Some while ago the French reaffirmed that they will not allow women to cover their faces in public.  I felt an urge to comment on this at the time, but did not.  However  whenever I see women with their faces covered I cannot help but wonder why they do it and after a trip to Vienna, where all the Omanis, who wear hijab, but not niqab, I fell once more the need to comment, so here goes.  

First, I don't think the question of what anyone wears can be taken out of its social, and regrettably today political, context.  What women wear, and did, has been politicised for a very long, long time.  Male dominated societies have for centuries sought to control and suppress women and placing restrictions on what they wear has been part of it, whether it be chastity belts for the wives of crusaders or various forms of covering in numerous other cultures.   

I am not condoning these practices, or others abhorrent to modern minds such as FGM, stoning of adulteresses, casting out of women and girls who are raped and become pregnant (until recently a catholic practice as well as one in some fundamentalist Islamic countries).  Far from it.  We should see them merely as products of their time, functions of an ignorant, unscientific, superstitious world where logic was trumped by superstition, and empathy for others by the harsh brutality of life without medicine and often food.  From this perspective we should surely now evaluate such practices in the context of our own society, and the current state of development of the human race, rather than by reference to medieval, and ignorant times.      

If you accept the benefits of a modern scientific world then why do you cling on to superstition and practice that belongs to another time?  Why is it any longer acceptable culture for a husband to make his wife walk several feet behind?  Why are girls made to sit at the back of a class, or the mosque, or not to be accused of bias, in another room of the synagogue (or not to be let in at all)?  And this not in a religious autocracy but a supposedly liberal democratic country where it is against the law for the same man to discriminate against a woman in his workplace. 

Whether multi-culturalism is a good thing depends on how we define it.  If it means Jewish country dancing while eating chicken curry and listening to reggae music, I don't have a problem (actually you might have a problem with the dancing and the music).  I acknowledge that mixing of cultures is generally a positive thing;  it can lead to a better understanding and adds a richness to art, language and other aspects of the common cultural environment.  But cultures also come into conflict whether we like it or not and when culture impacts at the level of public policy or law, then we have to make a choice.  A set of rules that says it is OK to kill cannot operate alongside another that says it is not OK.  That goes whether the rules are religious "obligations" or not.  

I don't think it is offensive, let alone racist, for me to say that macho, misogenistic and sometimes aggressively authoritarian behaviour is common in many middle eastern and south asian cultures.  This is not just an opinion, but based on the evidence available to me, from the experience of friends and work colleagues in their own families, from observation living and travelling abroad, and of course from what is reported in the media.  I expect excoriation for this remark, but I assess the values of those cultures against my own, which largely reflect those of the British society I grew up in.  If I were from, say Pakistan, I may say it is not misogynistic to expect women in the family to obey the father, and for children to absolutely follow what the parents expect.  I may say this merely shows a wife's respect for due authority of a husband based on the Q'uran, and a child's respect for age and wisdom.  But my values are based on my own cultural experiences and education and they lead me to question that position.  And it seems to me that small things, like a wife walking several paces behind her husband,  like who is allowed to participate in religious practices or where a wife or mother-in-law should walk in relation to a man, or what a woman is allowed to wear, are all reflections of a bigger picture where men believe they have the right to dominate, in this case backed up by religious dogma.  These things may not impact on me directly, at least in my personal life, but they are part of a bigger culture that does come at some point come into conflict with my culture and that of my country.  

When a culture leads to humiliation, physical abuse and even death, there can be nothing acceptable about it.  But it is surely not necessary to wait for physical abuse or death to ask if multi-culturalism can work in the area of public policy.  In a democracy, we are governed and obey the law, by consent.  We are not a military dictatorship and cannot force everyone to obey the law at all times, or suffer the consequences.  If people do not go along with this then the system breaks down.  And when choosing to live in this country, I think it is reasonable to expect people to by-and-large not only obey the law, but subscribe to the system. I would also argue that it is appropriate to apply a "British" perception to those practices derived from other cultures that impact on public life in this country.  That does not mean that we all have to comply to a stereotype.  There is ample room in British democracy for diversity.  People do generally have a choice of where to live and they need to consider the predominant culture in the place they chose to live.  But if the small things invariably point to larger things, we should perhaps not ignore them after all, but ask what the basis for them is and, if necessary challenge them and the underlying principles where they conflict with British culture (what that is, is of course another question).It is no coincidence in my opinion that so-called cultural crimes, from forced marriages to wife burning and murdering one's own daughter for doing something of which the parents disapprove, are biased against women. 

Turning to the specifics of wearing hijab or a burka, what assumes to be missing for most of the public,miss some facts.  Some here are some that I think are relevant but others are welcome to elaborate.

1.     hijab actually predates Islam as a mode of dress for women in wealthy families  in ancient Arabia.  After all it shows you do not need to work for a living, or more particularly that your husband does not need to send his wife's out to work, since this was at a time when women were chattels, treated as property by their men.  The question of consent did not, for those ladies, probably even come into the picture.

2.    I believe the Quran makes no reference to veiling, but sura 33.53 (the so-called "verse of hijab") says that the prophets followers shoul only speak to his wives "..from behind a hijab", which I have seen translated as screen (otherwise the word hijab is used, in English translations, on the basis that the meaning is understood in English as the form of dress known by that name.

3.    If there is a religious requirement in Islam would appear to be modesty, and that applies equally to men and to women.  However the fact is that this is interpreted in the case of women in wildly different ways, from bright headscarves and heavy make-up of trendy young women on the streets of London to the Burkas forced on women on Afghanistan by the Taliban, against their own cultural norms, or the Niqab of Saudi Arabia forced on women there on pain of death by Abd Al-Wahhab in the 18th and early 19th centuries. 

The Taliban will no doubt consider the ladies in London to be anathema, but you cannot seriously argue that the tens of millions of women in Malaysia, Indonesia or the UK who choose hajib, are not proper Muslims.  So it cannot be that wearing Niqab is a religious duty; it is purely a personal choice based either on coercion, culture or political intent (in the case of the Niqab one can hardly add fashion as a raisin d'être).

So if wearing Niqab is a matter of personal choice it seems to me that if there are public policy issues then it is legitimate to make a case of restricting personal freedom to wear it.  The obvious one is that a hidden face is a threat: masks are routinely used by criminals to hide their identity both from other people and from the ubiquitous CCTV.  I know that civil liberties spokespeople will object to the latter as well, but personally I am not yet afraid of being on camera and in fact feel safer for it.  So there is a balance to be struck here.  And by the way, even men have been know to hide behind them to commit crimes and escape justice.

France being France has made the Niqab ban a matter of social cohesion.  A debate is needed in the UK about what we mean by multi-culturism or social cohesion, but that is a different issue.  We can make a case for banning masks in public on security grounds alone, but there is also a discussion to be had on whether someone should be able to participate in a western democratic, and relatively law abiding society if they hide their face.  If someone can claim Niqab is a religious expression then can they also argue that it is discrimination to prevent someone from teaching or working in a hospital, or as a social worker?  Will they be allowed to drive a car ( banned of course in Saudi Arabia, but not on ground so safety)?

In conclusion, I believe a women has the right to wear what she wants if it does not have consequences for society.  In my view this probably means that she must accept that wearing  Niqab will preclude her going to a great many public places, and taking up many forms of employments.  This is no more oppressive than a ban on public nudity, drunkenness, or smoking for that matter.

A Niqab does not reflect the values of a liberal democracy

Eleanor Mills wrote in The Sunday Times last week in defence of a woman's right to wear a Niqab despite the fact that she also believes "a Niqab is anti-thetical to mutual understanding and compassion".  Eleanor summarises the problems with the Niqab and most of them are problems for society, not for the wearer.  In liberal democracies we do get ourselves into a knot sometimes, trying to reconcile our thoughts about freedom of individuals and the expectations of society.

In a liberal democracy we value individual freedoms, the right to freedom of expression, religious beliefs, eccentricity and so on.  Unfortunately the right of one to individual expression sometimes conflicts with the rights of others.  Some even interpret their rights in such a way as to bring them into conflict with the concept of liberal democracy itself.  So we have rules, often unwritten, but sometimes enshrined in law, that people should exercise their rights only so long as they do not unduly impact on other people and are not contrary to public good (rightly or wrongly usually enshrined in public policy).  It surely therefore it is never possible to argue ex principe that the freedom of expression is absolute.

In the case of the Niqab, I am happy to allow a woman's right to wear a Niqab (or man, because there are documented cases of men using the Niqab and Burkha to avoid detection by the police or security forces) in private, or in public places where there is no over-riding public interest.  Of course a woman can freely choose to separate herself from the society she moves in but she must accept the consequences as well, which may mean not having access to educational facilities or not being allowed into a bank, a public building or other location where security is a priority.  This is a right of British society to expect social norms such as showing your face when engaging with other people, something essential for proper conversations.

In the case of Saudi Arabia, or other very conservative Muslim societies, I think it is fair for the West to challenge systematic imposition of practices that are surely anathema to civilised, developed, societies.  Women is Saudi Arabia should be free to wear the Niqb if they want to, and some may do so for cultural reasons, but they should not required to by society, or by their fathers,  husbands and brothers.

Incidentally, we are not consistent in applying the "woman's right to wear what she wants".  Nudity and semi-nakedness, page 3 of some tabloids apart, are not normally acceptable in this country in most social situations.

Virgin Media - my sorry story

1.        Returned from holiday to find a Virgin mail drop “The 12 month price drop” (Aug14_DD04).

2.       On 27^th August, I phoned to change my broadband/phone/TV bundle to “Big Bang”, which was giving 100MB Broadband (v 30 now) and a Sky Sports season ticket for just £150 / 10 months (v. £250 on my previous contract).  These bundles were available to existing customers as well as new ones.  The process was not as simple as one might think but the customer service advisor successfully switched me to the new bundle.

3.       The same leaflet suggested “add mobile SIM for just £5 a month for 250 MB of date, unlimited minutes, unlimited texts”.  The customer advisor said it was a monthly contract.   As I was currently on a Virgin Mobile monthly SIM-only contract costing £10 per month for exactly the same service I asked to be put on the new tariff. 

4.       I was told I could not have the new tariff unless I had it added to the broadband bundle.  I had no problem with this.  I was then passed to another person to deal with this.  During the next 60 minutes I spoke to at least 4 different members of your staff onshore and offshore, covering “Virgin Mobile”, “Media Sales”, “Customer Service” and possibly other 3 on departments.  None seemed to understand what I wanted; most tried but failed.  Most clearly only understood part of your operation and did not know what was possible and what was not.  Some even suggested I would have to have a new number and receive a PAC code to move my old number across.  Eventually I was passed to a gentleman called Ian who correctly assessed my request and said he would have to send me a new SIM, with a new phone number, that would be associated with my Virgin Media bundle. On receipt, after 2 days,  I was to call customer services and they would transfer my old number to the new account.

5.       At 17:26 on 27^th August I received a text “It has arrived”  Your 250MB Big Bundel Exclusive – VM 5 tariff is all set up and ready to use.  We’ll renew your allowance on 27/09/14.  Enjoy!

6.       The new SIM arrived today (29^th August).  I inserted it in my phone and rang Virgin on my land line.  I selected the option to upgrade or cancel my contract and after 15 minutes was put through to someone who said that I did not need a new SIM but she was in Customer Billing and could not deal with my request, so would pass me to someone who could.  I waited a further 10 minutes or so and the Lady who answered, who said she was in the Customer Services department, seemed to understand the problem immediately.  She said she would set up the new SIM-only contract on my old number and I should re-install the old SIM in my phone, which I did.

7.       At 17:13 on 29^th August I received a text “We’ve cancelled your tariff for you.  Calls and texts are now charged at standard rate.  To add a new one go to virginmobile.co.uk or call 789 from this phone”.

8.       Shortly after I received another message “Its arrived!  Your Virgin Media Boost Your Minutes SIM Only – VM 5 tariff is all set up and ready to use.  We’ll renew your allowances on 29/09/14.  Enjoy!

9.       Shortly after that I received a further text: “ We’ve cancelled your tariff for you. Calls and texts…. (etc… see 7 above)”

10.   Alarmed I called 789 as requested and confirmed that you have assigned me to a completely different contract with 200 minutes of calls and 100MB of data.   Your service rep did not understand what it was I wanted to do, and asked if I would stay on the line while she consulted.  After 90 minutes of this nonsense I declined and asked for an e-mail address so I could put the problem and my request in writing.  At this point the line broke up and I could not hear anything further so I hung up.

11.   In the meantime I have tried to find a customer service contact e-mail on your web site and after spending 5 minutes going round in circles with your pretty useless “FAQ” screens, gave up.  I tweeted to @virginmedia and received a reply within minutes asking what the problem was.  As it is too complicated to tweet, I am writing this note.

What I want

1.        I would like to receive the same service as I have had until today at a cost of £10 per month, for the price of £5, that is quoted in your sales brochure. 

2.       I would like to keep my own phone number, which is 07899818420 and is still associated with my Virgin Media account.

I am also inclined to bill you for the 4 hours of my time wasted so far on this trivial transaction (but will refrain from doing so if you resolve the matter with immediate effect).

Empathy: a solution to the "Palestine/Israel problem"?

I don't pretend to have the solution to the Palestinian "problem", or indeed any other long running disputes in the world.  But I agreed with Ed Husain, who wrote recently in the Times that none of us can afford to turn our backs or hide our heads in the sand.  I did not agree with him that the United Kingdom has an obligation due to our earlier involvement in earlier times, because too many problems are caused by looking backwards and referring to history.  The UK should help if it has the competence to help, otherwise not.

But the reason for this blog is that it seems to me that peace will only come about when Israelis and Palestinians are able to look with some sympathy on the plight of the other.  Each side has developed its own version of history, with itself as the oppressed and the other as the oppressor.  Each is justified with its own coherent story which is reinforced over time, and the gap between them becomes an abyss.  Steven Pinker in his extraordinary book "The better Angels of our Nature" described this as "The Moralisation Gap".  To resolve problems like that in the Middle East you have to find a way to close the gap.  There is a lot more to this than the lack of empathy implied in the blog title, but Pinker provides the detail so I shan't.  But the bottom line is that peace is not possible so long as each side thinks:
a) it is the oppressed, the other is the oppressor (this may be true, but equally be a political construct created by politicians to keep their population behind them, even to the extent of provoking the other side to get a  response, so that they can say "I told you so");  
b) if you hit the other guy enough, eventually he (or she) will give in.  This is politics of the playground and surely there is enough evidence now that is is not going to work.  

Contrary to some, the United States cannot police the"free world", or it would not be free, but it has the luxury, through wealth and a certain amount of respect, to be able to stand to certain principles; democracy, truth, individual freedom, etc.  Of course it mainly acts in its own interest; the objective of all foreign policy is almost always self-interest, but this should not be incompatible with the broader principles that are shared in the "free world".  However its strategy not only for the Middle East but also elsewhere (as with the Soviet Union and now Russia for example and the Ukrainian crisis) invariably seems to be to weigh in on one side or the other.  This is notwithstanding the routine appointment of big-hitting politicians/diplomats as regional "peace negotiators".  Alternatively, they adopt an isolationist position and turn the other way, to let people "solve their own problems".  The cynic may argue that the only driver for foreign policy is national self-interest (or, in a democracy, political survival come the next election), and in the Middle East oil supply and the pro-Israeli vote at home, seem to be key interests.  But neither of these approaches addresses the gap in historical narratives, or closure of the abyss that exists between warring parties, and the longer this situation prevails, the firmer, and more extreme, those positions become.  

The UK, unlike the USA, despite often being seen as in the pocket of the "Great Satan" and despite its colonial past, seems to be respected and trusted.  We are generally principled, law abiding, honest, and have some humility (well with our history, a great power brought low, we better be humble).   This puts us in a strong position to be the honest broker.  The process may be slow and may take a generation, but it is surely better than allowing sores to fester (In the case of the Middle East today that does not mean I think Tony Blair is the man for the job though. Surely he carries far too much baggage).

But what of a solution for Palestine?  The politics of Hamas are truly obnoxious as regards Israel; it cannot seriously believe that a permanent peace is possible until it recognises the right of Israel to live in peace.  On the other hand we have seen the dark side of some Israelis too these past few weeks; not just totally disproportionate responses by the military and government, but some right wing politicians effectively calling for the elimination of Palestinians altogether!  Perhaps the West should start by being a little more even handed between these two extreme positions and stop rewarding the leaders on both sides for bad behaviour, starting with the money.

In the last 20 years or so, huge amounts of aid have been pumped into the Middle East.  The Palestinian Authorities have received USD 500 million money (give or take) per annum from a range of national and international organisations, but most recently from the USA and EU, mainly for social infrastructure and bureaucracy.  On the other hand over the same period Israel has received between USD2 and USD3 billion per annum, of which 2/3 is military aid.

Someone tweeted recently (sorry but I have not got the link) that if Hamas disarmed it would never get what it wants, but if Israel disarmed it would be annihilated, or words to that effect.  This is a good reason to support Israel's self-defence, but favouring one side is not the way to bring people together.  And money counts because if people have a house to live in, can earn a living, send their children to school and benefit from reasonable health, why would they want to fight?  But if they live in poverty, with no hope and fear for their lives,then why should they not fight, especially if their narrative tells them they are the oppressed.

So perhaps the USA could encourage this by more even handed use of its huge financial resources.  And perhaps the UK can play a part in helping both sides to see the world from the other's perspective a little more; if they don't see that they are all human, then peace is impossible.

We should all be Euro Sceptics, and the Liberals amongst us more than anyone

Liberal Democrats differentiate themselves on Europe as the only party that is truly European. This is interpreted by the public at large as meaning uncritical acceptance of overbearing European interference in every aspect of our lives and of an expensive Euro-bureaucracy.  I don’t believe this is the case, but Lib Dems have not articulated their position on Europe well enough and it is a convenient for the media to characterise them so, especially the Tory Press, creating more than a channel’s-width of blue water between the Lib Dems and a Euro-sceptic Tory party.

In reality very few people, including Lib Dems, really wants the kind of Europe that the Euro-sceptics are sceptical about or that Ukip wants to be independent from.  But equally I suspect that neither are the millions who voted for Ukip so against Europe as the few extremists, or opportunists, who lead that party.  No one in their right senses wants a Europe divided on racial, religious or nationalist lines from which another catastrophic war could quite conceivably result and most people probably believe that an open Europe of free trade and generally free movement, is a good thing.  On a recent visit to Brussels I visited the "Parliamentarium", a technically very clever but admittedly self-serving museum covering the history benefits of the EU. What struck me was how compelling is the narrative about European history over the last 100 years, and the visionary leaders who saw some political integration as the only way to avoid future catastrophes.  I have also to admit I was not fully aware of how the democratic machinery of the EU works, but I blame that largely on UK politicians who don't bother to explain this to the electorate.  When for example have they ever at elections talked about the policies and manifestos of the coalitions to which their parties below?  Instead they just bang on about their own UK party policies, as if they can enact legislation or change in Europe without the help of others. But that is another story.

What is clear to me is that most people, including pro-Europeans, see many aspects of the EU that need reforming.  By that I don't just mean improvements through further cooperation, but real change in what is understood by the “European experiment”.   Bloated budgets and bureaucracy suit the dirigiste political elites of major European countries, and a few of the minor ones whose politicians are given plum jobs in the Commission because they are not big hitters, are consummate behind-the-scenes operators and play ball with the big boys.  But this is an insult to the citizens who pay for it all, and the rise of euro-sceptic political movements across European countries indicates people have twigged.

The fact is, although it has taken more powers for itself over the last decade or so, the European Parliament remains weak relative to the Commission and EU politics is all behind-the-scenes power-broking and expense-paid trips (sorry, European summits). We would not accept this as a substitute for democracy at a national level, so why is it acceptable for Europe?

A true federal system with direct elections, such as in the USA, is clearly not acceptable (though another European war may change minds), and doing nothing is not an option. The alternative is surely to ensure that more power is returned to nation states, while maintaining effective democratic oversight of those activities that can more effectively be managed centrally.  I don't think it is anti-European to make this argument; it is pro-democratic. It is also consistent with devolution of power to the level where it is best exercised in a democratic system, and surely decentralisation, bringing decisions closer to the people affected, is a liberal (and Lib Dem?)  principle?

Portraying pro-European views as opposite to those of the Euro-sceptics only helps the latter's cause; it will not help move the debate forward.  Being pro-European does not mean being in favour of what Europe is now.  It means believing that a Europe working together is a better, and safer place to live, for ourselves,our children and their children as well.  And if Lib Dems are true to their roots then they should be a sceptical of centralised government and bureaucracy as anyone else.  We need strong democratic systems to control them and constant vigilance against inefficiency and bureaucracy.   And if it is right to empower communities with more devolution within the UK, then surely the same applies to Europe.
 
It is time to move forward on the basis that not everything in Europe is right. Liberal democrats need to emphasise the things we believe Europe is good for, and to highlight those areas where change is needed, which is entirely consistent with Liberal principles. This is a far better way to be pro-European, than to be tarred as the "only truly European party" without explaining what that entails.  And there is still enough ground to distinguish between the political parties where necessary, and (why not?) emphasis areas on which we violently agree.   Surely we should all be Euro-sceptics now.  That is the real liberalism.

Creationism science? What a joke.

What a joke! On Monday night, coming in late I had missed the news and turned to Newsnight on BBC2. I cut in on a discussion on the impact of fundamentalist Christian based education and particularly whether creationism should be taught in schools as an alternative view to a scientific one. 

Cutting to the chase, the representative Christian, John Lewis (not the department store), failed to answer a single question directly.  Even when agreeing with Paxman's statement that "why we are here” is a metaphysical question, not a scientific one, he hedged his response by saying only "potentially true".   And on two occasions at least he ignored the question and said "he was not a scientist", as if this allowed him to ignore scientific analysis.  So he provided no argument for considering creationism alongside evolution in a scientific context than merely making the assertion over and again that it was a matter of providing options.  No wonder Jeremy Paxton struggled to remain even-handed while keeping a straight face, though judging by his body language he was also bored.

Let's be clear, everyone is free to have their own ideas, but not being a scientist does not mean you can take a position that science is rubbish.   Yet that appears to be the creationist perspective. John Lewis referred to both creationism and Darwinian evolutionary theory as theories, as if they are equal. The whole point of a scientific approach is however that a theory is then tested against the facts, and if the facts support the theory then it strengthens the likelihood that the theory is correct, but in most cases it will never be absolutely proven and a scientist always acknowledges that future evidence may work the other way.   On the other hand, based on the evidence provided to date, creationism remains a theory, with no factual basis whatsoever other than that it is based on a particular interpretation of the bible, and an extreme one at that. 

If you want to believe that the bible is an historical record, you are welcome to do so.  However this can only be a tenet of faith as the evidence clearly indicates that it is a mish-mash of writings from around 2000 to 1500 years ago, a time when women were considered to be chattels, vile murders were carried out in the name of public policy and  most people could not read or write.  They needed fables and imaginary friends to help them understand the mysterious world around them.  This is not true today so if you do believe that the bible is a factual record, then I would say you are a little mad (which is my right too, and with more evidence in my favour than against).   

Further more  if you wish to pass on to the next generation your irrational belief in what is called creationism, then do so under “religion”, where you are free to consider alternatives without having to look at the evidence.  Just don’t pretend that it is science.        

I have a shiny new HP Envy 5530, and it works, but...

I was delighted when my new Envy 5530 started first time but HPs installation and support process really annoyed me.  Here is a list of the issues I recall from the traumatic installation process yesterday. 
1.  First I tried to register the product and was told that I was already registered to Snapfish.  This came as a surprise as I have never used Snapfish but I guess I was required to register when I bought my last (note not current) PC, which was from HP.  However I don’t see why I need to use Snapfish just because I bought one of your printers.
2.  As I had of course no idea what the password was for Snapfish, I had to set a new one.  However it appears that the format constraints were not clear so I had to try several times to discover that Snapfish only allowed letters and numbers.   If you are going to limit what can be put in a password can you please say what is allowed up front?
3.  Installation on my PC worked reasonably well after I managed to register with HP I tried to use e-print.  I received a message from HP saying that a document was available to print, but nothing was visible on your web site and nothing printed on my PC.  What am I supposed to do now?    
4.  I tried to install drivers on my wife’s Windows PC and the only option that appeared to be available, once the printer was detected, was to go through the whole process again. Surely there is a simpler process for connecting a second or third PC to the printer?  Instead I was left to wonder if I should allow the standard process or try to leave out some of the steps.  And if I selected the standard options, would that screw up the initial implementation?  This is surely a common issue and I suggest you ask, before installation if the printer is already registered with HP or not and adapt the process accordingly.
5.  I seem to have all sorts of additional HP software on my PC now, including some diagnostic stuff I download to help solve the e-print problem (it didn’t as far as I know as it only identified the drivers for my old printer). 
6. Why am I required to have all these “apps” and addins that seem to be totally useless as far as I am concerned?  Can’t I chose whether to install them or not?  HP Doctor and other programmes on my Sony Vaio have proved useless in permanently solving problems which is one of the reasons I have ended up dumping what is probably a perfectly good
7. I spent at least 1 1/2 hours yesterday trying to find answers on your websites but keep going round in circles, mostly being directed to pages that seem mostly interested in selling things to me.  When I want help I don’t want more PCs and printers shoved at me.  I am hardly likely to be in a mood to buy another HP product if I need help with the current one, am I?
8.  I tried to use the “feedback” buttons on two screens but all I got was directed to an error message.  Is this because you don’t want feedback?  In any event it is really annoying and the result was my plea via Twitter.

So HP please shape up.  Your product looks nice and I am hopeful will work well.  But that is all I want.  I don’t need to be obstructed and harassed by HP into the bargain