If I was made emperor (ha!), one of the first laws I would bring in is that all financial institutions have to say how much losses they think have made due to fraud, and of what type. How many millions to chip-and-pin fraud? How much to credit card fraud? How many to other types of fraud?
And how many of their staff were involved.
At which point every bank would close down because no-one would ever trust them to look after so much as a pair of old socks.
Good article about Ukraine has a conclusion with which I am very much in agreement.
https://ecfr.eu/article/putins-archaic-war-russias-newly-outlawed-professional-class-and-how-it-could-one-day-return/ ...It would therefore be good for the West to give up its dichotomy when thinking of Russia, and acknowledge that, even when Putin departs, Russia might not set the clock back to 1991 and start again. The country will not take the central European path of democratisation, which emulated the West – if Russia democratises, it will be in its own way and in pursuit of its own needs. Europeans should be content with this. They should give Russia the right to be Russia, but no right to invade neighbouring countries. ‘Keep your worldview, but ditch the aggression,’ should be the realistic expectation. However, this might be easier said than done. Putin may still succeed in saddling that future Russia with his own archaic agenda. In fact, this could even be among his reasons for invading. In November, one Moscow insider suggested to the present author that: “Putin sees Ukraine as his mission because he senses that the next generation will care less.” And it is true that, if the war ends with Russia controlling large chunks of Ukraine’s territory, then giving these back would be problematic, if not suicidal, for any new Russian leadership. Russia’s relationship with Ukraine would thus remain a source of sharp conflict for years to come. For Putin’s successors, disowning this legacy, even if they operate in the form of a collective leadership, will be a lot easier if there is no territory to give up, and the war ends in a humiliating draw. This also means that the contours of Europe’s future relations with Russia – including the question of whether these can become a moderately cooperative relationship – will be drawn on today’s battlefields...
Does “humiliating draw” mean Ukraine not getting back the earlier Crimea steal?
Jeepers. I was just the nearly the victim of an extremely clever, elaborate banking fraud
Call from "Santander Fraud Dept". They spoofed the right Santander number and even had the correct social media accounts of Santander employees when asked
My mum got one of the texts a week or so back, and phoned me to check if it was legit. Just told her to delete it, which she did.
The elaborate stuff comes when you've already half fallen for it. I'm very glad you dodged the scam.
I just stopped a tenant falling for that one.
In the supplied her with a printout as to how it worked.
Interestingly, her 30 year old son was far clearer about it, and about 'forget and move on'.
The obvious way to check it is a scam is to call the bank yourself. Which I did. But then you end up in a call queue which seems endless - even the fraud action line dumps you in a prolonged queue. And this is also hideously expensive if you are calling from Tbilisi (which I was)
So then you end up making a judgement in the moment, "what if there really ARE fraudsters who are controlling my account and I need to act immediately?" versus "would my bank really ever ask me to transfer money?"
It seems obvious that you should pay more attention to the second question (and I did, in the end), but they very cleverly make you focus on the first with a series of compelling details. Presumably honed over months, as they have learned what works and what doesn't
Banks really need to sort out these fucking call queues, because without access to a real human being on the other end of the line you cannot know for sure
My view is that my bank will never phone me with any request whatsoever about transfers or passcodes or whatever.
Anyone who contacts me about such things is a fraudster until proved otherwise is my modus.
When I was still in England, someone from may bank phoned me up and it seemed to be about a legitimate subject. Then he started asking me low level personal details IDK address, postcode, DOB. At this point I said "Hold on you have just rung me..." So I asked for his name and department and I rang that bank's main phone number and asked to be put through to him. It turned out he was calling legitimatly, but I still think I did the right think and he should not have been asking me those questions.
Of course the difference is, that if it is legitimate the caller has no problems with you doing this. Where as the other stories today the conmen try to convince you that calling back will just waste your time and lead to you losing your money.
Jeepers. I was just the nearly the victim of an extremely clever, elaborate banking fraud
Call from "Santander Fraud Dept". They spoofed the right Santander number and even had the correct social media accounts of Santander employees when asked
My parents fell for the first part of this, just hy chance i was visiting the next day and managed them stopping them falling for the second leg of it.
Scotsman URL seems to be a story about a different fraud?
Yes I'm still wondering exactly what the scam is.
it would take about 3 pages to explain. It's highly elaborate, even elegant. A clever sting
There are oddities tho. The first guy who calls has this super honest, friendly, modestly posh Scottish voice. Trustworthy. I wonder if it is an out-of-work actor. The script is deft
Then he hands you to his manager when you get suspicious (they are obvs prepared for this). The second guy sounds different and older - senior! - and yet at one point he lapsed into a Scottish accent (I think) - which makes me wonder if it is the same actor doing all the roles
They invite you to call them back but they warn you there will be a loooooong queue, and time is of the essence, and of course when you do check there IS a loooong queue, so they call you again and apologise for the queue and all the time they are warning you that these fraudsters have your deets and you have to act FAST
Your actual bank will never require you to act FAST, they can put your account on hold until it’s convenient for you.
Creating urgency is a salesman’s trick, and a huge red flag if someone from the bank suggests you need to act urgently.
There’s also no reason to ever transfer money to someone else, anywhere else, as a result of any actual fraud.
Beat me to it. Affirms the right to carry concealed weapons as part of everyday life. Removes the right to have a safe and legal abortion. Quite unfathomable.
For reasons I can't comprehend the US seems to be imposing a set of rules that made sense in the late 18th / 19th century into the 21st century without thought as to what has changed between then and now.
2 obvious examples
On guns - the typical gun was a musket that carried a risk of exploding when fired. Also many people lived near bears and other dangerous animals so carrying a gun made sense. On abortion - until the 1930's it was impossible to know if someone was pregnant or whether the growth was a tumour or worse (heck it's only in the 1960's it become practical). In the 1800's no one would have given 2 hoots about a woman's pregnancy until the quickening when the child could be felt and was kicking..
Yes. A kickback against what I'd call progress but what many there clearly see as an affront (gun controls) or wicked wanton women (abortion). Trouble is, Trump has stuffed that Court with young blood reactionaries who are likely to be there for 30 or 40 years. And he's flooded the courts lower down with similar. Plus there's only 2 political parties over there and the primary system they have is cementing the Donald Trump - or MAGA if we dignify it as a movement - colonization of one of them. So it's looking about as grim as can be atm.
Jeepers. I was just the nearly the victim of an extremely clever, elaborate banking fraud
Call from "Santander Fraud Dept". They spoofed the right Santander number and even had the correct social media accounts of Santander employees when asked
My mum got one of the texts a week or so back, and phoned me to check if it was legit. Just told her to delete it, which she did.
The elaborate stuff comes when you've already half fallen for it. I'm very glad you dodged the scam.
I just stopped a tenant falling for that one.
In the supplied her with a printout as to how it worked.
Interestingly, her 30 year old son was far clearer about it, and about 'forget and move on'.
The obvious way to check it is a scam is to call the bank yourself. Which I did. But then you end up in a call queue which seems endless - even the fraud action line dumps you in a prolonged queue. And this is also hideously expensive if you are calling from Tbilisi (which I was)
So then you end up making a judgement in the moment, "what if there really ARE fraudsters who are controlling my account and I need to act immediately?" versus "would my bank really ever ask me to transfer money?"
It seems obvious that you should pay more attention to the second question (and I did, in the end), but they very cleverly make you focus on the first with a series of compelling details. Presumably honed over months, as they have learned what works and what doesn't
Banks really need to sort out these fucking call queues, because without access to a real human being on the other end of the line you cannot know for sure
My view is that my bank will never phone me with any request whatsoever about transfers or passcodes or whatever.
Anyone who contacts me about such things is a fraudster until proved otherwise is my modus.
When I was still in England, someone from may bank phoned me up and it seemed to be about a legitimate subject. Then he started asking me low level personal details IDK address, postcode, DOB. At this point I said "Hold on you have just rung me..." So I asked for his name and department and I rang that bank's main phone number and asked to be put through to him. It turned out he was calling legitimatly, but I still think I did the right think and he should not have been asking me those questions.
Of course the difference is, that if it is legitimate the caller has no problems with you doing this. Where as the other stories today the conmen try to convince you that calling back will just waste your time and lead to you losing your money.
As I pointed out before - the first step in any such process is hi this is XYZ bank we need to speak to you so here e is a reference code - call us back with that reference code and we can continue the call.
I've twice had banks perform the asking for details trick, on both times as I said earlier on they get very surprised when they ask if there is anything else they can do to help that I reply with what is the process to close down every account with you...
Beat me to it. Affirms the right to carry concealed weapons as part of everyday life. Removes the right to have a safe and legal abortion. Quite unfathomable.
It's quite fathomable - one is explicitly guaranteed by the constitution and the other isn't.
You might wish it otherwise, as I do. But we have to deal with the world as it actually is.
The right to carry concealed weapons is not "explicitly guaranteed" in the constitution - purely by the opinion of the politicians currently on the bench.
And note that the Constitution does not once mention women (except by implication, in the same manner that it doesn't name slaves). Does that mean they do not exist ? Or have rights under it ?
Jeepers. I was just the nearly the victim of an extremely clever, elaborate banking fraud
Call from "Santander Fraud Dept". They spoofed the right Santander number and even had the correct social media accounts of Santander employees when asked
My mum got one of the texts a week or so back, and phoned me to check if it was legit. Just told her to delete it, which she did.
The elaborate stuff comes when you've already half fallen for it. I'm very glad you dodged the scam.
I just stopped a tenant falling for that one.
In the supplied her with a printout as to how it worked.
Interestingly, her 30 year old son was far clearer about it, and about 'forget and move on'.
The obvious way to check it is a scam is to call the bank yourself. Which I did. But then you end up in a call queue which seems endless - even the fraud action line dumps you in a prolonged queue. And this is also hideously expensive if you are calling from Tbilisi (which I was)
So then you end up making a judgement in the moment, "what if there really ARE fraudsters who are controlling my account and I need to act immediately?" versus "would my bank really ever ask me to transfer money?"
It seems obvious that you should pay more attention to the second question (and I did, in the end), but they very cleverly make you focus on the first with a series of compelling details. Presumably honed over months, as they have learned what works and what doesn't
Banks really need to sort out these fucking call queues, because without access to a real human being on the other end of the line you cannot know for sure
My view is that my bank will never phone me with any request whatsoever about transfers or passcodes or whatever.
Anyone who contacts me about such things is a fraudster until proved otherwise is my modus.
When I was still in England, someone from may bank phoned me up and it seemed to be about a legitimate subject. Then he started asking me low level personal details IDK address, postcode, DOB. At this point I said "Hold on you have just rung me..." So I asked for his name and department and I rang that bank's main phone number and asked to be put through to him. It turned out he was calling legitimatly, but I still think I did the right think and he should not have been asking me those questions.
Of course the difference is, that if it is legitimate the caller has no problems with you doing this. Where as the other stories today the conmen try to convince you that calling back will just waste your time and lead to you losing your money.
It's cleverer than that. The first actor said "oh yes please do call us back to check, I just warn you there are queues"
He invited me to check him out. But there were enormous queues (of course he knew this)
So I had no means of checking him except by asking him questions, which I did, and eventually their answers got more and more iffy, until I called it off
I have the minor, consoling pleasure that, by the end, when he realised I wasn't falling for it, the "manager" sounded decidedly hacked off that he'd fucked up
Good article about Ukraine has a conclusion with which I am very much in agreement.
https://ecfr.eu/article/putins-archaic-war-russias-newly-outlawed-professional-class-and-how-it-could-one-day-return/ ...It would therefore be good for the West to give up its dichotomy when thinking of Russia, and acknowledge that, even when Putin departs, Russia might not set the clock back to 1991 and start again. The country will not take the central European path of democratisation, which emulated the West – if Russia democratises, it will be in its own way and in pursuit of its own needs. Europeans should be content with this. They should give Russia the right to be Russia, but no right to invade neighbouring countries. ‘Keep your worldview, but ditch the aggression,’ should be the realistic expectation. However, this might be easier said than done. Putin may still succeed in saddling that future Russia with his own archaic agenda. In fact, this could even be among his reasons for invading. In November, one Moscow insider suggested to the present author that: “Putin sees Ukraine as his mission because he senses that the next generation will care less.” And it is true that, if the war ends with Russia controlling large chunks of Ukraine’s territory, then giving these back would be problematic, if not suicidal, for any new Russian leadership. Russia’s relationship with Ukraine would thus remain a source of sharp conflict for years to come. For Putin’s successors, disowning this legacy, even if they operate in the form of a collective leadership, will be a lot easier if there is no territory to give up, and the war ends in a humiliating draw. This also means that the contours of Europe’s future relations with Russia – including the question of whether these can become a moderately cooperative relationship – will be drawn on today’s battlefields...
Does “humiliating draw” mean Ukraine not getting back the earlier Crimea steal?
Jeepers. I was just the nearly the victim of an extremely clever, elaborate banking fraud
Call from "Santander Fraud Dept". They spoofed the right Santander number and even had the correct social media accounts of Santander employees when asked
My mum got one of the texts a week or so back, and phoned me to check if it was legit. Just told her to delete it, which she did.
The elaborate stuff comes when you've already half fallen for it. I'm very glad you dodged the scam.
I just stopped a tenant falling for that one.
In the supplied her with a printout as to how it worked.
Interestingly, her 30 year old son was far clearer about it, and about 'forget and move on'.
The obvious way to check it is a scam is to call the bank yourself. Which I did. But then you end up in a call queue which seems endless - even the fraud action line dumps you in a prolonged queue. And this is also hideously expensive if you are calling from Tbilisi (which I was)
So then you end up making a judgement in the moment, "what if there really ARE fraudsters who are controlling my account and I need to act immediately?" versus "would my bank really ever ask me to transfer money?"
It seems obvious that you should pay more attention to the second question (and I did, in the end), but they very cleverly make you focus on the first with a series of compelling details. Presumably honed over months, as they have learned what works and what doesn't
Banks really need to sort out these fucking call queues, because without access to a real human being on the other end of the line you cannot know for sure
My view is that my bank will never phone me with any request whatsoever about transfers or passcodes or whatever.
Anyone who contacts me about such things is a fraudster until proved otherwise is my modus.
When I was still in England, someone from may bank phoned me up and it seemed to be about a legitimate subject. Then he started asking me low level personal details IDK address, postcode, DOB. At this point I said "Hold on you have just rung me..." So I asked for his name and department and I rang that bank's main phone number and asked to be put through to him. It turned out he was calling legitimatly, but I still think I did the right think and he should not have been asking me those questions.
Of course the difference is, that if it is legitimate the caller has no problems with you doing this. Where as the other stories today the conmen try to convince you that calling back will just waste your time and lead to you losing your money.
The problem banks (and anyone else) have is that they have a duty of care to ensure they are speaking to the correct person. They have no idea who else might answer so they have to go through security checks on outbound or inbound calls regardless. So yes, any legitimate caller will be fine with you calling them back but they will legitimately need to take security details if calling you. Else its 'that was my partner, whom i'm acrimoniously divorcing, that you discussed my account with'
I posted this morning Labour and green vote was quite strong in North Shropshire. Was it Lib Dem failure to squeeze in North Shropshire or a successful squeeze? In a tighter race those votes would have been difference between success and failure.
Corbynista won’t be for squeezing to help Starmer and Libdems. A Labour Party so split it’s leader heckled at last conference might mean they don’t lose their deposit today?
Back in ye olden days, a form of hacking was done via bin-diving (dumpster diving in the US). You can get a lot of information on people from this, and hacking skills may not even be needed; just good social engineering skills. (*)
A few decades ago, I said this to a friend who thought it rubbish. So I went through her bin and found a rather staggering amount of information on her and her parents.
A shredder can be a good investment.
(*) I think this is one of the ways Kevin Mitnick operated. Although from memory he got a girl to go into the bins...
Ooh, Kevin Mitnick. There’s a blast from the past!
The US seems to have taken another step towards the abyss with the Supreme Court ruling on the 2nd amendment. Now the legitimacy of both the court and the constitution are openly being questioned.
@KeithOlbermann It has become necessary to dissolve the Supreme Court of the United States.
The first step is for a state the "court" has now forced guns upon, to ignore this ruling.
Great. You're a court? Why and how do think you can enforce your rulings?
Hurrah for the RMT, I've been working in the garden in this glorious weather and watching the cricket.
WFH is awesome, I expected to have finished this report around 4pm today if I was in the office.
But because I started earlier with no commute I got it finished 3 hours early, and I can focus on other work things.
So basically you've done three hours of unpaid overtime?
More likely he's done his tasks in half the time. Could lead to either 1) being made redundant or forced part-time, or 2) being given loads more work to do at the next appraisal.
The US seems to have taken another step towards the abyss with the Supreme Court ruling on the 2nd amendment. Now the legitimacy of both the court and the constitution are openly being questioned.
@KeithOlbermann It has become necessary to dissolve the Supreme Court of the United States.
The first step is for a state the "court" has now forced guns upon, to ignore this ruling.
Great. You're a court? Why and how do think you can enforce your rulings?
I posted this morning Labour and green vote was quite strong in North Shropshire. Was it Lib Dem failure to squeeze in North Shropshire or a successful squeeze? In a tighter race those votes would have been difference between success and failure.
Corbynista won’t be for squeezing to help Starmer and Libdems. A Labour Party so split it’s leader heckled at last conference might mean they don’t lose their deposit today?
Labour vote was 10% because they were in a clear second place at the previous election.
I posted this morning Labour and green vote was quite strong in North Shropshire. Was it Lib Dem failure to squeeze in North Shropshire or a successful squeeze? In a tighter race those votes would have been difference between success and failure.
Corbynista won’t be for squeezing to help Starmer and Libdems. A Labour Party so split it’s leader heckled at last conference might mean they don’t lose their deposit today?
I'm not seeing it, Tiverton and Honiton is hardly Corbynista central (2015 nominating Cooper, 2016 no nomination, 2020 Starmer) and you would have thought that if there were enough hard-left to make a difference they wouldn't need encouragement not to vote for a Starmer-led Labour Party. From what I can make out from outside, T&H CLP seems quite harmonious, a lot of these rural Labour Parties there's not enough activists to start falling out with each other.
Beat me to it. Affirms the right to carry concealed weapons as part of everyday life. Removes the right to have a safe and legal abortion. Quite unfathomable.
It's quite fathomable - one is explicitly guaranteed by the constitution and the other isn't.
You might wish it otherwise, as I do. But we have to deal with the world as it actually is.
The right to carry concealed weapons is not "explicitly guaranteed" in the constitution - purely by the opinion of the politicians currently on the bench.
And note that the Constitution does not once mention women (except by implication, in the same manner that it doesn't name slaves). Does that mean they do not exist ? Or have rights under it ?
They had the right to be treated as 3/5th of a human being, but only when it came to a state's representation in Congress.
The US seems to have taken another step towards the abyss with the Supreme Court ruling on the 2nd amendment. Now the legitimacy of both the court and the constitution are openly being questioned.
@KeithOlbermann It has become necessary to dissolve the Supreme Court of the United States.
The first step is for a state the "court" has now forced guns upon, to ignore this ruling.
Great. You're a court? Why and how do think you can enforce your rulings?
Jeepers. I was just the nearly the victim of an extremely clever, elaborate banking fraud
Call from "Santander Fraud Dept". They spoofed the right Santander number and even had the correct social media accounts of Santander employees when asked
My mum got one of the texts a week or so back, and phoned me to check if it was legit. Just told her to delete it, which she did.
The elaborate stuff comes when you've already half fallen for it. I'm very glad you dodged the scam.
I just stopped a tenant falling for that one.
In the supplied her with a printout as to how it worked.
Interestingly, her 30 year old son was far clearer about it, and about 'forget and move on'.
The obvious way to check it is a scam is to call the bank yourself. Which I did. But then you end up in a call queue which seems endless - even the fraud action line dumps you in a prolonged queue. And this is also hideously expensive if you are calling from Tbilisi (which I was)
So then you end up making a judgement in the moment, "what if there really ARE fraudsters who are controlling my account and I need to act immediately?" versus "would my bank really ever ask me to transfer money?"
It seems obvious that you should pay more attention to the second question (and I did, in the end), but they very cleverly make you focus on the first with a series of compelling details. Presumably honed over months, as they have learned what works and what doesn't
Banks really need to sort out these fucking call queues, because without access to a real human being on the other end of the line you cannot know for sure
My view is that my bank will never phone me with any request whatsoever about transfers or passcodes or whatever.
Anyone who contacts me about such things is a fraudster until proved otherwise is my modus.
When I was still in England, someone from may bank phoned me up and it seemed to be about a legitimate subject. Then he started asking me low level personal details IDK address, postcode, DOB. At this point I said "Hold on you have just rung me..." So I asked for his name and department and I rang that bank's main phone number and asked to be put through to him. It turned out he was calling legitimatly, but I still think I did the right think and he should not have been asking me those questions.
Of course the difference is, that if it is legitimate the caller has no problems with you doing this. Where as the other stories today the conmen try to convince you that calling back will just waste your time and lead to you losing your money.
The problem banks (and anyone else) have is that they have a duty of care to ensure they are speaking to the correct person. They have no idea who else might answer so they have to go through security checks on outbound or inbound calls regardless. So yes, any legitimate caller will be fine with you calling them back but they will legitimately need to take security details if calling you. Else its 'that was my partner, whom i'm acrimoniously divorcing, that you discussed my account with'
I always say I'll ring them back, and suggest that it is not just me that should have to give a password.
There should be a key exchange, spy code phrase style (although I don't think these were ever the nonsensical things you see in film).
Definitely not anything that could be guessed at like the "first school" nonsense (that I always give the wrong answer to in online forms).
The US seems to have taken another step towards the abyss with the Supreme Court ruling on the 2nd amendment. Now the legitimacy of both the court and the constitution are openly being questioned.
@KeithOlbermann It has become necessary to dissolve the Supreme Court of the United States.
The first step is for a state the "court" has now forced guns upon, to ignore this ruling.
Great. You're a court? Why and how do think you can enforce your rulings?
Beat me to it. Affirms the right to carry concealed weapons as part of everyday life. Removes the right to have a safe and legal abortion. Quite unfathomable.
It's quite fathomable - one is explicitly guaranteed by the constitution and the other isn't.
You might wish it otherwise, as I do. But we have to deal with the world as it actually is.
In the long run if enough voters actually vote for something they get it. This is true of the USA. The liberal media in the UK seem unable to grasp the point. Ultimately voters and legislators decide. And in the USA voters even get to decide the composition of the SC to an extent unthinkable in the UK.
Younger liberals might try voting.
With regard to abortion, the furthest the SC will go is simply to say it's a matter for legislators - as it is in the UK. Legislators are put there by voters.
Jeepers. I was just the nearly the victim of an extremely clever, elaborate banking fraud
Call from "Santander Fraud Dept". They spoofed the right Santander number and even had the correct social media accounts of Santander employees when asked
My mum got one of the texts a week or so back, and phoned me to check if it was legit. Just told her to delete it, which she did.
The elaborate stuff comes when you've already half fallen for it. I'm very glad you dodged the scam.
I just stopped a tenant falling for that one.
In the supplied her with a printout as to how it worked.
Interestingly, her 30 year old son was far clearer about it, and about 'forget and move on'.
The obvious way to check it is a scam is to call the bank yourself. Which I did. But then you end up in a call queue which seems endless - even the fraud action line dumps you in a prolonged queue. And this is also hideously expensive if you are calling from Tbilisi (which I was)
So then you end up making a judgement in the moment, "what if there really ARE fraudsters who are controlling my account and I need to act immediately?" versus "would my bank really ever ask me to transfer money?"
It seems obvious that you should pay more attention to the second question (and I did, in the end), but they very cleverly make you focus on the first with a series of compelling details. Presumably honed over months, as they have learned what works and what doesn't
Banks really need to sort out these fucking call queues, because without access to a real human being on the other end of the line you cannot know for sure
My view is that my bank will never phone me with any request whatsoever about transfers or passcodes or whatever.
Anyone who contacts me about such things is a fraudster until proved otherwise is my modus.
When I was still in England, someone from may bank phoned me up and it seemed to be about a legitimate subject. Then he started asking me low level personal details IDK address, postcode, DOB. At this point I said "Hold on you have just rung me..." So I asked for his name and department and I rang that bank's main phone number and asked to be put through to him. It turned out he was calling legitimatly, but I still think I did the right think and he should not have been asking me those questions.
Of course the difference is, that if it is legitimate the caller has no problems with you doing this. Where as the other stories today the conmen try to convince you that calling back will just waste your time and lead to you losing your money.
The problem banks (and anyone else) have is that they have a duty of care to ensure they are speaking to the correct person. They have no idea who else might answer so they have to go through security checks on outbound or inbound calls regardless. So yes, any legitimate caller will be fine with you calling them back but they will legitimately need to take security details if calling you. Else its 'that was my partner, whom i'm acrimoniously divorcing, that you discussed my account with'
I always say I'll ring them back, and suggest that it is not just me that should have to give a password.
There should be a key exchange, spy code phrase style (although I don't think these were ever the nonsensical things you see in film).
Definitely not anything that could be guessed at like the "first school" nonsense (that I always give the wrong answer to in online forms).
Perfectly reasonable and could be put in place on request when i worked in the industry. However many people would say they'd call back but then demand to know what the call is about in detail before deciding if they can be arsed. Completely missing the point.
Jeepers. I was just the nearly the victim of an extremely clever, elaborate banking fraud
Call from "Santander Fraud Dept". They spoofed the right Santander number and even had the correct social media accounts of Santander employees when asked
My mum got one of the texts a week or so back, and phoned me to check if it was legit. Just told her to delete it, which she did.
The elaborate stuff comes when you've already half fallen for it. I'm very glad you dodged the scam.
I just stopped a tenant falling for that one.
In the supplied her with a printout as to how it worked.
Interestingly, her 30 year old son was far clearer about it, and about 'forget and move on'.
The obvious way to check it is a scam is to call the bank yourself. Which I did. But then you end up in a call queue which seems endless - even the fraud action line dumps you in a prolonged queue. And this is also hideously expensive if you are calling from Tbilisi (which I was)
So then you end up making a judgement in the moment, "what if there really ARE fraudsters who are controlling my account and I need to act immediately?" versus "would my bank really ever ask me to transfer money?"
It seems obvious that you should pay more attention to the second question (and I did, in the end), but they very cleverly make you focus on the first with a series of compelling details. Presumably honed over months, as they have learned what works and what doesn't
Banks really need to sort out these fucking call queues, because without access to a real human being on the other end of the line you cannot know for sure
My view is that my bank will never phone me with any request whatsoever about transfers or passcodes or whatever.
Anyone who contacts me about such things is a fraudster until proved otherwise is my modus.
When I was still in England, someone from may bank phoned me up and it seemed to be about a legitimate subject. Then he started asking me low level personal details IDK address, postcode, DOB. At this point I said "Hold on you have just rung me..." So I asked for his name and department and I rang that bank's main phone number and asked to be put through to him. It turned out he was calling legitimatly, but I still think I did the right think and he should not have been asking me those questions.
Of course the difference is, that if it is legitimate the caller has no problems with you doing this. Where as the other stories today the conmen try to convince you that calling back will just waste your time and lead to you losing your money.
HMRC used to do thiswhen i was a tax agent - they would ring me and say they were dealing with a client of mine and could I confirm something about his affairs. They then asked me details of who i was and some client ID detail to prove who I was. I said you rang me and I shoudl ask you that not me- It became an infinite ID verification loop
That's a good piece. I remember something from soon after Johnson won his majority - an event where he said this was The People's Government and they had signage and bunting all over the place saying that. The People's Government. Just a horrible vibe. It made me shudder. But it didn't catch on, thank heaven for small mercies.
Apparently Tiverton Conservative surface activity is on the low scale side this morning, in many places seemingly nothing at all. Perhaps they are working under the radar, the telephones etc but it is surprising. Whereas the Lib Dems, they seem to be everywhere. Read into that what we will. Can the Cons hang on or will it be a Lib Dem landslide? Boris must be sweating.
That's a good piece. I remember something from soon after Johnson won his majority - an event where he said this was The People's Government and they had signage and bunting all over the place saying that. The People's Government. Just a horrible vibe. It made me shudder. But it didn't catch on, thank heaven for small mercies.
Presumably you shuddered in the same way when Tony Blair called the Labour Party "the political wing of the British people"
England haven't reviewed an LBW and it would have been out.
Wonder how the game would change if every LBW decision was not called but instantly hawkeyed & snickoed.
We'd get 50 overs in a day of Test Cricket.
No, the system wouldn't stop the game for LBW shouts, a computer would merely quickly assess them in the background and let the umpire know if there's one that's out (3 reds, no bat/ball spike, muffled pad/ball spike).
It still takes time to do that, you'd need to stop the game inbetween. They currently stop the game until hawkeye is ready when a review occurs.
In the future it might be technologically possible, but not yet.
I think most of "hawkeye" is theatre at the moment. The actual tracking part could very likely be set up to run much much more quickly in the background (Like goal line technology in football). It isn't because that's not the way it works at the moment.
GLT is about where the ball is (like Tennis showing where the ball lands) but Hawkeye is about tracking where the ball is going to end up. A bit more complex.
Plus Hawkeye has a quite significant margin of error, actually a surprisingly large one (about the size of the cricket ball) hence "Umpire's Call" which is actually the margin of error window. People often say "why if its clipping is it Umpire's Call, that should be out" but actually if it shows as clipping its probably clipping, but could have missed, hence Umpire's Call.
If you eliminated Umpire's Call and just had instantaneous hawkeye, like you have now with no balls, then you'd still have the margin of error issue since its about forecasting where it will end up.
Umpire's call was a genius way of labelling the margin of error. Purists could be happy umpires retain trust on any marginal calls.
Beat me to it. Affirms the right to carry concealed weapons as part of everyday life. Removes the right to have a safe and legal abortion. Quite unfathomable.
It's quite fathomable - one is explicitly guaranteed by the constitution and the other isn't.
You might wish it otherwise, as I do. But we have to deal with the world as it actually is.
The constitution doesn't say everyone has the right to wander about New York City packing a revolver. It's open to interpretation. Which I personally would expect SC judges to have the mental capacity to manage.
Apparently Tiverton Conservative surface activity is on the low scale side this morning, in many places seemingly nothing at all. Perhaps they are working under the radar, the telephones etc but it is surprising. Whereas the Lib Dems, they seem to be everywhere. Read into that what we will. Can the Cons hang on or will it be a Lib Dem landslide? Boris must be sweating.
Conservative activists have been flooding the seat for weeks, plus phoning, myself included. Most of the votes will already have been cast, either by post or those who voted earlier today
Apparently Tiverton Conservative surface activity is on the low scale side this morning, in many places seemingly nothing at all. Perhaps they are working under the radar, the telephones etc but it is surprising. Whereas the Lib Dems, they seem to be everywhere. Read into that what we will. Can the Cons hang on or will it be a Lib Dem landslide? Boris must be sweating.
Taken in isolation that data point would suggest a comfortable tory hold. I doubt that very much though.
England haven't reviewed an LBW and it would have been out.
Wonder how the game would change if every LBW decision was not called but instantly hawkeyed & snickoed.
We'd get 50 overs in a day of Test Cricket.
No, the system wouldn't stop the game for LBW shouts, a computer would merely quickly assess them in the background and let the umpire know if there's one that's out (3 reds, no bat/ball spike, muffled pad/ball spike).
It still takes time to do that, you'd need to stop the game inbetween. They currently stop the game until hawkeye is ready when a review occurs.
In the future it might be technologically possible, but not yet.
I think most of "hawkeye" is theatre at the moment. The actual tracking part could very likely be set up to run much much more quickly in the background (Like goal line technology in football). It isn't because that's not the way it works at the moment.
GLT is about where the ball is (like Tennis showing where the ball lands) but Hawkeye is about tracking where the ball is going to end up. A bit more complex.
Plus Hawkeye has a quite significant margin of error, actually a surprisingly large one (about the size of the cricket ball) hence "Umpire's Call" which is actually the margin of error window. People often say "why if its clipping is it Umpire's Call, that should be out" but actually if it shows as clipping its probably clipping, but could have missed, hence Umpire's Call.
If you eliminated Umpire's Call and just had instantaneous hawkeye, like you have now with no balls, then you'd still have the margin of error issue since its about forecasting where it will end up.
Umpire's call was a genius way of labelling the margin of error. Purists could be happy umpires retain trust on any marginal calls.
Indeed. It also reduces - dramatically - the number of human decisions overturned by the computer, which keeps an element of what might be called sporting fairness, the ability of the fielding team to appeal to the umpire.
A clear shift from Johnson then away from net zero towards cutting energy bills
It won't cut energy bills (I don't think) as it's used for steel production, but it's positive for the economy nonetheless. It makes no sense to import something from Russia if it's under the ground just as cheap.
A clear shift from Johnson then away from net zero towards cutting energy bills
It won't cut energy bills (I don't think) as it's used for steel production, but it's positive for the economy nonetheless. It makes no sense to import something from Russia if it's under the ground just as cheap.
Indeed and any increase in domestic supply helps cut bills. It will also be welcomed in the redwall ex mining seats, finally a Tory leader opens a new coal mine after the pit closures under Thatcher.
Beat me to it. Affirms the right to carry concealed weapons as part of everyday life. Removes the right to have a safe and legal abortion. Quite unfathomable.
It's quite fathomable - one is explicitly guaranteed by the constitution and the other isn't.
You might wish it otherwise, as I do. But we have to deal with the world as it actually is.
In the long run if enough voters actually vote for something they get it. This is true of the USA. The liberal media in the UK seem unable to grasp the point. Ultimately voters and legislators decide. And in the USA voters even get to decide the composition of the SC to an extent unthinkable in the UK.
Younger liberals might try voting.
With regard to abortion, the furthest the SC will go is simply to say it's a matter for legislators - as it is in the UK. Legislators are put there by voters.
Landslide Con majority on the SC in a nation where the Dems always win the Popular Vote.
That doesn't sound to me like people getting what they vote for.
Jeepers. I was just the nearly the victim of an extremely clever, elaborate banking fraud
Call from "Santander Fraud Dept". They spoofed the right Santander number and even had the correct social media accounts of Santander employees when asked
My mum got one of the texts a week or so back, and phoned me to check if it was legit. Just told her to delete it, which she did.
The elaborate stuff comes when you've already half fallen for it. I'm very glad you dodged the scam.
I just stopped a tenant falling for that one.
In the supplied her with a printout as to how it worked.
Interestingly, her 30 year old son was far clearer about it, and about 'forget and move on'.
The obvious way to check it is a scam is to call the bank yourself. Which I did. But then you end up in a call queue which seems endless - even the fraud action line dumps you in a prolonged queue. And this is also hideously expensive if you are calling from Tbilisi (which I was)
So then you end up making a judgement in the moment, "what if there really ARE fraudsters who are controlling my account and I need to act immediately?" versus "would my bank really ever ask me to transfer money?"
It seems obvious that you should pay more attention to the second question (and I did, in the end), but they very cleverly make you focus on the first with a series of compelling details. Presumably honed over months, as they have learned what works and what doesn't
Banks really need to sort out these fucking call queues, because without access to a real human being on the other end of the line you cannot know for sure
My view is that my bank will never phone me with any request whatsoever about transfers or passcodes or whatever.
Anyone who contacts me about such things is a fraudster until proved otherwise is my modus.
When I was still in England, someone from may bank phoned me up and it seemed to be about a legitimate subject. Then he started asking me low level personal details IDK address, postcode, DOB. At this point I said "Hold on you have just rung me..." So I asked for his name and department and I rang that bank's main phone number and asked to be put through to him. It turned out he was calling legitimatly, but I still think I did the right think and he should not have been asking me those questions.
Of course the difference is, that if it is legitimate the caller has no problems with you doing this. Where as the other stories today the conmen try to convince you that calling back will just waste your time and lead to you losing your money.
The problem banks (and anyone else) have is that they have a duty of care to ensure they are speaking to the correct person. They have no idea who else might answer so they have to go through security checks on outbound or inbound calls regardless. So yes, any legitimate caller will be fine with you calling them back but they will legitimately need to take security details if calling you. Else its 'that was my partner, whom i'm acrimoniously divorcing, that you discussed my account with'
While that is true, there should be a way for them to establish their identity with you, as that would be the surest way to deal with the issues with scam calls. It's nuts that I'm expected to give out security information to a complete random whose identity I can't verify.
That's a good piece. I remember something from soon after Johnson won his majority - an event where he said this was The People's Government and they had signage and bunting all over the place saying that. The People's Government. Just a horrible vibe. It made me shudder. But it didn't catch on, thank heaven for small mercies.
Presumably you shuddered in the same way when Tony Blair called the Labour Party "the political wing of the British people"
Yes. And also at Brown's "British jobs for British workers." Not in quite the same way - since Johnson is uniquely ghastly - but in essence yes. I hate that sort of thing.
Beat me to it. Affirms the right to carry concealed weapons as part of everyday life. Removes the right to have a safe and legal abortion. Quite unfathomable.
It's quite fathomable - one is explicitly guaranteed by the constitution and the other isn't.
You might wish it otherwise, as I do. But we have to deal with the world as it actually is.
The constitution doesn't say everyone has the right to wander about New York City packing a revolver. It's open to interpretation. Which I personally would expect SC judges to have the mental capacity to manage.
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
The New York law, as I understand, strayed away from "bearing arms is OK unless there's a proven reason to take away that right" to "you have to convince the state to let you bear arms".
That reversal of the presumption is pretty clearly incompatible with a strict reading of the text of the Second Amendment.
Isn't it needed for the manufacturing of steel, which is quite an important commodity?
Not any more. Other countries are investing in new technology to manufacture steel without coal. We're going to end up behind on a new technology again.
Jeepers. I was just the nearly the victim of an extremely clever, elaborate banking fraud
Call from "Santander Fraud Dept". They spoofed the right Santander number and even had the correct social media accounts of Santander employees when asked
My mum got one of the texts a week or so back, and phoned me to check if it was legit. Just told her to delete it, which she did.
The elaborate stuff comes when you've already half fallen for it. I'm very glad you dodged the scam.
I just stopped a tenant falling for that one.
In the supplied her with a printout as to how it worked.
Interestingly, her 30 year old son was far clearer about it, and about 'forget and move on'.
The obvious way to check it is a scam is to call the bank yourself. Which I did. But then you end up in a call queue which seems endless - even the fraud action line dumps you in a prolonged queue. And this is also hideously expensive if you are calling from Tbilisi (which I was)
So then you end up making a judgement in the moment, "what if there really ARE fraudsters who are controlling my account and I need to act immediately?" versus "would my bank really ever ask me to transfer money?"
It seems obvious that you should pay more attention to the second question (and I did, in the end), but they very cleverly make you focus on the first with a series of compelling details. Presumably honed over months, as they have learned what works and what doesn't
Banks really need to sort out these fucking call queues, because without access to a real human being on the other end of the line you cannot know for sure
My view is that my bank will never phone me with any request whatsoever about transfers or passcodes or whatever.
Anyone who contacts me about such things is a fraudster until proved otherwise is my modus.
When I was still in England, someone from may bank phoned me up and it seemed to be about a legitimate subject. Then he started asking me low level personal details IDK address, postcode, DOB. At this point I said "Hold on you have just rung me..." So I asked for his name and department and I rang that bank's main phone number and asked to be put through to him. It turned out he was calling legitimatly, but I still think I did the right think and he should not have been asking me those questions.
Of course the difference is, that if it is legitimate the caller has no problems with you doing this. Where as the other stories today the conmen try to convince you that calling back will just waste your time and lead to you losing your money.
The problem banks (and anyone else) have is that they have a duty of care to ensure they are speaking to the correct person. They have no idea who else might answer so they have to go through security checks on outbound or inbound calls regardless. So yes, any legitimate caller will be fine with you calling them back but they will legitimately need to take security details if calling you. Else its 'that was my partner, whom i'm acrimoniously divorcing, that you discussed my account with'
While that is true, there should be a way for them to establish their identity with you, as that would be the surest way to deal with the issues with scam calls. It's nuts that I'm expected to give out security information to a complete random whose identity I can't verify.
So you call them back on a number you have for them. Until they know they are talking to you giving any details is potentially negligent.
A lot of empty seats at Headingley today. Ticket prices too high?
TMS said there were ~500 unsold tickets today. There wouldn't normally be any unsold tickets for the first three days of an English Test match, so a bit worrying, but suggests that empty seats are more due to problems with the trains, or people being slow to return to seats after the rain break.
Jeepers. I was just the nearly the victim of an extremely clever, elaborate banking fraud
Call from "Santander Fraud Dept". They spoofed the right Santander number and even had the correct social media accounts of Santander employees when asked
My mum got one of the texts a week or so back, and phoned me to check if it was legit. Just told her to delete it, which she did.
The elaborate stuff comes when you've already half fallen for it. I'm very glad you dodged the scam.
I just stopped a tenant falling for that one.
In the supplied her with a printout as to how it worked.
Interestingly, her 30 year old son was far clearer about it, and about 'forget and move on'.
The obvious way to check it is a scam is to call the bank yourself. Which I did. But then you end up in a call queue which seems endless - even the fraud action line dumps you in a prolonged queue. And this is also hideously expensive if you are calling from Tbilisi (which I was)
So then you end up making a judgement in the moment, "what if there really ARE fraudsters who are controlling my account and I need to act immediately?" versus "would my bank really ever ask me to transfer money?"
It seems obvious that you should pay more attention to the second question (and I did, in the end), but they very cleverly make you focus on the first with a series of compelling details. Presumably honed over months, as they have learned what works and what doesn't
Banks really need to sort out these fucking call queues, because without access to a real human being on the other end of the line you cannot know for sure
My view is that my bank will never phone me with any request whatsoever about transfers or passcodes or whatever.
Anyone who contacts me about such things is a fraudster until proved otherwise is my modus.
When I was still in England, someone from may bank phoned me up and it seemed to be about a legitimate subject. Then he started asking me low level personal details IDK address, postcode, DOB. At this point I said "Hold on you have just rung me..." So I asked for his name and department and I rang that bank's main phone number and asked to be put through to him. It turned out he was calling legitimatly, but I still think I did the right think and he should not have been asking me those questions.
Of course the difference is, that if it is legitimate the caller has no problems with you doing this. Where as the other stories today the conmen try to convince you that calling back will just waste your time and lead to you losing your money.
HMRC used to do thiswhen i was a tax agent - they would ring me and say they were dealing with a client of mine and could I confirm something about his affairs. They then asked me details of who i was and some client ID detail to prove who I was. I said you rang me and I shoudl ask you that not me- It became an infinite ID verification loop
I've had my actual bank do this, and also my mortgage provider. Genuine callers asking for these details plays into the fraudsters' hands by conditioning consumers (aka mugs) to answer these questions without thinking.
I've also been speaking to customer support and overheard the helpdesk operator in (presumably) the next cubicle give someone their username and new password. And don't get me started on security questions that can be answered from users' Facebook or Linkedin profiles.
Isn't it needed for the manufacturing of steel, which is quite an important commodity?
Not any more. Other countries are investing in new technology to manufacture steel without coal. We're going to end up behind on a new technology again.
'Are investing', or 'have invested and it's working'. If it's the former, we should invest by all means, but a working steel industry makes that future more likely, not less.
Isn't it needed for the manufacturing of steel, which is quite an important commodity?
Not any more. Other countries are investing in new technology to manufacture steel without coal. We're going to end up behind on a new technology again.
'Are investing', or 'have invested and it's working'. If it's the former, we should invest by all means, but a working steel industry makes that future more likely, not less.
A lot of empty seats at Headingley today. Ticket prices too high?
TMS said there were ~500 unsold tickets today. There wouldn't normally be any unsold tickets for the first three days of an English Test match, so a bit worrying, but suggests that empty seats are more due to problems with the trains, or people being slow to return to seats after the rain break.
Isn't it needed for the manufacturing of steel, which is quite an important commodity?
Not any more. Other countries are investing in new technology to manufacture steel without coal. We're going to end up behind on a new technology again.
Like this? I had wondered. Not clear where they get the alloying carbon from, but that must be vastly less of a requirement than the coal used in the traditional process. And, of course, it doesn't end up as C02.
Jeepers. I was just the nearly the victim of an extremely clever, elaborate banking fraud
Call from "Santander Fraud Dept". They spoofed the right Santander number and even had the correct social media accounts of Santander employees when asked
My mum got one of the texts a week or so back, and phoned me to check if it was legit. Just told her to delete it, which she did.
The elaborate stuff comes when you've already half fallen for it. I'm very glad you dodged the scam.
I just stopped a tenant falling for that one.
In the supplied her with a printout as to how it worked.
Interestingly, her 30 year old son was far clearer about it, and about 'forget and move on'.
The obvious way to check it is a scam is to call the bank yourself. Which I did. But then you end up in a call queue which seems endless - even the fraud action line dumps you in a prolonged queue. And this is also hideously expensive if you are calling from Tbilisi (which I was)
So then you end up making a judgement in the moment, "what if there really ARE fraudsters who are controlling my account and I need to act immediately?" versus "would my bank really ever ask me to transfer money?"
It seems obvious that you should pay more attention to the second question (and I did, in the end), but they very cleverly make you focus on the first with a series of compelling details. Presumably honed over months, as they have learned what works and what doesn't
Banks really need to sort out these fucking call queues, because without access to a real human being on the other end of the line you cannot know for sure
My view is that my bank will never phone me with any request whatsoever about transfers or passcodes or whatever.
Anyone who contacts me about such things is a fraudster until proved otherwise is my modus.
When I was still in England, someone from may bank phoned me up and it seemed to be about a legitimate subject. Then he started asking me low level personal details IDK address, postcode, DOB. At this point I said "Hold on you have just rung me..." So I asked for his name and department and I rang that bank's main phone number and asked to be put through to him. It turned out he was calling legitimatly, but I still think I did the right think and he should not have been asking me those questions.
Of course the difference is, that if it is legitimate the caller has no problems with you doing this. Where as the other stories today the conmen try to convince you that calling back will just waste your time and lead to you losing your money.
The problem banks (and anyone else) have is that they have a duty of care to ensure they are speaking to the correct person. They have no idea who else might answer so they have to go through security checks on outbound or inbound calls regardless. So yes, any legitimate caller will be fine with you calling them back but they will legitimately need to take security details if calling you. Else its 'that was my partner, whom i'm acrimoniously divorcing, that you discussed my account with'
While that is true, there should be a way for them to establish their identity with you, as that would be the surest way to deal with the issues with scam calls. It's nuts that I'm expected to give out security information to a complete random whose identity I can't verify.
So you call them back on a number you have for them. Until they know they are talking to you giving any details is potentially negligent.
This isn't a complicated problem in cryptography. There should be a way for the bank to confirm their identity with you that doesn't involve them giving away your personal details.
Apparently Tiverton Conservative surface activity is on the low scale side this morning, in many places seemingly nothing at all. Perhaps they are working under the radar, the telephones etc but it is surprising. Whereas the Lib Dems, they seem to be everywhere. Read into that what we will. Can the Cons hang on or will it be a Lib Dem landslide? Boris must be sweating.
Conservative activists have been flooding the seat for weeks, plus phoning, myself included. Most of the votes will already have been cast, either by post or those who voted earlier today
They haven't. Not unless your idea of a flood is a drip.
Beat me to it. Affirms the right to carry concealed weapons as part of everyday life. Removes the right to have a safe and legal abortion. Quite unfathomable.
It's quite fathomable - one is explicitly guaranteed by the constitution and the other isn't.
You might wish it otherwise, as I do. But we have to deal with the world as it actually is.
In the long run if enough voters actually vote for something they get it. This is true of the USA. The liberal media in the UK seem unable to grasp the point. Ultimately voters and legislators decide. And in the USA voters even get to decide the composition of the SC to an extent unthinkable in the UK.
Younger liberals might try voting.
With regard to abortion, the furthest the SC will go is simply to say it's a matter for legislators - as it is in the UK. Legislators are put there by voters.
Landslide Con majority on the SC in a nation where the Dems always win the Popular Vote.
That doesn't sound to me like people getting what they vote for.
The Dems didn't win the popular vote at a Presidential level in 1988 or 2004 both periods of which saw judges appointed who are still on the Court by both Bushes. The Senate also has to approve SC judges and over that time the GOP controlled the Senate from 1994 to 2000 and 2002 to 2006 and 2014 to 2020
Isn't it needed for the manufacturing of steel, which is quite an important commodity?
Not any more. Other countries are investing in new technology to manufacture steel without coal. We're going to end up behind on a new technology again.
Yes. According to the article below, firms covering 87 per cent of coal based steelmaking in Europe are undertaking research and development work in hydrogen steelmaking, and more than a third of them have already said they will abandon the blast furnace in favour of electrification.
It's a myth that coking coal is essential for steel production, and the opening of a new coking coal mine makes a mockery of promises of reaching net zero by 2050, given that CCS currently remains a pipe dream.
Jeepers. I was just the nearly the victim of an extremely clever, elaborate banking fraud
Call from "Santander Fraud Dept". They spoofed the right Santander number and even had the correct social media accounts of Santander employees when asked
My mum got one of the texts a week or so back, and phoned me to check if it was legit. Just told her to delete it, which she did.
The elaborate stuff comes when you've already half fallen for it. I'm very glad you dodged the scam.
I just stopped a tenant falling for that one.
In the supplied her with a printout as to how it worked.
Interestingly, her 30 year old son was far clearer about it, and about 'forget and move on'.
The obvious way to check it is a scam is to call the bank yourself. Which I did. But then you end up in a call queue which seems endless - even the fraud action line dumps you in a prolonged queue. And this is also hideously expensive if you are calling from Tbilisi (which I was)
So then you end up making a judgement in the moment, "what if there really ARE fraudsters who are controlling my account and I need to act immediately?" versus "would my bank really ever ask me to transfer money?"
It seems obvious that you should pay more attention to the second question (and I did, in the end), but they very cleverly make you focus on the first with a series of compelling details. Presumably honed over months, as they have learned what works and what doesn't
Banks really need to sort out these fucking call queues, because without access to a real human being on the other end of the line you cannot know for sure
My view is that my bank will never phone me with any request whatsoever about transfers or passcodes or whatever.
Anyone who contacts me about such things is a fraudster until proved otherwise is my modus.
When I was still in England, someone from may bank phoned me up and it seemed to be about a legitimate subject. Then he started asking me low level personal details IDK address, postcode, DOB. At this point I said "Hold on you have just rung me..." So I asked for his name and department and I rang that bank's main phone number and asked to be put through to him. It turned out he was calling legitimatly, but I still think I did the right think and he should not have been asking me those questions.
Of course the difference is, that if it is legitimate the caller has no problems with you doing this. Where as the other stories today the conmen try to convince you that calling back will just waste your time and lead to you losing your money.
The problem banks (and anyone else) have is that they have a duty of care to ensure they are speaking to the correct person. They have no idea who else might answer so they have to go through security checks on outbound or inbound calls regardless. So yes, any legitimate caller will be fine with you calling them back but they will legitimately need to take security details if calling you. Else its 'that was my partner, whom i'm acrimoniously divorcing, that you discussed my account with'
While that is true, there should be a way for them to establish their identity with you, as that would be the surest way to deal with the issues with scam calls. It's nuts that I'm expected to give out security information to a complete random whose identity I can't verify.
So you call them back on a number you have for them. Until they know they are talking to you giving any details is potentially negligent.
This isn't a complicated problem in cryptography. There should be a way for the bank to confirm their identity with you that doesn't involve them giving away your personal details.
This was easy two decades ago. If the bank wanted to speak to me, they’d send an email and an SMS saying please contact the bank via the website or phone. No link, no number, just the message in plain text.
It’s yet another one of these things that’s become more difficult over time.
No eve of poll or good morning leaflets from anyone. There is a LibDem teller but no Tory.
Interesting. Were it not for Chesham id think Shropshire N was an abberation based on Paterson and Dogs behaviour but Chesham makes me think this is gone gone gone. But no last minute bumph? My instintive reaction to that is either its in the bag for LDs (massive mahoosive swing for it to be safe!) Or a relatively comfortable tory hold and we have been kidded along by the messaging but that is hugely counter intuituve.
Given how far back LDs are to start i cant see how they could be confident without the sort of voter strike/voter rage anecdata from Shropshire etc.....
What im asking is have we convinced ourselves this is a LD gain becauae it fits a narrative not because of facts? And has the betting overcorrected because of Chesham and Salop?
Firstly, it may well be that betting markets have overcorrected.
But that doesn't mean it's all narrative and no facts.
JonWC saying he's seen relatively little activity is interesting, although it doesn't really tie up with numbers of activists piling in and some other responses and vox pops from the area. I think he's said he is in one of the local villages, and it seems conceivable (and perhaps unsurprising) that the Tiverton, Honiton and Cullompton have seen disproportionate action. I do think there is good evidence it's had a strong Lib Dem campaign as seen in two recent, successful efforts.
The mood music also matters. The Lib Dem campaign team presumably have a decent amount and quality of data. Not perfect, and turnout matters a lot, but decent. If they felt they were coming up short based on that data, they'd be trying to reposition - all the "a mountain to climb", "give them a scare", "strong Brexit area", "never mind the win, look at the swing" stuff would come in. That isn't happening. It's quite possible they've misjudged it - parties do - but these are people with a lot of data behaving as if they are looking at the hat-trick.
You can't really get away with getting smashed in the villages here though - they are about 35pct of the total electors and more of the likely voters. Plus the town I have seen nothing from is actually the third biggest, after Tiverton and Honiton. It is one of only 4 polling districts the LDs appear to have matched or bettered the Tories in the only time they got any worthwhile vote, and the other three were all villages and include the one I live in!
I agree they can't get "smashed" in the villages. I'm just making the point that activity levels (in all seats) can and do vary a fair bit across a constituency. So personal experience is interesting but may not be representative. Certainly, activists have been piling in, and they have been busy whilst there.
I still expect the LibDems to win on a tide of "what part of Boris out don't you understand?" but I'm becoming less confident. Your last sentence cannot possibly be correct if they are not really visible in a good quarter of the constituency as far as I can see. There is a fairly limited amount you can do on the phone now and the doorstep requires massive numbers of repeat canvass sweeps and it simply has not happened.
I posted something recently that iirc came from the Polling Station podcast about LibDems appealing for cars so they could campaign in the more rural parts of the constituency where houses are too far apart to make walking sensible. From what @HYUFD has said, it sounds like the Conservatives are relying on phone canvassing rather than boots on the ground.
Isn't it needed for the manufacturing of steel, which is quite an important commodity?
Not any more. Other countries are investing in new technology to manufacture steel without coal. We're going to end up behind on a new technology again.
'Are investing', or 'have invested and it's working'. If it's the former, we should invest by all means, but a working steel industry makes that future more likely, not less.
These are exactly the sorts of arguments we used to have on this board about wind energy. The UK was slow to invest in that technology, so now we have to buy it from other countries.
It's going to be the same here. We're not prepared to support anything new until someone else has proved that it works completely. We'll end up behind again. It's such a backward, conservative, attitude.
Friends will be friends When you're in need of love they give you care and attention Friends will be friends When you're through with life and all hope is lost Hold out your hand 'cause friends will be friends Right till the end.
Jeepers. I was just the nearly the victim of an extremely clever, elaborate banking fraud
Call from "Santander Fraud Dept". They spoofed the right Santander number and even had the correct social media accounts of Santander employees when asked
My mum got one of the texts a week or so back, and phoned me to check if it was legit. Just told her to delete it, which she did.
The elaborate stuff comes when you've already half fallen for it. I'm very glad you dodged the scam.
I just stopped a tenant falling for that one.
In the supplied her with a printout as to how it worked.
Interestingly, her 30 year old son was far clearer about it, and about 'forget and move on'.
The obvious way to check it is a scam is to call the bank yourself. Which I did. But then you end up in a call queue which seems endless - even the fraud action line dumps you in a prolonged queue. And this is also hideously expensive if you are calling from Tbilisi (which I was)
So then you end up making a judgement in the moment, "what if there really ARE fraudsters who are controlling my account and I need to act immediately?" versus "would my bank really ever ask me to transfer money?"
It seems obvious that you should pay more attention to the second question (and I did, in the end), but they very cleverly make you focus on the first with a series of compelling details. Presumably honed over months, as they have learned what works and what doesn't
Banks really need to sort out these fucking call queues, because without access to a real human being on the other end of the line you cannot know for sure
My view is that my bank will never phone me with any request whatsoever about transfers or passcodes or whatever.
Anyone who contacts me about such things is a fraudster until proved otherwise is my modus.
When I was still in England, someone from may bank phoned me up and it seemed to be about a legitimate subject. Then he started asking me low level personal details IDK address, postcode, DOB. At this point I said "Hold on you have just rung me..." So I asked for his name and department and I rang that bank's main phone number and asked to be put through to him. It turned out he was calling legitimatly, but I still think I did the right think and he should not have been asking me those questions.
Of course the difference is, that if it is legitimate the caller has no problems with you doing this. Where as the other stories today the conmen try to convince you that calling back will just waste your time and lead to you losing your money.
It's cleverer than that. The first actor said "oh yes please do call us back to check, I just warn you there are queues"
He invited me to check him out. But there were enormous queues (of course he knew this)
So I had no means of checking him except by asking him questions, which I did, and eventually their answers got more and more iffy, until I called it off
I have the minor, consoling pleasure that, by the end, when he realised I wasn't falling for it, the "manager" sounded decidedly hacked off that he'd fucked up
They must have been really hacked off, for sure, having struck so lucky in chancing upon someone so patently gullible in the first place!
Jeepers. I was just the nearly the victim of an extremely clever, elaborate banking fraud
Call from "Santander Fraud Dept". They spoofed the right Santander number and even had the correct social media accounts of Santander employees when asked
My mum got one of the texts a week or so back, and phoned me to check if it was legit. Just told her to delete it, which she did.
The elaborate stuff comes when you've already half fallen for it. I'm very glad you dodged the scam.
I just stopped a tenant falling for that one.
In the supplied her with a printout as to how it worked.
Interestingly, her 30 year old son was far clearer about it, and about 'forget and move on'.
The obvious way to check it is a scam is to call the bank yourself. Which I did. But then you end up in a call queue which seems endless - even the fraud action line dumps you in a prolonged queue. And this is also hideously expensive if you are calling from Tbilisi (which I was)
So then you end up making a judgement in the moment, "what if there really ARE fraudsters who are controlling my account and I need to act immediately?" versus "would my bank really ever ask me to transfer money?"
It seems obvious that you should pay more attention to the second question (and I did, in the end), but they very cleverly make you focus on the first with a series of compelling details. Presumably honed over months, as they have learned what works and what doesn't
Banks really need to sort out these fucking call queues, because without access to a real human being on the other end of the line you cannot know for sure
My view is that my bank will never phone me with any request whatsoever about transfers or passcodes or whatever.
Anyone who contacts me about such things is a fraudster until proved otherwise is my modus.
When I was still in England, someone from may bank phoned me up and it seemed to be about a legitimate subject. Then he started asking me low level personal details IDK address, postcode, DOB. At this point I said "Hold on you have just rung me..." So I asked for his name and department and I rang that bank's main phone number and asked to be put through to him. It turned out he was calling legitimatly, but I still think I did the right think and he should not have been asking me those questions.
Of course the difference is, that if it is legitimate the caller has no problems with you doing this. Where as the other stories today the conmen try to convince you that calling back will just waste your time and lead to you losing your money.
The problem banks (and anyone else) have is that they have a duty of care to ensure they are speaking to the correct person. They have no idea who else might answer so they have to go through security checks on outbound or inbound calls regardless. So yes, any legitimate caller will be fine with you calling them back but they will legitimately need to take security details if calling you. Else its 'that was my partner, whom i'm acrimoniously divorcing, that you discussed my account with'
While that is true, there should be a way for them to establish their identity with you, as that would be the surest way to deal with the issues with scam calls. It's nuts that I'm expected to give out security information to a complete random whose identity I can't verify.
So you call them back on a number you have for them. Until they know they are talking to you giving any details is potentially negligent.
This isn't a complicated problem in cryptography. There should be a way for the bank to confirm their identity with you that doesn't involve them giving away your personal details.
If there is a tech solution that can't be hacked/cheated then great. There wasnt when i worked in the industry. And no bank should do anything specific to you without verifying it is you first or you can sue them into the next century. That being said, no bank should be discussing accounts based on low level security data like DoB and address etc
Beat me to it. Affirms the right to carry concealed weapons as part of everyday life. Removes the right to have a safe and legal abortion. Quite unfathomable.
It's quite fathomable - one is explicitly guaranteed by the constitution and the other isn't.
You might wish it otherwise, as I do. But we have to deal with the world as it actually is.
The constitution doesn't say everyone has the right to wander about New York City packing a revolver. It's open to interpretation. Which I personally would expect SC judges to have the mental capacity to manage.
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
The New York law, as I understand, strayed away from "bearing arms is OK unless there's a proven reason to take away that right" to "you have to convince the state to let you bear arms".
That reversal of the presumption is pretty clearly incompatible with a strict reading of the text of the Second Amendment.
So on a strict interpretation one would be allowed to keep a tank on the front lawn and a thermonuclear device in the garden shed?
Isn't it needed for the manufacturing of steel, which is quite an important commodity?
Not any more. Other countries are investing in new technology to manufacture steel without coal. We're going to end up behind on a new technology again.
'Are investing', or 'have invested and it's working'. If it's the former, we should invest by all means, but a working steel industry makes that future more likely, not less.
These are exactly the sorts of arguments we used to have on this board about wind energy. The UK was slow to invest in that technology, so now we have to buy it from other countries.
It's going to be the same here. We're not prepared to support anything new until someone else has proved that it works completely. We'll end up behind again. It's such a backward, conservative, attitude.
I'm unconvinced we were ;slow' to invest. From my limited knowledge, we a) backed poor horses; b) partnered with foreign companies rather than develop indigenous ones; and c) did not invest in development after research.
No eve of poll or good morning leaflets from anyone. There is a LibDem teller but no Tory.
Interesting. Were it not for Chesham id think Shropshire N was an abberation based on Paterson and Dogs behaviour but Chesham makes me think this is gone gone gone. But no last minute bumph? My instintive reaction to that is either its in the bag for LDs (massive mahoosive swing for it to be safe!) Or a relatively comfortable tory hold and we have been kidded along by the messaging but that is hugely counter intuituve.
Given how far back LDs are to start i cant see how they could be confident without the sort of voter strike/voter rage anecdata from Shropshire etc.....
What im asking is have we convinced ourselves this is a LD gain becauae it fits a narrative not because of facts? And has the betting overcorrected because of Chesham and Salop?
Firstly, it may well be that betting markets have overcorrected.
But that doesn't mean it's all narrative and no facts.
JonWC saying he's seen relatively little activity is interesting, although it doesn't really tie up with numbers of activists piling in and some other responses and vox pops from the area. I think he's said he is in one of the local villages, and it seems conceivable (and perhaps unsurprising) that the Tiverton, Honiton and Cullompton have seen disproportionate action. I do think there is good evidence it's had a strong Lib Dem campaign as seen in two recent, successful efforts.
The mood music also matters. The Lib Dem campaign team presumably have a decent amount and quality of data. Not perfect, and turnout matters a lot, but decent. If they felt they were coming up short based on that data, they'd be trying to reposition - all the "a mountain to climb", "give them a scare", "strong Brexit area", "never mind the win, look at the swing" stuff would come in. That isn't happening. It's quite possible they've misjudged it - parties do - but these are people with a lot of data behaving as if they are looking at the hat-trick.
You can't really get away with getting smashed in the villages here though - they are about 35pct of the total electors and more of the likely voters. Plus the town I have seen nothing from is actually the third biggest, after Tiverton and Honiton. It is one of only 4 polling districts the LDs appear to have matched or bettered the Tories in the only time they got any worthwhile vote, and the other three were all villages and include the one I live in!
I agree they can't get "smashed" in the villages. I'm just making the point that activity levels (in all seats) can and do vary a fair bit across a constituency. So personal experience is interesting but may not be representative. Certainly, activists have been piling in, and they have been busy whilst there.
I still expect the LibDems to win on a tide of "what part of Boris out don't you understand?" but I'm becoming less confident. Your last sentence cannot possibly be correct if they are not really visible in a good quarter of the constituency as far as I can see. There is a fairly limited amount you can do on the phone now and the doorstep requires massive numbers of repeat canvass sweeps and it simply has not happened.
I posted something recently that iirc came from the Polling Station podcast about LibDems appealing for cars so they could campaign in the more rural parts of the constituency where houses are too far apart to make walking sensible. From what @HYUFD has said, it sounds like the Conservatives are relying on phone canvassing rather than boots on the ground.
Tiverton and Honiton is a largely rural seat, most voters will already have voted by post or earlier in the day.
If the LDs have not already won it they have probably lost it, there are only a handful of outlying farms and villages you can reach in 4 or 5 hours left of polling
Friends will be friends When you're in need of love they give you care and attention Friends will be friends When you're through with life and all hope is lost Hold out your hand 'cause friends will be friends Right till the end.
Thank you, UK!
That’s awesome! Whoever is running social media for the Ukrainian government deserves a war medal, it’s been brilliant.
Good to see that there are alternatives coming for steel, not using coke. Was a bit confused as I was sure steel is a combination of iron and carbon. Where does the carbon come from for green steel?
That's a good piece. I remember something from soon after Johnson won his majority - an event where he said this was The People's Government and they had signage and bunting all over the place saying that. The People's Government. Just a horrible vibe. It made me shudder. But it didn't catch on, thank heaven for small mercies.
Presumably you shuddered in the same way when Tony Blair called the Labour Party "the political wing of the British people"
Beat me to it. Affirms the right to carry concealed weapons as part of everyday life. Removes the right to have a safe and legal abortion. Quite unfathomable.
It's quite fathomable - one is explicitly guaranteed by the constitution and the other isn't.
You might wish it otherwise, as I do. But we have to deal with the world as it actually is.
The constitution doesn't say everyone has the right to wander about New York City packing a revolver. It's open to interpretation. Which I personally would expect SC judges to have the mental capacity to manage.
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
The New York law, as I understand, strayed away from "bearing arms is OK unless there's a proven reason to take away that right" to "you have to convince the state to let you bear arms".
That reversal of the presumption is pretty clearly incompatible with a strict reading of the text of the Second Amendment.
So on a strict interpretation one would be allowed to keep a tank on the front lawn and a thermonuclear device in the garden shed?
No - @Applicant is misreading what the 2nd means by that.
No eve of poll or good morning leaflets from anyone. There is a LibDem teller but no Tory.
Interesting. Were it not for Chesham id think Shropshire N was an abberation based on Paterson and Dogs behaviour but Chesham makes me think this is gone gone gone. But no last minute bumph? My instintive reaction to that is either its in the bag for LDs (massive mahoosive swing for it to be safe!) Or a relatively comfortable tory hold and we have been kidded along by the messaging but that is hugely counter intuituve.
Given how far back LDs are to start i cant see how they could be confident without the sort of voter strike/voter rage anecdata from Shropshire etc.....
What im asking is have we convinced ourselves this is a LD gain becauae it fits a narrative not because of facts? And has the betting overcorrected because of Chesham and Salop?
Firstly, it may well be that betting markets have overcorrected.
But that doesn't mean it's all narrative and no facts.
JonWC saying he's seen relatively little activity is interesting, although it doesn't really tie up with numbers of activists piling in and some other responses and vox pops from the area. I think he's said he is in one of the local villages, and it seems conceivable (and perhaps unsurprising) that the Tiverton, Honiton and Cullompton have seen disproportionate action. I do think there is good evidence it's had a strong Lib Dem campaign as seen in two recent, successful efforts.
The mood music also matters. The Lib Dem campaign team presumably have a decent amount and quality of data. Not perfect, and turnout matters a lot, but decent. If they felt they were coming up short based on that data, they'd be trying to reposition - all the "a mountain to climb", "give them a scare", "strong Brexit area", "never mind the win, look at the swing" stuff would come in. That isn't happening. It's quite possible they've misjudged it - parties do - but these are people with a lot of data behaving as if they are looking at the hat-trick.
You can't really get away with getting smashed in the villages here though - they are about 35pct of the total electors and more of the likely voters. Plus the town I have seen nothing from is actually the third biggest, after Tiverton and Honiton. It is one of only 4 polling districts the LDs appear to have matched or bettered the Tories in the only time they got any worthwhile vote, and the other three were all villages and include the one I live in!
I agree they can't get "smashed" in the villages. I'm just making the point that activity levels (in all seats) can and do vary a fair bit across a constituency. So personal experience is interesting but may not be representative. Certainly, activists have been piling in, and they have been busy whilst there.
I still expect the LibDems to win on a tide of "what part of Boris out don't you understand?" but I'm becoming less confident. Your last sentence cannot possibly be correct if they are not really visible in a good quarter of the constituency as far as I can see. There is a fairly limited amount you can do on the phone now and the doorstep requires massive numbers of repeat canvass sweeps and it simply has not happened.
I posted something recently that iirc came from the Polling Station podcast about LibDems appealing for cars so they could campaign in the more rural parts of the constituency where houses are too far apart to make walking sensible. From what @HYUFD has said, it sounds like the Conservatives are relying on phone canvassing rather than boots on the ground.
Tiverton and Honiton is a largely rural seat, most voters will already have voted by post or earlier in the day.
If the LDs have not already won it they have probably lost it, there are only a handful of outlying farms and villages you can reach in 4 or 5 hours left of polling
Again this is not quite true. In 2010 there was a surge of voting around home time. The Tories even said they were worried to see all those youngish voters..
I posted this morning Labour and green vote was quite strong in North Shropshire. Was it Lib Dem failure to squeeze in North Shropshire or a successful squeeze? In a tighter race those votes would have been difference between success and failure.
Corbynista won’t be for squeezing to help Starmer and Libdems. A Labour Party so split it’s leader heckled at last conference might mean they don’t lose their deposit today?
I'm not seeing it, Tiverton and Honiton is hardly Corbynista central (2015 nominating Cooper, 2016 no nomination, 2020 Starmer) and you would have thought that if there were enough hard-left to make a difference they wouldn't need encouragement not to vote for a Starmer-led Labour Party. From what I can make out from outside, T&H CLP seems quite harmonious, a lot of these rural Labour Parties there's not enough activists to start falling out with each other.
Are local parties representative of the constituency voters thoughs??
No eve of poll or good morning leaflets from anyone. There is a LibDem teller but no Tory.
Interesting. Were it not for Chesham id think Shropshire N was an abberation based on Paterson and Dogs behaviour but Chesham makes me think this is gone gone gone. But no last minute bumph? My instintive reaction to that is either its in the bag for LDs (massive mahoosive swing for it to be safe!) Or a relatively comfortable tory hold and we have been kidded along by the messaging but that is hugely counter intuituve.
Given how far back LDs are to start i cant see how they could be confident without the sort of voter strike/voter rage anecdata from Shropshire etc.....
What im asking is have we convinced ourselves this is a LD gain becauae it fits a narrative not because of facts? And has the betting overcorrected because of Chesham and Salop?
Firstly, it may well be that betting markets have overcorrected.
But that doesn't mean it's all narrative and no facts.
JonWC saying he's seen relatively little activity is interesting, although it doesn't really tie up with numbers of activists piling in and some other responses and vox pops from the area. I think he's said he is in one of the local villages, and it seems conceivable (and perhaps unsurprising) that the Tiverton, Honiton and Cullompton have seen disproportionate action. I do think there is good evidence it's had a strong Lib Dem campaign as seen in two recent, successful efforts.
The mood music also matters. The Lib Dem campaign team presumably have a decent amount and quality of data. Not perfect, and turnout matters a lot, but decent. If they felt they were coming up short based on that data, they'd be trying to reposition - all the "a mountain to climb", "give them a scare", "strong Brexit area", "never mind the win, look at the swing" stuff would come in. That isn't happening. It's quite possible they've misjudged it - parties do - but these are people with a lot of data behaving as if they are looking at the hat-trick.
You can't really get away with getting smashed in the villages here though - they are about 35pct of the total electors and more of the likely voters. Plus the town I have seen nothing from is actually the third biggest, after Tiverton and Honiton. It is one of only 4 polling districts the LDs appear to have matched or bettered the Tories in the only time they got any worthwhile vote, and the other three were all villages and include the one I live in!
I agree they can't get "smashed" in the villages. I'm just making the point that activity levels (in all seats) can and do vary a fair bit across a constituency. So personal experience is interesting but may not be representative. Certainly, activists have been piling in, and they have been busy whilst there.
I still expect the LibDems to win on a tide of "what part of Boris out don't you understand?" but I'm becoming less confident. Your last sentence cannot possibly be correct if they are not really visible in a good quarter of the constituency as far as I can see. There is a fairly limited amount you can do on the phone now and the doorstep requires massive numbers of repeat canvass sweeps and it simply has not happened.
I posted something recently that iirc came from the Polling Station podcast about LibDems appealing for cars so they could campaign in the more rural parts of the constituency where houses are too far apart to make walking sensible. From what @HYUFD has said, it sounds like the Conservatives are relying on phone canvassing rather than boots on the ground.
Tiverton and Honiton is a largely rural seat, most voters will already have voted by post or earlier in the day.
If the LDs have not already won it they have probably lost it, there are only a handful of outlying farms and villages you can reach in 4 or 5 hours left of polling
Again this is not quite true. In 2010 there was a surge of voting around home time. The Tories even said they were worried to see all those youngish voters..
In urban city areas, not rural areas like Tiverton and Honiton made up of small towns, villages and farms and pensioners
No eve of poll or good morning leaflets from anyone. There is a LibDem teller but no Tory.
Interesting. Were it not for Chesham id think Shropshire N was an abberation based on Paterson and Dogs behaviour but Chesham makes me think this is gone gone gone. But no last minute bumph? My instintive reaction to that is either its in the bag for LDs (massive mahoosive swing for it to be safe!) Or a relatively comfortable tory hold and we have been kidded along by the messaging but that is hugely counter intuituve.
Given how far back LDs are to start i cant see how they could be confident without the sort of voter strike/voter rage anecdata from Shropshire etc.....
What im asking is have we convinced ourselves this is a LD gain becauae it fits a narrative not because of facts? And has the betting overcorrected because of Chesham and Salop?
Firstly, it may well be that betting markets have overcorrected.
But that doesn't mean it's all narrative and no facts.
JonWC saying he's seen relatively little activity is interesting, although it doesn't really tie up with numbers of activists piling in and some other responses and vox pops from the area. I think he's said he is in one of the local villages, and it seems conceivable (and perhaps unsurprising) that the Tiverton, Honiton and Cullompton have seen disproportionate action. I do think there is good evidence it's had a strong Lib Dem campaign as seen in two recent, successful efforts.
The mood music also matters. The Lib Dem campaign team presumably have a decent amount and quality of data. Not perfect, and turnout matters a lot, but decent. If they felt they were coming up short based on that data, they'd be trying to reposition - all the "a mountain to climb", "give them a scare", "strong Brexit area", "never mind the win, look at the swing" stuff would come in. That isn't happening. It's quite possible they've misjudged it - parties do - but these are people with a lot of data behaving as if they are looking at the hat-trick.
You can't really get away with getting smashed in the villages here though - they are about 35pct of the total electors and more of the likely voters. Plus the town I have seen nothing from is actually the third biggest, after Tiverton and Honiton. It is one of only 4 polling districts the LDs appear to have matched or bettered the Tories in the only time they got any worthwhile vote, and the other three were all villages and include the one I live in!
I agree they can't get "smashed" in the villages. I'm just making the point that activity levels (in all seats) can and do vary a fair bit across a constituency. So personal experience is interesting but may not be representative. Certainly, activists have been piling in, and they have been busy whilst there.
I still expect the LibDems to win on a tide of "what part of Boris out don't you understand?" but I'm becoming less confident. Your last sentence cannot possibly be correct if they are not really visible in a good quarter of the constituency as far as I can see. There is a fairly limited amount you can do on the phone now and the doorstep requires massive numbers of repeat canvass sweeps and it simply has not happened.
I posted something recently that iirc came from the Polling Station podcast about LibDems appealing for cars so they could campaign in the more rural parts of the constituency where houses are too far apart to make walking sensible. From what @HYUFD has said, it sounds like the Conservatives are relying on phone canvassing rather than boots on the ground.
Tiverton and Honiton is a largely rural seat, most voters will already have voted by post or earlier in the day.
If the LDs have not already won it they have probably lost it, there are only a handful of outlying farms and villages you can reach in 4 or 5 hours left of polling
Again this is not quite true. In 2010 there was a surge of voting around home time. The Tories even said they were worried to see all those youngish voters..
Yes i expect the Tories have fingers crossed for torrential downpours through evening. Differential turnout could be key
Comments
At which point every bank would close down because no-one would ever trust them to look after so much as a pair of old socks.
Of course the difference is, that if it is legitimate the caller has no problems with you doing this. Where as the other stories today the conmen try to convince you that calling back will just waste your time and lead to you losing your money.
Took me ages to find it on their site
Creating urgency is a salesman’s trick, and a huge red flag if someone from the bank suggests you need to act urgently.
There’s also no reason to ever transfer money to someone else, anywhere else, as a result of any actual fraud.
I've twice had banks perform the asking for details trick, on both times as I said earlier on they get very surprised when they ask if there is anything else they can do to help that I reply with what is the process to close down every account with you...
And note that the Constitution does not once mention women (except by implication, in the same manner that it doesn't name slaves). Does that mean they do not exist ? Or have rights under it ?
He invited me to check him out. But there were enormous queues (of course he knew this)
So I had no means of checking him except by asking him questions, which I did, and eventually their answers got more and more iffy, until I called it off
I have the minor, consoling pleasure that, by the end, when he realised I wasn't falling for it, the "manager" sounded decidedly hacked off that he'd fucked up
So yes, any legitimate caller will be fine with you calling them back but they will legitimately need to take security details if calling you. Else its 'that was my partner, whom i'm acrimoniously divorcing, that you discussed my account with'
I posted this morning Labour and green vote was quite strong in North Shropshire. Was it Lib Dem failure to squeeze in North Shropshire or a successful squeeze? In a tighter race those votes would have been difference between success and failure.
Corbynista won’t be for squeezing to help Starmer and Libdems. A Labour Party so split it’s leader heckled at last conference might mean they don’t lose their deposit today?
@KeithOlbermann
It has become necessary to dissolve the Supreme Court of the United States.
The first step is for a state the "court" has now forced guns upon, to ignore this ruling.
Great. You're a court? Why and how do think you can enforce your rulings?
#IgnoreTheCourt
https://twitter.com/KeithOlbermann/status/1539983585406484480
Olbermann is a nutjob
There should be a key exchange, spy code phrase style (although I don't think these were ever the nonsensical things you see in film).
Definitely not anything that could be guessed at like the "first school" nonsense (that I always give the wrong answer to in online forms).
If the left-wingers want someone to blame, then the late Justice who refused to retire might be a good starting point.
Younger liberals might try voting.
With regard to abortion, the furthest the SC will go is simply to say it's a matter for legislators - as it is in the UK. Legislators are put there by voters.
Elena Kagan (62), are you sure you can go another decade or more, or should you be retiring too?
Oli McBurnie and Rhian Brewster charged with assault after play-off semi-final pitch invasion
Police confirm the Sheffield United strikers have been ordered to appear at Nottingham Magistrates’ Court on July 28
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2022/06/23/oli-mcburnie-rhian-brewster-charged-play-off-semi-final-incidents/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-61904622
Invest. In. Renewables.
I doubt that very much though.
It is coking coal for steel production.
If you’re Breyer or Sotomayor - or Joe Biden - you should be assuming that you lose control of the Senate at the end of this year.
That doesn't sound to me like people getting what they vote for.
The New York law, as I understand, strayed away from "bearing arms is OK unless there's a proven reason to take away that right" to "you have to convince the state to let you bear arms".
That reversal of the presumption is pretty clearly incompatible with a strict reading of the text of the Second Amendment.
Until they know they are talking to you giving any details is potentially negligent.
I've also been speaking to customer support and overheard the helpdesk operator in (presumably) the next cubicle give someone their username and new password. And don't get me started on security questions that can be answered from users' Facebook or Linkedin profiles.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/aug/19/green-steel-swedish-company-ships-first-batch-made-without-using-coal
(from what I've heard, the mine will produce coal of good enough quality for most steam purposes.)
It's a myth that coking coal is essential for steel production, and the opening of a new coking coal mine makes a mockery of promises of reaching net zero by 2050, given that CCS currently remains a pipe dream.
https://greenallianceblog.org.uk/2021/02/09/why-europe-doesnt-need-cumbrias-coking-coal/
The new artificial coal looks like an interesting idea...
It’s yet another one of these things that’s become more difficult over time.
It's going to be the same here. We're not prepared to support anything new until someone else has proved that it works completely. We'll end up behind again. It's such a backward, conservative, attitude.
https://twitter.com/DefenceU/status/1539671779312033793
Friends will be friends
When you're in need of love they give you care and attention
Friends will be friends
When you're through with life and all hope is lost
Hold out your hand 'cause friends will be friends
Right till the end.
Thank you, UK!
That being said, no bank should be discussing accounts based on low level security data like DoB and address etc
If the LDs have not already won it they have probably lost it, there are only a handful of outlying farms and villages you can reach in 4 or 5 hours left of polling