Charlie identifies another potential Bad Science recipient

Thanks (as always) to Charlie Brooker for another of his weekly columns in The Guardian. This time he singles out Liz Jones of the Standard for her tossy, pretentious column and this particular piece of stupidity that should give Ben Goldacre on Bad Science an absolute field-day if he ever touches it with a ten-foot bargepole.

She’s fine now. The same column goes on to describe how her depression was cured by a “psychic healer” based in Harley Street, who uses “sonar energy and quasar light (you don’t actually hear sound or see light) to draw out negative energy from your body, realign your chakras and straighten out the kinks in your polarised magnetic grid … it could be the best £125 I’ve ever spent”.

Can you see the blood coming out of my ears from where you are?

The Standard, incidentally, is the sister paper of the Daily Mail – the newpaper science forgot (or at least was refused entry to).

Scary Rubik’s cube people

Want to see people doing the Rubik’s cube in 11 seconds or blindfolded? CNet has the video you’re clamouring for then.

Embarrassingly, my mother-in-law gave me a Rubik’s cube for Christmas and I can still do it. It may be 23 years or so since my halycon cubing days, but the moves are still there. Oh yes. Five minutes start to finish when I’m on form.

Sometimes, I hate myself with every fibre of my being.

Teen reporters unmask man claiming to be a British duke

From today’s Romensko:

High school journalists in Stillwater, MN investigated a man pretending to be teenage member of British royalty who wanted to enroll at their school. They discovered that “Caspian James Crichton-Stuart IV, the Fifth Duke of Cleveland” was actually Joshua Gardner, a 22-year-old convicted sex offender from Austin, MN. “Why would a member of the royal family come to Minnesota to go to school?” asks a school newspaper staffer. When quizzed last month by student journalists, “his accent started to falter, and he became agitated,” says a student editor.

Wow. Just like Scooby Doo.

Still, all it would have taken was just one English person to have heard his name and that would have been “case solved”. For Americans reading this, claiming to be called “Caspian James Crichton-Stuart IV, the Fifth Duke of Cleveland” is to being English as claiming to be called “Brittany Mary-Lou Faffermeir-Kerry from Springfield, Hawaii” is to being American.

By the way, if he’d actually described himself as a “British duke” or having a “British accent” that would have given the game away even quicker: we only talk about English, Irish, Scottish or Welsh accents here and only ever Scottish or English dukes. Only Americans talk about British accents or dukes. Just some advice if you’re ever planning on passing yourself off as someone British…

PS Did you see what I did there?

The ethical challenge comes back with a vengeance

Lads mag 'Front'

So I decided not to pitch to that lifestyle mag with the porn bound in that approached me. Ethical problem solved by erring on the side of the angels, I reckon. But it seems that’s not enough for those ethics testers in the sky. Because today I hear a rumour that Remnant Media, publisher of Asian Babes and other “gentlemen’s magazines”, might be cruising after Highbury because of its ownership of FrontLoaded for those who can’t reach that “illustrious” mag because they’ve stunted their growth.

I refused to pitch articles to Evil.

Then Evil came after me and begged me to pitch.

Now, Evil is going to buy someone I already work for and dare me to stop working for them out of principle.

Can I pass this challenge? I hope so. I’m hoping even more that Dennis or EMAP buy Highbury’s magazines, though. I can’t really be all that ethical if I already work for Front‘s publisher, now can I?

PS Apologies for the illo, but that was the cleanest one I could find…

Ethics in principle and in practice

It’s very easy to have theoretical morals. You can say to yourself “I’ll never write anything for Associated Newspapers for as long as I live”, knowing full well that the Daily Mail, the Mail on Sunday et al aren’t going to beat down your doors with thousands in cash to make you.

But what happens if someone dubious does come to your door, offering you money? Is it easy to make the same commitment?

I have an ad in Press Gazette. It runs weekly and is mostly useless; I’ll get round to changing the wording some time, I’m sure, but I doubt they’ll ever get round to so much as hypertexting my URL and email address on their web site. Lazy buggers.

24-K

Anyway, I’ve just had my first editorial enquiry as the result of it. A Spanish company is launching a new mag, 24-K, and they’re looking for freelances to fill its pages. The money isn’t brilliant but it’s not awful and they’re looking for gadget and film reviews, which I’m more than up to.

The problem is this: bound into every edition of the magazine will be 12 pages of hardcore porn. And this is a Spanish magazine we’re talking about here, so I’m guessing ‘Confessions of a Window Cleaner’ it ain’t.

Now I’m not especially against porn in principle. My concerns are for the models who are often drug addicted, psychologically damaged after sexual abuse and so on: these are well-worn arguments and I don’t have to repeat them here. If the models were all happy, well-adjusted, well paid and so on, I’d have no issues.

Anyway, essentially, this company has made its money from the exploitation of the vulnerable and anything I write will not only be paid for in part with that money but will be accompanied by yet more exploitation.

On the other hand, it’ll be cash, a new client and more articles to add to my portfolio that could eventually get me more clients, more cash, etc. Maybe this company’s models really are happy, well-adjusted, etc and I’m just making assumptions. And there are plenty of companies out there who have made their money dubiously without any of us realising it: how many Daily Express readers know how its proprietor made his millions? How many Daily Mail readers know that the Rothmeres supported Oswald Mosley and Hitler? Then there’s GAP, Nike, McDonald’s, WalMart, et al. Do I stop working for or buying from any company that may have compromised ethics? I’ll starve if I do.

Suddenly, the ethics of the situation don’t look clear cut. What do you think I should do? I’m siding with the “don’t do it” argument at the moment, but I’m still feeling the temptation…

Generation Y starts whining again

I’m already on record as having more than a marginal dislike of Generation Y. Now I see there’s a book, Generation Debt cover Generation Debt: Why Now is a Terrible Time to be Young, designed purely to inflame my visceral hatred of these Nathan Barleys. It seems that while they’ve been taking these three month jobs to pay for walking trips in the Andes, they haven’t actually been paying for them at all. Instead, they’ve been mounting up debt on their Virgin credit cards. Gits. Anyone can do that: you’re just lucky enough to be the first generation that credit card companies have been willing to give stupid credit limits to. Now you’re complaining you have to pay it back and you can’t fit your canoeing lessons in any more? Bah!

My reason is too clouded to give a full critique of the book, but Slate has a nice counter to it, written by someone equally as embittered as myself.

Christmas absence

I’m going to be out and about for Christmas, starting tomorrow, so blogging is likely to be either intermittent or non-existent over the holiday period.

A Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays and a Happy New Year to you all!

Who nicked my money and why doesn’t First Direct want to stop them?

So Christmas is upon us and the usual tugs at our finances are pulling hard. Freelances like me get even more fun at this time of year: no one’s commissioning much new work; accounts departments are going on holiday; and late payers don’t get twinges of conscience and start paying their debts without ghosts rattling their chains nearby.

Even so, what none of us needs is fraudulent transactions on our business accounts. So imagine my delight last Thursday when I discover a payment from my account to “Vanquis Bank Chatham” for nearly £250. I’d never heard of them. I’ve been to Chatham once, but I went through very quickly once I’d had a look around. Needless to say though, I’d done no business of any kind with anyone in Chatham ever, let alone Vanquis. I hadn’t even done any business that week using that account, certainly nothing to the tune of £250.

I pointed this out to my bank, First Direct, who were kind enough to do a Google search and point out what I’d already discovered for myself: Vanquis Bank runs a credit card for those with debt problems who can’t get a credit card anywhere else. It has a maximum limit of £250 and (wait for this: it’ll stagger you) an APR of 58%!

Surprisingly enough, I don’t own one of these. First Direct shouldn’t be surprised since I have a credit card with them with no balance on it at all at the moment. You’d think – and you’d have thought they’d think this too – that if I were going to buy anything using a credit card, it would be with that one. But no. I patiently explained this to them, but they didn’t see quite to understand. So they got their disputes department to call me the next day. They sent me an e-message using their atrocious e-messaging system (not for us email! We want a system that you can’t store messages in and can’t easily print out any messages. Hoorah!), which I duly printed out and posted on Sunday.

Guess what. Today, another entry for the “Vanquis Bank Chatham”, again for nearly £250 appears on my statement. Despite my contesting the previous payment, First Direct has decided to let the second payment through as well. I’m down half a grand now. I can look forward to calling their disputes department again tomorrow, I guess.

But here’s the fun part. Remember Groundhog Day? That’s what it was like with First Direct. I rang up, told them what had happened last time as well as this time. And they then proceeded to do exactly the same things again, even repeating back to me things that I’d already told them that they decided to proclaim they’d discovered. They offered to do a Google search for me (“apparently, they run a credit card…” “I know, I told you that two minutes ago”), told me there was nothing they could do until the disputes department was open, etc.

First Direct: here’s something you could do to improve your service. If there’s a disputed transaction where the customer says they’ve never done business with the company in question before and if the company either looks dodgy or looks like it might have one or two dodgy customers, why don’t you stop all future transactions on that account with that company? Doesn’t all that evidence suggest to you identity fraud or something similar, particularly if your customer tells you it is?

My next worry is working out how the tea-leaf got my bank details. I don’t use my bank details online that often, usually only for direct debits and the like with reputable companies. I have a Mac so spyware is not going to be the cause. When I use my Switch card, because it’s my business account, I save the receipts for tax purposes. I shred everything I don’t keep. So how’s they do it?

I’m paranoid, but not paranoid enough it turns out. Any suggestions anyone?