Today in BBC:

October 2 years ago:

oday I lodged my second-ever complaint with the local Council (Town Hall). I’ve lived in Manchester for over 25 years, so that makes an average of one complaint every ~13 years, which I don’t think is too much of a burden on them. I’m not some vexatious complainant.

My complaint deals with feeding of nature [1, 2]; it would be immoral to prohibit or forbid that, more so without disclosing any relevant laws or selectively enforcing alleged rules.

I ticked the following boxes in my complaint:

• “has done something that compromises or is likely to compromise the impartiality of those who work for, or on behalf of, the Council”
• “has prevented another person from gaining access to information to which that person is entitled to by law”
• “has conducted themselves in a manner that could reasonably be regarded as bringing their office or the Council into disrepute”

A short or preliminary (can be expanded upon later, elaboration upon demand) of the complaint:

I am hereby filing a complaint, without any undue discrimination or ill intent. It is a short complaint the premise of which is, the local authorities are issuing contradictory instructions regarding the feeding of birds in open spaces with grass and trees, as well as providing plenty of fresh water during heatwaves in summertime. Not only us but also neighbours provide food to the birds, which we acquire at personal expense and distribute responsibly so as to avoid remnants being left on the ground. We are receiving contradictory instructions and and those are not based on any law, just ad hoc statements like “please stop feeding pigeons immediately.” (28/08/2025)

Based on official Web sites of the Council and the national authorities alike, there is no legal basis upon which to demand this. Public servants ought not be used for harassment by proxy, more so is the complaints have been doing drugs in their back yard for over a decade (and we never complained). While the issue withstands assessment and scrutiny we shall not refrain from doing the moral thing, which is to feed nature responsibly, just as neighbours do. I already discussed the matter in great length over the telephone on 28/08/2025 (call answered by [redacted]).

To avoid retaliation I prefer for the matter not to be disclosed at this time. The submission reference is #6025138, but I will not disclose any names.

want to explain my position as expressed (or politely, amicably explained) to local authorities.

Animals need water and food, more so in summertime. Especially the water. Water is life, life is water. We bought several stainless steel bowls to nourish the local cats, dogs, birds, and occasionally other animals. We change the water at least once a day to ensure it’s never stagnant. The government and the media actively encourage doing so, more so when there are heatwaves.

In dry places, animals tend to hang out not far from water. It’s an instinctive tendency.

For over a year we had birds in our back yard. This year, to appease thin-skinned people, we moved them to the front, to a public space, an open space with lots of grass and trees.

The queens and kings of Britain have protected wild birds, which they saw as almost equal to humans. The government encouraged people to offer food to birds, e.g. in their back gardens. And because as a society we are governed by rules, not by men, what matters is policy. What it boils down to is the universal rule, so I checked the official .gov sites, just to ensure we feed the birds correctly while complying with whatever it says there.

Over time we reduced the frequency of the feeding (we try to buy them the best seeds available), but not the quantity (once day in large quantities instead of 10-20 times a day in smaller doses), which is fine as long as more people do this. Our neighbours feed them and like them, but there is a resistance from one very malicious couple that does drugs in the back yard, forcing other people to inhale bad stuff for over a decade already. Apparently the birds are “dirty”, but drugs being smoked is not. I recently saw articles about bans on bird-feeding in India (specifically in Mumbai), despite such bans being highly immoral, resulting in actual hunger strikes, albeit mostly by Jains.

We need to resist people who hate and antagonise wild animals, more so knowing that the animals cannot speak to humans (for themselves) and they have feelings too. An act of resistance, wherein you protect the lives of non-human creatures, is nothing to be ashamed of or afraid of.

The pretext that bird-feeding will attract vermin is not supported by any evidence and it also discriminates against some particular animals, who do no harm. If policy changes are to be made, then evidence is needed. While policies remain unchanged it’s not OK to apply any on an ad hoc, improvised basis. When council workers issue contradictory instructions, it then necessarily means somebody is lying.

e all love to joke about buzzwords like “AI” spinning out of control.

Sometimes some of us joke about hypothetical “AI” products.

I thought I had seen it all.

Today in the Sunday Market there was an entire stall devoted to AI glasses.

What does this mean?

I did not ask.

I didn’t even need to ask.

Seeing it was enough.

nshittification is not a term that I used, but here it is for everyone to see:

Some time ago I wrote to you regarding a cyber issue. I appreciated your response and it seems like you took my input seriously and changed accordingly so as to alleviate concerns about online scams and communication over E-mail.

Today I want to give some input regarding your branch at Manchester City Centre (Market Street).

In a nutshell, my wife and I had a 9:30 appointment and spoke to an employee whom we liked and has been very helpful to us in the past. We appreciated how she solved an issue and even communicated with us several time, by landline, to ensure the issue had been solved.

Today it seems like when handling us she was being supervised from the desk to us (accompanied from afar), where a person we assume to be her manager eavesdropped on our communication and threw mildly demeaning remarks our way (if not microaggression, definitely micro-managing the lady who served us, based on our intuition). The lady we sat with wanted to offer the services that we scheduled the meeting for, however this was interrupted by the other lady, who insisted we needed to do it using an “app” (which we don’t have) on our own. It was rather unpleasant, probably not only for us but also for the lady who served us.

After this appointment my wife and I spent some hours discussing this matter in a coffee shop down the road and decided to write to you about it. We want to be heard and we amicably ask for our input to be humbly considered. We write with good intentions, no bad faith here.

To keep this tidy, I wanted to take this opportunity to raise a number of pertinent concerns only partly related to this appointment (some are more general). The appointment started OK, but ended with some disappointment, not appointment per se.

1. Online Pressure and Discrimination Against ‘Offline’ Banking

When online banking was phased it more than 2 decades ago we were assured it would mostly enhance services rather than exclude or discriminate against people (e.g. things exclusive to some customers, not available to those who don’t opt in; some cannot feasibly opt in, see point (3) below).

My wife and I are both Computer Scientists and prefer for banking to be done in person. We know why. We know how computers work. Herding clients into “apps” and Web sites is not only unsafe; it’s also a risk. It is possible that things will not be done correctly, then blamed on the customers. Instead of saving time it might end up costing the customers a great deal of time, even distress.

2. In-Branch Services

We were told that there is guarantee of access to a branch, however the branch where we both opened out accounts more than a decade ago literally became a casino (the branch got closed, only to be replaced by a gambling shop near Piccadilly Station) and it looks like senior staff – i.e. people who know us and vice versa – was removed over time, only to be replace by much younger people who are less experienced and very dependent on colleagues. That slowed things done. Things that can (or could) take just 5 minutes would take up to an hour, sometimes even longer.

It moreover seems like every year more things become “online-only”, thus we are led to assume the end goal is for the bank to just become some “app” and Web site with no physical presences, no staff to approach, and no collaterals or assets with which to back savings. This seems like a risky gambit and a worrying trajectory that does not inspire confidence.

With banking, it all boils down to trust and confidence. People need to sense that they can confidently withdraw their money. They need to feel like the money is in safe hands.

3. Accessibility

For the sake of people with disability/ies (all of us are likely to become at least partly disabled at one point our our lives) it is crucial to maintain in-person services and imperative that assurances to this effect are given. Contrary to this, the impression given to us today is that such a commitment is gradually being phased out and banking with a human touch (as such) will be only temporarily available, leaving clients grappling to face persons who are qualified and familiar with the particular processes.

Please, can you investigate and clarify these matters? Our aim is not to belittle or insult anybody; we just try to do our best to improve the service or the perceived customer experience. We felt like we witnessed today competing interests: the profit motive against the clients’ genuine interest.

4. Customer-First Approach

In 2000 I was already a very early adopter of online banking, but now I partly regret what became of it; it seems to be means of outsourcing labour from bank staff to the clients, both at the expense of staff and clients and at risk (accountability) to staff and clients, for neither stands to benefit from this role-passing, i.e. it’s detrimental to us all, even your own staff, whose future seems increasingly uncertain. There is no lack of manpower (there are many people out there eager to find a job), there is just a race to the bottom in terms of filling up positions (or simply deprecating them altogether).

T may seem repetitive, but this is still important. It’s also more relevant than ever, even if the media chooses to brush it under the rug.

New ONS data came out this morning (in Microsoft’s proprietary format, as usual). 9,867 England and Wales deaths in Week 13 of 2019 compared to 11,241 in the same week this year.

It’s like this almost every week, including the prior week (12). I check this every Wednesday (for years already).

Is it OK to ask my government what has caused this very sharp increase?

Does it make one a “crank” for asking?

N the final weeks of the Biden Administration ceasefire was secured in Gaza and Lebanon.

In prior years ceasefire calls or attempts were also made in Ukraine.

The corporate media likes to frame any “ceasefire” news as some sort of Trump thing when as a matter of historical facts he only ever helped Russia on several levels.

Today’s media really sucks. It tries to change history, maybe for clickbait.