Jeremy Clarkson is one of those presenters you either love or hate. I generally find him amusing. However, when he gets the bit between his teeth, reason can be one of the casualties:
TV presenter Jeremy Clarkson has lost money after publishing his bank details in his newspaper column.
What the fuck did he think he was playing at – and why?
The Top Gear host revealed his account numbers after rubbishing the furore over the loss of 25 million people’s personal details on two computer discs.
Jeremy, dear boy; you are a twat of the first water. And, which is more, you clearly have not been paying attention. Does the word “phishing” mean nothing to you? Nor credit card cloning? What about all those warnings about people rummage through the rubbish looking for useful personal information with which to obtain goods and money under false pretences? I mean, just what kind of fuckwit are you?
He wanted to prove the story was a fuss about nothing.
It wasn’t, though, was it?
But Clarkson admitted he was “wrong” after he discovered a reader had used the details to create a £500 direct debit to the charity Diabetes UK.
Oh dear, how sad. But… entirely predictable. Sometimes, TV presenters demonstrate that they haven’t the brains they were born with.
Clarkson published details of his Barclays account in the Sun newspaper, including his account number and sort code. He even told people how to find out his address.
This has to be the ultimate in fucking lunacy – indeed, there ought to be a Darwin award winging its way to Clarkson Mansions as I type, or there is no justice in the world.
“All you’ll be able to do with them is put money into my account. Not take it out. Honestly, I’ve never known such a palaver about nothing,” he told readers.
Oh, yeah…?
But he was proved wrong, as the 47-year-old wrote in his Sunday Times column.
“I opened my bank statement this morning to find out that someone has set up a direct debit which automatically takes £500 from my account,” he said.
“The bank cannot find out who did this because of the Data Protection Act and they cannot stop it from happening again.”
“I was wrong and I have been punished for my mistake.”
A mistake that someone with half a brain wouldn’t have made because the outcome was entirely foreseeable.
Jeremy Clarkson; prize twat of the year – and it’s barely started…
————————————————-
Update: I see that Neil Harding managed to get hold of the wrong end of the stick (again):
Some opponents of government databases and ID cards have all had a good laugh about this, shouting ‘see, look how dangerous this all is’. However Clarkson’s basic point stands.
No, Neil, I do not oppose government databases. My objections are rather more subtle and intelligent than that. But, then, subtlety and intelligence aren’t really your strong points, are they? And, of course, even Clarkson has admitted that his basic point does not stand.
“The bank cannot find out who did this because of the Data Protection Act and they cannot stop it from happening again.â€
Which is of course complete bollocks, what he really means is that they can’t be arsed because it’s (in their view) a piddling 500 quid.
Indeed. Time for Clarkson to change his account details and cancel his direct debits – which is a simple enough matter.
Still, he had the front to fess up and take it on the chin and if nothing else, he provided an object lesson to all about what can happen.
What was that about Hubris and Nemesis again? Anyway, Clarkson’s quite entertaining in a sort of Boy’s Own Paper way so it’s a pity that he got caught for £500. Still, a mere bagatelle to him, I suspect.
Good for JC, he has proved something very relevant, albeit not what he intended to prove. That’s what science is all about, setting up a theory, testing it, and then being honest about the results?
Indeed. Were that politicians were so honest when proven wrong. That said, the outcomes were entirely predictable and JC should have known that…
Darwin award would be inappropriate, those are only for people who manage to take their shoddy genes out of the gene pool by amusingly stupid suicide.
Presumably Clarkson’s bank is the same one as Hain’s. JC doesn’t know where the £500 has gone and Hain doesn’t know where the £100,000 (per the Guardian) has come from.
Reading your blog, I think most would get the impression you opposed government altogether, let alone government databases, subtle and intelligent my a*** – you are just a rant artist like the rest of us. Clarkson needn’t lose any money if he so chooses (which was his basic point), and (from my knowledge on this) it is only because he hasn’t reported a fraud, that the DPA protects the identity of the person who set up the DD. This all gives me the impression that Clarkson was in on the whole thing from the start.
Neil, I do not object to the principle of government (and that is pretty obvious from my desire to see the rule of law upheld); I object to the corrupt nature of the government we have and their contempt for the rule of law.
I also object to parliament forgetting the relationship between them and us – that is; we loan them a degree of power, we do not grant them the right to trample us underfoot as they are doing. And this is not a party political point – all of the bastards are the same under the skin. I despise politicians, not the principle of government and the rule of law – I know, I know, too subtle for you…
I have no objection to the principle of databases – all organisations use them to conduct their business and government is no different. What I object to – and if you bothered to read properly, you would appreciate – is the unnecessary, wilfull and obsessive attempts to gather and store data to which they have no need and which (given their recent performance) would place us at risk if they did have it.
I have no objection to, for example, the revenue having up-to-date details of my residence as they need to communicate with me. The government want to know all of my previous residences, though. They do not need this and it is none of their business. Just as my biometric details are none of their business and are not necessary for us to conduct business – and as a consequence, they will not be granted access to that information
This, of course is a somewhat more subtle position than “opposed to government databases” you claim – but, then, if you quoted peoples’ actual positions as opposed to your own warped opinion of them, you wouldn’t have a case – but, then, you don’t have a case anyway.
As for Clarkson; in this instance, if he decides to pursue it, yes, he can get his money back. But that wasn’t the point, was it? Given the information he published (the kind of information that, sensibly, we keep private) anyone accessing that information could use it to clone his identity for the purposes of obtaining money, goods – or, should they wish to do so, cleaning out his bank account.
As I said, subtlety and intelligence are not words found in the simplistic black and white of Hardingworld.
This is the most absurd thing I’ve read since the conspiracy theorists tried to invade this place over Christmas. I suggest you get measured up for that tinfoil hat. Clarkson was in on it – fer fuck’s sake what bollocks you do come out with.