through the privatisation of gas and electricity .....er .... Can anybody help? Of course they could never have seen scandals like this coming could they? Bless them

If anyone is interested I have developed an Excel spreadsheet that allows me not only to track and cost my own consumption but to put in figs from any company and get a result I can rely on about genuine costs of other deals.

I am afraid it wouldn't apply to me, Bluebell, as I don't live in the UK.
Certain basic essentials of life should never have been made subject to the profit motive - many of the water and fuel companies are not even British based. Contracting out cleaning services in hospitals to the lowest bidder had a disastrous effect. I am aware that once doctors are given the chance to direct patients to certain health providers, those same doctors may have a financial interest in the companies chosen. Wrong, wrong, wrong.
If anybody thinks doctors are above that sort of thing - I suggest you look at the GMC Fitness to Practise Page!
Before anybody leaps in to defend doctors, I am sure the majority are totally innocent but it is the system to which I object.

Oh Greatnan I so agree with what you are saying - there are certain aspects of life which should not be for profit making but provided as a service at the most reasonable cost possible, not for making huge profits for relatively few people.

Back to the 11th commandment, it applies at all levels from the top to the bottom and at whatever level is wrong. But how many on here can honestly say they have never done something wrong? Have you paid anyone in cash while suspecting they are not declaring it? Of course you can salve your conscience by saying it is their responsibility to declare it but you are still colluding with them.

Have you ever been overchanged and not told the sales person?

Have you ever driven over the speed limit? Ever gone through an amber light when you could have stopped?

Have you ever taken a pen or paperclip from work?

Do you really believe that it is worse for someone in a position to defraud a large amount to do so than for someone 'only' in a postion to defraud a small amount to do so?

Movedalot - are you seriously not able to distinguish between somebody taking a paper clip from work and a company defrauding its customers of millions of pounds?
Are you defending this company?

"Have you ever been overcharged and not told the sales person?"

I doubt it but if I had, why would that make me immoral?

I have been undercharged and always told the sales person.

The only 'crime' in that list to which I can honestly confess is breaking the speed limit - for which I was duly punished. I hardly thinks it makes me immoral. I have never defrauded an insurance company and as a tax inspector I certainy would not have condoned tax evasion.
I wonder if the people in charge of SEE thought along Movedalot's lines - 'well, everybody does it'. Unfortunately, when it comes to many companies, they are probably right.

Movedalot, my answer to all your questions is No. But I have noticed that many public sector employees subsidise their employers. Teachers buying food and clothes for children for example. As for the 'pay in cash' question, do you have such a suspicious mind that you think everyone who is paid on cash is dishonest?

But in any event the difference in degree is important, and the penalties prescribed in the criminal justice system, reflect this.

So that's all right then I suppose. Their "fine" is pence compared to their revenue. But we can all sleep easy in our beds now? Huh.

Greatnan No are you? Of course I know the difference why did you ask such a daft question? However, as someone with a very strong moral code I think that all these things are wrong. Such a shame you cannot see this. I think the 'everybody does it' is exactly the cause of much of the problem, as I said eleventh commandment.

Yes absent I think it is immoral to accept something which is not your due and is a mistake on someone else's part. I suppose I'm not surprised everyone doesn't see it this way but it is clear from another thread that you and I don't share the same moral code.

No mice I don't have a suspicious mind, quite the opposite, I trust everyone until they prove me wrong. I do however know of people who are very proud of paying in cash and thereby paying less than they should, are repairs, antiques etc.

I hope you challenge them in that case. Just so long as you are sure that they are wilfully defrauding the revenue system.

Movedalot - how can you possibly have misinterpreted my very clear condemnation of this company?
You appeared to be equating this massive fraud with trivial 'crimes'. If that is not what you meant to imply, perhaps you could elucidate?
I think you are totally out of order to make comments about other people's moral codes.

Greatnan I didn't misinterpret anything, I have found you to be very good and doing just that to my posts! You have just done so. I have not 'equated' anything with anything. I think wrong is wrong at any level.

Why on earth shouldn't I comment on a moral code? What is wrong with that? I am sure absent would agree with me that we have different moral codes, after all she is the one who brought the subject up! What makes you the arbiter of what can be discussed?

Movedalot It is clear from this thread that you and I don't share the same language.

Overcharged means that the person selling is asking me for more money than an item costs. If I don't say anything and pay the extra cost I am not accepting anything through someone else's mistake and am, in fact, giving money away gratuitously.

As I have already said, I never fail to point out undercharging. Undercharging means someone asks me to pay less for an item than it actually costs.

It's important to distinguish between petty theft and wholesale corruption, I think.

Your exact words, Movedalot, were:

Do you really believe that it is worse for someone in a position to defraud a large amount to do so than for someone 'only' in a postion to defraud a small amount to do so?

My reply is - Yes, and I am surprised that you need to ask that question.

You have told us before how loving and forgiving you are and how you hate dishonesty - I think most of us hope that it goes without saying.

I do not honestly think that you can make any comparison whatsoever to someone taking a paper clip from work to a gigantic corporation stealing defrauding millions from its customers.

If you can honestly say you have never "broken the law" in any way, shape or form then you must wear a halo.

Movedalot I am not sure that you are really in a position to make moral judgements about me. Like you, I doubt if anyone is perfect but, for the record:

I don't pay tradesmen without an invoice and, if appropriate a VAT invoice, so even if I pay in cash, there is a record for HMRC. No collusion there.

I have never driven over the speed limit or driven through an amber light.

All pens and paperclips in this house belong to me and have been paid for. I even have the receipts to prove it.

I believe that dishonesty, theft and fraud are all wrong. I also believe that large-scale fraud is is worse than petty theft.

I have already explained carefully about the difference between undercharging and overcharging – but if you feel that I am once more putting words into your mouth and misrepresenting what you have said I can explain more clearly again.

As far as I can see, what you said at 10.40.28 is:

"Have you ever been overchanged and not told the sales person?"

I believe that you are implying that this is immoral; a view further expressed at 11.42.16:

"Yes absent I think it is immoral to accept something which is not your due and is a mistake on someone else's part. I suppose I'm not surprised everyone doesn't see it this way but it is clear from another thread that you and I don't share the same moral code."