On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 23:44:17 GMT, Ronald Raygun
wrote:

Andy Pandy wrote:

"Ronald Raygun" wrote
Andy Pandy wrote:

I didn't say it was only up to the victim to report *any* crime. I
specifically mentioned fraud. There might be circumstances even in fraud
cases where someone who's not the victim reports it - but in general it
wouldn't be someone who can't even be sure there has even been a fraud.

I disagree. There are two aspects to fraud because it's both a civil and
a criminal matter. Only the victim can pursue a civil claim for damages,
but anyone who knows and has evidence that someone is a habitual
fraudster has an interest in making sure there are no new victims.

OK, but in this case there clearly isn't sufficient evidence. Who is the
fraudster? It's unlikely to be the retailer as I wrote earlier, it's
likely to be someone defrauding the retailer.

There must be sufficient evidence, if you think it likely that at least
*someone* is defrauding *someone*. Who and whom comes later.

In any case the retailer is not the one being defrauded in the first
instance, it's the OP.

The OP's impression was that it's the retailer defrauding him, though your
suggestion that the retailer is an innocent instrument and thus potential
secondary victim, is plausible.

So if someone gives you a lift and they drive at 31 in a 30 zone, I hope
you'll report that crime immediately.

That's not a proper crime.

Oh I see, so it's only crimes that you consider "proper" which should be
reported ;-)

Of course. After all, we were talking about them being reported by me.

And if you made it 40 instead of 31, well,
let's just say it's a crime I'd condone.

Do you think more people get killed as a result of speeding or of
fraudulent credit card transactions?

People don't get killed as a result of speeding. People get killed as a
result of being hit by fast moving cars. When there's no-one there to be
hit, it doesn't matter how fast the car is going. :-)

There is still somewhere there. The driver. Hitting a solid object
at high speed often kills occupants of cars. Apart from on motorways
people can appear unexpectedly. If you are travelling at high speed
you have less time to react (and so do they).

You know what they say, most people hit at 30 survive, most people hit
at 40 don't. So if you do 50 in a 40 zone, that's speeding too. If you
didn't speed there, and went at 40 like a good boy, people getting hit would
get killed too, despite no speeding being involved. Just goes to show how
artificial a crime speeding is.

Rubbish. Going too fast for the road conditions is more dangerous.

Or if someone at works photocopies a copyrighted map.

Isn't copyright a civil matter?

Is it? The term "copyright theft" is used regularly. I thought it was
considered "stealing" intellectual property.

I know, but that's just publishers' spin.

I (along with several other people) witnessed
someone getting assualted and the police were called, but the charges
were
dropped because the victim didn't want charges pressed, despite the
evidence being very good (lots of witnesses).

That's lamentable. I can understand this course of action if the victim
were an essential witness and had indicated a refusal to testify, but if
the remaining evidence is good, it's disgraceful conduct on the side of
the authorities (and the victim too of course).

It wasn't a particularly bad assault (it looked far worse than it was as
there was a lot of blood from a nose bleed but in the end the victim
didn't even end up with a bruise).

Does that make it all right? So if you reckon it's OK for someone who
assaults someone, drawing a lot of blood, not to be prosecuted because the
victim doesn't want to bother, you presumably also agree that speeding is
OK provided no-one gets badly hurt?

So can you give me some examples of such criminal charges being pursued
having been instigated by the customer, rather than the bank, retailer
or financial authorities?

Why? I was talking in general terms, without reference to specific
cases.

In general terms, the police will want reasonable evidence that a criminal
act has occurred. A line on a credit card statement and a statement from
the cardholder that "I didn't authorise that" is a laughable level of
evidence.

Yes but if you add that the bank is being obstructive about getting the
money back, that would be a bit less laughable.

That's as may be. However, where an unauthorised charge has been made
and,
despite efforts to have what could have been a mistake corrected,
nothing
happens, that's pretty good prima facie evidence of a crime.

So you'll be able to provide examples of such criminal charges being
brought then.

What makes you think that?

Well if it's crime then there should be cases of criminal charges being
brought by cardholders.

But what I asked was what makes you think I should be able to provide
examples? If cardholders are reporting such cases, how should I get to
know of it? I didn't claim to have knowledge of it actually happening,
I just said it could happen.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
[Reply-to address valid until it is spammed.]

"Andy Pandy" wrote in message
...
[snip]
There probably isn't a mechanism to put a block on a specific customer
account to a specific retailer.
[snip]

"Isn't" is not the same as "couldn't be".

Why isn't there one ? Anyone know ?

--
FERGUS O'ROURKE

www.twitter.com/ubfid
www.irish-lawyer.com
(Not just law stuff)




--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

"Ronald Raygun" wrote
You know what they say, most people hit
at 30 survive, most people hit at 40 don't...

Yes, I've seen that more recently.
But do you remember them saying a few years ago that:
" ... most people hit at 40 don't survive, around half of
people hit at 30 survive, most people hit at 20 survive..." ?

When did it change & why?

Mark wrote:

On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 23:44:17 GMT, Ronald Raygun
wrote:
Andy Pandy wrote:

Do you think more people get killed as a result of speeding or of
fraudulent credit card transactions?

People don't get killed as a result of speeding. People get killed as a
result of being hit by fast moving cars. When there's no-one there to be
hit, it doesn't matter how fast the car is going. :-)

There is still some[one] there. The driver. Hitting a solid object
at high speed often kills occupants of cars.

I'm sure you remember that advert in which a test dummy crashes a
car into a wall, whereupon the wife immediately nags: "Why don't you
watch where you're going?", and he shrugs and says "It just came out
of nowhere.".

Well, in real life walls and trees and other solid objects *don't*
just come out of nowhere, you can always see them coming, and the
only way you're going to hit them (other than deliberately) is if
you lose control of the car. Provided your speed is such that in the
conditions prevailing at the time it isn't going to make loss of
control likely, there is no reason not to treat the speed limit with
the pinch of salt it deserves.

Apart from on motorways
people can appear unexpectedly. If you are travelling at high speed
you have less time to react (and so do they).

Indeed, but that means you should use your judgement to determine not
just your speed but what things to concentrate on. If there is a
parked lorry or stopped bus ahead, you should be prepared for someone
to come running out from behind it. And when there are no such
objects, there is no reason, apart from the law, to curb your speed
when it's safe not to.

You know what they say, most people hit at 30 survive, most people hit
at 40 don't. So if you do 50 in a 40 zone, that's speeding too. If you
didn't speed there, and went at 40 like a good boy, people getting hit
would
get killed too, despite no speeding being involved. Just goes to show how
artificial a crime speeding is.

Rubbish. Going too fast for the road conditions is more dangerous.

More than what? I think that statement would sound better without
the word "more". I completely agree that if road conditions are poor
you should drive more carefully and probably more slowly than when
conditions are fine. But I pointed out that if you drive at 40 in
a 40 zone, i.e. are not speeding, and assuming conditions are good, then
someone could still appear out of nowhere and if hit would likely die
*despite* no speeding being involved. That the limit there is 40 and
not 30 is completely arbitrary. That the limit somewhere else is 30
and not 40 is also completely arbitrary.

That's why almost everyone treats the limit only as a rough guide,
even the police, who ought to be setting a good example to the rest
of us. Not many people generally cruise slower than 35 on a main road
in a 30 zone, and moreover this is officially tolerated by the ACPO
guidelines, which is a great pity because it mocks the law. It would be
far better to make the limit 35 and enforce it strictly than to make the
limit 30 and allow a 5mph tolerance band.

On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 14:51:16 GMT, Ronald Raygun
wrote:

Mark wrote:

On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 23:44:17 GMT, Ronald Raygun
wrote:
Andy Pandy wrote:

Do you think more people get killed as a result of speeding or of
fraudulent credit card transactions?

People don't get killed as a result of speeding. People get killed as a
result of being hit by fast moving cars. When there's no-one there to be
hit, it doesn't matter how fast the car is going. :-)

There is still some[one] there. The driver. Hitting a solid object
at high speed often kills occupants of cars.

I'm sure you remember that advert in which a test dummy crashes a
car into a wall, whereupon the wife immediately nags: "Why don't you
watch where you're going?", and he shrugs and says "It just came out
of nowhere.".

Well, in real life walls and trees and other solid objects *don't*
just come out of nowhere, you can always see them coming, and the
only way you're going to hit them (other than deliberately) is if
you lose control of the car. Provided your speed is such that in the
conditions prevailing at the time it isn't going to make loss of
control likely, there is no reason not to treat the speed limit with
the pinch of salt it deserves.

Statistics show that collisions are more likely the faster you travel.
Speed limits are there for a reason and that's not just safety.
Drivers going too fast is also a problem for other motorists as cars
are travelling quicker than expected.

Apart from on motorways
people can appear unexpectedly. If you are travelling at high speed
you have less time to react (and so do they).

Indeed, but that means you should use your judgement to determine not
just your speed but what things to concentrate on. If there is a
parked lorry or stopped bus ahead, you should be prepared for someone
to come running out from behind it. And when there are no such
objects, there is no reason, apart from the law, to curb your speed
when it's safe not to.

See above.

You know what they say, most people hit at 30 survive, most people hit
at 40 don't. So if you do 50 in a 40 zone, that's speeding too. If you
didn't speed there, and went at 40 like a good boy, people getting hit
would
get killed too, despite no speeding being involved. Just goes to show how
artificial a crime speeding is.

Rubbish. Going too fast for the road conditions is more dangerous.

More than what?

More dangerous that not going too fast.

I think that statement would sound better without
the word "more".

Driving is dangerous in the sense that it is not without risk. Driving
faster increases this risk. However most of the risk is not for the
driver but for the more vulnarable such as motorbike riders,
pedestrians and cyclists.

I completely agree that if road conditions are poor
you should drive more carefully and probably more slowly than when
conditions are fine. But I pointed out that if you drive at 40 in
a 40 zone, i.e. are not speeding, and assuming conditions are good, then
someone could still appear out of nowhere and if hit would likely die
*despite* no speeding being involved. That the limit there is 40 and
not 30 is completely arbitrary. That the limit somewhere else is 30
and not 40 is also completely arbitrary.

I wouldn't like to gamble about whether or not someone would die if
hit at any particular speed.

That's why almost everyone treats the limit only as a rough guide,

People exceed the speed limit because they are impatient and selfish
and don't expect to get caught (or don't mind being caught).

even the police, who ought to be setting a good example to the rest
of us. Not many people generally cruise slower than 35 on a main road
in a 30 zone, and moreover this is officially tolerated by the ACPO
guidelines, which is a great pity because it mocks the law. It would be
far better to make the limit 35 and enforce it strictly than to make the
limit 30 and allow a 5mph tolerance band.

I can't explain or defend why procecution only occurs at a speed
higher than the limit. Just because a lot of people regularly break
the limit does not make it acceptable. Cars have speedometers so
there's little excuse for exceeding the limit.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
[Reply-to address valid until it is spammed.]

"Ronald Raygun" wrote in message
om...
Andy Pandy wrote:

"Ronald Raygun" wrote
Andy Pandy wrote:

Erm, no, the retailer (I suspect) loses the money and therefore clearly
is the direct victim. There might be circumstances where it's the bank
which loses the money.

You clearly don't use the same definition of direct as I do. I probably
should never have mentioned directness (in fact I'm not sure I was first
to do so) since it really matterns not a jot whether any victim is
direct
or indirect, what matters is that there is a victim, or more than one.

To my mind the direct victim is not the one who suffers the ultimate
loss, but the one who suffers the first loss.

What loss? If it's on a credit card then he's suffered no loss until and
unless he pays the amount (or any interest on said amount).

It might be a debit card.

Read the thread title.

Even if it's a credit card, he might have a
standing arrangement to pay the full balance each month by direct debit.
There might not be enough time inbetween the bill arriving and his
noticing
the dubious charge in time to notify the card company, them sending a
paper
form to be completed, him to return it, and thus for the amount to be put
into "disputed" status before the DD goes through.

Then the CC company have broken the terms of the DD guarantee which require
2 weeks notice of any change in the amount (for CC the amount will change
every month).

The disputed
amount should be held in limbo and no interest should be charged on it
and
if he normally pays in full he should be able to pay in full minus the
disputed amount and get treated as if he paid in full.

If he does notice and contacts the card company, he has immediately
suffered the loss of free time needed to deal with this.

What about his time posting on usenet?

That is the cardholder.
He may, through some action, offload the loss of money to retailer/bank,
but that offloading is a redirection, an indirection, and that makes the
retailer/bank indirect victims. Even if he thus manages to avert loss
of money, he remains a victim in terms of loss of time and bliss, and
that is clearly direct too.

As does the bank. That's just as direct - it'll take them time and effort
to sort out.

Grr. It's *NOT* direct. The fact that a party suffers a loss makes them
a victim, but not necessarily a direct one. Directness is to do with flow
of causation. If event A causes event B and this in turn causes event C,
then B is a direct consequence of A, and C is an indirect consequence of
A.

Erm, yes.

Event A appears to be some fraudster conning some company into parting with
goods/services with credit card details which weren't theirs.

Event B is the credit card transaction details being passed to the OPs bank.

Event C is the OP getting a false charge on his credit card statement.

So event C is an indirect consequence of the fraud (event A).

That banks attempt to fob you off when you report an unauthorised
transaction? In that case I'd agree with you - but that's not what
happened in the OPs case

I thought it was, why else would he (see subject line) accuse them
of assisting fraudsters?

His point was they won't put a block on future transactions. Not that
they
won't refund the current ones.

Not completely true. He did have a gripe about not blocking future
transactions, but he *also* said they wouldn't refund.

So they're just sending him some forms to fill in for fun?

He wrote "They tell me that the process is that they will go back to the
fraudsters
credit card company and query it. If no response or proof of purchase is
provided then they will refund the amounts. But they will do nothing to
prevent future fraudulent debits. "

He also wrote "It seems reasonable to me that if I alert the credit card
company to what is a fraud that they would have a simple mechanism to
check
my story (they have found the Google links and agree it appears to be
fraud)
refund the amounts and stop further debits. But they tell me that this
isn't
possible."

Read his lips: ".. refund the amounts .. isn't possible".

Read the words and use your logic (which I'm sure you use to have :-).

If (X AND Y) is false, then Y alone can be false to make (X AND Y) false.

So if "refund the amounts" is possible but "stop further debits" isn't, then
"refund the amounts and stop further debits" is not possible.

--
Andy

"Dan Charette" wrote in message
o.uk...
I gave clear details in my OP. Believe me - it is a fraud.

But you don't have a clue as who the fraudster is. If you really think a
company can set up merchant facilities and go round making only fraudulent
transactions then you really haven't got a clue. A few other people
suffering fraud via the same company proves nothing, it probably just
indicates they use CNP transactions and are prepared to take the risk of the
occasional fraud.

--
Andy

On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 12:17:21 -0000, Fergus O'Rourke put finger to
keyboard and typed:

"Andy Pandy" wrote in message
...
[snip]
There probably isn't a mechanism to put a block on a specific customer
account to a specific retailer.
[snip]

"Isn't" is not the same as "couldn't be".

Why isn't there one ? Anyone know ?

Two main reasons. Firstly, because a lot of the way credit cards work
behind the scenes is still based on procedures written when they were
first introduced. And changing it isn't as simple as it sounds, as
interoperability and consistency are generally considered more
important than innovation. And, secondly, because where innovation
does take place, it's more likely to be in areas that reduce card
operator costs and liabilities rather than increasing customer
functionality.

Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk

Andy Pandy wrote:
"Dan Charette" wrote in message
o.uk...

I gave clear details in my OP. Believe me - it is a fraud.

But you don't have a clue as who the fraudster is.

As if that makes any difference whatsoever, ffs.

If you really
think a company can set up merchant facilities and go round making
only fraudulent transactions then you really haven't got a clue.

That's just a contrived insult - the OP hasn't claimed anywhere to know the
method or instrument used.

A
few other people suffering fraud via the same company proves nothing,

And you say the OP hasn't a clue...

...it probably just indicates they use CNP transactions and are prepared
to take the risk of the occasional fraud.

What absolute twaddle, as if.

The OP raised a matter of valid concern for people who are responsible
with their money and you've got nothing better to do than flame
him.

You can go in my killfile now and I suggest the OP does the same.

"Andy Pandy" wrote in message
...

Then the CC company have broken the terms of the DD guarantee which
require 2 weeks notice of any change in the amount (for CC the amount will
change every month).

This is one of the major problems with (credit) cards; the cardholder has no
control over this. A credit card 'direct debit' is a complete fallacy - it
simply does not exist.

Once a continuing authority has been established, it is only the
organisation with whom the arrangement has been made who can cancel - not
the cardholder; any amount can be deducted at any time. This is unless the
cardholder can show that the other party has, for instance, reneged on the
agreement, eg. has not supplied the service.

You have to be in a position to trust the organisation and that their
accounting is accurate. There are some organisations that I do not even
allow (even with the guarantee) direct debit access to my bank account.

A credit card continuing authority (incorrectly and misleadingly referred to
as a direct debit) is something to be avoided.

Iain