BT Reconnection Fee - Should it be free?

Steve_xx

normanmark wrote: »

Your saying that it has two sets of charges. One for BT Retail and another for other providers. I thought that was clear.

And for the final point, refer to my previous post - i feel like im repeating myself :rolleyes:

No, I did not say or infer that BT had two sets of charges. In none of my responses here will you find that I made any reference to the company known as "BT Retail". Somehow you, in your own wisdom have decided that this is what I had stated.

And finally, though you may seem as if you are repeating yourself, and that you certainly are, you are not actually answering the question that I posed you, which is: where and when have you heard me slander BT? Before you answer this please be sure to understand what the word slander actually means.

Drunkstar

Steve_xx wrote: »

No, I did not say or infer that BT had two sets of charges. In none of my responses here will you find that I made any reference to the company known as "BT Retail". Somehow you, in your own wisdom have decided that this is what I had stated.

And finally, though you may seem as if you are repeating yourself, and that you certainly are, you are not actually answering the question that I posed you, which is: where and when have you heard me slander BT? Before you answer this please be sure to understand what the word slander actually means.

In fairness this statment

This not quite so. BT are the dominant operator in the UK, even after all these years of deregualtion. At the start of the deregulation process a grave error was made in not hiving off the local-loop from BT. Though I agree that they have gone some to doing this by the creation of the Openreach acme local loop company that's supposed to charge BT and its competitors equally for service.

gives the impression you are saying that Openreach doesnt charge all copmanies the same.

Steve_xx

normanmark wrote: »

I'll use defamation then, covers both angles & i'm sure Mr Pedantic can understand that

I fully understand the meaning of the words slander and defamation. Evidently, you seem not to do.

Steve_xx

Drunkstar wrote: »

In fairness this statment




gives the impression you are saying that Openreach doesnt charge all copmanies the same.

This impression you have was not implied by what I had stated, nor is it what I sought to imply.

normanmark

Steve_xx wrote: »

This impression you have was not implied by what I had stated, nor is it what I sought to imply.

Well if two people are now saying it then its pretty clear what is coming across....

wantmemoney

It's all gone a bit off topic. Has this article got anything to do with BT overcharging/ripping off people.

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/local-news/2007/09/11/bt-staff-in-8m-phone-scam-100252-19768169/
Sep 11 2007
A MERSEYSIDE BT call centre was part of a multi-million pound Ministry of Defence call-handling scam.

An investigation sparked by a whistleblower revealed that between 1999 and 2005 millions of false calls were made by BT workers to make sure targets were hit.
.............
The fiddle may have cost taxpayers at least £8m.
.................
Four BT call centres, at Dumbarton, Kettering, Wakefield and St Helens, handled MoD calls from British bases into the UK.

An investigation sparked by a whistleblower revealed that between 1999 and 2005 millions of false calls were made by BT workers to make sure targets were hit.
..............
Staff bonuses also depended on the targets being met so staff phoned each other on auto-diallers to rack up extra calls.
.....................
“Managers colluded over a long period of time to falsify accounts and by their actions brought BT into disrepute. It’s shocking behaviour.”

Steve_xx

normanmark wrote: »

Well if two people are now saying it then its pretty clear what is coming across....

I'm very aware of what I write and I understand what I mean to imply, unlike yourself in several of your random jottings. Two persons views are not representative of the masses.

I do hope that you have at last grasped the concept of slander now.

I wont be responding further to you on this thread.

hammy_the_hammer

wantmemoney wrote: »

It's all gone a bit off topic. Has this article got anything to do with BT overcharging/ripping off people.

as the topic was about reconnection / connection fees .....what has an employment tribunal case involving BT Global Services got to do with it ?

wantmemoney

hammy_the_hammer wrote:

the topic was about reconnection / connection fees

yes and then came along the same 'BT' group who persistently derail and disrupt threads where the topic concerns possible BT over charging and unfair penalty charges..
They try and find a fault with original posts and then run off at a tangent.
They make silly unnecessary personal comments to start games of pointless 'cobshite tennis'.

hammy_the_hammer wrote:

what has an employment tribunal case involving BT Global Services got to do with it ?

Firstly the article it's not simply about a employment tribunal case.
It's about BT Call Centre's defrauding the UK Tax payer to the tune of £10m.
The headline is:

BT staff in £8m phone scam
http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/local-news/2007/09/11/bt-staff-in-8m-phone-scam-100252-19768169/

It's an article that shows if BT are capable of ripping off the UK taxpayer they are equally capable of ripping off their domestic customers.

Drunkstar

hammy_the_hammer wrote: »

as the topic was about reconnection / connection fees .....what has an employment tribunal case involving BT Global Services got to do with it ?

Wantmemmoney has an obsession with posting that article. Really, its about the 7th time he has posted it now. But hey, whatever gets his jollies.