Hello, my name is Barry Issell from SayNoTo118800.co.uk

In response to the justified huge public backlash against 118800, we have decided to take serious counter-measures against the the new mobile directory service by launching a new service against them - http://www.saynoto118800.co.uk

SayNoTo118800.co.uk is a non-profit organisation and has been created with the sole aim of protecting the privacy conscious mobile phone owner.

We have information on good authority that 118800 will be re-launching again within the next 4-6 weeks.

Our site was to remain dormant until the relaunch of 118800, however we have just learnt that they have in fact had further venture capital injected.
This is resulting in more personal mobile number information being collated. The rebrand exercise is currently being carried out by PR firm BISS Lancaster who are evidently doing very well out of this whole affair.
Either way, the end product will be the same - a gross invasion of privacy.  

Our service will go some way to help the consumer but not without a concerted effort - hence why we have come into the fore in advance of the proposed 118800 re-launch.

A comment on our youtube channel a couple of days ago from 118800directory shows the total arrogance of this organisation and a phone call to them today was met with a similar tone.

There are still many millions of people who have so far been lucky enough to have not had their personal details 'bought' by 118800 - this is however changing as we speak.
We cannot stop 118800 buying personal details mobile phone information - but 118800 can be fed with 'masked' Safe telephone numbers instead.

Note:- The 'Safe' Numbers CANNOT be texted to by 118800 - a masked Safe number will never receive a text or be able to be contacted by 118800 - ever. Therefore rendering the purchased contact information totally useless.

All the consumer has to remember, when they fill in that questionnaire, tick that box, apply for that credit card etc.. is to give the Safe Number !

A lot of personal free time has been put into this 'counter-measure' by numerous 'concerned' individuals and I would like to thank everyone who is helping with the campaign and it's promotion.
Our team of volunteers are on the road over these coming months 'spreading the word', so please keep an eye on our Youtube channel to see what we are actively doing out there in the 'real world'.
For example, tommorow we will be flying the large 'SayNoTo118800' Zeppelin over the busy A1M Motorway - weather permitting !

We would certainly welcome any comments (and more volunteers of course ;-))

Kind regards

Barry Issell

saynoto118800.co.uk
Middle Offices
66-68 St.Loyes Street
Bedford MK40 1EZ

Hello Barry, and welcome to the forum.

You may be aware that we have been discussing the ethics of the 118800 service in this discussion thread. (This thread you have started may be joined to it at a later date.)

Can you tell me what type of "safe number" you provide? Is it a "personal number" which starts 070?

What is the idea behind the "safe number" part of your "Say No" campaign? Is it for people to put them on application forms and to pass to businesses and therefore to flood 118800's database with these numbers?

One of the FAQs on your website is "How much will it cost a Lunatic or Serial Killer to get my number from 118800?" Answer: £1. I was under the impression that when someone wishes to contact you, 118800 sends you a text rather than giving them your mobile number. So how can the enquirier get your number other than you actually giving it to them?

Hello Dave and Barry, Im Neil and I work for 118800.co.uk

Thanks for your discussions on 118800.  Dave you are indeed correct we don’t give out mobile numbers. 118800 is a service for connecting people that know each other’s name and address.  In the majority of cases it will be a friend or colleague who has lost your number or doesn’t have it on them and needs to get in touch.   If you are contacted it will be by 118800 calling to announce the name of that person, or sending a text message with the name and number of the person trying to get in touch. It will then be up to you whether you want to speak to them or not.

Please watch a video of how the service works http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNgLWB123JA

Or visit the website for more information http://www.118800.co.uk/ss2

Thankyou for your time

Neil

Quote:

If you are contacted it will be by 118800 calling to announce the name of that person, or sending a text message with the name and number of the person trying to get in touch.

Their real, verified, name; or just the one they happen to say is theirs?

Neil, as an employee of the firm perhaps you can answer my question: how are you going to ensure, when you text a person, that they are not abroad?  If they are abroad they risk incurring a hefty fee to receive a text from the UK and, certainly on my phone, you do not know the sender of the text until you open it by which time you've incurred the fee.   I really resent this as it is highly likely that the person would be someone from whom I would not want to hear (even some relatives can sometimes fall into that category!), I give my mobile no only to those whom I wish to have it, if I receive a call from them while abroad, I know who is calling before I answer.  If anyone in that category were without my number (I do take the point about being out, having mislaid no or phone with phone book) such as one of my adult children, they would be more likely to phone each other to get my number.  Hence, the only people likely to try your service to get in touch with me would be people from whom I had consciously withheld my number.  

On this point, is your service going to be available to commercial organisations?   If so I can see there being further abuse, for example when you are asked to supply details on a form following purchase or for a guarantee, I never supply my mobile number but could the company contact you saying they need to contact me?   I know I wouldn't have to respond but it would be a nuisance (and a cost if abroad).  

Why can you not have a purely opt-in service whereby those who are happy for this go online to register their details with you?

Neil_118800 wrote on Aug 6^th, 2009 at 11:37am:

… If you are contacted it will be by 118800 calling to announce the name of that person, or sending a text message with the name and number of the person trying to get in touch. …

So 118800 might use a voicecall or SMS text message to convey the fact that someone is trying to get in touch. How is it decided which it is in any particular case?

How do we know that 'saynoto118800.co.uk' isn't a scam?
I can find no Privacy Policy on your site. Isn't that a breach of data protection legislation?

You're collecting loads of mobile phone numbers which many disreputable sales organisations would happily buy. How do we know you're not selling them.

You say you collect no personal address info but you're asking for donations with all sorts of personal info attached including bank details! And what are the donations for any way!!?

And don't 'safe numbers' cost callers 50p or more per minute.....I couldn't find that anywhere on your site.

I think you have some serious questions to answer before  you get us behind your cause.

Thanks

Fay.

fayburrows wrote on Aug 6^th, 2009 at 2:04pm:

How do we know that 'saynoto118800.co.uk' isn't a scam?

saynoto118800 has been online at least twice to my knowledge since all these responses were posted. The longer he goes without answering the questions posed in them, the more sceptical we become about its intentions.

Barry, please answer the questions put to you in this thread you started.

Hi guys, Barry here.

Sorry I'm not a super fast typer Fay !! Also, it doesn't help when you spent ages typing a response then hit the wrong button !  :(

Well, what a great response and let's go through these here and some which you haven't seen.

Firstly and foremost we are a totally non-profit making organisation and most definately not a 'Scam'.

We are currently sharing an office in Bedford with an Estate agent, a mortgage advisor and a care home operator.
Please feel free to 'google' us -

66-68 St.Loyes Street
Bedford
MK40 1EZ

Anyone who wants to pop by for a cup of coffee and a chat and see what is going on behind the scenes is most welcome.
Nothing too interesting - just myself, Sarah and Steve opening emails, sending over number mapping requests and then sending the new Safe numbers back to the person who asked for it.
If you do pop by, please park in the multi-story behind and press the buzzer with my name on it - B.Issell.
No offshore bank accounts to peruse i'm afraid, just our paypal donation account - saynoto118800@hotmail.co.uk

For me the fun is out on the road. Just today we launched the www.saynoto118800.co.uk Zepellin over the A1 motorway at St.Neots in Cambridgeshire. And what an absolutlely amazing public response - car horns tooting, thumbs up etc.etc. what a buzz. check out our Youtube channel

We are working totally off donations and volunteers - no £17 million investment.

Web design and server space - FOC
Zeppellin loaned FOC- banners and helium £300
Advertising trailer loaned FOC - banners £300

As we are now starting to pick up momentum, it has been decided that we should move to larger campaign offices.

We've had a load of emails and PM's come in and I would like to answer them publicly where possible.

Jon says "There is a quite a lot wrong with 118 800, but spreading lies with scare tactics about paedophiles and murderers with silly in irrelevant questions and answers is the stuff of the lunatic fringe. Who is funding you? (And please don\'t say donations from the public.) Who has a commercial interest in your \'campaign\'? Who is Barry Issell?"

Well Jon, we had a bit of a heated debate in the office about the FAQ's and the 'paedophile' FAQ was actually my idea to give it a bit of 'clout'. I added it at the time not fully thinking it through and accept that this was probably wrong. I will now be removing it from the site (getting the 'I told you so's, as we speak' . I am Barry Issell just a regular guy. Why do you think we are being funded by someone ?

Dave, in response to your question, yes they are 07 numbers and yes it is TOTALLY our intention to flood databases with them. This will ensure that no SMS text contact will ever be received from 118800.

Fay, We do not ask for anyone's bank details for anything. I think you may be thinking of the Paypal account set-up procedure, which I believe does.
We do not take any personal contact details, indeed the site has been designed for the absolute minimum information to be inputted. In fact, you don't even need to put in your name - just the number you require masking and a return email address. Hotmail, yahoo, gmail, we don't care. All we want to do is offer a free of charge counter-measure against 118800.

The cost to call the numbers vary across different network operators. I know that number costs for 07 numbers are available on the OFCOM and PhonePayPlus websites.
The regulations also stipulate that absolutely no revenue from these numbers or normal mobile numbers can be paid over to a 3rd party such as ourselves from a Service Provider such as Vodafone, O2, or whoever. We do not derive any income from these numbers but importantly, they cost us nothing either.
We were using just one service provider, but unfortunately they could not attach the numbers quick enough for us - we are now using 3 different Service providers.

All donations simply go in to the saynoto118800 war chest.

Keep those comments coming !

Kind regards,

Barry Issell

Saynoto118800.co.uk
66-68 St.Loyes Street
Bedford MK40 1EZ

Good Afternoon Everyone,

My first post here, having just signed up. I've been active lately posting up on Twitter in order to keep the 118800 subject current, and the thread on this site has really brought to attention that one major factor that had been currently overlooked. Aside from the huge Privacy concerns, there is this little matter of roaming charges.

If the minority of posters (on other sites) that rant about this all being a sensationalist reaction by Privacy "Nuts" aren't concerned about their privacy, then I wonder what they will think we they realise their wallets could be hit as a result of roamed spam? I'm sure hitting them with this angle as well as the Privacy angle, we could see this abhorrent idea blown out of the water entirely.

peV

(@DarthTurnip)

I find it highly implausible that SayNoTo118800 would be renting an office for three people funded just by donations.


saynoto118800 wrote on Aug 6^th, 2009 at 7:42pm:

The regulations also stipulate that absolutely no revenue from these numbers or normal mobile numbers can be paid over to a 3rd party such as ourselves from a Service Provider such as Vodafone, O2, or whoever. We do not derive any income from these numbers but importantly, they cost us nothing either.

As far as I can tell, the above is simply not true.

Ofcom state:

Quote:

those adopting Personal Numbers must not share with End-Users any revenue obtained from providing a Personal Numbering Service

(source: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/telecoms/ioi/numbers/num_070_guide)

Now, "end-user" is the person who owns the final number that is forwarded to, *not* the organisation that manages the personal number.  In other words, I believe it is completely possible that SayNoTo118800.co.uk can legally be given a share of the (significant) extra call charges incurred in calling these numbers.

If that is the case, SayNoTo118800.co.uk should come out and admit it.

From another link:


Quote:

These numbers should cost a maximum of 50p to call from a landline, but mobile phone operators can add to that cost. The network and the company which sells and operates the service for the number owner can both earn what is called 'revenue share' on the call: that is, they can share the £1.50 difference between the 50p landline cost of Clark's call and the £2 that he paid.

(emphasis added by me, source: http://www.out-law.com/page-8133 - disclaimer, the information in that link may be outofdate, IANAL etc etc.)

Now it is perfectly possible that "Barry Issell" is sincere, but there needs to be a lot more transparency in the nature of their organisation before I personally would trust them.

Hi, Barry here.

Gecko, we have invited you to our offices and show you behind the scenes.
Surely we cannot be more transparent than that ?

Even if we were obtaining a revenue share (which we are not) what would be so wrong in that anyway..?
We did look at providing numbers ourselves in the early stages to turn the requests around quickly
however, their is a real minefield of red-tape you have to go through including -

Limited company formation
Bank accounts
Registering with OFCOM
Registering with Phone Pay Plus
Directors Personal Guarantees
Bank References
Full Financial Accounts showing adequate funding
etc.. etc..

We currently use 3 different Service Providers who have absolutely NO CONNECTION with any of us here.

The service has been set up to provide a privacy conscious individual from 118800 and the potential privacy issues that it brings with it - not to derive revenue from individuals.


Kind regards,

Barry Issell

www.saynoto118800.co.uk
66-68 St.Loyes Street
Bedford
MK40 1EZ

Thank you for your reply Barry.
My problem remains that I don't see why you and your two colleagues would give up your time, and spend out on advertising campaigns if you weren't receiving remuneration.
I am afraid that visiting your offices would not prove one way or another whether you are connected to the service providers you mention (can you give their names by the way?).

There are altruists in this world, but I am an old cynic, and believe they are outnumbered by people with vested interests :(.
For example, it could be a nice little money spinner to receive a cut of tens of thousands of calls to these high-cost personal numbers. And if not a cut, what about a kick-back for each number signed up?

For the record, I would have no problem at all with companies that do cold calling getting stung for extortionate rates when calling up your "safe numbers."  I just think there are probably things being unsaid about the nature of your organisation, funding being at the top of the list.

Gecko,

My personal circumstances are such that I do not actually have to work.
I get enjoyment from helping people and seeing results from my efforts.

I would gladly give you the name of the Service Providers, however 2 of them are public listed companies.
Obviously with the quantity of numbers and traffic we are talking about here, I would not want to be seen to artificially affect their share prices with any kind of public announcement.

With regard to the funding, like I said, we are fortunate enough to have a good team of volunteers around us. We also had a particularly healthy donation which kick started the campaign well for us.

As mentioned previously, the campaign is now beginning to gain momentum and we are now moving to larger offices which are being fitted out next week.

It is obviously important for us to move forward in a very fast, productive manner.
This will ensure that the privacy minded consumer will continue to receive the excellent turnaround that our service currently offers along with the data market saturation that we desperately need to achieve.

You have a right to be cynical, but we are talking about an incredible privacy injustice if 118800 are allowed to continue with their 'service'.

Regards,

Barry Issell

www.SayNoTo118800.co.uk
66-68 St.Loyes Street
bedford MK40 1EZ

Having visited the two sites I feel substantially more distrusting of www.saynoto118800.co.uk as it has no About Us section but is absolutely desperate to get your name, mobile number and email address right away with no Terms and Conditions stated about how www.118800.co.uk propose to use or store or distribute that information.

If Barry Issell is as wealthy as he claims he is then I find it odd that the only significant hits for him on Google are his posts on our website.  Also if he is an altruist and wants to stop scams then why didn't he come in and tell us how to properly publicise the very altruistic aims of this website that do not involve trying to get anyone to call an 070 number that they are very unlikely to realise is not a proper mobile phone number (itself inherently a scam).  Also how is this 070 number safe when www.saynoto118800.co.uk controls it and has your underlying mobile phone number.

Given the deliberate scam uses to which 070 numbers are always put (and I include Hospedia hospital bedside phones in that category) I find it much more likely that www.saynoto118800.co.uk is the scam use and I also think it is trying to pass itself off to potential users as this website by using a very similar name.  I feel sure that is why its zeppelin balloon mistakenly got the thumbs up from some people who saw it.

I cannot believe a legitimate company would actually base a legitimate business model on trying to directly hurt another company's business idea as the likelihood of being sued for a large amount of money for doing so seems fairly obvious.

I do think this venture by Mr Issell and his colleagues could leave Ofcom with a large amount of egg on its face for scrapping its proposals to move 070 to the 06 number range where the confusion with being a normal mobile call that results from using 070 would be completely avoided.  The fact that Mr Issell shares his premises in Bedford with a few other companies merely tells us he is short of money and that the business is potentially FlyByNight. >:( [smiley=thumbdown.gif]

Actually I think my next port of call is going to be to alert those at Ofcom responsible for the consultations on 070 numbers to this company's activities.

Hi, Barry here.

NGMsGhost, thank you for your kind input.
As with all the other comments we are taking them on board and will be adding a more detailed 'About Us' section on www.saynoto118800.co.uk

Agree with you on certain use of 07 numbers - however, the point you are missing here is that we are NOT a company formed for the benefit from the use of said numbers.

Our service is to provide a 'Safe number' for an individual to give to a Company or Organisiation such as yourself.

I am assuming that you are in fact a Company or Organisiation who has in fact sold mobile phone details to 118800. >:(
We do expect this kind of response because our service obviously creates a problem for you and/or 118800, if the personal data does not contain a 'true' mobile number.

We are waiting patiently for Connectivity/118800 to initiate legal action against us, however they have so far been very quiet on the matter.
Obviously you need to understand that we would not take on Connectivity without having a legal action contingency fund in place ourselves ::)

Our current office space is small, however it served a purpose for the start-up and we are now having to move to larger premises to further the campaign.

Please let us all know how you get on with OFCOM (we found Phone pay Plus much more helpful though). If you could post it here, that would be great, thank you.

Kind Regards

Barry Issell

www.Saynoto118800.co.uk
66-68 St.Loyes Street
Bedford MK40 1EZ

I must say I share NGM's misgivings and scepticism about this

There seems to be something inherently perverse about objecting to one organisation potentially having some of one's personal details, and wondering how they might be used, then encouraging people to 'protest' by voluntarily signing up with another which seems to be doing the same thing but has no stated privacy policy at all.

The 118800 service seems rather odd to me anyway, in that it asks people to give their information to it in order to establish that it wasn't already on there.

On a separate matter, I asked a mobile network about what I viewed as false claims made by another organisation with respect to privacy policy, after I received an unsolicited text message, and the provider absolutely lied that it was working in conjunction with the mobile network. The mobile network confirmed that all of its customers' numbers are by default ex-directory, and they never give any such information to anyone.

So 118800 certainly does not obtain info direct from the networks.

My feeling is that it is trading on paranoia, that people are worried that their details may be available somewhere when they should not be.

But all other organisations have to obtain specific permission from people to be contacted in connection with their account or whatever it is.

Never give your details to people you don't want to have them, and never allow any company at all to pass on details to so-called carefully selected other companies etc ...

then neither 118800 or its inverse should have any leverage at all

Until halfway through writing this, I hadn't actually realised that the 118800 site has been delayed or taken down, perhaps as I was away some of the time

On http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2009/jul/13/mobile-phone-directory-suspended there are adjacent remarks that make me burst out laughing


Quote:

Last week the office of the Information Commissioner said it wanted to talk to Connectivity, the site behind the 118 800 service, to find out how it planned to protect consumers against having their numbers included against their will. However, a spokeswoman for 118 800 said the site's owners had earlier talked to the Commissioner and ensured the site did comply with UK laws.

This to me shows that the Information Commissioner's principles are somewhat in question at the moment.

I called them specifically to discuss a couple of points about 118800 some time ago, and was talked down to, treated as a timewaster, and cursorily dismissed by someone who absolutely refused to make notes on the points I made, which were specifically that for most such information systems people actively opt in and without having done so are by default are assumed out, whereas this site was inviting or seeming to require people to give their details in order to opt out, thus implying those who did not were vulnerable, and was this not intuitively a reversal of default conditions and a paradox that people must volunteer personal information in order to not have it recorded?

I wonder if perhaps that thought has arrived in the Information Commission's brain after all, albeit slowly.

When I tried to look myself up he 118800 site, it said it had loads of results for that name in that area, which sounds so authoritative it might tend to make people believe it was actually true, and thus make them worry. But when I zoomed the area in, it had none at all.

As for saynoto118800, it seems to be having some difficulty describing what it actually is, and it hasn't made a wise choice. There are plenty of commercial services offering 070 to various users, but I don't think there actually are many. Perhaps the most prominent are advertisers in freeads newspapers and conmen spammers forwarding the number to a Nigerian mobile and pretending to sell new iPhone and Nokia N999s on the internet. But actually in pragmatic terms the numbers are or should be almost defunct.

My dear Andy for once I find myself in the unusual position of being in agreement with all the points you made in your last post including the dismissive way in which your very legitimate points of concern seem to have been treated by front line staff on the telephone at the IC's office.  I have to note in passing that any attempt to bring legitimate points to the attention of Ofcom via its Contact Centre are usually sadly treated in a similarly dismissive manner, even though the organisation does not profess to have any other point of contact for the public at large on policy based issues.

If saynoto118800 is altrustic in the way it suggests then I would have thought all of its goals could have been achieved using 5p per minute 0844 numbers as they are much more unregulated than 070.  That being so I can only believe that saynoto118800 actually believes that many people will be duped in to calling the so called safe 070 number thereby providing its telecoms business partner (who may perhaps have some of the same directors as saynoto118800) with the large amount of income to be earned on such 070 calls.

It just does not make sense to me that anyone who has a strong beef about privacy abuse by commerce in general would set up solely to block the activities of this one company when there are many other business organisations doing similarly questionable things with the pesonal data of individuals.

If anyone is still in doubt I would suggest they check out the youtube videos at www.youtube.com/user/SayNoTo118800 with various things happening in people's back gardens with rather small blimps and try and make up their own mind.

Hi, Barry here.

Obviously we looked at all the available number ranges.
The only one that permits attachment to a mobile number at no cost to the end-user is 07.
Unfortunately the use of 0844/5 would mean that the end user would have to pay for the diverted leg of the mobile call ! - obviously this is not a workable option NgNGhost.

It seems that your 'beef' appears to be that revenue is being generated and paid to the Service Provider of these numbers.
However, this happens with all call traffic on all networks, doesn't it ?

You seem to be missing the point that the www.saynoto118800.co.uk  'Safe numbers' are to be given to all Organisations and Businesses that are likely to pass over that information to 118800.
Whether they be Market research, debt collectors, utililty, business, the local council or whoever..
It is these organisations that would bear the cost of the call anyway - not the phone user.


With regard to the blimp, this is the largest you are legally allowed to fly in UK Airspace.
It is the largest commercially available which also has to have certification and a permit to fly by the CAA (Civil Aviation Authority).

We approached the owner of that particular property as they are adjacent to the busy A1M Motorway which is an absolutely fantastic place to fly. :)



Kind regards,

Barry Issell

www.SayNoto118800.co.uk
66-68 St. Loyes Street
Bedford MK40 1EZ

saynoto118800 wrote on Aug 12^th, 2009 at 5:22pm:

It seems that your 'beef' appears to be that revenue is being generated and paid to the Service Provider of these numbers.

The 'beef' with revenue sharing numbers is not the payment to end service provider, which is merely a consequence of the principles that allow it. It is those underlying principles that this campaign objects to. In principle, 070 are identical with respect to mobile termination charges.


saynoto118800 wrote on Aug 12^th, 2009 at 5:22pm:

You seem to be missing the point that the www.saynoto118800.co.uk  'Safe numbers' are to be given to all Organisations and Businesses that are likely to pass over that information to 118800.

Do you know for certain that 118800 will add 070 personal numbers to its database?? I assumed that as its purpose is to provide mobile numbers that it would only list mobiles number which start 075, 077, 078, 079 and 07624 for Manx Telecom (Isle of Mann mobiles). Therefore it seems reasonable to assume that they will filter our 070 numbers, unless you know different.

saynoto118800 wrote on Aug 12^th, 2009 at 5:22pm:

Obviously we looked at all the available number ranges. The only one that permits attachment to a mobile number at no cost to the end-user is 07.

You didn't look too hard.  The first site I checked, Flextel, one of the biggest supplier of personal numbers, allows their 0871 numbers to divert to the "big four" [sic] mobile networks.   At 10p/min to call, these will almost certainly be cheaper for the callers  than any 070 number you might be issuing.  And you can always give 070s to those unfortunate enough to use a different mobile network.

Incidentally, Flextel's approach to commission on 070 numbers is that numbers you register yourself earn you no commission.  However, introduce somebody else to use the service, and you DO earn commission, on any numbers that that person in turn registers.  If you would like an introduction, feel free to PM me for a link, and I'll happily collect the commission that you seem not to be interested in receiving.

In any case, it's surely just absurd to object to giving someone a mobile number to call you on, then instead give them a different number which they can call you on anyway and diverts to the same mobile anyway?

In what way is this supposed to prevent people receiving unsolicited phone calls?

Surely it makes more sense and is a lot simpler not to give a number to anyone you don't want to, and not to give any company permission to pass the number on to anyone else?

And not giving anyone your number includes to these two companies, as far as I am concerned


saynoto118800 wrote on Aug 12^th, 2009 at 5:22pm:

You seem to be missing the point that the www.saynoto118800.co.uk  'Safe numbers' are to be given to all Organisations and Businesses that are likely to pass over that information to 118800. Whether they be Market research, debt collectors, utililty, business, the local council or whoever..

You are rather close to copying the modus operandi of the company you criticise, by trying to engender the paranoia that such organisations might regularly flout the Data Protection Act

Do you have any grounds whatsoever for these casual smears? Can you give some specific details, so they can be reported to the Information Commissioner?

And where is your own privacy policy?

And have you ever heard of the Telephone Preference Service?

http://www.mpsonline.org.uk/tps/news2.html

andy9 wrote on Aug 12^th, 2009 at 5:52pm:

In any case, it's surely just absurd to object to giving someone a mobile number to call you on, then instead give them a different number which they can call you on anyway and diverts to the same mobile anyway?

I assume that the idea behind the Saynoto118800 070 "safe numbers" is that they are provided to companies and you continue giving your normal mobile number to friends and family.


andy9 wrote on Aug 12^th, 2009 at 5:52pm:

Surely it makes more sense and is a lot simpler not to give a number to anyone you don't want to, and not to give any company permission to pass the number on to anyone else?

I avoid giving my mobile number to any company. I did so to my local garage to notify me when my car was ready and they took it upon themselves to add it to a list that they send what they probably term "promotional" texts to me.

Dave wrote on Aug 12^th, 2009 at 5:57pm:

I assume that the idea behind the Saynoto118800 070 "safe numbers" is that they are provided to companies and you continue giving your normal mobile number to friends and family.

Why would anyone feel safe giving their mobile number to a bunch of guys in Bedfordshire who only registered their website a few weeks ago and who seem to spend their time filling up blimps in the back garden of some rather ordinary looking suburban houses while their rather ordinary sounding mates watch them do so?


Dave wrote on Aug 12^th, 2009 at 5:57pm:

andy9 wrote on Aug 12th, 2009 at 5:52pm: Surely it makes more sense and is a lot simpler not to give a number to anyone you don't want to, and not to give any company permission to pass the number on to anyone else? I avoid giving my mobile number to any company. I did so to my local garage to notify me when my car was ready and they took it upon themselves to add it to a list that they send what they probably term "promotional" texts to me.

In general I find that if I tick the box saying I don't want any unsolicited marketing from that company or its commercial allies they respect my wishes.  If they do not comply I report them in a personal email to the Chief Executive of the Direct Marketing Association (who run the TPS) and to the Information Commissioner.  However I think I am probably on some special "do not call this guy or you will be sorry" list circulated by the DMA by now as I only get an unwanted call about once every four or five months and they are usually from organisations based overseas.  In fact I think it is even less than that now since I brought most of the main offenders to the attention of the Information Commissioner on one of their report forms.

Hi, Barry here.

In response to 'irrelevant''s comment. As previously mentioned we thoroughly looked at alternative numbers including the 0871 number range that you suggest. Unfortunately, from the 1st August these numbers have been re-classified as 'premium rate'. Premium rate numbers have to have a pre-recorded message warning on connection.

If the '07' numbers were classified as premium rate this would mean that they also would have to have a warning which would mean that the numbers would be unworkable in many instances (eg. intruder alarm notification) and generally cause people many problems.

Thank you for offering to collect commission on these numbers, however we are not in a position to pay anything to anyone as we are a totally non-profit making organisation. You will find that you have to be registered as a Service provider to receive any kind of revenue - something we are not and have no intention of being.

In response to Dave and his problem with getting promotional text's from the garage - Please feel free to enter your number on www.saynoto118800.co.uk and the Safe number you receive back will not be able to receive any promotional texts - 100% Guaranteed !

We do not collect personal information Dave - not even your name is neccesary. There was a privacy policy on the site however we were informed that due to the limited information being gathered, it was unnessary - so we removed it. We may now replace it making clear that any mobile number entered will remain confidential - Not that you can really do much with just a mobile number and no accompanying personal information.. ::)

The purpose of the site is for any privacy minded individual to give out a 'Safe number' in the knowledge that they will NEVER receive an unsolicited text SMS message from 118800 (or the local garage) but can still be contacted by phone.
If the data 118800 obtains contain an 070 contact number, then our site has obviously done it's job.  :)

Keep those comments coming guys !

Kind regards,

Barry Issell
www.saynoto118800.co.uk

66-68 St.Loyes Street
Bedford MK40 1EZ

saynoto118800 wrote on Aug 12^th, 2009 at 6:38pm:

Thank you for offering to collect commission on these numbers, however we are not in a position to pay anything to anyone as we are a totally non-profit making organisation. You will find that you have to be registered as a Service provider to receive any kind of revenue - something we are not and have no intention of being.

So by not "collecting" the revenue, you leave it for your telephone provider as payment for the service. This is the 'beef' we have with such numbers I was talking about.

saynoto118800 wrote on Aug 12^th, 2009 at 5:22pm:

It seems that your 'beef' appears to be that revenue is being generated and paid to the Service Provider of these numbers.  However, this happens with all call traffic on all networks, doesn't it ?

No revenue share doesn't happen at all on numbers that start 01, 02 or 03.


Quote:

You seem to be missing the point that the www.saynoto118800.co.uk  'Safe numbers' are to be given to all Organisations and Businesses that are likely to pass over that information to 118800.  Whether they be Market research, debt collectors, utililty, business, the local council or whoever. It is these organisations that would bear the cost of the call anyway - not the phone user.

All of which makes it abundantly clear that you do expect the numbers to be called and that the telecoms company terminating them is going to make a lot of money.  You must be pretty daft if you think 118800 won't easily be able to filter your bogus numbers out of their database as they are in a different number range from legitimate mobile numbers (i.e. 070 and not 075 to 079)


Quote:

Barry Issell www.SayNoto118800.co.uk 66-68 St. Loyes Street Bedford MK40 1EZ

So do tell us more about the career of Barry Issell and what has allowed you to become so financially fortunate that you no longer need to engage in conventional employment.   Since your surname is rather unusual it soon becomes apparent that there is not much sign of the former life and times of Barry Issell.

saynoto118800 wrote on Aug 12^th, 2009 at 6:38pm:

If the '07' numbers were classified as premium rate this would mean that they also would have to have a warning which would mean that the numbers would be unworkable in many instances (eg. intruder alarm notification) and generally cause people many problems.

The intruder alarm and burglar alarm argument was used by Flextel and other cunning telcos to give Ofcom an excuse to do a U-Turn at the last minute and not require organisations who will still be charging above 01/02 rate for calling 0870 to have a call price announcement.   However I fail to see the relevance of this point to your application when you are aiming to offer replacements for mobile phone numbers that offer only voice based services to the caller.  Given their charge levels 070 quite clearly should now be regulated as Premium Rate but unfortunately spineless Ofcom was got at because it would mean the death of the ripoff Hospedia (nee Patientline) and the government having to pick up the tab to offer normal priced phone calls to hospital bedside phones.  So you aim to exploit this loophole to allow callers to suffer PNS k rate without warning when they think they may be making an ordinary rate mobile phone call out of bundled minutes.  That sounds really helpful to the caller and for call price transparency and honesty.


Quote:

Thank you for offering to collect commission on these numbers, however we are not in a position to pay anything to anyone as we are a totally non-profit making organisation. You will find that you have to be registered as a Service provider to receive any kind of revenue - something we are not and have no intention of being.

So tell me the name of the telecoms partner company you are getting your 070 numbers from and whether any of the directors of that company are the same people as those in charge of your "non-profit making organisation"


Quote:

In response to Dave and his problem with getting promotional text's from the garage - Please feel free to enter your number on www.saynoto118800.co.uk and the Safe number you receive back will not be able to receive any promotional texts - 100% Guaranteed !

Surely not giving them a mobile number at all is far simpler?


Quote:

Not that you can really do much with just a mobile number and no accompanying personal information.. ::)

You mean apart from sending them all unsolicited texts for porn and Viagra from a number based in Russia or Afghanistan etc? ::)


Quote:

The purpose of the site is for any privacy minded individual to give out a 'Safe number' in the knowledge that they will NEVER receive an unsolicited text SMS message from 118800 (or the local garage) but can still be contacted by phone. If the data 118800 obtains contain an 070 contact number, then our site has obviously done it's job.  :)

I hope your outfit is sued by 118800 as your purpose seems purely vindictive and I see nothing wrong with 118800s service as long as there is the equivalent of a TPS opt out on mobile phone numbers.  It is extremely irritating that there is no official equivalent of Directory Enquiries for mobile phones and for those who want their number to be listed.

Dave wrote on Aug 12^th, 2009 at 5:57pm:

I avoid giving my mobile number to any company. I did so to my local garage to notify me when my car was ready and they took it upon themselves to add it to a list that they send what they probably term "promotional" texts to me.

I  avoided giving any mobile numbers to our dentist ... now they send texts to the house phone to advise of appointments instead.  Which cause us to get a telephone call to which we have to press 1 to have the text read out, or it tries again.  We were on holiday once when it tried.  25 messages on the answering machine before it gave up, and it doesn't even keep it past the next day, we found on our return when we tried to call it back. grr..



saynoto118800 wrote on Aug 12^th, 2009 at 6:38pm:

In response to 'irrelevant''s comment. As previously mentioned we thoroughly looked at alternative numbers including the 0871 number range that you suggest. Unfortunately, from the 1st August these numbers have been re-classified as 'premium rate'. Premium rate numbers have to have a pre-recorded message warning on connection.

Only if you don't advise callers of the charge in advance..
(Personally, I think this is a dreadful sitution, where charges must be promoted for 10p/min numbers, but not for 50p/min 070 numbers!)


Quote:

If the '07' numbers were classified as premium rate this would mean that they also would have to have a warning which would mean that the numbers would be unworkable in many instances (eg. intruder alarm notification) and generally cause people many problems.

You're quoting the PN industry almost verbatim there.  I've never known the charge advice notice on, say, calls via 18866, to cause any problems.


Quote:

Thank you for offering to collect commission on these numbers, however we are not in a position to pay anything to anyone as we are a totally non-profit making organisation. You will find that you have to be registered as a Service provider to receive any kind of revenue - something we are not and have no intention of being.

Oh no, you'd not have to pay anything - you get the service you're already getting, and Flextel pay me directly. I'm quite happy to fill in any additional paperwork they require of me..  :-p

I have been following this interesting debate for a few days now and felt it was time to add my comments. I am sure 118 800 are also following this closely and I am sure it will only be a matter of days until we hear from 'Neil' or some other made up person that posts on web sites for 118 800 but never replies to peoples concerns.

So first off I am the founder of the opt in mobile directory enquires service mobile118.co.uk. We have been running for several years (118 800 claim to be the first) and whilst we cant offer anywhere near the number of mobile numbers they can, all the people who have joined our site have chosen to 'opt in' out of choice. We never have and never will sell information to any third party or use your number to spam you via email or SMS.

My thoughts on 118 800 is this is a good idea,  but just handled very wrongly - I would have done it very different. I have met them and I am sure of their good intension's, but I can guarantee you they never expected this backlash. When I met them over a year ago they were going to contact each user and make sure they wanted to be added. A times online interview with their CEO Raj confirmed this. I wonder what changed? I also wonder what 3i must make about this? If I was on the 3i board I would concerned about my companies reputation as a venture company. Its also strange that nobody in the media has asked what companies provided this information? Personally, I would like to know who provided the information plus do 118 800 expect to buy more numbers in the future?

The general public will never use this brand 118 800 need to rethink. I am not aware of any company that has managed to make a success after such bad publicity. When people wont even opt out because they are paranoid the company will use their details you know you have issues. When they re launch (and they will) expect more emails, web sites and campaigns...

Happy to answer any questions you may have or contact me through my site.

Kind Regards

David

Mobile118 wrote on Aug 12^th, 2009 at 8:59pm:

The general public will never use this brand 118 800 need to rethink. I am not aware of any company that has managed to make a success after such bad publicity. When people wont even opt out because they are paranoid the company will use their details you know you have issues. When they re launch (and they will) expect more emails, web sites and campaigns...

David,

Your post makes for interesting reading but I was just curious as to why you only offer your opinions on 118800 and not on the motivations of those who have set up to saynoto118800.  I would have thought you of all people would be likely to have a pretty shrewd idea of who Mr Issell and his colleagues may be and of their real motivations.

I find it hard indeed to believe that anyone who offers 070 numbers as a solution to privacy abuses by 118800 can be a good guy given the utterly shocking reputation for scams and fraud (including fraudulent overcharging of those calling their relatives in hospital by Patientline/Hospedia) with which the whole 070 number range is associated but which Ofcom was clearly leaned on from on high at the 11th hour not to be allowed to be brought to an end (I expect the leaning on Ofcom occurred due to the Hospedia issue and its likely failure as a company if 070 was renumbered to 06).

So far as I can see saynoto118800 is a scam because it is reliant on deliberately encouraging the passing off of 070 PNS numbers as being mobile rate phone numbers.

I quote from http://www.out-law.com/page-9680


Quote:

Premium rate regulator warns business partners of 070 scammers OUT-LAW News, 24/12/2008 The premium rate phone regulator has warned that it will take action against companies that facilitate fake-mobile scams as well as the companies directly behind them. PhonepayPlus has said that the numbers of complaints about scams involving 070 numbers has risen throughout the year to a peak of 99 complaints in September. It levied a £250,000 fine against one 070 scam operator earlier this month. Premium rate phone regulator PhonepayPlus said that it will automatically investigate any firm whose network operator services are used to facilitate the scam. PhonepayPlus has warned of the scam in the past, but the numbers of complaints indicate that it is still being perpetrated. In May it received 50 complaints about 070 scams, a number which rose to 99 by September. Complaints dropped to 64 in October and 53 in November. PhonepayPlus has said that it will take firm action against companies that help scammers to cheat users. Service providers are the companies which directly operate premium rate number services, while network operators connect them to phone networks. "Where any service provider is found to have breached the Code through misuse of 070 prefixed numbers in a clear attempt to scam consumers, PhonepayPlus will automatically initiate an investigation into the network operator associated with that service for lack of due diligence," said PhonepayPlus. The regulator has recently taken action against operators of 070 scams, fining service provider Starwire Limited £250,000 over 27 complaints of abuse of a 070 number. PhonepayPlus has also initiated emergency proceedings against four operators of alleged 070 scams. It has blocked access to the numbers associated with the four operators to protect phone users while it conducts its investigations. The regulator also said that network operators could be liable for fines levied on service providers. "Where a service provider fails to pay a fine and/or administrative charge and a network operator is found to be in breach of the Code through poor due diligence, the Tribunal may include within any fine sanction imposed on the network operator, the entire fine and/or administrative charge amount owed by the service provider," said PhonepayPlus. "The Tribunal may also impose other sanctions on the network operator  for its failure of due diligence." The 070 scams exist because numbers beginning 070 are very expensive to call. In one of the cases investigated by PhonepayPlus callers were charged a 50 pence connection fee and £3.95 per minute to call the numbers from a landline, and potentially more from a mobile phone. They work by automatically ringing phones but hanging up after a single ring. Users see a missed call notice on their phones and assume that numbers beginning '07…' are mobile phone numbers. Many return the call to see who has phoned them and incur the call charge. Some of the services investigated by PhonepayPlus play a recording of a ringing phone to keep users on the phone for longer periods so that they incur higher charges. The 070 numbers are not intended to be numbers on which operators can share call revenue, and are intended as numbers which allow someone to be reached on whatever phone they are using. The problem became so serious that telecoms regulator Ofcom had planned to move all 070 numbers to the 06 number range to avoid confusion. In October, though, Ofcom shelved those plans. "Since our review of telephone numbering in 2006, the number of complaints has significantly reduced and we have found that the use of 070 appears to be declining," said an Ofcom report. "Closing the 070 number range as previously intended is not a proportionate response." Ofcom said that the complaint numbers peaked in 2005

See also




Quote:

Ofcom u-turn on scam number crackdown OUT-LAW News, 15/10/2008 Telecoms regulator Ofcom has backtracked on its commitment to order that all personal numbers using the prefix 070 be moved to the 06 number range. "Since our review of telephone numbering in 2006, the number of complaints has significantly reduced and we have found that the use of 070 appears to be declining," said Ofcom's report on the issue. "Closing the 070 number range as previously intended is not a proportionate response." "Given our legal duty to provide end users with a migration path to another number allocation where a number range is closed, our analysis shows that the costs associated with migration significantly outweigh any benefits gained from closing the range," it said. The most common 070 scam has been one in which a mobile phone user receives an aborted call which rings only long enough to leave the number stored as a missed call on the receiving phone. Recipients then call that number back and only find out later that they have been charged £2 for the call. Some users reported to Ofcom that they called back a number of times, raising the cost. One claimed to have lost £35 in such scams. Ofcom said, though, that scam numbers were now low, and that some people who complained about scams were not victims of scams, just of high call costs on legitimate services. 070 numbers are designed as 'personal' numbers which can be diverted to any number at which the subscriber is based. Ofcom and premium rate phone regulator PhonepayPlus are still receiving complaints about 070 numbers and scams, but the number of complaints has fallen since a peak in late 2005, Ofcom said. Ofcom has published its revised plans for consultation. It said that rather than forcing 070 users to the 06 number range it would support PhonepayPlus's actions against those abusing 070 numbers, demand that operators make their pricing clearer and demand that operators examine 070 subscribers more closely. Ofcom this year conducted research which found that seven per cent of consumers claimed to have been a victim of 070 scams, though it said that some of these complaints were likely to be to do with high call costs on legitimate services and not scams at all. Ofcom said that with low complaint numbers and high costs associated with moving all users to another number range, it was best not to take action. "This is a small market especially in comparison to other number ranges (the volume of traffic to 070 numbers is around 1% of that for the 0870/71 range) and one that is declining both in terms of call traffic and revenue. Thus any significant change is likely to create costs for communications providers that are large relative to the size of the 070 market," it said. The activities associated with moving number ranges that will cost providers money, said Ofcom, include changes to contracts, notifying end users, changes to technical and billing systems, renegotiation costs and loss of business. Ofcom estimated those costs at £10m. Ofcom said that the stationery changes that users would have to make could cost them £22m. Previously, Ofcom had ordered providers to play free call cost warnings on any 070 numbers which it cost more than 20p to call. It is now also consulting on withdrawing that requirement. Some alarm systems depend on 070 numbers and automatically dial those numbers when the alarm is triggered. The messages prevented those automatic calls being received, Ofcom said. Because this poses a threat to human life and property, Ofcom has said that the requirement to play these messages on 070 numbers should be dropped.   See: The Ofcom consultation (109-page / 356KB PDF) See also:    * Ofcom will deny premium-rate numbers to past phone offenders, OUT-LAW News, 30/09/2008    * Personal numbers must carry cost warning, says regulator, OUT-LAW News, 31/05/2007

One wonders what Ofcom's position will be if the number of 070 numbers being issued Skyrockets and it and PhonePayPlus are flooded with complaints about 070 PNS numbers being deliberately passed off by end users as ordinary mobile phone numbers.

After Herculean struggling with a 92 page long BT pdf price list I find the most expensive 070 PNS rate currently available is the 50p per minute at all times pn2 rate.  So perhaps SayNoTo118800 can tell us what 070 PNS rate it is that they think they will be using

IMPORTANT MESSAGE FROM MYSELF - BARRY ISSELL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxA6Rgg14Wc




www.SayNoTo118800.co.uk
66-68 St.Loyes Street
Bedford MK40 1EZ

saynoto118800 wrote on Aug 12^th, 2009 at 10:30pm:

IMPORTANT MESSAGE FROM MYSELF - BARRY ISSELL http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxA6Rgg14Wc

Why don't we get to see the lovely Sarah in the video as well as you Barry?

Also I have bad news for you regarding one of the main premises in your video in that people do not pay for Incoming text messages, even when they are roaming overseas.

I also still can't believe you describing any 070 number as being a "Safe Number"!

Sadly your video does not inspire confidence despite the world domination map in your new offices since you seem to be precisely the kind of bloke I thought you would be.

I would urge you to be careful in promotion of your "safe" numbers. Many people think that 070 numbers are normal mobile numbers. They get a shock when they find out that they have been charged outside inclusive minutes or at a higher rate than to a mobile.

It will look bad on your campaign if someone obtained one of these numbers from your site and started to call it, blissfully unaware of the costs until the bill arrived.

Dave wrote on Aug 12^th, 2009 at 11:47pm:

I would urge you to be careful in promotion of your "safe" numbers. Many people think that 070 numbers are normal mobile numbers. They get a shock when they find out that they have been charged outside inclusive minutes or at a higher rate than to a mobile. It will look bad on your campaign if someone obtained one of these numbers from your site and started to call it, blissfully unaware of the costs until the bill arrived.

It is also a violation of the terms of use for anyone who uses or sells an 070 number to try and mislead a caller or an 070 number end user that it is a mobile number charged at mobile rates and included in mobile phone inclusive minutes rather than being a PNS number charged at the appropriate PNS rate charge band and excluded from mobile phone bundled minutes.

After 09 numbers 070 numbers are probably some of the most hated and distrusted numbers in the entire telecoms industry and are certainly far more heavily deplored and not trusted than any number starting 084 or 087.

I have now sent an email to the appropriate people at Ofcom and PhonePayPlus alerting them to the obvious dangers of this bizarre and ill conceived idea.

Hi, Barry here.

NGMsGhost, I have tried so hard to answer all your points in a constructive manner - to the point that I have actually posted a video of myself here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxA6Rgg14Wc so you can see that the www.SayNoto118800.co.uk 'FlybyNight Scammers' are not going anywhere fast.
As you can see we've even painted the office walls the same colour as the website !

You have made some really valid points in your post's which I have answered truthfully and I shall continue to do so.
What I will not tolerate is our organisation being blantantly slated by you with no foundation.

If it is such a bizarre and ill conceived idea - why are people protecting themselves with the service..?

I cannot for the life of me understand your resentment towards the service, however you are making statements about www.saynoto118800.co.uk that are inaccurate. At no time have I said that the numbers we supply are 'Mobile Numbers' - they are Personal numbers. Please watch my video again - I haven't edited it, honestly.

Once again, the numbers are for the sole purpose of giving to Organisations who you believe may pass your personal contact details on to 118800 or indeed, as has recently been highlighted by Dave and his local garage experience - may be used by said Organisation to send unwanted promotional 'SMS Spam' - where are we going so wrong NGMsGhost ?

It seems to me that you have probably had a bad experience yourself in the past and you are now using this topic to blast scorn and ridicule all over www.SayNoTo118800.co.uk
WE DO NOT PROFIT FROM THE NUMBERS - WE WANT PEOPLE TO USE THEM IN THE MANNER FOR WHICH THEY ARE BEING PROMOTED.

Please be sure to post your reply from OFCOM and PhonePayPlus on here.

I won't post your PM to me on here as it was exactly that - a Private Message. All I can say is that your last post was a very hypocritical statement.  >:(

Kind regards,

Barry Issell

www.SayNoTo118800.co.uk
66-68 St.Loyes Street
Bedford MK40 1EZ

NGMsGhost wrote on Aug 12^th, 2009 at 9:52pm:

After Herculean struggling with a 92 page long BT pdf price list I find the most expensive 070 PNS rate currently available is the 50p per minute at all times pn2 rate.  So perhaps SayNoTo118800 can tell us what 070 PNS rate it is that they think they will be using

Barry,

I note that you have not yet told us under which Personal Number charging rate your Personal Numbers will be issued.

saynoto118800 wrote on Aug 13^th, 2009 at 1:56am:

If it is such a bizarre and ill conceived idea - why are people protecting themselves with the service..?

How many people are doing so?  There will always be a few people who will fall for any scheme no matter how prejudicial it may actually be to their interests.  Look at all the people who have responded to fake emails from alleged Nigerian Generals offering to share 10 million US Dollars with them if they just send them their bank account details and forward them a few grand in US Dollars to cover their expenses in releasing the money to them. ;)


Quote:

I cannot for the life of me understand your resentment towards the service, however you are making statements about www.saynoto118800.co.uk that are inaccurate. At no time have I said that the numbers we supply are 'Mobile Numbers' - they are Personal numbers. Please watch my video again - I haven't edited it, honestly.

We dislike covert revenue sharing numbers on this website.  But your company is utilising the most dislikeable form of covert revenue sharing number of the lot.  Numbers that deliberately trade on misleading the caller they are mobile numbers due to their number code, even though they are not.

Also tell me how your "safe number" is actually used?  I believe it is meant to be used to fill out a box from any company you are asked to give your details to that says "mobile number"   Therefore your scheme involves "passing of" PNS numbers as mobile numbers on a massive scale.


Quote:

Once again, the numbers are for the sole purpose of giving to Organisations who you believe may pass your personal contact details on to 118800 or indeed, as has recently been highlighted by Dave and his local garage experience - may be used by said Organisation to send unwanted promotional 'SMS Spam' - where are we going so wrong NGMsGhost ?

The number is also likely to be used by the organisation you gave it to on the basis it is a mobile number.  Hence Passing Off.  You clearly only picked the 070 range because the numbers looked like mobile numbers.  Also you are deliberately trying to sabotage the commercial activities of 118800 by having numbers passed to them as being mobile numbers when they are PNS.  I confidently forecast your little scheme will fail as websites will soon be rewritten to refuse to accept 070 numbers as valid data input.

Barry it is obvious from your video that you are probably a lifelong salesman of some kind and that you believe if you keep on extolling the virtues of your product to a client for long enough and ignore all their brick bats it will sell.  But however much you may have succeeded with double glazing or timeshares or life insurance in the past you won't succeed here because your product is inherently preposterous and absurd and that will soon be realised by the world at large.

Hi, Barry here.


NGMsGhost, the Safe numbers are 07 Personal Numbers.
As you are obviously well aware, the 07 rates vary depending on Network and operator. Much the same as if you call a 0800 number - calls are charged at your standard mobile rate but are free of charge to call from a landline.

You call them 'Covert revenue sharing' numbers - what has that got to do with our service ? We are not in the revenue generating business - we are providing 'Safe Numbers' FREE OF CHARGE to protect people from the likes of 118800 text SMS Spam - and the recently highlighted 'Promotional Spam'.
Why are you so concerned about an Organisation who sells personal details to 118800 being charged to call these numbers ?
I am assuming that you are closely affiliated with one  of these Organisations, hence your determination to bring down our legitimate service www.saynoto118800.co.uk  >:(


We don't have much double glazing here in downtown Lagos (only in my personal 'world domination' office) - nor do we sell many timeshares. Life Insurance ? much too boring..
I'm sorry if I come across with a passion - but you see thats what happens when someone believes in something.

Maybe you would care to clarify exactly why you think that our service is 'inherently preposterous and absurd'...? Because from where i'm sitting, the more you go on about how we are scammers and 'reporting' us to whoever - the more I think you have unstated, underlying reasons that you desperately need to get rid of us.. :-/

Kind regards,

Barry Issel

www.SayNoTo118800.co.uk
66-68 St.Loyes Street
Bedford MK40 1EZ

saynoto118800 wrote on Aug 13^th, 2009 at 1:56am:

If it is such a bizarre and ill conceived idea - why are people protecting themselves with the service..?

How are they protecting themselves - when people can call them anyway? How is that better than refusing to give a number?

And why have you failed to answer my question about your defamation of the motives of councils and certain other bodies, pretending they might have breached data protection law and released protected information to your rival?

saynoto118800 wrote on Aug 13^th, 2009 at 4:46pm:

NGMsGhost, the Safe numbers are 07 Personal Numbers. As you are obviously well aware, the 07 rates vary depending on Network and operator. Much the same as if you call a 0800 number - calls are charged at your standard mobile rate but are free of charge to call from a landline.

Are you trying to tell us that 07 numbers are free from a landline? I don't thinks so. See here

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/06/01/personal_number_warning/

I agree with NGMsGhost your outfit is doomed to fail and agree you will probably be sued

saynoto118800 wrote on Aug 13^th, 2009 at 4:46pm:

Hi, Barry here. Life Insurance ? much too boring..

I assume you have made that comment from experience?

Mobile118 wrote on Aug 12^th, 2009 at 8:59pm:

My thoughts on 118 800 is this is a good idea,  but just handled very wrongly - I would have done it very different. I have met them and I am sure of their good intension's, but I can guarantee you they never expected this backlash. When I met them over a year ago they were going to contact each user and make sure they wanted to be added. The general public will never use this brand 118 800 need to rethink. I am not aware of any company that has managed to make a success after such bad publicity. When people wont even opt out because they are paranoid the company will use their details you know you have issues. When they re launch (and they will) expect more emails, web sites and campaigns...

I accept your view of their good motives, but they certainly made some blunders.

edit: after a bit more reading, I changed my mind - see below and the 118800 thread

The obviously deliberate switch from defaulted out to default in but opt-out method has come across with unintended tones unfortunately redolent of blackmail or protection racket, and as I said it is counter-intuitive, and as you imply likely to cause distrust, to have to submit details to have them removed.

What's more, the method, sending the person a text message that someone else wants to contact them, then they can decide whether to call back, could be absolutely vulnerable to exploitation by marketing spammers (especially if they can discover the underlying landline numbers of this service without calling 118800) - for instance, some idiot wants to talk to me about something I wouldn't be interested in, and instead of not being able to reach me at all, can get a message sent to me to ask me to call them at my expense instead of theirs.

And that doesn't seem so unlikely, considering that 118800 has obtained its data from marketing organisations, and it therefore might not be a stunning surprise if it set up reciprocal deals and supplied info back to other corporate customers, especially if cashflow doesn't pick up as fast as in the business plan ...

I don't believe they have 15 million numbers though; there are probably loads of duplicates.

saynoto118800 wrote on Aug 13^th, 2009 at 4:46pm:

Hi, Much the same as if you call a 0800 number - calls are charged at your standard mobile rate but are free of charge to call from a landline. Why are you so concerned about an Organisation who sells personal details to 118800 being charged to call these numbers ? I am assuming that you are closely affiliated with one  of these Organisations, hence your determination to bring down our legitimate service www.saynoto118800.co.uk  >:(

You have made two spectacular blunders here.

First, your knowledge of phone tariffs is incompetent. The claim that 0800 numbers are charged at a so-called your standard rate from mobiles is complete nonsense. They are never included in inclusive minutes, and will always be charged a different rate from standard calls, though BT Mobile has them free.

Second, your personal attack on NGM's integrity is bizarre and absurd. He is one of the most devoted and non-conformist observers of double-standards in telecoms industries, and the very fantasy he might have a secret and undeclared interest in any such company, an accusation he has been known to level at others from time to time, sometimes wrongly (including me), is one of the most improbable and hysterically funny concepts I've seen for a long time.

Hi, Barry here.

Sherbert, if you read my post I said "the 07 rates vary on Network and operator"
0800 numbers are free to call from a landline NOT 07 numbers.

In what respect are we 'doomed to failure' ? Maybe you would be so kind enough as to elaborate ??
Why should it matter if we are sued ? Is that not what happens in today's 'blame and claim' society ?
We are not hiding from anyone - quite the opposite. Unlike 118800, we are not cowering behind a PO Box. We are being totally transparent and open with everyone - something which is obviously inconceivable with some people.


On what grounds do you think they would sue us anyway..? Nothing like a good lawsuit to keep you on your toes ;D



Kind regards,

Barry Issell

www.SayNoTo118800.co.uk
66-68 St.Loyes Street
Bedford MK40 1EZ

I've read a bit more, and changed my mind about according to 118800 the benefit on any doubt, which my reply above to David at Mobile118 implied.

But as it is about 118800, I've posted on the thread about that

saynoto118800 wrote on Aug 13^th, 2009 at 4:46pm:

the Safe numbers are 07 Personal Numbers. As you are obviously well aware, the 07 rates vary depending on Network and operator. Much the same as if you call a 0800 number - calls are charged at your standard mobile rate but are free of charge to call from a landline.

I think can see what you may mean now but your statement is very ambiguous or at the least very badly phrased.

So, are you saying that anyone calling a so called safe number is going to pay more for their call than an ordianary mobile number?

I would have thought the easiest way to not have your number listed is to use the opt out facility that 118800 has.....and by the way that facility does work as I tested it before the site went down. I wonder if it is ever going to come back to life again.

I am not too sure how any mobile databse is going to be accurate with people changing their phones frequently, especially 'work ones'.

I reckon if 118800 does ever surface again they could well sue you for trying to damage their business. As it is well backed by the likes of venture capatilists 3i and others,they will have the best barristers to take advice.

Hi, Barry here,

Life insurance is not something I have ever sold, no.
My background is in the Air Cargo business (Air Cess until 2001) when the business was sold and I now own and operate a number of smaller Air Cargo services to various organisations. I have no connection with the Telecoms industry, other than this project.

I travel extensively throughout europe and the UAE and get continually get bombarded with text spam - 118800 was the final straw for me.
Currently having a bit of spare time on my hands means I can get my teeth stuck into this Privacy Campaign, working with the other guys to offer a service that 100% serves a legitimate purpose.

Kind regards,

Barry Issell

www.SayNoTo118800.co.uk
66-68 St.Loyes Street
Bedford MK40 1EZ

"I would have thought the easiest way to not have your number listed is to use the opt out facility that 118800 has.....and by the way that facility does work as I tested it before the site went down. I wonder if it is ever going to come back to life again. "

Yes, that is correct. This is EXACTLY the reason why your mobile number needs to be protected.  :)

Kind regards,

Barry Issell

www.SayNoto118800.co.uk
66-68 St.Loyes Street
Bedford MK40 1EZ

Your post makes for interesting reading but I was just curious as to why you only offer your opinions on 118800 and not on the motivations of those who have set up to saynoto118800.  I would have thought you of all people would be likely to have a pretty shrewd idea of who Mr Issell and his colleagues may be and of their real motivations.

You are absolutely right, but as I re read my post it did seem like war and peace so I edited it down. However I will endeavor to tackle the subject 'Barry and saynoto118800'.

Firstly, the following comments are my own. I don’t know Barry or his site so wouldn’t want to accuse him of doing anything unlawful without knowing all the full facts. I also don’t want this to turn personal on Barry, but I do feel its important he knows how we feel.

Do I trust Barry or what his site is promoting? No I don’t. After watching the video with my team we all felt it seemed very dodgy and very staged.  My opinion is Barry has seen a business opportunity and is trying to sell this site as a legitimate solution. You are always replying on this forum Barry, the energy you put into promoting your site is bordering on the unhealthy,  and I don’t honestly believe you are not trying to gain something financially or otherwise from this venture.

Question:

What would happen if after two years I wanted to cancel my safe number? Do I honestly believe you will still be around to cancel it for me? No I don’t.

You spoke about receiving text spam abroad and being charged for it. How many SMS do you honestly think you will receive everyday with people trying to contact you?

You talk about legal cases like you are almost wishing it to happen. Do you really have any experience of how much it will cost you and the pressure you will be under? Your saving grace maybe 118 800 do not wish for any more bad publicity  but I wouldn’t count on it.

You mention about 3i 118 800 having 16 million numbers. They  claim to have 14 million which I believe is widely exaggerated. I think its nearer 6 and how many of them are still live bearing in mind pay as you go and business customers? And how many more will opt out as soon as they can?

Finally, 118 800 will re launch, there will be another out-cry, they will go bust. What this will leave is sites like mobile118.co.uk that collect numbers from people who wish to share numbers and not annoy all the people who don’t providing a free service for people to find mobile numbers. Opt in is the only way forward.

Best Regards

David

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IipADErv9TI

saynoto118800 wrote on Aug 13^th, 2009 at 10:45pm:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IipADErv9TI

Any chance of a transcript, for those of us who browse with flash and speakers turned off  so as to avoid disturbing the rest of the house..?

irrelevant wrote on Aug 14^th, 2009 at 12:16am:

saynoto118800 wrote on Aug 13th, 2009 at 10:45pm: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IipADErv9TI Any chance of a transcript, for those of us who browse with flash and speakers turned off  so as to avoid disturbing the rest of the house..?

If you take out the amount of hesitation in the video, it lasts about half the time ;D

Mobile118...my thoughts entirely and could not have put it better myself :)

The fact that SayNoTo118800 is predicated largely on the idea of saving you the cost of roamed text spam when overseas when in reality there is no charge for incoming text messages with any UK mobile company when roaming abroad tells us everything we need to know about the competence and credibility of the people behind SayNoTo118800.  If they knew what they were doing they would concentrate on unwanted phone calls overseas where you are paying incoming charges and thus can be a real problem.

The bottom line is I have a strong 6th sense that lets me spot Dodgy Geezers at a very early stage and after watching a couple of saynoto118800 videos on YouTube that 6th sense has been triggered and alerted me to the kind of organisation I am almost certainly dealing with.

saynoto118800 wrote on Aug 13^th, 2009 at 10:45pm:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IipADErv9TI

Oh dear I preferred it better when Bazza was in his suit with the world maps in the clean modern office and he at least managed to preserve some small remaining shred of business credibility.  This his sadly been lost altogether in this latest video with the casual gear and the sign saying "helicopter pilots get it up quicker" in the background. [smiley=lolk.gif]

Hi, 'Bazza' here

NGMsGhost, I do have more than one office and depending on the time of day and where I am in the world, will dictate attire worn - apologies for that.

My business credibilty may be lost with yourself - however fortunately I don't appear to have that problem with anyone else I have the pleasure of dealing with in business - so congratulations to you in that respect.

The 'bumper sticker' you refer to would look a little out of place on any of my vehicle bumpers - hence why it got stuck it on the side of a filing cabinet. Not that that has any relevance whatsoever to the topic in hand.. ::)

Barry Issell
www.SayNoTo118800.co.uk
66-68 St.Loyes Street
Bedford MK40 1EZ

saynoto118800 wrote on Aug 14^th, 2009 at 6:02pm:

My business credibilty may be lost with yourself - however fortunately I don't appear to have that problem with anyone else I have the pleasure of dealing with in business - so congratulations to you in that respect.

I thought you seemed to have a rather severe credibility problem with virtually all the other members of the forum involved in this discussion thread.

You have been told why your scheme will not work but like the salesman you are  you simply continue to ignore it.

NGN'sGhost, Just because you are told something will not work by a few people, does not mean that will neccesarily be the case !

Double glazing sales are up this month  ::)



'Bazza' Issell

wwwSayNoTo1188800.co.uk
66-68 St. Loyes Street
Bedford MK40 1EZ

[quote
Double glazing sales are up this month  ::)




[/quote]



There speaks a man of double glazing experience? :-?

I have to agree with NGMsGhost with what he says, if someone wants to promote his company on video, at least put a collar and tie on and remove juvenile stickers from your filing cabinets and try and be a bit more fluent in your presentation, then we just might take you a little more seriously.

sherbert wrote on Aug 14^th, 2009 at 7:19pm:

I have to agree with NGMsGhost with what he says, if someone wants to promote his company on video, at least put a collar and tie on and remove juvenile stickers from your filing cabinets and try and be a bit more fluent in your presentation, then we just might take you a little more seriously.

The inability to take them seriously really came at the point at which they selected one of the most deliberately misused and evil number ranges ever permitted by Ofcom as a means of allegedly protecting the public from being scammed and having the audacity and stupidity to call them "safe numbers".

The videos with the blimps and showing Barry in his office have only then subsequently helped reinforce one's inevitable diagnosis that this organisation simply doesn't understand the first thing about the industry in which it now claims to have expertise.

Also Barry complains that we now try to shoot him down but that only in fact reveals his own grotesque misjudgement in wrongly assuming that this website was a useful and appropriate place to demonstrate the main features of his product.  The fact that he cannot even spell my forum name correctly inevitably comes as little surprise.

Point taken Sherbert.

I must admit I didn't even think to look behind me when I shot the Video. On refelection it does look unprofessional and I will probably remove the video now.

I was joking about the double glazing ! - I'm not in that type of business.

'Bazza'

www.SayNoTo118800.co.uk
66-68 St.Loyes Street
Bedford MK40 1EZ

saynoto118800 wrote on Aug 14^th, 2009 at 7:34pm:

Point taken Sherbert. On refelection it does look unprofessional and I will probably remove the video now.

I shouldn't bother Barry as the greater problem for your corporate credibility was surely in the foreground of the shot. ::)

Having made contributions to the original thread covering 118800, I feel as though I should throw in my two ha'peth here.

As a campaigner on the issues (as distinct from those who campaign against other people and organisations) my focus is on the role of the ICO in this matter.

The ICO originally agreed with Connectivity that the service must be subject to the proper regulatory requirements - i.e. that a personal notification was issued to everybody to be listed in the directory, offering the opportunity to opt-out, before that entry could be used. Connectivity later advised that this would not now be possible, as it would have made the service financially unviable. To my knowledge, the ICO has neither confirmed that this is acceptable, nor taken action because of a breach of regulations. My latest advice is that it is leaning towards the former.

Despite clearly breaching the terms of the regulations, there is little danger of any serious breach of meaningful privacy occurring if the 118800 service is operated in the manner that is advised.

The problem is that the alleged protections against abuse cannot possibly be adequate. There can be no absolute assurance that a service based on an essentially invalid directory of names and numbers will not fall into the wrong hands, or that the nature of the hands currently holding it may not change. The present situation relies on the fact that retrospective notification of inclusion in a directory, with the opportunity to opt-out **, and the failure to provide numbers to enquirers, will continue for all time and under all circumstances. Should this change, the ICO will not even become aware of the fact, and then be able to take action after the necessary lengthy delay, until far too late.

(** the pressured circumstances under which such notifications are provided probably cause them to be inadequate anyway)

It is the possibility of the abuse of data, rather than the intentions and capabilities of the present owners, that must be the subject of the most serious concern in all such situations. If that limits worthwhile business activity, or even the security of the state (as in the case of the national identity database), then this is a price we have to pay for our liberties.

It is vital that the ICO takes a principled stand, demanding that the regulations be applied in all cases, refusing to accept that measures can be put in place to offset the ills that the regulations as drafted are seen to be seeking to prevent. This approach must apply even when, as in this case, those measures appear to be generally sufficient. It is for Connectivity to seek for a change to the regulations if it believes that alternative means of opting out are appropriate for its particular service.

---

Turning to campaigns and the promotion of services under the “Privacy” banner, I am reminded of the launch of “BT Privacy at Home”. This came about during the height of publicly expressed concern about Silent Calls some years ago. The notion, promoted on TV by a renowned libertarian, was that "privacy" was achieved by registration with the Telephone Preference Service and the ability to see the number presented by a caller (if any) before answering a telephone call.

This campaign was very successful in achieving its underlying intention of protecting BT’s business, by preventing its competitors from persuading customers to transfer to them through the cheap and effective technique of telemarketing.

We may each entertain odd ideas about what is meant by “privacy”, and the vital human right that the word describes. I see that as unfortunate, but inevitable and tolerable. When promoters of particular causes and services adopt the word as if it may fairly be used to describe what they are promoting, I have severe concerns.

Whatever the true purpose of SayNoTo118800 may be, its intended and declared objective (expressed by its very name) is to have a commercial impact. Any commercial enterprise must be fundamentally amoral and should be judged accordingly. Let the argument about practical advantages for consumers continue, but let us not allow this to be confused with discussion on matters of principle.

Saynoto118800 is as dodgy as the landing gear on S9-SAM !  ;D

Instead of spending 'your spare time' campaigning for mobile phone privacy - why don't you put some effort into maintaining your cr*p Russian planes.

I know who you are Mr Issell. Your a nasty piece of work who should have been banged up with Bout.  
Get a proper job and do something good for a change instead of trying to make another quick buck out of someone elses problems.. >:(

MagnumPI wrote on Aug 14^th, 2009 at 10:43pm:

Saynoto118800 is as dodgy as the landing gear on S9-SAM !  ;D

So would British Gulf International Airlines be Mr Issell's outfit then?

See http://aviation-safety.net/database/operator/airline.php?var=8270

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Gulf_International_Airlines

Thanks for giving us a steer on this one Magnum.  However strangely I can find no Google link between a Mr Barry Issell and BGIA or Antonovs.  Are we saying that Barry Issell is in fact a made up name for this gentleman?

Either way it certainly seems that I may have been a lot nearer to the mark than I realised when I suggested that SayNoTO118800 may be a Fly By Night operation. ;) ;D

S9SAM is one of 1000's of the most robust AN-12 cargo planes ever built Magnum. I don't know who you are but whatever you think you may know - you are totally off-topic and wild accusations like that can get people into trouble - a LOT of trouble  >:(

Oh really ? So how do you explain since this year your AN-12's are longer allowed to be flown in UAE airspace them ?
Business taken a downturn has it ?
Looking for alternative means of revenue to fund your dubious Air Freight Operations are we ?

Powerful thing the Internet, Mr Issell...

As I have always fancied that Targa roofed Ferrari of yours Magnum I thought I would start using my own sleuthing skills here.

See www.aircess.com/Victor_Bout.htm

Still no sign of a gentleman matching the description of Barry Issell though....................

There again looking more closely could Barry be Victor's older English speaking brother or cousin? ;)

See www.victorbout.com

So 'Mr Issell' is this your web site http://www.britishgulf.com/  ?

If so, why don't you get this 'constructed' before attempting to take on something else?

You have come onto this site for two purposes only, one to promote your attempted new business and the other to try and get some ideas about the telco industry because of your lack of knowledge on this subject. There are many people (me excluded) that have oodles of knowledge about the telecommunication industry and put their thoughts and views on this site (and this thread) in a superb way. You have come here asking what we all think, and you do not like the answers because they are not what you want or were expecting to read.

I think the administrators would agree with me that this site was not set up for people to try and promote their new businesses but to help people to save money when making telephone calls and this is where I have tried to help.

I am now going to spend the next few days on trying to find out who you really are.

Mmmmm


http://www.britishgulf.com/profile.htm

sherbert wrote on Aug 15^th, 2009 at 9:19am:

Mmmmm http://www.britishgulf.com/profile.htm

Could this possibly be from the Barry Issell school of English?


Quote:

The aircrafts are regularly inspected; serviced and maintained in very good technical condition thereby ensuring increased safety and reliability.

More on the Bout brothers and the Air Cess empire at http://www.chichakli.net/PDF_Docs/AirCess%20and%20the%20Bout%20brothers.pdf

I notice that Mr Bout also seems to have the same passion for having several YouTube videos on his website as www.saynoto118800.co.uk

See http://www.victorbout.com/Videos.htm

Unfortunately I couldn't find a photograph anywhere on the web of Michael Herridine.   See www.aircess.com/employees.htm

Reading this thread http://www.saynoto0870.com/cgi-bin/forum/YaBB.cgi?num=1248847207/45

our 'friend' Barry appears as we have long suspected has no idea what he is talking about and is pumping members for information on how to start his new venture and as we have said here before is doomed to fail

Barry, your web site is inaccurate.

You say, How much will it cost a Lunatic or Serial Killer to get my number from 118800?
£1

Not true.

I quote from the 118800 web site


118 800 mobile phone number directory never gives out anyone's mobile number. Not even to their closest friend.

If someone wants to get in touch, and we have your number, we contact your mobile and tell you who they are. If you reject the call, they don't get through - and they don't have your number.

But if you're happy to talk, they'll get through and you can choose whether or not to share your number.


End quote


That just about sums it all up

The business, concept, videos and misleading people to think this is a solution is so terrible,  I almost wonder if Barry is involved with 118 800? Through Barry’s inaccurate quotes we are actually defending their service!!!  :'( And taking our eye off the real problem in the first place 118 800.

Barry, if you really do think this is a great idea, please be transparent to your end users about the costs, be honest that isn’t the only solution they can cancel their number on 118 800 (oh god I am standing up for them now) and explain how they can opt out or cancel their ‘safe’ number when you move onto to another project.

I swear I've seen Barry 'Bazza' Issell on Rouge Traders.  I believe at the time he was sporting a pair of ill fitting overalls and carrying a fake Corgi Registered ID.  Just kidding Bazzy.  I never saw this episode.

So let me get this right Baz. You are 40ish, retired and have taken up the fight for the common man.  Out of all the causes that trouble our land, the mobile directory battle stood out enough to warrant an office and 2 additional staff (working for free of course as they too have wealth and an urge to do right), website, video promotion and not forgetting flying a 20ft blimp over your town.

Sounds plauable? Yeah right.  Of course Bazzo if this story was true you would have done it different.  You may have bought a domain name, say www.118800-remove-my-number.co.uk and hosted a freely available blog using www.wordpress.org.  You would have then used this blog to highlight the problem and then provide links to petitions, related news and articles as well as supply contact information for Connectivity so that people can actually attempt to remove their numbers.  

You can consider the above example an legitimate way for one man to fight the system online.  The outlay for a £5 domain name and free hosting is negligible and shouldn't be perceived to have an agenda.  Which brings me to your approach.

You are harvesting the very data at the center of the problem.  The design and copy of your website suggests you are selling a service.  You come across as a man that has a background in marketing.

"This is the world famous SayNoTo118800 Blimp being flown over a busy retail park adjacent to the A1M Motorway at St.Neots in Cambridgeshire"

World famous? Get real Bazzola.  

"Nothing like a good lawsuit to keep you on your toes"

Familiar territory huh.

You're outlaying money that can only mean you have an invested interest.  I'm not buying the I'm rich, retired and passionate about privacy crap. Man I swear I laughed-out-loud just typing that. You won't convince any of the seasoned scam sniffers here on this forum but you know this as you have tried, and tried and tried and...

Whilst you can't mug us you will undoubtedly harvest numbers from unsuspecting members of the public. It is only fair that they see discussions such as this one.

www.saynoto118800-warning.co.uk

I run the blog at www.118800-remove-my-number.co.uk and it currently sits on Yahoo right under www.118800.co.uk when anyone types "118800", and I'll do the same service for my fellow citizens against your 'service'.

Question.  Why not just link your website to these 'safe' number websites?  Surely you've nothing to gain by acting as a broker? Oh wait Bazzywazzy!  I just got it.

Interesting that we have not heard fro the infamous Barry since the 11th August, especially as he has visited this site since, then perhaps he has run out of things to say or has releasid that his idea was a bit silly in the first place. ;D

I see his site is still full of inaccuracies  ::)

sherbert wrote on Sep 8^th, 2009 at 12:35pm:

Interesting that we have not heard fro the infamous Barry since the 11th August, especially as he has visited this site since, then perhaps he has run out of things to say or has releasid that his idea was a bit silly in the first place. ;D

I was rash enough to fill in details on his website just to see if one of the promised 070 numbers was ever provided but so far it never has been.

It therefore appears that the sole purpose of this website is to harvest names and email addresses and sell them to other parties. :o >:( >:( >:(

NGMsGhost wrote on Sep 19^th, 2009 at 11:46am:

It therefore appears that the sole purpose of this website is to harvest names and email addresses and sell them to other parties. :o >:( >:( >:(

It is as we suspected all along, this man and his outfit are as dodgy as each other

Hi, Barry here.


I'm glad you are keen to take avail of the service NGNsghost - please feel free to try again. It is quite possible that you made a small error when inputting your details.

Sherbert - your unfounded allegations will get you into trouble.


Kind regards,

Barry

www.saynoto118800.co.uk

Barry, I refer you to reply #75

saynoto118800 wrote on Sep 20^th, 2009 at 2:03pm:

I'm glad you are keen to take avail of the service NGNsghost - please feel free to try again. It is quite possible that you made a small error when inputting your details.

No I definitely filled them in correctly and strangely enough since doing so I have received a large number of unsolicited phone calls in the last week or two from organisations selling things, despite my longstandin registration with the TPS. :o >:( [smiley=thumbdown.gif]

NGNsghost, we checked our records and can find no record whatsover of you inputting your details.

You have been reported.  >:(

saynoto118800 wrote on Sep 20^th, 2009 at 4:40pm:

NGNsghost, we checked our records and can find no record whatsover of you inputting your details.

Well I actually put them in more than once.  So that just shows what a pile of rubbish your website is.  Also please do tell me what records you are looking for as I obviously won't be NGMs Ghost in your database. ;)


Quote:

You have been reported.  >:(

Who are you reporting me to then? :question

saynoto118800 wrote on Sep 20^th, 2009 at 4:40pm:

NGNsghost, we checked our records and can find no record whatsover of you inputting your details.

Did you search for NGNsghost as a first or surname?  ::)

Give up Baz.

Are the numbers allocated and emailed automatically by saynoto11800, or are they processed manually?

I have also filled in a request ... no email with my own "safe number" has arrived either.  Although, I did give it an old, but valid 070 number as the mobile, which the website at least took quite happily...

I'll be monitoring the spam levels on phone number and email...

irrelevant wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2009 at 10:53pm:

I'll be monitoring the spam levels on phone number and email...

Prepare  to be flooded with calls from dodgy monitored burglar alarm companies, health insurance plan operators and will writing services, all of which withold their number.

And no you won't ever receive the promised 070 "Safe Number".

Several questions I have on this topic...

Why would anyone want to register with 'Saynoto 118800.co.uk' when '118800.co.uk' is not even up and running, infact I think it was only running for a couple of days, if that.

Why does 'Saynoto118800.co.uk' need an email address as well? Is it so they can have a database of email addresses as well as mobile numbers so they can 'sell on'?

On the 'Saynoto 11880' web site it states
  As widely reported in the media, the new mobile ‘phone directory enquiry service
    ‘118800’ will be providing details of your mobile ‘phone number to anyone who
         asks for it.




This is not true as on the 118800.co.uk web site it states

118 800 mobile phone number directory never gives out anyone's mobile number. Not even to their closest friend.

If someone wants to get in touch, and we have your number, we contact your mobile and tell you who they are. If you reject the call, they don't get through - and they don't have your number.


How can Barry check the details people like NGMsGhost who says that he has not received his so called safe number  from his web site?


Is Barry going to answer the very importent question that as soon as NGMsGhost 'registered' he has been flooded with a large number of unsolicited phone calls in the last week or two from organisations selling things....this can be hardly a coincidence.

Why doesn't Barry asnwer the questions many members have put on this topic

Checking the www.saynoto118800.co.uk website again they only ask for name, email and mobile number and the unwanted calls I have been getting lately have been on my P O Homephone landline, despite my longstanding TPS registration.

I suspect the unwanted calls I have recently been getting have more to do with a call I received from a totally dubious Indian call centre operation called The Consumer Research Centre who called me (using a faked 028 Belfast CLI phone number) a few months ago and who I played along with when they said was I interested in wills or cheaper energy etc in order to find out who they were not realising they already had all my illegally obtained contact details.   When I then challenged them on why they had called me despite my TPS registration they hung up on me but still seem to have passed on my details to the burglar alarm companies, will writing companies etc, etc, etc...............

See http://whocallsme.com/Phone-Number.aspx/02814767868

That's not of course to say that I'm not still concerned that Barry and co may not end up also doing something undesirable with my personal data, especially as they do not seem to have any publicly disclosed Terms and Conditions governing the information supplied to them by individuals.

NGMsGhost wrote on Sep 24^th, 2009 at 10:27am:

That's not of course to say that I'm not still concerned that Barry and co may not end up also doing something undesirable with my personal data, especially as they do seem to have any publicly disclosed Terms and Conditions governing the information supplied to them by individuals.

NGMsGhost....I think you may have missed the word 'not' before the words 'seem'

sherbert wrote on Sep 24^th, 2009 at 10:42am:

NGMsGhost....I think you may have missed the word 'not' before the words 'seem'

Thanks for pointing this out sherbert.

This has now been corrected.

NGMsGhost wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2009 at 11:01pm:

irrelevant wrote on Sep 23rd, 2009 at 10:53pm: I'll be monitoring the spam levels on phone number and email... Prepare  to be flooded with calls from dodgy monitored burglar alarm companies, health insurance plan operators and will writing services, all of which withold their number.

That's OK.  The number I gave them was an old 070 that points at a voicemail box these days, although i get caller reports so can track any calls even if they don't leave a message...  And it was an old email address that already gets mostly spam so is quite tightly filtered..  Nothing yet ...

Hi, Barry here.

Just to clarify, if anyone inputs anything other than a mobile number or landline phone number into the website - it is automatically rejected.

We cannot map onto an 070 number - only a landline or mobile. this would explain why 'irrelevant' did not receive anything back.

The site is fully active and does exactly as it says on the tin - as over 20000 people will testify...

Still not answering the other posts eh Barry?

What are the 20,000 opting out of, when the 118800 site is not even running? :-/

saynoto118800 wrote on Sep 24^th, 2009 at 7:26pm:

Just to clarify, if anyone inputs anything other than a mobile number or landline phone number into the website - it is automatically rejected.

At what point? As the site clearly stated "THANK YOU! YOU WILL
RECIEVE [sic] AN EMAIL WITH YOUR NEW 'SAFE NUMBER'"

So, the infamous Barry can't spell now. Says so much for his site ::)

I did finally get an email .... about 24 hours after the submission, rejecting me.

From it's construction, it looks like the website simply accepts anything it's given, and emails them (on a hotmail address no less!!!! How ... unprofessional ! ) with the details, from which they sort it out manually.

'Irrelevant', what did the return message say that you received ?

Maybe you would be kind enough to share..?

WTF is this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahemNIabp1U

See comment by Barry:

"We need to hook up. You, Me and Adam B.
I drive a new Range Rover Vogue and own a 30 acre ranch and feel guilty about making so much money so easily.
I need help with my guilt.
All warriors together.

BTW, nice bird."

It's Jamie Lewis - top guy..

.. and has no relevance to this thread whatsoever.

It has every relevance as your comment sums up your character and the untrustworthy nature of your business.

"feel guilty about making so much money so easily. I need help with my guilt"

Yes, you are quite correct that comment does have every relevance.
I do indeed feel very guilty about making so much money so very easily-  and yes I do need help with the guilt.
It has always been a problem for me from a very early age and I just cannot seem to get over it.
The guilt hangs over me like a cloud with no hope of even a slight breeze to blow it away.

Obviously non-profit making projects like www.saynoto118800.co.uk are helping me come to terms with it by 'putting a little back' -
not much I know, but it does help me come to terms with this awful situation.

Thank you for your kind understanding.


Barry

saynoto118800 wrote on Oct 5^th, 2009 at 9:30pm:

Obviously non-profit making projects like www.saynoto118800.co.uk are helping me come to terms with it by 'putting a little back' - not much I know, but it does help me come to terms with this awful situation. Thank you for your kind understanding. Barry

So why don't your "Safe" numbers all start 03 then Barry so that they wouldn't cost anyone using them more to call but would allow you to give up rather more of your ill gotten gains from your other numerous dodgy business activities?