bout 30 hours ago I published 2 parts. The latter spoke about false “options” or invalid “options” given to my wife and I. Those had already failed, that’s why we came to speak in person. I told them that the privatised Post Office wasn’t Town Hall and accessibility in the Web site was awful. Nobody there could digest those messages. It was like talking to a wall.

2 weeks earlier I attempted to phone the line (call centre) they kept promoting, but it was unavailable every time, even when I came in person and dialled 102 at the main office.

There are several issues here, the least of which is that they’re not collecting money from the public to actually staff their services properly. They are clearly understaffed in some areas but also overstaffed in others (people doing nothing, knowing nothing, barely trying to help anybody).

There are demands for particular services, but that’s above the level they’re able to facilitate/fulfil. They’re collecting money from people and not delivering.

I told them that on two occasions already they were clearly understaffed after 1PM on a Thursday (nobody able to pick up the call), not a holiday or anything like that.

Face-to-face? Not a chance. Only over a phone, even when you’re already right there. Odd. I’ll later explain that it didn’t use to be like that. I’ll also explain that they told us to walk away and try phoning at 9AM as if it’ll magically work that way and that after 10 minutes on the line one can request a callback.

There is no assurance, however, that this would happen.

They were at least sincere about the low expectations. Maybe deep inside they too realised how unreliable the serviced had become.

Gosh, what an awful experience. All for the simple task of updating one’s details!

DAY AGO the site where I spend the most time served 584,269 Web requests. The one Rianne leads served 1,638,626 requests. It’s not an all-time record, but in recent years we have more such days in those sites.

While we block slop bots, it’s hard to block them all definitively, so some of that traffic if not most of it might be bots. That’s how today’s Web is. It should not be, but it is.

fter many wins in a row, and a record number of straight wins for a new coach in the PL’s history, City cannot stop losing. After two losses it is another loss and not against a potent rival. City wasn’t “unlucky”, it just didn’t play well enough.

This is getting a bit frustrating. Arsenal “away” is coming later this month.

oday my mother spoke to me about Techrights and wished me well. My dad had done the same this morning and also yesterday. He remembered. He said good things. My wife did many things, including cards, food, and flowers.

I am glad that on the 20-year anniversary loved ones recognise the hard work and, in their words, the “sacrifices”.

bout an hour from now what should be a straightforward match kicks off.

Enzo has chosen to start with: Donnarumma, Khusanov, Dias (C), Guéhi, Gvardiol, Anderson, Fernández, Ndiaye, Cherki, Doku, and Haaland.

That’s a strong squad. He’s not taking risks.

couple of days ago my wife and I walked to Manchester City Council and spent just over an hour there. We researched the state of things for this series, not out of choice as much as out of real need.

The first 3 parts were a sort of alta vista and part 4 said this was apparently a global trend (allegedly, because so I am told by people I know).

Today I’d like to focus on one aspect. I try to split those aspects apart to make discussion easier, maybe a formal complaint at a later stage.

When my wife and I went to the Customer Services desk on Thursday she took the lead, but she was then given “false” options that were clearly anything but a real service. That was useless, as we were already at Customer Services, which we had traveled to physically.

They told my wife she had “other” options, such as going to the “Post Office” (another privatised thing, owned by a very rich foreigner) and we explained that this was unsuitable an option as the aim was to change/update details, not make payments. Both my wife and I, separately, said this to them.

It feels like the staff there resorted to a fallback… on some ‘template’ reply.

When a browser option was mentioned both my wife and I told them that several browsers on our (several) computers were not compatible with their Web site, or with that particular portal managed by a third party. What’s worse about it is that I had already told them that two weeks earlier and posted feedback. I spent almost an hour arguing, then writing about it. Clearly nothing was done about it.

They don’t read feedback. They don’t seem to care. Just one single ‘pesky’ customer… probably one in a million! Nobody else uses Firefox in Manchester!

I brought up aspects of accessibility and how much of a problem they would cause not just to old people or ‘technophobes’.

It was like talking to the wall. They don’t want to listen and pretend not to understand (or care).

Customer Services should do better than this.

In the next part I’ll discuss details about the “phone” option they spoke of.

I am utterly ashamed that in Greater Manchester or even Manchester “proper” (with millions of people) everyone must rely on such poor performance at the official Customer Services desk.

I am increasingly convinced we need to publicise this.

In my experience, they mostly squash complaints. They try to keep those private to save face.

moment – or even an entire part – is needed to discuss the worldwide or global nature of this trend. I am told by friends in several countries that not only Manchester is impacted. Let’s devote today to this.

The pandemic referred to as COVID-19 appears to have been a major contributor or accelerator of this agenda, namely a rapid deterioration of services, then expecting the public to do (for free) all the work that public servants used to do. This is outsourcing, not automation. In general, in public services (that we all pay for collectively), everything gets worse. Yes, everything, even postal services. And even here, everywhere, any place there used to be something like a “Royal Mail”. We pay more, we get less. Privatisation is a common denominator.

“It looks like a package on the way here will likely not be delivered today,” a friend told me, “and instead spend the weekend in town.”

They don’t even deliver items like they used to. Drive to pick it up… what a waste of fuel! Bad for the climate!

“The goal is to shut down all government services,” the friend told me. “I disagree with the groups and the goals but those are what are aimed at by ignorant society.”

He said “some of that agenda is pushed by tech bros on behalf of the broligarchs who all aim to destroy democracies and, if they can, establish “network states” in their places…”

He noted that “the US won a temporary reprieve, but many (most?) of the elected politicians are beholden economically to either AIPAC or Kremlin or both.”

I am saddened to see how privatisation hurts everybody and everything. It impacts us as well.

bout 10 hours from now Techrights turns 20.

“Tomorrow anniversary,” one person reminded me today, it being “20 years……”

He said I should be “careful and enjoy life”.

I appreciated that people remembered the age of the site, the date of its anniversary, and also recognised the risks associated while acknowledging that it is enjoyable in spite of these risks.

Let’s hope for another 20 happy years in Techrights.

bout half an hour ago I learned about another classic SLAPP in the UK. That’s transnational oppression/repression.

In our case, in addition to SLAPPs from America, there was also a swatting attempt. This new series about it added two more parts this morning:

oday we learn of a SLAPP from Russia, much like what we get from America except this time from Europe (or Eurasia), not America.

A friend told me that this site has “no RSS or Atom feed though, so not fully professional shop…”

From the article at Barents Observer: (reproduced in full for more exposure and to make censorship harder)

In a surreal case filed with a British court, the Russian fishery tycoon puts the blame on our newspaper for damages inflicted on him by EU sanctions.

According to Vitaly Orlov, he is suffering “serious harm to his reputation” because of articles published by the Barents Observer.

The billionaire has repeatedly threatened our newspaper. The threats have now materialised in a lawsuit filed with the High Court of Justice in London.

Vitaly Orlov is based in Murmansk and has key parts of his business activities in the Barents Sea and the Arctic. He shuns public attention and rarely gives interviews or comments to the press.

On 24 September, a representative of Devonshire Solicitors, a London-based law firm that represents Orlov, showed up at the office of the Barents Observer in Kirkenes, northern Norway, without prior notice. The woman had travelled all the way from the UK to Kirkenes to physically hand over the court papers.

The claims are based on five news articles published by the Barents Observer in the period from 21 May 2025 to 7 January 2026. They all concern Norebo, the company that is 100% owned by Orlov, and cover the international sanctions imposed on the company on 20 May 2025.

In all the articles, we refer to the EU’s 17th Sanctions Package against Russia, in which Norebo is listed. According to the document from the EU Council, Norebo’s fishing vessels have been involved in Russian state intelligence activities.

About two months after the listing in the EU Sanctions Package, Norway followed suit and banned Norebo’s vessels from Norwegian ports and waters. Norebo subsequently took Norway to court, and this case is now coming up.

It is, of course, not the Barents Observer that has found a link between Norebo and Russian intelligence. We have only referred to the EU Council and its sanctions list. We could have added more text from the EU’s Sanctions Package, for example the following:

“Norebo JSC thus implements and supports actions by the Government of the Russian Federation, which undermine or threaten the security in the Union, several of its Member States and third countries by engaging in and supporting actions aimed at interfering with critical infrastructure, including submarine infrastructure.”

The Barents Observer’s coverage of Norebo and the international sanctions is fully in line with normal reporting and internationally recognised journalism codes of ethics. All five articles in question are based on solid references to sources, including Norebo’s own press releases.

Clearly, Vitaly Orlov does not like the Barents Observer shedding light on his company and its activities. As a matter of fact, he is reportedly deeply troubled by the articles—not only economically, but also mentally. In the documents delivered to the court, Devonshire writes that “the Claimant’s reputation has been damaged, and he has been caused continuing distress, hurt and embarrassment.”

The Barents Observer is based in a democratic country where independent journalism and freedom of the press are firmly rooted in the law and society. It is the responsibility and obligation of the press to report on critical developments.

That includes Russia’s biggest fishery company and its activities in the EU, Norway, and elsewhere.

What Vitaly Orlov’s lawsuit boils down to is that the richest man in the Russian fishery industry does not like the Barents Observer.

Orlov is specifically targeting our newspaper. He could have gone after the Norwegian broadcaster NRK, the newspapers DN and Fiskeribladet, or any of the many other media companies that have covered Norebo’s activities and its inclusion in the international sanctions lists. But the Russian billionaire chose to set his London-based lawyers on the Barents Observer.

This hardly comes as a surprise. Orlov knows that the Barents Observer is a small and financially vulnerable company. He wants us to waste our limited time and resources on an absurd case.

Consequently, we see his claims as a dirty attack on the freedom of the press and as an attempt to break our small and independent newspaper.

The billionaire demands that the Barents Observer pay him “damages.” In addition, he also demands an injunction to restrain our newspaper from publishing “the same or similar imputations” in the future.

In other words, Vitaly Orlov demands that the Barents Observer stop writing about him—now and forever. His lawsuit is aimed at punishing and intimidating not only the Barents Observer, but also other media interested in covering his business activities.

Russia extensively uses intimidation as a tool to silence opponents. With a significant degree of success, this tool is applied not only domestically, but also against opponents abroad.

Over many years, the Barents Observer has grown used to attacks and threats from various actors in Russia. Following the start of the war against Ukraine in 2014, Russian authorities and services have actively tried to close us down. The attacks have targeted not only our company, but also our journalists. Half of our staff is now on Russia’s wanted list.

Threats, attacks, and Vitaly Orlov’s court case notwithstanding, the Barents Observer will never abandon its free and independent reporting.