Re: Contact O2 (KMM411124284V2029L0KM)
From: mycarewebform (mycarewebform@o2mail.co.uk)
Sent: 22 May 2009 14:44:25
To: Mr Cook (emailandevennamewithheld@spam.global)
Good Afternoon Mr Cook Thanks for emailing us about the deposit of £100.00. The deposit of £100.00 including VAT (Value Added Tax) is adjusted against the outstanding balance of £9.82 including VAT on your bill dated 23 April 2009. You can view this credit under the 'Balance brought forward' section of your April bill. This is why your April bill was £90.18 including VAT in credit. I've arranged this credit to be transferred to your bank account. It'll be transferred within 5 to 10 working days. I'm sorry for any inconvenience that may have been caused. I hope you'll find this information useful.
-Yes, I've found some information within that paragraph useful. You don't defend the fact that you lied about when you'd be giving the bond back, nor my accusation that taking it in the first place was unnecessary, so what should I deduce from that, do you think?
By the way, have you heard about our service called Analyse my bill? You can too create reports in the form of Pie chart, Bar Graph or Data table on your bill data. For more information and details check the 'Analyse my bill' section of your online bill.
Important - When you email us please provide: your date of birth, postcode and mobile number as it helps us answer your query faster.
-Important back atcha, I did provide all the info above except date of birth, and I don't believe that was asked for anywhere.
Kind regards Deepa BhandariO2 Customer Service Getting your query right the first time you email us is very important to us. If your query has not been resolved this time, please reply to this email with the words 'Need More Help' in the subject field. Telefónica O2 UK Limited, Registered in England No 1743099. Registered Office: 260 Bath Road, Slough, Berkshire SL1 4DX.
Friday, 22 May 2009
You're Sneaky O2
When signing up I was apparently unnecessarily asked for a £100 bond. This was to be repaid to me after 3 months. Now I find that instead of repaying the bond, you're keeping my money and just debiting what I owe every month. This appears a dishonest thing to do. It enables you to keep my money for a whole year, without grounds. Please take this opportunity to defend your actions, following which I will decide whether to take the matter further. Yours sincerely, I Cook
Monday, 4 May 2009
Climate
Just read a letter that the climate scientist David Archer sent to Nature magazine. He co-wrote it with Gavin Schmidt, another climate scientist. In it he talks about CO2 stabilization targets. And he specifically refers to the definition of climate sensitivity, in that many climate scientists are using the "traditional" Charney sensitivity, which excludes slow feedbacks. Thing is that I wrote to Archer a few weeks ago to point out exactly that, and I think I referred to Gavin Schmidt's blog post on realclimate.org. Archer never replied to my email. Maybe he was thinking about it anyway - who knows.
I'm going to email my friend Eberhard in the Munich Re georisks department and explain the climate sensitivity issue. If you think that there is a good chance that climate sensitivity is a high number, then it is impossible to recommend a high CO2 target. I want the Munich Re GeoRisks department to understand the climate sensitivity issue and to decide how likely it is that slow feedbacks are important. If they think that they are important then I will suggest that any high CO2 stabilization target gives guaranteed disaster. Hence the target has to be low. And I want to suggest that Munich Re has more expertise in risk than any politician, economist or climate scientist, there is no-one in a better position to recommend a target than the Munich Re Geo risks department. Then I want the Geo Risks department to convince Munich Re management to pick a low CO2 target (350) and lobby for it. Then I want Munich Re to convince Swiss Re to go for the target. That's the first stage. Watch this space.
I'm going to email my friend Eberhard in the Munich Re georisks department and explain the climate sensitivity issue. If you think that there is a good chance that climate sensitivity is a high number, then it is impossible to recommend a high CO2 target. I want the Munich Re GeoRisks department to understand the climate sensitivity issue and to decide how likely it is that slow feedbacks are important. If they think that they are important then I will suggest that any high CO2 stabilization target gives guaranteed disaster. Hence the target has to be low. And I want to suggest that Munich Re has more expertise in risk than any politician, economist or climate scientist, there is no-one in a better position to recommend a target than the Munich Re Geo risks department. Then I want the Geo Risks department to convince Munich Re management to pick a low CO2 target (350) and lobby for it. Then I want Munich Re to convince Swiss Re to go for the target. That's the first stage. Watch this space.
Monday, 27 April 2009
Ranting at TfL
Seems I sent it with a typo. Ooops!
Dear Sir/Madam,
I'm writing to complain about the new cycle lanes being built on the south side of the A316, near Richmond.
The cycle lane is merely a marked part of the pavement, requiring cyclists to stop at every single road junction along the way. Whereas a car can proceed happily down the A316 stopping perhaps twice for pedestrians, I hhave the make half a dozen stops for cars, pedestrians, or anyone else. I would like someone to explain to me why cyclists have to stop and start like this, when we should be treated as equal road users.
Rgds.,
Tim Lennon.
Dear Sir/Madam,
I'm writing to complain about the new cycle lanes being built on the south side of the A316, near Richmond.
The cycle lane is merely a marked part of the pavement, requiring cyclists to stop at every single road junction along the way. Whereas a car can proceed happily down the A316 stopping perhaps twice for pedestrians, I hhave the make half a dozen stops for cars, pedestrians, or anyone else. I would like someone to explain to me why cyclists have to stop and start like this, when we should be treated as equal road users.
Rgds.,
Tim Lennon.
Please, track my internet usage!
Is it any business of the Home Office or the Police where I choose to surf? To whom I speak online? No, frankly.
In the same way that some effort needs to be made at showing probable cause / national security / blah blah blah when the Police:
- Listen to my phone conversations
- Read my mail
- Follow me aroudn
- Break into my house or raid the library to find out what I'm reading
So the same should be true online. They already have enough power and information to track dodgy websites and the traffic emmanating from them without further undermining the basic liberties supposedly enjoyed by ordinary people across the country.
Frankly? Wankers, the lot of them.
In the same way that some effort needs to be made at showing probable cause / national security / blah blah blah when the Police:
- Listen to my phone conversations
- Read my mail
- Follow me aroudn
- Break into my house or raid the library to find out what I'm reading
So the same should be true online. They already have enough power and information to track dodgy websites and the traffic emmanating from them without further undermining the basic liberties supposedly enjoyed by ordinary people across the country.
Frankly? Wankers, the lot of them.
Wednesday, 22 April 2009
Making it easier to be rich ...
Dear Mr. Darling,
A recent look at NatWest's 'fact sheets' for savings accounts suggests that anyone with mroe than 50k in savings will get interest without tax deducted , whereas those with less will have tax deducted - at source - at basic rate.
Doesn't this seem unwise and, more important, unfair? Why should rich savers get to pay their tax later than less well-off savers? Why should we trust rich savers but not poor ones?
If you're really looking for loopholes to close, this certainly sounds like one, don't you think?
Sincerely,
Tim Lennon.
A recent look at NatWest's 'fact sheets' for savings accounts suggests that anyone with mroe than 50k in savings will get interest without tax deducted , whereas those with less will have tax deducted - at source - at basic rate.
Doesn't this seem unwise and, more important, unfair? Why should rich savers get to pay their tax later than less well-off savers? Why should we trust rich savers but not poor ones?
If you're really looking for loopholes to close, this certainly sounds like one, don't you think?
Sincerely,
Tim Lennon.
A great font rant ...
Now I'm not always on top of the latest joys of browser, so I was quite interested to hear how hard it still is to use a 'proper' font in one's web page: http://diveintomark.org/archives/2009/04/21/fuck-the-foundries
Turns out they're heading the same way as music, apparently. Although I felt a fair degree of synpathy with the guy who said "I have over forty commercial typefaces available for sale through various type re-sellers around the world and my average yearly income off the typefaces is $115, even though I regularly see my typefaces in use on the web, on TV in print and in video games."
Turns out they're heading the same way as music, apparently. Although I felt a fair degree of synpathy with the guy who said "I have over forty commercial typefaces available for sale through various type re-sellers around the world and my average yearly income off the typefaces is $115, even though I regularly see my typefaces in use on the web, on TV in print and in video games."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)