Paul Gregg

For all those reading this via a rss feed, returning users or new users (who won’t have noticed) I spent several hours tonight messing around with a graphics package trying to redo the design of the "header" of my web site.   It’s a million times better than the old version that has been there for at least the last 5 years.

I welcome comments on it (yes I know the mouseovers don’t work on the menus – actually they do, I just need to create the _on versions of the gif).

Last week I applied online for an Alliance & Leicester Premier Plus account.  I’m already a happy A&L customer and thought – great and Internet banking offer with decent interest rates.

Application filled in and checked the box asking for their Mastercard which provides money back on purchases.  A few days later I received the paperwork that they send out to get signatures.  All very well until I decided to read the small print that came with the "Congratulations on being accepted" letter + forms to sign.

On the credit card it said "You agree to be charged �25 if you are late in paying your credit card bill by one day".  Excuse me? Late fees?   I thought the late fees that the CC companies enjoyed were the nice fat interest rates that they charged on the full amount of the balance for the month if you did not clear the balance.

I scrawled a large C-A-N-C-E-L-L-E-D across the CC form and sent it back.  I’ll never take out a credit card that employs such underhand methods in ripping off customers.

Bootnote: It seems that in the USA several of these CC companies (including MBNA who provide The A&L card) have been successfully sued/settled Class Action suits against them for their operation of these late fees systems.  In the UK, which has already slammed these companies and UK’s Office of Fair Trading is investigating.

Last evening I was entertained at Lagan Valley Island (Updated: http://www.laganvalleyisland.co.uk/ ) by my daughter’s dance class.   Her teacher put on a show that comprised of all the students from her different classes and it was well received by all.

As all parents would do on such occasions took some pictures of the event (the ones my daughter was in).   After 10 minutes one employee from the centre told me that you were not allowed to take pictures.   However, I never saw any signs to that effect, nor was it detailed as a condition of entry.  Indeed at the start of the show the dance teacher pointed out that there was a photographer and a DVD being created if we wished to purchase, but did not prohibit the taking of pictures by the audience.

As other parents were taking photos and I didn’t see any of them being told not to do so, I continued taking pictures.  Again, another employee told me not to take pictures.  Finally, mid-way through the second half the Manageress (or at least I presumed her to be as she wore a blue shirt instead of the red polos the employees were wearing) sat down beside me and ordered me to hand over the film or delete the pictures as was their Child Protection Policy.  I refused, pointing out that many others were taking pictures yet they were not asking them to stop, nor delete their pictures.  Why was I being singled out?  The manageress then said that I would be refused permission to leave the building with the camera and that they would call police.  I invited her to call the police as I pointed out that their policy does not make it law, and that I was committing no offense by taking pictures of my own child at a public event.   At that point she left, but wasn’t going to let the matter drop as she sent Gillian (the dance teacher) up to talk to me.  Same arguments were said, no change.

Finally at the end of the show I noticed the manageress talking to Gillian, after which Gillian asked to see the pictures I had taken.  I was happy to show them to her – after which she said they were fine.  But it looks as though next year, she will be making all parents sign a no photography form.

The net result:  I am glad I stood my ground.   The manageress had no business threatening me with the police.  If the building is private property, then they would be within their rights to ask me to leave as they can prevent photography on their “private” (this is a council building) property – but the manageress never raised that point – just threatening me with spurious issues about their Child Protection Policy and baseless legal threats.

Thanks to http://www.sirimo.co.uk/ukpr.php/2004/11/19/uk_photographers_rights_guide (Updated: http://www.sirimo.co.uk/2009/05/14/uk-photographers-rights-v2/ ) for a PDF that clarified the legal aspect.  I guess I’ll be printing out a few copies of that to hand out in any future difficult situations.

To the tune of Jesus loves me.

Google loves me, this I know
for the referrer log tells me so
this little gem just sprang forth,
causing me endless mirth.

Yes, Google loves me!
….

www.pgregg.com 24.184.121.205 – – [19/Jun/2005:03:03:46 +0100] "GET / HTTP/1.1" 200 29468 "http://www.google.com/search?hl=en& q=I%27ve+been+staring+at+the+google+homepage+for+hours+what+should+I+do &btnG=Google+Search" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.8) Gecko/20050511 Firefox/1.0.4" "-" "-"
(tweaked to add a couple of spaces to let it wrap onscreen better)

   *GOOGLE: I’ve been staring at the google homepage for hours what should I do

And sure enough, if you google for that, I come second.  (Edit: First now)

[Edit:] I’m not sure what is more worrying, that a human being entered that into google, or that I’m a suitable result for that query.

While on the transatlantic flight recently and reading the inflight magazine I came across this piece of kit: 13-Piece Zip cord Connection Kit from TigerDirect.  The inflight mag had it at $20 with a $10 rebate. The USB adapters are worth the �6 cost alone.   Not sure about the quality though – it failed my first test of using the cable plus Mini5P adapter to connect the camera to the computer to upload this picture.  Maybe it doesnt do USB2 ?  Future tests shall reveal all – lets hope it lives up to its promise.

I set myself up a private ‘flickr’ type photo gallery over at: http://photo.pgregg.com where I will periodically add new pics.   I can’t imagine it’ll be of much interest to anyone other than myself, but for particularly interesting/artistic shots I’ll maybe post a link here.

I’ve had good compliments on this one of the John Hancock Tower in Boston, USA – just as well, I pulled a muscle in my back hanging out of the DUKW trying to get the shot:

I’m just about over my jetlag after missing a nights sleep making the return journey over the atlantic.  So I was in Boston for a week (work) and got myself a new Canon 20D camera (UK pricing is such a rip-off) and took lots of 8.2 million pixels photos

Here’s a 19% resized sample of the Boston skyline from the middle of the harbour on the Boston Duck Tour.  Our ConDUCKtor was Major Tom Foolery who I can highly recommend for an entertaining yet informational tour of Boston.

I’ll probably post more when I set up a nice photo gallery system.

Ever noticed in large chain stores (Tescos, Marks & Spencers, etc) that little sign at the checkout that says "By agreeing to purchase from XXX you agree that XXX Financial Services Ltd will charge a 2.5% transaction fee. The amount you pay is the same".

Well, today, I worked out what it is all about.  It’s a V.A.T. loophole.

Basically, on pretty much everything you purchase the store has to pay Customs & Excise the relevant amount of V.A.T. on that purchase.  However, financial services are zero vat rated, so for the store these small percentages really add up to a large sum of money that they don’t have to pay any VAT on. Nice scam if you’re big enough to work the system, eh?

Spotted this today on my sunroof – never knew birds could do self portraits but they can, and here is the proof: