 clipped from www.cnn.com
|
reposted from: http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/leo_hickman/2007/09/whos_ringing_us_at_this.html
Last night it happened again: a cold call from a direct marketing company. These people must be stopped.
"Who's ringing us at this time?"
It's a common refrain in my home. I'm a firm believer in the adage that, unless it's an emergency or you are particularly familiar with the recipient, then you should not call someone at home, or even on their mobile, after 9pm.
Most people have eaten their dinner by this time and are now either slobbed in front of the TV, reading or considering heading to bed. They are in the midst of their "wind-down" and by and large don't want to be bothered by a call.
Personally, I would actually prefer this etiquette threshold to be moved to 7pm, but that's because I have young children, and when you've just spent ages rocking a baby to sleep, the very last thing you want to happen, such are their sensitive ears, is for the phone to start ringing.
Most of my family and friends appreciate this, but I am currently being plagued by telesales cold-callers, who seem to have been trained to call our home at exactly the moment our children have been put down. (I have friends who admit to taking their phone off the hook from 6pm onwards just to avoid such calls, and I am indeed now considering such drastic action.)
Last night I received another one. This time it was from someone at Anglian Windows. Their patter went something like this: "Hello, we are in your neighbourhood tomorrow seeing some of your neighbours. Is it the back or the front windows you are having problems with?"
I particularly object to the way this call gives the impression I have already been in discussion with the firm. It's a clever psychological trick that must suck in the vulnerable. Otherwise, why would the firm persist with it?
I had just the same call about two weeks ago, and I responded by requesting that they take my number off their database and never call again. This, clearly, was ignored. So last night I said if they called again I would report the company to Ofcom. I just hope they don't call again as, to be honest, I've got better things to do than go to the hassle of contacting Ofcom.
I used to try out different wiseguy ripostes to put these firms off calling again, but now I can't even muster the energy. Now they just generate pure rage in me.
I've recently moved house and have only been using the current number for a few months. At my last home, the landline was registered with the Telephone Preference Services (TPS).
This did reduce the amount of unsolicited cold calls I received, but didn't entirely eradicate them. (I am now counting down the 28 days it takes the TPS to register my current number and take effect.)
I am normally very careful to tick all those boxes in the small print when filling out forms to say that my details shouldn't be shared with a third party. But still some companies manage to slip through and persist with their cold calls.
Just how is it that the rights of a company choosing to use telephone direct marketing seem to be placed over and above my rights to be left undisturbed at home? Even with the so-called protection of the TPS, why aren't these firms made to opt in to a database of people who say they don't mind being pestered at home, as opposed to the onus being put on the owners of telephones to opt out, as is the status quo?
It even raises the issue of who actually owns our numbers. Is my home number really "mine", to feel aggrieved about when it is violated by cold-callers? Why are their calls not considered a form of trespass?
This is what the relevant UK legislation - The Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003 - says on the issues of "unsolicited calls for direct marketing purposes".
1) A person shall neither use, nor instigate the use of, a public electronic communications service for the purposes of making unsolicited calls for direct marketing purposes where -
a) the called line is that of a subscriber who has previously notified the caller that such calls should not for the time being be made on that line; or
b) the number allocated to a subscriber in respect of the called line is one listed in the register [the Telephone Preference Service].
2) A subscriber shall not permit his line to be used in contravention of paragraph (1).
3) A person shall not be held to have contravened paragraph (1)(b) where the number allocated to the called line has been listed on the register for less than 28 days preceding that on which the call is made.
4) Where a subscriber who has caused a number allocated to a line of his to be listed in the register has notified a caller that he does not, for the time being, object to such calls being made on that line by that caller, such calls may be made by that caller on that line, notwithstanding that the number allocated to that line is listed in the said register.
5) Where a subscriber has given a caller notification pursuant to paragraph (4) in relation to a line of his -
a) the subscriber shall be free to withdraw that notification at any time, and
b) where such notification is withdrawn, the caller shall not make such calls on that line.
In my view, this should just be pruned right back to say: "A person shall neither use, nor instigate the use of, a public electronic communications service for the purposes of making unsolicited calls for direct marketing purposes." End of.
Has anyone ever truly benefited - other than the companies who use such sales tactics, of course - from these calls?
The regime crushed a pro-democracy movement in 1988, killing at least 3,000 people.
Blood and flip-flops on the streets of Yangon after the soldiers fired on the protestors.
reposted from: http://www.spiegel.de
A man gestures to the Burmese military after a crowd of thousands was fired upon.
Riot police arriving at the scene of the protests on Thursday.
The military released smoke cannisters and fired upon the crowd of thousands.
The protestors ran for safety. Riot police arrested at least 100 people.
Burmese protestors run for cover. The Burmese troops killed at least one person when they fired above the heads of protestors on Wednesday. The opposition claims five monks were killed. Eyewitnesses say at least one person has been killed on Thursday.
The Buddhist monks have been protesting for over a week, joined by thousands of pro-democracy activists in the last few days. At least 70,000 protestors gathered on Thursday before the military crackdown.
Apologies - the comments do not directly link to the photos (i blaim the awful DTP abilities of blogger!)
