I was just wondering how many of the rest of you here may have heard the interview by You and Yours's Winifred Robinson with Simon Bates of PhonePayPlus on yesterday lunchtime's program (aired at 12pm on Thursday 4th March 2010).

Whilst not strictly a matter relating to 084 or 087 numbers I am sure the matters discussed were still very near to the hearts of the readers of this discussion forum since they related to a fairly hard hitting piece by You and Yours that suggested that teenage or other relatively naive mobile phone users were still being routinely scammed by reverse billed text messages and/or subscription based reverse billed text messages selling mobile phone display icons, ringtones etc, etc (Jamster et al).  These services had landed some listeners with unexpected phone charges of several hundred pounds that their phone providers in some cases had refused to refund (even though the customer claimed not to aware there was a susbcription basis to the service and/or that STOP requests had been ignored by the provider)

After both the Radio 4 investigative piece and at the end of the program Ms Robinson then interviewed Simon Bates (the PR director of PhonePayPlus) to ask him why these scams were still continuing in such large volumes with such monotonous regularity and if PhonePayPlus's attempts to stop these scams by only imposing rather modest fines had not been largely ineffective.

Unfortunately Mr Bates seem to have been through the worst possible form of positive buzz speak marketing training and could only rattle on about how all these valuable services were now an inevitable fact of life that were here to stay and that it was not the job of PhonePayPlus to shut down them just because they were inherently designed to scam but instead only their job to provide a further living for Mr Bates and his colleagues by coming up with useless and ineffective schemes like PhoneBrain that are supposed to help educate the public about the high costs of using these services.  Some of you may recall that PhoneBrain previously described some 084/7 numbers as being "Local Rate" and/or "National Rate" calls.

I both emailed and phoned the program with questions and one of my phoned questions as to whether the moral integrity of PhonePayPlus could be guaranteed when its staff clearly relied on the continued operation of these scams in large numbers by its members in order for those members to then be able to afford to pay PhonePayPlus's membership fees was put to Mr Bates in some form.  He merely responded that this was a question they often got and that the public could guarantee that the fine and upstanding independence of PhonePayPlus from the scams that clearly underlyingly cause its very existence and provide most of its funding.  I must say that throughout I found Mr Bates's performance totally skin crawling and he came across as being clearly paid well in to six figures and thinking it was no problem for people to be stung with hidden reverse billed text message charges that any Pay As You Go customer would never even be aware of the exact amounts of (since no PayAsYouGo customer in the UK has access to even online itemised billing thanks to the congentially useless regulatory practices of Ofcom).

As a result of all this I then sent the following email to Mr Bates and his colleagues indicating what I felt to be the morally compromised position of PhonePayPlus and including a copy of the email I had sent to You and Yours.  Inevitably Mr Bates has not bothered to respond so far even though I did get a Read Receipt for my email.

If any other forum member wants to listen to this item and give their views on the useless activities of the overpaid and totally ineffective bureaucrats at PhonePayPlus then they can do so by listening again from minute one of the program onwards at www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00qznd7/You_and_Yours_04_03_2010/

Here is my email to Simon Bates and the other top brass at PhonePayPlus


Quote:

-------- Original Message -------- Subject:      Simon Bates You & Yours Interview and PhonePayPlus Hypocrisy Over Text Message Scams Date:      Thu, 04 Mar 2010 15:32:25 +0000 To:      sbates@phonepayplus.org.uk, pwhiteing@phonepayplus.org.uk, agraham@phonepayplus.org.uk, rchilton@phonepayplus.org.uk, bbrady@phonepayplus.org.uk, jeremy.hallsworth@bt.com CC:      youandyours@bbc.co.uk, winifred.robinson@bbc.co.uk, heather.clayton@oft.gov.uk, ali.nikpay@oft.gov.uk, david.saunders@competition-commission.org.uk, rachel.merelie@competition-commission.org.uk, chloe.macewen@competition-commission.org.uk, stuart.mcintosh@ofcom.org.uk, peter.phillips@ofcom.org.uk, anna.bradley@communicationsconsumerpanel.org.uk, Emily.keaney@communicationsconsumerpanel.org.uk, gareth.davies@ofcom.org.uk, clive.hillier@ofcom.org.uk, ed.richards@ofcom.org.uk Dear PhonePayPlus Directors and Chief Executive, Simon Bates You & Yours Interview and PhonePayPlus Hypocrisy Over Reverse Billed Text Message and Other PhonePayPlus Enabled Scams I forward below a copy of the comments I sent to BBC Radio 4's You and Yours program (listen again from minute 1 of the program onwards at www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00qznd7/You_and_Yours_04_03_2010/).  Some of the comments I also contributed to the program by phone were also put to Simon Bates in the form of a question about the theoretical independence of PhonePayPlus being almost entirely compromised by relying on a thriving 09 and text message scam industry in order for the organisation's well paid senior executive staff, such as Simon Bates, to continue holding their jobs. Perhaps Mr Bates's contentment on the Radio 4 program with these services being in his view a fact of modern life that is not going to go away may have something to do with the six figures + salary and pension package he no doubt draws on the back of his organisation complacently still allowing millions of young, naive and/or impoverished consumers to continue to be ripped off by an entirely unnecessary and entirely non price transparent premium rate phone call and reverse billed text message industry. Not discussed at all on the You and Yours program (where we heard mainly only of mobile phone customers with itemised bills who had objected to large amounts for reverse billed text messages shown on those bills) is the fact that most of the industry's success is based on PayAsYouGo mobile use where consumers mainly have no idea at all how much these services have cost them because PhonePayPlus's telco profit loving and equally unscrupulous parent (Ofcom) continues to permit all the UK mobile operators to run pay as you go products that withhold all possible forms of call itemisation.  By contrast I have full text by text and data block by data block online call credit use itemisation on the two Spanish PayAsYou Go sim cards I hold with www.simyo.es and www.pepephone.com  There is no possible excuse for this call cost itemisation being withheld online by Uk mobile phone operators (where the cost of its actual provision would be negligible and its only actual real cost is the huge reduction in the number of ripoff calls made by consumers that would then ensue) but of course it continues to occur because of the utterly useless concept of telecoms industry self regulation under Ofcom that has already been so widely derided in the case of the FSA and the financial services industry. So far as I am concerned anyone who works for PhonePayPlus does not have any genuine interest at all in protecting the consumer and their only actual interest seems to be in drawing as a large a salary and as large a pension as they possibly can.  Your equal failure to regulate 0871 numbers on the full premium rate basis originally promised by Ofcom (but then backtracked on using the usual New Labour smoke and mirrors) speaks volumes about your true motivations as an organisation.  I note that I provided a long response to that consultation but all of my comments and those of 600+ other plus consumers (see www.phonepayplus.org.uk/output/Responses-Regulation-of-0871-services.aspx) were completely ignored by your predecessor ICSTIS in favour of your previously agreed plans with Ofcom. Yours in concern, Regards,

And this was the email I sent to You And Yours:-


Quote:

-------- Original Message -------- Subject:      Justin Bates and PhonePayPlus are Actually In Bed With The Text Message Scammers Date:      Thu, 04 Mar 2010 12:47:49 +0000 To:      youandyours@bbc.co.uk Justin Bates and PhonePayPlus are Actually In Bed With The Text Message Scammers Justin Bates from PhonePayPlus claimed on today's show that that his organisation is actually trying to protect teenagers and other naive consumers from reverse billed text messages and/or other subscription text message services that charge exorbitant amounts and that the consumers concerned frequently have no idea at all will be costing them these extortionate amounts of money. However in my view the only way to protect consumers is to completely ban the existence of all reverse billed text message and/or ongoing monthly subscription text message services as they contravene all normal principles of consumer choice that consumers should clearly know what something is going to cost them before they decide whether to pay for it.  The only purpose of these methods of selling a service are actually in order to scam an unwary consumer and no consumer would actually agree to buy these services if they realised the true costs in advance and had to pay the money up front. Although Mr Bates waffled on and on about PhonePayPlus's PhoneBrain campaign trying to make consumers aware how to avoid these scams the only real solution is for PhonePayPlus or its parent body - Ofcom - to make this way of billing consumers completely illegal and for all the reverse billed and other subscription text messages services to be closed down. Mr Bates should be far more honest with us and admit that neither he or any of his other colleagues at PhonePayPlus would currently even have a job if they did what they actually should do and made all reverse billed and subscription text messages completely illegal and also made 09 phone numbers (which PhonePayPlus also regulates) only able to be called after entering a PIN number that is known only to the phone bill payer. Regards,

This is indeed a disgrace. Any pretence of PhonePay Plus being independent of its membership is silly nonsense.

The problem with self-regulation is that the self-regulatory body can continually point to the 99% percent of its members that do not break its rules as if this somehow makes the situation acceptable. The only purpose of a self-regulator is to protect the reputation of those whom it represents as a whole. In a consumerist world regulation is only about an impression - ultimately it is for each consumer to take care of their own interests.

Using the number of complaints as if this reflected the effectiveness of a regulator is a classic error invariably made by the consumerist You and Yours. The true relationship is perhaps the inverse of what is suggested. If a regulator is seen to be ineffective, then the level of complaints it receives for a continuing nuisance will fall. You and Yours should congratulate regulators on the number of complaints that they are able to generate and then pursue the way in which they are resolved. The only relevant question is, "how many complaints led to the malpractice reported being ceased?". (I stress, not penalised, but ceased). Simple aggregate complaint figures tell us nothing on their own.

The tricky question is about what could be done. PhonePayPlus holds powers devolved by Ofcom. Should they be drawn back?

The PRS industry represents a thriving part of the UK economy. Should it be closed down?

The issue discussed provides an excellent opportunity for youngsters to learn how to be the smart consumers and entrepreneurs of the future. Once they have been scammed they are better able to avoid being scammed and to be able to scam others. Should these vital lessons for participation in a market economy be withdrawn?

My personal view is that the answer is "no" in each case, and I believe that on careful consideration most would agree with me. What I see as being important is that we truly understand the realities of where we are and what we are doing. We must disregard false posturing by PhonePayPlus and You and Yours, as if they respectively represented the interests of consumers and society at large. The former represents its members and the latter picks up on particular narrow interest groups.

And what of the continued false posturing of SCV on this website as being a consumer champion whilst in fact repeatedly backing the argument that the entrepeneurial free enterprise activities of the scammers should be allowed to continue unfettered.

I must of course congratulate SCV in terms of the thoroughness of his own efforts in driving away most of the regulars in this forum because they now know that instead of a supportive comment on their posts they will always receive one of SCV's riddle based responses.

I would imagine that Ofcom and all of the telecoms industry are extremely grateful indeed to SCV for the extent to which he has so effectively managed to dismantle a previously cohesive community of radical anti telecoms ripoff activists through his own variety of carefully calculated but almost always supremely unhelpful responses.

Given the number of man hours per week which SCV now devotes to this task I can only imagine that his work in this area is in fact funded on a professional basis. ;) :-/

NGMsGhost wrote on Mar 5^th, 2010 at 8:31pm:

... the continued false posturing of SCV on this website as being a consumer champion ...

In case there may be any confusion, I am not even a consumerist, most certainly not a champion of consumerism.

I offer my thoughts, trying to keep close to the subject of the thread, offering points for further discussion.

In the contribution referred to I believe that I indicated general support for the position taken in the original posting.

When reviewing this discussion forum, I hope that readers would rather be entertained by lively and interesting comments on the relevant points raised by myself and others, rather than postings that focus solely on the character, achievements, activities and alleged occupation of an individual contributor.

(I would be delighted to see both this and the previous posting removed by moderators, by consent, so that the thread of discussion can continue uninterupted.)

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Mar 5^th, 2010 at 9:03pm:

(I would be delighted to see both this and the previous posting removed by moderators, by consent, so that the thread of discussion can continue uninterupted.)

I believe the thread was actually taken Off Topic in Reply #3 when SCV pretended to support my comments whilst then proceeding to his usual utterly indecipherable nonsense about Consumerism and his conclusion that it was a great benefit to the UK economy for teenage consumers and their parents to continue being ripped off by the members of PhonePayPlus.

There were a large number of interesting individuals who used to contribute posts in this forum but they now largely don't bother because they know that if they do they will be taunted and ridiculed by SCV, who now seems to proclaim ownership of the forum and all of its editorial content.

The disgraceful nature of Simon Bates's comments on You & Yours yesterday demanded a response but I was reluctant to do so given that I knew my old comrades in the forum had in the main already been driven away and that as sure as night followed day the only actual response to my post would be the usual nonsense about "consumerism" from SCV.

I would be perfectly happy for the forum's moderators to discontinue SCV's membership of this forum for a number of months so that he can then continue to better focus his efforts on his various one man campaigns without causing any distraction to other forum members who do not subscribe to or share any part of his philosophical outlook

NGMsGhost wrote on Mar 5^th, 2010 at 9:27pm:

I would be perfectly happy for the forum's moderators to discontinue SCV's membership of this forum for a number of months so that he can then continue to better focus his efforts on his various one man campaigns without causing any distraction to other forum members who do not subscribe to or share any part of his philosophical outlook

I think most of us would agree with that.

Can we return to the topic, as I try to express my points more simply.

Consumerism is at the heart of the issue. I accept that I may be in a small minority in warning of its dangers, as most of us support the fundamental freedom to sell and buy in an open market. (Comment about the wholly different case of the public sector would be totally off-topic in this thread.)

There is no absolute definition of what is fair and unfair in business. It is a matter of opinion, expressed in particular laws and regulations, and determined in practice by courts and regulators.

Business does however depend to some degree on reputation. The purpose of a self-regulatory body is to protect the reputation of the industry that it represents. That is all that PhonePay Plus does. It has no specific duty to consumers, only a duty to ensure that they have an adequately positive view of the industry so as to buy from it.

Markets rely on consumers being able to defend their own interests.

The issue identified by You and Yours was a classic example of where the market and consumerism is bound to fail, because PhonePay Plus is ineffective in setting and enforcing regulations (as it must be) and youngsters are prime candidates for being exploited.

Whilst I see this as inevitable, I put forward some possible ways in which the situation could be addressed.

I understood the original posting to suggest that the situation was fundamentally flawed, rather than being in need of a little tweaking, with slightly bigger fines and re-drafted regulations. If I have taken the position reflected by the original posting to be more radical than was intended, then I must apologise for going off topic by addressing fundamental questions rather than small points of detail.

I hope this is clear.

---

Returning to the off-topic points made.

This forum provides an opportunity for people to express dissatisfaction with features of the world as it is. If those who wish to do so are distracted by those of us who are campaigning for achievable change and therefore look for serious proposals of what could be done, then that is unfortunate. I also seek to discuss issues at some depth in an objective manner, rather than simply expressing personal opinions. I appreciate that not all contributors wish to engage in such discussion and fully recognise their right not to do so.

Premium rate service in the UK permits legalized theft, sanctioned by PPP and overlooked by Ofcom. Many of the scams could be prevented by two very simple measures:

enforcing an opt-in system;

providing adequate dispute resolution such that the onus is on the PRS provider and the telecommunication network to prove the charges are justified as opposed to the hapless victim having to navigate through hoops and hurdles to obtain a refund.

PPP will not support either of these simple controls for obvious reasons.

idb wrote on Mar 6^th, 2010 at 2:42am:

enforcing an opt-in system

An option within a contract for telephone service that enabled one to subscribe (or not) to premium rate services is an interesting suggestion.

Could there be a problem in determining the level at which this applied, or would it be necessary to have a multi-tiered facility. For example, I may wish to have access to Directory Enquiry services and charity donation lines, but not to downloading wallpaper. Some may wish for the reverse!

Could it be that the "all or nothing" aspect of such a feature is the basis for the objection? Providers of directory enquiry services would not wish to lose business through fear of wallpaper scams.

Is a multi-level option feasible?

Would compulsory enabling of a variable subscriber-set cash limit on the value of PRS purchases be a sensible proposal - this could be by item in all cases, and also per month for contract services? Sensible (non-zero) default values could be agreed. Obviously the cost of administering such a system would make its way back onto bills, however this would help consumers protect themselves from unintended purchases.

N.B. Whilst I may agree that the world would be a better place without PRS, I do not see any serious prospect of it being abolished.

I am almost certain this post will result in derisory replies but I have to ask.  Wallpaper?  How on earth can you download wallpaper?

Heinz wrote on Mar 6^th, 2010 at 11:29am:

I am almost certain this post will result in derisory replies but I have to ask.  Wallpaper?  How on earth can you download wallpaper?

Heinz I must say that I do find it a little hard to believe that someone who uses a computer as much as I know you clearly do (bearing in mind your active presence both here and on the moneysavingexpert.com discussion forums) is not aware that Wallpaper is also a term for a background picture/pattern on a home computer screen or on a mobile phone display and does not always have to involve physical paste, paper and plastered walls. ;) :P ;D

I would also have thought that had you wished to avoid what you may perceive as being the "derisory replies" you might perhaps have considered entering the phrases "mobile phone" and "wallpaper" in to a Google search (where 3,060,000 hits for this search await you - very few of which seem to involve the use of paste, paper or walls).  Oh and just in case Google is a website you can reach by typing www.google.co.uk in to something called a web browser (sometimes otherwise known as Internet Explore, Firefox, Opera, etc, etc) ::)

Heinz wrote on Mar 6^th, 2010 at 11:29am:

I am almost certain this post will result in derisory replies but I have to ask.  Wallpaper?  How on earth can you download wallpaper?

Derision may be offered by members of the younger generation, but not by me. I too find the concept highly comical.

A contributor to the radio programme is heard complaining about paying £15 for a download that she did not receive in a clip trailing the item at the beginning of the broadcast. I am sure that William Morris is turning in his grave.

idb wrote on Mar 6^th, 2010 at 2:42am:

Premium rate service in the UK permits legalized theft, sanctioned by PPP and overlooked by Ofcom. Many of the scams could be prevented by two very simple measures: enforcing an opt-in system; providing adequate dispute resolution such that the onus is on the PRS provider and the telecommunication network to prove the charges are justified as opposed to the hapless victim having to navigate through hoops and hurdles to obtain a refund.

Hear, hear, hear idb.  A nice clear cut solution to a clear cut problem of the kind that we so often used to enjoy on this forum before the telecoms industry's favourite covert apologist showed up here and spent endless hours posting long and waffly justifications for the continuation of their activities.

I would also tend to assume that his preceding Silent Calls campaign was quite probably covertly funded by a large number of rival commercial companies to those carrying on these unsolicited telephone based marketing activities who felt they had much to lose in terms of market share if the new kids on the block were not prevented from drumming up additional custom in this way. ;)

NGMsGhost wrote on Mar 6^th, 2010 at 12:02pm:

Hear, hear, hear idb.  A nice clear cut solution to a clear cut problem

Some agreement - a basis for a sensible discussion perhaps.
All or nothing?
Any answer to the point about access to Directory Enquiries etc. being used to press everyone to opt-in?

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Mar 6^th, 2010 at 12:26pm:

Any answer to the point about access to Directory Enquiries etc. being used to press everyone to opt-in?

The premium rate phone system as it currently exists is blatantly inadequately secure since it allows anyone who has access to someone else's phone line to rack up charges of £90 per hour or a staggering £2,160 per day.  Yet despite this there is no PIN protection on the line before such services can be accessed to protect the bill payer from misuse and worse still there is no announcement of the high cost of these premium rate services.  I also most certainly do include voice based directory enquiries as being amongst those numbers requiring PIN number and other premium rate protection given that the scam creation kings at Ofcom have allowed them to be charged at up to the same £1.50 per minute as premium rate numbers with additional connection fees of up to £1.50 before a call is even connected.  To cap it all off BT and the other telcos like TalkTalk do not even offer the obvious low tech protection to all customers of no more than £50 in a quarter being able to be spent on these services in total before the billpayer is proactively contacted by the telecoms company and authorisation sought for any further contunued use above the £50 level.   Preferably there should be further proactive reauthorisation as each further level of spend beyond £50 is reached.  This would be particularly helpful where bill payers themselves become addicted to premium rate quiz competition lines or sex chat lines as they would then realise the alarming total amounts that they are spending on these services.  It would also help protect young children without any concept of the value of money who also receive regular exhortations to ring various 09 lines on stations such as Nick Junior and Tiny Pop (albeit that the insincere caveat that they must obtain their parent or guardian's permission before doing so has normally been given).

It is quite clearly only due to the deliberate complicity of the so called regulator Ofcom (and its devil's spawn known as PhonePayPlus) with the scammers that this abuse of telephone customers occurs because all of the basic checks and balances that would make it very difficult to cause major financial detriment to someone else have been deliberately omitted, even though these things (voice price announcement before being connected to expensive directory enquiries services and a low financial limit for making calls to premium rate numbers and/or PIN number protection automatically enabled by default to any number costing more than say 10p per minute) would surely be utter childs play to set up on the telephone network.

The telecoms industry these days is a home for latterday highway robbers and Ofcom is a body largely manned by well paid ex highway robbers that has a clear cut intention to ensure that this is the way that things remain. :o >:( :'(

With regards to SCV's comments about what else would we expect from an industry funded body (i.e. PhonePayPlus and/or Ofcom) I would remind SCV that Ofcom is a body established under the Communications Act 2003 and is supposedly directly accountable to Parliament and that under Section 3(i) of that Act it is Ofcom's principal duty to ensure competitive markets for consumers.  But I fail to see how any market can be properly competitive when high cost services are able to be rapidly consumed without the sanction of the consumer who is actually paying the bill and/or without the consumer being aware they have entered in to an agreed to pay for the service before they do so.

Since PhonePayPlus is establised under powers given to Ofcom it is quite clear that it is also under the same duty to ensure competitive markets that are not distorted and where consumers make proper competitive choices.  With that being so I do not see how SCV defends PhonePayPlus behaving like the worst kind of cartel creating private sector trade association?

NGMsGhost wrote on Mar 6^th, 2010 at 12:58pm:

I do not see how SCV defends PhonePayPlus behaving like the worst kind of cartel creating private sector trade association?

I do not seek to defend PhonePay Plus or Ofcom; You and Yours provides them with sufficient opportunity to do so for themselves. I aim only to understand and comment on the broad reality of the environment in which we are perhaps seeking to instigate change for the better. If there is no hope of improvement, because all those who could create it are corrupt, then we are just shouting in a vacuum.

Whilst I do not seek to promote the arguments that are ranged against us, I believe that they have to be discussed and understood so that they may be either overcome, or acknowledged as being unanswerable so that those of us engaged in campaigning may pursue more achievable goals. I accept that some members may not wish to engage in polite discussion with those who hold different views and that some see such discussion as being totally impossible. I am happy to engage in open public discussion in an open public discussion forum.

---

ICSTIS was in existence as a trade body before Ofcom was established. The relevant provisions in the Communications Act were drafted specifically for ICSTIS to continue the role of a self-regulator, although bolstered by Ofcom’s powers. PhonePay Plus is exactly the same organisation, using a different name.

Ofcom’s second principal duty is to further the interests of consumers, where appropriate by promoting competition. Ofcom is not able to ensure competition, it can only promote it.

There is a fundamental problem here in that the only general definition of “the interests of consumers” is their individual ability to consume as they choose. This is most clearly seen in the approach of the Communications Consumer Panel, which presses for little other than more consumption of communications services by more people. Some may view limiting the opportunities to consume PRS as being contrary to Ofcom’s second principal duty. Nobody wishes to be scammed, however, unless deliberate deceit can be recognised by all, what to some may be seen as a scam is to others a stupid purchase.


I suspect we agree that self-regulation can never be expected to be effective. Its only purpose is to create an impression, rather than offering genuine protection to consumers. Any open market, however it is regulated, must leave a burden of responsibility on the consumer, which some may find too great to bear. The difficult question is about what level of wisdom one expects a consumer to have. Where there is a freedom to choose, this must include the freedom to make a mistake. Any restriction of the latter risks denying the former.


The point about limiting the value of PRS purchases is well made. The present limits, of which I was not aware, are clearly inadequate. It seems that they are only discretionary credit checks for the sake of the provider, rather than a protection for the consumer. I would be interested to read comments on my suggestion that application of consumer-set limits by month and item could be demanded by regulation.


PIN-protection for high value purchases by telephone is another interesting suggestion. I am however concerned about the over-use of PINs and passwords, to which we are currently subjected. This readily causes us to lose a proper sense of what needs to be protected carefully. Every time a PIN or password is used its safety can be compromised, so there is good reason not to encourage unnecessary use.


Voice price announcements can offer a useful protection against mistaken use of expensive services. They must however never be used to remove attention from the vital need to provide adequate cost information before one decides to call a number. It is the decision to make the call that must be properly informed. The opportunity to back out of a decision that has been taken should only be seen as a useful additional facility.



NGMsGhost wrote on Mar 6^th, 2010 at 12:58pm:

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Mar 6th, 2010 at 12:26pm: Any answer to the point about access to Directory Enquiries etc. being used to press everyone to opt-in?

As this question was quoted, I take it that the point was being addressed.

I believe that this issue warrants serious consideration. I do not believe that attacking the integrity of those who would have to introduce the regulations for a PRS opt-in is the most useful argument that may be used to persuade them to do so. The consultation on such a proposal is unlikely to state that it has been proposed because Ofcom personnel wish to repent of their highway robbery and give up their continuing corruption. More powerful arguments are required to counter the potential accusations of nanny-ism, restriction of choice and failure to separate the bad guys from the good that would arise against such a proposal.

I suspect that many will believe and argue strongly that the problem being addressed exists in only part of the PRS market. This could ensure that opt-in is the default condition if a simple “all or nothing” mechanism is introduced at all.

(All of the above is offered for serious discussion. I hope that I make it clear where I am expressing personal opinions rather than making objective points. The difference is however irrelevant, as I am not the topic of this thread.)

Having withdrawn from this forum for some time for reasons outlined by other about users being driven away, I would now wish to make two points.  Firstly, I support wholeheartedly the comments made by NGM'sGhost and the points he makes and also sherbert's post (No 7).   Secondly, I wish to place here my dictionary's definition of consumerism - 1) the movement for consumer protection in connection with defective & unsafe products, MISLEADING BUSINESS PRACTICES ETC (bold not working so had to use caps); 2) the consumption of goods and services.   My understanding of the use of this word in the sense meant on this forum is the first definition whereas SCV, in every thread where the word or concept occurs, uses only the second definition which I believe leads to total distortion.

NGM'sG, I must add my concurrence with Barbara to all of your posts in this topic, and agree that the reason I have no longer posted on this forum for some while is due to the dilution of the views now expressed, with too many incognito commercial proponents who are really attempting to justify the continuing scams, and muddling the issues with unnecessary verbosity and Peter Prescription speak.

The old vigour in the campaigners against these abuses seems to have been mostly snuffed out, and replaced by half-hearted discussions, almost accepting the status quo, and the conjuring of Ofcom. No battle will ever be won in this way, as you well know. As you have observed a number of times before, you and I mostly see these things in pretty much the same way, which is not true of some newer members.

Thank you dorf!   At least is shows that those of us who have made similar comments are not alone, it just needs someone to listen to us. , take note & act appropriately before this site & campaign dies.

Barbara wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2010 at 4:29pm:

Thank you dorf!   At least is shows that those of us who have made similar comments are not alone, it just needs someone to listen to us. , take note & act appropriately before this site & campaign dies.

May I add my endorsemant to Barbara's and Dorf's posts.

Sums up most of what the members of this forum are thinking.