back to article Road accident nuisance callers fined £270,000 for being absolute sh*tbags

A Hampshire company behind millions of nuisance calls regarding road traffic accidents has been fined £270,000 by the Information Commissioner's Office. The ICO's investigation into the business traced more than 22 million automated nuisance calls to Basingstoke-based business Road Accident Consult, trading as Media Tactics. …

  1. WibbleMe

    Thats basically a sodding 0.01p per call so if I were to be a shit and ring and text every company in the local area lets say 5K of them then thats a fine of £50, Im ok this that, cheapest advertising ever.

    1. John G Imrie Silver badge

      Was about to say the same thing

      These fines should be based on number of calls / texts / emails sent with no upper limit. Also it should be the company that has to prove that any of the above was legally sent. If you don't have the records how can you know you weren't breaking the law.

      1. Electron Shepherd

        Re: Was about to say the same thing

        "Also it should be the company that has to prove that any of the above was legally sent"

        To mis-quote a certain Horace Rumpole, that breaks the Golden Thread of British Justice, and while I can understand your position, it's the thin end of a very large wedge.

        Driving above 70mph on a motorway is illegal in the UK. I don't want to be in a position where I'm pulled over by the police, and it's up to me to prove that I wasn't exceeding the speed limit. That's a mild example - I'm sure you can imagine much worse ones.

        It always has been "innocent until proven guilty", and it has to stay that way, whatever you think of the offence or the people perpetrating it.

        1. Richard 26

          "It always has been "innocent until proven guilty", and it has to stay that way, whatever you think of the offence or the people perpetrating it."

          Sorry, but your argument is completely misguided. Innocent until proven guilty does not mean the burden of proof is on the prosecution on every point. Plenty of laws operate this way: for example, if the police stop you and ask to see your licence, you don't get to say "prove I don't have one". Likewise if you are speeding and claim it was because of an emergency, the police don't have to prove no emergency existed.

          1. Haefen

            Down vote for suggesting traffic court is innocent until proven

            Obviously you've never been in a traffic court where the onus is often on you to prove your innocence. Standing there and pointing to the magna carta is not going to help.

            There are completely different sets of rules and laws for those with money and business who get 1.2p fines and even after being proved guilty don't have to actually pay even that.

        2. Richard 12 Silver badge

          It should be like H&S law

          If you are prosecuted under the HASAWA, you have to prove that you did everything reasonably practicable to prevent anyone being injured.

          Even if nobody has been hurt.

          If someone has been injured, it's obvious that you didn't do enough to prevent the injury - but you still have a defence if you did everything reasonably practicable.

          So why shouldn't telesales also have to prove that they did everything reasonably practicable to ensure that they never called anyone who didn't give explicit permission?

          It's not like it would be hard to keep records of where the names and phone numbers came from and the specific permissions granted.

        3. 2Fat2Bald

          Re: Was about to say the same thing

          Well, it WAS always that. Up until the speed camera - which takes a photograph of your car, prints a number on it, and claims that's how fast you were going and that you were driving at the time.

          As this won't work if you ask the Camera to actually prove anything, it's assumed to be right unless you can prove it isn't.

          Really the burden of proof is on the accused here.

        4. annodomini2
          FAIL

          Re: Was about to say the same thing

          @Electron Shepard, your example is backwards, it is up to the police to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, you were exceeding the posted speed limit.

          1. Dave 15 Silver badge

            Re: Was about to say the same thing

            Not true.

            The police issue the ticket and threaten that if you try and fight it then they will turn up to court and it will cost you one hell of a lot more. The judges side with the police and basically you have squat chance of winning. People have been convicted of driving faster than their car will actually go!

        5. Dave 15 Silver badge

          Re: Was about to say the same thing

          Nice idea destroyed decades back.

          Want to work as a teacher, coach kids, run a dance class for the elderly... then you have to go and get a bit of paper saying you are not guilty.

          Its all the same these days. Because they have worked out they can scream terrorist or child molester at you if you object to anything and the bulk of the public believe its all ok when you have nothing to hide the authorities (other people) have or can take as much power over our every day lives as they want.

          On the other hand, if this company really was proven guilty of deliberately making bad calls (as against couldn't show it was innocent or had real reason to believe it had permission) then the fine should have been really big--- at least a pound a call.

        6. jmch Silver badge
          Headmaster

          Re: Was about to say the same thing

          Off topic for a moment, but the phrase "innocent until proven guilty" has always struck me as rather odd. The "until" sort of implies that it's just a matter of time until proof of guilt emerges, and the state of innocence is simply a temporary inconvenience for whoever is investigating.

          I far rather prefer the usage "innocent UNLESS proven guilty"

        7. HamsterNet

          Re: Was about to say the same thing

          NO

          Its innocent UNLESS proven guilty. The "until" is an assumption of guilt.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      a sodding 0.01p per call

      <pedant>

      £270,000 / 22,000,000 = £0.012 per call, or 1.2p per call.

      </pedant>

      1. Warm Braw Silver badge

        it should be the company that has to prove that any of the above was legally sent

        It is: the company has to be able to demonstrate it has consent and the only way it can do that is to keep satisfactory evidence. In the absence of evidence, the presumption is that consent was not given.

      2. MisterD

        Indeed, but still small enough to be treated as a business expense rather than a deterrent.

        There should be a £50 per victim compensation element, that would cause the necessary changes.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Watch them declare bankruptcy.

    Not a single penny will be paid in fines.

    1. Warm Braw Silver badge

      Re: Watch them declare bankruptcy.

      They had assets of about £25k in their most-recently filed accounts (uip to October 2015) so that seems the most likely outcome.

  3. Doc Ock

    Change the law, make it illegal (up to 2 years in prison) to share customer data period.

    1. Halfmad

      Proving who did it is usually the problem.

      They should be charged with handling stolen information and a new crime of "willfully using illegally obtained data".

      It's easier to prove what someone has, than what someone did.

      1. Flywheel Silver badge

        RE: Proving who did it is usually the problem

        We scum like this just bang 'em all up.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        They should be charged with handling stolen information and a new crime of "willfully using illegally obtained data".

        So that's Assange running from the police then. Oh, wait, i mean Assange running from the police for something else as well ...

        Slightly more seriously, legislating this is not an easy thing: you can't just say "illegally obtained data" for commercial gain, as selling newspapers is definitely commercial gain. Given the UK government's appalling record on writing legislation that can only be used for intended purpose (antiterror law vs local council, anyone?), i'm not sure this is something they should even try? For clarity, I mean the permanent part of govt, not any particular party - the idiocy that is the Snoopers Charter came up now, but it's predecessor under Mandelson; the classification of school catchment "cheats" as international terrorists could easily have come up under this lot rather than the previous lot, etc.

    2. Ottman001

      Bloody inconvenient if the online shop you just bought from can't give your address to a courier. Very little is that black and white.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Bloody inconvenient if the online shop you just bought from can't give your address to a courier. Very little is that black and white.

        "Data can only be shared with 3rd parties for the specific requirement of delivery of the good(s) or service(s) requested"

        Not that hard.

        1. Midnight

          "Our partner specifically required your number so they could deliver services which you technically didn't _not_ request, so that's pretty much the same as having requested them."

          So everything's good now, and the robocalls can continue, right?

      2. katrinab Silver badge

        If you are putting your address in a group of boxes labeled delivery address, then obviously you are consenting to that being passed to the courier for the purpose of making the delivery.

    3. Christoph Silver badge

      If an individual person were to repeatedly harass and frighten even one person over an extended period they would not be looking at a fine, they would be jailed.

      Why should a company which has done exactly this to huge numbers of people get away with a fine?

    4. CrazyOldCatMan Silver badge

      Change the law, make it illegal (up to 2 years in prison) to share customer data period.

      Unless specifically[1] authorised by the customer.

      [1] By "specifically" I mean "for each time it's shared" not a "one time tick-box". That would mean that the management overhead of sharing would mean it would only be done on an individual basis not on a mass basis. I do agree with the jail sentance bit though - financial penalties are all very well but as has been discussed, the company involved will declare bankruptcy and promptly reform as a new, slightly-differently named company and continue to do the same thing.

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Again.

    Its all well and good FINING them, how about COLLECTING the fine??

    Two very different things, the ICO seems to be great at the former, as for the latter, not so much...

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Again.

      fairly sure this is going to be a silly question, but how much of the collected part (if any) of this fine goes to the victims who received the calls?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Again.

        £0, it goes, assuming it is ever paid, to The Treasury

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Again.

      Limited company means limited liability - i.e. if the company goes down the liability for it's debts dies with it. However, the key word is "limited", not "zero". I'd suggest fines for wrongdoing should be transferrable to the shareholders if they're still outstanding at the liquidation of the company. This might make people pay a bit more attention to behaving in a lawful manner when conducting their business.

  5. AR2027
    Meh

    Can this be called much of a deterrent?

    End of the day they'll still keep at it. As long as there’s a nice fat pay check in it for the directors. I feel some empathy for the staff so I just politely hang up. However I’m finding my patience tested at times. I block the callers where possible.

    1. DailyLlama
      Pint

      Re: Can this be called much of a deterrent?

      Just get yourself a premium rate phone number and use that for signing up to these things. That way when they call you, it's earning you money...

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Fuckers

    When I moved house I had to get a new phone number. Plusnet made an utter fanny of this and it took six weeks to get a working phone line and number. In that six weeks the provisioned phone number changed 7 times. When the number finally came through and worked the first call I got was one of these cunts.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Fuckers

      >Plusnet made an utter fanny of this and it took six weeks to get a working phone line and number.

      LMFTFY

      BT made an utter fanny of this and it took six weeks to get a working phone line and number.

      They are they same group of incompetent clowns and it will most likely be down to Open your wallett and we Reach in.

      1. psychonaut

        Re: Fuckers

        bt / open reach. i always tell my customers - if we give them the opportunity to fuck up, they will grasp it with both feet.

        true to form, they managed to bork an office's internet connection for a whole day this week when they downgraded us from 5 static ip's to 1.

        0 connection. did a trace route, the whole internet dissapears after 2 hops

        their "technician" was adamant ...but we can see the router.

        of course you can you stupid fuck its within your core network. i cant get to it from somewhere else and we cant get anywhere (useful) from here. i can see your gateway but nothing else

        then it was - oh, we will send an engineer out to site to check - if its your fault, we will charge you.

        i said, so, whats the likeliehood of it being a coincidental line fault ? last night, you changed the ip of the router. from 6 am this morning, we dont have internet. cant ping anything, cant ping our own ip from external. for fucks sake, what is wrong with your stupid brain you dick?

        it will take us up to 48 hours to send an engineer.

        DONT send a fucking engineer. the problem lies in the configuration of whatever you fucked up yesterday.

        MANAGER PLEASE! MANAGER!

        but we can see the router.....

        aaaaarghjh....murder death kill

        eventually got hold of a manager who flipped us back to dhcp in about 2 minutes. not before a whole day near enough of no network and running off of phone hotspot

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Fuckers

          I suspect that, if you spoke to me like that I'd stonewall you too.

          Flies/honey and all that. Especially as the poor sap you were speaking to probably had no knowledge of your situation, ability to do anything other than read the engineer fault report and little ability to do *anything* other than call out an engineer.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Fuckers

      "When the number finally came through and worked the first call I got was one of these cunts."

      Interesting. This week I had a long conversation with the BT Indian call centre about them getting engineering to sort out a fault on my adsl line. The next day I received an "International" Indian accented "Windows support" scam call. Haven't had one of those for years.

      Made me wonder if there was a connection. Are people with an internet connection problem more susceptible to being "helped"?

      1. Dave Bell

        Re: Fuckers

        I have had several of these scam calls in the last couple of days, both "Windows Technical Support" and a very similar "BT Telecom" fake call. So it may well be concidence that you called a genuine BT call centre in India.

        One of them I was able to get CallerID on the call, which I was able to pass on to the cops.

        They were all variations on "our servers are getting warning from your computer", leading up to expecting me to download software. I kept asking them if they had the IP address, or the MAC for the network interface and they kept insisting they had a Customer License ID that was "burned in" to my computer.

        The first few times, I managed to keep them talking for a few minutes. The last time, they hung up as soon as I spoke. I wonder if they even know which phone number they are calling.

      2. Gerry 3

        Overseas call centres always leak data

        When I was with BT I gave them a unique disposable email address. So far it's received 1420 spam emails. Fortunately they've all been blocked.

        Same thing happened with Adobe and Primus Telecom. If you give your details to an organisation with an overseas call centre, expect to be spammed and / or to receive nuisance calls.

        Similarly, I give only an 0701 Flextel number out when websites insist on a number, e.g. energy, insurance etc. At over 50p/minute, it doesn't get any nuisance calls !

  7. Ogi

    Consent, really?!

    > People using those websites had agreed to their details being shared with "third parties whose offers we think might interest you".

    BULL-SHIT. I am sorry, but I never click to consent for my data to be shared with third parties. Secondly, I don't put my phone number down unless I actually have to (so, insurance primarily, and a select few sites for sensitive/secure stuff).

    Yes somehow they keep calling me about my "recent accident" on my mobile, despite the fact I never had an accident in my life, nor claimed on my insurance.

    They just dial random numbers and play their automated crap. At one point I would get 3-5 of these calls a day, and it is really frustrating, especially if I am waiting for an important call.

    The worst part is if they get busted, they just go "oh, we thought these people consented when we bought the list", when the "list" of every single number they could think of was bought from a shell company most likely owned by these turds in the first place, and then conveniently dissolved so the trail goes cold.

    Thanks to voip, I also get "PPI Insurance" recordings from apparently local landline numbers, so I can't even filter them out any more. Also loved the "UK number" call where it was an actual Indian call centre woman who called me about my "recent accident", and actually had an argument with me over the fact I never had an accident. Quickly became apparent she had no idea about UK law or even how the insurance system works here, at which point I hung up.

    > Media Tactics has also been given a legal notice compelling it to stop making unlawful calls. Failure to comply with this could result in court action.

    Maybe this is why for the last few weeks the calls had stopped. Good riddance. However I know they will just form another company with the existing lists, and carry on again for a few years before that one gets shut down as well, and so on so forth.

    1. Bronek Kozicki Silver badge

      Re: Consent, really?!

      On my old phone number it has gotten to the point I had a call every day. I eventually closed the number, thanked BT for their cooperation and moved to SIP, pool of 10 numbers operated by AA ISP. Not received a single spammy call since then.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Consent, really?!

      I've started saying "My God, did I survive!?"

      Been meaning to record a looped tape of hysterical screaming and gibbering to play them, see what happens.

  8. LeahroyNake Bronze badge

    Unplug the phone

    Just unplug the landline phone ? I don't even know my landline phone number and the only reason that I have one at all is because I need ADSL.

    Yes I get sales calls to my mobile but it's nowhere near as bad as the 4 to 5 I was getting on the home phone every evening. It's also easier to block them and withheld numbers etc.

    1. DiViDeD Silver badge

      Re: Unplug the phone

      "Yes I get sales calls to my mobile but it's nowhere near as bad as the 4 to 5 I was getting on the home phone every evening" - Yet

      TFTFY

  9. adam payne Silver badge

    "The investigation was sparked by 182 complaints made to the ICO's online reporting tool. Media Tactics told the ICO's enforcement team that it had bought data from other firms and believed the people on the lists had consented to being contacted."

    Where was the due diligence?

    "third parties whose offers we think might interest you".

    A generic statement that basically means they will share with everyone.

    I bet they shut up shop and start again with another company.

    1. Dave Bell

      General Data Protection Failures.

      At one point we got a very vague request for permissions letter from the Social Services Department of the Local Council, concerning my mother. They wanted a totally unlimited permission to share her data. It turned out just to be for making an appointment with the local hospital, but the request was to share everything with anyone.

      At that time. some aspects of medicine, such as physiotherapy, seemed to be part social-services, part NHS. After my mother died, some of the support services moved from council employees to private companies.

      The way Data Protection works seems to have become a sick joke.

  10. Pat Att

    My policy is...

    to be extremely rude to the caller, when I receive these calls. I know they are only doing a job, but they are well aware that the job is to pester people who do not want their services. I thus hold them guilty by association. Hopefully they will then leave the company, and get a proper job instead.

    1. fidodogbreath Silver badge

      Re: My policy is...

      ...be extremely rude to the caller...

      Unfortunately, that tactic isn't particularly effective (or satisfying) against pre-recorded robocalls.

      1. Anonymous IV
        Unhappy

        Re: My policy is...

        "Robots have feelings, too..."

    2. Cameron Colley

      Re: My policy is...

      Sadly, in the UK, it is illegal to use any profane language across any telephone. So, do not swear!

      I want to know who the scum are who take this excreta up on its offers?

      Let's teach logic and schepticism in schools, perhaps? Sadly that's not going to happen for obvious reasons.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: My policy is...

        "Sadly, in the UK, it is illegal to use any profane language across any telephone. So, do not swear!"

        citation please - i dont doubt you at all, i would like the reference!

        1. 's water music Silver badge
          Gimp

          Re: My policy is...

          "Sadly, in the UK, it is illegal to use any profane language across any telephone. So, do not swear!"

          citation please - i dont doubt you at all, i would like the reference!

          Communications Act 2003 section 127 para 1(a) seems the most likely refernce that the PP had in mind:

          (1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—

          (a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character;

          Icon closest to official UK Judge's outfit -->

          1. David Nash Silver badge

            Re: My policy is...

            Does a one-to-one phone call where one individual or company calls a personal phone line count as a message on a public communications network?

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: My policy is...

            "(a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character;"

            Oh .. so people calling asking you to vote for "X", which you find grossly offensive, are committing an offence?

            [joke - i do know the difference between offensive and "grossly offensive" in law]

        2. Vic

          Re: My policy is...

          citation please - i dont doubt you at all, i would like the reference!

          Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 prohibits sending "a message or other matter that is grossly offensive". I'm sure it could be manhandled into being used to prosecute someone being quite sweary.

          It runs the risk of being laughed out of court, mind you...

          Vic.

      2. Richard 12 Silver badge

        Re: My policy is...

        Bollocks. You can 'ing swear all you want, because they called you.

        What you can't do is phone someone else up at random and swear at them.

        Anyone calling you is fair game.

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Heh. Government "enforcement."

    So ... as it is in virtually every enforcement case ... the government takes a small pittance from the "offender" (sorry, I deliberately misspelled donor) and nothing (or close to it) goes to those annoyed or harmed. The reason these guys are left to offend again is that if the government clamps down on them too hard then people will stop doing it and they won't collect as many fines. Like everyone else, the government is in it for profit... only without providing a service to anyone at all (even shitlords who send out spam calls are providing a useful service to shitlords who advertise through them).

    We get the same thing in the US. Wells Fargo signs up over 2 million people for bogus products, and the government orders restitution of $5M (less than $2.50 per person)... and takes $185 million for themselves. Out in this area oil refineries spill out excess pollution and the state / federal governments keep the fines just at the point where it's considered a "cost of business," and the people whose health is affected don't even get $2.50. And this is under hardcore left-wing progressive governments in one of the bluest of blue states. A state that is so blue that the other side may as well not even show up to the legislature - the progressives have enough votes to pass literally anything they want and override any objections. So for the usual response that "we just need to get the right out of power"... guess what? Nope. The left sells out even faster and, frankly, with less shame.

    And then politically you have one group that supports the scammy businesses and another group that idolizes the scammy government. Ugh.

    1. fidodogbreath Silver badge
      Facepalm

      Re: Heh. Government "enforcement."

      Certainly you don't mean to imply that donating money to politicians can buy favorable treatment. Why, such a thing would be tantamount to bribery! How could that be made legal?

      What? The same people who take the bribes make the laws?

      Never mind.

    2. Terry 6 Silver badge

      Re: Heh. Government "enforcement."

      Nah, the govt. aren't interested in the pittance of tax they get from these guys (unlike, say, tobacco industry).

      It's more that they have a generic fear of bothering "business".

    3. 's water music Silver badge

      Re: Heh. Government "enforcement."

      [...rant...] ...in the US... ...under hardcore left-wing progressive government...

      lol

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Check point claims are doing well after their fine probably as another company as they are in liquidation.

    Waste of time.

  13. earl grey Silver badge
    Devil

    you've all missed the obvious case for enforcement

    Put all the execs in a soundproof room and play their recordings non-stop all the way up to 11. Seriously.

  14. psychonaut

    hello? sorry?

    " illegally harassed people with automated calls encouraging them to claim compensation for job-related hearing loss."

    WHAT?

    COMPULSION?

    COMPOST?

  15. Dominion

    They should also force the offender to disclose where they bought the data from, and the seller should also be prosecuted for selling it.

  16. Steve Davies 3 Silver badge

    Can they now stop those scumbags

    who call repeatedly offering

    "National Window Replacement Scheme".

    They ignore TPS and complaints to Ofcom seem to be ignored.

    I'd put them in the stocks for a month and let people throw rotten food at them (and dog crap).

  17. I Like Heckling

    I bought some phones with call blocking/screening built in. Not had a single spam/scam call now in 6 months. I got some for my mum as she was getting half a dozen a day and now gets none.

    Takes a few minutes to set up, and for new numbers it's a single press of either 1, 2 or 3 to allow screened call once, permanently or to deny/block entirely.

    Peace and quite at last.

    1. Steve Davies 3 Silver badge

      so what happens to

      "The caller withheld their number"?

      Like what about half the NHS Trusts do? All in the interests of Patient Confidentiality. WTF!

      What about those who spoof genuine numbers? SS7 allows this.

      There is no one panacea.

      1. swampdog

        Re: so what happens to

        The NHS one drives me nuts. The landline is unplugged due to spam. I disabled voicemail due to spam. I block unknown callers due to spam. I told my surgery until I'm blue in the face to release caller-id before they call (I know they can, a nurse did it once & ditto in a couple of other circumstances).

        My theory is not patient confidentially, rather they haven't got a proper telephone setup. They don't "nat" through to a single phone number which comes back to the front desk. You call 'em back on that released number & you're straight back to the phone that called you. I think that's the real reason why.

        1. billse10

          Re: so what happens to

          had a similar conversation with a (previous) GP practise manager. They had no caller ID as apparently they were being asked to pay BT more to have it enabled on their business lines ...

          1. Dave Bell

            Re: so what happens to

            The system has to transmit the caller ID from the source exchange to the destination exchange because that's essentially a packet-switched network. When it goes to analogue that necessity ends. Caller ID is the default, it's not making the number available to the destination that is special. You pay a little extra to receive it before you answer the phone, or you dial 1471 after the call.

            Is he confusing the business line itself with a PBX that might be leased from BT?

    2. Sherrie Ludwig

      Does it work on spoofed numbers?

      "I bought some phones with call blocking/screening built in. Not had a single spam/scam call now in 6 months. I got some for my mum as she was getting half a dozen a day and now gets none.

      Takes a few minutes to set up, and for new numbers it's a single press of either 1, 2 or 3 to allow screened call once, permanently or to deny/block entirely."

      In the States the spam calls can display on caller ID a number that is not the number they are calling from, i.e., spam call purporting to be from Police Department, or with proper number displayed, but not actually calling from that number. Does this blocking work on the actual number or the displayed number?

  18. Daniel Snowden

    Is that really a deterrent?

    Ultimately, a poxy fine isn't going to deter companies like this.

    Prison sentences for company directors - that might work

  19. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    >Media Tactics fell short of the mark when it treated consent as an administrative box-ticking exercise. Proper consent gives consumers control over how their information is used. The people targeted by Media Tactics were not given that control.

    Isn't this kinda like the cookies that I have no option to decline every time I visit a site hosted in the goddamn EU? Can I start suing websites for tracking me when I haven't explicitly consented - since "you agree by continuing to browse" is even weaker than "you checked this box off"?

  20. Winkypop Silver badge
    Megaphone

    Political robocalls are standard here

    How anyone imagines you will vote for a shower of shites who ring you with a recorded message TWICE EVERY evening, for weeks, is beyond me.

  21. tony2heads

    Scumbag corporation

    I suggested that EL Reg institute a prize every year for outstanding scumabaggery ; These guys should be in there with a real chance.

    Suggested prizes:

    - Scumbag Steve hat.

    - sieve for leakiest website

    - tin of insecticide spray for buggiest software

    - piece of string for insecurity in software. However, if Adobe is the winner, I believe straw would be more appropriate for strengthening mud-based constructions.

  22. Zebo-the-Fat

    How to stop them

    I was pestered by one firm trying to get me to claim damages for whiplash etc. I politely pointed out that the accident involved someone knocking off my wing mirror while I was about a mile away from the vehicle. They said they would remove my details from their list, over the next few months I got several calls every week for the same thing, one day I got 3 calls in the space of an hour. I finally shut them up by saying in a loud voice "I hope you and your children all get cancer" Not nice, but they have now stopped calling me.

  23. Torchy

    Now insolvent

    Went titsup on the 18th May 2017 roughly two months after the fine was levied.

    No surprise here.

    Adam John Charles MANGAN who owned it is now trading under a different name but doing exactly as he did in the previous company.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019