Which? is rapidly becoming a sop for the control freaks – a hectoring, nannying, patronising irrelevance. An object lesson in its assumption that we are all epsilons comes with the call to regulate comparison sites.
Price comparison websites should be regulated because the information they provide is not always fair, a consumer group has said.
The consumers’ association Which? said some sites gave misleading quotes on insurance policies and could cause customers to spend more than necessary.
Initial prices could seem very cheap because some sites automatically pre-selected certain options, it said.
Oh, for fuck, fucking, fuckitty, fuck’s sake; words fail me. So, fucking uncheck the preselected options. That’s what I do. I’ve used these sites extensively and have saved a small fortune on insurance and energy costs. They are simple to use – even the average epsilon can manage it. Fuck me, even Meercats get to use ’em. Uh, oh, so they ain’t real? oh, well…
The consumer group said this discrepancy could be partly explained by some comparison sites making assumptions about the driver.
For example, one decided that she would park her car on the road overnight. That small detail made her premium £83 more expensive than if she had specified that she would leave it in her garage.
Which? argued that comparison sites gave the impression that there was no need to go anywhere else but, in fact, they did not cover the whole market.
Sigh… That’s why when seeking motor insurance, I used several sites and did my own comparisons across all of them. For the cars, Confused came up with the best quotes and for the bike it was Go Compare. Those Meercats came way down the league. God, but it isn’t difficult, any cretin with a mouse can do it. And, yes, they make some assumptions. Again, it isn’t difficult to disabuse them by un-checking boxes and reapplying for a quote that is more accurate. Any fool can manage that.
So, what does Which? want to do about us stupid folk who can’t navigate comparison websites without the great and good of Which? to nanny us? They want them regulated. So, not satisfied with the government poking about micro managing what we eat, drink and smoke, they want them to mess about in how we use comparison websites. Already government has taken on far more than its remit should ever have stretched. So, no, comparison websites do not need regulating. Which? quite frankly can fuck the fuck off and stay fucked off.
Why is it that the hard of thinking feel that every little problem needs to be resolved by the dead hand of the state interfering with yet more binge legislation? Jeebus!
LR, in answer to your final question; perhaps those clamouring for state intervention are doing so because they can’t find their own proverbial arses without a map? 😈
Let’s ban all adverts for items/products that we proles cannot afford – they only breed discontent, the cause of our greed, riots, drug taking, binge drinking, smoking, overdosing on simple fattening delights and voting for unacceptable candidates from ghastly minority parties.
Let’s promote all Healthist adverts that quite clearly explain how inferior we are the acceptable design of citizen prescribed by our Country’s elite and our righteous experts.
We are unworthy and as nothing without the wisdom of the chosen ones.
A bit more serious — How about holding all those who promote products to account? Do they know the product actually works? Should they pay if the product is crap or causes harm? Are the Government promoting ill-health by accepting sponsorship for events like the 2012 Olympics from CocaCola, MacDonalds, Cadburys, Heinekin and Trebor?
The more I read Philip K. Dick’s novels the more I’m convinced that he was sent from the future to warn us.
Is there likely to be a self fulfilling prophesy caused by this kind of thing? Yes some people are naive and lose money by not being wily enough but hopefully most will learn from their mistakes. The authorities think that we are all too dim to be trusted with our own welfare and need protecting from nasty predatory advertisers at every turn. In the end will we have a generation that are never allowed to make a single mistake to learn from, and so are completely vulnerable and hence need protection via government regulation?