Kudos for Amazon and Criticism for Microsoft

 

I'm mightily impressed by Amazon UK and equally disappointed with Microsoft UK. I have a Microsoft Surface Pro which I bought back in April 2017. It's suffering from a common problem with these devices - a swollen battery which pushes out and bends the screen. When I bought it, it cost me more than £1,500.

Microsoft say affected devices should not be used. However the Surface Pro 4 is now considered obsolete and Microsoft won't do anything about it. Their customer support said, "Microsoft considers Surface pro 4 as a discontinued product. Meaning it can no longer receive support, updates or warranty claims except for the one which are under warranty currently. This policy had been set in motion on the 2nd of September. I am aware that it is a known issue and i tried to argue that, but to no results."

I wrote to them saying:

"UK Consumer Rights Act 2015 which applies, goods must be of 'Satisfactory quality.' One aspect of a product being of satisfactory quality is durability, in other words how long it lasts. Durability takes into account many different factors like product type, brand reputation, price point and how it is advertised. A premium and expensive tablet that's been well looked after and is no longer safely usable after four years can be considered to not be durable, and therefore not of satisfactory quality. Of course you could argue that this was not a premium product and could not be expected to last four years. I suspect you won’t want to admit that to the world. However.

The law states I must take this up with the retailer – Amazon UK. This does not let Microsoft off the hook since Amazon will have a case under the same act against Microsoft.

I trust you have resolved this issue for the Surface Pro 8 which I had considered purchasing."

So the ball moved into Amazon UK's court. I sent them copies of my correspondence with Microsoft and got an immediate reply that they would arrange for the device to be collected and would issue a full refund on its receipt. No argument.

Great customer service Amazon. Just as soon as I get that refund I'll be ordering a new Surface Pro 8 from you. Especially since I know you are MUCH better at dealing with customers than Microsoft is. Does one of these have to catch fire or explode before Microsoft issues a recall? And that 2nd September cut-off date? Poor show Microsoft.

As to the Surface Pro devices - they are simply brilliant - provided they are not fitted with a battery attempting to do a Samsung Galaxy Note 7 impersonation.

Can we expect politicians to tell the truth?

 I find it concerning that the hashtag #BorisTheLiar is trending on Twitter. There is no doubt that Johnson and other politicians do tell lies, spread misinformation and tell partial truths which give the wrong impression. In the UK there are various media sources which have set up 'Reality Check' pages to tell the full truth.

Do we have the right to expect the truth from politicians? Do we want that right or are we prepared to tolerate lies?

The UK Parliament expects all politicians to tell the truth and follow 'The Nolan Principles.' Government ministers are in addition expected to follow the 'Ministerial Code' which states that “holders of public office should be truthful” and that: “It is of paramount importance that ministers give accurate and truthful information to parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity. Ministers who knowingly mislead Parliament will be expected to offer their resignation to the Prime Minister.”

It's a lot harder to discipline an PM who lies than to discipline an MP who calls out the liar. MP Dawn Butler found this out when she challenged Boris Johnson in Parliament, called him a liar and was told to leave the Commons.

Even using the Ministerial Code the decision to ask for resignations resides with the Prime Minister and he's unlikely to demand his own resignation.

Should we accept this? I think not. Parliament should act on this. Here's my suggestion:

When any elected representative can be proved to have lied to or misinformed Parliament or to the public in a party broadcast then they should be penalised by losing 2% of the votes cast for them in the next election. These lost votes should be shared equally amongst other candidates who can garner at least 500 votes. Should an MP be resigning at the end of their term or die in office then these votes should be deducted from their party successor. If an MP is found to have misinformed Parliament or the public accidentally then the votes lost should be 1% provided they make a public apology within seven days.

The effect of this policy would be to ensure MPs are careful to tell the truth and will factcheck their statements carefully.

Here's an example of how it would affect our current PM:

In the last election Boris Johnson got 25,351 votes. Each lie or misinformation he made would cost him 507 votes in the next election. If he told 14 lies he would lose enough votes to lose his seat in Parliament at the next election.

So, who is going to do the fact checking to keep our politicians accurate? I suggest the media existing fact checkers would be the answer. Naturally, political candidates and parties should have a right to challenge the fact checkers.

And #BorisTheLiar - by my count you would already be out of a job at the next election.

https://twitter.com/PeterStefanovi2/status/1459541907772780546