simond001 wrote on Aug 21^st, 2007 at 11:33am:


Its just that I find most people who earn their living selling 084 and 087 prefixed numbers to businesses seem to have no problem at all with being economical with the truth and misleading their clients in order to sell their wares.  NEG being a case in point.

If all these services were on 09 and there were clear pre and post call charge announcements and line subscribers could restrict access to 09 by other household members through PIN number access (indeed that restriction was enabled by default) I would have less problems with the activities of the premium rate number industry (of which the 084/7 industry is a clandestine part).  But even then I would ban all national and local government services and the emergency services from being allowed to use such premium rate numbers for contact by the general public.

You go on about how its more convenient for the call to be rerouted out of hours etc, etc.  Well fine that allows that doctor to have a better image with the patient that may allow him to get more patients and improve the profitability of his practice.  But with that being so why isn't the doctor paying this extra marketing cost of his business.

simond001 wrote on Aug 21^st, 2007 at 2:08pm:


I would suggest the ethical part of your industry has only sold 0800 and 0845 numbers and in respect of the 0845 numbers the ethical members of your industry would now be working very hard to sell their clients a replacement 03 calls solution.

The 0844, 0870 and 0871 number ranges are all about nothing other than hidden revenue sharing that is reliant on the fact that many members of the public wrongly believe them to be ordinary local (0844) and national (0870 and 0871) rate calls. The only exception is the use of these numbers by dial thru calling services who are completely transparent about the cost of the calls and state it at the outset in the same way as they do for the 09 numbers they also use to provide the service.

All the NGN number vending salesmen who have appeared in this forum and the weasel words they have then used to justify their hidden premium rate services, yourself included, have only served  to reinforce my views on the matter.

simond001 wrote on Aug 21^st, 2007 at 8:56pm:




It seems you genuinely find it baffling when the usual range of lies and half truths used to successfully missell the conversion of normal numbers in to covert premium rate numbers doesn't actually work with us.

Can I offer you a clue that in trying to express your pro NGN views here you are likely to get about as much sympathy as a member of Brake would over at www.petrolheads.com/gassing

Tanllan wrote on Aug 21^st, 2007 at 11:14pm:


And of course 0844 and 0871 are even more despicable and inexcusable than 0845 and 0870 since they were never ever linked to local or national rate and were allowed by a cynical and telco scams enhancing Ofcom purely to give telcos further hidden premium rate revenue opportunities without most consumers even realising that they were paying a premium rate for making the call.

I think simond001's problem is that he has actually started to believe his own propaganda and so can't understand it when others don't.

derrick wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2007 at 11:00am:


Why do you feel the need to be pedantic Derrick.

I thought we were both on the same side.

idb wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2007 at 11:35am:


At last a PCT chief executive who has guts and sticks up for patients rather than looking to only say what is politically correct.

Bates for CEO of the NHS I say.

Also give that journalist a medal.  One of the best articles against 0844 misuse I have seen.  If only they had also mentioned the 10 Downing Street petition against these numbers.

NGMsGhost wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2007 at 11:42am:

An unqualified “here here” from me.

Mr Bates seems to believe that the national GP contract which he is obliged to use when commissioning local services does not include any prohibition on GPs charging patients for NHS services. I am presently highly sceptical on this point.

It is unlikely that the contract could anticipate every devious way of collecting money from patients directly in the course of delivering NHS services so that each could be specifically prohibited. There surely cannot be any clause that allows GPs to enter into a commercial relationship with patients in respect of the delivery of NHS services, even if that relationship uses the patient’s telephone service provider as an agent.

If PCTs cannot vary the terms of the contract so as to make it particular and thereby confidential, where is this document, issued by a public body, published?


Even if PCTs cannot stop use of 0844 numbers, they have a duty to advise all patients of charges made for the NHS services for which they are responsible (although not necessarily a duty to publish an up-to-date and comprehensive table of telephone call charge tariffs).

(For campaigners: PCTs have a very important role in this as they are the lowest level publicly accountable body involved. They also publish these telephone numbers as a key part of their role. Looking through their latest “Guide to local services” is a good way of finding where 0844 numbers are being used.)

David