Try getting the credit reference agencies to remove an incorrect black mark on your record, and they'll tell you to get the organisation that put it there to fix it.
Been there and successfully done it though my situation was a bit unique. They'd confused me with a former resident of the flat I bought and as such I had a terrible report being linked to them. Before realising this I made many unsuccessful loan applications, which appear on your report and count against you. As the multiple applications were a direct result of their cockup I demanded that they removed them (very forceful, but polite). This worked on both Expirion and Equifax.
Why the credit checking system should have any special status under data protection law is an entirely different question, of course.
I don't think it is. Under the DPA you can opt in to have them do what they wish with your data. Under the small print of any credit agrement is a section on sharing information "to combat fraud". If that statements not there, I don't think they are allowed to speak to Expirion and Equifax. From the wording on any application form for credit it also mentions this being the case, so that they can request your information prior to making you an offer. If a random company was to ask about you with these agencies without your approval, they'd be breaking the law IMHO. IANAL however.
Wrong - you are always liable (if either you are still renting a flat / house, or own but dont rent out yr flat / house) for council tax while you are abroad.
Are you sure on that? I'm likely to do it myself quite soon and my intention was to leave it up to the tenants to pay. Should I just pay it myself and incorporate it into the rent then to save any hastle?
I understand the logic on why it should be paid when I'm not there; the same applies to a second home although you can get discounts on that IIRC.
You can always pay by standing order. they will pressure you into DD
I wouldn't say they pressure you. I simply get the annual bill sent out and it has a direct debit form attached.
However, if the merchant requires the customer to arrange the return, it seems only fair that if the goods are faulty, the merchant should also be required to compensate the customer for their time and costs returning the item.
I don't think the law covers this to be honest. Most companies will pay for it themselves to save face and others will maybe meet you half way. Some are just jerks I guess; just make sure the forums in which they have a good reputation are aware of their refund policy.
The best way to get a good result is to be nice. It's all about attitude; even if a companies policy was to charge shipping, they might drop the charge for a nice customer. Customer Support people generally have a shitty day in work listening to complaints all day; I find that if you are nice to them you'll make their day and they'll bend over backwards to help you. Example; the other day I was onto an Indian call centre and I asked where they were based. Normally folk would do that to lead into a complaint, but I was just interested and said something along the lines of "cool, a friend of mine visited there recently". The rep was super-helpful after that.
Incidentally, does anyone know the deal with returning box sets of DVDs if, several months after buying them, you discover that disc 6 of 7 doesn't play?
Time is not really a factor. The usual "12-months free waranty" always comes with the caveat: "this does not affect your statatory rights". Here in Scotland we get up to six years of "guarantee" but the actual number is different depending how long you'd "resonably expect" the goods to work. Knowing this makes optional extended warranties a bit of a joke. In short, you shouldn't have any problems sending them all back though I'd get an agreement with them before shipping!
Worst comes to the worst, just claim for a full refund as the goods aren't "fit for purpose". They really can't argue you on that point and I believe it's up to them to prove that you caused the damage after the sale. Don't quote me on that last bit though, I'm not sure.
It is either true, of the someone at the Council tax office in Edinburgh is having a laugh.
Or just incompetetent/overworked. The ones over here are utterly useless and we're greatful if we actually manage to get through to someone on the phone.
I wanted to pay the entire 6 months, because I don't want them to automatically take it out of my bank account. They would not do this.
That's how I do it over in Glasgow, in April I paid the next three months. I sometimes set up a standing order but at the moment I'm doing it using my online banking. If I was to go away for half the year, I'd just phone them to say then stop paying. If they want to try and sue me for what I don't owe that's their problem!
I'm not sure how it goes in the USA, but that would be illegal here in the UK. Under the Data Protection Act, no company may share information with another company without your express permission. All credit agreements say that they will "share information with credit agencies to combat fraud", which is the consent they need. However, this only applies for actual credit, e.g. a loan or a payment plan. For a service such as broadband they'd need to litigate and get a court judgment against you before it can get anywhere near your credit rating.
In a world where your name resides on thousands of databases around the world, it pays to know this sort of thing.
Do you count the UK as Europe? The UK is full of the biggest rip-off and con artist companies I have ever come across
Are you kidding? Until the grandparent mentioned "Verbraucherzentrale" I was assuming he was in the UK! We have some of the best consumer protection laws around. Instead of complaining to the company, just say to them that you'll "be in touch with Trading Standards" regarding this. Instant attitude correction.
For council tax and tv license, I can't pay for six months, I have to pay the whole amount, and apply for a refund when I finish - even though I will have left the country
I'm not sure that's correct, certainally not with council tax. Sure, you might get an account for the whole year, but you pay it monthly. The only reason they do the year thing is so that they can calculate your monthly payments. Mind you, they struggle to do that correctly at the best of times.
You're an idiot. So if some crazy person walks up to you with an axe and is about to kill you, you'd rather let him kill you rather than defend yourself?
No, you miss my point. In my case no weapon was involved. You're damn right, I'd have no problems beating the shit out of someone in that situation. I wouldn't kill them however. That's one of the differences between the UK and the USA. You have the western style duel ingrained in your culture as a thing heros do. The more classical duel done here is more for the upperclass with rapiers etc.
Or female. Or disabled. Or have a disease like MS.
How many disabled or MS suffering gun carriers do you know? Can they hold and fire the weapon safely?
And I love how in your world the bad parts are clearly marked and the criminals never walk out of their little criminal ghetto.
Avoiding crime is a piece of piss. It's all about not putting yourself in high risk sitations. Walking alone at night being one of them; hell it's been that way for hundreds of years in our society. The way you walk is important. Walk tall, don't appear to be an easy target. Don't look at the ground as if you are embarased. Bullies pick on the weak, they always have.
I live in Glasgow where we do tend to have a lot of pointless fights. Fortunately we don't have firearms, so deaths are actually rare. However, using these techniques I have successfully avoided problems for fifteen years. This involves weekly walks home in the early hours through the city centre which is fairly high risk if you are on your own.
Oddly enough, 33% of UK muders were caused by knives. I guess they aren't all that rare.
100% of lottery winners are humans. I guess winning the lottery isn't all that rare. Nice logic mate.
Yes, Americans love violence, but I think the American penchant for gun ownership (viz: NRA nuts) is largely unrelated - it's because it's constitutionally protected, and therefore "an American right".
While I see where you are coming from and agree, I'm not entirely convinced that this is the main reason. There's a number of other constitutionally protected rights that people don't generally stand up for, certainaly not with the same fever. Take for example "unpopular speach", this is now deemed unpatriotic as we must "support our troops". Or the right to a fair trial, theres some people in US prisons abroad that would like that. I'm not seeing anywhere as much support for them as the NRA gets.
UK Student dies in home invasion from gun shot to the head (Yes, I'm assuming you are from the UK)
Thank you for proving my point. The incident you describe was in the USA. Either attacker or defender had a gun and as a direct result of that someone is dead. Exactly as I said.
As I said, find me a situation in the UK where this happened. It just isn't a problem. Crime where the criminal has a firearm are extremely rare and heavily penalised by the court system.
Now, if you want an example of a firearm being used to DEFEND, well, that would be harder as the UK has disarmed it's victims.
"disarmed it's victims", love the language you are using. Did you get it off a pamphlet or do you do mislead people for a living?;-) What is it you do, politics or marketing?:-)
No, just an example where the defender would be better off if firearms were available. Remember, gun crime is rare in the UK. To find this example, you'd need to find a case where the attacker had a firearm and the defender would have had one if we had US-style gun ownership. Just meeting the former requirement will be tricky, gun crime is incredibly rare.
I personally love the UK, but I have always (and will always) question the stripping of the peoples rights to defend themselves. Time and time again, I read articles about UK citizens being arrested for using whatever means it took to defend themselves while the criminal gets to sue them for loss of wages.
We have the rights right now. You are hearing about the extreme cases. Like the valiant farmer who defended his castle and got time in jail over it. Of course, the pro-gun article you read would have omitted the fact that the person he shot in the back was running away as his shotgun had already done it's job and stopped the crime. The farmer decided in a fit of rage that he should execute the kid by shooting him in the back then letting him bleed to death overnight. There's a number of things wrong here; he wasn't threatened when he fired. He literally left him there to bleed to death. A shot in the air or a phone call to the police/ambulance would have kept that farmer out of jail. But frankly he was a dangerous murderer himself. He shot someone in cold blood and is paying for that crime. Once the details are known I fail to see the issue people have with this.
As for criminals sueing; example please as I've not heard of it over here. Isn't it the USA that had the case of the burglar cutting himself on a knife an sueing?
You question the need for guns. I understand, they are dangerous. But time and time again, they are used for defense (properly) and just the fact that criminals will ALWAYS have them (regardless of the law) shows the overwhelming need to let the citizens own them if they wish.
No, it's not "overwhelming" by any means. Guns facilitate crime. Robbery with a gun is easier than robbery with a knife or a bat. Guns make kidnapping childs-play. Guns turn silly arguments into fatal incidents.
The negatives of a gun-owning citizenry vastly outweigh the benefits.
Yes, because fictional violence equates with real-world violence.
Yes, it does. Numerous studies show this. Common sense and a basic understanding of human psychology shows it. Humans learn by imitation, it's what we do. If someone grows up with violence around them, they will think it is a normal accepted part of life.
I'm not saying ban violent media, that is utterly wrong and I am completely opposed to censorship, always have been. However, you have to be willing to admit that it does affect people.
Also, if you had ever seen the Death Wish movies, you would know they are about justice, not shameless violence
Bollocks, the "justice" you speak of is just wrapping to make the violence more palatable. Let me guess, in the first half hour of the movies the bad guy is disrespectful towards women and nasty to children? Then he is shown to be truely evil throught the movie. This makes the horrific murder at the end "justice", does it? The whole movie exists to make the bad guy "bad enough" that the hero can whoop is ass as you punch your fist into the air and scream "YES!!!".
Yes, that's why in Iran it's common etiquitte to beat women who are seen with men who are not their relatives or husband
That happens in every country! Ever watched Jerry Springer stateside? Lots of men/women who are violent for even crazier reasons. You just can't see past the skin colour and cultural differences.
in Africa there are thousands of children with guns killing other children with guns all at the whim of a few maniacal warlords
Pick up a history book, we've had children in our own wars. It's only in the past couple hundred years, and even then mostly the past 60 years, that we've started to care about it. In the US there are thousands of kids doing the exact same thing; they make movies called "Boyz in the hood" about that sort of thing.
The US isn't unique for violence. You're just up there near the top of the list and as a developed western country you should be shocked by that. You realise you are comparing yourself to a third world nation WRT conflict in Africa?
hell, the Americans are in Iraq... and in Iraq, the major religious sects are blowing each other up with car bombs... they must've picked it up from the Americans.
Of course there are some. But we are talking a tiny number in a country where if you even get seen with a gun an armed response team with automatic weapons will be there in minutes. Some moron was shot dead for pretending a table leg in a plastic bag was a gun. Believe me, gun crime IS NOT AN ISSUE HERE.
They are just either placed where they are unlikely to be used to stop crime, owned by a very few wealthy people's bodyguards, or are in the hands of criminals.
Nope. Here in the UK we don't have special rules for the wealthy. They are restricted on guns as much as everyone else.
Violent crimes are higher than they were before the UK banned guns.
When did they "ban guns"? Guns have always been heavily restricted in the UK. The only recent change was a further ban on handguns around 10 - 15 years ago. I'd like to see your numbers behind this, along with a definition of "violent crime". I suspect the source you are getting your "facts" from counts every bar fight as "violent crime". Just how many people are killed in this "violent crime"?
When a gun is present in a conflict, someone is going to die. Conversely, deaths in the UK are really low. So, if you get robbed, you live. Murders are pretty much always commited by someone you know over here.
It could be you don't hang out in the right circles. Or maybe the UK's gun ban actually has greatly reduced access to them. So what? More crimes are committed with knives now and you're thinking of banning them.
So what? We've elimiated gun crime and the murder rate is a fraction of yours in an almost identical society. I could make a phone call or two to people I know and get my hands on any illegal substance. I could arrange for someone to have a "visit" from unpleasant people (for a small fee). I could not get a gun if I wanted to. They just don't exist here and Americans really seem to struggle with that concept. It's not "only outlaws have guns", no one does!
Knives aren't getting banned, I don't know where you are getting that crazy idea. They are increacing the penalties for carrying one. Personally I reckon that an instant 7 days in jail for carrying one would sort the problem out.
weapons that operate independent of the user's physical strength even the odds for the elderly and women and people who didn't spend the last five years exercising in prison. This deters violent crime.
Bullshit. It slightly reduces some crime. It also increases others. Kidnapping is rare here. Armed robbery is unheard of in most places. But hey, if reality doesn't conform to your NRA membership ethos, you could always limit what your reality is. Guns facilitate crime. It's hard to rob a bank with a potato peeler.
The UK is a country with a culture of lesser personal responsibility than the US. It makes laws accordingly.
What a ridiculus notion! I'd bet we have more freedom/responsibilities, but gambling is illegal for you! Why? And I believe the US is leading the way in blame culture and the sue-for-cash way of life. "Warning, this peanut contains nuts". Personal responsibility? Don't make me laugh, the US is far worse at saying what you can and can't do or believe.
Who cares if the thief is still alive? You actually count this as a plus?
Yes. This is the difference between us it seems. You'd rather see someone executed for stealing, right? Would that be righteous? No, it's just murder whatever way you look at it.
So if genetics gives you a 5'5" 140lb. frame and you are up against a 6'6" 250lb person, you are a pussy for using a gun?
Well, size isn't everything, but if you are 5'5" 140lb, then yes, you probably are a pussy. You need to either learn how to fight (martial arts?), or learn how to avoid fighting. I tend to the latter; don't become a target in the first place. Be descrete with your expensive toys, avoid the bad streets/areas and always be aware what's going on around you.
Yeah, tell that to the elderly defending their homes from invasions. Tell that to the women protecting themselves from thugs and rapists. Tell that to the 12 year old that defended his entire family while three thugs beat on his dad while the wife and sister were tied up during a home invasion.
Perhaps these may be a daily hazzard in the USA, I don't know, but I'd like to see you find an example that actually happened in the UK. You know, one where if an honest person had a gun the crime would not have happened. Oh, bear in mind that if we are in a situation where the honest person could have a gun, then the criminal almost certainally has one.
Oh, and for each example you provide, I'll link to an example of a stupid fight over something pointless that had no fatalities. If both contenders had guns, one of them would almost definately be dead now. I'll start, 15 years ago I got attacked & robbed but there were no guns involved. Both of us are still alive, as are all of the bystanders (mostly children IIRC).
Yeah, I do know all the balistics, it's all taught in high school here. Rifling, projectile motion, newtons laws, all that stuff. Perhaps 10 feet was a bad example; most pistol deaths are probably from around the 3 foot mark. Still way off physical contact which was the point I was trying to make.
I don't have it in me to stab someone to death. I know I could shoot them by just contracting one small muscle in my finger. It's a completely different set of requirements to get someone in that position for each weapon.
Given this information I wonder how anyone can logically or statistically conclude that concealed carry laws do not help.
They would not work in the UK, that much is undebatable. We have practially no guns in the country and getting a license for one is pretty much impossible. No one has a gun. If were were to pass concealed carry laws, you'd need to liberalise the gun laws. And frankly that's one of the stupidest ideas I've heard in a long time. Living in a gun free country is awesome. Worst comes to the worst, I can run away from any assailant and get out of the situation alive. Try that when either of you has a gun.
I've seen a lot of crime. I've been involved with some really nasty people. I've done enough to probably put me in jail for twenty years. Yet not once in this country have I heard of anyone I know having a gun or even access to one. It just doesn't happen except in a couple of small isolated groups.
Now there's an interesting question there - is the rise in iPod thefts due to the fact that iPods, associated with white earbuds, are more popular and hence worth stealing? Or is it simply because the white earbuds are more visible at night, thus making their owner a more obvious target?
Neither. This all stems from a report from the UK government about street crime. Nowhere is "iPod" mentioned. It does mention an increase in high-value items being an invitation for muggers, specifically "mp3 players and mobile phones". Any talk of iPods is just bad journalism or Apple astro-turfing.
Charles Bronson will take out that trash (if only he were still alive). If you've never seen the Death Wish series, do yourself a favor and watch them. Then go out and kick some scum-bag butt. Or at least think about it, because it's the thought that counts.
This has got to be the most insightful comment in the thread. While we were all sitting here arguing why the level of violence in the USA is much higher than the UKs, along came you to answer it for us. It's quite simple; Americans love violence. How many of you smiled reading the above comment? How many even remembered specific violence in the movie? (I believe you call them "fight scenes")
C'mon, this is slashdot, how many of you have been here for more than a year? You should know this stuff by now!
When an article says "blamed on iPods", you can pretty much bet that it wasn't blamed on iPods but the other headline is "better" as it gets more page views. Those that do actually RTFA will actually learn in this case that the increase is the rise in simply the value of what we carry. This article stems from a report in UK news this morning. Here's what was really said:
The Home Secretary, John Reid, attributes this to the irresistible lure of "young people carrying expensive goods, such as mobile phones and MP3 players".
Do you see iPod in there? No? Didn't think so.:-) In other (made-up) news, an increase in car ownership has led to an increase in car crime. Jings crivens, jesus save us!! Next we'll be saying that pocket watches are bad because the likes of Bill Sikes steal them. Might as well ban books while we are at it.
WRT comparing UK and USA gun laws, don't bother. It's apples and oranages. Gun control does not work in the US as the people just love firearms and the criminals already have them. It works in the UK because we don't get a stiffy over gun metal and none of the criminals have them. If the criminals all had guns and the people didn't, then we could start comparing. But the simple fact is that most people in the UK will never even see a gun on these shores outside of.22s at village fairs. They just aren't an issue to us right now. Whether that changes in future is a different question altogether; it depends on the numbers being smuggled in verses the numbers being thrown in lakes or breaking down.
The simple fact is that British people murder each other less than most other countries, regardless of what weapons are used. Guns are irrelevant
Nonsense. Guns make it so easy to kill that any retard can do it. That's the ultimate problem. It's the same interface as a camera; point and click.
To murder someone with a knife or club you have to:
Have big balls
Get close
Be strong enough to actually do damage
Get covered in your victims blood(!)
Compare that to shooting someone in the back from 10 foot away. Very easy in comparison. That's why people who cannot fight for themselves love guns. They are the pussies weapon of choice. Mine? Check my username...;-)
In terms of damage, dying from a knife wound is rare. You generally need multiple wounds or a lucky shot to a key artery or nerve. For a club you need to literally cave in some part of their body. A gunshot on the other hand will easilly pass through the rib cage into a vital organ. Or get one in the head to almost guarantee a kill.
America's specific problem is the glorification of them in popular media. Guns are cool apparently. Hell, I'm mostly a pacifist but I'd love to fire off a few rounds on a range if I'm ever stateside. Thanks Hollywood!!
Nope, sorry - now matter how carefully I listen to the phrase "have ethics", I can't catch the word "encyclopedia" in there.
Dictionary.com:
A comprehensive reference work containing articles on a wide range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a particular field, usually arranged alphabetically.
Where in "comprehensive" do you see the word "bias"? Items that claim to be a "reference" on anything inherently should have no bias. Otherwise they are useless.
Re:How much editorial oversight is enough?
on
When Wikipedia Fails
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
It isn't just "readers' bias" there is also "fashion" surrounding the topics themselves, influence of political lobbying groups, etc.
Well, can we agree that the encyclopedia's are completely failing at their job then? There's plenty of other sources you can use when you are looking for opinion on topics.
This is one of the things that the wiki has in it's favour. I quite like the "this topic is under debate" warnings and the associated discussion as it tells you that careful research will be required to get a fair view. It would be nice if the other encyclopedias allowed futher viewing into how they arrived at the current consensus.
I hate history revisionsim with a passion. I live in Scotland and much of hour history has been "revised" to keep us in check. To see it happening in renowned encyclopedias is pretty distrubing.
But I would much rather see my energy dollars go towards efficient renewable energy like solar or nuclear than the dairy farmer and his mansion down the lane.
Doesn't the US goverment keep milk prices artifically high to allow these guys to stay in business? Granted I'm on the other side of the pond here and I have no direct visibility of the issue, but I was under the impression that most western farmers are in financial difficulty. Of course, I do mean the independent ones, there are some huge, highly profitable groups that make life difficult for the smaller guy. All the more easier to gobble him up.
You know, technically this IS solar energy when you think of it. I've always considered bio-fuel to be solar, but I guess as the cows are eating the grass it's second generation. I completely agree with you on this; we should be spending a lot more on research. Personally I think it will be some kind of mould/fungus that ultimately harnesses solar. Nature's had a much longer time to devise schemes to extract usable energy from the sun and I believe that this (like most things) will have a natural precident that inspires someone to take the next step.
Re:Editorial Oversight != Truth (i.e. FOX News)
on
When Wikipedia Fails
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
A number of major figures in Sadam Husein's security aparatus have been documented to have had a relationship with Al Quaeda, and Sadam's regime has been documented to have had a program that paid pensions to the families of suicide bombers.
Janine Melnitz: "We've got one!!"
No one in power in Iraq has Al Qaida contacts. There were camps in the north, but they were Saddams enemies. In fact, Bin Laden offered to have Saddam assasinated back when he was on the CIA payroll. You'll need to get past your racist tendancies and realise that not all of "the colored" are in league together to creep up behind you and scream "boo". Some of them hate each other more than they hate your leaders.
So claiming "Sadam Husein did not have a meaningful relationship with Al Quaeda" as one of the "actual facts, not partisan facts
It is an absolute, undeniable, undebatable FACT. There were NO WMD, never were; even when we keep getting loser with the term WMD. Even if we'd found chemical weapons, they aren't and never would have been WMD. The Al Qaida relationship was nothing more than clever world play and linglistic programming by your leaders. "Terrorist, Saddam, Terrorist, Saddam", if you repeat the mantra long enough it sticks. Your leaders DELIBERATELY and CAULOUSLY misled the majority of the US population into believing that the Iraq invasion had ANYTHING to do with 9-11. Would it confuse you too much if I were to point out that the Iraq campaign has been in planning by Cheeny and Rumsfeld since at least 1997? And that it's just the first stage of their plans for the middle east? Google "PNAC" to see their official website, it's all there in the publications section. Look at the alumni behind the group.
The fact that people like you still exist in 2006 shows that something utterly rotten is afoot in the USA.
Slashdot Mirror
Been there and successfully done it though my situation was a bit unique. They'd confused me with a former resident of the flat I bought and as such I had a terrible report being linked to them. Before realising this I made many unsuccessful loan applications, which appear on your report and count against you. As the multiple applications were a direct result of their cockup I demanded that they removed them (very forceful, but polite). This worked on both Expirion and Equifax.
I don't think it is. Under the DPA you can opt in to have them do what they wish with your data. Under the small print of any credit agrement is a section on sharing information "to combat fraud". If that statements not there, I don't think they are allowed to speak to Expirion and Equifax. From the wording on any application form for credit it also mentions this being the case, so that they can request your information prior to making you an offer. If a random company was to ask about you with these agencies without your approval, they'd be breaking the law IMHO. IANAL however.
Are you sure on that? I'm likely to do it myself quite soon and my intention was to leave it up to the tenants to pay. Should I just pay it myself and incorporate it into the rent then to save any hastle?
I understand the logic on why it should be paid when I'm not there; the same applies to a second home although you can get discounts on that IIRC.
I wouldn't say they pressure you. I simply get the annual bill sent out and it has a direct debit form attached.
I don't think the law covers this to be honest. Most companies will pay for it themselves to save face and others will maybe meet you half way. Some are just jerks I guess; just make sure the forums in which they have a good reputation are aware of their refund policy.
The best way to get a good result is to be nice. It's all about attitude; even if a companies policy was to charge shipping, they might drop the charge for a nice customer. Customer Support people generally have a shitty day in work listening to complaints all day; I find that if you are nice to them you'll make their day and they'll bend over backwards to help you. Example; the other day I was onto an Indian call centre and I asked where they were based. Normally folk would do that to lead into a complaint, but I was just interested and said something along the lines of "cool, a friend of mine visited there recently". The rep was super-helpful after that.
Time is not really a factor. The usual "12-months free waranty" always comes with the caveat: "this does not affect your statatory rights". Here in Scotland we get up to six years of "guarantee" but the actual number is different depending how long you'd "resonably expect" the goods to work. Knowing this makes optional extended warranties a bit of a joke. In short, you shouldn't have any problems sending them all back though I'd get an agreement with them before shipping!
Worst comes to the worst, just claim for a full refund as the goods aren't "fit for purpose". They really can't argue you on that point and I believe it's up to them to prove that you caused the damage after the sale. Don't quote me on that last bit though, I'm not sure.
Or just incompetetent/overworked. The ones over here are utterly useless and we're greatful if we actually manage to get through to someone on the phone.
That's how I do it over in Glasgow, in April I paid the next three months. I sometimes set up a standing order but at the moment I'm doing it using my online banking. If I was to go away for half the year, I'd just phone them to say then stop paying. If they want to try and sue me for what I don't owe that's their problem!
I'm not sure how it goes in the USA, but that would be illegal here in the UK. Under the Data Protection Act, no company may share information with another company without your express permission. All credit agreements say that they will "share information with credit agencies to combat fraud", which is the consent they need. However, this only applies for actual credit, e.g. a loan or a payment plan. For a service such as broadband they'd need to litigate and get a court judgment against you before it can get anywhere near your credit rating.
In a world where your name resides on thousands of databases around the world, it pays to know this sort of thing.
Are you kidding? Until the grandparent mentioned "Verbraucherzentrale" I was assuming he was in the UK! We have some of the best consumer protection laws around. Instead of complaining to the company, just say to them that you'll "be in touch with Trading Standards" regarding this. Instant attitude correction.
I'm not sure that's correct, certainally not with council tax. Sure, you might get an account for the whole year, but you pay it monthly. The only reason they do the year thing is so that they can calculate your monthly payments. Mind you, they struggle to do that correctly at the best of times.
No, you miss my point. In my case no weapon was involved. You're damn right, I'd have no problems beating the shit out of someone in that situation. I wouldn't kill them however. That's one of the differences between the UK and the USA. You have the western style duel ingrained in your culture as a thing heros do. The more classical duel done here is more for the upperclass with rapiers etc.
How many disabled or MS suffering gun carriers do you know? Can they hold and fire the weapon safely?
Avoiding crime is a piece of piss. It's all about not putting yourself in high risk sitations. Walking alone at night being one of them; hell it's been that way for hundreds of years in our society. The way you walk is important. Walk tall, don't appear to be an easy target. Don't look at the ground as if you are embarased. Bullies pick on the weak, they always have.
I live in Glasgow where we do tend to have a lot of pointless fights. Fortunately we don't have firearms, so deaths are actually rare. However, using these techniques I have successfully avoided problems for fifteen years. This involves weekly walks home in the early hours through the city centre which is fairly high risk if you are on your own.
100% of lottery winners are humans. I guess winning the lottery isn't all that rare. Nice logic mate.
While I see where you are coming from and agree, I'm not entirely convinced that this is the main reason. There's a number of other constitutionally protected rights that people don't generally stand up for, certainaly not with the same fever. Take for example "unpopular speach", this is now deemed unpatriotic as we must "support our troops". Or the right to a fair trial, theres some people in US prisons abroad that would like that. I'm not seeing anywhere as much support for them as the NRA gets.
Thank you for proving my point. The incident you describe was in the USA. Either attacker or defender had a gun and as a direct result of that someone is dead. Exactly as I said.
As I said, find me a situation in the UK where this happened. It just isn't a problem. Crime where the criminal has a firearm are extremely rare and heavily penalised by the court system.
"disarmed it's victims", love the language you are using. Did you get it off a pamphlet or do you do mislead people for a living? ;-) What is it you do, politics or marketing? :-)
No, just an example where the defender would be better off if firearms were available. Remember, gun crime is rare in the UK. To find this example, you'd need to find a case where the attacker had a firearm and the defender would have had one if we had US-style gun ownership. Just meeting the former requirement will be tricky, gun crime is incredibly rare.
We have the rights right now. You are hearing about the extreme cases. Like the valiant farmer who defended his castle and got time in jail over it. Of course, the pro-gun article you read would have omitted the fact that the person he shot in the back was running away as his shotgun had already done it's job and stopped the crime. The farmer decided in a fit of rage that he should execute the kid by shooting him in the back then letting him bleed to death overnight. There's a number of things wrong here; he wasn't threatened when he fired. He literally left him there to bleed to death. A shot in the air or a phone call to the police/ambulance would have kept that farmer out of jail. But frankly he was a dangerous murderer himself. He shot someone in cold blood and is paying for that crime. Once the details are known I fail to see the issue people have with this.
As for criminals sueing; example please as I've not heard of it over here. Isn't it the USA that had the case of the burglar cutting himself on a knife an sueing?
No, it's not "overwhelming" by any means. Guns facilitate crime. Robbery with a gun is easier than robbery with a knife or a bat. Guns make kidnapping childs-play. Guns turn silly arguments into fatal incidents.
The negatives of a gun-owning citizenry vastly outweigh the benefits.
Yes, it does. Numerous studies show this. Common sense and a basic understanding of human psychology shows it. Humans learn by imitation, it's what we do. If someone grows up with violence around them, they will think it is a normal accepted part of life.
I'm not saying ban violent media, that is utterly wrong and I am completely opposed to censorship, always have been. However, you have to be willing to admit that it does affect people.
Bollocks, the "justice" you speak of is just wrapping to make the violence more palatable. Let me guess, in the first half hour of the movies the bad guy is disrespectful towards women and nasty to children? Then he is shown to be truely evil throught the movie. This makes the horrific murder at the end "justice", does it? The whole movie exists to make the bad guy "bad enough" that the hero can whoop is ass as you punch your fist into the air and scream "YES!!!".
That happens in every country! Ever watched Jerry Springer stateside? Lots of men/women who are violent for even crazier reasons. You just can't see past the skin colour and cultural differences.
Pick up a history book, we've had children in our own wars. It's only in the past couple hundred years, and even then mostly the past 60 years, that we've started to care about it. In the US there are thousands of kids doing the exact same thing; they make movies called "Boyz in the hood" about that sort of thing.
The US isn't unique for violence. You're just up there near the top of the list and as a developed western country you should be shocked by that. You realise you are comparing yourself to a third world nation WRT conflict in Africa?
No, you just set the scene for it. ;-)
Of course there are some. But we are talking a tiny number in a country where if you even get seen with a gun an armed response team with automatic weapons will be there in minutes. Some moron was shot dead for pretending a table leg in a plastic bag was a gun. Believe me, gun crime IS NOT AN ISSUE HERE.
Nope. Here in the UK we don't have special rules for the wealthy. They are restricted on guns as much as everyone else.
When did they "ban guns"? Guns have always been heavily restricted in the UK. The only recent change was a further ban on handguns around 10 - 15 years ago. I'd like to see your numbers behind this, along with a definition of "violent crime". I suspect the source you are getting your "facts" from counts every bar fight as "violent crime". Just how many people are killed in this "violent crime"?
When a gun is present in a conflict, someone is going to die. Conversely, deaths in the UK are really low. So, if you get robbed, you live. Murders are pretty much always commited by someone you know over here.
So what? We've elimiated gun crime and the murder rate is a fraction of yours in an almost identical society. I could make a phone call or two to people I know and get my hands on any illegal substance. I could arrange for someone to have a "visit" from unpleasant people (for a small fee). I could not get a gun if I wanted to. They just don't exist here and Americans really seem to struggle with that concept. It's not "only outlaws have guns", no one does!
Knives aren't getting banned, I don't know where you are getting that crazy idea. They are increacing the penalties for carrying one. Personally I reckon that an instant 7 days in jail for carrying one would sort the problem out.
Bullshit. It slightly reduces some crime. It also increases others. Kidnapping is rare here. Armed robbery is unheard of in most places. But hey, if reality doesn't conform to your NRA membership ethos, you could always limit what your reality is. Guns facilitate crime. It's hard to rob a bank with a potato peeler.
What a ridiculus notion! I'd bet we have more freedom/responsibilities, but gambling is illegal for you! Why? And I believe the US is leading the way in blame culture and the sue-for-cash way of life. "Warning, this peanut contains nuts". Personal responsibility? Don't make me laugh, the US is far worse at saying what you can and can't do or believe.
Yes. This is the difference between us it seems. You'd rather see someone executed for stealing, right? Would that be righteous? No, it's just murder whatever way you look at it.
Well, size isn't everything, but if you are 5'5" 140lb, then yes, you probably are a pussy. You need to either learn how to fight (martial arts?), or learn how to avoid fighting. I tend to the latter; don't become a target in the first place. Be descrete with your expensive toys, avoid the bad streets/areas and always be aware what's going on around you.
Perhaps these may be a daily hazzard in the USA, I don't know, but I'd like to see you find an example that actually happened in the UK. You know, one where if an honest person had a gun the crime would not have happened. Oh, bear in mind that if we are in a situation where the honest person could have a gun, then the criminal almost certainally has one.
Oh, and for each example you provide, I'll link to an example of a stupid fight over something pointless that had no fatalities. If both contenders had guns, one of them would almost definately be dead now. I'll start, 15 years ago I got attacked & robbed but there were no guns involved. Both of us are still alive, as are all of the bystanders (mostly children IIRC).
I don't have it in me to stab someone to death. I know I could shoot them by just contracting one small muscle in my finger. It's a completely different set of requirements to get someone in that position for each weapon.
They would not work in the UK, that much is undebatable. We have practially no guns in the country and getting a license for one is pretty much impossible. No one has a gun. If were were to pass concealed carry laws, you'd need to liberalise the gun laws. And frankly that's one of the stupidest ideas I've heard in a long time. Living in a gun free country is awesome. Worst comes to the worst, I can run away from any assailant and get out of the situation alive. Try that when either of you has a gun.
I've seen a lot of crime. I've been involved with some really nasty people. I've done enough to probably put me in jail for twenty years. Yet not once in this country have I heard of anyone I know having a gun or even access to one. It just doesn't happen except in a couple of small isolated groups.
Neither. This all stems from a report from the UK government about street crime. Nowhere is "iPod" mentioned. It does mention an increase in high-value items being an invitation for muggers, specifically "mp3 players and mobile phones". Any talk of iPods is just bad journalism or Apple astro-turfing.
This has got to be the most insightful comment in the thread. While we were all sitting here arguing why the level of violence in the USA is much higher than the UKs, along came you to answer it for us. It's quite simple; Americans love violence. How many of you smiled reading the above comment? How many even remembered specific violence in the movie? (I believe you call them "fight scenes")
C'mon, this is slashdot, how many of you have been here for more than a year? You should know this stuff by now!
When an article says "blamed on iPods", you can pretty much bet that it wasn't blamed on iPods but the other headline is "better" as it gets more page views. Those that do actually RTFA will actually learn in this case that the increase is the rise in simply the value of what we carry. This article stems from a report in UK news this morning. Here's what was really said:
Do you see iPod in there? No? Didn't think so. :-) In other (made-up) news, an increase in car ownership has led to an increase in car crime. Jings crivens, jesus save us!! Next we'll be saying that pocket watches are bad because the likes of Bill Sikes steal them. Might as well ban books while we are at it.
WRT comparing UK and USA gun laws, don't bother. It's apples and oranages. Gun control does not work in the US as the people just love firearms and the criminals already have them. It works in the UK because we don't get a stiffy over gun metal and none of the criminals have them. If the criminals all had guns and the people didn't, then we could start comparing. But the simple fact is that most people in the UK will never even see a gun on these shores outside of .22s at village fairs. They just aren't an issue to us right now. Whether that changes in future is a different question altogether; it depends on the numbers being smuggled in verses the numbers being thrown in lakes or breaking down.
Nonsense. Guns make it so easy to kill that any retard can do it. That's the ultimate problem. It's the same interface as a camera; point and click.
To murder someone with a knife or club you have to:
Compare that to shooting someone in the back from 10 foot away. Very easy in comparison. That's why people who cannot fight for themselves love guns. They are the pussies weapon of choice. Mine? Check my username... ;-)
In terms of damage, dying from a knife wound is rare. You generally need multiple wounds or a lucky shot to a key artery or nerve. For a club you need to literally cave in some part of their body. A gunshot on the other hand will easilly pass through the rib cage into a vital organ. Or get one in the head to almost guarantee a kill.
America's specific problem is the glorification of them in popular media. Guns are cool apparently. Hell, I'm mostly a pacifist but I'd love to fire off a few rounds on a range if I'm ever stateside. Thanks Hollywood!!
A comprehensive reference work containing articles on a wide range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a particular field, usually arranged alphabetically.
Where in "comprehensive" do you see the word "bias"? Items that claim to be a "reference" on anything inherently should have no bias. Otherwise they are useless.
Well, can we agree that the encyclopedia's are completely failing at their job then? There's plenty of other sources you can use when you are looking for opinion on topics.
This is one of the things that the wiki has in it's favour. I quite like the "this topic is under debate" warnings and the associated discussion as it tells you that careful research will be required to get a fair view. It would be nice if the other encyclopedias allowed futher viewing into how they arrived at the current consensus.
I hate history revisionsim with a passion. I live in Scotland and much of hour history has been "revised" to keep us in check. To see it happening in renowned encyclopedias is pretty distrubing.
Doesn't the US goverment keep milk prices artifically high to allow these guys to stay in business? Granted I'm on the other side of the pond here and I have no direct visibility of the issue, but I was under the impression that most western farmers are in financial difficulty. Of course, I do mean the independent ones, there are some huge, highly profitable groups that make life difficult for the smaller guy. All the more easier to gobble him up.
You know, technically this IS solar energy when you think of it. I've always considered bio-fuel to be solar, but I guess as the cows are eating the grass it's second generation. I completely agree with you on this; we should be spending a lot more on research. Personally I think it will be some kind of mould/fungus that ultimately harnesses solar. Nature's had a much longer time to devise schemes to extract usable energy from the sun and I believe that this (like most things) will have a natural precident that inspires someone to take the next step.
Janine Melnitz: "We've got one!!"
No one in power in Iraq has Al Qaida contacts. There were camps in the north, but they were Saddams enemies. In fact, Bin Laden offered to have Saddam assasinated back when he was on the CIA payroll. You'll need to get past your racist tendancies and realise that not all of "the colored" are in league together to creep up behind you and scream "boo". Some of them hate each other more than they hate your leaders.
It is an absolute, undeniable, undebatable FACT. There were NO WMD, never were; even when we keep getting loser with the term WMD. Even if we'd found chemical weapons, they aren't and never would have been WMD. The Al Qaida relationship was nothing more than clever world play and linglistic programming by your leaders. "Terrorist, Saddam, Terrorist, Saddam", if you repeat the mantra long enough it sticks. Your leaders DELIBERATELY and CAULOUSLY misled the majority of the US population into believing that the Iraq invasion had ANYTHING to do with 9-11. Would it confuse you too much if I were to point out that the Iraq campaign has been in planning by Cheeny and Rumsfeld since at least 1997? And that it's just the first stage of their plans for the middle east? Google "PNAC" to see their official website, it's all there in the publications section. Look at the alumni behind the group.
The fact that people like you still exist in 2006 shows that something utterly rotten is afoot in the USA.