Dealing with Cold Callers + phone

Azari

Ms-Pacman wrote: »

An email I received today to my business email account. I get a lot of this type of email for all sort of databases including ones with telephone numbers but I find this one a bit odd for some reason I'm not sure of.
I've not include it all, just some of it. Anyone want to spend £300 on a few email addresses?
The company is rockpooldata but I've not heard of them before

"The data broking side of our company is discontinuing and we are therefore selling our email and direct marketing databases off as a set.
We have 6 unique UK data sets as mentioned below.
The cost of these data sets is £300 (one off fee). That’s £300 for all 6 databases.
All our data is strictly permission based only and it is of outstanding accuracy.
There are just over one million records in total and all records contain up to date and accurate email addresses.
UK Databases
Business Email Database
Managing Director Email Database
Sales & Marketing Directors Email Database
HR Directors Email Database
IT Directors Email Database
Insurance Brokers Email Database

If you would like to purchase our portfolio of databases then please reply to email us or call us on xxxxxxxxxx.
The latter one is still live and will remain so for the next few weeks."

Sounds like an excellent scam.

They actually tell you they won't be around much longer.

So they can send you any old rubbish and you won't be surprised when no one answers your complaints.

Hern

We have TPS. It seems to work pretty well on UK-sourced calls. We have Caller Display. And we also have a 10-second cut-in of our phone's answering system: anyone calling for a legitimate reason will always leave a message.

What we don't have is so empty a life that we can afford to waste it on pointless time-wasting "strategies" for dealing with cold-callers.

Azari

Hern wrote: »

What we don't have is so empty a life that we can afford to waste it on pointless time-wasting "strategies" for dealing with cold-callers.

Yeah, because you could use the time wasted saying, "just a moment" and putting down the phone achieving universal peace or curing world hunger.

sashman

Get everything in writing, decide in your own time frame not theres, these sales tactics blight our industry.

Either that or get 10 companies to arrive together, that sorts out the good ones!

sashman

Hern

Azari wrote: »

Yeah, because you could use the time wasted saying, "just a moment" and putting down the phone achieving universal peace or curing world hunger.

Hell, we achieve universal peace and cure world hunger before we even have breakfast. The rest of the day could be spent on tending to the welfare of the less fortunate like yourself but that'd be just as big a waste of time as agonising over cold callers.

Whoops: nearly forgot the obligatory

Azari

Hern wrote: »

Hell, we achieve universal peace and cure world hunger before we even have breakfast. The rest of the day could be spent on tending to the welfare of the less fortunate like yourself but that'd be just as big a waste of time as agonising over cold callers.

Ah, so you are some of those sad underachievers who can only manage two impossible things before breakfast.

Real achievers manage at least six.

Dave_C_2

One of the reasons I posted in this thread is that it was my choice to do so at a time I chose to do it, so not a waste of my time.

On the other hand answering phone calls from low-life pond scum...

Dave

brit1234

Anonymous Web ‘Trolls’ Are Targeted by Company Lawyers in U.K. Lawsuits


People who use fake names to post critical comments about companies on websites may not be as anonymous as they think, as firms use the courts to unmask online accusers.
MoneySavingExpert, a British personal finance site with 5 million readers, was forced to hand over personal details about three users calling themselves Againstjpc, GomerPyle and Ladybirds, following a London court ruling in August. The three wrote comments on the website accusing JPC Group Sales Ltd., an affiliate of a U.K. publishing company, of being a “criminal enterprise” and “a scam,” the company said in court filings.
Similar orders have been granted in the U.K. over comments posted on Google Inc. (GOOG) blogs and comment boards at its YouTube unit’s website, said Yair Cohen, a lawyer for JPC. Louise Rutter, spokeswoman for Mountain View, California-based Google, declined to comment.
“There have been a few of these cases and they are becoming more common,” said Korieh Duodu, a media law specialist at London firm Addleshaw Goddard LLP. “It is clear there is a significant footprint left by Web users, who are not always aware of how much information can be revealed about their identities when they publish material online.”
While Internet users have traditionally enjoyed the freedom to air controversial views without using real names, courts can order websites to hand over e-mail and Internet-protocol addresses, and other personal details, if anonymous comments go too far. A person who disrupts Web forums with inflammatory or offensive remarks is known as a “troll” in Internet slang.
‘Online Anonymity’

Disclosing the identity of Web users shouldn’t be taken lightly, said Eric King, human rights and technology adviser at advocacy group Privacy International. It could even be illegal, unless the comments caused serious harm.
“Online anonymity is a hugely important aspect of the right to privacy,” he said.
In 2007, the owner of a fan site for soccer club Sheffield Wednesday was forced to disclose the identities of several users after what a judge described as a “sustained campaign of vilification” against the club’s directors. Financial websites Motley Fool and Interactive Investor had to provide information about a user known as Zeddust in 2001, following a lawsuit filed by internet service provider Totalise Plc.
In the U.S., with stricter laws protecting freedom of speech, judges have sometimes found in favor of victims of online abuse. Former model Liskula Cohen won an order from a New York judge in 2009 requiring Google to identify a blogger who defamed her, while another model, Carla Franklin, won a similar ruling in 2010 over comments made on YouTube.
Court Order

Cohen, the JPC lawyer at firm Bains Cohen, said the company would now apply for an order against Internet provider TalkTalk Telecom Group Plc (TALK) to get the physical address of one of the individuals who posted the remarks on MoneySavingExpert. The company plans to sue the person for defamation, he said.
TalkTalk said in a statement it “would never disclose any information” without a court order.
JPC, part of the Wyvern Media brand which publishes the Lincolnshire Telegraph and the North London Chronicle, said in an e-mailed statement that anonymous posters of abuse cost small businesses hundreds of thousands of pounds every month. “We are determined to bring our abusers to justice,” it said.
Brendan Perrett, head of operations at MoneySavingExpert, said the site hadn’t initially provided information about its users because of its privacy policy and the U.K. Data Protection Act.
“The job of balancing the consumer viewpoint and right to give their views without letting people unfairly tarnish companies’ reputations is never an easy one,” he said.
Duodu said the issue of freedom of speech had to be considered by companies deciding to tackle online abuse.
“The other concern for corporations is that they should be wary of stifling genuine debate. Seeking the closure of websites because of a few detractors can lead to a massive public relations own goal,” he said.
To contact the reporter on this story: Kit Chellel in London [EMAIL="cchellel@bloomberg.net"]cchellel@bloomberg.net[/EMAIL]
[EMAIL="cchellel@bloomberg.net"]
[/EMAIL]
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-29/-trolls-who-complain-online-have-anonymity-targeted-in-british-lawsuits.html

I hate cold callers who invade our privacy. What right do they have to infringe our lifes at home. Now they are trying bully boy techniques.

JPC sound a really dodgy company. At present my mobile in inundated with text messages and phone calls by companies like this. We need need a change in the law

birkee

roddydogs wrote: »

The biggest pests Ive found are the "Sky" insurance salespeople, they always say "its about you Sky installation" (I haven't got Sky) .They must phone at random and if some, usually old person has Sky it sounds official. Absolute pests (yes im on TPS, but they take no notice)

????????????
Why would people from Sky call you if you are not a subscriber?
If you had caller ID on your phone, it wouldn't give a number, it would say SCAM.

birkee

Azari wrote: »

I think you're absolutely right.

I've heard of salesmen who would start to question a man's masculinity if he wouldn't sign until he'd spoken to his wife. (Presumably he'd question her independence if he was talking to a woman). Probably there are salesmen who wouldn't stoop that low but who, nonetheless, don't want their targets to have any easy 'out' from signing there and then.

Surely you are not surprised?
These zombies don't originate this stuff, they rota learn from crib sheets.

Had a phone call awhile ago, where the female caller said something like "wouldn't it be better if you had XXXX" at which point I started laughing. She asked why I was laughing at her. I said, because one of the most basic sales techinques was to get the potential customers to start agreeing with you, making it harder to refuse.
She laughed then, and we had a brief chat before she hung up laughing herself.
You know when they want you to say 'yes', so say 'NO', and that confounds them, as it takes them off script.