We are exhorted in endless ways to be security conscious, are we not? ...YES WE ARE.
Don't do this, don't answer that, we won't phone you, we shall never ask you anything personal etc. etc.
I received a phone call. The guy asked for me by my surname, introduced himself with a first name and told me he was phoning about an issue I had raised about [nameless] bank. So that we could discuss the matter he would first need to go through security with me; so saying, he launched into the first (and last) personal question .
Giving me a first name was not sufficient for me, though he evidently thought it was.
No, he couldn't tell me anything more without going through security with me. And, if I was refusing to clear security with him then he could not give me any information.
One sided security here, ringing all the alarm bells. If the call was being recorded, I wanted it to be recorded that this call was unsatisfactory. Like a good girl, I was keeping to the security rules and keeping mine safe. Surely, for his part to confirm his status to me, information could be given about when the issue was raised at least and perhaps who may have dealt with any call relating to it. (Those were my questions).
The answer: you've probably guessed it - not without me going through
the [ bank's] security, with which, given the nature of the call, I was
not going to oblige. Obviously tetchy, he said, in that case he would have to write to me.
I offered to phone him. Yes, I could have a number to call him on but, (there's always a but isn't there) " I am between two floors and you might not get me."
I await a letter.
In our Time with Seneca
5 hours ago