Those old hoax emails are doing the rounds again

A case of what goes around, comes around……..

A hoax email tailored for local scenes:

***

Subject: CHECK YOUR RECEIPTS/THIS IS NOT A JOKE PLEASE READ

CHECK YOUR RECEIPTS BEFORE LEAVING THE CHECK-OUT

I bought a bunch of stuff, over £150, & I glanced at my receipt as the cashier was handing me the bags. I saw a cash-back of £40. I told her I didn't request a cash back & to delete it. She said I'd have to take the £40 because she couldn't delete it. I told Her to call a supervisor. Supervisor came & said I'd have to take it.. I said NO! Taking the £40 would be a cash advance against my Credit card & I wasn't paying interest on a cash advance!!!!! If they couldn't delete it then they would have to delete the whole order. So the supervisor had the cashier delete the whole order & re-scan everything! The second time I looked at the electronic pad before I signed & a cash-back of £20 popped up. At that point I told the cashier & she deleted it. The total came out right. The cashier agreed that the Electronic Pad must be defective.

Obviously the cashier knew the electronic pad was defective because she NEVER offered me the £40 at the beginning. Can you imagine how many people went through before me & at the end of her shift how much money she pocketed?

Just to alert everyone. My co worker went to Milford , Sainsburys last week. She had her items rung up by the cashier. The cashier hurried her along and didn't give her a receipt. She asked the cashier for a receipt and the cashier was annoyed and gave it to her. My co worker didn't look at her receipt until later that night. The receipt showed that she asked for £20 cash back. SHE DID NOT ASK FOR CASH BACK!

My co-worker called Sainsburys who investigated but could not see the cashier pocket the money. She then called her niece who works for the bank and her niece told her this. This is a new scam going on. The cashier will key in that you asked for cash back and then hand it to her friend who is the next person in the queue.

Please, please, please check your receipts right away when using credit or debit cards!

This is NOT limited to Sainsburys; they are one of the largest retailers so they have the most incidents.

I am adding to this. My husband and I were in Sainsburys and paying with credit card when my husband went to sign the credit card signer he just happen to notice there was a £20 cash back added. He told the cashier that he did not ask nor want cash back and she said this machine has been messing up and she canceled it. We really didn't think anything of it until we read this email.

I wonder how many "seniors" have been, or will be, "stung" by this one????

To make matters worse ...THIS SCAM CAN BE DONE ANYWHERE, AT ANY RETAIL OR WHOLESALE LOCATION!!!

BEFORE LEAVING THE CHECK-OUT........CHECK YOUR RECEIPT!!!!!

THIS COULD HAPPEN ANYWHERE. CHECK YOUR RECEIPT BEFORE LEAVING THE STAND. I'VE SEEN PEOPLE DO JUST THAT. NOW I'LL START! PASS THIS ON TO YOUR FRIENDS, KIDS, LOVED ONES.

***

Subject: SOME GOOD ADVICE

CHECK YOUR RECEIPTS BEFORE LEAVING THE CHECK-OUTA New Zealander bought a heap of stuff the other day while holidaying in Australia (over $450), and when he glanced at his receipt as the cashier was handing him the bags, he saw cash out of $20.  
He told her he didn't request any cash and to delete it. She said he'd have to take the $20 because she couldn't delete it. He told her to call a supervisor. The supervisor came and said he'd have to take it.. he said  “NO Bloody way!”
Because taking the $20 would be a “cash advance” against his credit card and he wasn't paying interest on a cash advance!!!!!
If they couldn't delete it then they would have to delete the whole order. So the supervisor had the cashier delete the whole order and re-scan everything! The second time he looked at the electronic pad before he pinned in his number and again cash-back of $20 popped up.
At that point he told the cashier and she deleted it. The total then came out right.  The cashier said that the Electronic Pad must be defective. Obviously the cashier knew the electronic pad was defective because she NEVER offered him any cash after either of the transactions. 
Can you imagine how many people went through before him and by the end of her shift how much money she pocketed?
His wife went into a “Coles Warehouse” last week. She had her items rung up by the cashier. The cashier hurried her along and didn't give her a receipt. She asked the cashier for the receipt and the cashier seemed annoyed but gave it to her. 
She didn't look at her receipt until later that night when back at their hotel. The receipt showed that she had asked for $20 cash. SHE DID NOT ASK FOR ANY CASH, NOR WAS SHE GIVEN IT!
So she called “Coles” who investigated but could not see the cashier pocket the money.  
When back in NZ they then spoke with a friend who works for one of the banks; they told them that this was a “new scam” that was bound to come to NZ, especially around Christmas time.  
The cashier will key in that you asked for cash and then hand it to one of her friends when they next come through the check-out queue.
This is NOT limited to Coles; they are just one of the largest retailers so they have the most incidents.
I wonder how many "seniors" have been, or will be, "stung" by this one????

To make matters worse ... THIS SCAM CAN BE DONE ANYWHERE, AT ANY RETAIL OR WHOLESALE LOCATION!!!
IT COULD HAPPEN ANYWHERE. CHECK YOUR RECEIPT BEFORE LEAVING THE CHECK-OUT........CHECK YOUR RECEIPT!!!!!.  
I've since seen people do just that….. SO NOW I'LL START!

PASS THIS ON TO YOUR FRIENDS, KIDS, LOVED ONES let’s not get ripped off.

State of Play: budget honesty and policy costings in September 2011

This is what the Australian Gillard Government intends to implement:

Main features of the Parliamentary Service Amendment (Parliamentary Budget Officer) Bill 2011

1. The Parliamentary Service Amendment (Parliamentary Budget Officer) Bill 2011 (PSA Bill) would, if enacted, amend the Parliamentary Service Act 1999 , which governs the Parliamentary Departments, and other Acts to establish the Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO) and the position of the Parliamentary Budget Officer (the Officer), and the purpose, functions and governance of the PBO.

2. Specifically, the PSA Bill would:

· Establish the PBO as a fourth Parliamentary Department, establish the Officer as an independent officer of the Parliament, and provide for the employment of PBO staff and the governance framework of the PBO;

· Establish the mandate of the PBO to inform the Parliament by providing independent and non-partisan analysis of the budget cycle, fiscal policy and the financial implications of proposals;

· Establish the functions of the PBO to respond to requests for policy costings and other requests relating to the budget, from Senators and Members of the House of Representatives, with responses able to be undertaken in a confidential manner upon request outside of the caretaker period, and in a manner consistent with the Charter of Budget Honesty Act 1998 (the Charter) during the caretaker period;

· Enable the Officer to enter into arrangements to access information from Australian Government agencies, consistent with other legislative requirements ;

· Establish the duties and authority of the Presiding Officers in regards to the PBO, including overseeing the operation and administration of the PBO; and

· Establish the duties and authority of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit (JCPAA) in relation to the PBO, including enabling the JCPAA to consider the operations and work plan of the PBO.

3. The Bill would also amend several other Acts to enable the establishment of the PBO, namely:

· The Charter would be amended to extend the caretaker period in a manner consistent with the definition in the Guidelines on Caretaker Conventions to when a Government is sworn in following an election, clarify access to the election costing functions, minimise the duplication of policy costings, and update references within the Act;

· The Freedom of Information Act 1982 would be amended to include the PBO and the Officer as an exempt agency; and

· The Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973 and the Long Service Leave (Commonwealth Employees) Act 1976 would be amended to ensure that the Acts encompasses the position of the Officer.

4. The PSA Bill forms an important element of broader parliamentary reforms, which will enhance the credibility and transparency of the Commonwealth's already strong fiscal and budgetary frameworks. These changes have been developed in collaboration with the relevant Ministers and their Departments, and with the Presiding Officers.

Financial Impact Statement

5. The proposed amendments have no further impact to the underlying cash balance as funding of $24.9 million was allocated over 4 years to establish the PBO in the 2011-12 Budget.

This is what the Coalition under Tony Abbott asserts that it wants to see, as set out in Shadow Treasurer Joe Hockey's two private members bills:

The Parliamentary Budget Office Bill 2011 seeks to establish a PBO that will be:

· a new body, accountable to the Parliament rather than the Executive, much like the Auditor-General or Commonwealth Ombudsman;

· independent, to enhance the transparency and accountability of the budget process, and help deliver better policy and financial outcomes for Australian taxpayers;

· well resourced, to ensure it is effective;

· tasked with providing objective and impartial advice and analysis across the parliament on the Commonwealth budget and budget cycle, including the impact of major policy announcements; and

· headed by the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who will be appointed by the presiding officers of the parliament on the advice of a committee of senior government officials, with an office of highly trained staff, whose calibre will reflect the Office's status as an independent body.

FINANCIAL IMPACT

Clause 32(4) of the Bill stipulates that:

"The appropriation of funds for the PBO in a non-election year must not be less than 3.5% of the departmental appropriation for the Department of the Treasury."

Charter of Budget Honesty Amendment Bill 2011

OUTLINE

The Charter of Budget Honesty Act (1998) was intended to produce better fiscal outcomes through institutional arrangements to improve the formulation and reporting of fiscal policy.

A key element of the Charter were arrangements for more equal access to Treasury and Finance costings of election commitments by the Government and Opposition.

One shortcoming of these arrangements for the Opposition is that they require the agreement of the Prime Minister for Opposition costings to be submitted to the Departments of the Treasury and Finance.

They also require the public release of the costing of a policy which has been submitted.

These arrangements create an environment where costings are not confidential and cannot be challenged or reviewed prior to being made public.

The Coalition has introduced the Parliamentary Budget Office Bill 2011 which seeks to establish an independent statutory authority which will provide objective and impartial advice and analysis on:

· The Commonwealth Budget and budget cycle;

· Medium and long-term budget projections;

· The costs of policy proposals; and

· Other matters as requested by Members and Senators.

The policy costing function of the PBO will differ from that in the Charter of Budget Honesty. Requests by non government MPs or Senators for policies to be costed will not require the agreement of the Prime Minister. Further, the costings will be confidential as they will not be able to be released to the public without the express approval of the relevant MP or Senator.

The costings provision in the PBO will supersede and make redundant the comparable provision in the Charter of Budget Honesty.

The Charter of Budget Honesty Amendment Bill 2011 removes the redundant provisions from the Charter of Budget Honesty.

FINANCIAL IMPACT

This Bill will have no financial impact.

While this is what the House of Representatives 12 September 2011 debate reveals concerning the Coalition's bills:

·         Should Joe Hockey's bills fail to pass and the government's poor imitation of a costing service pass this place, the coalition will not submit its policy costings to either the Treasury or the PBO prior to the election.

··         The MP or senator requesting  a costing will control the timing of the release of the policy costing  and No longer will requests for policy costings and the costings themselves be published as soon as they are received and prepared by the departments of Treasury and Finance. This provision applies at all times, even during an federal election campaign, and the electorate may never be told of the costings advice received because it must provide for policies not to be released at all if that is the decision of the relevant parliamentarian.

·         The Parliamentary Budget Officer cannot publish anything in relation to a request to provide advice made by an individual Member or Senator without the consent of the Member or Senator.

·         The Prime Minister can withdraw his/her own formal request for costings advice but the Leader of the Opposition cannot withdraw his/her own request once it has been submitted.

·         The Coalition's Budget Office would in practice be overseen in many of its functions by the Minister for Finance and not by Parliament.

·         The Attorney‑General can forbid the Budget Office to publish certain information or disclose this information to Parliament, particularly if the federal government of the day wished to keep sensitive information from a state government.

It would appear that under any future Abbott Government voters are to be kept in the dark about all problems concerning the cost implications of existing policy and/or election campaign promises.

Jaysus wept buckets - it's the other climate theory!

The basic argument which appears to be put forward here (by journalist Anne Jolis writing in The Wall Street Journal) is what has been called ‘The Other Climate Theory’ ie., solar winds affect cloud formation and clouds initiate temperature increases and therefore are a cause of global warming, which is ergo beyond human control.
“The theory has now moved from the corners of climate skepticism to the center of the physical-science universe: the European Organization for Nuclear Research, also known as CERN. At the Franco-Swiss home of the world's most powerful particle accelerator, scientists have been shooting simulated cosmic rays into a cloud chamber to isolate and measure their contribution to cloud formation. CERN's researchers reported last month that in the conditions they've observed so far, these rays appear to be enhancing the formation rates of pre-cloud seeds by up to a factor of 10. Current climate models do not consider any impact of cosmic rays on clouds.”
The article attracted over 1,000 comments and gave rise to this video, that in its turn further distorts CERN’s ongoing research which does not draw a link between clouds and climate change:




http://online.wsj.com/video/the-other-climate-theory/DDA61D17-339F-4F0F-95E3-325026562A7F.html

I have to wonder why reputable scientists bother to publish rebuttals such as this when the Murdoch meeja just writes what it wants to believe.

Australian companies in U.S. 'whistleblower' litigation

1. According to U.S. ABC News on 6 September 2011 Alphapharm P/L, an Australian subsidiary of multinational Mylan Inc, is accused of defrauding the American Government:

Three generic drugmakers are being accused in a whistleblower lawsuit of scheming to overcharge the government by tens of millions of dollars for medicines.

The U.S. Attorney's office on Tuesday joined in the lawsuit, brought by Chicago pharmacist Bernard Lisitza.

His attorneys alleged in a 162-page complaint unsealed Tuesday afternoon that Par Pharmaceuticals Companies Inc. of Woodcliff Lake, N.J., and two foreign generic drugmakers overcharged the Medicaid program by getting pharmacies to dispense different, more-expensive, dosage forms than what was prescribed.

Attorneys Michael Behn and Linda Wyetzner said the three companies got pharmacies to illegally switch from generic versions of Prozac and Zantac to Par's more costly products so it could charge Medicaid more.

The other defendants are sister companies, Alphapharm PTY Ltd. of Australia and Canada's Genpharm ULC, both accused of helping to run the scheme and manufacture or procure the medicines.

The lawsuits are listed as UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel. BERNARD LISITZA, States ex rel. BERNARD LISITZA, and BERNARD LISITZA, individually v. PAR PHARMACEUTICALS, et al - Northern District of Illinois, 06 C 6131.

The San Francisco Chronicle on 6 September reported that; The U.S. didn't join the suit against the Mylan units.

Mr. Lisitza has a history of successfully bringing whistle blower suits against drug companies.

If this entry below is correct then a Bernard Lisitza of Illinois appears to have a less well-known background:

Bernard Lisitza, Northbrook and Itasca Prescription Pharmacy, Northbrook – pharmacist license

(051-025359) of Lisitza indefinitely suspended for a minimum of nine months, and Itasca Prescription

Pharmacy license (054-003249) and controlled substance license revoked, due to a felony conviction in federal

court for purchasing and trading a prescription drug; purchasing drugs that did not have intact safety seals,

manufacturers’ boxes and packaging inserts with the intent of reselling the drugs to the public; and, filling

prescriptions for patients in nursing homes by placing in blister packages misbranded drugs that were

manufactured in Mexico and not approved for distribution in the United States.

2. OC Weekly on 9 September 2011 reported that the U.S. arm of the Australian company manufacturing NADS is in the firing line in Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2011-00497156, in what appears to be a counter suit to Sue Ismiel and Daughters US Inc v. Robert Spetner et al which accuses the defendant of mail tampering:

This is SI&D response to the lawsuit alleging that it fired a company executive when he encouraged SI&D to issue a U.S. recall notice for a known defective product, Nad’s Body Hair Removal Strips:

"In response to legal action initiated by SI&D (US) Inc against its former president, Robert Spetner, due to his wrongfully having seized control of the Company's mail, Mr. Spetner has filed a cross-complaint in which he groundlessly and falsely alleges that he was terminated because he had engaged in "whistle blowing" and presented other meritless claims against the Company. SI&D categorically denies these allegations and will defend them vigorously. In point of fact, the Company appropriately terminated him due to poor performance and serious misconduct that directly benefitted him at the expense of the Company and it is our intention to pursue further legal action against Mr. Spetner in this regard.

The substantive issues raised in Mr. Spetner's complaint are riddled with factual errors and outright misrepresentations that stand in stark contrast to our 14-year record of conducting an ethical and successful business in the United States that is founded on providing our customers and retail partners with great products and excellent service. Contrary to the tenor of Mr Spetner's complaint, we are proud to endorse the quality and efficacy of our award-winning range of Nad's depiliatory products that are available at leading retailers throughout the US, Great Britain and Australia/New Zealand.

As this matter is currently the subject of litigation, we have been advised by counsel to limit further public comment on this matter pending its legal resolution."

Coincidentally the ACCC published an Australian recall notice for Batch 10642 of Nad's Brazilian and Bikini Wax on 3 August 2011.

Godwin Alert!

Sinclair Davidson over at Catallaxy Files headed his short post on government as threat to free speech and media self-regulation with this little pictorial gem. Thereby demonstrating Godwin's Law lives on.