Scam call from 08716641448

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 17:21:39 GMT, "Brian Gaff"
wrote:

Are they not a bit thick actually allowing their number to be seen.

They probably realise a lot of people are like me - if I see
"withheld" on the CLI display I don't answer the 'phone.

Bob Moore wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 17:21:39 GMT, "Brian Gaff"
wrote:

Are they not a bit thick actually allowing their number to be seen.

They probably realise a lot of people are like me - if I see
"withheld" on the CLI display I don't answer the 'phone.


You should be aware that some job agencies do this. I've told one or
two they are being silly...

Andy

"Bob Moore" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 17:21:39 GMT, "Brian Gaff"
wrote:

Are they not a bit thick actually allowing their number to be seen.

They probably realise a lot of people are like me - if I see
"withheld" on the CLI display I don't answer the 'phone.

Ideally the phone should be programmable to say "This phone is programed so
that it does not accept number withheld calls."

Bill

"Andy Champ" wrote in message
...
Bob Moore wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 17:21:39 GMT, "Brian Gaff"
wrote:

Are they not a bit thick actually allowing their number to be seen.

They probably realise a lot of people are like me - if I see
"withheld" on the CLI display I don't answer the 'phone.


You should be aware that some job agencies do this. I've told one or two
they are being silly...

A lot of hospitals do it, so when their estates staff ring us we can't get
back to them.

Bill

In article , Bill Wright wrote:
Are they not a bit thick actually allowing their number to be seen.

They probably realise a lot of people are like me - if I see
"withheld" on the CLI display I don't answer the 'phone.

Ideally the phone should be programmable to say "This phone is programed so*
that it does not accept number withheld calls."

I wouldn't have a problem with it being illegal to make a phone call that
didn't declare its source. You can't drive down the road in a car without a
number plate, anyone calling at anyone's door is expected to identify
themselves, and for centuries any kind of social interaction has always been
preceeded by introductions in which names are exchanged, so there seems no
reason why anyone should assume the right to be anonymous on the phone. The
technology may not be implemented everywhere yet, but the mobile phone
companies manage it so it can't be impossible.

Rod.

In article ,
Bob Moore wrote:
Are they not a bit thick actually allowing their number to be seen.

They probably realise a lot of people are like me - if I see
"withheld" on the CLI display I don't answer the 'phone.

Sadly this happens with lots of modern switchboards - doing a call back
wouldn't get you to the person who had phoned. They can, for example, use
dedicated outgoing lines. Although you'd have thought there could be a
work round.

--
*Gaffer tape - The Force, light and dark sides - holds the universe together*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article , Mike Henry wrote:
NB: The "TPS registration" part of BT Privacy is optional. And the third
part of BT Privacy is a nice set of "go away salespeople" stickers for
your front door.

What I really need are some "go away Jehovah's witnesses I'm not in the
mood for a religious debate and I'll probably put your leaflets through
the shredder without even reading them" stickers.

Rod.

Adrian C wrote:
Adrian C wrote:
Remember to dial 1280-{number} once in a while....


Er... if your are switched out with another provider.

......then I think CLID etc has to be supplied by that other provider.

If you're on CPS Override, then you should still be able to call via BT using
1280.



--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

Roderick Stewart wrote:


I wouldn't have a problem with it being illegal to make a phone call that
didn't declare its source. You can't drive down the road in a car without a
number plate, anyone calling at anyone's door is expected to identify
themselves, and for centuries any kind of social interaction has always been
preceeded by introductions in which names are exchanged, so there seems no
reason why anyone should assume the right to be anonymous on the phone. The
technology may not be implemented everywhere yet, but the mobile phone
companies manage it so it can't be impossible.

It's interesting that it's impossible to send an SMS text message without
declaring the source number, yet you are able to hide your mobile phone's
number when making the voice call. Why the difference ?

--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

On 17/07/2008, Bob Moore wrote in message
:

wrote:

Are they not a bit thick actually allowing their number to be seen.

They probably realise a lot of people are like me - if I see
"withheld" on the CLI display I don't answer the 'phone.

Unfortunately I have relatives who withhold their numbers. But once I've
figured out the caller is trying to sell me something I do tell them I
don't buy from callers who don't have their numbers showing.

I once got a call from someone who described themself as my local dealer.
I was in London and the number that was showing was an 0161 number
(Manchester). Not only that, but the phone he was calling me on was my
mobile phone, with the same exchange number that everyone else with the
same mobile company had. So how did he know where I live ?

Simon.
--
http://www.hearsay.demon.co.uk