andy9 wrote on Jan 20^th, 2009 at 11:51pm:

Yes it has everything to do wih it as it represents another failure by a regulator under the New Labour government to protect the interests of UK citizen consumers and also the failure of the New Labour government to take those regulators to task for those failures.

Its terribly convenient for Dave that you should be on hand just when needed isn't it andy9 after months of not posting and after almost no previous participation in this forum thread.

And I'm pretty sure that Dave is also a Labour voter too.

andy9 wrote on Jan 21^st, 2009 at 12:15am:


Well I went along to a meeting between my mother and representatives of Equitable Life some time in 1998 after my father's death about my father's pension with the Society and they were still very much operating as normal then and still claiming that the guaranteed pension rights contracts would have no impact on other parts of the business and were completely separated from them.  That was all still going on under a Labour government and their financial services regulator for which they were responsible.  She finally won her complaint against Equitable Life with the Financial Services Ombudsman and obtained at least some compensation (wholly and utterly inadequate) a few months ago.

You must be a real old school Labourite to still be trying to pin every single possible governmental ill on the Tories nearly 12 years after Labour took power.  It is the Labour government that has decided to leave what it perceives as mainly Tory voters in the lurch while saving Northern Rock and numerous other dodgy banks for many, many multiples in financial terms of the costs of putting things right at Equitable Life.

The Parliamentary Ombudsman's report criticises the current Labour government's actions.........

This is being misinterpreted and will continue to be so. We perhaps need to collect up a few horror stories for the media to get the point accross.

The fact that the generous "giveaway" is being dwarfed by the "snatchback" represented by the forthcoming price increases advised in the leaflet accompanying the BT circular letter (copy here) also needs to be picked up on.

redant wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2009 at 12:28pm:


Is this not a registered trade mark to this site?
Are BT in breach of this by using it?
Can the site owners not take action against BT? They certainly would if someone used any of their trademarks!

irrelevant wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2009 at 2:18pm:

What's happening with F&F? The current scheme provides for bigger discounts where calls are charged on a per minute basis. So it is of far more benefit to those who are on the Option 1 Monday to Friday and Option 2 Monday to Friday 6am to 6pm.

So they continue to pull the rug from those who are on lower cost tariffs.

Dave wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2009 at 4:45pm:


That is the way that things are moving at an increasingly fast pace.

Putting aside, for a moment, the fact that BT is increasing its prices by around 10% at a time of recession when general inflation is approaching zero, there is an issue of principle involved.

Would we rather pay for normal telephone service according to the amount that we use it to make calls, or pay a flat fee for having the service available at the times when we may generally be around to use it?

As we move towards the second of these the cost of calling any type of "premium rate" number gets more clearly exposed for what it is. A few extra pence per minute is not likely to stand out on a phone bil. If the only calls that appear are those to the doctor for lots of people, then attempts to pass these off as "local rate" are less likely to succeed.

It will take some time for most people who make daytime calls to move over to "anytime" packages with the various providers, but once they have, the scams will be harder to conceal.

Please do not think that I am applauding BTs price rises or the confusion that is created by its unique ability to treat 0845 and 0870 differently from other providers. I am not saying that this is all to the good, and I recognise that some would think that it is fairer to pay per call minute (I am not finally decided, but am inclined towards the idea of paying a lump sum for a service including receiving and making "normal" calls at the time whn one does so), however there is a general point to be made here about the future of concealed revenue sharing.

The above is only presently strictly relevant to landline-landline calls.

A quick point on friends and family. Even before the coming changes, if one was using the phone to keep in regular touch with one's friends and family the break-even point for an inclusive package at the time when one did so (i.e. evenings or daytime) would be very likely to be reached.

Again, I am not seeking to take up a position on behalf of BT, I am simply offering genuine views on a topic worthy of discussion.

sherbert wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2009 at 5:12pm:


On the same page: Quote:


So, they are dropping F&F, but renaming two other pre-existing discount schemes as F&F to try and muddy the waters.