GoDaddy, Cashparking, and Click fraud...The Big Retort

GoDaddy is the largest domain name registrar in the 'electric universe'. During the final six months of 2005 approximately one-third of all domain names (the top five) were registered via this registrar. By the end of May 2006, it managed approximately 14.2 million domain names. As a 'best-of-breed' it is also North America’s largest shared website hosting provider. But when TheBigRetort tried to put a series of questions to its founder it met with a wall of silence - unusual considering its founder's usual retort: "If GoDaddy.com is anything, it is an outspoken company and I am an outspoken CEO." So why was Daddy being so evasive? First, a bit of blurb on founder B-o-b P-a-r-s-o-n-s.

Robert Parsons is the CEO and Chairman of GoDaddy. Prior to founding the company in 1997, he also founded Parsons technology. Bob and his then wife grew the software company out a basement kitchen. A decade later the pair sold it for many millions of dollars. Retirement did not sit well... Bob soon turned his attention to domain name registration. He had noted how expensive it was... And the entrepreneur was if anything the archangel of the low priced deal. He founded GoDaddy - a name that came out of the aether - and quickly established him (through dogged determination and chutzpah it must be acknowledged) as the Wizard of cut-price domains. At the age 19 he was a rifleman in the U.S. Marine Corps (1968 - 1970) and the recipient of several medals. He is also a Certified Public Accountant. He remains the titular head of GoDaddy. He and also wears an earring. He likes bikes as much as girls. (Godaddy girls that is. And if you saw them you would understand why.) But, to the nub of our Go Daddy rub...
......

In 2006 it was reported that GoDaddy planned to go public. Lehman Brothers was hired to handle the IPO. Prior to that date not much was known about the company's profitability. Go Daddy was a private company and its business was its business, however the S-1 filing was the first public scrutiny of its financial health... it revealed considerable net losses. With the books out in the open it became public knowledge that this had happened every year since the year of its inception. Under "Risks related to our Business" the filing also stated, '.... and may not be able to operate profitably or sustain positive cash flow in future periods.' As investors in GoDaddy's success, it was this that concerned us most. There were others...

GoDaddy planned to use the net proceeds received from the offering to repay approximately $7.2 million indebtedness (in addition to working capital etc). However, although the company was making year on year losses, it was, its founder later emphasised, also experiencing rapid growth.

At that time many wondered if Parsons himself might 'subdue his expressions' once the company went public. "He's one of the most outspoken CEOs in the industry, whose personal and professional leanings are never in doubt. That sort of divisive, outspoken approach may not gel quite as well with Wall Street investment bankers as it does with his blog audience," one online critic remarked. The offering hoped to raise more than 100 million dollars and value Go Daddy at 250 million dollars or more. But the IPO was abruptly pulled.

Dominic Jones later reported that a scrapped IPO is rarely a good thing. "It suggests the company being shopped is a lemon. Companies that pull their IPOs traditionally go off to some dark corner with their tails between their legs ... many observers might well have interpreted the news as Wall Street kicking another dog out to the curb."

However Parsons was never one for hiding in dark corners. (Unless it was in the rice fields of Nam, where it was thought wise to adopt such a position.) He later blogged that the submission was 'approved' by the SEC itself and that this assumption was wrong. There were three main reasons that he decided to pull the plug; (i) the Middle East conflict, interest rate jitters and tech stock weakness; (ii) lack of appreciation for GoDaddy’s cash generating power and, calling the financial media stupid, because none had studied the company's cash flow statements, he claimed (iii) that Daddy was not desperate and had generated significant operating cash flow during each reporting period.

Surprisingly Parsons claims that the submission had been 'approved' by the SEC. However, the S1 actually states: 'Neither the Securities and Exchange Commission nor any state securities regulator has approved or disapproved these securities or determined if this prospectus is truthful or complete.'

Oh Daddy... Bob may not realise it but any representation that suggests otherwise is actually 'criminal' and may make any claimant subject to a long stay at Guantanamo. (Mind you, as this is place he apparently approves of it may be most welcome.)

And that brings us to Cashparking...
.....

"EARN UP TO 80% REVENUE" "CASH PARKING - TURN YOUR PARKED DOMAINS INTO CASH"

According to the GoDaddy blurb it's easy with CashParking. 'Whether you have one domain or a growing portfolio, CashParking can turn those domains into a cash generator!' The offer is made via a number of Cashparking plans from which anyone buying a domain can

'get ready to share in parked domain revenue'. Really?

Bob Parsons himself, blind to any faults, directly boasts, ''Go Daddy is putting its reputation in the domain name industry to work for our customers so CashParking can provide the highest revenue share payouts, making for quick and easy income potential for domain holders from their parked domain names.'' Which leads to another... really?

GoDaddy itself earned $1.6 million from its own cashparking 'scheme'. But this was prior to sharing it with the persons who owned those domains. Now things are different and B-o-b wants to share his success... So why is it that when TheBigRetort invested in a portfolio of domains 'connoting the top five' we saw the dollars flooding out - not in? (In place of the two domains, TheBaseRate.com and LoanAiduk.com, was a little Sherlock Holmes sign, complete with magnifying glass, saying: This site is currently NOT available. (Emphasis GoDaddy's.)

What oh what had taken place? We wrote to find out....

Coming soon in TheBigRetort... the answer. (Visit NamePros for domain discussion and advice. NoDaddy.com for informed views on the company.)



.....

Sofa not so suite

TheBigRetort can reveal that a recent allergic epidemic that has been studied in Lahti, Finland, has found that being a dog - or a couch potato for that matter -may seriously damage your health. In fact, if that sofa has been made in China reclining in front of the telly may not be so 'suite'.

A Finnish study into the background to a recent epidemic that stretched the length and breadth of Britain has identified the substance that has caused agonising suffering in thousands of people. Chinese-made settees sold by Argos and Land of Leather have been named as the culprits of a violent irritant-related eczema, blisters, weeping and cracking.

After studying five patients the Finnish study concluded that the allergies related to a newly purchased chair or sofa. Furniture samples were analysed and compounds identified using a mass spectrum library and measured. The patients showed strong reactions to upholstery fabric samples and to dimethylfumarate, 'down to a level of 1 p.p.m. in the most severe case'.

Scientists concluded that the cause of the epidemic was likely to be contact allergy to the dimethylfumarate, a novel potent contact sensitiser. All sofas were traced to the same factory owned by Chinese firm 'Linkwise'. Apparently it had treated the furniture with 'a potent fungicide' to stop them going mouldy in storage. Customers have now been warned of the batch numbers affected with what is now termed "sofa dermatitis" over one year after the first outbreak.

So where was Trading Standards in all this?

A number of personal injury lawyers are currently trawling the Net in search of clients. In Wrexham a woman who purchased a brown Bari sofa from Argos was left with a severe rash to her buttocks. In another regions one victim came out with an allergic reaction; shortly after purchasing the sofa in May 2007 his symptoms included a painful rash on his back, thigh and hands. 'The distribution of his eczema coinciding with where he would sit at the end of the sofa.' A doctor later concluded that it was due to 'sofa dermatitis'.

Meanwhile 'Answers at Yahoo' suggested to a concerned pet owner that a 7-year old Yorkie was 'most likely having an allergic reaction to something she rubbed her face on outside.' But the dog (not pictured) may have identified the source of the epidemic some time back...

It developed a red rash like look around both eyes and face like a chemical burn. The dog's eyes were swollen and the skin around them bright pink. Although it was claimed by the dog's owner that the dog developed the symptoms after being out alone in the yard for just a few hours, its concerned owner informed Answers that it would later 'rub her face against the settee'. It now seems likely that the crafty canine was trying to tell its owner that the sofa was the cause of its irritation.
.....

When informed by the TheBigRetort that the source of the epidemic had finally been identified - almost a year after it began - the dog is alleged to have barked, 'Fang heavens.'

64.233.183.104 MP3

Have we entered an episode of Lost? Or are we simply that popular a publication that major conglomerates wish to cosy-up with we pond life? If so, perhaps it's time we started practising safer sex. Because when TheBigRetort gets rogered we prefer a condom and a smile, rather than a dot.con.

Why is it that practically every article we write appears to carry advertising for "MP3" and the ISP "64.233.183.104"? Complaints to "fronts" like PrivacyProtect.org (ON WHOM MORE LATER) - appear to go ignored. (This 'organisation' itself is shrouded in mystery.) And we are simply referred back to our domain name registrar where we are offered privacy... but at a price. In other words you pay we stop. Suspicious or what?

However, phew, UK law ensures that privacy does not have a dollar sign attached to it. In other words private details should, as far as human rights go, remain just that: p-r-i-v-a-t-e. So why is it that the registrants of domain names need to pay their registrars for that privacy? (Odd that, innit?)

However, we stroll too far down the path of righteousness. Privacy is not the thrust of our concerns. In our case a number of copyright articles are repeatedly hijacked by a person or persons selling MP3 and, although the headlines and body of the front text can be read, there is no story on the landing page, no link that acknowledges the fabulous BIGRETORT, just an MP3 'endorsement' - of sorts.

We say of sorts because it's downright dodgy. Certainly TheBigRetort would never endorse a product like MP3, or such an underhanded way of marketing it.

We conclude that this is obviously a dreadful product best avoided, peddled by a company that has little regard for copyright law or fair play - and one that needs its identity shield lifted.

In the forthcoming months we will be researching these cyber bloodsuckers and identity shield fronts... and lift the veil.

Alexa ranking

Since TheBigRetort's birth we have been known under a host of names; thebigretort.blogspot, mybigretort, myretort, etc. But have so many different e-monikers led to the dilution of traffic. If Alexa is anything to go by... then the answer is Yes.

According to the Amazon subsidiary, TheBigRetort.com receives no ranking whatsoever. Whilst thebigretort.blogspot.com reached the dizzy (or should that be lowly) heights of 10,707, 828.

The data also shows that 63,004 sites have linked in to us, and that we are based in India - which we are not. Hijacked, forgotten, or simply ignored?

Dell fixes problems it creates: For a price

There is nothing worse than writing a lengthy document than that moment, that split second, when the screen on your computer suddenly goes inexorably blank. You wonder if there has been a power cut... Until you realise that the computer you are using is a Dell Inspiron 1000. [So named because that's just about the amount of words you may be able to type before the screen fades to black.] It is a 'budget notebook' after all. Be warned...

When we encountered such a problem, Dell technical support instructed... 'empty the laptop of its battery, switch off the electricity, and to press the power on button for 10 seconds'. [It also asked us to fill in an online survey. As we could not get online that would, we said, be rather difficult.]

The call centre in India and the team was not to be dissuaded by the language barrier. There was a charge for getting the dead computer to recover, a service conducted over the phone, and one that we were grateful for. [In fact we wrote an article saying so - since removed - and one that should have left our investigative antennae quivering.]

Dell claimed zero liability as the Inspiron 1000 was out of warranty. Not true we said, your senior executives are jointly and severally liable and we will press our claim vigorously. (The warranty expiring does not discharge liability in the United Kingdom. But how about Nevada?)

Dell folded. It changed the battery (which had never worked when purchased), and the apparently dodgy hard drive too, and at no extra cost. (The power via the new battery lasts under an hour.) But, and this is what our complaint hinges on (couldn't resist the pun), the Inspiron 1000 problem still persisted, with the LCD screen going black, only this time threats of legal action aside, Dell wanted paying before doing any further tech stuff. And this time it wanted big bucks.

We were caught between a laptop and a faulty hinge. Closed down for a whole week - online - at least, TheBigRetort was left twiddling its fingers.

Until something rather curious came under our forensic scrutiny ...

Dell had returned the computer with one of its bolts missing. It was just a little plastic plug that was usually inserted on the left-hand side of the computer on its left hinge.

What we discovered

Surprisingly there were a number of complaints listed on the WorldWideWeb in regards to the Dell Inspiron 1000 'blank screen' problem - which centered around the left hand hinge of the LCD screen.

Coincidence or what?

The Dell Technical Support Denial

When confronted with our findings Dell technical support claimed that there were 'no (such) known issues' with the Inspiron 1000. In fact Dell repeatedly claimed that it had never heard of such a problem before. However, the Dell tech team did not comment on why the laptop had been returned with the missing left hinge plug, which is a coincidence. Instead, it did suggest that the problem could be any one of three things - and they would need paying for one or all of them.

But could it have been possible that the company knew about the problem but was ignoring it, due not only to a 'nice little earner' on unneeded 'repairs' but the mountain of liable claims that might follow the discovery (and this article)? Dell responded:

"After fully investigating the issues you have encountered, Dell has come to the following conclusion, there is no known issue with Inspiron 1000 as you claim. Dell is a company which strives to win with integrity and we are saddened by the fact that you felt that you we not provided the proper support. Once again we want to assure you of our total commitment to your satisfaction with our services and products, and apologize for not meeting up to your expectations on this occasion."

Not to be deterred we probed further, and asked Anu Meelu (Customer Relations/Legal team - UK & IRE Dell, Inc) what "investigation" it had undertaken?

Miss Meelu responded... "Your request of knowing (sic) about the investigation which I have gone by on (sic) the matter is a (sic) internal process, hence (sic) could give the give (sic) you the inside process. Your second question on Inspiron 1000 is (sic) little strange [rather like this response] to me as you claim you did so much of (sic) research on Insp 1000, as this is a stander (sic) step which is used to release flea power for all system irrespective of brand."

Ignore what will no doubt become infamously known as Dellspeak, or DellEnglish, or Dellgate, it is after all a world-wide brand, and we shall "give the give" (as Dell says). Let's instead concentrate on that 'flea power'? Just what is it?

"No it is not a Powerful Flea off you Cat," one online independent tech quips, "It is Power that is Left Between the Power Supply and Control Panel ( Power Button )." [Apparently there is still power in the computer when the power cord is switched off. After unplugging the computer and taking the battery out hold the Power Button in for 5 seconds to dispel it, switch it back on, and... pay Dell $80. ]

But what about that "investigation" we hear you ask... Actually, TheBigRetort did not understand much of what had been written by Ms Meelu. Indeed we wondered if our emails could have been intercepted by the wrong person. Dell responded via Ms Meelu, a legal "representative".

"I apologies (sic) for the error from my end. [Note she does not say which end.] Your request of knowing (sic) about the investigation which I have gone by (sic) on the matter is a (sic) internal process, hence could not (sic) give you the details of the internal process. But just to help you more (sic) on this , it is confirmed by the technical team that there is no such know (sic) issue mentioned with insp 1000 as you claim. Please let me know If I can be of anymore help to you on this matter."

So, is that clear?

Is it possible that English may 'not be your first language' we asked. After all Ms Meelu was offering a press statement on behalf of a computer conglomerate. She clarified (kinda?) But 'no such "know" issue mentioned'? A random sample of Dell customers, easily Googled, had this to say in their online posts:

Valerie19 posted as far back as 2005. "We got a Dell Inspiron 1000 laptop for my son at Christmas. The LCD display is no longer working. Nothing appears when it boots or runs. I can connect an external monitor and that looks fine."

Sound familiar?

Then there was... a poster styled Jakedeg who purchased his Inspiron in December 2004, and immediately had problems... he would turn the computer on and get 'dark screen'. He called Dell when the computer was still under warranty. But this did not assist matters.

"The tech support person I spoke to told me to try a couple of "quick fix" solutions that he gave me, which worked. But every so often when I would turn on the computer I would get a dark screen, so I would power it down and reboot like the tech support person told me to and when the computer would turn back on I could usually see the screen again."

Unfortunately the 'problem' occurred again. He then wrote, "Now I'm being told I need a new LCD, and in addition Dell is telling me that because the 90 day warranty expired, I have to pay out-of-pocket for a new LCD. I spoke with numerous reps and supervisors and expressed my dissatisfaction because not only is this a relatively new computer, but it is a problem that I started having and for which I called to get fixed when it was still under warranty, and tech support did not give me a permanent fix or offer to replace the LCD back in January, when it was still under warranty."

A case of now Dell fixes it now Dell don't?

Dell wanted $350 to repair the, err, 'problem' of a computer which Dell later claimed to TheBigRetort there were 'no known issues'.

No known issues?

Another poster, roger398, also wrote of the problem in that same year. "We bought the 1000 for our daughter last summer as a graduation present, and the LCD failed to work after only a few months at most. We have since been using an external monitor as well, but I have gotten the LCD to work twice after fiddling with connections under the screen's bezel (I did all this after the notebook was out of warranty). The screen worked fine for several hours just the other day after I checked connections, then I turned off the machine, closed the lid, reopened the lid, booted it, and the LCD failed."

Roger homed in on the problem. One that Dell claimed it had 'no known issues' with. (Or conveniently ignored.) "It's my impression that a physical connection might be to blame for my troubles, with opening and closing the lid causing a connection to loosen, causing the blank screen."

Roger thought that this might be "coincidence". It was what he then went on to say that contradicts Dell's claim further. And condemns it.

"I contacted Dell tech support and then the out-of-warranty department to see what it would cost for a fix and decided to look for alternatives (local computer guy?) to this high cost service. The bottom line is that I, too, am very disappointed with this product--and with Dell."
And Roger's not alone.

"Dell Inspiron 1000 Screen Problems" has become the new legend. (Don't believe us, Google it.)

Ben at experts-exchange.com. "I have a Dell Inspiron 1000 that would randomly shut down... I discovered that when you move the LCD screen even an inch, the laptop screen would shut down, and I would have to reboot. I turned off all of the Power Saving Features in XP, but it still does this. Bad LCD, or is there something else that is causing this?"

Indeed there is... only Dell refuses to acknowledge it.

Coolkatz321 in thetechlounge.com complained; "...I'm not sure if it needs to be replaced or if there's just a loose cable inside. Once the computer starts up, it's fine; however, if the monitor is moved, then screen goes black. It seems to be a fixable problem," Fixable if Dell gets its bucks. So is the Dell Inspiron blank screen problem solvable?

A person also posting in thetechlounge.com had found the same problem... and a solution. This is how he did it...

"Ardnek" reseated all of the video connections and then reassembled the laptop. But the LCD didn't turn on at all. However intrepid Ardnek took the laptop apart again. He reseated all of the connections. But to no avail. He decided to replace the flex video cable. Unfortunately Dell didn't (conveniently) carry the part. (Dell has the part if you want to send in your laptop - at a price of course.)

Not to be thwarted by Dell and its machinations, Ardnek, obviously a bit of a computer geek, in his words: 'reseated all of the connections, and uncrinked the flex video cable; however, this time I booted the computer back up before reassembling it and the screen came to life.'

After this he reassembled the computer forensically. 'Piece by piece' he checked at each stage whether the screen would still come on. "It worked until I reattached the metal plate that covers the motherboard, fan, etc. I noticed that this metal plate severely pinches the video flex cable as it comes up to go to the LCD and so I assumed that this poor design was responsible for the black outs when moving the screen."

Remarkably Ardnek had not only discovered where the problem lay - the one that Dell denies all knowledge of - but, more importantly, how to 'fix it'.

He took a pair of metal snips and cut out a tab for the cable to freely move through without being pinched and then covered the sharp metal edges with electrician's tape. And the laptop worked perfectly. He advised, "Fortunately for me, the short in the flex video cable was mild enough that simply straightening it out was enough to fix it. However, for others, you might have to replace this cable (if you can find one). I would recommend cutting out a tab in the metal cover even if you replace the cable so as to avoid future shorts. One final note: the plastic outer housing still requires the cable to be squished a bit as it goes to the LCD but it isn't nearly as severe and damaging as the metal plate."

When presented with these findings (a few amongst the many), Dell responded:
"You are free to take this up further (sic). I have already given you Dell (sic) final stance on the matter. Answering your question I have already mentioned in the mail before that (sic), it’s been confirmed by the technical team in Dell (sic) if we ever had such (sic) issue with the product in Question. If you want I can even send (sic) the same stance in writing to your physical address as if (sic) you want to take this up with Trading Standards they will need something in writing from Dell on this. If you wish to discuss the matter any further , please let me know the preferred time when we can talk on this matter as we don’t communicate through mails. [We wonder why?] Our stance on the issue remains (sic) same."

Dellspeak if ever.

(great-remortgage-offers.com is for sale here.)

Queen banished from coins

Are there plans to banish Queen Elizabeth II from new coins? Does Britain's small change herald change? Put simply, is the United Kingdom headed towards a republic?

Monetarists may think so... News of the first major design change in English coinage since decimalisation is barely moments away, and TheBigRetort has stumbled across some breaking news. The Queen's head may be banished from the front of the new coins.

The Royal Mint design has in the past carried the monarch's visage but is it possible that the seven newly-minted coins may change... radically?

There have been hints that 'a contemporary take on traditional heraldry reflecting the nation's rich history' may be found on the reverse of the coins, but what about the face?

In a radio interview given today, the Royal Mint let slip that the 86 million coins in circulation with the Queen's face, 'will be around for some time yet' - on old coins.

Up to now it was believed that the Queen's face would be kept on the front of all seven newly-minted coins, so what does the future hold the monarchy?

Eurostar price-fix-scandal

When it comes to offering 'best deal' holiday packages to Paris does Eurostar make the grade, or does it have tunnel vision? TheBigRetort discovers... la vérité.

The non-stop London to Paris Eurostar train tickets offer we purchased via the telephone were priced at £204. The 'best deal' we were assured for our short-break by Eurostar representatives. Guaranteed low prices? We later discovered that the same train journey sold to us was in fact advertised for £50 less. (See Eurostar retort below.)

In addition, our booking formed part of a 'package' deal, 1 adult and 1 child, (later joined by two additional adults at the tres agreable Hotel De L'Ocean in Rue Mayran, right in the heart of Paris and well worth a weekend. )

So, was it the best deal?

The reservation for our additional guest needed to be changed to one night instead of two. However, the amount returned to the credit card for the cancellation was not the same as the amount paid for the additional night. Who had pocketed the difference?

Eurostar informed us that the difference was a 'penalty' levied by the hotels for the, err, 'amendment'. Which seemed strange... Intrepid travellers to France, where we are known as Zee Big Red Tart, we had never encountered such a penalty. Neither had we experienced an 'additional' charge for a child residing in the same room. A charge of £23.52 (plus taxes) a night, which again we were informed was levied by the hotels.

In fact the French don't pay or charge such a levy. "No such penalty is charged," they informed us. Adding, "There is no extra guest charge for a 6-year old either," which was intriguing.

A case of less is more with Eurostar offers surely... So what did Eurostar have to say? Did it come clean and return our Euros? Or did Euro simply keep them?

When presented with our findings Eurostar's press office (e-v-e-n-t-u-a-l-l-y) wrote back: "Due to the complexity of your email I am just checking the final details with various people across the business. I hope to have a comprehensive answer for you within a day or so. Sincere apologies for the delay." Following which... more online delay followed.

But what 'complexity'? What 'fine detail'? And when would we receive that 'comprehensive answer'?

To recap...tickets booked via the telephone through Eurostar were more expensive than those offered online, the hotel did not levy charge for reducing a room from two nights to one, and French hotels do not usually charge for a child staying in the same room as adults. Eurostar does, blaims the French... and pockets the difference.

At least that's what we decided to put to Eurostar.... but not without incident.

The question was really a simple one. Based on what Eurostar claimed, later contradicted by the hotel, either we had highlighted it selling porkies or caught it going down the wrong track. Something TheBigRetort would have thought that the operator would have been keen to address.

Eurostar has a press office response time infinitely longer than its journey times to Paris... by foot, but press officer Tom Parker had previously informed us that he was eager to 'resolve the matter'. Be that as it may, it was almost as if there were invisible leaves covering the international train operator's muddy tracks. In fact a disembodied voice may have bellowed that there will be either a long delay or a cancellation... and there was

Parker claimed that accommodation, which was booked through eurostar.com, is actually provided by WWTE, a subsidiary of Expedia. It has 'a separate arrangement with the hotel concerned,' he wrote. And as a result Eurostar 'could not comment'.

Neither could Eurostar comment on the hotel's cancellation policy, in other words one night reduced to two. (Hotel De L'Ocean claimed it simply charged for one night with no penalty. )

Neither could it comment on the additional child levy that the hotel also claimed it did not add. And neither did it add up for Eurostar.

"We will however follow this matter up with WWTE and ensure that there were no improper charges made in error in this instance," Parker assured. Unfortunately as we did not hear further, we assume that Eurostar also felt that there were 'no improper charges made in error' - just, dare we say it, a slight of hand worthy of a card shark camped outside Kings Cross Station.

To be fair, Parker claimed that when he checked the online price of a return ticket on the same trains he found 'exactly' the same price. Although his search was conducted after our own, he could not explain the difference 'at this stage'. He never got back to us. TheBigRetort can only conclude that he could not explain the difference at any stage.

So, thinking of travelling with Eurostar on a 'best deal'? Arrête! Think twice.

J D WETHERSPOON: THEYSEEYOUPEETV

Shock! Horror! Crap! George Orwell's 1984 is now at a pub near you. But is pub chain J D Wetherspoon taking the piss? TheBigRetort investigates.

Customers caught short whilst visiting a pub toilet in Brockley, South-east London may be excused if they have the strange sensation of being 'watched' as they go about their (once usually private) business. And it is not paranoia. Now, as they glance up at the ceiling they will realise the astonishing truth, then wet themselves. For, at the urinals, John Thomas in hand, there it is, on the ceiling, watching... a camera.

Surely not we hear you say... but it's yes.

We immediately visited the offending pub and confirmed our worst fears, following which we spoke to a Wetherspoon's spokesman. The following is not for the reader with a nervous disposition, a full bladder, or for anyone who has had a night on the old Vindaloo.

Surveillance report of society gone mad. Surveillance report of society gone mad. Surveillance...The pub... the Brockley Barge, London SE4. The location... the male toilet. The time... now.

"Most CCTV in Wetherspoons pubs are part of the licence... We believe that cameras are something that customers feel safer with," the Wetherspoon's spokesman confided.

What... in the loo?

"They are not pointed at the urinals. They are only pointed at washbasins."

Really?

"Yeah. If any customer made enquiries, they would be told, quite rightly, that they only point at handbasins."

Why?

(He paused.) "So that people feel safer."

So why isn't there a camera in the ladies loo too?

"Isn't there...? Well, I don't know about that particular pub... but if there isn't it's because the decision is made by the manager."

[So the manager only likes looking at the boys...?] Who looks at them?

"They're not looked at by members of staff. The only people who would have it (the footage) is the police. There are other pubs where this is the case. We're quite open about them. They are only there so that the police can watch."

How long are the images kept?

"I'm not sure."

[So there you have it... the police are the only ones allowed to watch. Whilst the images in the bar and outside the pub can be seen on a monitor the loo images are not shown to the general public. That makes it okay then.]

But are they also focused on the urinal, or, worse still... the loo? (After all it's impossible to say where they are pointed.) Couldn't shit be going on under the watchful of the law?

"At the washbasins," J D spokesperson was eager to assure.

But... why?

"So that they can see what's going on."

Err, well, what can 'they'.... see... at the washbasin?

"Things." (Presumably the washing of hands ceremony that follows visits to the loo.)

But what if any individual is hellbent in dealing with shit - and that kind of thing - and knows that the camera is only pointed at the washbasin, and that the images won't be viewed until, possibly, much later by the Peelice - Sorry we meant 'police' - wouldn't they go into the cubicles, or, dare we suggest, stand at the urinals and, err, pretend?

"It, err... acts as a... deterrent."

[And that's certainly true. It's the last time we spend a penny with JD Wetherspoon.]

Changing LINKS

Roads discovered on planet Mercury

A recent flyby of the planet Mercury from 124 miles (200 kilometers) above the surface has revealed an impact crater with more than 50 twisting roads radiating from its center. But could it be signs of life?

"It's a real mystery, a very unexpected find," said Louise Prockter, an instrument scientist at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, which built the probe for the $446 million NASA mission. She said whatever event created them "is anybody's guess," but suggested perhaps a volcanic intrusion beneath the planet's surface led to the formation of the 'troughs'.

However, the claim will fail to impress the 'life out there' brigade. "They are obviously pathways created by a not too technological civilisation," Noj Luap Nagrom a scientist at Toxteth University astronomy programme claimed.

Feelings that are trumpted by other findings...

Earth has a magnetic field surrounding it that acts as a protective bubble shielding the surface from cosmic rays and solar storms enabling life to gain a foothold.

Astonishingly a peculiar element of Mercury is its magnetic field... added to which the planet has an 'atmosphere'.

Scientists are said to be "shocked," having pored over more than 1,200 new images sent by seven instruments on the probe of Mercury's surface."I couldn't sleep at all," said Robert Strom, a MESSENGER science team member who also worked on the Mariner 10 mission. "I've waited 30 years for this."

Does this mean we have at last found life on another planet, and within our solar system? It certainly would raise tempratures.

Iron Mask Harry Bensley: Trashed

In this edition of TheBigRetort we had hoped to bring you the answer to the question to which you have all been waiting: Did he or didn't he?

It began with a 'Wager', widely published in various media around the world, and possibly everyone and his dog - even those wizened moguls of Hollywood - now lay claim to the belief that Harry Bensley, the Man in the Iron Mask, walked around the world pushing a perambulator - for $100,000. The bet was placed by John Pierpoint Morgan and the Earl of Lonsdale. So it must be true, mustn't it?

Well...?

Following the outset of his trek on the 1st of January 1908 various sightings took place of the Iron Mask, mainly throughout the south of England. (He was seen in our local Costcutter as late as last week. We jest, of course, and with good reason...) However, since leaving these shores, over 100 years ago, no account of his amazing exploits abroad have been unearthed, and certainly no one in Australia has come forward stating that they ran into a 'Pom' in an iron mask pushing a pram at a billabong. (If they did then it was like as not Ned kelly.)

Iron Mask simply vanished.

Until that is...

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bensley claimed that J Pierpoint Morgan called off the challenge due to the onset of the 1st World War - which started after he in fact died.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Much of our knowledge of Bensley's exploits come via a website with a family link.

The Official story [from the McNaught website.]

"Later in life he fell very ill. It was only now this his illegitimate son (Jim Beasley, my grandfather - Mother's side) found out about his father (Harry) and met him several times in Brighton hospital. (Apparently they looked almost identical.) Jim found him too late to be able to help, and Harry died in 1956, three months after their first meeting, back at home in his bedsitting room at 42 Riley Road, Brighton. Kate (his wife) was with him."

The Beasley-McNaught Connection

Harry Bensley's 'achievement' was represented by the Beasley/McNaught family, who claim their father/grandfather "Henry Claude Beasley" - not 'Bensley'? - was Harry's illegitimate son, born in 1908. This individual was referred to as "Jim" and is said to have tracked down his father (Harry Bensley) almost on his deathbed and then related details of that meeting to his own daughter. However, "Henry Claude Beasley" appears to be a totally different individual, with no known association to Harry Bensley; not even the same surname.

[The Beasley/McNaught family claim hinges on Harry providing false information and the surname being corrupted. Records do confirm that a"Henry Claude Beasley" was born on the 24th December 1908. But why should this be "Jim? In fact there is also another birth that we would submit. A "James Henry Beasley" is recorded on the 24th December (sic) 1906. (Note the day and month match.) Could Jim have targeted the wrong father? If so "Jim" made an error. James Henry Beasley died in Aug 1991 (aged 84) at Haywards Heath. If this is the same individual then he cannot be Harry Bensley's son, illegitimate or otherwise. Harry had been in prison either side of Jim's conception from 1904-1907.]

So why did Harry Bensley not complete his march around the world?

This is what the McNaught site has to say: http://mcnaught.orpheusweb.co.uk/HarryB/index.html

"... on reaching Genoa, Italy, in August 1914 and having covered 30,000 miles, with only six countries left to visit and 7,000 miles left to walk, the First World War broke out. Once again, there are conflicting reports of what happened next: (1) Being patriotic, he returned to England to fight for his country."

Harry Bensley was an asylum attendant based at Abbotts Langley in November 1915. [See Short Service Attestation (War Record) above. Kindly supplied by ancestry.com. Was he invalided in the 'three year' service prior, which is recorded on it?]

The McNaught site continues...

"(2) Morgan, worried that his steel empire would be threatened by the outbreak of war, called off the bet. Harry was said to be devastated when Morgan's messenger (or telegram in one report) reached him with the news, and he returned to England, a devastated man. He was never to leave our shores again."

To be fair, the McNaught family acknowledge that J P Morgan died a year before the war, so he could not have 'worried' about the threat, and it seems strange to stress the claim in spite of it. To straighten the record, the (only) gentleman ever referred to in contemporaneous accounts was (initially) described as 'a well-known American millionaire...' The site's author, who expresses some doubt on the manner of the wager, says: "Choose which version you believe."

It also goes on to claim.... 'He fought in the army, but was invalided out after a year.' [In fact, according to the Short Service Attestation signed by Bensley (under oath) it records three months service only, in a depot at Aldershot with the 'Packers & Loaders Company'.

Could it be that Harry Bensley was invalided out of the Packers? The Attestation is hard to read, so it's possible. (See ancestry.com for the whole record.) The previous army service before he was an asylum attendant (at the Imbeciles Asylum, Leavesden) may have seen a prior injury, but none possibly gained in the trenches of the 1st World War. Like as not the injury may have been due to that heavy helmet he was wearing whilst loading munitions. ]

If we are to believe the myth, Iron Mask, having crossed through 10 countries - from the 1st January 1908 to the outbreak of war in August 1914 - after his receipt of that devastating telegram from a dead man (in Genoa, Italy) had, in 6 plus years or 80 months, with no time off for good behaviour, managed a mean average of 375 miles a month, or twelve miles a day around the planet. With a further '7000 miles left', he may have circumnavigated the globe for a journey that would take a further year and a half - if not for the War that is. Truly a remarkable man.

But that's if you believe the myth...

Even Harry Bensley's 'descendants' express doubts. "We have never seen evidence that he left Britain, and because no one knew who he was, he could have quite easily carried on living here."


Following, in TheBigRetort... the whole truth and nothing but... Or Harry's version of it.

Iron Mask: The Harry Bensley trial

It was 'A Remarkable Wager'. A man wearing an iron mask. Pushing a pram. Full of photograph. Must find a wife along the way. Visit three towns in each county of England. Make his way around the world visiting each country and city on the list. It would take 6 years. And for the princely sum of $100,000. An astonishing tale. But was it true? A Big Retort exclusive...

Following a journey from the centre of London, after passing through Woolwich, the Iron Mask and his unnamed companion continued on to Bexleyeath. Things had gone extremely well and so they decided to stay the night at the Upton Hotel. The next morning however disaster struck... As they sold their wares at the Broadway they came under the 'unsympathetic' gaze of a police sergeant.

Seemingly the only man in England who could spot a 'con' at twenty yards, PS Martin later told the court that he saw the defendant selling photos and pamphlets. He asked if he had a certificate and the defendant said 'No, I don't go from house to house.' Witness said 'You go from town to town,' and defendant said 'Yes.' The Iron Mask was then taken into custody.

That night, the 3rd January, allowed bail the Mask and his companion stayed at the George and Bull Hotel to await his fate. The trial, which would be heard in the morning of the 4th had been brought forward a week by considerate Dartford magistrates. "To suit the convenience of the globe trotters."

The Time: 3rd January, 1908, 1pm. The Place: Dartford Police Court.

"'Henry Mason' was called, and a voice from the mask replied 'That's my name, sir,' " the court reporter wrote. He continued... "He was charged 'that on the third of January of this year, in the Parish of Bexley, you unlawfully did act as a pedlar without having a certificate authorising you to do so.' The magistrate inquired if the man was bound to keep that mask on. Mr Clinch (for the Prisoner) said he was going to ask the Court's indulgence 'by and bye'. He was going to ask the magistrates to allow the man to wear the mask during the trial. He pleaded guilty on his behalf to the charge."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"His head and chest were covered by a shiny black contrivance which seemed to be a combination of an ancient warrior's visor and breastplate, and on a kind of a signpost on top of it were the words in white letters "A £20,000 (sic) wager."---------------------------------------------------------------------------

When it became known that the Masked Man was to appear at the Dartford Police Court a large crowd had gathered. "He was," the reporter continued, "apparently a young man, judging from his brisk step and as much of his figure as could be seen, attired in a tourist suit and knickers." (The last item not carrying the same meaning 100 years later.)

A mystery inside an ancient mask. As he appeared in the main streets he was treated like the Edwardian equivalent of a superstar. The question on everyone's lips: Would he remove it.

There was general curiosity as to whether the strict rules, compelling all to remove their headgear would be enforced by the court . Amazingly, although it may seem odd in our post 9-11/7-7 world, it was not, and so the Masked Man entered the dock 'without removing his head and shoulder gear' and the police made no request. (The court reporter also claimed that on "a signpost on top of it (the helmet) were the words in white letters 'A £20,000 wager." Which differs from the postcards and other reports. An error perhaps.)

The court reporter recorded dryly... "The magistrates apparently saw the humorous side of the affair, and the strict lines of Court routine were allowed to become unusually elastic for the occasion."

"THE MASKED MAN" "HELD UP BY A BEXLEYHEATH SERGEANT" "A COMEDY IN DARTFORD POLICE COURT" ran the headlines a week later. (Bexleyheath Observer, Jan 10, 1908, p5, col c.)

'Henry Mason' stood in the dock awaiting his fate from behind the confines of an iron helmet. He was quite fortunate... Had the magistrates known who really stood before them the helmet would surely have been exchanged... for iron bars. Mason of course was not his real name. Iron Mask - quite craftily - had put forward this 'nome de convenience', if the bad French may be forgiven, in place of his own.... Harry Bensley. It was a remarkable performance of deception and revealed what a master manipulator he was.

"He had given a certain name but he was sure it would not influence the Court one way or the other," Bensley's lawyer said. (In other words the name given was not really his.) The court transcripts published in the same paper reveals the astonishing depths of Bensley's chutzpah.

The Chairman: As far as the name is concerned, we are not anxious to know the (his real) name.

Mr Mitchell: Wearing a mask is part of getting his living is it?

Mr Clinch said it was not part a question of a 'living' but it would take too long to explain. Clinch elaborated on the conditions of the wager and explained why he was selling the postcards at Bexleyheath. He started from London and went through the Strand and other thoroughfares in London and was not bothered by police. The police too took interest in his venture and purchased some postcards.

Mr Mitchell: Have they (the police) anything to do with the wager? (laughter)

Mr Clinch: I believe not, but they were interested. Clinch referred to 'No 10' of the conditions. This stipulated that the mask should be worn in public places. The court room was such a place and it was 'imperative' to the masked man to preserve this restriction.

The Chairman: If we told him to take off the mask it would be an end of the whole business?

Mr Clinch: I'm afraid it would. [Certainly true... Harry Bensley had been released from prison a month previous.]

The Chairman: We will allow the mask to remain under the circumstances.

Mr Clinch: Thank you, sir. Another condition is No.12. which somewhat puzzles me. It provides that he shall find a wife on the road (laughter). [Bensley was already married, to two women. One bigamously. The latter part led to his term in prison.]

The Chairman said that the mask would not help him much.

Mr Mitchell: Wouldn't he have a better chance at Gravesend (laughter).

Mr Clinch: I should be nearer home. I might be able to find him one there (laughter). Whether or not the wager commended itself to the Bench, it was clear that the man had not the slightest intention on infringing the law. He started in a busy place like London and was not interfered with. He asked the Bench to deal leniently with him, and suggested that considering the special circumstances justice would be met by ordering the man to pay the costs. He expressed his thanks to each magistrate for coming there and holding a special court to suit his convenience. He would not like them to go away without assuring them that he fully appreciated their consideration. If they would like to see photos he had some there.

Mr Mitchell: We've got the genuine article (laughter).

Mr Clinch: That's something better.

The Chairman asked about these photos. The gentleman there who was going with the defendant seemed to have a certificate, while the other had not. Did the goods offered for sale belong to the masked gentleman?

Mr Clinch (cautiously) : I never like to dive into these things too closely (laughter). I should not be surprised if this was not a joint speculation.

Mr Mitchell: Is the perambulator to put his wife in when he finds her (laughter).

The Chairman said that this was a somewhat different case from the ordinary. As a rule when a pedlar came there he had been locked up all night, and they took that into account and let him go. This defendant had no punishment at all. It was not a serious matter, and they would only inflict a small fine of a half-a-crown including costs, or four days. Of course, if he continued acting as a pedlar without a license he would be again dealt with, and a record of that case would be handed in against him. If he continued to act as a pedlar he must get a license. [END.]

Coming soon from TheBigRetort... how Harry Bensley came up with the idea of the Iron Mask Wager, from his prison cell.

The Iron Mask: Day 1

The Iron Mask: Day 1. To recap... the year was 1908. On a foggy New Year's morning. At 10.30 precisely, a man wearing an iron mask left from London's Trafalgar Square pushing a perambulator full of photos and accompanied by an 'American' minder. These were just a few of the conditions set down by 'the Wager '. But what happened after this event? Did Iron Mask get arrested for flogging his goods? Did he make it around the world in 6 years? TheBigRetort brings you some of the detail.... and the devil in it.

Having left the centre of London, the fog had lifted. The Man in the Iron Mask headed south across the River, his companion acting as Tonto to the Lone Ranger.

The streets were paved with postcards

Every street on the way was said to have been 'thronged' with excited crowds.

Several newspapers had been alerted to 'the Wager' and there was much clapping and cheering and waving.

To the man inside the helmet it was hard going - and bewildering. But the people clamoured for the postcards.

A blur of faces and monotonous sound came in and out of vision through the visor.

------------------------------------------------------------------

"We did not taste a mouthful of food, or even a drop of water, from the time we had our breakfast - 7.30- till 9.30 in the evening." The Masked Man, on his first day of 'the Wager' .

------------------------------------------------------------------

It had worked...

By the time the cavalcade of two reached Woolwich many postcards had been sold. And Harry Bensley, or rather the Man in the Iron Mask, had entered legend.

It was 'A Remarkable Wager': TO WALK AROUND THE WORD, MASKED, PUSHING A PERAMBULATOR - FOR $100,000.

In order to get his hands on the cash he had to remain 'entirely unknown throughout the journey' and 'be allowed to sell photographs and pamphlets' and 'call at the capital and three other towns in each county in England'. (The Bexleyheath Observer, Jan 3, 1908, p5, col g.)

But fulfilling one of the three of a much larger list was about to become more difficult than imagined...

Having passed through Woolwich, the same paper informs, 'The Iron Mask' arrived at Bexleyheath with his companion. They stayed for the night at the Upton Hotel. It was Thursday, 2nd January, one day after their epic journey had commenced.

The same paper opined with remarkable prescience, "He was optimistic of being able to accomplish his self imposed (sic) task, but whether he will find it congenial in a few years time especially in traversing hot countries, remains to be known."

'Self imposed task'...?

Coming soon in TheBigRetort.... "THE TRIAL OF IRON MASK".

Harry Bensley: What You Don't Know

In Edwardian England a man accepted an incredible wager: the prize - £21,000. It was set down by two notable men, J P Morgan (the wealthy banker) and the Earl of Lonsdale. But following several sightings around various cities and towns, "Iron Man", who pushed a pram 'throughout the world', face covered in an iron helmet, surviving only on the sale of pamphlets and postcards, disappeared like a phantom. Only to return 6 years later having 'nearly' completed his remarkable odyssey around the globe.

The story of The Man in The Iron Mask captured public imagination, then and now, and today people the world over are searching old newspapers and dusty archives in an effort to trace the footsteps of this intrepid perambulator.

TheBigRetort reveals all, for the first time...

Alleged Frauds

Four years before he took up his remarkable challenge, in 1904, Harry Bensley, then described as age "29", a labourer, appeared at Willesden Magistrates Court. Charged (on remand) with obtaining various sums of money 'by false pretences', the details of his arrest were indexed in the Times for various dates from September to November. This the first time the 'full' story of Bensley's escapades have been presented to a gullible public... and it makes shocking reading.

The scam

Bensley had claimed that he was the son of one Sir Robert Burrell, and as such was heir to extensive estates in Norfolk. He also made the claim that he was heir to his godmother's estate, also at Thetford, Norfolk, the late Mrs Holland. On his thirtieth birthday Bensley let it be known that he was due to inherit an impressive property and the thousands of acres of land that came with it. But there was one problem... or so Mr Bensley confided to his victims,. If he attempted to raise money against the value of his future inheritance then 'the whole of the estate fell into the hands of the trustees'.

He showed a Mr Jordan a telegram. It came from a moneylender offering him two hundred pounds against his future inheritance. However, although Bensley badly needed money, for some unexplained reason (perhaps a caveat in the 'will'), if he accepted the offer then this would thwart his inheritance. Or so he claimed...

By curious but timely coincidence, Mr Jordan (the victim of Bensley's scam) received two telegrams from the moneylender himself. This was most curious. Mr King offered him sums of £50 and £100 if he would 'induce' Bensley 'to accept this offer and a second one of £1000'.

And then there was Bensley's sister...?

She urged her brother to borrow £200 on 'his furniture' in order that he could go on a cruise with her. Bensley told Mr Jordan and a Mr Bradley, warehouseman (and is second victim), that he could not go on the cruise without the money. But, of course, there was that inheritance...

Bensley reeled his 'marks' in like two haddock on a fishing line. Messieurs Jordan and Bradley duly lent the money... but without surety. Bensley had instructed them to destroy any IOUs as these would stop his inheritance. Eventually nothing was heard from Harry Bensley. A visit to Thetford resulted in the police being called in.

A history of bogus claims

The claims were bogus. Harry Bensley was a well-practised fraudster with no regard for his victims or their families. "Jordan and Bradley had been defrauded of their lifelong savings and their provision for their children," the Times reported. 'Mr King' the moneylender did not exist. There was no relationship between Bensley and Robert Burrell (who was indeed wealthy, very alive, but had not received a knighthood). In what must have been a classic version of a long-firm fraud, Jordan and Bradley had been scammed.

Unknown to his victims Harry Bensley, using the alias "Harry Barker", had preplanned the whole thing, as far back as 1903. By the 17th May of the following year he had set sail on a ship headed for Sydney. Bensley had purchased the tickets, one for him and the others for his wife and child, with the first tranche of money he had taken from Jordan. This remarkable and elaborate deception, which revealed a degree of prescience found in a sociopath, had taken a year to complete, involved his 'wife' who was a seamstress, and was commenced by the same man who four years later would announce to the world that he had accepted a remarkable challenge, an astounding wager, (amongst others) to walk 'through' world, always wearing an iron mask, pushing a perambulator, picking up a wife, peddling photographs and pamphlets of his 'planned' endeavours - whilst keeping his identity secret. As we shall later discover there was a very good reason for this.


Harry's Game

On completion of this mammoth six-year task Harry Bensley was set to win an astonishing $100,000... a fortune back in those days. Or at last that is what Bensley claimed, for whatever Harry claimed should always have been taken with a (huge) pinch of salt. In fact, like all good tales there was (and is more) than meets the eye to this franky modern myth. Besides being a conniving, and rather nasty fraudster, Harry Bensley, a labourer and no more, was also a wife 'deceiver'.

In August 1898 he had married Kate Green, laundress, also of Thetford. The marriage produced two issue. At his later 1904 Old Bailey trial, the Common Serjeant heard that the family lived together until two years previous in Norwood. (Anthony road then Cobden road.) However, in July 1902, one year before he commenced his elaborate fraud on Messrs Jordan and Bradley, Mr Bensley - strangely now described as 'a remarkable man' (by some at least?) - deserted Kate his wife and their two children leaving them absolutely destitute. (Perhaps' remarkable' is the word.)

The barmaid and the bigamy

Sometime at this juncture, Harry Bensley had made the acquaintance of a barmaid in Norwood called Lily Chapman. (Listed as "Clapham" in some documents.) Ironically, it was a bigamous marriage to Lily that would catch up with Bensle. But that was after he absconded with Jordan and Bradley's money. Mr Bensley had presented himself as bachelor and heir to a large estate at Thetford to unsuspecting Lily. The modus operandi of the career criminal following its traditional agenda, Harry married Lily under the bogus surname "Burrell". Of course the representations he had also made to Lily were untrue, as indeed were those he would go on to make to Messrs Jordan and Bradley much later. He compounded this deception, the false pretences, by committing bigamy. He was still after all married to Kate Green. Another false representation that was soon to catch up with him.

At the Old Bailey, an additional charge was brought for 'feloniously and unlawfully inter-marrying (sic) with Lily Chapman at Marylebone Registry Office on February 5, 1903, his lawful wife, Kate Beasley (sic), being then and now alive'. (The Times, 11 Oct, 1904, p13, clmn c.)

Having upgraded to a 1st-class cabin with his new 'wife and child', "Harry Barker" - the name he travelled under - set sail on the 17th May with his wife and their child. Having paid £10 for each ticket, "Barker" upgraded to 1st-class passages for himself and his wife and child, a difference of £64 we are told. But all did not go as planned...

The arrest

The ship arrived at the Cape on the 4th June and a reception party awaited. Harry Bensley, son of a sawmill worker at Thetford, was 'nicked'. Brought to book by Detective Sergeant Cole and Detective Inspector Pollard, the prisoner was sent by Willesden magistrates to the Old Bailey. Finally, his deceptions had caught up with him. (Presumably he had more form as 'previous good character' is not recorded in any reporting on the trail.) Harry Bensley, aka Burrell, aka Harry Barker (etc) was sentenced to 4 years penal servitude. Significantly (or so it must surely seem later) he responded to the Common Serjeant at the Old Bailey, "Thank you, my Lord. I deserve it." Perhaps the first time that Harry Bensley had issued a truthful statement.

To follow in the TheBigRetort's buried news series, something the 'experts' and national newspapers missed completely... Iron Mask: The Truth Revealed.

Council tax scam

Council Tax is a property-based charge with one bill for each household set by the various councils to help pay for local services such as refuse collection etc. A tax which not too many of us have an issue. And yet there was that little investigation by TheBigRetort?

Councils can be rather vague regarding the "discounts" and "exemptions" that are available to the homeowner. In fact, when it comes to working out how much council tax is due some offer a 25% discount, providing there is only one occupant. Paradoxically, if the same property is empty then the discount is reduced by 10% only - leaving the council to claim a whopping 90% tax....but on an empty property.

The discount is offered on a 'furnished dwelling not used as a sole or main residence’ - a second home for example - and is curiously 'lower' when a property is empty. Why we haven't a clue... and TheBigRetort would have liked to have posed that question to that august body known as London Councils, previously known as the ALG. Unfortunately as the only representative for the thirty-two London authorities it does not - we were informed, on more than one occasion - 'speak to freelancers'. And so we, alongside council tax payers and buy-to-let landlords in particular, must remain forever in the dark - which is just the way 'they' like it. In this post, TheBigRetort lifts the lid on the council tax scam that may be costing property owners millions. But first, a little bit of taxing history....

Council Tax and the Landlord

The Local Government Act 2003 gave local councils 'discretion' in the level of discounts offered to council tax payers, enabling them to reduce the discounts on furnished properties. 'Second home' tax savings were reduced from 50% to 10%. [Defined in the Council Tax (Prescribed Classes of Dwellings) (England) Regulations 2003 and prescribed by the Secretary of State under the provisions of Section 11A of the Local Government Finance Act 1992.]

But we discovered that the councils make various ‘assumptions’ in order to ‘steer’ any homeowner with an empty property towards the '2nd home' discounted schemes - where tax is always due. In fact, many if not all landlords should be awarded an “exemption” - thereby paying zilch. The “discretion” reveals that there is a lack of co-ordination by the authorities in London, and that their lobby body London Councils does not have a tight grip on the reigns, as usual. This can be very costly to the not so savvy landlord with an empty property. "An empty property gets charged at a higher rate than a property with a single occupant." Make sense? It does for the councils... because it’s the law of increasing tax returns.

However, novice landlords may be unaware (because councils like it that way) but they are being 'guided' toward discounted schemes - both on websites and over the telephone - to get them to pay tax that they do not in fact owe . It's a scam. A slight of hand that would in any other case be classed as out-and-out deception. And, what's more, it's happening nationally...

Landlords who not only face voids in their property also face crippling and unnecessary council tax payments - unless they wise up to this not-so-neat little tax trick. Or until London Councils reigns in its members and halts the practice. But don't hold your breath.

And then, there are ways to avoid the tax altogether.

TheBigRetort's step-by-step guide to avoiding council tax on an empty buy-to-let property. And it's legal.

Take the furniture out.

A “Class C” exemption applies if a ‘property is vacant and substantially unfurnished’ for up to six months. And rightly speaking no tax is due.

Following an initial phone query in Brent, we reveal that the exemption for empty properties is kept in the background. “The discount for properties that are empty but furnished (including second homes) is ten per cent” many councils claim up front. But more often than not we had to dig to find the exempt categories, where they were found, in many instances, the burden of proof was weighted against the landlord with the empty property - which obviously makes it difficult (if not impossible) to pursue the exemption. Which is the way that many of these councils want it.

Wandsworth Council states on its website that landlords are ‘required to notify us' when there is a change of occupancy. Are they really? Additional requests include forwarding addresses of any tenant who moves out of the property and other ‘relevant’ information. Landlords could easily find themselves on the wrong side of the Data Protection’s Act, or harassment laws. But the motivation behind such demands is obvious....

“You must also note that for any period between tenancies, you will be made responsible for Council Tax payments.” Wandsworth goes on to say, "If the property remains furnished during this period, you may be eligible for a 25% discount from your Council Tax."

It's a con... if your property is partly furnished and empty then you don't have to pay a bean. It's only when TheBigRetort knocked at the proverbial door of truth that we discovered the following... "If unfurnished and unoccupied you may be eligible for a six month exemption from Council Tax..."

But there is no 'may' about it, you are entitled to the exemption, and to the buy-to-let landlord facing a dreaded rental void that may mean the difference between retention or repossession.

Lambeth Council claims, “Even if they do not live there, the owner of the property will have to pay the Council Tax if: (i) the property is no one's main home." In fact if a landlord has a - partly or totally unfurnished - empty property due to a void or refurbishment circumstances then s/he will find that the same exemption applies – and no tax is due.

A property counts as a main home if you live there for the majority of the time and most of your possessions are kept there. However what Lambeth then goes on to claim is both puzzlingly and contradictory, “There is no discount for unfurnished empty properties.” [Lambeth’s emphasis.] It is only when we read on that we discover that the council speaks with forked tongue…. "Such properties may be exempt from Council Tax for up to six months but after that time, there is now no discount.’"

Misleading, or what? In a very roundabout bureaucratic way, Lambeth Council tells us that there is no discount for unfurnished properties: which is true, because it’s - wait for it - an exemption. [Lambeth just hopes that you landlords don't log on to TheBigRetort and discover how misleading.]

Southwark Council also goes boldly where Lambeth has gone before when it states, “There is only one council tax bill per household whether it is owned, rented or empty.” Which is true…. owned, rented, or empty, there is only one council tax bill. But what if the property is partly furnished and empty? Well.... no council tax is due.

Landlords in Southwark should watch out for this council tax jiggery-smokery. The council lists the answer(s) under separate categories marked “Discounts” and “Exemptions”. Under the first it duly reveals that there are circumstances when a discount can be awarded, “If there is only one adult we could reduce your Council Tax bill by 25% (one quarter). If there are no adults we could reduce your Council Tax bill by 50% (one half).” [Other councils only - curiously - reduce the discount by 10% on an empty property.] So what if a property is empty and (partly) unfurnished? The fallback answer is found under the heading "Empty Properties and Second Homes", but novice landlords ignore the “2nd Home” ten percent discount - that's just the red herring - it's the exemption you need.

Reducing a council tax bill to zero

There are a number of ways that a homeowner can reduce a council tax bill to zero….and it is with the help of that Great Landlord in the Sky.

Religious Community status is a must for those choosing to avoid council tax... The only requirement is a written confirmation of the number of adults resident in the property and the name and details of the religious community and details of any income. Seem fair? Why should non-believers pay tax on behalf of those who believe in a greater being? Can an atheist classify a ‘faith’ in non-existence and thereby escape the tax? What is ‘belief’ and - more importantly - why should it be totally exempt from council tax anyway? Surely the believers amongst us go to a tax-free haven in the sky and get the best of both worlds. [But don't ask us, ask London Councils.]

Class C Exemption

In fact "Class C" exemptions should be applied nationally to empty unfurnished homes and should not be classed under ‘2nd home ownership, which simply qualifies for a discount - and that is probably the sole motivation for any council withholding the exemption information.

In tower Hamlets a ‘Second Home’ (in other words not the main home but a furnished one), sees the council tax bill reduced by 10%. As with other councils prior to 1st April 2004 the discount was 50%, which is still applicable where it is ‘job related’ and the occupier is liable to pay council tax for another dwelling by an employer. [How much does an MP pay?] In fact, it is only when we looked under the Exempt Homes category that we discovered a transparent explanation: “Vacant properties are exempt when they are ‘unfurnished’ (exempt for up to six months).”

Camden Council gave a full and forward and open account on its website of the exemption: “Section 75, of the Local Government Finance Act 2003, gave local councils' the discretion to amend the council tax discounts; that they give to the owners of unoccupied domestic properties, with effect from 01 April 2004. Regulations made by the Secretary of State namely, The Council Tax (Prescribed Classes of Dwellings) (England) Regulations SI 2003: 3011, specified the classes of domestic property for which the discounts could be reduced as follows: A Class C exemption applies if the property is unfurnished and unoccupied. By unoccupied, we mean that a property is not anyone's main home.”

All great stuff... Unfortunately the council then goes on to argue, “In the case of Class C, the discount can be removed altogether so that the full council tax bill is payable.”

A case of giving it with one hand and taking it back with the other if ever. Camden Council passed a resolution in 2004. It ruled that an empty property exemption could be reduced from 50% to zero. Does this apply to a landlord with an empty unfurnished property?

The policy is discretionary. Local authorities' throughout England follow different strategies. Indeed, just within the Greater London area alone there are great differences. However, and here’s the rub… An exemption will still apply for the first six months, where a property becomes substantially unfurnished. [In the case of uninhabitable properties, this period increases to 12 months. Lewisham Council is very helpful in this regard.]

And that leaves us with the council that misled the most...

Brent Council initially claimed that council tax was due on an empty property - even though it was ‘unfurnished’. It claimed, wrongly, that the exemption only applied if the property was being ‘refurbished’, which is not true. Nevertheless Brent ignored this and demanded more than £200 for the months the unfurnished property was empty. [Brent Council's press office was very helpful when we queried this and other behaviour but did not get back to us at the point of writing with any answers, so we may never learn what has gone on there. Firstly why is it more expensive for tax on a discounted empty property? And, secondly, why is the council directing landlords away from the all-important no-tax exemptions?]

So landlords in Brent do not be cowed. If your empty property is partly furnished, or unfurnished, then no council tax is owed, and anyone who claims otherwise is ignorant of the regulations, or a thief. But then, to a council, a ten percent discount sounds much better than a zero exemption.

Ealing Council stated on its website - and of the 'Thirty-Two' it wasn't alone - “If only one adult lives in the property the council tax will be reduced by 25%. Properties which are unoccupied and furnished will get a 10% discount."

Ealing's landlords are supposed to see this and go, Oh my property’s empty, why don’t I just say it’s got one person in it and avoid a further 15% tax! Don’t bother… It’s a scam. You don’t owe the council grifters a penny. Seek out the all-important “exemptions” column.

So, if you’re a landlord with an empty (partly) unfurnished property... just say No to Council Tax.

Free speech costs plenty

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." An eloquent defence of tolerance, or a cosy assumption from people who don't have to face the consequences of what they defend?

Had the Oxford Debating Society students known their onions they may have been surprised to learn that the saying attributed to French writer François-Marie Arouet de Voltaire was actually written by Stephen G Tallentyre, a pseudonym for (female) writer Evelyn Beatrice Hall. She added it to her 1906 biographical book The Friends of Voltaire. It was only intended to summarise Voltaire's attitude and were not words that he himself actually uttered.

Renowned for his satirical wit, Voltaire, a millionaire at forty, did not occupy the moral high ground - and even if he had uttered 'his' famous expression he would not have extended it to all.
It was Voltaire's (erroneously based) free speech ideals that led to the Oxford Union Debating Society's controversial invitation to two 'racists'. However, Voltaire believed that Africans were a separate species, inferior to the Europeans and that ancient Jews were "an ignorant and barbarous people".
Paradoxically an atheist-in-religious-guise, Voltaire used 'faith'. In his day freedom of expression came with the caveats not against the Church and not against the State - he fell foul to both. Little wonder that a biographer - writing under a male pseudonym - placed an often misunderstood ideal in his mouth. Women did not have the same rights as men circa 1906.

So was female writer Hall was secretly lobbying for the rights of women at the beginning of the 20th Century through an early liberal racist philosopher?

Ironically the Oxford Two are a symbol of Voltaire himself. He was in complete accord with what both had to say and would no doubt defend... to the death.
What is even more ironic - something the free-speech-brigade avoids - Voltaire shared the same self-absorbed belief that his 'race' alone was at the pinnacle of species, rather than a fractious part of humankind.

But freedom is not democracy and democracy is not free.
[Voltaire.]

Philippines hotel siege: surrender

Military ‘rebels’ who seized a luxury hotel in the Philippines capital have agreed to surrender, for the safety of the hostages.
"We're going out ... because we cannot live with our conscience if some of you get hurt in the crossfire," Antonio Trillanes, a Navy Lieutenant informed them.
About 200 civilians (many journalists) were trapped inside the Peninsula Hotel in Manila when the rebels, calling for the overthrow of President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, took control of the building which is ringed by troops. Guest inside were said to be 'calm'.

Scandal of the high street banks

THERE IS A VERY OLD SAYING THAT 'HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF TIME AND TIME AGAIN'. RECENTLY TWO COMPUTER DISCS CONTAINING THE PERSONAL INFORMATION OF 26 MILLION PEOPLE DISAPPEARED.... IN THE POST. BUT HASN'T IT ALL HAPPENED BEFORE? THEBIGRETORT REVEALS ...

Some years back, an investigation was conducted by two undercover reporters working for Punch Magazine - Pete Sawyer and Jon Paul Morgan . The pair of sleuths presented a groundbreaking piece of journalism, following months of painstaking research, that was featured on Channel 4 News - as the lead item - and copied in newspapers and magazines the length and breadth of Britain. Reproduced here (with the kind permission of Punch Magazine) is what the pair uncovered...

THE REPORTERS SIFTING THROUGH MOUNTAINS OF PERSONAL BANK INFORMATION LEFT OUT ON THE STREETS. [Sawyer pictured left, Morgan right.].

THE TITLE SAID IT ALL...

'Doing undercover work at night, can make you stick out like a sore thumb. Pete and I used to dress quite smartly at first and pose as businessmen searching for our own documents, sometimes we used to dress like tramps, and actually hardly ever got noticed. Except when we appeared on Channel 4, and our cover was blown. We still caught them dumping personal details though!' (JPM)

'The banks had become really sloppy, creating an illusion of security where in fact none existed. In many instances we found passwords, opinions on customers, amounts held, phone numbers, pass numbers, oh... and a jam doughnut.'

'In order to show that this wasn't just a London problem, we broadened our investigation with the help of colleagues credited above.'
THE BANKS WERE CAUGHT WITH THEIR PANTS DOWN, AND COLLAPSED UNDER THE WEIGHTY EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY MORGAN AND SAWYER. THOUGH SOME TRIED TO WRIGGLE FREE... WHICH WAS ALWAYS VERY INTERESTING... THE REPORTERS TARGETED THEM AGAIN AND AGAIN. AND YES... THEY WERE STILL DOING IT.
Can our data ever be secure in their hands? Is there still a place for a National ID Card? We leave it up to you to decide. Data recovery