Amazon Prime Member Fee? Charged £48...

Azari

Hermione_Granger wrote: »

Of course the quotation marks are needed, otherwise you are just doing a search for any internet page that contains 4 words that could be totally unrelated to the need for tinfoil hats.

Do a search for "we need tinfoil pajamas" (without the quotation marks) and are there are over 16 million hits, which implies that there are more webpages to do with tinfoil pajamas than there are to do with Amazon prime scams, yet if you do the same search for "we need tinfoil pajamas" with the quotation marks and there are no hits at all.

That's all well and good - he may well not have done an optimum search for what he was after but that does not alter the fact that that was the search he specified.

You can't effectively accuse someone of exaggerating a figure by several orders of magnitude by modifying the search terms.

chrisdcb

It appears that there is a scale (probably a Gaussian distribution) of gullibility ranging from Trusting at one extreme to Paranoid at the other. For the purposes of even-handedness, the scale can be re-labelled Unwary at one end and Street-wise at the other. The Unwary would probably think of themselves as Trusting and the Paranoid would prefer to think of themselves as Street-wise.

Clearly the Trusting/Unwary get caught by this sort of scam whereas the Paranoid/Street-wise do not. Because not all people are "Street-wise" there is a section in consumer law (Unfair Contracts Terms Act 1977) which states that if the terms of a contract are unfair then it is unenforceable.

It seems to me that if tens of thousands of people are being caught out by this, it is affecting the mainstream population rather than just the very unwary. The Paranoid/Streetwise may sneer at the gullibility of the non-Paranoid/Streetwise after the event, but if a great many people are being ensnared by the contract conditions then it is - ipso facto - a scam.

custardy

chrisdcb wrote: »

It appears that there is a scale (probably a Gaussian distribution) of gullibility ranging from Trusting at one extreme to Paranoid at the other. For the purposes of even-handedness, the scale can be re-labelled Unwary at one end and Street-wise at the other. The Unwary would probably think of themselves as Trusting and the Paranoid would prefer to think of themselves as Street-wise.

Clearly the Trusting/Unwary get caught by this sort of scam whereas the Paranoid/Street-wise do not. Because not all people are "Street-wise" there is a section in consumer law (Unfair Contracts Terms Act 1977) which states that if the terms of a contract are unfair then it is unenforceable.

It seems to me that if tens of thousands of people are being caught out by this, it is affecting the mainstream population rather than just the very unwary. The Paranoid/Streetwise may sneer at the gullibility of the non-Paranoid/Streetwise after the event, but if a great many people are being ensnared by the contract conditions then it is - ipso facto - a scam.

where did you get that figure from?

vuvuzela

chrisdcb wrote: »

It seems to me that if tens of thousands of people are being caught out by this, it is affecting the mainstream population rather than just the very unwary. The Paranoid/Streetwise may sneer at the gullibility of the non-Paranoid/Streetwise after the event, but if a great many people are being ensnared by the contract conditions then it is - ipso facto - a scam.

Cobblers. Everything you need to know about the trial is laid out before you sign up. It is not a scam, people just need to learn to read before clicking to accept free trials.

Azari

chrisdcb wrote: »

It appears that there is a scale (probably a Gaussian distribution) of gullibility ranging from Trusting at one extreme to Paranoid at the other. For the purposes of even-handedness, the scale can be re-labelled Unwary at one end and Street-wise at the other. The Unwary would probably think of themselves as Trusting and the Paranoid would prefer to think of themselves as Street-wise.

Clearly the Trusting/Unwary get caught by this sort of scam whereas the Paranoid/Street-wise do not. Because not all people are "Street-wise" there is a section in consumer law (Unfair Contracts Terms Act 1977) which states that if the terms of a contract are unfair then it is unenforceable.

It seems to me that if tens of thousands of people are being caught out by this, it is affecting the mainstream population rather than just the very unwary. The Paranoid/Streetwise may sneer at the gullibility of the non-Paranoid/Streetwise after the event, but if a great many people are being ensnared by the contract conditions then it is - ipso facto - a scam.

Excellent post.

Unfortunately there are some smug smart-!!!!!! here who believe that just because they are aware of these things everybody else is.

Years ago there were the same smug, self-satisfied twerps who said exactly the same sort of thing about many of the sly and underhand things businesses used to do.

Fortunately, smug gits don't hold sway and consumer legislation eventually catches with these problems.

custardy

Azari wrote: »

Excellent post.

Unfortunately there are some smug smart-!!!!!! here who believe that just because they are aware of these things everybody else is.

Years ago there were the same smug, self-satisfied twerps who said exactly the same sort of thing about many of the sly and underhand things businesses used to do.

Fortunately, smug gits don't hold sway and consumer legislation eventually catches with these problems.

or companies are forced to withdraw free trials that many people gain from, through the ineptitude of others.

chrisdcb

custardy wrote: »

or companies are forced to withdraw free trials that many people gain from, through the ineptitude of others.

So you would prefer to see companies continue with scams so long as the smart-!!!!!! can gain a quick buck....?

Interesting take on integrity...!

custardy

chrisdcb wrote: »

So you would prefer to see companies continue with scams so long as the smart-!!!!!! can gain a quick buck....?

Interesting take on integrity...!

What,by offering free,no obligation trials?

isplumm

chrisdcb wrote: »

So you would prefer to see companies continue with scams so long as the smart-!!!!!! can gain a quick buck....?

Interesting take on integrity...!

I think you have deliberately misinterpreted what was said - free trials like Amazon Prime are very clear .... the person you quoted is suggesting that those kind of free trials will be stopped because people are unable to read things infront of them!

Mark

George_Michael

chrisdcb wrote: »

So you would prefer to see companies continue with scams so long as the smart-!!!!!! can gain a quick buck....?

Interesting take on integrity...!

Personally, I would prefer to see so called responsible adults actually taking responsibility for their actions/inactions and reading up on what they are agreeing to before actually agreeing to it.

Unfortunately, with the prevalent "it's never my fault, someone else is always to blame" culture, I can't see this happening too soon.

Originally Posted by Azari
Unfortunately there are some smug smart-!!!!!! here who believe that just because they are aware of these things everybody else is

By "smug smart-!!!!!!" I assume you are referring to people such as me who actually read the T&C's before ticking a box to state that I have read those same T&C's.