Stumbled upon this earlier might be of use to ya all :o) 

http://www.hotukdeals.com/item/439327/free-energy-saving-products-worth-5/

Direct link

https://www.britishgas.co.uk/productoffers

Farcry.

"Farcry"  wrote in message 
news:nEMam.60765$OO7.42723@text.news.virginmedia.com...
> Stumbled upon this earlier might be of use to ya all :o)
> http://www.hotukdeals.com/item/439327/free-energy-saving-products-worth-5/
>
> Direct link
>
> https://www.britishgas.co.uk/productoffers
>
> Farcry.


Thanks for the link.  I hadn't seen the offer till now.

We have applied.  Nice to get something for nothing!!

Bill

"Farcry"  wrote in message 
news:nEMam.60765$OO7.42723@text.news.virginmedia.com...
> Stumbled upon this earlier might be of use to ya all :o)
> http://www.hotukdeals.com/item/439327/free-energy-saving-products-worth-5/
>
> Direct link
>
> https://www.britishgas.co.uk/productoffers
>
> Farcry.

Whats the offer code ?

"munki"  wrote in message news:h4i4nh$kb$1@aioe.org...
>
> "Farcry"  wrote in message 
> news:nEMam.60765$OO7.42723@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>> Stumbled upon this earlier might be of use to ya all :o)
>> http://www.hotukdeals.com/item/439327/free-energy-saving-products-worth-5/
>>
>> Direct link
>>
>> https://www.britishgas.co.uk/productoffers
>>
>> Farcry.
>
> Whats the offer code ?
EF3.  It's in the first link above!

"Bill"  wrote in message 
news:7d3o36F2ai96vU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "munki"  wrote in message news:h4i4nh$kb$1@aioe.org...
>>
>> "Farcry"  wrote in message 
>> news:nEMam.60765$OO7.42723@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>> Stumbled upon this earlier might be of use to ya all :o)
>>> http://www.hotukdeals.com/item/439327/free-energy-saving-products-worth-5/
>>>
>>> Direct link
>>>
>>> https://www.britishgas.co.uk/productoffers
>>>
>>> Farcry.
>>
>> Whats the offer code ?
> EF3.  It's in the first link above!
>
>
What a plank I am. Cheers Bill.

On 26 July, 10:10, "Bill"  wrote:
> "Farcry"  wrote in message
>
> news:nEMam.60765$OO7.42723@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>
> > Stumbled upon this earlier might be of use to ya all :o)
> >http://www.hotukdeals.com/item/439327/free-energy-saving-products-wor...
>
> > Direct link
>
> >https://www.britishgas.co.uk/productoffers
>
> > Farcry.
>
> Thanks for the link.  I hadn't seen the offer till now.
>
> We have applied.  Nice to get something for nothing!!
>
> Bill

Tanstaafl.
There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.
Something offered for free will be paid for. By someone.
Higher costs to customers, money from government for a program, lower
tax revenues from company or whatever.
Might not cost much per person, all adds up.

Martin  <><

On 26 July, 21:47, "mart2...@hotmail.com" 
wrote:
> On 26 July, 10:10, "Bill"  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Farcry"  wrote in message
>
> >news:nEMam.60765$OO7.42723@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>
> > > Stumbled upon this earlier might be of use to ya all :o)
> > >http://www.hotukdeals.com/item/439327/free-energy-saving-products-wor.> > > Direct link
>
> > >https://www.britishgas.co.uk/productoffers
>
> > > Farcry.
>
> > Thanks for the link.  I hadn't seen the offer till now.
>
> > We have applied.  Nice to get something for nothing!!
>
> > Bill
>
> Tanstaafl.
> There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.
> Something offered for free will be paid for. By someone.
> Higher costs to customers, money from government for a program, lower
> tax revenues from company or whatever.
> Might not cost much per person, all adds up.

The grabbing hands grab all they can. My package is in the post.

"Bill"  wrote in message 
news:7d2ksvF296e29U1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "Farcry"  wrote in message 
> news:nEMam.60765$OO7.42723@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>> Stumbled upon this earlier might be of use to ya all :o)
>> http://www.hotukdeals.com/item/439327/free-energy-saving-products-worth-5/
>>
>> Direct link
>>
>> https://www.britishgas.co.uk/productoffers
>>
>> Farcry.
>
>
> Thanks for the link.  I hadn't seen the offer till now.
>
> We have applied.  Nice to get something for nothing!!
>
> Bill
>

If only, all you are getting is a gadget that switches off electricity, bye 
bye standby, hello sales and credit people with your address details ;)

"Niteawk"  wrote in message 
news:-vednWuGxqTd6vDXnZ2dnUVZ8qWdnZ2d@bt.com...
>
> "Bill"  wrote in message 
> news:7d2ksvF296e29U1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> "Farcry"  wrote in message 
>> news:nEMam.60765$OO7.42723@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>> Stumbled upon this earlier might be of use to ya all :o)
>>> http://www.hotukdeals.com/item/439327/free-energy-saving-products-worth-5/
>>>
>>> Direct link
>>>
>>> https://www.britishgas.co.uk/productoffers
>>>
>>> Farcry.
>>
>>
>> Thanks for the link.  I hadn't seen the offer till now.
>>
>> We have applied.  Nice to get something for nothing!!
>>
>> Bill
>>
>
> If only, all you are getting is a gadget that switches off electricity, 
> bye bye standby, hello sales and credit people with your address details 
> ;)

Not if you carefully check, and tick, any boxes prohibiting them from 
contacting you regarding any other services, or passing your details on to 
third parties. Failure of them to comply with your wishes then becomes a 
breach of the Data Protection Act, and I would imagine that if a complaint 
was made against them, they would have to supply those original, 
unadulterated web form details to back up their case.

-- 
To help compile the Open Street Map, or if you just want to use copyright 
free maps of the UK, or anywhere else in the world, visit 
http://www.OpenStreetMap.org

Niteawk wrote:
> 
> "Bill"  wrote in message 
> news:7d2ksvF296e29U1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> "Farcry"  wrote in message 
>> news:nEMam.60765$OO7.42723@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>> Stumbled upon this earlier might be of use to ya all :o)
>>> http://www.hotukdeals.com/item/439327/free-energy-saving-products-worth-5/ 
>>>
>>>
>>> Direct link
>>>
>>> https://www.britishgas.co.uk/productoffers
>>>
>>> Farcry.
>>
>>
>> Thanks for the link.  I hadn't seen the offer till now.
>>
>> We have applied.  Nice to get something for nothing!!
>>
>> Bill
>>
> 
> If only, all you are getting is a gadget that switches off electricity, 
> bye bye standby, hello sales and credit people with your address details ;)

You can always say no.

I get a credit card or loan application every other day and countless 
direct mailings (inc e-mail) trying to sell me crap.  Then there's the 
spam for Russian brides, prescription medication and Rolex watches 
(genuine!), though thankfully few make it past googles spam filters. 
Then there's sales calls "Can I ask you a few Qs about the survey you 
filled in ....", "you've been awarded a discount holiday ..." etc, etc.

Somehow I manage to resist all of this temptation on a daily basis.

Mike

"Mike"  wrote in message 
news:h4ksul$1td$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> Niteawk wrote:
>>
>> "Bill"  wrote in message 
>> news:7d2ksvF296e29U1@mid.individual.net...
>>>
>>> "Farcry"  wrote in message 
>>> news:nEMam.60765$OO7.42723@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>>> Stumbled upon this earlier might be of use to ya all :o)
>>>> http://www.hotukdeals.com/item/439327/free-energy-saving-products-worth-5/
>>>>
>>>> Direct link
>>>>
>>>> https://www.britishgas.co.uk/productoffers
>>>>
>>>> Farcry.
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks for the link.  I hadn't seen the offer till now.
>>>
>>> We have applied.  Nice to get something for nothing!!
>>>
>>> Bill
>>>
>>
>> If only, all you are getting is a gadget that switches off electricity, 
>> bye bye standby, hello sales and credit people with your address details 
>> ;)
>
> You can always say no.
>
> I get a credit card or loan application every other day and countless 
> direct mailings (inc e-mail) trying to sell me crap.  Then there's the 
> spam for Russian brides, prescription medication and Rolex watches 
> (genuine!), though thankfully few make it past googles spam filters. Then 
> there's sales calls "Can I ask you a few Qs about the survey you filled in 
> ....", "you've been awarded a discount holiday ..." etc, etc.
>
> Somehow I manage to resist all of this temptation on a daily basis.

Even the Russian Bride ?
> Mike
>

munki wrote:
> "Mike"  wrote in message 
> news:h4ksul$1td$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Niteawk wrote:
>>> "Bill"  wrote in message 
>>> news:7d2ksvF296e29U1@mid.individual.net...
>>>> "Farcry"  wrote in message 
>>>> news:nEMam.60765$OO7.42723@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>>>> Stumbled upon this earlier might be of use to ya all :o)
>>>>> http://www.hotukdeals.com/item/439327/free-energy-saving-products-worth-5/
>>>>>
>>>>> Direct link
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.britishgas.co.uk/productoffers
>>>>>
>>>>> Farcry.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the link.  I hadn't seen the offer till now.
>>>>
>>>> We have applied.  Nice to get something for nothing!!
>>>>
>>>> Bill
>>>>
>>> If only, all you are getting is a gadget that switches off electricity, 
>>> bye bye standby, hello sales and credit people with your address details 
>>> ;)
>> You can always say no.
>>
>> I get a credit card or loan application every other day and countless 
>> direct mailings (inc e-mail) trying to sell me crap.  Then there's the 
>> spam for Russian brides, prescription medication and Rolex watches 
>> (genuine!), though thankfully few make it past googles spam filters. Then 
>> there's sales calls "Can I ask you a few Qs about the survey you filled in 
>> ....", "you've been awarded a discount holiday ..." etc, etc.
>>
>> Somehow I manage to resist all of this temptation on a daily basis.
> 
> Even the Russian Bride ?
>> Mike

There's only so many Russian brides a man can cope with, though if 
anyone is after prescription painkillers I know a man with poor english 
who can hook you up.

Mike

"Mike"  wrote in message 
news:h4l0b6$rfh$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> munki wrote:
>> "Mike"  wrote in message 
>> news:h4ksul$1td$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> Niteawk wrote:
>>>> "Bill"  wrote in message 
>>>> news:7d2ksvF296e29U1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>> "Farcry"  wrote in message 
>>>>> news:nEMam.60765$OO7.42723@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>>>>> Stumbled upon this earlier might be of use to ya all :o)
>>>>>> http://www.hotukdeals.com/item/439327/free-energy-saving-products-worth-5/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Direct link
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.britishgas.co.uk/productoffers
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Farcry.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for the link.  I hadn't seen the offer till now.
>>>>>
>>>>> We have applied.  Nice to get something for nothing!!
>>>>>
>>>>> Bill
>>>>>
>>>> If only, all you are getting is a gadget that switches off electricity, 
>>>> bye bye standby, hello sales and credit people with your address 
>>>> details ;)
>>> You can always say no.
>>>
>>> I get a credit card or loan application every other day and countless 
>>> direct mailings (inc e-mail) trying to sell me crap.  Then there's the 
>>> spam for Russian brides, prescription medication and Rolex watches 
>>> (genuine!), though thankfully few make it past googles spam filters. 
>>> Then there's sales calls "Can I ask you a few Qs about the survey you 
>>> filled in ....", "you've been awarded a discount holiday ..." etc, etc.
>>>
>>> Somehow I manage to resist all of this temptation on a daily basis.
>>
>> Even the Russian Bride ?
>>> Mike
>
> There's only so many Russian brides a man can cope with, though if anyone 
> is after prescription painkillers I know a man with poor english who can 
> hook you up.
>
> Mike

Hmm hope they are not plant growth pills for shiney leafs as I need some 
painkillers for this monster of a headache I have.

"Mike"  wrote in message
news:h4ksul$1td$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> You can always say no.
>
> I get a credit card or loan application every other day and countless
> direct mailings (inc e-mail) trying to sell me crap.  Then there's the
> spam for Russian brides, prescription medication and Rolex watches
> (genuine!), though thankfully few make it past googles spam filters. Then
> there's sales calls "Can I ask you a few Qs about the survey you filled in
> ....", "you've been awarded a discount holiday ..." etc, etc.
>
> Somehow I manage to resist all of this temptation on a daily basis.
>

Unwanted telephone calls, both landline and mobiles, register with the
Telephone Preference Service
http://www.tpsonline.org.uk/ctps/number_type.html

Unwanted direct mail, register with the Mail Preference Service
http://www.tpsonline.org.uk/mpsr/mps_choosetype.html

I have been registered with both of these for a few years now, no
unsolicited telephone calls at all now, hardly any unsolicited direct mail,
and not had a credit card application since I registered.

-- 
To help compile the Open Street Map, or if you just want to use copyright
free maps of the UK, or anywhere else in the world, visit
http://www.OpenStreetMap.org

On 27 July, 23:18, "Harry Stottle"  wrote:
> "Mike"  wrote in message
>
> news:h4ksul$1td$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>
>
> > You can always say no.
>
> > I get a credit card or loan application every other day and countless
> > direct mailings (inc e-mail) trying to sell me crap.  Then there's the
> > spam for Russian brides, prescription medication and Rolex watches
> > (genuine!), though thankfully few make it past googles spam filters. Then
> > there's sales calls "Can I ask you a few Qs about the survey you filled in
> > ....", "you've been awarded a discount holiday ..." etc, etc.
>
> > Somehow I manage to resist all of this temptation on a daily basis.
>
> Unwanted telephone calls, both landline and mobiles, register with the
> Telephone Preference Servicehttp://www.tpsonline.org.uk/ctps/number_type.html
>
> Unwanted direct mail, register with the Mail Preference Servicehttp://www.tpsonline.org.uk/mpsr/mps_choosetype.html
>
> I have been registered with both of these for a few years now, no
> unsolicited telephone calls at all now, hardly any unsolicited direct mail,
> and not had a credit card application since I registered.
>
> --
> To help compile the Open Street Map, or if you just want to use copyright
> free maps of the UK, or anywhere else in the world, visithttp://www.OpenStreetMap.org

Only works for companies buying your information.
When you freely supply it to a company yourself, you give permission
for that company to have your details and contact you.

No company besides my mobile company has my mobile phone number - its
amazing how few non-personal calls I get in a year.
Plenty of companies I trade with, have contract with or use on
occasion have my home number - I get upwards of 20 calls a day some
days.
And yes, I use both phone and post preference service.



Martin  <><

wrote in message 
news:9ce13324-fdc7-4b17-9f57-c086980e72e7@k1g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
On 27 July, 23:18, "Harry Stottle"  wrote:
>
> Unwanted telephone calls, both landline and mobiles, register with the
> Telephone Preference Service 
> http://www.tpsonline.org.uk/ctps/number_type.html
>
> Unwanted direct mail, register with the Mail Preference Service 
> http://www.tpsonline.org.uk/mpsr/mps_choosetype.html
>
> I have been registered with both of these for a few years now, no
> unsolicited telephone calls at all now, hardly any unsolicited direct 
> mail,
> and not had a credit card application since I registered.
>
<Martin wrote>
Only works for companies buying your information.
When you freely supply it to a company yourself, you give permission
for that company to have your details and contact you.
</Martin wrote>

Not if you carefully check, and tick, any boxes to exclude that permission 
when filling in your personal details, and even if you do forget to do this, 
all you have to do is inform them when they do call you, not to call you 
again, then, as far as I am aware, this becomes a legal requirement under 
the Data Protection Act. This should also apply to other unsolicited calls, 
even if you are not registered with the TPS.

It is, in my opinion, time that the TPS was no longer needed, and the 
acceptance of unsolicited phone calls should be made opt in instead of opt 
out. The last time I checked, (which was a couple of years ago), there were 
several million numbers registered, and that number was growing very 
rapidly, how much proof do they need that the vast majority of people do not 
want unsolicited calls?

On 28 July, 09:40, "Harry Stottle"  wrote:
>  wrote in message
>
> news:9ce13324-fdc7-4b17-9f57-c086980e72e7@k1g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
> On 27 July, 23:18, "Harry Stottle"  wrote:
>
> > Unwanted telephone calls, both landline and mobiles, register with the
> > Telephone Preference Service
> >http://www.tpsonline.org.uk/ctps/number_type.html
>
> > Unwanted direct mail, register with the Mail Preference Service
> >http://www.tpsonline.org.uk/mpsr/mps_choosetype.html
>
> > I have been registered with both of these for a few years now, no
> > unsolicited telephone calls at all now, hardly any unsolicited direct
> > mail,
> > and not had a credit card application since I registered.
>
> <Martin wrote>
> Only works for companies buying your information.
> When you freely supply it to a company yourself, you give permission
> for that company to have your details and contact you.
> </Martin wrote>
>
> Not if you carefully check, and tick, any boxes to exclude that permission
> when filling in your personal details, and even if you do forget to do this,
> all you have to do is inform them when they do call you, not to call you
> again, then, as far as I am aware, this becomes a legal requirement under
> the Data Protection Act. This should also apply to other unsolicited calls,
> even if you are not registered with the TPS.
>
> It is, in my opinion, time that the TPS was no longer needed, and the
> acceptance of unsolicited phone calls should be made opt in instead of opt
> out. The last time I checked, (which was a couple of years ago), there were
> several million numbers registered, and that number was growing very
> rapidly, how much proof do they need that the vast majority of people do not
> want unsolicited calls?

Yet unsolicited calls still manage to sell.
So still a valid business tool. And a few million not wanting such
calls still leaves millions more who haven't said they don't want
those calls.

Informing a company not to call you again does seem to have some
loopholes.
If you owe them money for instance - then its your privacy versus
company chasing a valid debt.

I usually get my ansaphone to screen calls. People not leaving a
message don't get a call back!

Martin  <><

wrote in message 
news:5bf08d1a-1726-486f-8a0d-384cec67ffec@24g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> On 28 July, 09:40, "Harry Stottle"  wrote:
>>  wrote in message
>>
>>
>> It is, in my opinion, time that the TPS was no longer needed, and the
>> acceptance of unsolicited phone calls should be made opt in instead of 
>> opt
>> out. The last time I checked, (which was a couple of years ago), there 
>> were
>> several million numbers registered, and that number was growing very
>> rapidly, how much proof do they need that the vast majority of people do 
>> not
>> want unsolicited calls?
>
> Yet unsolicited calls still manage to sell.
> So still a valid business tool. And a few million not wanting such
> calls still leaves millions more who haven't said they don't want
> those calls.
>
That could be easily tested by making it opt in, then we would really see 
how many people want unsolicited phone calls, my guess is it would be 
greater than -1 and less than 1.

On 28 July, 15:22, "Harry Stottle"  wrote:
>  wrote in message
>
> news:5bf08d1a-1726-486f-8a0d-384cec67ffec@24g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On 28 July, 09:40, "Harry Stottle"  wrote:
> >>  wrote in message
>
> >> It is, in my opinion, time that the TPS was no longer needed, and the
> >> acceptance of unsolicited phone calls should be made opt in instead of
> >> opt
> >> out. The last time I checked, (which was a couple of years ago), there
> >> were
> >> several million numbers registered, and that number was growing very
> >> rapidly, how much proof do they need that the vast majority of people do
> >> not
> >> want unsolicited calls?
>
> > Yet unsolicited calls still manage to sell.
> > So still a valid business tool. And a few million not wanting such
> > calls still leaves millions more who haven't said they don't want
> > those calls.
>
> That could be easily tested by making it opt in, then we would really see
> how many people want unsolicited phone calls, my guess is it would be
> greater than -1 and less than 1.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Any opt-in scheme has less take up. People seem to be resistant to
wanting to change from status quo, as all insurance companies and
energy providers know.
Can't see an opt in any time soon though - too much of the economy at
stake.

Martin  <><

wrote in message
news:a6030215-e470-4a84-b5c7-0603d19c057b@j32g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> On 28 July, 15:22, "Harry Stottle"  wrote:
>>  wrote in message
>>
>> news:5bf08d1a-1726-486f-8a0d-384cec67ffec@24g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On 28 July, 09:40, "Harry Stottle"  wrote:
>> >>  wrote in message
>>
>> >> It is, in my opinion, time that the TPS was no longer needed, and the
>> >> acceptance of unsolicited phone calls should be made opt in instead of
>> >> opt
>> >> out. The last time I checked, (which was a couple of years ago), there
>> >> were
>> >> several million numbers registered, and that number was growing very
>> >> rapidly, how much proof do they need that the vast majority of people
>> >> do
>> >> not
>> >> want unsolicited calls?
>>
>> > Yet unsolicited calls still manage to sell.
>> > So still a valid business tool. And a few million not wanting such
>> > calls still leaves millions more who haven't said they don't want
>> > those calls.
>>
>> That could be easily tested by making it opt in, then we would really see
>> how many people want unsolicited phone calls, my guess is it would be
>> greater than -1 and less than 1.- Hide quoted text -
>
> Any opt-in scheme has less take up. People seem to be resistant to
> wanting to change from status quo, as all insurance companies and
> energy providers know.
> Can't see an opt in any time soon though - too much of the economy at
> stake.
>
You are starting to sound like someone that sees a personal advantage in 
pestering people in their own homes, and using the equipment they have paid 
for, just to try and make a monetary gain for yourself, and if the economy 
has become dependant on unwanted spam telephone calls, then it will be a 
very long time before it recovers.

On 28 July, 19:08, "Harry Stottle"  wrote:
>  wrote in message
>
> news:a6030215-e470-4a84-b5c7-0603d19c057b@j32g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On 28 July, 15:22, "Harry Stottle"  wrote:
> >>  wrote in message
>
> >>news:5bf08d1a-1726-486f-8a0d-384cec67ffec@24g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > On 28 July, 09:40, "Harry Stottle"  wrote:
> >> >>  wrote in message
>
> >> >> It is, in my opinion, time that the TPS was no longer needed, and the
> >> >> acceptance of unsolicited phone calls should be made opt in instead of
> >> >> opt
> >> >> out. The last time I checked, (which was a couple of years ago), there
> >> >> were
> >> >> several million numbers registered, and that number was growing very
> >> >> rapidly, how much proof do they need that the vast majority of people
> >> >> do
> >> >> not
> >> >> want unsolicited calls?
>
> >> > Yet unsolicited calls still manage to sell.
> >> > So still a valid business tool. And a few million not wanting such
> >> > calls still leaves millions more who haven't said they don't want
> >> > those calls.
>
> >> That could be easily tested by making it opt in, then we would really see
> >> how many people want unsolicited phone calls, my guess is it would be
> >> greater than -1 and less than 1.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > Any opt-in scheme has less take up. People seem to be resistant to
> > wanting to change from status quo, as all insurance companies and
> > energy providers know.
> > Can't see an opt in any time soon though - too much of the economy at
> > stake.
>
> You are starting to sound like someone that sees a personal advantage in
> pestering people in their own homes, and using the equipment they have paid
> for, just to try and make a monetary gain for yourself, and if the economy
> has become dependant on unwanted spam telephone calls, then it will be a
> very long time before it recovers.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

No, I don't ring people at home except on business when they have
ordered from me - and its the quickest way of resolving a problem.
Seeing as over 1100 of my customers are residential rather than
commercial, home is the only place I can contact them.
Most I've never rung. No need to without a problem to resolve.

However I am aware of the fact that cold calling is cost effective
(not the best cost efficiency but it does get new customers) - so some
people are responding to these 'spam' calls.
Many in my line of work do arrange to buy cold calling lists, or
arrange an agency to do the work for them. Can be less than 1% respond
positively (can be as high as 4%) - but what are those 1% worth over
their customer lifetime (literally if including legacies in the
marketing material)?

Economy makes money from:
People employed to ring
Call charges (hence profit) for telephone company
Sale of goods or services by company doing the calling
Customers for the company that can then be contacted later perhaps
with a greater chance of positive response (warm calling rather than
cold calling).

You and I may not like cold calling ourselves. But it works - and
unlikely to be altered much anytime soon.

Martin  <><

wrote in message 
news:718299f1-265d-49d0-8a37-a79edd103c75@32g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
> On 28 July, 19:08, "Harry Stottle"  wrote:
>>
>> You are starting to sound like someone that sees a personal advantage in
>> pestering people in their own homes, and using the equipment they have 
>> paid
>> for, just to try and make a monetary gain for yourself, and if the 
>> economy
>> has become dependant on unwanted spam telephone calls, then it will be a
>> very long time before it recovers.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>
> You and I may not like cold calling ourselves. But it works - and
> unlikely to be altered much anytime soon.
>
Is this just in your opinion, wishful thinking, or do you have a different 
crystal ball to mine?

And if you dislike cold calling so much, why do you seem so keen on 
researching its benefits, supporting its use, and possibly getting prepared 
to impose it on those most at risk of being susceptible to it, (and the 
least likely to know about the TPS in order to prevent it), namely the 
elderly and infirm?

On 28 July, 22:37, "Harry Stottle"  wrote:
>  wrote in message
>
> news:718299f1-265d-49d0-8a37-a79edd103c75@32g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...> On 28 July, 19:08, "Harry Stottle"  wrote:
>
> >> You are starting to sound like someone that sees a personal advantage in
> >> pestering people in their own homes, and using the equipment they have
> >> paid
> >> for, just to try and make a monetary gain for yourself, and if the
> >> economy
> >> has become dependant on unwanted spam telephone calls, then it will be a
> >> very long time before it recovers.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > You and I may not like cold calling ourselves. But it works - and
> > unlikely to be altered much anytime soon.
>
> Is this just in your opinion, wishful thinking, or do you have a different
> crystal ball to mine?
>
> And if you dislike cold calling so much, why do you seem so keen on
> researching its benefits, supporting its use, and possibly getting prepared
> to impose it on those most at risk of being susceptible to it, (and the
> least likely to know about the TPS in order to prevent it), namely the
> elderly and infirm?

Its a valid business tool.
It does generate new customers - something any company needs for
growth of its market share.
And who said anything about imposing it? In this country we have
freedom of choice in some things. Freedom to answer the phone or not.
Freedom to respond to what the person on the phone is saying or not.
Please, don't start trying to limit who can contact particular groups.

I'm not supporting its use either. I've no plans for running or
arranging a cold calling campaign.
I'm just saying it does work for business - so will keep being used.
Just like people keep coming to doors asking about changing energy
suppliers, getting roofing work done, getting kitchens fitted etc.
Just like companies (and charities) sending mail out to try and drum
up more customers or supporters.
They do it because while a lot of people don't respond, some do. It
works.

You may not like how it works. You may choose not to use whats being
offered.
Doesn't invalidate the method though.

Simply put, if you don't like companies ringing you, you can end the
call. Or not supply your details in the first place to be used by
anyone.
On the funny side of things, ever noticed when you buy a mobile on
contract they want your home telephone number? Ever known the mobile
company to ring it and check its valid? Or contact you on it?

Martin  <><

wrote in message 
news:90c19d7e-9d46-41b9-bffe-0539cfa45633@i6g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
> On 28 July, 22:37, "Harry Stottle"  wrote:
>>  wrote in message
>>
>> news:718299f1-265d-49d0-8a37-a79edd103c75@32g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...> 
>> On 28 July, 19:08, "Harry Stottle"  wrote:
>>
>> >> You are starting to sound like someone that sees a personal advantage 
>> >> in
>> >> pestering people in their own homes, and using the equipment they have
>> >> paid
>> >> for, just to try and make a monetary gain for yourself, and if the
>> >> economy
>> >> has become dependant on unwanted spam telephone calls, then it will be 
>> >> a
>> >> very long time before it recovers.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > You and I may not like cold calling ourselves. But it works - and
>> > unlikely to be altered much anytime soon.
>>
>> Is this just in your opinion, wishful thinking, or do you have a 
>> different
>> crystal ball to mine?
>>
>> And if you dislike cold calling so much, why do you seem so keen on
>> researching its benefits, supporting its use, and possibly getting 
>> prepared
>> to impose it on those most at risk of being susceptible to it, (and the
>> least likely to know about the TPS in order to prevent it), namely the
>> elderly and infirm?
>
> Its a valid business tool.
> It does generate new customers - something any company needs for
> growth of its market share.
> And who said anything about imposing it? In this country we have
> freedom of choice in some things. Freedom to answer the phone or not.
> Freedom to respond to what the person on the phone is saying or not.
> Please, don't start trying to limit who can contact particular groups.
>
> I'm not supporting its use either. I've no plans for running or
> arranging a cold calling campaign.
> I'm just saying it does work for business - so will keep being used.
> Just like people keep coming to doors asking about changing energy
> suppliers, getting roofing work done, getting kitchens fitted etc.
> Just like companies (and charities) sending mail out to try and drum
> up more customers or supporters.
> They do it because while a lot of people don't respond, some do. It
> works.
>
> You may not like how it works. You may choose not to use whats being
> offered.
> Doesn't invalidate the method though.
>
> Simply put, if you don't like companies ringing you, you can end the
> call. Or not supply your details in the first place to be used by
> anyone.
>
As I stated previously, most people now at risk from unsolicited telephone 
calls are  the elderly and infirm, and this also applies to doorstep callers 
who will often intimidate elderly people just by their presence on their 
doorsteps, making them more susceptible to purchase something they do not 
want, or cannot afford, so your comment, <quote> don't start trying to limit 
who can contact particular groups,</quote> seems very thoughtless and 
uncaring to the needs of those most at risk, and the main reason why 
regulations are needed to control the actions of those prepared to take 
advantage of those vulnerable groups, just to make money for themselves.

Your attitude towards acceptable marketing methods seems to be typical of 
the gutter end of the marketing industry, and your other comments like, 
"Simply put, if you don't like companies ringing you, you can end the call", 
smack of  the typical 'I don't care how many hundreds I inconvenience or 
upset, just as long as I make one sale' brigade. I purchased my telephone, 
and pay for my telephone service for my convenience, not to provide a 
marketing tool for anyone who thinks they have a right to take up my time, 
and use my paid for service, to try and sell me their products or services . 
Any doorstep seller that ventures onto my property is committing a civil 
offence of trespass, so I don't accept that doorstep selling, or marketing, 
is a valid business tool either, unless you think that salespeople are above 
the law?

On 29 July, 10:25, "Harry Stottle"  wrote:
>  wrote in message
>
> news:90c19d7e-9d46-41b9-bffe-0539cfa45633@i6g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On 28 July, 22:37, "Harry Stottle"  wrote:
> >>  wrote in message
>
> >>news:718299f1-265d-49d0-8a37-a79edd103c75@32g2000yqj.googlegroups.com..> >> On 28 July, 19:08, "Harry Stottle"  wrote:
>
> >> >> You are starting to sound like someone that sees a personal advantage
> >> >> in
> >> >> pestering people in their own homes, and using the equipment they have
> >> >> paid
> >> >> for, just to try and make a monetary gain for yourself, and if the
> >> >> economy
> >> >> has become dependant on unwanted spam telephone calls, then it will be
> >> >> a
> >> >> very long time before it recovers.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> > You and I may not like cold calling ourselves. But it works - and
> >> > unlikely to be altered much anytime soon.
>
> >> Is this just in your opinion, wishful thinking, or do you have a
> >> different
> >> crystal ball to mine?
>
> >> And if you dislike cold calling so much, why do you seem so keen on
> >> researching its benefits, supporting its use, and possibly getting
> >> prepared
> >> to impose it on those most at risk of being susceptible to it, (and the
> >> least likely to know about the TPS in order to prevent it), namely the
> >> elderly and infirm?
>
> > Its a valid business tool.
> > It does generate new customers - something any company needs for
> > growth of its market share.
> > And who said anything about imposing it? In this country we have
> > freedom of choice in some things. Freedom to answer the phone or not.
> > Freedom to respond to what the person on the phone is saying or not.
> > Please, don't start trying to limit who can contact particular groups.
>
> > I'm not supporting its use either. I've no plans for running or
> > arranging a cold calling campaign.
> > I'm just saying it does work for business - so will keep being used.
> > Just like people keep coming to doors asking about changing energy
> > suppliers, getting roofing work done, getting kitchens fitted etc.
> > Just like companies (and charities) sending mail out to try and drum
> > up more customers or supporters.
> > They do it because while a lot of people don't respond, some do. It
> > works.
>
> > You may not like how it works. You may choose not to use whats being
> > offered.
> > Doesn't invalidate the method though.
>
> > Simply put, if you don't like companies ringing you, you can end the
> > call. Or not supply your details in the first place to be used by
> > anyone.
>
> As I stated previously, most people now at risk from unsolicited telephone
> calls are  the elderly and infirm, and this also applies to doorstep callers
> who will often intimidate elderly people just by their presence on their
> doorsteps, making them more susceptible to purchase something they do not
> want, or cannot afford, so your comment, <quote> don't start trying to limit
> who can contact particular groups,</quote> seems very thoughtless and
> uncaring to the needs of those most at risk, and the main reason why
> regulations are needed to control the actions of those prepared to take
> advantage of those vulnerable groups, just to make money for themselves.
>
> Your attitude towards acceptable marketing methods seems to be typical of
> the gutter end of the marketing industry, and your other comments like,
> "Simply put, if you don't like companies ringing you, you can end the call",
> smack of  the typical 'I don't care how many hundreds I inconvenience or
> upset, just as long as I make one sale' brigade. I purchased my telephone> and pay for my telephone service for my convenience, not to provide a
> marketing tool for anyone who thinks they have a right to take up my time> and use my paid for service, to try and sell me their products or services .
> Any doorstep seller that ventures onto my property is committing a civil
> offence of trespass, so I don't accept that doorstep selling, or marketing,
> is a valid business tool either, unless you think that salespeople are above
> the law?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Unless you claim to know better than individuals what is or is not a
good idea for them, don't try and limit who can contact them.
They can limit that themselves. You limit who can contact you and
allow others the courtesy of being able to make the same decision
themselves.
Who are you to make that decision for them? What legal right do you
have over whole groups of people?

There are already a number of regulations regarding both calling and
visiting people. Including cooling off periods.

My attitude towards common marketing methods are based on what
happens, not on what you would wish things to be like. Acceptable or
not, they are a valid method of attracting new business.
If you run a company or are involved in a campaign to get new
customers for your employer then you can take a moral stand against
methods you don't agree with.
Just don't expect the company to have the same growth, or even your
employer agree with you.
Your purchase and telephone and pay the bill for your convenience. You
don't have to accept the calls someone else makes. A simple
termination of the call takes you how many seconds?
I'm  polite, I say 'no thank you' and put the phone down. Individual
choice.

If you don't want to provide a marketing tool, never give the number
out. Never be in a directory, never give permission to have the number
used.
Simple. But its your choice to give or withold your number.

Doorstep sellers are never done for trespass. Though I've yet to hear
of one refusing to leave a property or its grounds.
Under the law as it is, people can ring you if they have your number
or approach and knock on your door if outside your house. Nothing
currently to stop them.
Just because you don't like the law as it stands doesn't make their
actions illegal.

Martin  <><

wrote in message 
news:9aec7655-24e6-4b34-8420-c910d8e54bf3@c1g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
On 29 July, 10:25, "Harry Stottle"  wrote:
>
> > Simply put, if you don't like companies ringing you, you can end the
> > call. Or not supply your details in the first place to be used by
> > anyone.
>
> As I stated previously, most people now at risk from unsolicited telephone
> calls are the elderly and infirm, and this also applies to doorstep 
> callers
> who will often intimidate elderly people just by their presence on their
> doorsteps, making them more susceptible to purchase something they do not
> want, or cannot afford, so your comment, <quote> don't start trying to 
> limit
> who can contact particular groups,</quote> seems very thoughtless and
> uncaring to the needs of those most at risk, and the main reason why
> regulations are needed to control the actions of those prepared to take
> advantage of those vulnerable groups, just to make money for themselves.
>
> Your attitude towards acceptable marketing methods seems to be typical of
> the gutter end of the marketing industry, and your other comments like,
> "Simply put, if you don't like companies ringing you, you can end the 
> call",
> smack of the typical 'I don't care how many hundreds I inconvenience or
> upset, just as long as I make one sale' brigade. I purchased my telephone,
> and pay for my telephone service for my convenience, not to provide a
> marketing tool for anyone who thinks they have a right to take up my time,
> and use my paid for service, to try and sell me their products or services 
> .
> Any doorstep seller that ventures onto my property is committing a civil
> offence of trespass, so I don't accept that doorstep selling, or 
> marketing,
> is a valid business tool either, unless you think that salespeople are 
> above
> the law?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
<Martin wrote>
Unless you claim to know better than individuals what is or is not a
good idea for them, don't try and limit who can contact them.
They can limit that themselves. You limit who can contact you and
allow others the courtesy of being able to make the same decision
themselves.</Martin wrote>

Just which part of the elderly and infirm being vulnerable to these type of 
callers are you having trouble understanding? They are vulnerable because 
they either do not understand clearly what is being offered them, or more 
likely, they are misled by the salespeople into buying something that is not 
wanted, or they cannot afford. That same vulnerability also means that they 
are sometimes unable to make decisions themselves that would prevent 
unwanted callers, like registering with the TPS, or putting the phone down 
when someone that rings them sounds nice, and that same vulnerability would 
probably prevent them from being assertive to doorstep callers, hence the 
reason why some need protecting, and why I am against such practices. The 
type of salespeople using these methods know about the vulnerable, and a 
good many are prepared to use that vulnerability to exploit them, as is 
often reported on consumer type programmes like Watchdog, but you still fail 
to see that there is anything wrong with it, as long as it helps someone 
make some money out of them.

On 29 July, 13:36, "Harry Stottle"  wrote:
>  wrote in message
>
> news:9aec7655-24e6-4b34-8420-c910d8e54bf3@c1g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
> On 29 July, 10:25, "Harry Stottle"  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > > Simply put, if you don't like companies ringing you, you can end the
> > > call. Or not supply your details in the first place to be used by
> > > anyone.
>
> > As I stated previously, most people now at risk from unsolicited telephone
> > calls are the elderly and infirm, and this also applies to doorstep
> > callers
> > who will often intimidate elderly people just by their presence on their
> > doorsteps, making them more susceptible to purchase something they do not
> > want, or cannot afford, so your comment, <quote> don't start trying to
> > limit
> > who can contact particular groups,</quote> seems very thoughtless and
> > uncaring to the needs of those most at risk, and the main reason why
> > regulations are needed to control the actions of those prepared to take
> > advantage of those vulnerable groups, just to make money for themselves.
>
> > Your attitude towards acceptable marketing methods seems to be typical of
> > the gutter end of the marketing industry, and your other comments like,
> > "Simply put, if you don't like companies ringing you, you can end the
> > call",
> > smack of the typical 'I don't care how many hundreds I inconvenience or
> > upset, just as long as I make one sale' brigade. I purchased my telephone,
> > and pay for my telephone service for my convenience, not to provide a
> > marketing tool for anyone who thinks they have a right to take up my time,
> > and use my paid for service, to try and sell me their products or services
> > .
> > Any doorstep seller that ventures onto my property is committing a civil
> > offence of trespass, so I don't accept that doorstep selling, or
> > marketing,
> > is a valid business tool either, unless you think that salespeople are
> > above
> > the law?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> <Martin wrote>
> Unless you claim to know better than individuals what is or is not a
> good idea for them, don't try and limit who can contact them.
> They can limit that themselves. You limit who can contact you and
> allow others the courtesy of being able to make the same decision
> themselves.</Martin wrote>
>
> Just which part of the elderly and infirm being vulnerable to these type of
> callers are you having trouble understanding? They are vulnerable because
> they either do not understand clearly what is being offered them, or more
> likely, they are misled by the salespeople into buying something that is not
> wanted, or they cannot afford. That same vulnerability also means that they
> are sometimes unable to make decisions themselves that would prevent
> unwanted callers, like registering with the TPS, or putting the phone down
> when someone that rings them sounds nice, and that same vulnerability would
> probably prevent them from being assertive to doorstep callers, hence the
> reason why some need protecting, and why I am against such practices. The
> type of salespeople using these methods know about the vulnerable, and a
> good many are prepared to use that vulnerability to exploit them, as is
> often reported on consumer type programmes like Watchdog, but you still fail
> to see that there is anything wrong with it, as long as it helps someone
> make some money out of them.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Elderly and infirm are vulnerable to a lot of things. Yet I don't see
you calling for them to be housebound permanently, denied televisions,
denied mail and denied family.
Accidents happen outside the house as well as in. TV advertising is
intended to get people buying. Direct mail is another common method of
getting customers. And family are in a better position to cajole,
threaten, intimidate and steal from an elderly or infirm person than
any cold caller.
Instead you focus on one method of contacting people and say that you
know better than them what is and is not acceptable contact.

Such arrogance.

Someone unable to make decisions can have an appointee, or someone
with power of attorney, or a court guardianship order.
Methods that have been in use for many years now to protect those who
CANNOT choose to protect themselves.

Why not go the whole hog, why not become prime minister yourself and
then try and get legislation passed that limits what can be done to
people in this country.
Oh wait, you'd also have to ban all advertising, all brochures and
other methods of getting people that you don't want to see become
customers of companies. Just think how you could screw the economy.

We already have a lot of consumer protection to protect people, allow
people to change minds, limit what companies can do to persuade and
even what can done in advertising.


You want to limit a current business practice that is done by many
companies, without problems. Go right ahead.
As I keep saying, I don't expect any changes.
Its too useful a method of getting new customers.

Come to think of it, when I stand up in front of a bunch of people at
a meeting and try and sell a charity, no-one in the room ever stands
up and says that xxx shouldn't hear this because she is infirm. Or
that yyy is elderly and shouldn't be put under pressure of what I'm
saying. It simply doesn't happen.
Instead people make their own minds up. Which I've got no problem
with.

Martin  <><

wrote in message 
news:c96bc947-8f1a-4225-a3dd-60c0fd126acc@h21g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> On 29 July, 13:36, "Harry Stottle"  wrote:
>>  wrote in message
>>
>>
>> <Martin wrote>
>> Unless you claim to know better than individuals what is or is not a
>> good idea for them, don't try and limit who can contact them.
>> They can limit that themselves. You limit who can contact you and
>> allow others the courtesy of being able to make the same decision
>> themselves.</Martin wrote>
>>
>> Just which part of the elderly and infirm being vulnerable to these type 
>> of
>> callers are you having trouble understanding? They are vulnerable because
>> they either do not understand clearly what is being offered them, or more
>> likely, they are misled by the salespeople into buying something that is 
>> not
>> wanted, or they cannot afford. That same vulnerability also means that 
>> they
>> are sometimes unable to make decisions themselves that would prevent
>> unwanted callers, like registering with the TPS, or putting the phone 
>> down
>> when someone that rings them sounds nice, and that same vulnerability 
>> would
>> probably prevent them from being assertive to doorstep callers, hence the
>> reason why some need protecting, and why I am against such practices. The
>> type of salespeople using these methods know about the vulnerable, and a
>> good many are prepared to use that vulnerability to exploit them, as is
>> often reported on consumer type programmes like Watchdog, but you still 
>> fail
>> to see that there is anything wrong with it, as long as it helps someone
>> make some money out of them.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Elderly and infirm are vulnerable to a lot of things. Yet I don't see
> you calling for them to be housebound permanently, denied televisions,
> denied mail and denied family.
> Accidents happen outside the house as well as in. TV advertising is
> intended to get people buying. Direct mail is another common method of
> getting customers. And family are in a better position to cajole,
> threaten, intimidate and steal from an elderly or infirm person than
> any cold caller.
> Instead you focus on one method of contacting people and say that you
> know better than them what is and is not acceptable contact.
>
> Such arrogance.
>
I think you will find arrogance much quicker by looking in a mirror.
You seem to think that you should be able to use any means possible, and at 
anyone's expense, just to line your own pockets, and woe betide anyone that 
disagrees with you, or with your methods. I have met many like you, usually 
standing on my doorstep, trying to justify why a clearly displayed notice 
asking them not to call has been ignored, then telling me they have a right 
to trespass, that they are dyslexic and cant read the notice, that the 
notice does not apply to them because they are not selling anything, that 
they didn't see the notice, that they thought the notice might have been 
left by a previous owner, etc. When I point out to them that they are lying 
about the notice, and that they have also ignored my wishes, so why would 
they expect me to trust anything they say about the products they are 
promoting, they usually leave, although I have been known to argue with the 
very stubborn and persistent

If anyone else is following this thread and is still undecided about cold 
calling, all I can add is the regular advice given by consumer programmes 
such as Watchdog, never agree to buy anything from anyone that knocks 
uninvited on your door, or from anyone that cold calls you on the telephone. 
If I was given the choice of following the advice given by Watchdog, or 
following Martin's blinkered and biased advice about the saintly qualities 
of cold calling companies, or their representatives, then there is no 
contest, the Watchdog advice would be the one I would choose.

On 29 July, 17:48, "Harry Stottle"  wrote:
>  wrote in message
>
> news:c96bc947-8f1a-4225-a3dd-60c0fd126acc@h21g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On 29 July, 13:36, "Harry Stottle"  wrote:
> >>  wrote in message
>
> >> <Martin wrote>
> >> Unless you claim to know better than individuals what is or is not a
> >> good idea for them, don't try and limit who can contact them.
> >> They can limit that themselves. You limit who can contact you and
> >> allow others the courtesy of being able to make the same decision
> >> themselves.</Martin wrote>
>
> >> Just which part of the elderly and infirm being vulnerable to these type
> >> of
> >> callers are you having trouble understanding? They are vulnerable because
> >> they either do not understand clearly what is being offered them, or more
> >> likely, they are misled by the salespeople into buying something that is
> >> not
> >> wanted, or they cannot afford. That same vulnerability also means that
> >> they
> >> are sometimes unable to make decisions themselves that would prevent
> >> unwanted callers, like registering with the TPS, or putting the phone
> >> down
> >> when someone that rings them sounds nice, and that same vulnerability
> >> would
> >> probably prevent them from being assertive to doorstep callers, hence the
> >> reason why some need protecting, and why I am against such practices. The
> >> type of salespeople using these methods know about the vulnerable, and a
> >> good many are prepared to use that vulnerability to exploit them, as is
> >> often reported on consumer type programmes like Watchdog, but you still
> >> fail
> >> to see that there is anything wrong with it, as long as it helps someone
> >> make some money out of them.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Elderly and infirm are vulnerable to a lot of things. Yet I don't see
> > you calling for them to be housebound permanently, denied televisions,
> > denied mail and denied family.
> > Accidents happen outside the house as well as in. TV advertising is
> > intended to get people buying. Direct mail is another common method of
> > getting customers. And family are in a better position to cajole,
> > threaten, intimidate and steal from an elderly or infirm person than
> > any cold caller.
> > Instead you focus on one method of contacting people and say that you
> > know better than them what is and is not acceptable contact.
>
> > Such arrogance.
>
> I think you will find arrogance much quicker by looking in a mirror.
> You seem to think that you should be able to use any means possible, and at
> anyone's expense, just to line your own pockets, and woe betide anyone that
> disagrees with you, or with your methods. I have met many like you, usually
> standing on my doorstep, trying to justify why a clearly displayed notice
> asking them not to call has been ignored, then telling me they have a right
> to trespass, that they are dyslexic and cant read the notice, that the
> notice does not apply to them because they are not selling anything, that
> they didn't see the notice, that they thought the notice might have been
> left by a previous owner, etc. When I point out to them that they are lying
> about the notice, and that they have also ignored my wishes, so why would
> they expect me to trust anything they say about the products they are
> promoting, they usually leave, although I have been known to argue with the
> very stubborn and persistent
>
> If anyone else is following this thread and is still undecided about cold
> calling, all I can add is the regular advice given by consumer programmes
> such as Watchdog, never agree to buy anything from anyone that knocks
> uninvited on your door, or from anyone that cold calls you on the telephone.
> If I was given the choice of following the advice given by Watchdog, or
> following Martin's blinkered and biased advice about the saintly qualities
> of cold calling companies, or their representatives, then there is no
> contest, the Watchdog advice would be the one I would choose.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Where have I ever said the cold calling companies have saintly
qualities?
Where have I given blinkered and biased advice?

Saying what is done because it works is hardly advising.

You have some sort of problem with a capitalist society?

Martin  <><

wrote in message 
news:e2a40da2-b940-47d5-935d-f2594010d3a7@e11g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
>
> You have some sort of problem with a capitalist society?
>
If that is the same capitalist society that has cost this country's 
taxpayers tens of billions of pounds, by having to bail out, and practically 
nationalise the banks after they have given away all the money we entrusted 
them with, then I think everyone has a problem with a capitalist society at 
the moment.

On 30 July, 09:08, "Harry Stottle"  wrote:
>  wrote in message
>
> news:e2a40da2-b940-47d5-935d-f2594010d3a7@e11g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
>
> > You have some sort of problem with a capitalist society?
>
> If that is the same capitalist society that has cost this country's
> taxpayers tens of billions of pounds, by having to bail out, and practically
> nationalise the banks after they have given away all the money we entrusted
> them with, then I think everyone has a problem with a capitalist society at
> the moment.

The alternitive to bailing the banks would have been what?
Better? Or worse?

Just ask the ex-shareholders of Northern Rock. Just ask those with
company or private pension schemes, who tend to have money spread
throughout the stock market.

Martin  <><

wrote in message 
news:27b71a7e-0c75-4815-9627-bf0d791f4e8c@v20g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> On 30 July, 09:08, "Harry Stottle"  wrote:
>>  wrote in message
>>
>> news:e2a40da2-b940-47d5-935d-f2594010d3a7@e11g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > You have some sort of problem with a capitalist society?
>>
>> If that is the same capitalist society that has cost this country's
>> taxpayers tens of billions of pounds, by having to bail out, and 
>> practically
>> nationalise the banks after they have given away all the money we 
>> entrusted
>> them with, then I think everyone has a problem with a capitalist society 
>> at
>> the moment.
>
> The alternitive to bailing the banks would have been what?
> Better? Or worse?
>
> Just ask the ex-shareholders of Northern Rock. Just ask those with
> company or private pension schemes, who tend to have money spread
> throughout the stock market.
>
Aren't you contradicting yourself here?
At first you seemed to be praising the capitalist system, then you write 
about how the abuse of that same capitalist system almost totally wiped out 
some shareholders savings, and nearly destroyed the private pension hopes of 
many people in this country, which is exactly what I was pointing out. It 
wasn't the capitalists that clubbed together to try and rescue the situation 
that they had created, it was the Government using taxpayers money, and if 
we had been relying on the capitalist system to pick up the pieces, we would 
have been waiting a very long time. You do appear to be losing the plot now 
Martin

On 30 July, 12:34, "Harry Stottle"  wrote:
>  wrote in message
>
> news:27b71a7e-0c75-4815-9627-bf0d791f4e8c@v20g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On 30 July, 09:08, "Harry Stottle"  wrote:
> >>  wrote in message
>
> >>news:e2a40da2-b940-47d5-935d-f2594010d3a7@e11g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > You have some sort of problem with a capitalist society?
>
> >> If that is the same capitalist society that has cost this country's
> >> taxpayers tens of billions of pounds, by having to bail out, and
> >> practically
> >> nationalise the banks after they have given away all the money we
> >> entrusted
> >> them with, then I think everyone has a problem with a capitalist society
> >> at
> >> the moment.
>
> > The alternitive to bailing the banks would have been what?
> > Better? Or worse?
>
> > Just ask the ex-shareholders of Northern Rock. Just ask those with
> > company or private pension schemes, who tend to have money spread
> > throughout the stock market.
>
> Aren't you contradicting yourself here?
> At first you seemed to be praising the capitalist system, then you write
> about how the abuse of that same capitalist system almost totally wiped out
> some shareholders savings, and nearly destroyed the private pension hopes of
> many people in this country, which is exactly what I was pointing out. It
> wasn't the capitalists that clubbed together to try and rescue the situation
> that they had created, it was the Government using taxpayers money, and if
> we had been relying on the capitalist system to pick up the pieces, we would
> have been waiting a very long time. You do appear to be losing the plot now
> Martin- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I live in a capitalist society.
With all its opportunities and problems. Never claimed to be praising
it - its merely what we have.
Are you just getting your daily exercise by jumping to conclusions or
do you sit down and make this stuff up?

You need to learn to differentiate between reality and what you want
things to be like.

The government used taxpayers money (whose else can it ever use?) to
prevent something that could be much worse.
They could have sat back and let the banks fail - but would that have
been better for you and I?

For whatever reason, we expect government to take action that benefits
us or at least doesn't make things worse for us.
Doing nothing and letting a bunch of banks fail wasn't an option - too
much of the economy (and the companies that employ workers) rely on
the banks.
You may have noticed the damage thats been done from banks not
lettings companies have credit? Think of that being far worse.
Never mind loss of tax revenues.

Martin  <><

wrote in message 
news:5b1709cb-488b-48dc-b9d4-aba761270775@e27g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> On 30 July, 12:34, "Harry Stottle"  wrote:
>>  wrote in message
>>
>> > The alternitive to bailing the banks would have been what?
>> > Better? Or worse?
>>
>> > Just ask the ex-shareholders of Northern Rock. Just ask those with
>> > company or private pension schemes, who tend to have money spread
>> > throughout the stock market.
>>
>> Aren't you contradicting yourself here?
>> At first you seemed to be praising the capitalist system, then you write
>> about how the abuse of that same capitalist system almost totally wiped 
>> out
>> some shareholders savings, and nearly destroyed the private pension hopes 
>> of
>> many people in this country, which is exactly what I was pointing out. It
>> wasn't the capitalists that clubbed together to try and rescue the 
>> situation
>> that they had created, it was the Government using taxpayers money, and 
>> if
>> we had been relying on the capitalist system to pick up the pieces, we 
>> would
>> have been waiting a very long time. You do appear to be losing the plot 
>> now
>> Martin- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> I live in a capitalist society.
> With all its opportunities and problems. Never claimed to be praising
> it - its merely what we have.
> Are you just getting your daily exercise by jumping to conclusions or
> do you sit down and make this stuff up?
>
> You need to learn to differentiate between reality and what you want
> things to be like.
>
> The government used taxpayers money (whose else can it ever use?) to
> prevent something that could be much worse.
> They could have sat back and let the banks fail - but would that have
> been better for you and I?
>
> For whatever reason, we expect government to take action that benefits
> us or at least doesn't make things worse for us.
> Doing nothing and letting a bunch of banks fail wasn't an option - too
> much of the economy (and the companies that employ workers) rely on
> the banks.
> You may have noticed the damage thats been done from banks not
> lettings companies have credit? Think of that being far worse.
> Never mind loss of tax revenues.
>
Martin, you are losing so much face that you are in danger of requiring a 
face transplant.

You replied to something that I have previously written, which was 
criticising your support of unsolicited phone calls and doorstep 
salespeople, and you wrote <quote> You have some sort of problem with a 
capitalist society? </quote>. This had nothing to do with my criticism of 
unsolicited phone calls, so it was you that introduced the capitalist 
element into the discussion, and the wording of that quote from you, 
straight after my criticism, and therefore linking it to that criticism, 
implies that your support for unsolicited phone calls is somehow linked to 
your support of capitalism, otherwise why would you throw in a random 
question such as "You have some sort of problem with a capitalist society?"

You keep repeating the points I was making, and which I agree with, that 
capitalism has probably caused most of the problems that we are experiencing 
today, but you still seem  prepared to look on capitalism as something that 
you seem to admire, and think others should aspire to, and anyone that 
disagrees with your view has, in your own words,a "problem". As you are now 
straying more and more away from the subject of unsolicited phone calls, and 
seem to want to argue about anything else that comes into your head, this 
will be my final comment on the matter.

On 30 July, 15:27, "Harry Stottle"  wrote:
>  wrote in message
>
> news:5b1709cb-488b-48dc-b9d4-aba761270775@e27g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On 30 July, 12:34, "Harry Stottle"  wrote:
> >>  wrote in message
>
> >> > The alternitive to bailing the banks would have been what?
> >> > Better? Or worse?
>
> >> > Just ask the ex-shareholders of Northern Rock. Just ask those with
> >> > company or private pension schemes, who tend to have money spread
> >> > throughout the stock market.
>
> >> Aren't you contradicting yourself here?
> >> At first you seemed to be praising the capitalist system, then you write
> >> about how the abuse of that same capitalist system almost totally wiped
> >> out
> >> some shareholders savings, and nearly destroyed the private pension hopes
> >> of
> >> many people in this country, which is exactly what I was pointing out. It
> >> wasn't the capitalists that clubbed together to try and rescue the
> >> situation
> >> that they had created, it was the Government using taxpayers money, and
> >> if
> >> we had been relying on the capitalist system to pick up the pieces, we
> >> would
> >> have been waiting a very long time. You do appear to be losing the plot
> >> now
> >> Martin- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > I live in a capitalist society.
> > With all its opportunities and problems. Never claimed to be praising
> > it - its merely what we have.
> > Are you just getting your daily exercise by jumping to conclusions or
> > do you sit down and make this stuff up?
>
> > You need to learn to differentiate between reality and what you want
> > things to be like.
>
> > The government used taxpayers money (whose else can it ever use?) to
> > prevent something that could be much worse.
> > They could have sat back and let the banks fail - but would that have
> > been better for you and I?
>
> > For whatever reason, we expect government to take action that benefits
> > us or at least doesn't make things worse for us.
> > Doing nothing and letting a bunch of banks fail wasn't an option - too
> > much of the economy (and the companies that employ workers) rely on
> > the banks.
> > You may have noticed the damage thats been done from banks not
> > lettings companies have credit? Think of that being far worse.
> > Never mind loss of tax revenues.
>
> Martin, you are losing so much face that you are in danger of requiring a
> face transplant.
>
> You replied to something that I have previously written, which was
> criticising your support of unsolicited phone calls and doorstep
> salespeople, and you wrote <quote> You have some sort of problem with a
> capitalist society? </quote>. This had nothing to do with my criticism of
> unsolicited phone calls, so it was you that introduced the capitalist
> element into the discussion, and the wording of that quote from you,
> straight after my criticism, and therefore linking it to that criticism,
> implies that your support for unsolicited phone calls is somehow linked to
> your support of capitalism, otherwise why would you throw in a random
> question such as "You have some sort of problem with a capitalist society> You keep repeating the points I was making, and which I agree with, that
> capitalism has probably caused most of the problems that we are experiencing
> today, but you still seem  prepared to look on capitalism as something that
> you seem to admire, and think others should aspire to, and anyone that
> disagrees with your view has, in your own words,a "problem". As you are now
> straying more and more away from the subject of unsolicited phone calls, and
> seem to want to argue about anything else that comes into your head, this
> will be my final comment on the matter.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Oh good.
You really are amusing.

Martin  <><