It appears O2 are doing this deliberately, because in response to a concern being raised, they tweeted

@lewispeckover Hi Lewis. The mobile number in the HTML is linked to how the site determines that your browsing from a mobile device #O2Guru

January 24, 2012 6:06 pm via CoTweetReplyRetweetFavorite

@O2

O2 in the UK

But when I got onto their customer services the representative I spoke to denied it was even happening, refused to address it, and said they were happy I raise it with the Information Commisioner’s Office.

info: Welcome to O2. Someone will be with you soon.
info: You’re through to O2 – Maria.
O2 – Maria: Hi I’m O2 – Maria. How can I help?
Simon Wood: Hi Maria, I have seen that O2 are giving out my phone number in http headers of sites I visit while using my iPhone on O2′s data network – I haven’t authorised this and I’m concerned it’s a breach of data protection. Advice here: suggests I give you a chance to put it righthttp://www.ico.gov.uk/complaints/data_protection/supporting_evidence.aspx#disclosure
O2 – Maria: I’ll check this for you.
Simon Wood: Thanks. There’s some info here http://lew.io/headers.php and your Twitter team appear to have confirmed it’s deliberate:http://twitter.com/#!/O2/status/161872584634408960.
O2 – Maria: Thanks for the info, please give me a minute while I check this for you.
Simon Wood: Okay.
O2 – Maria: Can you please give the website address on which your mobile number is included.
Simon Wood: This is the site: http://lew.io/headers.php but if it is in the header sent to this site, is there any reason to suppose you’d just be doing it for this site in particular?
O2 – Maria: I’ve check this and this is not our website, I request you to please don’t refer this website.
Simon Wood: I know it’s not your website. I don’t understand your request – what do you mean “refer this website”?
O2 – Maria: We don’t share any information about our customers with anyone.
O2 – Maria: I mean please don’t go to this website.
Simon Wood: So you are saying you are not giving out the mobile phone numbers of your customers in HTTP headers?
O2 – Maria: Yes, you are correct.
Simon Wood: Despite the evidence that you are – you won’t put this right?
O2 – Maria: I request you to ignore this site and please be assure that we don’t share our customer’s information on any websites. Our own website is safe and secure to access from a phone or a computer/laptop.
Simon Wood: Yes, but I am paying you to provide me with a mobile internet service – I want to be able to visit websites without you telling them my phone number. I want to give you a chance to put this right before I raise it with the Information Commissioner’s Office.
O2 – Maria: If you want you can contact Information Commissioner’s Office. If you find your number on any website then you need to contact the owner of the website and ask them about this.
Simon Wood: It’s not that the number is *ON* a website, it is that O2 are sending that information *TO* the website when requesting a webpage. I take it from your last reply that you are unwilling to address this, and I will have to go to the ICO?
O2 – Maria: I can just assure that we’re not sending your number or details to any website when you visit a webpage. If you want you can contact Information Commissioner’s Office and let them know about the information that you have got on the website.
Simon Wood: I would hope you are not, and I would like to believe your assurances, but the evidence suggests otherwise. I will certainly bring to the ICO’s attention the demonstration that website provides that this information is being sent by O2 in web page requests. Thank you.
info: We’ll email a copy of your chat transcript to snwood@mac.com.
O2 – Maria: From my end I can assure you about this, yes you can go and contact them about this.
O2 – Maria: Is there anything else I can help you with?
Simon Wood: No, thank you.

I’ve asked followers on other networks to let me know if their network is doing this too – because I’m looking to switch if this is not sorted. So far I’ve heard T-Mobile are in the clear, I’d be pleased to hear about the other networks if anyone’s tried them?

Update (18.14): O2 (almost) fixed the problem and posted an explanation this afternoon. First of all, credit where it’s due. They were quick, and this is an (almost) full explanation. I’ll come back to those almosts. They’ve also been very active on Twitter letting people know what they were doing, which is also to be commended. Indeed I’m inclined to overlook the fact that the “apology” they tweeted wasn’t really an apology at all:

We're sorry about the concern re mobilenumbers and web browsing, which is now fixed. Here's what happened + Q&A. http://t.co/Dm5bb5d5

January 25, 2012 3:32 pm via CoTweetReplyRetweetFavorite

@O2

O2 in the UK

Being “sorry about the concern” is not the same as being sorry for giving out our mobile numbers without permission.

Thanks to @ptr10001, @SphericalN and all the commenters for confirming that T-Mobile, Vodafone and Virgin were not affected, while GiffGaff (which uses O2′s network) was. I’m not sure about Orange, but it transpires that this kind of problem has been known about for a couple of years, and there has been an instance of Orange sharing numbers.

Here’s the outstanding problem: O2 are still sharing my number and I don’t know who with.

When you browse from an O2 mobile, we add the user’s mobile number to this technical information, but only with certain trusted partners. This is standard industry practice.

O2 almost gave a full explanation, but they haven’t said who the “trusted partners” are. It’s almost a fix, but a true fix would allow us to opt out of any sharing. And because it’s only “trusted partners” websites like the one linked above that revealed the problem this morning (being, presumably, untrusted) won’t show it’s happening. How do we tell which other networks are doing this? O2 says it’s “standard industry practice”.

O2 need to publish a list of who they are sharing my phone number with, and explain how I can opt out.

Since 2005 (with an exception during the year off) the Christmas episode has been the festival movie version of the show, part James Bond, part Frank Capra. This Narnish addition delivers the requisite holiday cheer, and the misjudged “comic” cameos and wooden techno-babble fail to spoil that. I chatted to @lone_locust about it for the @fusionpatrol podcast:

Download.

I love the fact that Doctor Who is one big story that has run for 48 years, regenerating through genres, eras and styles with an unearthly youthfulness. It’s a shame that David Yates, who directed Paul Abbott’s superb political thriller State of Play and did wonderful things with the latter half of the Harry Potter franchise, feels that “Russell T. Davies and then Steven Moffat have done their own transformations, which were fantastic, but we have to put that aside and start from scratch.” This isn’t the first time this has happened: when the show found its first success it was just 2 years before a cinema version was released rebooting the TV continuity by making the Doctor human and recasting companions Ian, Barbara and Susan. Following the 2005 revival it’s taken 6 years to announce a movie, and it’ll apparently be a further 2 to 3 years in the planning. The first movie was successful enough to spawn a single sequel, presumably BBC Worldwide are banking on this one doing better than that. But even though this isn’t the first time a “fresh start” has been made with the Doctor Who concept, I find it difficult to get invested in. Compare this, to, say, the 1996 made for TV movie which despite being essentially a pilot for Fox in the US was so dedicated to the continuation of the original show it began with the regeneration of Sylvester McCoy (very probably to its detriment in terms of attracting new audiences). Despite the poor regard it seems to be held in, I still enjoy that far more than the Peter Cushing movies of the ’60s. I’d watch anything David Yates directed, but now the Doctor is back on TV there’s no additional appeal in it being a Doctor Who movie (perhaps the opposite, even). There’s something about the continuity of the show that means it will be judged on more than just how good a film it is.

Wow...I can't believe how negative fandom is being already. #drwhomovie

November 14, 2011 7:21 pm via webReplyRetweetFavorite

@crdb1976

Chris Bryant

The other reason to be fearful is what it says about the BBC’s confidence in Doctor Who that they’re willing to dilute the brand in this way. Since the early summer, Private Eye have been running stories filled with innuendo about the BBC’s slicing away at its commitment to the show, with the next 14 episodes commissioned to be spread far more thinly beyond 2012. Eminent Doctor-Who-ologist Matt Hills fears it might even mean suspending the TV series.

@MrSimonWood Now *that* I might get excited about. Though I'm with those speculating that a film & TV series couldn't run concurrently.

November 14, 2011 7:57 pm via webReplyRetweetFavorite

@mat_hills

Matt Hills

The concern is rooted in the fact that a large part of Doctor Who‘s current success is in its revenue raising merchandising and branded spin-offs, and to have two different versions of the show trying to cash in on the same market would be very… weird. So whether or not the TV series continues, to be contemplating a movie suggests that the BBC are willing to risk the TV series and everything it earns for them to take a punt on trying to break into blockbuster cinema. It seems an awfully long-shot to me, and I can’t escape the conclusion that the BBC no longer value the Doctor Who brand as highly as they did a couple of years ago.

I sincerely hope I’m wrong. We don’t want another charity single.

Photo: Doctor Who and a Dalek with the TARDIS by Camera Wences CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

I suppose the major criticism I have, if I try to be objective for a moment, was that the recreation of the Friday Night, Saturday Morning show added nothing to the original. The additional context and the distracting cutaways were superfluous. Watching Palin get so upset in person is far more affecting than seeing it re-enacted. The authenticity is more important than anything else.

Still, you cannot fault it for its respectful treatment of The Nicest Man in the World. To criticise Palin? That would have been blasphemy.

I realised I’d never seen the whole of the Friday Night, Saturday Morning programme that this drama is about (the chat show on which Palin and Cleese confronted Malcolm Muggeridge and Mervyn Stockwood the then Bishop of Southwark about the perceived offence cause by Life of Brian). I’ve seen the clips that are always shown in Python docos or included as DVD extras, what about the rest of it? A search surfaced an incomplete recording: there’s an interesting preamble from a very relaxed Palin and Cleese, a warm up rant from Stockwood, and then the same familiar old clips. Here it is.

Is there a more complete version available anywhere?

In the meantime, at least the complete version of The Life of Christ sketch from Not the Nine O’Clock News is available.

I’m not sure what to make of Holy Flying Circus from the clips I’ve seen. Like any of these biopics the portrayals can at moments absolutely capture their subject (like right at the end of the following) – my Mum didn’t notice that this clip wasn’t Palin and Cleese and didn’t understand why anyone had filmed it – but the comic signature of their targets, the timing and intonation, are unique and unrepeatable.

“There’s only one reason I would ever tell anyone my name. There’s only one time I could…”

Back in 22nd April 2011 the time traveller meets her again, for what should be the last time. It’s the end for The Doctor. Because she’s going to kill him.

Steven Moffatt is clearly not a writer who believes in giving himself an easy time. This is the only time a series of Doctor Who has ended with a single story, though in many ways it’s not a single story in the traditional sense, because this year the inevitable story arc has been woven strongly throughout all of the episodes he is written. In some ways it is the final episode of a five part serial, and an ambitious serial at that. It has to tell the story of the Doctor’s death: because we’ve seen him die, we know it is a fixed point in time. “Maybe he’s a clone or a duplicate or something?” No, that most certainly is The Doctor and he most certain is dead. Instead it provides a wonderful conclusion to the Silence in the Library story (rating 11/10) and cheats miserably when in resolving the Doctor’s death (rating 0/10).

As an entry in story focusing on the events of 22nd April 2011 it began well. We already know that there was the younger Doctor, last seen in A Christmas Carol and an older Doctor following from Closing Time each approaching the day from a different perspective. Stepping out of time, the alternate timeline Soothsayer Doctor proved an effective way of taking a slower, sidelong look at the potential consequences of the Doctor and River’s decisions in the fateful moment. The Doctor’s helplessness and desperation, River’s neediness, the hand fasting, the kiss; it all came together in a perfect point of inflection in the Melody/River continuity. I loved it.

After a series of Amy & Rory and then the Doctor fretting about his demise, turning the tables to make the Doctor’s goal in this story – his triumph – the bringing about of his own death was a superb device. Everything came together in a single moment on top of a a pyramid. Unfortunately, in the last five minutes, a switch was pulled that undermined not only the audacious opening two-parter but the climax of this episode itself: the teselector. Of course when the teselector shows up at the beginning of the episode I dismissed it. That would be cheating. “Maybe he’s a clone or a duplicate or something?” asks Amy, over the Doctor’s body, in The Impossible Astronaut. “Let me save you some time” says CEDIII. “That most certainly is The Doctor and he most certain is dead.” That’s the writer’s voice. That’s his promise: not a duplicate. Yet that is exactly what this is, regardless of whether there’s a miniature Doctor inside it. I rewatched the scene on top of the pyramid. Does it have the same emotional impact if you know that the Doctor didn’t really whisper his name; that it was the teselector that River kissed? Does it even make sense than they as opposite poles they short out the alternative timeline if River’s not really even touching the Doctor?

No, no, no.

It’s a cheat. And it’s cheap. The same goes for River’s apparent admission that she was acting not recognising the suit she wore as a little girl in The Impossible Astronaut. Alex Kingston is the actress, and there’s something fraudulent about claiming that River was engaged in such an undetectable deception.

Despite all that I do still like this episode. Having hugely enjoyed this series – the best series of Doctor Who ever, in my book – I’d wanted this episode to be the best story in the arc (hoping it would be the best in the series would be too ambitious following the heights scaled inThe Girl Who Waited). And it did have its moments. Indeed, purely for the line “she’d like to go out with you for…. texting and scones” it deserves classic status, and the tribute to Nicholas Courtney’s character is deeply touching and effective. I’m not sure how much the disappointment of the last five minutes bothers me, yet. I love Matt Smith’s performance throughout – yet again he is so unexpected, so old, so alien. And as in A Good Man Goes to War Karen Gillen shows us a chillingly tough side to Amy Pond.

So on to some minor niggles…

• Eye-drives: isn’t offloading all your memories far too complicated? I had assumed they would just have a tiny little screen in them that shows a Silence to those who work for them, since when you’re looking at them you remember them.
• When everything is resolved, who can remember the alternative reality? It made sense that the Doctor and River do, but I was surprised that Amy appears to – so who else does? And when do those memories occur? I had assumed they would occur on 22 April 2011 – but that would change the version of events we’ve seen – and I think we see those that for Amy, the alternate reality events occur post-God Complex. If that’s correct, I cannot see the reason, and whether it is or not, I think this is an area where the writing could have afforded a little more clarity.
• What changed time when River saved the Doctor by draining her weapons systems? What did we see in The Impossible Astronaut and what could have changed it? The Doctor’s foreknowledge might have, but if River was going to do that she’d have done that originally and we’d have seen the Doctor not die. My interpretation is that the original course of events included River trying to do this and undoing it following the alternate reality timeline, but I’m not certain this makes absolute sense. I’m also surprised by how much River’s demeanour changes from her sorrow before killing the Doctor and her flippancy after avoiding it. Could there be other timer-wimey trickery here that is yet to be revealed? Will it link up with how River was at Amy and Rory’s wedding (and Mels wasn’t)?

Indeed very few of the questions were answered. We did not find out who is Kavorian’s boss (other than the Silence, but who do they work for). We still don’t know, for example, who could beam the signal that controlled Amy’s flesh avatar into the TARDIS. So is this story over? I don’t think so. We have Trenzalor to look forward to, Kovarian is still alive. And there’s no longer any reason why the Doctor and River might not meet again. After all, she’s yet to learn his name.

I hope they do.

• How does River know the Doctor’s name?
• Who blew up the TARDIS?
• Why does the (older) Doctor invite the Pond family (and himself) to Lake Silencio?
• Why does River not remember being the little girl in the astronaut’s suit?
• Who is Madame Kovarian’s boss?
• If that was the Doctor’s cot, why did he have it in the TARDIS?
• Who were Mels’ parents or guardians in Leadworth? (great question from @lone_locust)
• How did Mels get to Leadworth in the 1990s?
• Why wasn’t Mels at Rory and Amy’s wedding?
• How was River at Rory and Amy’s wedding?
• Did the Doctor revisit Rory and Amy’s wedding after River kissed him with her toxic lipstick, and before she saved him with her spare regenerations? (And if not, why the top hat and tails?)
• What did the Doctor whisper to River when he was dying?
• Doctor Who?
• What do Time Lords pray to?

• Who is the little girl who regenerated? (River)
• Who kills the Doctor? (River)
• What is the question hidden in plain sight? (Doctor Who?)
• Who did the Doctor see in room 11? (The Doctor)

Have I missed any?

Update 22:55 I missed some.

@MrSimonWood How come Amy & Rory seem to be living in a house in impossible astro. Is it the same one from God Complex?

September 29, 2011 9:38 pm via EchofonReplyRetweetFavorite

@lone_locust

Eugene Glover

Also

• When was Amy swapped with her ganger?
• Who could project the signal to control the flesh through time and space into the TARDIS? (may be same answer as fifth question above)

Have I missed any more?

Update 1/10 12:20

Another thought: what actually kills the Doctor? What is that green flash? A weapon or a phenomenon, eg. the energy discharge from the shorting out of some time differential?

Finished Michael Moorcock's Dr Who novel last night. Odd, quirky but fun

August 18, 2011 10:24 am via TweetDeckReplyRetweetFavorite

@egrommet

Glyn Mottershead

For about the first third, I was convinced Moorcock was purely pastiching Wodehouse. There’s a henpecked husband (Uncle Tom, James Schoonmaker, etc), a plot to steal something an object by its owner (cf. Aunt Dahlia’s fake pearls) a character called Bingo, young lovers forbidden to marry and prone to squabbling over misunderstandings, and an Aunt Agatha type (the splendidly named Enola Banning Cannon). And why not? I enjoyed The Unicorn and the Wasp doing Agatha Christie and surely the joy of Doctor Who is that it can regenerate into almost any genre, from one episode to the next, with no warning…

Then, abruptly, the Wodehouse plot is suspended as the large cast of players of Quidditch – no, sorry, the Renaissance Tournament – embark on a perilous journey on a series of space skiffs. The narrative includes increasingly frequent lectures (not always delivered by the Doctor, but in the voice of the author) concerning the nature of the multiverse, and the fact that space is a relative dimension of time.

Reading this must be a very different experience for a Moorcock fan. This is the first of his works I’ve read, and I got the strong impression that he was conscious of introducing readers like me into a Universe he has long established and is already familiar with. Indeed, Wikipedia informs me that Captain Cornelius, a pirate with a ship very reminiscent of Enlightenment is a recurring character. By the time I reached the final chapters of the book I was beginning to enjoy the awesomeness of the multiverse (as Miggea shifts between universes).

Despite the strange mixture of styles, my regret at the premature abandonment of the Wodehouse pastiche, weariness at throwaway jokes being laboured through the full length of the book, and the awkwardness of the cut-and-shut melding of a somewhat incompatible multiverse with the Whoniverse, I found this far more readable than other original Doctor Who novels I’ve persevered with in the past; indeed I found it hard to put down at times.

So I’d endorse “odd, quirky, but fun”.

This is the first appearance of a recurring monster this year (besides minor appearances of sontarans, silurians, cybermen and even weeping angels in minor roles). That’s evidence of the originality of this year’s of stories. But that’s not to say I wouldn’t welcome the occasional appearance of a classic villain if it’s well done. And generally, I love a cybermat. But neither they nor the cybermen were well-served by this episode (and the more we see of cyberconversion the less scary it is). The crashed ship plot was rather pedestrian (and, to me, having new cybermen on Earth in 1986 feels wrong) and insufficient to sustain a story in its own right. Perhaps that’s why we have the other recurring element, the reappearance of Craig from The Lodger to which this is a direct (if inferior) sequel.

I enjoyed James Corden’s performance as Matt Smith’s house-mate a great deal. But with less opportunity to play off the Doctor, he is shriller and more erratic. The baby storyline is a nice progression from when we last met him (“You’ve redecorated. I don’t like it.” “We’ve moved!”) but without the culture-clash elements, the story feels a bit rudderless.

Additionally, the (obviously Moffat-penned) ending also feels bolted on, in the way that the final sequence in The Cold Earth did. Elements of the story arc through this year’s episodes have typically been well-integrated but this stuck out starkly with the kids in the street providing the clunkiest of links.

The real strength of the episode is Matt Smith’s well-judge melancholy performance of the Doctor on the eve of his death. This must be around 200 years, in the Doctor’s timeline, since The God Complex. The moment when he sees Amy and Rory walking through the shop is very affecting; the success Amy has enjoyed modelling conveying effectively the time that has passed for her. There’s a sense, as he chastises himself for being a selfish old man, of how much further he’s fallen since he rose so high. That was there in the performance, but it felt like the writing shied away from it: for Craig to have been converted would have illustrated just how irredeemably toxic the Doctor has become. I can see how that would have been unpalatable for the family audience, but it would have given a mediocre episode meaning. Even revealing the Doctor’s cutesy “I can talk baby” as being a sham (a careful line has been trodden to avoid confirming this) would have exposed how sad and pathetic the Doctor is with no companions.

Instead, this one plays it safe. When Doctor Who is at its best I don’t even notice that I’m watching scenes filmed in the corridors at work. So it can’t be a good sign if, during airing, I’m wondering whether the episode was filmed in Debenhams.

It’s a beautifully crafted episode in the sense that the clues to the Doctor’s fatal mistake are all in full view on screen from the pre-title sequence up to the moment he realises his terrible error. And, like in The Waters of Mars, it feels like his error has real consequences and not just for him, but for Amy too. Even the device of having only the Doctor hear the Minotaur (“What’s that Sooty? You feel old and you want to die?”) worked well, “I wasn’t talking about me” being so well signalled but brilliantly executed to emphasise the Doctor’s complacency.

It even made me regret not having seen The Horns of Nimon.

This episode is packed with the very stylised montages and shift is point of view that have become an established part of the tapestry of the show – it’s odd to recall how such sequences in Eleventh Hour  (showing a glimpse, a recognition or an association) felt like a jarring departure from the established style. And while this is certainly his best episode to date, Toby Whithouse’s episodes are never short of gags and this had some cracking one liners in it (“did you just say ‘it’s okay, we’re nice?’”).

With respect to accumulating companions, the Doctor has always happened upon someone with precisely the requisite qualities at just the time when there’s a vacancy, so it’s lovely to see his reaction to Rita: clever, sarcastic, devout and brave. “She’s good. Amy, with regret, you’ve fired.” Rita would have made a fantastic companion, so and it’s another indicator of the quality of this story that it can call upon the writing and performance that could have established a long-term character purely to serve this 45-mintues piece.

The departure of companions is always hugely problematic, too. It’s always difficult to write them out in a way that makes sense of their leaving (or the Doctor’s leaving them), as is made explicit “you can’t just drop me off like we shared a cab” but “what’s the alternative? Me standing over your broken body?”. So again, it’s an accomplishment that one of the best companion departure scenes is here, despite the fact I very much doubt that this is the last of Amy and Rory (I’ve seen no spoilers, don’t tell me whether I’m right or wrong). But it’s necessary because the act of destroying Amy’s faith in him is a necessary consequence of the Doctor’s actions in this episode if the resolution to carefully built up to is to have any meaning.

So, the big unanswered question: what did the Doctor see in his room? We heard the cloister bell, and the popular theory online seems to be it was the Doctor (as suggested by the line “Who else?”). There were too rooms we did see in the episode that weren’t accounted for as being the fears of a known character: the PE teacher who the Doctor saw, and the clown, who he didn’t. Could it be the clown? It’s a long shot, unless it’s connected with @lone_locust’s Phantom Jester theory. I’m not so sure, but for me the really interesting question is Amy’s, since it’s not the fear but the faith that matters here. So what does the Doctor believe in?