URGENT - please read this - scam alert

[JimJay]

Call me flint-hearted if you will, but I have no intrinsic problem with these scammers - even their "sophisticated" efforts are transparent, and Darwinism indeed keeps those with their wits about them safe. I also would have no objection to them being banged up, or even "disappeared", because they're parasites and vermin. What I DO object to is the banks being forced to use other people's money to reimburse the gullible and foolish. The idea of "personal responsibility" and "actions have consequences" seems to have flown out of the window in today's mad society, where so many people demand the "right" to do whatever they want while expecting the rest of us to pick up the pieces when they screw up. I don't recall being asked to vote for on-off paternalism..

 

[Glitch]

I got a call recently from someone claiming to be from Amex. They said there was a suspicious transaction and checking if I'd made it.

I am extremely cautious of unsolicited calls. My final years of work was running financial crime (prevention and detection) technology projects.

Anyways, I had noticed the $1 transaction in Florida and despite knowing better I had ignored it. A few more questions back and forth made it clear it was Amex calling me. They reeled off my recent transactions to check if they were legit.
They decided best action was to cancel my card and send a new one. They updated (from their end) the Amex card on ApplePay so I could still pay without having the new physical card which arrived a few days later.

I had been on holiday recently in South America and the $1 transaction through a Florida florist was probably a test of 'skimmed' card details before trying a larger transaction.

Despite initial skepticism and caution it was Amex that called and I was impressed with their proactive approach.

On reflection though I should have reported the unrecognised transaction and probably stopped the call and phoned customer services from my landline.

 

[Glitch]

Call me flint-hearted if you will, but I have no intrinsic problem with these scammers - even their "sophisticated" efforts are transparent, and Darwinism indeed keeps those with their wits about them safe. I also would have no objection to them being banged up, or even "disappeared", because they're parasites and vermin. What I DO object to is the banks being forced to use other people's money to reimburse the gullible and foolish. The idea of "personal responsibility" and "actions have consequences" seems to have flown out of the window in today's mad society, where so many people demand the "right" to do whatever they want while expecting the rest of us to pick up the pieces when they screw up. I don't recall being asked to vote for on-off paternalism..

Many of the gullible and foolish are actually vulnerable people and easy prey for scammers. They need some protection.

Not everyone gets refunded in full.

Some banks will spot an unusual payment and through various channels will check that you really, really want to make a payment, sometimes to a known scam. Often the customer will still insist despite the warnings.

I'd be more concerned about the redistribution of wealth through the vast profits being shared with the shareholders. For which I'd like to thank you all for your donations.

 

[JimJay]

Many of the gullible and foolish are actually vulnerable people and easy prey for scammers. They need some protection.

Not everyone gets refunded in full.

Some banks will spot an unusual payment and through various channels will check that you really, really want to make a payment, sometimes to a known scam. Often the customer will still insist despite the warnings.

I'd be more concerned about the redistribution of wealth through the vast profits being shared with the shareholders. For which I'd like to thank you all for your donations.

They're grown-ups - if they choose to pay no attention to the warnings which we're all bombarded with ad nauseam, then they're either too "vulnerable", or too stupid, to be allowed out on their own with a bank card. Perhaps they shouldn't have a card at all if they can't cope with using it in today's scammer-filled environment, since the protection is already there. If they buy a container-load of rubbish on eBay, or some food they don't like at the supermarket, are we all supposed to pay for that too? What happens when they get sucked in by a second scam - or a tenth one? Does that prove they're even more "vulnerable" than we originally thought and need even more "protection"? Maybe they don't realise that their 20-year-old car isn't as safe as it might be - does the taxpayer need to buy them a new one to protect them from their own folly?

If they're not willing, or able, to protect themselves they need to be kept out of "danger" by a legal guardian, not by being given free rein to run around keeping scammers in business by doling out money to them.

I agree that investors and shareholders often get paid too much*, especially where banks are concerned, but that's a separate issue, which HMRC needs to sort out.

* As do the nonentities gracing our TV screens and social media, and other aspects of our lives.

 

[Fergie 307]

ha ha...got another text. Blocked my ID and called them. Pretended to be a rich Yugoslavian. I had a very strange name...spelled suckmi and surname dik.
I was bored. Kept them going for 20 minutes. Wasted their time and stopped them harassing someone else in that time frame. Come on, chaps....block your caller ID and call them. Let's all do it...block their lines.

I have had some fun with them. Best one recently was supposedly ringing from my internet provider. "Who is that? " I asked. Longish pause then "Talk Talk". No says I. " Oh I'm very sorry I meant to say Virgin Media". Wrong again, " Would you like a third try at remembering who you work for? " At that point they hung up. I used to get loads on a particular mobile, eventually I told one that they had called a police anti fraud line and would they mind being put on hold for a few moments whilst the call was being traced. Never had another, I assume it's on a do not call list somewhere now.
Ideally it would be nice to be able to press a button and have the phone/computer at their end blow up!

 

[Owd Jockey]

Fergie, the only trouble is there are many of these scamming "operations" operating from numerous locations, chiefly India, they each have their own particular scam and MO, they are generally unconnected and each have they own list of numbers to call. You were lucky not to receive more calls. The authorities in India rarely act on the information given to them by "scammer -baiters" and generally continue to act with impunity.

I love the idea of pressing a button and sending their phone/computer and themselves to oblivion.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

So do I. My friend years ago said he'd thought f the best way of deterring car thieves - a barbed steel spike that would shoot upwards through the middle of the seat when an attempt was made to start the car.

 

[Just4Fun]

So do I. My friend years ago said he'd thought f the best way of deterring car thieves - a barbed steel spike that would shoot upwards through the middle of the seat when an attempt was made to start the car.

Your friend should meet an old friend of mine who believed that replacing the steering wheel airbag with a long sharp spoke would reduce car accident fatalities.

 

[GweithdyDU]

They're grown-ups - if they choose to pay no attention to the warnings which we're all bombarded with ad nauseam, then they're either too "vulnerable", or too stupid, to be allowed out on their own with a bank card. Perhaps they shouldn't have a card at all if they can't cope with using it in today's scammer-filled environment, since the protection is already there. If they buy a container-load of rubbish on eBay, or some food they don't like at the supermarket, are we all supposed to pay for that too? What happens when they get sucked in by a second scam - or a tenth one? Does that prove they're even more "vulnerable" than we originally thought and need even more "protection"? Maybe they don't realise that their 20-year-old car isn't as safe as it might be - does the taxpayer need to buy them a new one to protect them from their own folly?

If they're not willing, or able, to protect themselves they need to be kept out of "danger" by a legal guardian, not by being given free rein to run around keeping scammers in business by doling out money to them.

I agree that investors and shareholders often get paid too much*, especially where banks are concerned, but that's a separate issue, which HMRC needs to sort out.

* As do the nonentities gracing our TV screens and social media, and other aspects of our lives.

Please don't get job supporting or even helping people unless they're are as hard, wonderfully intelligent, cynical and obviously sorted as yourself. It might do for you to read the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

 

[GweithdyDU]

Having little money and refusing to use internet or phone banking is my great defence against scams. If my card is stolen and by some stroke of luck (theirs) they got the pin correct, attempting to spend more than tenner will likely result in refusal. lol.

Granted this is a rubbish way for many and yes, be wary, nay very wary of anyone asking you about your personal life, banking or otherwise. .

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Our society embraces the proposition that all should have the same financial freedoms - the capacity to spend and borrow money (loans, credit cards, mortgages etc).

That individuals should not suffer loss through the actions of the dishonest means a compensation scheme is needed. "Fairness" dictates that it should apply to all irrespective of the extent to which incompetence may have contributed to the loss.

This means the intellectually challenged, naive, and foolish have precisely the same rights financially savvy, intellectually critical and thoughtful.

All very egalitarian - but unsurprisingly the former group are fertile material for the scammers - the latter much less so.

The options may be::

• preserve the rights of the "foolish" to enjoy the privileges of financial freedom at the expense of the "sensible" who fund their mistakes, or
• should the rights of the foolish and/or incompetent be restricted to reduce loss incidence

Perhaps there should a sort of "driving test" to ensure those given financial freedom have the basic skills. Fail the test and understand there is no compensation for foolishness.

We have created a dependency culture (not only in financial matters) - blame someone else for the problem, and expect resolution from government, institutions, business etc. We should place far more importance on individual responsibility for ones own actions.

 

[JimJay]

Please don't get job supporting or even helping people unless they're are as hard, wonderfully intelligent, cynical and obviously sorted as yourself. It might do for you to read the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Perhaps YOU might benefit from reading the Act. "Vulnerable" people have the right to make their own decisions, and bear the consequences, until they demonstrate that they can't, at which point that right is taken from them.

I can't see what making snide digs at other people has to do with the subject but have to assume that it's some juvenile substitute for having a sensible point to make.

 

[skeetstar]

Look up Tom Mabe on the Web. Inspiration on how to handle these people.

A couple of my favourites if I see a suspected number...

Hello, this is Commander Johnson, Royal Navy strategic launch control, can I have your authorisation code and target package id. We then get a discussion about how they got the number, it is a state secret, and they need to be more careful in the future as they could have started a nuclear war etc.

Sometimes I go with with Dr. Lewis at Ear Nose And Throat and ask them what is the nature of their problem.. yes yes, I can hear in your voice that tone typical of a pre cancer sufferer.. they really need to speak to my assistant and come in for a full examination etc etc.

Last one I pretended to be grateful for their help in recovering money from Sky. I gave them some information for every question they asked, then at the end told them I don't have Sky and fabricated every answer, but at least they had wasted their time on me rather than getting someone gullible.. they weren't very happy.

Then you get the calls about compensation for your recent accident. After giving them all dates of the accident, the reg of the car that ran in to me I usually finish with.. but the worst bit is that my head was completely torn off, and the hospital stitched it on back to front. Now I have to eat my dinner behind my back, surely that is negligence and I can get some compensation?

these people are an opportunity for some fun.

 

[HappyHacker]

While I agree in part re not compensating the victims of scammers I do feel that the sophistication of some of the scams makes it difficult for any but the most knowledgable to avoid.

A few years ago an elderly friend (over 90) with all his mental facilities, he managed to avoid being scammed when someone reversed into his car in a car park resulting in a court case where the scammer pleaded guilty, was very nearly scammed out of all his savings.

He received a call from the fraud department of his bank, they knew his account number, branch and some personal details. They managed to convince him that to prevent a fraud being operated by someone at the branch he needed to go to the branch and to catch the culprit he needed to withdraw a significant amount in cash without telling anyone about the suspected fraud. Bearing in mind he was very switched on this took a lot of knowledge of his affairs from the fraudster. Fortunately on the way to the bank he stopped for a rest as his walking was not good and a police woman asked him if he was alright. He explained what was going on and she told him it was a fraud and he should go home. He was so convinced it was not he continued to the bank but the police woman insisted on going with him.

He joined the queue for the cashier while the police woman went to see the manager. The manager got him into an office and convinced him ,with some difficulty, that he was the subject of attempted fraud and he should not withdraw his money and it was perfectly safe. When he left the bank he got a call from the fraudster who tried to convince him to go back into the bank and withdraw the money, he refused.

 

[Robbo3]

In the UK the 'gullible and foolish' were forced to open bank accounts by the government.
Which silly person thought that forcing the 'gullible and foolish' to have a bank account was a sensible idea?

 

[Phill05]

Heard of a scam going round India last night, someone ran an add for "men wanted to impregnate ladies" if they were successful with said single lady they would be rewarded with 500,000 Rupees deposited in their bank account.
Many men / gullible and foolish thought this is good not only do I get sex I get paid as well, they made contact and were asked to send money so a lady could be paid for extras to help them get pregnant they were also asked to supply bank detail so the 500,000 R could be deposited.

Only a few men have come forward to talk about how they have been ripped off they just don't know the scale of the scam or how many have been taken in being too embarrassed to admit to it.

So watch out all the 'gullible and foolish' in the UK

 

[Filament]

They're grown-ups - if they choose to pay no attention to the warnings which we're all bombarded with ad nauseam, then they're either too "vulnerable", or too stupid, to be allowed out on their own with a bank card. Perhaps they shouldn't have a card at all if they can't cope with using it in today's scammer-filled environment, since the protection is already there. If they buy a container-load of rubbish on eBay, or some food they don't like at the supermarket, are we all supposed to pay for that too? What happens when they get sucked in by a second scam - or a tenth one? Does that prove they're even more "vulnerable" than we originally thought and need even more "protection"? Maybe they don't realise that their 20-year-old car isn't as safe as it might be - does the taxpayer need to buy them a new one to protect them from their own folly?

If they're not willing, or able, to protect themselves they need to be kept out of "danger" by a legal guardian, not by being given free rein to run around keeping scammers in business by doling out money to them.

I agree that investors and shareholders often get paid too much*, especially where banks are concerned, but that's a separate issue, which HMRC needs to sort out.

* As do the nonentities gracing our TV screens and social media, and other aspects of our lives.

Out of interest, does this mean that if at any point as you get older, you notice your memory going even a little bit, or perhaps your reactions being a touch slower than they used to be that you’ll immediately hand in your driving license?
Or if you were to get a medical condition that was caused by lifestyle in any way that you’d choose to not use the NHS?
Just feels that given your hard line views on taking responsibility and not expecting any sort of support from society it would be the logical thing to do?
If not, then how are you choosing which things get supported by society and which don’t?

 

[Bingy man]

These are the people who are extremely gullable, who with a functioning brain would hand over a credit card and the PIN ! These are also the people who should be kept well away from DIY, any tools or sharp objects because they are probably capable of doing the most stupid of things.

Yep , those who read the message on a packet of rat ( poisonous do not injest ) and then ask why not . Seriously though getting scammed is so easy . They may contact 100 people to hook just one , they gain your trust making you feel they are helping you but of course it’s the opposite . There could be a multitude of reasons why you would fall for it- anything from a bereavement to serious illness or being distracted by stress or anxiety . I fell for the post office scam a couple of years back but my bank was alerted - I then got a text message from my bank but believe it or not I thought this was the scam and ignored it . As a result my bank put a stop on my account and I only found out when I tried to withdraw cash at the atm . Card withheld with a message to contact the bank asap . It happens every day to sound and intelligent people . They just wait to get that one person a catch them off guard . These days I trust no one especially cold calls , calls that start with 44 , calls that are silent until you speak and especially the pre recorded ones .. the best I ever had was that I was being investigated for tax fraud and a warrant for arrest had been issued in my name - but if it’s happened to you once it will never happen again .

 

[Bingy man]

I had this last night. Very very convincing. Said they’d alert my bank as someone had malware on my phone and had all my details. Then some one purporting to be Barclays called - I felt uneasy and they pointed me to the number on the Barclays web-site - it was the same as the number they were calling from.
They managed to send texts from Amex and Barclays - which showed as carrying on from previous threads of texts from them, and make it look like they are calling from their number.
Perfect English, really helpful and calm. Making you feel they are helping you through a crisis. I asked his name - he said Mark Reynolds - even spelt it for me. On top of that I am on holiday overseas and as far as I knew both my debit card and Amex card were cancelled, so I’d have no money.
I ended up on the phone to them for 1 hour 20 while they were supposedly cancelling transactions.
After the call it sunk in and I called Barclays back - after speaking to several people and getting through to the right person, it became clear it was a scam. Their systems had already put a stop on some big transactions.
In the end they got only £25 - which I can claim from the bank. The worst thing is I felt like such a fool and quite shaken. I consider myself intelligent and vigilant - you really can’t trust anyone.

At the time of my scam I was waiting for a parcel from USA and thought it was to do with import duties - this was how I felt - dumb and stupid but when your guard is down you are not expecting to be ripped of especially if your mind is elsewhere - see post above

 

[MikeJhn]

Yep , those who read the message on a packet of rat ( poisonous do not injest ) and then ask why not .

If rat poison goes past it's best before date does it become more or less poisonous.