On Sun, 28 Oct 2012 09:19:54 +0100, Hugh - in either England or Spain
wrote:

On 28/10/2012 00:09, Graham. wrote:
On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 22:18:00 +0100, polygonum
wrote:

On 27/10/2012 22:04, Hugh - in either England or Spain wrote:
http://news.sky.com/story/1003497/vi...aller-to-court


Amazing coincidence - the chap did this by using telephone recording kit
- and "Mr Herman, who works in the telephone industry selling
call-recording equipment, said his action was a last resort after asking
the Information Commissioner and the Telephone Preference Service for help."

Of course, he has no interest in getting this story propagated, does he?

In that sense, is his spammy story much better than the spamming gits he
complained at?

Maybe I am wrong - but certainly has a whiff...


I agree about his agenda and probable motivation, but to correlate his
story being published in the press and on TV with a cold calling
operation is a strange way of looking at it.


The guy obviously has an agenda but it shows it can be done - if you can
identify the entity at the other end of the line and they have any money

"If you can identify the entity" is the key here. On the few
occasions I've engaged the caller in conversation they have either
refused to tell me the company they work for or given me a fake name.

And if the company is actually based in India I doubt you could do
anything even if you could identify them.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around
(")_(") is he still wrong?