Elite 11+ shopping and chat thread part 3

davemorton

pacifica9 wrote: »

Sorry is that festive bakes or rail journeys?

festive bakes

Savvybuyer

karlie88 wrote: »

Ah ok.

Just to inform others, when I tried a 6th transaction on the same card it wouldn't process. I also checked with my bank to see if a block had been put in place but they said no. They said and I quote: 'you seem to do a lot of small transactions - £2.50 at Boots, £5 at Superdrug, £3 at Wilko'. :rotfl:

Another credit card worked fine though on the Guinness site.

To the MSE team (if you're reading): the terms on Guinness state '1,000 Nectar points applies to all GWR Advance Single fares booked via link above' as highlighted in screenshots above. Just following terms of the promo...we're all :A:A:A

I'm just wondering whether they are thinking that this provides them with some excuse. If they tried to use it in this way on me, it would cause me to come back with the riposte that there is no excuse at all. As they know you do small transactions, there would therefore not be any excuse if they were to block any of those - they should only block you if an unexpectedly large transaction was attempted:p.

aau1

I'm turning in for the night. Catch you all later :wave:

pacifica9

I should have been asleep hours ago. Goodnight all.

Savvybuyer

karlie88 wrote: »

Precisely - but note again just above that term 'first booking':



It's not the most well thought out of promos. I'm following their terms just like the rest of us on here.

The problem is, as you now write it in this way, people will think you mean you are not following the terms and therefore being fraudulent.

It would be helpful, if anyone had any allegation that fraud (or anything else) was being committed, that they actually told us what they thought was fraud (or the anything else) rather than making allegations without, it seems, any substantiation for them. If I don't know what you are referring to or are alleging is fraud, how am I supposed to respond? As far as I can see, I follow all laws properly and fully and far more rigidly and far more than anyone. I think, if I could ever know who was making an allegation of illegality, that person would probably turn out to be the very first person that I could identify as probably being in technical breach of some minor subsection of some law (and I don't mean substantive recent law like fraud) that no-one ever complies with. Can this person, if they are a driver, honestly say that they never break any speed limit and comply fully and technically with every law on the road at all times without exception and that, even if a road has a temporary 10 mph speed limit, they do only 10 mph and nothing whatsoever over that? I do not believe that there is any person that complies on every occasion without exception with literally every law. I am probably the nearest to that that you could find. Perhaps the person making allegations of fraud, that have not so far been substantiated by providing any further information or evidence, can be reminded that unreasonable harrassment is a criminal offence.

Savvybuyer

nettiebobs wrote: »

I have to agree with you TM. Everyone has a different line that they feel should/shouldn't be crossed. We have to respect that everyone is different.

No no no, it's not about everyone having a different line. It is objective and there is only one set of standards. It is "the... standards of ordinary decent people."

This may seem similar to what was the first limb of the Ghosh test that now seems no longer good law, namely "the objective standards of ordinary reasonable and honest people".

I note it now seems that the standards no longer have to be of reasonable people but can be of unreasonable people. However, I guess "ordinary" people are not unreasonable. Nor do what are now "decent" people have to be honest. So, the standards of dishonesty could be by ordinary decent, but dishonest, people and therefore dishonesty be honesty. I imagine ordinary decent people are honest however. (I suspect I would be told I should not be using technical hair-splitting over the words, that that is inappropriate in this matter and that I should use common sense. It is a matter of "common sense":huh:. Except that I have no complete idea of what that is as, unlike most people, I have rational sense instead of "common" sense.)

But, (dis)honestly is accessed by the standards of ordinary decent people. The problem is that the vast majority of people are, at some point, dishonest as I would say most people, if not all, have committed technical theft at some point or another - even if it was just stealing a couple of sweets off the shelf in their home from their parents/carers when they were children (but nonetheless were aged 10 or over). In a society in which the vast majority of people are therefore thieves - a truth which is somewhat painful and therefore largely unadmitted - most people are therefore dishonest and not honest after all. The vast majority of people, according to scientists, tell lies up to 80% of the time. Most people are therefore mostly not honest - indeed 'white' lies are incorporated into standards of accepted behaviour. I think the only people that are truly honest are therefore people like me - or at least much much more honest than the vast majority of you are. I actually lose out and end up being pushed through extra hoops due to my honesty:doh:. (For example, when I applied to a job, I disclosed a medical condition that I had technically had in my childhood even though I had no experience of it for decades on end and it was irrelevant in my adulthood. I found out much later that my start at the workplace had actually been delayed by three weeks whilst they checked with my doctors whether this childhood condition had any impact on me. No ordinary person in their right mind would have disclosed this. Instead, the vast majority of people I suspect would have left it off the application form when asked about any medical conditions that had had and lied by omission.)

Aside from the unadmitted fact that the vast majority of people are somewhat dishonest and cannot rise to match the highest standards of honesty of many of those who have autism, if I still ignore what are deemed to be "technical" dishonesties or "white" lies, the "standards of ordinary reasonable and honest people" would seem to be fairly clear to me, as, really, 'we all know what the standards of our society are'. We know shoplifting is dishonest etc. And that paying with coupons that have not, for example, been stolen or forged is a legitimate method of payment. The second part of the former Ghosh test was a subjective one about whether someone knew his conduct was, by those standards, dishonest. So that if I honestly didn't know what ordinary reasonable and honest people would think about something - and, at the margins, some of that may arise, then I would not have been guilty. However, people can be blind as to their own dishonesty and the law now is that that is no excuse. But what if you genuinely did not know?

The thing is that standards of ordinary reasonable and honest people are very clear to me as I am ordinary, reasonable and honest. However, it's easy for everyone (except someone who knows they are blatantly being dishonest) to think they are ordinary, reasonable and honest. The standard now, however, is of ordinary (whatever that means) decent people. I must confess I have no idea what those people are:rotfl:. What is "an ordinary decent person"? In a society in which there seem to be so many differences and divisions of opinion and people bringing different backgrounds and ways of looking at things. I assume I am an ordinary decent person, but I have no idea, because I don't know precisely what is "generally" accepted. In other words, overall, about everything in total, rather than about specific matters about which things are more clear. What if 51% of people believe something in one survey but 49% believe it in another and 51% the contrary? Which standard is generally accepted? Or is it neither, because of a margin of error? Might in change every few minutes depending on whether individual people in the samples change their opinions from time too time? And it also does not prevent most people believing things that are factually wrong. However, it is not about whether something is factually true or false - if the falsehood is generally believed, then that is the decent and generally accepted standard. Even if it is factually wrong. In the end, it depends on what the jury members you get think.

Taken back to simplicity though, really we all know what the standards of ordinary decent people are don't we? Since the vast majority of us are (that claim to be law-abiding despite not being since the vast majority of us stole even a single sweet off the shelf when we were kids and since something like 93% of drivers admit to breaking the speed limit at some point, and probably another 6% are lying and 1% are autistic that actually are honest and don't break the limit - or, after told, technically break the limit but go up to the "+10%" allowance and therefore are taken as not because everything is approximate with most people and strict law is never enforced - whilst other people go up behind them and flash their lights and sound their horns as they are determined to break the law in a manner that would not be allowable when the autistic person is driving at the maximum limit and 10% being the only one actually complying with the standard that society has set after not actually following the precise limit set out in the law but instead providing the extra-statutory dispensation).

I imagine that I am an ordinary decent person like most people - I assume it would be the vast majority of people, even though the vast majority of people are dishonest inveterate 4/5ths liars:rotfl:, and that I must be ordinary and decent as I don't seem to have upset most people and don't seem to have got into trouble.

As regards the 4/5ths figure above, this is assuming I can believe this figure that, it seems, non-autistic scientists are claiming (I have no idea if I can ever trust presumed non-autistic people as they may be lying up to what they claim to be the 80% of the time which I no longer know whether I can take to be the truth as that itself comes from presumed non-autistic people, namely the scientists that say that most people lie about 80% of the time. However, if I can accept it, the science says that people (in other words I take to mean the vast vast majority of people since the scientists weren't considering autism) lie around 80% of the time. In contrast, I probably lie (that is express lies, as to by omission - see below) about 1% of the time, when forced to do so, and even then I'm not comfortable so often tell the truth as it is way easier that way, even if I then behave unusually since most people are not honest (in what comes out of their mouth) most of the time). I think 1% is a reasonable estimate for me, and yet again I am speaking the truth when I assert that it is so, even though I cannot prove it since I can only assert it but know it myself to be true, as one of my 'problems' is that I am way too honest. It's a 'problem' in a society that is usually thoroughly dishonest. Actually, I had a laugh on the phone a few months back - at the end of a call to a company in which gave very complimentary comments, the person on the other end asked if I wanted to fill in their survey and I said no:rotfl:. That was because, as I then explained(:o), it was really too much for me as I just couldn't be bothered to do it, I knew I should have said yes but I therefore said no because that was the truth, having then told them that I have Asperger's.

Just another example of how honest I am, even to what is taken to be a fault since of course you should say yes and then not bother to fill it in rather than truthfully turn it down as a waste of time in the first place - the trouble is if I say yes, that isn't the truth and it makes me uncomfortable then to be lying (even if technically) and, with either you or me being uncomfortable, I have been uncomfortable so much in recent years from so many different things, that it ain't going to be me anymore. So, I should not be sorry, it is going to be the truth. It is just easier this way, for me, and I don't have to remember precise details of a story all of which is lies. Telling the truth, for me, is easier as I am not able to be caught out on anything being inconsistent as it is all about the truth and what actually did happen. Of course I am told about lying by omission and if that was taken into account I would, like everyone, be a liar - although possibly most times I don't even lie by omission, sometimes I do in the sense that, taken to its extreme, it would require me to voluntarily disclose information even if it wasn't asked for and was irrelevant and would require me to upset people. I don't do that, or at least go out of my way to try to ensure that I don't, as if I am asked something (I generally prefer to avoid getting into a situation where this might happen anyway) where the true answer would upset someone, I prefer just to stay silent (probably upsetting someone by my silence and failure to answer:rotfl:, but that then can't be helped as I can't lie (uncomfortable to me) and I can't tell the truth (upsetting to you)) so I am most easy at remaining silent but will not tell an express lie. I get myself into way more personal trouble in putting extra work onto myself having to meet further standards or prove extra thngs because I disclose the truth. I am too honest (which ought not to be a problem but, on a rational level, bizarrely perhaps is, although not bizarre at all when considered from the POV of a society in which the vast majority of people (namely those that don't have autism) lie immense times more than me).

izzeyb

Cheap Canon all in one printer £19.99


https://www.hotukdeals.com/deals/canon-pixma-mg2550s-4800-x-600-all-in-one-printer-black-1999-at-amazon-3124890


.

izzeyb

Half price M&S chockies down to £3 from £6


https://www.hotukdeals.com/deals/ms-chocolate-selection-box-320g-3-instore-only-3124806

izzeyb

These Celebrations are a good price for 380g size box at Waities - £2.00
Works out cheaper than the 650 g tub

On offer until 1st January 2019


https://www.hotukdeals.com/deals/large-celebrations-carton-for-2-at-waitrose-3124719

.

tweets

michaels wrote: »

So I can't see that buying items with the intention of returning them which is permitted under the store t&c which probably specifically say returns within x days for any reason are acceptable is fraudulent either?



The only thing I would note is that morally in the extreme even prevent them buying a ticket or a train that buying all these tickets may push prices up fro those who do need to travel on a service or eventually runs half empty.

My DS is already :mad: costs him £28 to visit me. I would be :mad: if I ever got a text from him saying he couldn't get Manchester because the train was full but really it was half empty and he had to sit in cold station waiting for next train after an hard days work.

Before you ask I haven't purchased 1 ticket .