Outrage At Amazon Marketplace

Time for a new rant, methinks...

I've been selling on Amazon marketplace for some time now. But never will I again...

If you think eBay has ridiulous policies in place for sellers, you should treat Amazon with utter contempt and keep them at least a galaxy away (arms length just isn't enough).

I recently sold an item worth over £300. The buyer claimed that a) it was missing the power supply and b) the packaging inside was open.

I had listed the item as new (which it was), but had put in the comments box (which is the only space where a seller can add anything) that it had been opened only for testing. I test high value items to save on comeback.

I contacted them and told them if they had read the description properly, that I had actually stated that it had been opened for testing purposes only (and to check complete). And also that I was 100% sure that the power lead was in the box upon despatch, but I was willing to send a replacement at my expense or refund a proportional amount...

No contact back from them, and then all of a sudden, I get an Amazon A-Z Guarantee claim from them.

I disputed it, telling Amazon that I had clearly stated that it had been opened for testing purposes only and that I had offered a new power supply or partial refund. In my opinion, this was very fair, especially as I got the distinct impression (as would anyone with half a brain cell), that they had got it and simply decided they no longer wanted/required it and made up an excuse to send it back.

Anyway, my beef with Amazon... They refused my dispute becausethey say the item, if listed as new, needs to be totally unopened, and apparently, the comments box is totally irrelevant, I quote Amazon:

"Per our Policies for listing Amazon Marketplace items, sellers must accurately describe the product's condition on an item's retail page, also known as the product detail page. It is not sufficient to list differences from the stated condition in the comments."

Now, what is the point in having the comments box if they are totally irrelevant? But, also, this seems very unfair as there is no other way of adding to the description.

But that's not all, this is what really takes the biscuit... Again, I quote Amazon:

"Because you listed an item in an incorrect condition, the item is materially different than described and the buyer is automatically eligible for the A-to-z Guarantee, whether they return the item or not."

This is by far, the most incredibly ridiculous thing I have ever heard. I have to refund them their money (just to re-iterate, this was a £300+ item), regardless of whether they return the item to me or not! Now, it may just be me, but if they do not return it, is this not classed as theft? And if it is, why the hell aren't Amazon accessories to the crime?

Copyright ©2010-2012 Yvonne Brownsea

New (But Used Once)

OK, sorry I haven't posted in a while, but here's a rant I just had to have...

Don't you just *HATE* it when people selling (or even swapping) something say New or Brand New and the follow it up with "used once".

Why is it so damn incomprehensible a concept, that once you have used something, even if it is only once, then at the end of the day it is *USED* - I mean, fair enough, you can say like new, only used once, but you cannot possibly say new and used all in the same sentence and expect it to make any sort of sense!

New is new - this is when something has not been used *at all* in any way - e.g. if you watch a DVD you bought new, it is then not still new because you have only watched it once - even if there are absolutely no signs of useage on it at all!

It just really annoys me when people try to get more for an item by blatantly lying. I'd be no more put off an item that says "used once, as new" than a new item, but I am put off an item that says "new, used once" because I then get the impression that the person I am dealing with is a complete (not to mention untrustworthy) idiot!

Copyright ©2009-2012 Yvonne Brownsea

The MMR Jab

Well, time for a rant methinks ;)

I recently saw on the news that here in the UK, it is being considered to not let children go to school unless they've had their MMR jabs (immunisations) - this is ridiculous!

Are they going to be quite happy to let you keep your kids off school indefinitely unless you let them have the jabs?! Or maybe they are planning on forcing people to have their children immunised?!

To be honest, I am completely outraged! My son has not had any jabs and I have no intentions whatsoever of him ever having any. I never had any when I was a kid either and I'm still here! The MMR jab wasn't even around some years ago, but older people who it wasn't available to are still around! My younger sisters haven't had them and they're OK too.

My reasons aren't religious or anything, I simply don't trust them - I do not think they are safe. But there are people who refuse them for religious reasons as well. I just think it is a ridiculous concept that you would need to be forced to let your children have the immunisations so they can go to school!

I would rather keep my son at home and educate him myself rather than be forced to let him have the MMR jab in order for him to go to school - that's how strongly I feel about it!

I do wonder if the so-called *immunisations* aren't what "the label says" and if they are just a way for you to be tracked by the government!

Copyright ©2009-2012 Yvonne Brownsea

Ban Smoking!

Yet another ranting (or musing, depending on how you look at it!) from me today...Well, today I'm going to talk about one of the toppers on my list of things I hate - smoking.

Here in the UK, we currently have a law that prohibits smoking in all public places, which is a step in the right direction, but in my opinion, not a step far enough.

The ban for "all public places" is in fact not as good as it sounds. To me, all public places would mean you can't smoke anywhere except for in your own home, but in reality the law only prohibits smoking in places such as pubs/clubs, shopping centres, bingo halls, shops, bus/train/coach stations, airports and the like. For me this is a good start, but I think smoking should be banned everywhere except in the smokers own home.

I am a sufferer of asthma and for years my enjoyment of going to a shopping centre, going to the bingo, going to the pub or even just travelling on public transport was spoilt by selfish smokers polluting the air and making it difficult for me to breathe.

But it's not just about me - what about children - who really wants their childrens lungs exposed to the harmful substance in cigarettes? Second hand smoke inhalation is actually a big problem for many people.

Speaking of children, more should be done to prevent them (at all costs) from being exposed to smoking to limit the likelihood that they will pick up such a rotten habit. If smoking was made to look less "cool", then children wouldn't toy with smoking. It would also help if the sale of cigarettes was more strict and also if tighter import regulations were made to stop people illegally smuggling them in and then selling them for cheap.

Cigarettes contain many harmful substances such as methane (sewer gas), methanol (rocket fuel), tar (road surfacing), hydrogen cyanide (poison as used on death row), stearic acid (candle wax), hexamine (barbecue lighter), toluene (industrial solvent), cadmium (think batteries), nicotine (pesticide), butane (lighter fluid), acetone (rat poison), radon (radioactive gas), ammonia (think toilet cleaner), carbon monoxide (like from car exhausts) and formaldehyde (used to pickle dead bodies). Knowing what is in a cigarette, if you are a smoker, are you still so keen to go out and buy a pack of fags?

I would be glad to see all cigarette companies go out of business and no-one smoking anymore in public places or anywhere else.

Now there is supposedly "greener" smoking - which to me is just companies (such as Green Smoke) trying to justify smoking and make it sound like a healthier way to smoke as well as trying to make it as fun as having a mobile phone (it's electric, you can change the filter tip to the colour of your choice, USB chargeable etc.). I think this is just wrong!

Copyright ©2009-2012 Yvonne Brownsea

Bring Back The Death Penalty!

Yet another opinion I feel strongly about that isn't on the nicest of tones...

Here in the UK, we no longer have the death penalty for heinous crimes, and I feel it should be brought back.

What are my reasons for thinking this?

Well, I don't think serious crimes should go so leniantly punished.

For example, someone willfully murders someone and when they are found guilty, they are given a life sentence which is a minimum of 15 years (which isn't really 'life' at all) - they get to take part in prison activities such as sports, using the internet, watching TV and so on - this doesn't seem much of a punishment to me.

Surely, it should be a life for a life?

In my opinion, it shouldn't just be murderers who are sentenced to death either - shouldn't someone who has committed heinous crimes such as being a paedophile ('kiddy fiddler') also be sentenced to death? Or a repeated rapist, shouldn't they too be sentenced to death?

If people can take a life or ruin a life with their crimes, in return, their lives should be taken from them.

Copyright ©2009-2012 Yvonne Brownsea