Yes! I have finally finished all the requisite parts of my British Sub-Aqua Club Ocean Diver course. I'm legal to dive worldwide at depths of down to 20m (although I did 21m today!)
This is sweet because my girlfriend's Dad is an ex-Irish International deep-water spear-fisherman and when I go out to New Zealand next year (don't ask about the jump from Ireland to New Zealand), I can go diving with him. This is very good.
I like diving, today I dived in to a sunken freighter, an aircraft cockpit, an ancient submarine and a house in an old flooded quarry.
If you wanna go diving with me, I'm looking for buddies!
2006-12-09
2006-11-14
Cause For Contemplation
In the same week that I'm getting frustrated by some of the political posturing around Iraq I read a story about a Chicago man's self-immolation, which could be attributed to a protest against political decisions on the war in Iraq.
I was going to post a rant about how we shouldn't be asking Syria and Iran to pitch in to help the new Iraq (and Afganistan I suppose) before talking to our friendly Middle-Eastern states. There are some states that don't hate us, why not enlist their help. The rant was to be based on how if we ask Syria and Iran to help, we are only asking them so they can refuse or demand it done in such a way that we diagree with them. It's a win-win situation for UK/USA because they look like doing something, but actually it's just pushing someone in to a position where whatever they do UK/USA can say, "see, they are bastards we shouldn't" trust.
I say I was going to post because I am really just gutted about Malachi Ritscher, this article explains it all. It's a sad story, and regardless of whether it was a protest against the war, that's some serious determination there, determinism, which could have been channeled somewhere. That or the problems we face with life or with the "war on terror[-ism]" are too much for one single determined person.
I feel pretty melancholy and can identify with the frustration of someone that really feels they can't make a difference. The Iraq situation, the Arab/Israeli conflict and the problems caused by various other ideological differences will still go on no matter what you do.
I was going to post a rant about how we shouldn't be asking Syria and Iran to pitch in to help the new Iraq (and Afganistan I suppose) before talking to our friendly Middle-Eastern states. There are some states that don't hate us, why not enlist their help. The rant was to be based on how if we ask Syria and Iran to help, we are only asking them so they can refuse or demand it done in such a way that we diagree with them. It's a win-win situation for UK/USA because they look like doing something, but actually it's just pushing someone in to a position where whatever they do UK/USA can say, "see, they are bastards we shouldn't" trust.
I say I was going to post because I am really just gutted about Malachi Ritscher, this article explains it all. It's a sad story, and regardless of whether it was a protest against the war, that's some serious determination there, determinism, which could have been channeled somewhere. That or the problems we face with life or with the "war on terror[-ism]" are too much for one single determined person.
I feel pretty melancholy and can identify with the frustration of someone that really feels they can't make a difference. The Iraq situation, the Arab/Israeli conflict and the problems caused by various other ideological differences will still go on no matter what you do.
2006-11-03
Stupid Media News Statements #1
The BBC radio news today, talking about this story stated, "Scientists are recommending fishing reductions to save fish species". It goes on to say, "However, sceptics say that a total ban on fishing would see the end of the fishing industry."
That's like saying that banning all cars would see the end of the motoring industry, true, but obvious.
That's like saying that banning all cars would see the end of the motoring industry, true, but obvious.
2006-10-23
Working Out Is Bad For You
I've embarked on a post-30 workout regime at a new gym near my offices. The aim is to have a pre-30 body, well actually pre-26 body because that's when I stopped working out and started putting on the kilos in a serious way.
It turns out that although I've benefited from the new exercise regime (2cm loss on waist, 2cm gain on biceps and quads), I've never had so many injuries or ailments. In my first week I hurt my knee, in my second week I over worked my front calf-muscle and the list goes on. In the last ten days I have strained my heel area of my left foot, my left elbow hurts and my left thumb has swollen like a balloon.
My advice is that getting fit is worth it, but the phrase should be, "no pain, you're doing alright again"
It turns out that although I've benefited from the new exercise regime (2cm loss on waist, 2cm gain on biceps and quads), I've never had so many injuries or ailments. In my first week I hurt my knee, in my second week I over worked my front calf-muscle and the list goes on. In the last ten days I have strained my heel area of my left foot, my left elbow hurts and my left thumb has swollen like a balloon.
My advice is that getting fit is worth it, but the phrase should be, "no pain, you're doing alright again"
2006-10-19
China's Scientists Have Always Been Great
This BBC Radio 4 programme, which I managed to catch today was pretty interesting. China was the world power in scientific innovation until the 1700s or so. Apparently, there was a back lash against western science, which prevented an uptake of western science to allow China to further improve once European scientists began to make their own breakthrough, which lead to western science becoming the most advanced. During the backlash, there was propaganda disseminated about why not to trust western science; babies' eyes were supposedly required to construct mirrors and for every railway sleeper laid a dead baby must be laid too. These meant people mistrusted western science and so advancement wasn't made through it's adoption.
You can listen to the show here for the next 7 days. This link is not yet available as of 09:15 GMT because the show has only just finished, but this link and the link on the BBC website will be valid today.
You can listen to the show here for the next 7 days. This link is not yet available as of 09:15 GMT because the show has only just finished, but this link and the link on the BBC website will be valid today.
2006-10-18
Things You Should Never Witness #1
A man using a hairdrier to dry his genitals. Yes, that's what I saw this morning and I'm still in shock.
More Things I Won't Follow-up On
Here's another lame promise.
I just got back from a trip to Spain for my Grandma's 80th birthday, she's been living there for 20 years, so this was a double anniversary. Lots of stuff happened that I'll tell you about, never.
Also, I went to the Green Man Festival in August, I suspect you'll never hear about how good that was and why I think small festivals are the way forward.
I just got back from a trip to Spain for my Grandma's 80th birthday, she's been living there for 20 years, so this was a double anniversary. Lots of stuff happened that I'll tell you about, never.
Also, I went to the Green Man Festival in August, I suspect you'll never hear about how good that was and why I think small festivals are the way forward.
2006-07-31
Finally Made It To Slashdot
Yes! After almost 7 years and 3 attempts (okay that's not too many) I finally got an article up on Slashdot. That is all.
Update:
It seems that the Blogger template I use doesn't make it very clear that if my blog post is about a link to another site you can get to it via the actual title of the post. This is a clickable link. As this isn't obivous I suspect that many people have missed a lot of information. Here is the link: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/31/1058204
Update:
It seems that the Blogger template I use doesn't make it very clear that if my blog post is about a link to another site you can get to it via the actual title of the post. This is a clickable link. As this isn't obivous I suspect that many people have missed a lot of information. Here is the link: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/31/1058204
2006-07-18
Commute across Europe?
This article on the BBC News website is quite interesting; I have thought about doing this, but I'm not sure if it'll work or if I could do it ethically. I don't think it would work with my current job, but it's a thought if you're wondering what living abroad might do for you. If you read the comments to the article you see an argument forming like this:
For - I commute from country A to country B, I manage to spend more time at home with my family, commute less time each week and have a higher standard of living/higher disposable income. I know that there is an environmental cost, but surely the plane would be flying that route anyway so the total pollution for the flight remains the same, but we've one less car on the road every day.
Against - How irresponsible you are? Aviation is the most polluting of all travel, this world is dying and we all need to stop pollution and our contribution to the climate change. Whilst I can understand living abroad trying to work in one country and work in another is untenable, make a choice between one or the other.
It's interesting and I'm not sure where I stand. The thought of living somewhere else with the same money is very appealing, thus becoming effectively richer is great, especially when you think of that comparison in the article on air prices and train fares. As always the "good" guys' arguments sound weak compared to the "bad" guys. For example, the commuters are all about look what I can do, look what I've got, this is so much better - very me oriented and you can see the appeal. The environmentalists are quite simple in their statement - air travel is bad think of the environment. What we see is lots of fors and one against (two if you include the tax argument or sundry costs argument). I think the environmental argument is one massive argument compared to the lots of small, but people are very selfish and don't think like that.
As an exercise in proving who is right from the environmental point of view I'd like to know how the environmental costs compare. Firstly on a per person basis by comparing environmental footprint of just one week or one month's commuting (car travel daily versus two plane trips weekly, that sort of thing). Secondly work out what would happen if we all did it. I reckon the plane would be worse than the car immediately, but if not and it was practical environmentally for certain journies I think that if everyone did it, it would be completely unacceptable. I mean, if I flew from Barcelona to work compared to my 9 mile drive that is nuts and so the average would make this impossible to do without serious environmental, infrastructural and social damage.
For - I commute from country A to country B, I manage to spend more time at home with my family, commute less time each week and have a higher standard of living/higher disposable income. I know that there is an environmental cost, but surely the plane would be flying that route anyway so the total pollution for the flight remains the same, but we've one less car on the road every day.
Against - How irresponsible you are? Aviation is the most polluting of all travel, this world is dying and we all need to stop pollution and our contribution to the climate change. Whilst I can understand living abroad trying to work in one country and work in another is untenable, make a choice between one or the other.
It's interesting and I'm not sure where I stand. The thought of living somewhere else with the same money is very appealing, thus becoming effectively richer is great, especially when you think of that comparison in the article on air prices and train fares. As always the "good" guys' arguments sound weak compared to the "bad" guys. For example, the commuters are all about look what I can do, look what I've got, this is so much better - very me oriented and you can see the appeal. The environmentalists are quite simple in their statement - air travel is bad think of the environment. What we see is lots of fors and one against (two if you include the tax argument or sundry costs argument). I think the environmental argument is one massive argument compared to the lots of small, but people are very selfish and don't think like that.
As an exercise in proving who is right from the environmental point of view I'd like to know how the environmental costs compare. Firstly on a per person basis by comparing environmental footprint of just one week or one month's commuting (car travel daily versus two plane trips weekly, that sort of thing). Secondly work out what would happen if we all did it. I reckon the plane would be worse than the car immediately, but if not and it was practical environmentally for certain journies I think that if everyone did it, it would be completely unacceptable. I mean, if I flew from Barcelona to work compared to my 9 mile drive that is nuts and so the average would make this impossible to do without serious environmental, infrastructural and social damage.
2006-07-09
Something's gonna give
I full intend to update the blog soon, I've lots to tell, but not the time currently to do everything justice. Here's a summary of things so far:
I reckon I'll have something written and editing within a week. (I'm sure you can't wait.)
- Train injustice #1 - The journey to Gatwick
- Holiday in Ireland - Lots of camping (ohh Matron) and hiking.
- Train injustice #2 - The journey from Gatwick
- General ramblings/comments about things I've heard on Radio FiveLive in the morning or the media in general that are stupid or inconsistent. You know how much of a pedant I am.
I reckon I'll have something written and editing within a week. (I'm sure you can't wait.)
2006-04-20
Capital Radio Advertising Lies
First off, I don't listen to Capital FM, in fact if you ever read this blog (and I don't suppose many do) and you happen to read something about a radio station, it's most likely one I heard in a colleagues car whilst working. Hence, Capital FM, Radio Mercury (the heart of the south apparently), Magic et al are not frequent listens of mine. In most cases I don't like them. So please don't judge me all right. Or if you do judge me at least judge me on the stuff I want you to judge me on and not random asides on radio stations.
Anyway, I was listening to Capital FM this afternoon and there was an advert, when it finished there was an advert for Captial saying, "we don't put more than two adverts back to back, so you don't have to change over". This was followed by another advert before the "music" resumed. (See my Captial FM dislike of "music" coming through? Good.) This struck me as a lie because there were obviously 3 adverts there, not 2. Some may say, but it was a jingle. True, but that's just another word for advert. So there you have it. Proof that Capital FM lies to it's listeners, the trouble is the're all so dumb they don't notice.
Anyway, I was listening to Capital FM this afternoon and there was an advert, when it finished there was an advert for Captial saying, "we don't put more than two adverts back to back, so you don't have to change over". This was followed by another advert before the "music" resumed. (See my Captial FM dislike of "music" coming through? Good.) This struck me as a lie because there were obviously 3 adverts there, not 2. Some may say, but it was a jingle. True, but that's just another word for advert. So there you have it. Proof that Capital FM lies to it's listeners, the trouble is the're all so dumb they don't notice.
2006-03-22
Apparently They Do
know who I am. 7 days after the incident in the Post Office I received through the post a nice shiny new Passport with my fat face in the back of it.
I feel like a trip to the Post Office just to gloat.
I feel like a trip to the Post Office just to gloat.
2006-03-07
Do you know who I am?
There can't be many levels of embarassment and self-pity below where I sank yesterday.
I went to renew my 10 year passport at the Post Office; they do this "check and send" service, where you get the application form checked for you and a guaranteed two-week turn around. I got myself some nice new pictures taken and queued like a good man. I stepped up to the counter and presented my documents; one valid passport as ID, one application form and one set of new pictures. Whilst the counter staff are whizzing away on my application I switch-off.
I went to renew my 10 year passport at the Post Office; they do this "check and send" service, where you get the application form checked for you and a guaranteed two-week turn around. I got myself some nice new pictures taken and queued like a good man. I stepped up to the counter and presented my documents; one valid passport as ID, one application form and one set of new pictures. Whilst the counter staff are whizzing away on my application I switch-off.
BEFORE"Excuse me, but you haven't had these counter-signed", says the man. He's referring to the new photos of my, which don't need to be counter-signed for a renewal if the existing passport is valid still. "But I don't need to because this is a renewal", I reply. "That's true, but not if your appearance has altered significantly from 10 years ago."
"What do you mean?", I ask. "Well you've put on a bit of weight and I don't believe that you bear any resemblance to the passport photo." Oh, excellent. In public I have been told that I'm fat and that my passport application won't be processed. I calmed myself slightly and responded with, "I don't have them counter-signed and I want to apply. And anyway, how come no one in the US, Canada, New Zealand, China and most of Europe hasn't said this to me as I cross their borders?"
"What do you mean?", I ask. "Well you've put on a bit of weight and I don't believe that you bear any resemblance to the passport photo." Oh, excellent. In public I have been told that I'm fat and that my passport application won't be processed. I calmed myself slightly and responded with, "I don't have them counter-signed and I want to apply. And anyway, how come no one in the US, Canada, New Zealand, China and most of Europe hasn't said this to me as I cross their borders?"
AFTER2006-03-05
Who put the ming in Menzies
Why is Menzies pronounced Mingis?
Thank you to the BBC for helping clear up why Sir Menzies Cambell has such a strange pronunciation of his first name.
There are some notable comments at the bottom too, my favourite is this:
"... Jean Harlow was at a dinner party and kept on addressing Margot Asquith (wife of prime minister Herbert Asquith) as MargoT (pronouncing the 'T'). Margot finally had enough and said to her "No Jean, the T is silent, as in Harlow"
Oh you don't find it funny? Then stick two fenzers up your ass.
Thank you to the BBC for helping clear up why Sir Menzies Cambell has such a strange pronunciation of his first name.
There are some notable comments at the bottom too, my favourite is this:
"... Jean Harlow was at a dinner party and kept on addressing Margot Asquith (wife of prime minister Herbert Asquith) as MargoT (pronouncing the 'T'). Margot finally had enough and said to her "No Jean, the T is silent, as in Harlow"
Oh you don't find it funny? Then stick two fenzers up your ass.
2006-03-03
Shock news - journalists sensationalise stories
I read this story and listened to and read other supporting news stories today. As a scientist, I am all for accurate reporting. It frustrates me to listen in to talk shows or read posts by misinformed, opinionated, but ultimately wrong people discussing science stories on the news. Take the MMR furore, millions of babies have now not been vaccinated and may catch some of the diseases it prevents while waiting for the singular injections, which in turn will probably increase the rates infection of a preventable disease. The cause? One article suggesting a slight correlation between the MMR jab and autism. The news reports blew it out of proportion and at no point was any hard fact put up to inform people. So there is a risk associated with a vaccine? So what! There is a risk associated with crossing the street, but many people do it and with out crossing the street they can not carry out their daily lives. It's not about risk it's about acceptable risk.
Anyway, I'm not writing this in order to argue for or against old news. What is new news is the recommendations for science journalism:
* Newspapers and broadcasters should employ more science graduates
* Scientists and science graduates should be encouraged to undertake media training
* Universities should offer multidisciplinary science degrees which include issues of ethics
* Policymakers need a better understanding of public perceptions of risk
This is all well and good when a story is being covered by a science correspondent, what this doesn't address is what happens when a science story moves from the science correspondent to the political correspondent as the news story gathers pace and becomes a full scale political story. You can't keep the facts from being sensationalised because the political correspondent sees his/her spin on it and also they are not formally trained in science. Seriously, would you read political or economic commentary from a person with a chemistry degree? No, you'd expect a politics or economics graduate with experience in the field otherwise the story isn't credible.
The other side of this is that censoring the news or regulating the news is either wrong or right, but never in the middle. If you censor science stories, what about the stories that get the facts wrong in other areas. You either censor them all or none. The stories that ruin people's lives based on rumour and conjecture or take down political careers could equally be censored. Personally I feel that love them or hate them the journalists bring the stories to our attention and do provide a source of information about important news that may otherwise pass them by. Hell, it may even save a life or benefit others if someone goes to the doctor or whistle-blows on their employer based on information in the news.
What we really need to do is not focus on the journalists, but on the readers. If the average member of the public isn't science savvy enough to question something and do their own research or can't stop themselves from believing everything put in front of them it's them that needs help.
Don't censor the media, enlighten the people.
Anyway, I'm not writing this in order to argue for or against old news. What is new news is the recommendations for science journalism:
* Newspapers and broadcasters should employ more science graduates
* Scientists and science graduates should be encouraged to undertake media training
* Universities should offer multidisciplinary science degrees which include issues of ethics
* Policymakers need a better understanding of public perceptions of risk
This is all well and good when a story is being covered by a science correspondent, what this doesn't address is what happens when a science story moves from the science correspondent to the political correspondent as the news story gathers pace and becomes a full scale political story. You can't keep the facts from being sensationalised because the political correspondent sees his/her spin on it and also they are not formally trained in science. Seriously, would you read political or economic commentary from a person with a chemistry degree? No, you'd expect a politics or economics graduate with experience in the field otherwise the story isn't credible.
The other side of this is that censoring the news or regulating the news is either wrong or right, but never in the middle. If you censor science stories, what about the stories that get the facts wrong in other areas. You either censor them all or none. The stories that ruin people's lives based on rumour and conjecture or take down political careers could equally be censored. Personally I feel that love them or hate them the journalists bring the stories to our attention and do provide a source of information about important news that may otherwise pass them by. Hell, it may even save a life or benefit others if someone goes to the doctor or whistle-blows on their employer based on information in the news.
What we really need to do is not focus on the journalists, but on the readers. If the average member of the public isn't science savvy enough to question something and do their own research or can't stop themselves from believing everything put in front of them it's them that needs help.
Don't censor the media, enlighten the people.
The Infuriating Case of the Vanishing Funds ad infinitum
If anyone reads this blog, which in its infancy is unlikely due to the sparse population of posts and the monotony of the subject matter thus far, they will no doubt be familiar, perhaps even avid readers of, the credit card fiasco. This will be the last post on this matter unless something very dramatic happens because as you will see this post can be read over an over again until all I have to say about it will be done.
Picture me calm and composed receiving my credit card bill and not really paying attention; then picture me enraged, spitting fire, eyes bulging, red in the face spouting the most colourful expletives I know and a few I made up (which were rather funny actually and good for another blog post). Well these are the scenes in my lounge before and after I noticed that I had not been credited the charges I incurred reclaiming my bank account and the further interest incurred from the original credit card fraud.
So, I ring up the credit card company, explain the situation and I am told that my account is in credit and that if I wish to receive the money I merely have to pay it in to my bank account using the credit card. But, that'll incur a further charge I say, well thats the deal they say. Sigh.
I'm currently pending some settlement at a higher source within the company, but in reality I expect to be repeating the following process gradually reducing the amount I owe expending much time and energy until I feel comfortable writing off the loss:
1. Pay money in to my bank using credit card to claim back credit card refund.
2. Incur charge for using credit card in step 1.
3. Receive credit card refund.
4. Go to 1.
Fucking hell.
Picture me calm and composed receiving my credit card bill and not really paying attention; then picture me enraged, spitting fire, eyes bulging, red in the face spouting the most colourful expletives I know and a few I made up (which were rather funny actually and good for another blog post). Well these are the scenes in my lounge before and after I noticed that I had not been credited the charges I incurred reclaiming my bank account and the further interest incurred from the original credit card fraud.
So, I ring up the credit card company, explain the situation and I am told that my account is in credit and that if I wish to receive the money I merely have to pay it in to my bank account using the credit card. But, that'll incur a further charge I say, well thats the deal they say. Sigh.
I'm currently pending some settlement at a higher source within the company, but in reality I expect to be repeating the following process gradually reducing the amount I owe expending much time and energy until I feel comfortable writing off the loss:
1. Pay money in to my bank using credit card to claim back credit card refund.
2. Incur charge for using credit card in step 1.
3. Receive credit card refund.
4. Go to 1.
Fucking hell.
2006-02-13
Differences between the UK and the USA: #1
UK: Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott was under intense pressure on Wednesday night after he was involved in a punch-up...
USA: Cheney shoots man in hunt error
This difference is that whilst Prescott meant to hurt his man, Cheney is the only one that could have killed his man. Guns don't kill people politicians do!
USA: Cheney shoots man in hunt error
This difference is that whilst Prescott meant to hurt his man, Cheney is the only one that could have killed his man. Guns don't kill people politicians do!
2006-02-12
Google Adsense, hmm
For some reason I've signed up to google adsense for this blog. What sort of money is a schmuck like me gonna get for spouting shite eh? Well we'll see. Perhaps I won't even pass their vetting procedure. Anyway, if you click on the links or whatever there are on the page I'll total the cash up and if it's significant I'll probably give it to charity. If it's not I'll just laugh at my stupidity.
The Infuriating Case of the Plastic Totem and the Vanishing Funds - Epilogue
After thinking it was all over, I was sadly wrong. If your credit card issuer says they will not attempt to take payment from your account after they have resolved your credit card fraud issue don't believe them, it is a barefaced lie.
I checked my balance the other day and I was several thousand overdrawn. "So what's new Ian. He, he, he!", you might say, but you'd be wrong. Post university I'm pretty tight with my money, ("So what's new...", you might say) and I'm pretty proud of not being overdrawn and of having a good credit record. This sent me in to a bit of a rage. I could have (and with hindsight should have) stopped this month's direct debit because I thought this might happen, but I didn't because somehow, through laziness and a false sense of trust in my credit card issuer. Considering how untrustworthy they had proven to be already, I have to conclude that this was a truly stupid action on my behalf and could land my clean credit record in serious trouble.
Now, things have got truly complicated. I know my bank charges me £25 for going over my overdraft limit and repeats this charge for 3 days up to £75 in any month. On top of this they will charge a further £25 for every day during which any further money is withdrawn from my account, which causes me to go further overdrawn. There is no limit to this charge. In order to work out what's going on I tramp down to my local branch and plead stupidity and innocence.
By my reckonning the credit card had now become in credit to the tune of the same amount I was previously fraudulently in debit. I checked this out and it was. My plan was to first resolve the bank charges and then pay the money back by using the credit card. My bank, which is part of the same company as my credit card issuer, was very good to me throughout the 30 minutes it took to resolve things. I was let off the charges and any further that were already in the pipeline, but any further charges couldn't be dealt with. However, the tricky part was how to resolve things with the overdraft itself.
My bank suggested that rather than pay a charge to the credit card issuer for the cash advance to pay back the overdraft I should get the credit card issuer to repay the money. The assistant was able to get my credit card issuer on the phone and they said they could automatically return the money to me at no charge. Brilliant I said, how long will it take. Five days was the answer.
Damn! So, not only have I got two banking organisations involved making this more complicated, I now face two choices. One, pay for the cash advance on the credit card, but stay in the good books of my bank. Two, pay nothing for the credit card refund, but be over drawn for five days. This in itself is a nightmare because I've detailed the overdraft charges of my bank above. It was further compounded because I realised that the very next day for about 2-3 days my monthly bills are all taken from my account. So I'd be charged even more by the bank. The bank were good to me, but they can't link the credit card account and then bank account, which means I would be liable if I went overdrawn further. I agree with this because if I was in a different bank or had a different credit card issuer I couldn't expect any favours. The decision was therefore simple, bite the bullet and pay the credit card charge and then fight with them over it.
What a horrendously complex thing. Add a new bank, creditor or person to a financial situation and watch the complexity shoot right off the scale. I am now backin credit with everyone concerned, but I'm seriously annoyed with my credit card issuer. I just got this months statement with the charges on it so I can now take issue with the card issue. I know now they'll pay the charges, but there is now interest on the cash advance and more interest on the original fraudulent balance transfer to deal with. Sheesh. Anyway, tomorrow it should all be put to bed.
Remember kids, banks and credit card firms are bad. Not per se, but because you don't know how bad (or good in the case of my bank) their internal policies are. You don't know how secure your money is nor how easy it is to resolve fairly simple things. Just say no!
I checked my balance the other day and I was several thousand overdrawn. "So what's new Ian. He, he, he!", you might say, but you'd be wrong. Post university I'm pretty tight with my money, ("So what's new...", you might say) and I'm pretty proud of not being overdrawn and of having a good credit record. This sent me in to a bit of a rage. I could have (and with hindsight should have) stopped this month's direct debit because I thought this might happen, but I didn't because somehow, through laziness and a false sense of trust in my credit card issuer. Considering how untrustworthy they had proven to be already, I have to conclude that this was a truly stupid action on my behalf and could land my clean credit record in serious trouble.
Now, things have got truly complicated. I know my bank charges me £25 for going over my overdraft limit and repeats this charge for 3 days up to £75 in any month. On top of this they will charge a further £25 for every day during which any further money is withdrawn from my account, which causes me to go further overdrawn. There is no limit to this charge. In order to work out what's going on I tramp down to my local branch and plead stupidity and innocence.
By my reckonning the credit card had now become in credit to the tune of the same amount I was previously fraudulently in debit. I checked this out and it was. My plan was to first resolve the bank charges and then pay the money back by using the credit card. My bank, which is part of the same company as my credit card issuer, was very good to me throughout the 30 minutes it took to resolve things. I was let off the charges and any further that were already in the pipeline, but any further charges couldn't be dealt with. However, the tricky part was how to resolve things with the overdraft itself.
My bank suggested that rather than pay a charge to the credit card issuer for the cash advance to pay back the overdraft I should get the credit card issuer to repay the money. The assistant was able to get my credit card issuer on the phone and they said they could automatically return the money to me at no charge. Brilliant I said, how long will it take. Five days was the answer.
Damn! So, not only have I got two banking organisations involved making this more complicated, I now face two choices. One, pay for the cash advance on the credit card, but stay in the good books of my bank. Two, pay nothing for the credit card refund, but be over drawn for five days. This in itself is a nightmare because I've detailed the overdraft charges of my bank above. It was further compounded because I realised that the very next day for about 2-3 days my monthly bills are all taken from my account. So I'd be charged even more by the bank. The bank were good to me, but they can't link the credit card account and then bank account, which means I would be liable if I went overdrawn further. I agree with this because if I was in a different bank or had a different credit card issuer I couldn't expect any favours. The decision was therefore simple, bite the bullet and pay the credit card charge and then fight with them over it.
What a horrendously complex thing. Add a new bank, creditor or person to a financial situation and watch the complexity shoot right off the scale. I am now backin credit with everyone concerned, but I'm seriously annoyed with my credit card issuer. I just got this months statement with the charges on it so I can now take issue with the card issue. I know now they'll pay the charges, but there is now interest on the cash advance and more interest on the original fraudulent balance transfer to deal with. Sheesh. Anyway, tomorrow it should all be put to bed.
Remember kids, banks and credit card firms are bad. Not per se, but because you don't know how bad (or good in the case of my bank) their internal policies are. You don't know how secure your money is nor how easy it is to resolve fairly simple things. Just say no!
2006-01-25
The Infuriating Case of the Plastic Totem and the Vanishing Funds
During the last 14 days I have been trying to sort out my finances. Normally when someone says that, especially around this time of year they are discussing their day-to-day budget and their overdraft/credit card, which took a pounding recently. In my case, as a result of someone else pounding my credit card, I am sorting out my finances to assess the potential damage I am yet to uncover.
Recently I received a letter from my credit card provider asking me to call them. When I finally was able to get through to them it appears there has been some fraudulent use of my credit card. This is a description of what happened.
During the initial call, I was asked if I had called the company in the last week. I said no. In fact I had only called them once (the previous month) in the last 2 years. I was asked a series of questions that whittled down the point that I had not transferred £4500 from another credit card to my credit card. Next proceeded a series of questions to try to establish how the card had become fraudulently used. It appears that someone has gotten hold of my credit card number and the CVV code (that security code on the back). Using this number they have been able to transfer funds from one card to another.
I've not used the card on the internet as far as I know and in fact the card had lain dormant for almost 2 years so although I can't discount internet fraud, it's a long time for someone to wait before using information they obtained that way. The other way for someone to get this information would be to actually get it from me. As I said, the card has lain dormant for 2 years and was stored securely in my room in my flat for that time. It was only one month ago that I put it in my wallet for a trip to Holland and so there is a very small window for the information to be taken. What is strangest is that my card is always buried in my wallet and deep in my pocket. So, sometime in the last 30 days, I've had my pocket picked, the card read and then replaced. Or something like that. I may have over looked things and the information got out another way, but that's how I see it anyway.
That is also how my credit card company sees it. I was asked a lot of questions about whether I had a shared mailbox (I do, but it's irrelevent because I'd had the card for three years); about shared accomodation (I do share, but with a friend of over 20 years, that, although you can never say never, I severely doubt would defraud me) and about how secure my premises and use of the card were. I became very upset when it seemed they were pointing to my housemate having done this and also that they said that because I lived in shared accomodation I should always carry my card with me. Firstly, as I mentioned, my housemate has been a longtime friend for many years and secondly, I resent the fact that my own flat and my own room within my flat are considered a less safe place for a credit card other than my wallet out in public.
Well, keeping my calm, I continued with the phone call. I would be required to sign a disclaimer denying using the card and the matter should be resolved soon enough. So, I put down the phone and waited for the post. Then it hit me! The problem was not with the credit card number and CVC code being used, it was the whole security process, which could leave me open to complete identity theft and widespread fraud.
When I telephoned the credit card company I was required provide the answer to several security questions before I was identified and the fraud case could be discussed. The fraudulent user of my card had also rung up to transfer a balance and so it stands to reason that by passing this security test they have access to more information than one credit card number. They had the ability to access any of my financial accounts and use them fraudulently.
I rang back the credit card company and asked them to review how the fraud occured. Yes, a call had been made and yes, security questions had been asked. I enquired about which questions were asked and the person on the phone hadn't got that information available. This strikes me as ridiculous. How can determine fraud and maintain security if you don't log the security information you ask for? I was told the matter would be transferred to a superior and I'd get a call back. In the mould of all customer service complaints, I am still waiting for that call. Meanwhile, I still don't know what questions were asked, what information was provided about me and to what extent I need to call my financial providers to get security changed. Worrying at the least.
Regarding the actual fraud, things are now resolved, but I'm left with a seriously bad taste in my mouth and I still haven't heard back from the company about my possibly compromised security details. Be careful with your information and don't rely on one password or security detail to protect more than one account. I would make up a different set of answers for security questions for each account you have with a new provider, including different mother's maiden name. It sounds an awful lot of effort to do this and that kind of security is rarely needed for the general public, but think about this: how much more effort would it be to change all details with every account in one go and to persuade them that they needed to change the details. Why should they believe you, perhaps you're the fraudster on the line securing the account? The bottom line is the financial nightmare of losing all of your savings and investments and also being in debt a huge amount. A massive swing from financial security to bankruptcy.
Recently I received a letter from my credit card provider asking me to call them. When I finally was able to get through to them it appears there has been some fraudulent use of my credit card. This is a description of what happened.
During the initial call, I was asked if I had called the company in the last week. I said no. In fact I had only called them once (the previous month) in the last 2 years. I was asked a series of questions that whittled down the point that I had not transferred £4500 from another credit card to my credit card. Next proceeded a series of questions to try to establish how the card had become fraudulently used. It appears that someone has gotten hold of my credit card number and the CVV code (that security code on the back). Using this number they have been able to transfer funds from one card to another.
I've not used the card on the internet as far as I know and in fact the card had lain dormant for almost 2 years so although I can't discount internet fraud, it's a long time for someone to wait before using information they obtained that way. The other way for someone to get this information would be to actually get it from me. As I said, the card has lain dormant for 2 years and was stored securely in my room in my flat for that time. It was only one month ago that I put it in my wallet for a trip to Holland and so there is a very small window for the information to be taken. What is strangest is that my card is always buried in my wallet and deep in my pocket. So, sometime in the last 30 days, I've had my pocket picked, the card read and then replaced. Or something like that. I may have over looked things and the information got out another way, but that's how I see it anyway.
That is also how my credit card company sees it. I was asked a lot of questions about whether I had a shared mailbox (I do, but it's irrelevent because I'd had the card for three years); about shared accomodation (I do share, but with a friend of over 20 years, that, although you can never say never, I severely doubt would defraud me) and about how secure my premises and use of the card were. I became very upset when it seemed they were pointing to my housemate having done this and also that they said that because I lived in shared accomodation I should always carry my card with me. Firstly, as I mentioned, my housemate has been a longtime friend for many years and secondly, I resent the fact that my own flat and my own room within my flat are considered a less safe place for a credit card other than my wallet out in public.
Well, keeping my calm, I continued with the phone call. I would be required to sign a disclaimer denying using the card and the matter should be resolved soon enough. So, I put down the phone and waited for the post. Then it hit me! The problem was not with the credit card number and CVC code being used, it was the whole security process, which could leave me open to complete identity theft and widespread fraud.
When I telephoned the credit card company I was required provide the answer to several security questions before I was identified and the fraud case could be discussed. The fraudulent user of my card had also rung up to transfer a balance and so it stands to reason that by passing this security test they have access to more information than one credit card number. They had the ability to access any of my financial accounts and use them fraudulently.
I rang back the credit card company and asked them to review how the fraud occured. Yes, a call had been made and yes, security questions had been asked. I enquired about which questions were asked and the person on the phone hadn't got that information available. This strikes me as ridiculous. How can determine fraud and maintain security if you don't log the security information you ask for? I was told the matter would be transferred to a superior and I'd get a call back. In the mould of all customer service complaints, I am still waiting for that call. Meanwhile, I still don't know what questions were asked, what information was provided about me and to what extent I need to call my financial providers to get security changed. Worrying at the least.
Regarding the actual fraud, things are now resolved, but I'm left with a seriously bad taste in my mouth and I still haven't heard back from the company about my possibly compromised security details. Be careful with your information and don't rely on one password or security detail to protect more than one account. I would make up a different set of answers for security questions for each account you have with a new provider, including different mother's maiden name. It sounds an awful lot of effort to do this and that kind of security is rarely needed for the general public, but think about this: how much more effort would it be to change all details with every account in one go and to persuade them that they needed to change the details. Why should they believe you, perhaps you're the fraudster on the line securing the account? The bottom line is the financial nightmare of losing all of your savings and investments and also being in debt a huge amount. A massive swing from financial security to bankruptcy.
2006-01-03
Ten Tracks From 2005
It's been a good year for me musically. I've bought a lot more music, managed to seek out a whole bunch more music myself without relying on word of mouth so much and managed to see more bands live than any other year in the last five years a least. Here's ten tracks from ten bands/artist(e)s in no particular order that I found, re-discovered or generally listened to a lot in 2005.
Captain Beyond: Dancing Madly Backwards (On A Sea Of Air)
(Captain Beyond, 1972)
Great rock, I loved this the moment Chris, my house mate, played it to me. Randomly no one had heard this amongst us despite it being over 30 years old until Chris read a forum post about greatest rock albums ever. This was one persons greatest album so he had to listen to it. The rest is history. This is an amalgam of the first three-part track on the album.
Bright Eyes: Road To Joy
(I'm Wide Awake, It's Morning, 2005)
Bright Eyes have/has both curried and lost some of my favour this year, Road to Joy is my favourite song from I'm Wide Awake, It's Morning, however listening to the little fucker screeching on Lifted: Or The Story Is In The Soil So Keep Your Ear To The Ground has somewhat soiled the relationship. That album is supposed to be better than I'm Wide Awake... and on full listen through it's pretty good, but I still can't get with the grown man crying thing.
Devendra Banhart: Little Boys
(Cripple Crow, 2005)
Is he a paedophile or just singing from a different point of view? Which point of view, a paedophile's point of view, big gay pirate's or a cheeky little girl's. Or is it something completely different? I can't figure it out, but I like the song despite the cringing lyrics.
Editors: Bullets
(The Back Room, 2005)
Finally something on XFM's play-list that isn't so much commercial dross or something I haven't already discovered. I was a little worried about buying this album in case the two songs I'd heard on the radio were all it had and that the statement above wasn't true, but thankfully it's a good album. I wanted to put an album track down here, you know to be cool, but actually nothing reminds me of Editors more than Bullets, it's good song and I get hairs standing up on my back when I listen to it.
Joanna Newsom: Peach, Plum, Pear
(The Milk-Eyed Mender, 2004)
Freaky deaky Joanna, scourge of my girlfriend, but love of mine. Another randomly discovered artist this year (before the Orange adverts of course). I missed out on seeing her this year due to an administrative error, or is that an administrator's error (eh, Chris?), but there's enough on The Milk-Eyed Mender to make up for that.
Richard and Linda Thompson: The Calvary Cross (live)
(I Want To See The Bright Lights Tonight, 1974 - live version released 2004 on re-issued album with bonus live tracks)
This was a random purchase this year after becoming more folk oriented during the year. I bought this solely because, for many years, the resemblance between Richard Thompson and my Dad has been joked about and seeing as my Dad is tone-deaf I wondered if his doppleganger was any better. He is.
Belle and Sebastian: If She Wants Me
(Dear Catastrophe Waitress, 2003)
Dear Catastrophe Waitress is an equally good song from this album, which I only picked up this year, but there was something about this that made me want it on the compilation more. Yes, I know that negates the comment about the equality of the two tracks, but deal with okay!
The Arcade Fire: Headlights Look Like Diamonds
(The Arcade Fire EP, 2003)
Along with Editors, The Arcade Fire was a risk worth taking. I bought the The Arcade Fire EP on the way to New Zealand. After passing the Ceara test (she didn't like it) I thought I'd buy Funeral on my return. Both CDs are great, I went with Headlights Look Like Diamonds because a) it's one of the first songs that made me think, "hey I kind of like like this" and b) because I couldn't find my copy of Funeral to choose a song from that as well as Arcade Fire.
The Shins: So Says I
(Chutes Too Narrow, 2003)
Despite Chris, Penny and co. loving the Shins I didn't actually properly listen to them until late in 2005. I wished I bothered to listen to Chutes Too Narrow before. I really like their sound and the album has almost no filler. As with The Arcade Fire, So Says I was the first track that got me hooked after a few listens.
Bob Dylan: Tombstone Blues
(Highway 61 Revisited, 1965)
As part of a jumbo pack of Thirtieth birthday classic CDs from James and Chris, Highway 61 Revisited was one of the most frequently listened albums. I re-found some love for Dylan and would recommend the album to anyone. Tombstone Blues is probably my favourite although Highway 61 Revisited itself is also as good because with both the lyrics are either clever or cute most of the time.
Captain Beyond: Dancing Madly Backwards (On A Sea Of Air)
(Captain Beyond, 1972)
Great rock, I loved this the moment Chris, my house mate, played it to me. Randomly no one had heard this amongst us despite it being over 30 years old until Chris read a forum post about greatest rock albums ever. This was one persons greatest album so he had to listen to it. The rest is history. This is an amalgam of the first three-part track on the album.
Bright Eyes: Road To Joy
(I'm Wide Awake, It's Morning, 2005)
Bright Eyes have/has both curried and lost some of my favour this year, Road to Joy is my favourite song from I'm Wide Awake, It's Morning, however listening to the little fucker screeching on Lifted: Or The Story Is In The Soil So Keep Your Ear To The Ground has somewhat soiled the relationship. That album is supposed to be better than I'm Wide Awake... and on full listen through it's pretty good, but I still can't get with the grown man crying thing.
Devendra Banhart: Little Boys
(Cripple Crow, 2005)
Is he a paedophile or just singing from a different point of view? Which point of view, a paedophile's point of view, big gay pirate's or a cheeky little girl's. Or is it something completely different? I can't figure it out, but I like the song despite the cringing lyrics.
Editors: Bullets
(The Back Room, 2005)
Finally something on XFM's play-list that isn't so much commercial dross or something I haven't already discovered. I was a little worried about buying this album in case the two songs I'd heard on the radio were all it had and that the statement above wasn't true, but thankfully it's a good album. I wanted to put an album track down here, you know to be cool, but actually nothing reminds me of Editors more than Bullets, it's good song and I get hairs standing up on my back when I listen to it.
Joanna Newsom: Peach, Plum, Pear
(The Milk-Eyed Mender, 2004)
Freaky deaky Joanna, scourge of my girlfriend, but love of mine. Another randomly discovered artist this year (before the Orange adverts of course). I missed out on seeing her this year due to an administrative error, or is that an administrator's error (eh, Chris?), but there's enough on The Milk-Eyed Mender to make up for that.
Richard and Linda Thompson: The Calvary Cross (live)
(I Want To See The Bright Lights Tonight, 1974 - live version released 2004 on re-issued album with bonus live tracks)
This was a random purchase this year after becoming more folk oriented during the year. I bought this solely because, for many years, the resemblance between Richard Thompson and my Dad has been joked about and seeing as my Dad is tone-deaf I wondered if his doppleganger was any better. He is.
Belle and Sebastian: If She Wants Me
(Dear Catastrophe Waitress, 2003)
Dear Catastrophe Waitress is an equally good song from this album, which I only picked up this year, but there was something about this that made me want it on the compilation more. Yes, I know that negates the comment about the equality of the two tracks, but deal with okay!
The Arcade Fire: Headlights Look Like Diamonds
(The Arcade Fire EP, 2003)
Along with Editors, The Arcade Fire was a risk worth taking. I bought the The Arcade Fire EP on the way to New Zealand. After passing the Ceara test (she didn't like it) I thought I'd buy Funeral on my return. Both CDs are great, I went with Headlights Look Like Diamonds because a) it's one of the first songs that made me think, "hey I kind of like like this" and b) because I couldn't find my copy of Funeral to choose a song from that as well as Arcade Fire.
The Shins: So Says I
(Chutes Too Narrow, 2003)
Despite Chris, Penny and co. loving the Shins I didn't actually properly listen to them until late in 2005. I wished I bothered to listen to Chutes Too Narrow before. I really like their sound and the album has almost no filler. As with The Arcade Fire, So Says I was the first track that got me hooked after a few listens.
Bob Dylan: Tombstone Blues
(Highway 61 Revisited, 1965)
As part of a jumbo pack of Thirtieth birthday classic CDs from James and Chris, Highway 61 Revisited was one of the most frequently listened albums. I re-found some love for Dylan and would recommend the album to anyone. Tombstone Blues is probably my favourite although Highway 61 Revisited itself is also as good because with both the lyrics are either clever or cute most of the time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
