PDA

View Full Version : Business backlash over BA?


Arfur Dent
21st May 2008, 06:51
Chris Bell, boss of bookmakers Ladbrokes, has banned his 14,000 staff from using BA. Mr Bell, a BA Gold Card member of the Executive Club was travelling with his 2 teenage daughters from Barbados. He was told that he could fly but his daughters (14) couldn't! They all flew eventually but Mr Bell has had enough of the BA version of 'customer service'.
Nice one Willie!

luoto
21st May 2008, 06:52
Doesn't look too good if more CEOs take this type of approach to load factors.But mind you, certainly if Goldman Sachs made this ban it might be more powerful. How much might a bookmaker fly?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1996885/Ladbrokes-bans-staff-from-BA-flights.html?source=rss

Dysonsphere
21st May 2008, 07:06
Quite a lot I would think all over the world to look at tracks etc and a lot of UK domestic flights as well.

Southernboy
21st May 2008, 07:09
The BBC reported that Ladbrokes spend "several million pounds" with BA each year.

throw a dyce
21st May 2008, 07:12
Now if I were a betting man.:oh:
I'm not sure if he's complaining about overbooking,or BA leaving 2 teenagers by themselves in another country.What's the odds.;)

thunderbird7
21st May 2008, 07:13
Great BA bashing but more to this than meets the eye? Chip on shoulder and no upgrades available??

manintheback
21st May 2008, 07:42
Somewhat difficult to get a BA gold card unless you are flying at the front most of the time anyway.
A major rule of business - know your client. Aggravating the boss of a major corporate customer is really rather stupid.

angels
21st May 2008, 07:52
Personally I think this guy is wrong. I don't know him, but he sounds a bit pompous.

Surely the basis for deciding which airline a business uses should be based on whether or not they provide the product and service you want at a fair price. If travel costs at Ladbrokes rise as a result of a decision made by one person who has a personal grudge against the airline then the shareholders will have something to say.

Desert Diner
21st May 2008, 07:55
BA's policy of slobbering over the front end while ignoring (or worse) the back will come to haunt them when times get tough.

Many people here in the Middle East refuse to fly them on Business (in C or F) because they are treated like s**t when they fly them in Y on their holidays.

barry lloyd
21st May 2008, 07:58
And what percentage of Mr Bell's 14,000 staff regularly fly with BA - or anyone else for that matter?
I would wager not very many. I mean, they're supposed to be behind the counter, taking bets on No Hope on the 3.30 at Godknowswhere aren't they?
I suspect that when the dust has settled, Mr Bell et famile will receive a nice free first-class trip to somewhere warm and sunny, and the whole thing will be forgotten.
Storms in teacups come to mind.

woodpecker
21st May 2008, 08:19
It's a no-win situation for the check-in staff. Aircraft full, late passengers, offer them a hotel and cash sweetener to travel the next day, what more can they do?

These card holders play the system when it suites them. The 5pm shuttle out of Manchester never used to have a backup aircraft and was frequently full. Those arriving late were offered 50 cash to travel on the next one. You could see the "professionals" holding short of the check-in queue and only joining it a minute before the flight closed. They either got on, or if the aircraft was full an apology from the check-in staff (and the 50). In this case it was classed as a "result".

Also the number of times these gold card holders who, while on business, travel "up the front" then, on a basic economy ticket (while on holiday with the family, paid for by air-miles) flash the card and expect gold card treatment (and an upgrade).

In the case in question perhaps the BGI staff (handling agents) hadn't pandered to him enough, after all he was very important.

I'm with Thunderbird7, there is more to this than meets the eye.

PS.
I turned up at the local Landrover dealership to pick-up my new Freelander SE a while back, flashed my retired staff ID, suggested I was a very important customer and asked if there was any chance of an upgrade to a HSE model.

limp_leek
21st May 2008, 08:25
BA then directly offered the two 14-year-old girls 250 each not to go on the flight.

I used to fly many hundreds of hours a year as a passenger and if I didn't have to be somewhere at exactly the time the flight I was booked on landed I activly voulunteered to take an alternative!!!!

The airlines give you MONEY! and you still get where you want to go only a few hours later...

There is more to this story,

Eventually all three flew.

Me thinks two others took the money and just smiled..... ;)

P.S. As to British Airways, well, a couple of times after I have accepted the offer not to travel on the flight I booked I have been called back to the gate and boarded. (they didn't want the bribe back!)

:O

keefyt
21st May 2008, 08:26
Whether or not there is any secondary reasons for the hoo ha, the question any responsible parent here should be asking themselves, is would you be happy leaving your two 14 year old daughters several thousand miles away in the "safe hands" of a company that is partly responsible for the terminal 5 fiasco? If you wouldn't be, then end of discussion ....

limp_leek
21st May 2008, 08:36
Whether or not there is any secondary reasons for the hoo ha, the question any responsible parent here should be asking themselves, is would you be happy leaving your two 14 year old daughters several thousand miles away in the "safe hands" of a company that is partly responsible for the terminal 5 fiasco? If you wouldn't be, then end of discussion ....


That did not happen though did it?

The 2 young girls got on the same flight.

Mr Bell did not give up his seat to stay with the 2 young girls.


:ugh:

The SSK
21st May 2008, 09:22
BA then directly offered the two 14-year-old girls 250 each not to go on the flight.

Quite apart from all the other issues, EU denied boarding rules set the level for long haul at 600 (480 in old money). So BA were cheating them as well as bumping them.

Hand Solo
21st May 2008, 09:33
No they weren't. The EU compensation is for involuntary bumping. BA are quite within their rights to look for volunteers and offer them less. Ladbrokes really isn't a major corporate customer. Perhaps he's pi55ed that he's not getting a big enough corporate discount?

Tigs2
21st May 2008, 10:06
Whatever the reasons, the outcome is the same. BA have lost several millions worth of business a year, over what is essentially a customer service issue.

Hand Solo
21st May 2008, 10:18
The same customer service everybody else gets from any other airline which overbooks it's flights (ie all of them). He even got his kids on the flight in the end. BAs lost business because the boss threw a hissy fit.

Andy_S
21st May 2008, 10:21
Trying to read between the lines......

Were BA genuinely overbooked? If so, and they had to bump passengers, it would seem incredibly irresponsible for them to try and offload two minors.

On the other hand, as Hand Solo suggests, there seems to be some doubt as to whether they were involuntarily bumped. If they were made an offer, surely all they had to do was refuse and BA would have to ask for volunteers elsewhere.

All of which makes me wonder if the girls really were, as the story suggests, initially told they couldn't travel, full stop.

As to Ladbrokes, Mr Bell has a responsibility towards their shareholders. It strikes me as an abuse of his influence to use his employers travel budget as a weapon in what is essentially a personal disagreement with BA.

angels
21st May 2008, 10:27
As to Ladbrokes, Mr Bell has a responsibility towards their shareholders. It strikes me as an abuse of his influence to use his employers travel budget as a weapon in what is essentially a personal disagreement with BA.

Thanks Andy, my point exactly.

You just phrased it far better than me! :ugh:

Re-Heat
21st May 2008, 10:30
Quite apart from the (non-)issue that is the subject of this thread, what were his daughters doing out of school prior to the half term...?

Furthermore, BA is not to know if the girls were travelling with or without him if he had booked their flights on a separate PNR, regardless of his status. I doubt they would otherwise have offered the girls compensation and rebooking if he had gone to the trouble of linking the PNRs to show they were travelling together.

On the other hand, while the DYKWIA crowd seem frustrating, it is surely a very annoying position in which to be placed if you don't have an additional few hours / day to spare.

1DC
21st May 2008, 11:29
It seems as if Ladbrookes is run by someone with childish tendencies, if he doesn't own the company perhaps the major shareholders should review his position to see if he is fit for purpose.

Golden Ticket
21st May 2008, 11:46
I can't think it would be sensible to ask a passenger to leave their children behind because there is no space. The cost to the company to provide guardian facilities would be astronomical. This time I think as has already been said, there's more to it than meets the eye.

As a counter to him will BA only be allowing their staff to bet with William Hills now

virginblue
21st May 2008, 12:05
Personally I think this guy is wrong. I don't know him, but he sounds a bit pompous.

Common sense suggests that a CSA should not suggest that an adult travelling with two 14 year old girls should leave the girls behind on a Caribbean island. Even more so when apparently other options were available (e.g. asking for volunteers), because eventually the girls got on the flight.

I guess the most likely scenario is that he was travelling in Biz and the girls in Eco and Eco was oversold. Nevertheless, do not blame the guy, this clearly is a customer service issue. You simply do not make idiotic suggestions to solve a problem which in the first place is caused by the airline, not the customer.


As to Ladbrokes, Mr Bell has a responsibility towards their shareholders. It strikes me as an abuse of his influence to use his employers travel budget as a weapon in what is essentially a personal disagreement with BA.

With that logic, responsible CEOs should all be travelling Ryanair, but only if 1p all incl. tickets are available.

Probably the shareholders will be better off now that Ladbrokes will be shopping around for the best deals on whatever airline is available rather than automatically booking on BA because of some kind of corporate agreement.

Andy_S
21st May 2008, 13:38
With that logic, responsible CEOs should all be travelling Ryanair, but only if 1p all incl. tickets are available.

That's a complete distortion of what I said.

Company CEO's should have a travel policy which is not just cost effective but also suited to their business needs. If the business requires flexibility with travel times / dates then clearly Ryanair is not an option, even if they are cheaper.

I don't know what Ladbrokes corporate travel policy is, but in banning business related travel with BA Mr Bell has at the very least reduced his company's options when it comes to air travel. That may mean they shop around and get cheaper tickets, but they may also end up with more expensive ones. There may also be less tangible shortcomings - employees being saddled with inconvenient routings and flight timings etc.

I'm not a Ladbrokes shareholder, but if I were then I would be less than happy if their travel policy had been compromised at the whim of the CEO. The fact that he's done so because of a personal rather than a business grievance makes me question his suitability for the position.

Re-Heat
21st May 2008, 15:24
Common sense suggests that a CSA should not suggest that an adult travelling with two 14 year old girls should leave the girls behind on a Caribbean island.
Yes, and as I point out, BA quite likely did not know if the bookings are not linked.

Taildragger67
21st May 2008, 16:32
We don't have all the facts, but I'll make a few assumptions in a hypothetical scenario:

- Daddy rolls up to airport with daughter & friend. Daddy's a Goldie CIP and booked in First or Club while the girls are non-status and in 3rd World.

(Actually, they pitch up late for advertised Y-cls c-in, based on Daddy's ability to c-in nearer to close (due FFP status and class));

- bookings are not linked;

- boarding cards are issued, but flight is oversold.

- after c-in closes, at the gate a manifest is printed, which contains FFP status but not DoB (so the gate people don't know individual paxs' ages). Girls are not identified as UMs in t heir booking because they're travelling with Daddy;

- based on the manifest, status CIPs are guaranteed boarding; volunteer call may have gone out but didn't result in enough losses so bumping starts;

- girls are bumped by the gate agents and are called to the gate desk - they're probably expecting a U/G at this point but instead are told they're off and go running back to Daddy, in tears;

- Daddy steams up to the gate desk, huffs & puffs and demands the girls are not only not bumped, but are U/G-ed; when it's ascertained out that he is premium traffic, status CIP and they're in one party, some rejigging is done and the girls are given seats (as BA has said). Girls are probably not U/G-ed (as premium seats already filled by revenue traffic and status CIPs) so Daddy gets the hump and decides to fire off a blast to WW.

My personal correspondence to an erstwhile airline CEO didn't make the papers (it was actually entirely praiseworthy - actions well above and beyond the call by a couple of ground staff - and I received a personal response); I have to be cynical as to the source of this 'news'.

We've all been there, mate. The staff are usually trying to do their best to accommodate everyone they can but have to deal with ******s from time to time. As for overselling, well BA isn't the only show which does that and they wouldn't feel the need to if everyone showed up.

Zen Pilot
21st May 2008, 17:09
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/transport/article3975289.ece

selfloadingcargo
21st May 2008, 20:35
Chris Bell is clearly using his company position to inflict damage on a business because they didn't cater to his personal situation.Grow up....better still, resign.

PAXboy
21st May 2008, 20:54
I'm sure it's not true what they say about people in the gambling business. You know, about being rough and ready to put the boot in? Although, having worked in a UK casino in the early 1980s, I fear it is all too true.

A word in defence of the girls: someone asked why were they out of school prior to half-term. Education areas vary in their half terns. Two friends of mine who are both teachers - in different areas - find that their half-terms never line up.

jatayu
21st May 2008, 22:48
Genuine Question
If the bookings were not linked, why wouldn't the girls be flagged as UM. How would the airline know they were traveling with daddy?

GordyOZ
22nd May 2008, 01:55
It sure sounds like Mr. Bell made a business decision based on a personal problem with BA. But rather than criticize him for this and say it may hurt his company, you can also look at it from another angle - if BA is giving such poor customer service to him, then in his view they are likely giving as poor or even poorer customer service to his company's employees. That poor customer service can have an effect on his company and his employees so simply looking at the cost or schedule advantages with BA is being short sighted. It may have started as a personal gripe with BA but if Mr. Bell honestly feels that his company and employees will be better served by another airline that gives better customer service then we shouldn't criticize his decision too much.

He may be a small fish when compared to BA's larger corporate customers but I'm willing to bet that his move causes more damage to BA by further damaging their reputation than in any potential lost sales. If enough people do likewise, even though they alone aren't so significant, it can have a significant effect on BA and perhaps do something to cause them to improve their customer service.

Note, I don't have any connection to BA nor have ever been their customer and have absolutely no idea how bad or good their customer service may be. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with their customer service, though there may very well be based on the number of comments I've heard recently about them.

Alanwsg
22nd May 2008, 07:34
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=969&Itemid=59

keefyt
22nd May 2008, 08:53
That did not happen though did it?

The 2 young girls got on the same flight.

Mr Bell did not give up his seat to stay with the 2 young girls.

limp_leek the reason it didn't happen is maybe because he stood his ground and got 2 minors on the flight that he had booked and paid for, if it was your 2 daughters i take it you would of just left them there would you ?

manintheback
22nd May 2008, 10:53
Fairly typical situation from the reports. Lots of complaints from Staff, nought gets done about it until the CEO gets messed about.

Whilst what BA appear to have done is common amongst the airlines, its not the customers fault that BA overbooked. And chucking two 14 year old girls off the plane is asking for trouble. Surely theres a policy against kicking kids off, its just very fortunate the Father was there.

Andy_S
22nd May 2008, 12:43
Of course, we don't REALLY know what happened, so we can only speculate.

I would speculate that even the dimmest customer facing employee or agent of BA would hesitate to knowingly bump two children, but Taildragger (above) paints a plausible scenario that the girls were just picked off a passenger manifest with no details of their age or travelling companions.

Why is this considered to be an example of bad customer service. As has been pointed out several times, the girls DID subsequently fly. Is there any evidence or reason to believe that once it had been established they were minors that there was ever a problem accomodating them??? Again, I can only speculate, but it strikes me that whatever the reasons and circumstances for initially bumping the girls, someone at BA intervened and made the right call.

I've no reason to leap to BA's defence, but it strikes me that some people are determined to stick the boot in first and not worry about the facts until later.

pingopango
22nd May 2008, 23:06
Can I just say that I really like BA. I know it is all about experience but I have flown in all classes (excl. business) on over 25 occassions in the last three years with BA and found that they have always been superb. Am I just lucky?

A T Lascart
22nd May 2008, 23:30
Spot on, there are loads of companies who think they are important, the latest figures obtainable on Ladbrooks is that 85% of staff are paid less than 18K per year consisting of mainly cashiers in betting offices and head office clerical staff, if they do spend millions at BA then the board must travle a hell of a lot.:bored:

Final 3 Greens
23rd May 2008, 06:09
BAs lost business because the boss threw a hissy fit.

No, BA has lost business because the company irritated a customer who has leverage.

Its a case of business 101, know your customers and manage them appropriately.

I have stopped flying BA wherever possible due to poor customer service, the difference being that I only spend thousands per year, not millions and therefore my passing is probably not even noticed. I know a lot of other business travellers who feel the same way, as I regularly bump into them in EK and LH lounges.

As for the posters who are criticising the CEO, the shareholders can remove him if they are not happy with his performance, until then he is empowered to run the business on their behalf and if, in his judgement, he believes that withdrawing the company business from BA is a valid decision, it is one that he is perfectly entitled to make as the top executive office of the organization.

Glamgirl
24th May 2008, 13:34
Someone was asking why the girls didn't show up as UMs if their booking was separate from the dad.

They didn't get UM status as they're over 12 years old. Only children under 12 MUST be escorted. Over 12 is the parent's choice. We see young children (but over 12) travelling on their own because mum and dad don't want to pay for an "auntie" to escort them through. (I've my own opinions on that one, but that's for another day)

Some people have mentioned that pax ages don't show up on the list, and that may be the reason why these two girls were picked not to fly (as such). May I add that a lot of teens and tweens these days wear a massive amount of make up and dress "up" for their age. Some tend to look much older than they really are.

Saying that, I think this betting ceo or whatever he is, had a complete hissy fit over something that sounds like it was sorted pretty quickly. If everyone who had a problem with an airline called the papers, we'd never hear about the more important news in the world. (Not defending anyone on this one, just my opinion)

Gg

selfloadingcargo
24th May 2008, 14:05
Sorry, Final 3, but "withdrawing the company business from BA" is only a "valid decision" that "he is perfectly entitled to make as the top executive office of the organization" if it is based on an objective assessment rather than a subjective one.

A subjective decision is an abuse of power and position. I sincerely hope that the shareholders DO hold him to account for it.

derekl
25th May 2008, 01:53
As it happens, I am a shareholder in Ladbrokes.

They are a leisure industry company, a bit Like BA, if you will. They own hotels, lots of them, they are not just bookies.

I think our CEO was entitled to have a hissy fit over BA's action, for the simple reason that they displayed poor management of a prime customer.

Are we really to believe that Mr Bell didn't turn up at the check-in desk with his daughter and her friend? Were they really travelling in the back while he travelled in the front? Maybe so, but they would surely have still checked in together.

Over many years of international travel with BA, I have found their attitude to me to be quirky and quixotic, to say the least.

The final straw came when they made me a free life member of Exec club silver (thank you!) and withdrew it six months later on their whim.

I haven't flown internationally with them since, Sir Richard has had all my company's business. He has done me no special favours, but he didn't lie to me either.

I could make a better job of running BA's marketing operations and customer relations, really, I could. Probably anybody could.

Final 3 Greens
26th May 2008, 00:22
Sorry, Final 3, but "withdrawing the company business from BA" is only a "valid decision" that "he is perfectly entitled to make as the top executive office of the organization" if it is based on an objective assessment rather than a subjective one.

Utter nonsense, most business decisions are subjective.

If business was about objective analysis, then why would companies pay a premium for executives? Any competent analyst could be an effectgive CEO.

skydriller
26th May 2008, 08:00
Over many years of international travel with BA, I have found their attitude to me to be quirky and quixotic, to say the least.


This really does sum up BA over the last 5-8 or more years. When they are good, they are very good, but when they are bad they are conversly very bad!! (isnt there another thread about this..) They used to be consistantly good, and if you did get a problem usually you would get it smoothed over by someone, even if it wasnt the initial response from their staff. Unfortunately that old attitude has gone and this time they caught the wrong guy out with the new attitude.

I have a feeling that its got alot to do with the way the company management is treating its frontline staff, which then filters down to the customer.

Personally, since I have tried to avoid flying through the UK since the "security enhancements" now in place, I dont fly BA much anymore. I also think that the current UK security setup doesnt reflect well on BA, because pax see it as part of their experience flying BA though London, regardless of it being nothing to do with them. Its abit like the "extra security" you get flying an american carrier to the USA.

BTW, To those that say "whats the big deal, the girls flew didnt they", Im convinced the only reason that happened is because their father was there and caused a stink about it.....:rolleyes:

jetset lady
27th May 2008, 14:15
I assume then that the reversal of the decision to withdraw company business from BA was also a valid decision made by a top executive looking after the interests of organization and it's employees, while having nothing to do with a 250.00 bung each to his daughter and friend! Or am I too cynical?

Final 3 Greens
27th May 2008, 20:12
I assume then that the reversal of the decision to withdraw company business from BA was also a valid decision made by a top executive looking after the interests of organization and it's employees, while having nothing to do with a 250.00 bung each to his daughter and friend! Or am I too cynical?

You are too naive.

I imagine it cost BA a lot more than 2 x 250 to reverse the decision and added something to Ladbroke's bottom line as well as ensuring that their people will be taken a bit more seriously (at least for a while.)

Well done Chris Bell.

jetset lady
28th May 2008, 16:05
Final 3 Greens,

No, I'm not too naive. Thats why I can't believe that Mr Bell started all this in the interests of his company. I wonder if this ban would ever have crossed his mind if he, himself, had not hit a problem. Allegedly, there was a history of problems suffered by his employees when travelling on company business so why had he not addressed this until it happened to him?

No one that was not directly involved knows exactly what went on in this situation but it sure seems like someone abusing their position to me.

JSL

Final 3 Greens
28th May 2008, 16:22
No one that was not directly involved knows exactly what went on in this situation but it sure seems like someone abusing their position to me.

So you believe that you don't know what happened exactly, but are sure he is abusing his power?

That's a logical thought process - not :rolleyes:

jetset lady
28th May 2008, 16:32
I said, "it sure seems like someone abusing their position to me". This, in my eyes anyway, indicates that it's entirely my opinion and not fact. Just the same way you are allowed to have your opinion despite you not being there. Unless you were of course in which case, you win! :{ :p

JSL

selfloadingcargo
28th May 2008, 16:48
I don't know why you are so keen to side with Mr Bell, Final 3.

The world is full of bullies - and the world is a worse place for it.

Throwing your corporate weight around because of a personal inconvenience is exactly what corporate bullies do. He should be ashamed of himself.

cargosales
29th May 2008, 00:19
Selfloadingcargo wrote:
The world is full of bullies - and the world is a worse place for it.


Agreed. And PPRuNe is full of threads about how a bullying BA management have taken away from BA line staff any ability to think or act for themselves, which is probably why such a daft situation as this came about at all...


Throwing your corporate weight around because of a personal inconvenience is exactly what corporate bullies do. He should be ashamed of himself.


No he shouldn't. In fact, we should be very grateful to him.

It is only when people in such positions of power as Mr Lee publicly throw their toys out the pram / throw their corporate weight around [delete as applicable] and force WW et al to realise that a problem exists, that there is even a vague glimmer of hope that WW and the rest of BA 'management' might just wonder if they're doing something wrong?

WW doesn't know and probably cares even less that I actively avoid flying with BA whenever possible (and FR too for that matter), because of their respective appalling customer service. If people like Mr Lee can have some impact on what used to be The World's Favourite Airline then good luck to him!

Final 3 Greens
29th May 2008, 02:56
Thanks cargosales.

That pretty well sums up how I feel.

selfloadingcargo
29th May 2008, 14:44
cargosales - the fact that you have a personal beef with BA does not mean that you should automatically approve of someone behaving badly towards them.

I am sure BA behave disgracefully themselves on occasion. I condemn that as roundly as I condemn Mr. Bell's actions. However, one organisation behaving badly does not excuse another one doing so.

If you agree, as you appear to, that the world would be a better place for a lack of bullying, then it is somewhat inconsistent to approve, as you also appear to, of having Chris Bell throw his (bullying) corporate weight around too.

You can't have it both ways.

I agree that organisations have to be made to face up to the way they treat their customers, but there is a right and a wrong way of doing it. My point is purely that using your shareholders to fight a personal battle without their approval is a great example of the wrong way to do it.

Final 3 Greens
29th May 2008, 15:16
Selfloading cargo

Where does an 800lb gorilla sit? Anywhere it likes

Where does a 1200lb gorilla sit? Anywhere it likes

In this case BA was an 800lb gorilla and Ladbrokes a 1200lb gorilla

That's how things are

People like cargo sales and me are 200lb gorillas, so we admire 1200lb gorillas

selfloadingcargo
29th May 2008, 15:28
Fortunately I'm human so I admire qualities other than size and weight.

I'll send you some bananas.

Final 3 Greens
29th May 2008, 16:57
I'll send you some bananas.

Its hard to know how to reply to someone of your obvious intellectual stature.

selfloadingcargo
29th May 2008, 17:12
If that's the best you can do, I can see why you're struggling.

Let's just agree to differ shall we? This is becoming unedifying.

Carnage Matey!
29th May 2008, 18:14
Ladbrokes isn't a 1200lb gorilla. Ladbrokes is a 50lb chimp, the kind of chimp trainee gorilla handlers are given to practice with. The only reason the chimp got some bananas in this instance was because the press decided to jump on the bandwagon. Otherwise the chimp would still be out in the cold and it wouldn't make a jot of difference to anyone.

TightSlot
29th May 2008, 18:26
Anyone mind if we close this down now? - we seem to have moved on to "Guess the weight of the primate" and that's rarely a good sign...


:)