Bank accountable for widows’ demise
SINCE the publication of his bookthe Secret Life of John Le Carre in 2020, the author Adam Sisman says that at least another 12 women have come forward claiming to have been Le Carre’s mistress at one time or another, many of whom appear as characters in his novels.
Sisman believes that this could just be “the tip of the iceberg” and he suspects that another dozen frosty temptresses are lurking in the depths, maybe more.
They must all be hopping mad. Being the muse and secret mistress of a great man has a certain romantic appeal, but finding out there are enough of you for a couple of football teams would be galling to say the least.
Thewaspi women hate me. I am no financial wizard, but even I had noted in 1995 that the state pension age for women was going up from 60 to 65.
True, this information was not delivered through a loudhailer, so in that respect the Department forwork and Pensions is to blame.
And boo, hiss to the useless campaign, which featured two dogs sitting on a beach with one saying, “Our state pension age is changing Babs and I’m not sure how we’ll be affected”. Two old bitches on a beach. Nice.
Me, I’m one of the women born in the 1950s, affected by the changes. But I DID know about it. And if women really want equality with men then how is it right for them to get the state pension five years earlier?
Tentatively, I expressed this in print and the full weight of angry Waspi-ism came down on me.
They crucified me on Facebook, I believe.
They invited me to a meeting – which would have been like going voluntarily to your own flogging and hanging.
If compensation is now on offer, will it only be for those who can prove they were ignorant of the changes and impoverished as a result?
Hard to prove and unfair on other women. The next steps will be interesting.
In
1986, in the days when TV commercials were still witty, sophisticated and inventive, Scottish Widows launched their ad featuring a glamorous woman in a swirling black cloak and hood, with nice earrings.
The original Widow was Deborah Moore (daughter of Roger Moore) and the campaign was directed by David Bailey. It was a huge success with recognition of the Scottish Widows brand soaring from 34 per cent to 92 per cent.
There have been threewidows since then – Amanda Lamb, Hayley Hunt and Amber Martinez.
The Widows are young, foxy, mysterious and glamorous. They all look as though they might have done away with a dull old husband (or are, at least, not too upset about his demise) and are now enjoying their economic independence.
They prowl the Scottish Highlands with an enigmatic smile that tells you they have their ISAS sorted and will be thinking very carefully before they commit to another man.
In 2000, Scottish Widows became part of the Lloyds TSB group and last week Lloyds announced it had asked its staff to stop using the word “widow” because it could “trigger unwarranted personal memories of trauma and upsetting situations”. Hang on, (said just about everyone) what about Scottish Widows, which manages assets worth almost £200billion?
The Lloyds list of other no-nos includes “guinea pig” (could upset vegans), “headless chicken” (ditto), “lost in translation” (no idea) and “sold down the river” (something to do with slavery). A widowed woman should be called “separated” though there is quite a difference between a husband being dead and one who is merely living in another postcode.
Therein lies far more scope for error and upset I would have thought, because that is the problem with making the language woke – words become ever more meaningless and imprecise.
Lloyds justifies its linguistic terrorism by saying that “the voluntary inclusivity tool is designed to be a self-moderated way for colleagues to explore how people may feel about different words and phrases. As is par for the course when crowdsourcing for ideas, some are better than others.”
If anyone has a clue what any of this means, please don’t bother to let me know. There is only one tool in this story…
If banks want to stop upsetting their super-sensitive clients, they should refrain from closing branches and depriving people who do not have online banking of an essential resource. They should stop pretending they are concerned for our welfare. Your bank is not (contrary to the message in Lloyds’ soppy adverts) your friend. It is a hard-nosed financial institution with whom you choose to place your money, aware that both sides enjoy benefits and responsibilities from this arrangement.
The corporate world’s cynical, self-promoting obsession with broadcasting its supposed “values” and pretending it is “by your side” (to quote the Lloyds slogan) is another example of the way consumers are infantilised. Far from being kind, it is utterly stupid not to call a widow a widow.