SilentCallsVictim wrote on Dec 13^th, 2008 at 1:07pm:


I do not oppose the whole of the BBC, or the whole of the NHS or the Red Cross or the RSPCA or the DEC.  I have merely opposed their misuse of 084/7 numbers as being in conflict with their many other excellent services and actions, which I otherwise frequently support.  I do not see how being firmly and fundamentally opposed to one mistaken action of an organisation that one otherwise has no particular quarrel with can be seen as the behaviour of an anarchist.  An anarchist is opposed to nearly all systems of social organisation and control.  Where have I ever stated that to be my agenda?

But the continuance of using 084/7 numbers is based on a perpetuation of a frequently repeated lie that its only a few p per minute extra (hiding the hundreds of millions or rather billions of pounds a year extra on phone bills it is costing consumers) and/or that the service would not exist without this extra hidden NTS charge.  These positions by the organisation cannot be accepted or supported at any time and it is your indulgence of these organisations on that position with which I fundamentally disagree.

Quote:


I never said there were wholly good guys or bad guys and there are merely good actions or bad actions and that is why I oppose 084/7 number use whether they are introduced by a Conservative, Labour or Lib Dem council as I do not believe that all actions by Conservative councils are to be unswervingly supported, even though I do normally vote for the party at election time.

It is your indulgence of the misusers of these numbers and the shifting sands of your own debating position where your likely position in advance cannot be forecast (as it seems to shift organisation by organisation and from day to day) with which I fundamentally disagree.

Dave wrote on Dec 13^th, 2008 at 1:46pm:


Please refer me to where I have used the words in correspondence with the BBC that you claim I have used in paragraph 1 of your post?  I think you are just assuming that this is the kind of wording I use in my correspondence.  If I did ever use such wording with the BBC in the past it was only after they had for several years avoided any attempts to engage with them more constructively on this issue.  I certainly would not use such an approach when initially contacting a body that may be well receptive to ceasing to use these 084/7 numbers.

If we are going to start pointing fingers I think it is pretty hard for the world at large to take the stated aims of this website seriously when the site owner persistently continues to have click thru ad banners for abusive commercial firms like GrabAGrand (go on live a little etc) which are directly in conflict with the stated aims and objectives of this campaign (i.e. bringing to an end ripoff hidden charges for telephone services).  Whilst the site owner always claims the site does not make a profit I think you will find that this is only after the site has paid its head web developer and site owner their not insubstantial annual salary/fee for the time and effort they expend in the development and maintenance of this site.  The idea that it makes no money and scarcely covers its costs is I believe a brilliant form of playing with semantics worthy of Tony Blair himself.

The site owner is engaged in a number of other blatantly commercial operations to develop websites and earn click thru ad revenue and was also so engaged in them before he ever thought of the www.saynoto0870.com campaign.  In my view the site owner does not use his large mailing list of members to encourage them to take actions that might bring the misuse of 084/7 numbers to an end by the government sector as soon as possible because it is not in his own commercial interest to do so.  The fact that the site owner rarely ever posts in the campaigning sections of the forum yet regulalry spends time developing aspects of the site designed to promote its use and so the level of click thru ad revenue only further reinforces that impression.

Dave wrote on Dec 13^th, 2008 at 2:12pm:


Well those are more the kind of phrases that another forum member rather than I most prefers to use.  Again though you are trying to put words in my mouth.

But if an organisation like Norwich City Council is unrepentant and their senior execs do not return phone calls does one just continue to write saying "oh I'm sure its just some quite honest little misunderstanding on your part", rather than say perhaps threatening to use the escalated complaints procedure through to the Local Government Ombudsman.  Reasonableness  only works with people who are themselves reasonable.  Many 084/7 abusers are not open to any form of reason.

I note you do not comment on the Grab A Scam ad banner that continues to humiliate this website since there is nothing you can possibly say in its defence.

Also those of you who are patient negotiator types seem to demand that I or Derrick must campaign in your way.  But I and Derrick are motivated by righteous indignation on these abuses and like to call a spade a spade.  You cannot seek to force us to campaign in your sort of way.  It is the totality of all these different approaches and their overall total number and relentless nature that eventually begins to wear down some of the 084/7 abusers.

Dave wrote on Dec 13^th, 2008 at 2:38pm:

It never seems to have done Gerry Adams or Martin Mcguinness or the Reverand Ian Paisley any harm as far as I can tell.

As I say patient and polite negotiation only works when those you are negotiating with are open to such an approach.

In my view it is not enough to content ourselves with simply persuading those willing and open to making a change to 03 numbers.  We also need to force bodies like Wiltshire Police who have active contempt for the needs of the calling general public to also fall in to line.

The point is that whether the receiver takes a share of the revenue isn't the only issue with 084 and 087 numbers. If it were, then we would have congratulated provider123.

I feel that examination of the termination charges gives justification of why these numbers are in no way the same as a geographical call. It is a stronger argument than the call charges which tend to vary between providers and the differential (0870 to geo) of which can be far less than the termination charges.