[OT] motoring **** looses money from identity fraud bet.

[Ian Smith]

On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 17:12:54 -0000, Lily <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I thought he said the litter in question was cycling related. If it
> wasn't then I agree with you.

The litter he identified was empty drinks-cans. Just how many
lycra-clad cyclists do you see carrying cans of drinks in their bottle
cages? I don't think I've ever noticed such a thing.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[Sir Jeremy]

On 7 Jan, 15:30, "wafflycat" <w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> wrote:
> "Martin Dann" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news[email protected]...
>
>
>
>
>
> >http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7174760.stm
>
> > ROTFL.
>
> >> TV presenter **** has lost money after publishing his bank details in his
> >> newspaper column.
>
> >> The **** revealed his account numbers after rubbishing the furore over
> >> the loss of 25 million people's personal details on two computer discs.
>
> >> He wanted to prove the story was a fuss about nothing.
>
> >> But the complete **** admitted he was "wrong" after he discovered a
> >> reader had used the details to create a £500 direct debit to the charity
> >> Diabetes UK.
>
> > Note: bad language replaced with **** for those of a sensitive
> > disposition.
>
> Sometimes, a thing hasppens in life that makes a body thingk, yes, there is
> a god after all. The only thing that would have topped that is if the money
> had been made payable to the Cyclists' Defence Fund ;-)
>
> Best laugh I've had in ages!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


You must really be pre-menstrual if you find it that funny

 

[JNugent]

Sir Jeremy wrote:
> On 7 Jan, 15:30, "wafflycat" <w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> wrote:
>
>>"Martin Dann" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>>news[email protected]...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7174760.stm
>>
>>>ROTFL.
>>
>>>>TV presenter **** has lost money after publishing his bank details in his
>>>>newspaper column.
>>
>>>>The **** revealed his account numbers after rubbishing the furore over
>>>>the loss of 25 million people's personal details on two computer discs.
>>
>>>>He wanted to prove the story was a fuss about nothing.
>>
>>>>But the complete **** admitted he was "wrong" after he discovered a
>>>>reader had used the details to create a £500 direct debit to the charity
>>>>Diabetes UK.
>>
>>>Note: bad language replaced with **** for those of a sensitive
>>>disposition.
>>
>>Sometimes, a thing hasppens in life that makes a body thingk, yes, there is
>>a god after all. The only thing that would have topped that is if the money
>>had been made payable to the Cyclists' Defence Fund ;-)
>>
>>Best laugh I've had in ages!- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>- Show quoted text -
>
>
>
> You must really be pre-menstrual if you find it that funny

It IS funny!

And Clarkson must think so too, because he would have been under no
obligation to release news of it.

 

[Don Whybrow]

Clive George wrote:
>
> He's wrong anyway - or rather, his bank is.

"I opened my bank statement this morning to find out that someone has
set up a direct debit which automatically takes £500 from my account,"
he said.

"The bank cannot find out who did this because of the Data Protection
Act and they cannot stop it from happening again.

A DD would require mandate paperwork that would originate from the
payee. Probably available from on street charity hawkers.

Once filled in with the correct details as provided by Mr Clarkson the
individual filling in the forms would be difficult to trace.

As for the DP issue though, they can't release any information into the
public domain. It is possible that they can't investigate until a fraud
complaint has been made.

How would you suggest that a bank protect clients who publish in the
national press sufficient details to set up a DD?


--
Don Whybrow

Sequi Bonum Non Time

"This is all very interesting, and I daresay you already see me
frothing at the mouth in a fit; but no, I am not; I am just
winking happy thoughts into a little tiddle cup." (Nabokov,
Lolita)

 

[Clive George]

"Don Whybrow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Clive George wrote:
>>
>> He's wrong anyway - or rather, his bank is.
>
> "I opened my bank statement this morning to find out that someone has set
> up a direct debit which automatically takes £500 from my account," he
> said.
>
> "The bank cannot find out who did this because of the Data Protection Act
> and they cannot stop it from happening again.
>
> A DD would require mandate paperwork that would originate from the payee.
> Probably available from on street charity hawkers.
>
> Once filled in with the correct details as provided by Mr Clarkson the
> individual filling in the forms would be difficult to trace.
>
> As for the DP issue though, they can't release any information into the
> public domain. It is possible that they can't investigate until a fraud
> complaint has been made.

Which isn't the same as "The bank cannot find out who did this because of
the DP act".

> How would you suggest that a bank protect clients who publish in the
> national press sufficient details to set up a DD?

The way they currently do : DD guarantee, and don't fib about the DP act
preventing them investigating fraudulent entries. If it happens more than
once, it would be appropriate to take some form of action, eg set up a
confirmation system with the account holder or change their bank details.

cheers,
clive

 

[Don Whybrow]

Dave wrote:
> "Paul Boyd" <usenet.is.worse@plusnet> wrote in message
>> Although JEREMY CLARKSON didn't make the smartest move, his bank are really
>> at fault for not checking up the Direct Debit application properly.
>>
> I would tend to agree with that - but banks are quite lax when it comes to
> thse things.

Imagine you are working in a big service centre with all sorts of forms
crossing your desk every day and your boss is on your case to process
them ASAP because that, in general, is what the customer wants. A fast
turn around.

Amongst all the other DD mandates and account opening forms and loan
requests and ... comes a charity DD mandate setting up a £500 DD from
someone. In fact it is probably stuck in the middle of a huge batch of
the things as they arrived in the post from the charity that morning.
All the fields are filled in correctly, the name matches the one on the
account, the signature looks enough like the on on file (remember the
boss is watching and the clock is ticking). So you tap in the details
and push the GO key.


--
Don Whybrow

Sequi Bonum Non Time

Turn on, log in, fight spam.

 

[Budstaff]

"Don Whybrow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Clive George wrote:
>>
>> He's wrong anyway - or rather, his bank is.
>
> "I opened my bank statement this morning to find out that someone has set
> up a direct debit which automatically takes £500 from my account," he
> said.
>
> "The bank cannot find out who did this because of the Data Protection Act
> and they cannot stop it from happening again.
>
> A DD would require mandate paperwork that would originate from the payee.
> Probably available from on street charity hawkers.
>
> Once filled in with the correct details as provided by Mr Clarkson the
> individual filling in the forms would be difficult to trace.
>
> As for the DP issue though, they can't release any information into the
> public domain. It is possible that they can't investigate until a fraud
> complaint has been made.
>
> How would you suggest that a bank protect clients who publish in the
> national press sufficient details to set up a DD?
>
>
> --
> Don Whybrow
>
> Sequi Bonum Non Time
>
> "This is all very interesting, and I daresay you already see me
> frothing at the mouth in a fit; but no, I am not; I am just
> winking happy thoughts into a little tiddle cup." (Nabokov,
> Lolita)

Nowadays most utilities and other large concerns will set up a DD over the
phone or internet with _no_ supporting paperwork, under the umbrella of the
DD guarantee (have recently set up a sub with Camelot, optimistic fool that
I am, but at least some of the money goes to Sustrans, over the internet
with no more info than Clarkson put into the public domain). Not sure about
charities, tho'.

 

[Alan Braggins]

In article <[email protected]>, Jim wrote:
>
>I find it funny that someone who arrogantly tries to prove one thing ends up
>proving the opposite. I also think that Clarkson probably won't miss the
>£500 too much

Since the bank will have given it back under the usual Direct Debit
guarantee, I doubt he'll miss it at all. Someone who had a cheque
bounce because they went over their overdraft limit while the £500
was missing might, but I doubt Clarkson is in that position.

 

[Dave]

"Don Whybrow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Dave wrote:
>> "Paul Boyd" <usenet.is.worse@plusnet> wrote in message
>>> Although JEREMY CLARKSON didn't make the smartest move, his bank are
>>> really at fault for not checking up the Direct Debit application
>>> properly.
>>>
>> I would tend to agree with that - but banks are quite lax when it comes
>> to thse things.
>
> Imagine you are working in a big service centre with all sorts of forms
> crossing your desk every day and your boss is on your case to process them
> ASAP because that, in general, is what the customer wants. A fast turn
> around.
>
> Amongst all the other DD mandates and account opening forms and loan
> requests and ... comes a charity DD mandate setting up a £500 DD from
> someone. In fact it is probably stuck in the middle of a huge batch of the
> things as they arrived in the post from the charity that morning. All the
> fields are filled in correctly, the name matches the one on the account,
> the signature looks enough like the on on file (remember the boss is
> watching and the clock is ticking). So you tap in the details and push the
> GO key.
>

Yes very easy just like when I have paid in cheques (to a charity) that have
not been signed at all, or dated wrong both before and post dated and all
have been paid.

Also as a signatory on a few charity accounts paid cheques to others with
the wrong signatures on.

Now if someone nicked your cheque book and decided to write a few cheques
that got paid from your account with not or a wrong signature you would not
be happy even if they did compensate you afterwards for their mistake.

Dave

 

[Jim]

"Alan Braggins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, Jim wrote:
I also think that Clarkson probably won't miss the
>>£500 too much
>
> Since the bank will have given it back under the usual Direct Debit
> guarantee, I doubt he'll miss it at all. Someone who had a cheque
> bounce because they went over their overdraft limit while the £500
> was missing might, but I doubt Clarkson is in that position.

You mean that Clarkson's error is going to cost the bank's shareholders
£500?
I wouldn't be too happy about that if I was one of their customers. If I
left my bike unlocked outside a shop for two minutes and it got nicked I
wouldn't be covered. I'm surprised that the bank would refund him given that
he was so irresponsible.

Cheers
Jim J

 

[Rob Morley]

In article <[email protected]>, Jim
[email protected] says...
>
> "Alan Braggins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > In article <[email protected]>, Jim wrote:
> I also think that Clarkson probably won't miss the
> >>£500 too much
> >
> > Since the bank will have given it back under the usual Direct Debit
> > guarantee, I doubt he'll miss it at all. Someone who had a cheque
> > bounce because they went over their overdraft limit while the £500
> > was missing might, but I doubt Clarkson is in that position.
>
> You mean that Clarkson's error is going to cost the bank's shareholders
> £500?
>
No, it means that the charity will have to pay back its donation - all
it will cost the bank is a bit of admin.

 

[Clive George]

"Jim" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Alan Braggins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>, Jim wrote:
> I also think that Clarkson probably won't miss the
>>>£500 too much
>>
>> Since the bank will have given it back under the usual Direct Debit
>> guarantee, I doubt he'll miss it at all. Someone who had a cheque
>> bounce because they went over their overdraft limit while the £500
>> was missing might, but I doubt Clarkson is in that position.
>
> You mean that Clarkson's error is going to cost the bank's shareholders
> £500?
> I wouldn't be too happy about that if I was one of their customers. If I
> left my bike unlocked outside a shop for two minutes and it got nicked I
> wouldn't be covered. I'm surprised that the bank would refund him given
> that he was so irresponsible.

It's not Clarkson's error, it's the banks.

cheers,
clive

 

[Matt B]

Jim wrote:
> "Alan Braggins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>, Jim wrote:
> I also think that Clarkson probably won't miss the
>>> £500 too much
>> Since the bank will have given it back under the usual Direct Debit
>> guarantee, I doubt he'll miss it at all. Someone who had a cheque
>> bounce because they went over their overdraft limit while the £500
>> was missing might, but I doubt Clarkson is in that position.
>
> You mean that Clarkson's error is going to cost the bank's shareholders
> £500?
> I wouldn't be too happy about that if I was one of their customers. If I
> left my bike unlocked outside a shop for two minutes and it got nicked I
> wouldn't be covered. I'm surprised that the bank would refund him given that
> he was so irresponsible.

A graduate of the "blame the victim, they were asking for it" school are
you?

Do you have the same attitude towards rape victims?

--
Matt B

 

[Dave]

"Matt B" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
SNIP
> A graduate of the "blame the victim, they were asking for it" school are
> you?
>
> Do you have the same attitude towards rape victims?
>

Hardly the same is it?

A rape victim is generally not walking down the street naked saying that
nobody dare rape them.

JC did publish his bank details and stated that they were useless - he was
proved wrong whether he gets his money back or not.

Dave

 

[Matt B]

Dave wrote:
> "Matt B" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> SNIP
>> A graduate of the "blame the victim, they were asking for it" school are
>> you?
>>
>> Do you have the same attitude towards rape victims?
>>
>
> Hardly the same is it?
>
> A rape victim is generally not walking down the street naked saying that
> nobody dare rape them.

If they did, would you consider it to be their own fault if they were?

BTW, JC didn't "dare them to", he didn't think that they would be able to.

--
Matt B

 

[Dave]

"Matt B" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Dave wrote:
>> "Matt B" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> SNIP
>>> A graduate of the "blame the victim, they were asking for it" school are
>>> you?
>>>
>>> Do you have the same attitude towards rape victims?
>>>
>>
>> Hardly the same is it?
>>
>> A rape victim is generally not walking down the street naked saying that
>> nobody dare rape them.
>
> If they did, would you consider it to be their own fault if they were?
>

I wouldn't say it was their fault exactly, but I guess that any most Juries
and possibly a Judge and certainly the defence would take the view that they
had contributed substantially to the attack.

> BTW, JC didn't "dare them to", he didn't think that they would be able to.
>

But by giving his details was contributory to the fact that they could. If
he had reported his views without giving the details it probably would not
have occurred. It does not make it right that the person took advantage of
that though.

Dave

 

[Jim]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt B" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 3:09 PM
Subject: Re: [OT] motoring **** looses money from identity fraud bet.


> A graduate of the "blame the victim, they were asking for it" school are
> you?
>
In terms of the "crime" the blame lies with the person who took the money
but I was surprised that in this case, despite Clarkson admitting he was
misguided, he hasn't suffered financially ( although as others have pointed
out the bank was complicit) but I can think of many instances where an
error/lapse would cost and one wouldn't be recompensed.


> Do you have the same attitude towards rape victims?
Just because I think one "journo" has been silly and paid the price (in
terms of ridicule at least) doesn't mean that think that every victim of
serious crime has been "asking for it".

Jim J

 

[Matt B]

Jim wrote:
> From: "Matt B" <[email protected]>
>
>> A graduate of the "blame the victim, they were asking for it" school are
>> you?
>>
> In terms of the "crime" the blame lies with the person who took the money

Fair enough.

--
Matt B

 

[David Lloyd]

"Ekul Namsob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1iacx02.18mo531tvmcnbN%[email protected]...
> Lily <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> "Clive George" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> > "Lily" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> > news:[email protected]...
>> >
>> >> You failed to answer my question in the other thread
>> >
>> > I'll answer it then.
>> >
>> > There's no excuse for littering. However the littering Mr Parris was
>> > complaining about almost certainly wasn't due to cyclists, contrary to
>> > what he claimed.
>> >
>> > (which makes what he wrote even more disgraceful...)
>
>> I thought he said the litter in question was cycling related. If it
>> wasn't
>> then I agree with you.
>
> I could say that the litter in question was related to Anne Boleyn. It
> wouldn't make me any more (or perhaps any less) right than Parris. To
> summarize, very few, if any, cyclists go out with disposable bottles of
> drink and then throw them in hedges. Admittedly, people whose only
> knowledge of cycling comes from the Tour de France have some slight
> excuse for thinking otherwise.
>

Bottles thrown by TdF riders are highly likey to be picked up as souvenirs,
as there is usually some fan or other aroung to pick it up.

David Lloyd

 

[M-gineering]

David Lloyd wrote:

>
> Bottles thrown by TdF riders are highly likey to be picked up as souvenirs,
> as there is usually some fan or other aroung to pick it up.

and getting run over in the process ...

I've seen one rider quoted saying he threw his bottles in the best kept
gardens he could find, sure in the knowledge they would be properly
discarded

--
/Marten

info(apestaartje)m-gineering(punt)nl