I bought a pair of trainers( on line)-a months ago from that well known company. They soon became faulty and after a lot of to and froing, I
managed to get them to agree to a full refund. Ever since them, I keep getting emails from them about this issue and what did I want to do
about it etc. I've complaind to them no end of times but they say they
can't stop the emails coming or remove my email address from their system.
to whom can I complain about this?
TIA
On 03/06/2026 11:58, TTman wrote:
I bought a pair of trainers( on line)-a months ago from that well knownProvided you never want to hear from them again either bounce it as not known at this address or silently drop it on the floor/into junk mail.
company. They soon became faulty and after a lot of to and froing, I
managed to get them to agree to a full refund. Ever since them, I keep
getting emails from them about this issue and what did I want to do
about it etc. I've complaind to them no end of times but they say they
can't stop the emails coming or remove my email address from their
system.
to whom can I complain about this?
TIA
Bayesian filters should learn PDQ if you kill every one as spam.>
In theory marketing emails should be stopped if you ask the company to
do so - responsible companies put something in the tail of the message usually along the lines of "to stop receiving these reply with STOP".
Good luck taking it to the ICO - hell will freeze over before they will
do anything remotely useful.
On 03/06/2026 14:01, Martin Brown wrote:
On 03/06/2026 11:58, TTman wrote:BUT it's not spam. it's never ending emails from their CS department regarding an issue that was resolved months ago. Every so often, I get
I bought a pair of trainers( on line) months ago from that well knownProvided you never want to hear from them again either bounce it as not
company. They soon became faulty and after a lot of to and froing, I
managed to get them to agree to a full refund. Ever since them, I keep
getting emails from them about this issue and what did I want to do
about it etc. I've complaind to them no end of times but they say they
can't stop the emails coming or remove my email address from their
system.
to whom can I complain about this?
TIA
known at this address or silently drop it on the floor/into junk mail.
Bayesian filters should learn PDQ if you kill every one as spam.>
In theory marketing emails should be stopped if you ask the company to
do so - responsible companies put something in the tail of the message
usually along the lines of "to stop receiving these reply with STOP".
Good luck taking it to the ICO - hell will freeze over before they will
do anything remotely useful.
the subject brought up again asking how the issue can be resolved...
There's a serious issue in the CS department i.e they simply don't
understand thatthe issue was resolved months ago.
I've complained in the strongest terms, even using sentences in caps to
draw their attention to the issue that has been resolved. Nada. Utter incompetance.
On 03/06/2026 23:39, Roger Hayter wrote:
I get monthly account statements from a very large builders and trade
merchants to a listed British company. They come to me as they are
addressed
to a domain I own with a similar name to the company. But it is
clearly not
the company's email account. I have told the merchants to desist, and
why they
should do so. This is both illegal spam to my domain and a breach of
their
GDPR obligations to their customer.
Do I have any practical recourse?-a (Rhetorical question, I doubt it.)
On what basis do you consider spam to be illegal?
I get monthly account statements from a very large builders and trade merchants to a listed British company. They come to me as they are addressed to a domain I own with a similar name to the company. But it is clearly not the company's email account. I have told the merchants to desist, and why they
should do so. This is both illegal spam to my domain and a breach of their GDPR obligations to their customer.
Do I have any practical recourse? (Rhetorical question, I doubt it.)
On 04/06/2026 07:48, Norman Wells wrote:
On 03/06/2026 23:39, Roger Hayter wrote:
I get monthly account statements from a very large builders and trade
merchants to a listed British company. They come to me as they are
addressed
to a domain I own with a similar name to the company. But it is
clearly not
the company's email account. I have told the merchants to desist, and
why they
should do so. This is both illegal spam to my domain and a breach of
their
GDPR obligations to their customer.
Do I have any practical recourse? (Rhetorical question, I doubt it.)
On what basis do you consider spam to be illegal?
Also, on what basis do you consider that your receipt of emails intended
for a company are a breach of the GDPR?
Get the law straight and you will know whether you have any recourse.--
On 03/06/2026 23:39, Roger Hayter wrote:
I get monthly account statements from a very large builders and trade
merchants to a listed British company. They come to me as they are addressed >> to a domain I own with a similar name to the company. But it is clearly not >> the company's email account. I have told the merchants to desist, and why they
should do so. This is both illegal spam to my domain and a breach of their >> GDPR obligations to their customer.
Do I have any practical recourse? (Rhetorical question, I doubt it.)
On what basis do you consider spam to be illegal?
On 4 Jun 2026 at 07:48:11 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 03/06/2026 23:39, Roger Hayter wrote:
I get monthly account statements from a very large builders and trade
merchants to a listed British company. They come to me as they are addressed
to a domain I own with a similar name to the company. But it is clearly not >>> the company's email account. I have told the merchants to desist, and why they
should do so. This is both illegal spam to my domain and a breach of their >>> GDPR obligations to their customer.
Do I have any practical recourse? (Rhetorical question, I doubt it.)
On what basis do you consider spam to be illegal?
Because they are a commercial organisation regularly emailing me to an address
I have never given them with no justification, even though I have asked them not to.
On 4 Jun 2026 at 07:52:47 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 04/06/2026 07:48, Norman Wells wrote:
On 03/06/2026 23:39, Roger Hayter wrote:
I get monthly account statements from a very large builders and trade
merchants to a listed British company. They come to me as they are
addressed
to a domain I own with a similar name to the company. But it is
clearly not
the company's email account. I have told the merchants to desist, and
why they
should do so. This is both illegal spam to my domain and a breach of
their
GDPR obligations to their customer.
Do I have any practical recourse? (Rhetorical question, I doubt it.)
On what basis do you consider spam to be illegal?
Also, on what basis do you consider that your receipt of emails intended
for a company are a breach of the GDPR?
Because they provide information about that company's account.
Get the law straight and you will know whether you have any recourse.
Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@Nonad.co.UK> wrote: |------------------------------------------------------------------------| |"On 03/06/2026 11:58, TTman wrote:
| |> I bought a pair of trainers( on line)[. . .]"
| |------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Visit shops and buy from them!
I get monthly account statements from a very large builders and trade merchants to a listed British company. They come to me as they are addressed to a domain I own with a similar name to the company. But it is clearly not the company's email account. I have told the merchants to desist, and why they
should do so. This is both illegal spam to my domain and a breach of their GDPR obligations to their customer.
Do I have any practical recourse? (Rhetorical question, I doubt it.)
On 2026-06-03, Roger Hayter wrote:
I get monthly account statements from a very large builders and trade
merchants to a listed British company. They come to me as they are addressed >> to a domain I own with a similar name to the company. But it is clearly not >> the company's email account. I have told the merchants to desist, and why they
should do so. This is both illegal spam to my domain and a breach of their >> GDPR obligations to their customer.
Do I have any practical recourse? (Rhetorical question, I doubt it.)
I would forward them to the correct recipient, encourage them to
threaten the sender with legal action, and offer to provide a written statement to help them.
I get monthly account statements from a very large builders and trade merchants to a listed British company. They come to me as they are addressed to a domain I own with a similar name to the company. But it is clearly not the company's email account. I have told the merchants to desist, and why they
should do so. This is both illegal spam to my domain and a breach of their GDPR obligations to their customer.
Do I have any practical recourse? (Rhetorical question, I doubt it.)
Visit shops and buy from them! || |
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
I get monthly account statements from a very large builders and trade
merchants to a listed British company. They come to me as they are addressed >> to a domain I own with a similar name to the company. But it is clearly not >> the company's email account. I have told the merchants to desist, and why they
should do so. This is both illegal spam to my domain and a breach of their >> GDPR obligations to their customer.
Do I have any practical recourse? (Rhetorical question, I doubt it.)
I refer you to the responses in the case of Railtrack Ltd:
https://www.brokenmind.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/railtrack.pdf
On 04/06/2026 11:49, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 4 Jun 2026 at 07:48:11 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 03/06/2026 23:39, Roger Hayter wrote:
I get monthly account statements from a very large builders and trade
merchants to a listed British company. They come to me as they are
addressed
to a domain I own with a similar name to the company. But it is
clearly not
the company's email account. I have told the merchants to desist,
and why they
should do so. This is both illegal spam to my domain and a breach of
their
GDPR obligations to their customer.
Do I have any practical recourse?-a (Rhetorical question, I doubt it.)
On what basis do you consider spam to be illegal?
Because they are a commercial organisation regularly emailing me to an
address
I have never given them with no justification, even though I have
asked them
not to.
So, you have no answer to what I actually asked.
Just for your information, there's no law against making you cross.
I did a quick google search. Producing this:
Yes, it is against the law to not have an unsubscribe button on
marketing emails. According to the UK Gov website and communications >regulations 2003, a business must have consent from a consumer to email >them, and make it easy for a consumer to opt out of an email
communication.
On 4 Jun 2026 at 16:52:14 BST, "Adam Funk" <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
On 2026-06-03, Roger Hayter wrote:
I get monthly account statements from a very large builders and trade
merchants to a listed British company. They come to me as they are addressed
to a domain I own with a similar name to the company. But it is clearly not >>> the company's email account. I have told the merchants to desist, and why they
should do so. This is both illegal spam to my domain and a breach of their >>> GDPR obligations to their customer.
Do I have any practical recourse? (Rhetorical question, I doubt it.)
I would forward them to the correct recipient, encourage them to
threaten the sender with legal action, and offer to provide a written
statement to help them.
Makes sense. If I had the energy to write them a letter. They don't seem to have a web site, or be particularly public-facing. To be honest, I've devoted 20 seconds to emailing the spammers on a few occasions, but don't really have the motivation to do more.
In message <n8ee2jFim5gU2@mid.individual.net>, at 23:55:15 on Thu, 4 Jun 2026, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> remarked:
I did a quick google search. Producing this:
Yes, it is against the law to not have an unsubscribe button on
marketing emails. According to the UK Gov website and communications
regulations 2003, a business must have consent from a consumer to
email them, and make it easy for a consumer to opt out of an email
communication.
I wrote much of those regulations. Just say'in.
BT protested and said "but we should allow anyone to announce to the
world they have just launched their new website". To which the response
was "that's about ten thousand a day, according to your own figures".
On 05/06/2026 08:05, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <n8ee2jFim5gU2@mid.individual.net>, at 23:55:15 on Thu, 4
Jun 2026, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> remarked:
I did a quick google search. Producing this:
Yes, it is against the law to not have an unsubscribe button on >>>marketing emails. According to the UK Gov website and communications >>>regulations 2003, a business must have consent from a consumer to
email them, and make it easy for a consumer to opt out of an email >>>communication.
I wrote much of those regulations. Just say'in.
BT protested and said "but we should allow anyone to announce to the >>world they have just launched their new website". To which the
response was "that's about ten thousand a day, according to your own >>figures".
Wasn't it BT that claimed that they invented to hyperlink, and,
perhaps, we should pay them every time we click on one?
On 04/06/2026 13:41, Norman Wells wrote:
On 04/06/2026 11:49, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 4 Jun 2026 at 07:48:11 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 03/06/2026 23:39, Roger Hayter wrote:
I get monthly account statements from a very large builders and trade >>>>> merchants to a listed British company. They come to me as they areOn what basis do you consider spam to be illegal?
addressed
to a domain I own with a similar name to the company. But it is
clearly not
the company's email account. I have told the merchants to desist,
and why they
should do so. This is both illegal spam to my domain and a breach
of their
GDPR obligations to their customer.
Do I have any practical recourse?-a (Rhetorical question, I doubt it.) >>>>
Because they are a commercial organisation regularly emailing me to
an address
I have never given them with no justification, even though I have
asked them
not to.
So, you have no answer to what I actually asked.
Just for your information, there's no law against making you cross.
I did a quick google search. Producing this:
Yes, it is against the law to not have an unsubscribe button on
marketing emails. According to the UK Gov website and communications regulations 2003, a business must have consent from a consumer to email them, and make it easy for a consumer to opt out of an email communication.
On 4 Jun 2026 at 22:10:17 BST, "Theo" <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
I get monthly account statements from a very large builders and trade
merchants to a listed British company. They come to me as they are addressed
to a domain I own with a similar name to the company. But it is clearly not >>> the company's email account. I have told the merchants to desist, and why they
should do so. This is both illegal spam to my domain and a breach of their >>> GDPR obligations to their customer.
Do I have any practical recourse? (Rhetorical question, I doubt it.)
I refer you to the responses in the case of Railtrack Ltd:
https://www.brokenmind.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/railtrack.pdf
How true! Unfortunately the monthly accounts sent to me seem to contain no information of the remotest interest to anyone, nor do they actually ask me to
do anything.
On 03/06/2026 14:01, Martin Brown wrote:
On 03/06/2026 11:58, TTman wrote:BUT it's not spam. it's never ending emails from their CS department regarding an issue that was resolved months ago. Every so often, I get
I bought a pair of trainers( on line)-a months ago from that wellProvided you never want to hear from them again either bounce it as
known company. They soon became faulty and after a lot of to and
froing, I managed to get them to agree to a full refund. Ever since
them, I keep getting emails from them about this issue and what did I
want to do about it etc. I've complaind to them no end of times but
they say they can't stop the emails coming or remove my email address
from their system.
to whom can I complain about this?
TIA
not known at this address or silently drop it on the floor/into junk
mail.
Bayesian filters should learn PDQ if you kill every one as spam.> In
theory marketing emails should be stopped if you ask the company to do
so - responsible companies put something in the tail of the message
usually along the lines of "to stop receiving these reply with STOP".
Good luck taking it to the ICO - hell will freeze over before they
will do anything remotely useful.
the subject brought up again asking how the issue can be resolved...
There's a serious issue in the CS department i.e they simply don't understand thatthe issue was resolved months ago.
I've complained in the strongest terms, even using sentences in caps to
draw their attention to the issue that has been resolved. Nada. Utter incompetance.
On 04/06/2026 13:41, Norman Wells wrote:
On 04/06/2026 11:49, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 4 Jun 2026 at 07:48:11 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 03/06/2026 23:39, Roger Hayter wrote:
I get monthly account statements from a very large builders and trade >>>>> merchants to a listed British company. They come to me as they areOn what basis do you consider spam to be illegal?
addressed
to a domain I own with a similar name to the company. But it is
clearly not
the company's email account. I have told the merchants to desist,
and why they
should do so. This is both illegal spam to my domain and a breach
of their
GDPR obligations to their customer.
Do I have any practical recourse?-a (Rhetorical question, I doubt it.) >>>>
Because they are a commercial organisation regularly emailing me to
an address
I have never given them with no justification, even though I have
asked them
not to.
So, you have no answer to what I actually asked.
Just for your information, there's no law against making you cross.
I did a quick google search. Producing this:
Yes, it is against the law to not have an unsubscribe button on
marketing emails. According to the UK Gov website and communications regulations 2003, a business must have consent from a consumer to email them, and make it easy for a consumer to opt out of an email communication.
Like Inaction Fraud they are as much use to the general public as a >chocolate fireguard.
In message <10vvae8$1d0sa$2@dont-email.me>, at 21:09:37 on Fri, 5 Jun
2026, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> remarked:
Like Inaction Fraud they are as much use to the general public as a
chocolate fireguard.
Can I remind you again that Action Fraud is not, and never has been, an organisation designed to follow-up individual reports made by the
public.
It gathers (in effect by crowd-sourcing) intelligence on new forms of
fraud, and passes that on to law enforcement, so that in turn they can
do their job better.
On 6 Jun 2026 at 10:08:24 BST, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10vvae8$1d0sa$2@dont-email.me>, at 21:09:37 on Fri, 5 Jun
2026, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> remarked:
Like Inaction Fraud they are as much use to the general public as a
chocolate fireguard.
Can I remind you again that Action Fraud is not, and never has been, an
organisation designed to follow-up individual reports made by the
public.
It gathers (in effect by crowd-sourcing) intelligence on new forms of
fraud, and passes that on to law enforcement, so that in turn they can
do their job better.
In other words it is what we ordinary punters might describe as a con trick.
In message <4282087920.aedbc234@uninhabited.net>, at 10:47:01 on Sat, 6
Jun 2026, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
On 6 Jun 2026 at 10:08:24 BST, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10vvae8$1d0sa$2@dont-email.me>, at 21:09:37 on Fri, 5 Jun
2026, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> remarked:
Like Inaction Fraud they are as much use to the general public as a
chocolate fireguard.
Can I remind you again that Action Fraud is not, and never has been, an
organisation designed to follow-up individual reports made by the
public.
It gathers (in effect by crowd-sourcing) intelligence on new forms of
fraud, and passes that on to law enforcement, so that in turn they can
do their job better.
In other words it is what we ordinary punters might describe as a con trick.
No! It has always been completely up front with its mission statement.
So there's no "con" involved.
On 6 Jun 2026 at 17:33:51 BST, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <4282087920.aedbc234@uninhabited.net>, at 10:47:01 on Sat, 6
Jun 2026, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
On 6 Jun 2026 at 10:08:24 BST, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10vvae8$1d0sa$2@dont-email.me>, at 21:09:37 on Fri, 5 Jun
2026, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> remarked:
Like Inaction Fraud they are as much use to the general public as a
chocolate fireguard.
Can I remind you again that Action Fraud is not, and never has been, an >>>> organisation designed to follow-up individual reports made by the
public.
It gathers (in effect by crowd-sourcing) intelligence on new forms of
fraud, and passes that on to law enforcement, so that in turn they can >>>> do their job better.
In other words it is what we ordinary punters might describe as a con trick.
No! It has always been completely up front with its mission statement.
So there's no "con" involved.
Possibly, but those official entities which advertise Action Fraud, or >encourage aggrieved parties to report to it, are rarely so frank about the >(lack of) utility of doing so.
In message <6434693664.bb363ddb@uninhabited.net>, at 16:45:47 on Sat, 6
Jun 2026, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
On 6 Jun 2026 at 17:33:51 BST, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <4282087920.aedbc234@uninhabited.net>, at 10:47:01 on Sat, 6
Jun 2026, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
On 6 Jun 2026 at 10:08:24 BST, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote: >>>
In message <10vvae8$1d0sa$2@dont-email.me>, at 21:09:37 on Fri, 5 Jun >>>> 2026, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> remarked:
Like Inaction Fraud they are as much use to the general public as a >>>>> chocolate fireguard.
Can I remind you again that Action Fraud is not, and never has been, an >>>> organisation designed to follow-up individual reports made by the
public.
It gathers (in effect by crowd-sourcing) intelligence on new forms of >>>> fraud, and passes that on to law enforcement, so that in turn they can >>>> do their job better.
In other words it is what we ordinary punters might describe as a con trick.
No! It has always been completely up front with its mission statement.
So there's no "con" involved.
Possibly, but those official entities which advertise Action Fraud, or >encourage aggrieved parties to report to it, are rarely so frank about the >(lack of) utility of doing so.
There is no lack of utility. The crowd-sourced intelligence they gather
is important.
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <6434693664.bb363ddb@uninhabited.net>, at 16:45:47 on Sat, 6
Jun 2026, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
On 6 Jun 2026 at 17:33:51 BST, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <4282087920.aedbc234@uninhabited.net>, at 10:47:01 on Sat, 6 >>>> Jun 2026, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
On 6 Jun 2026 at 10:08:24 BST, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote: >>>>>
In message <10vvae8$1d0sa$2@dont-email.me>, at 21:09:37 on Fri, 5 Jun >>>>>> 2026, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> remarked:
Like Inaction Fraud they are as much use to the general public as a >>>>>>> chocolate fireguard.
Can I remind you again that Action Fraud is not, and never has been, an >>>>>> organisation designed to follow-up individual reports made by the
public.
It gathers (in effect by crowd-sourcing) intelligence on new forms of >>>>>> fraud, and passes that on to law enforcement, so that in turn they can >>>>>> do their job better.
In other words it is what we ordinary punters might describe as a con trick.
No! It has always been completely up front with its mission statement. >>>> So there's no "con" involved.
Possibly, but those official entities which advertise Action Fraud, or
encourage aggrieved parties to report to it, are rarely so frank about the >>> (lack of) utility of doing so.
There is no lack of utility. The crowd-sourced intelligence they gather
is important.
In which case it's woefully misnamed. The only Action they take is to add another line to their spreadsheet. Perhaps it should have been 'Fraud
Watch' or similar?
Any ideas how the new body that's recently set up to do the job is panning out? It sounded like they were designed to be a bit more active, but I haven't been following.
Theo
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <6434693664.bb363ddb@uninhabited.net>, at 16:45:47 on Sat, 6
Jun 2026, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
On 6 Jun 2026 at 17:33:51 BST, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <4282087920.aedbc234@uninhabited.net>, at 10:47:01 on Sat, 6 >> >> Jun 2026, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
On 6 Jun 2026 at 10:08:24 BST, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote: >> >>>
In message <10vvae8$1d0sa$2@dont-email.me>, at 21:09:37 on Fri, 5 Jun >> >>>> 2026, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> remarked:
Like Inaction Fraud they are as much use to the general public as a
chocolate fireguard.
Can I remind you again that Action Fraud is not, and never has been, an >> >>>> organisation designed to follow-up individual reports made by the
public.
It gathers (in effect by crowd-sourcing) intelligence on new forms of >> >>>> fraud, and passes that on to law enforcement, so that in turn they can >> >>>> do their job better.
In other words it is what we ordinary punters might describe as a
con trick.
No! It has always been completely up front with its mission statement.
So there's no "con" involved.
Possibly, but those official entities which advertise Action Fraud, or
encourage aggrieved parties to report to it, are rarely so frank about the >> >(lack of) utility of doing so.
There is no lack of utility. The crowd-sourced intelligence they gather
is important.
In which case it's woefully misnamed. The only Action they take is to add >another line to their spreadsheet.
Perhaps it should have been 'Fraud Watch' or similar?
Any ideas how the new body that's recently set up to do the job is panning >out? It sounded like they were designed to be a bit more active, but I >haven't been following.
On 6 Jun 2026 at 18:39:07 BST, "Theo" <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> >wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <6434693664.bb363ddb@uninhabited.net>, at 16:45:47 on Sat, 6
Jun 2026, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
On 6 Jun 2026 at 17:33:51 BST, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote: >>>>
In message <4282087920.aedbc234@uninhabited.net>, at 10:47:01 on Sat, 6 >>>>> Jun 2026, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
On 6 Jun 2026 at 10:08:24 BST, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote: >>>>>>
In message <10vvae8$1d0sa$2@dont-email.me>, at 21:09:37 on Fri, 5 Jun >>>>>>> 2026, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> remarked:
Like Inaction Fraud they are as much use to the general public as a >>>>>>>> chocolate fireguard.
Can I remind you again that Action Fraud is not, and never has been, an >>>>>>> organisation designed to follow-up individual reports made by the >>>>>>> public.
It gathers (in effect by crowd-sourcing) intelligence on new forms of >>>>>>> fraud, and passes that on to law enforcement, so that in turn they can >>>>>>> do their job better.
In other words it is what we ordinary punters might describe as a >>>>>>con trick.
No! It has always been completely up front with its mission statement. >>>>> So there's no "con" involved.
Possibly, but those official entities which advertise Action Fraud, or >>>> encourage aggrieved parties to report to it, are rarely so frank about the >>>> (lack of) utility of doing so.
There is no lack of utility. The crowd-sourced intelligence they gather
is important.
In which case it's woefully misnamed. The only Action they take is to add >> another line to their spreadsheet. Perhaps it should have been 'Fraud
Watch' or similar?
Any ideas how the new body that's recently set up to do the job is panning >> out? It sounded like they were designed to be a bit more active, but I
haven't been following.
Theo
Since Action Fraud was shut down for being useless and expensive, Roland Perry >must be one of the few people to suggest that they did a good job. Even >accepting they weren't set up to help individual victims they seem to have >absorbed a lot of money without producing many useful results.
In message <10vvae8$1d0sa$2@dont-email.me>, at 21:09:37 on Fri, 5 Jun
2026, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> remarked:
Like Inaction Fraud they are as much use to the general public as a >>chocolate fireguard.
Can I remind you again that Action Fraud is not, and never has been, an >organisation designed to follow-up individual reports made by the
public.
It gathers (in effect by crowd-sourcing) intelligence on new forms of
fraud, and passes that on to law enforcement, so that in turn they can
do their job better.
Since Action Fraud was shut down for being useless and expensive, Roland Perry >must be one of the few people to suggest that they did a good job. Even >accepting they weren't set up to help individual victims they seem to have >absorbed a lot of money without producing many useful results.
On 6 Jun 2026 19:07:07 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
Since Action Fraud was shut down for being useless and expensive, Roland Perry
must be one of the few people to suggest that they did a good job. Even >>accepting they weren't set up to help individual victims they seem to have >>absorbed a lot of money without producing many useful results.
The data they produced was extremely valuable. The main issue was that it
was badly marketed. It was presented as being a place where victims of crime >could report crime and get that crime investigated, when in reality data >collection was the primary goal and any possible investigation was a >secondary consideration.
On Sat, 6 Jun 2026 10:08:24 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10vvae8$1d0sa$2@dont-email.me>, at 21:09:37 on Fri, 5 Jun
2026, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> remarked:
Like Inaction Fraud they are as much use to the general public as a >>>chocolate fireguard.
Can I remind you again that Action Fraud is not, and never has been, an >>organisation designed to follow-up individual reports made by the
public.
It gathers (in effect by crowd-sourcing) intelligence on new forms of >>fraud, and passes that on to law enforcement, so that in turn they can
do their job better.
But that's precisely the problem.
If I report what I believe to be a crime to the relevant authority, my >expectation is that my report will generate an incident log and, at minimum, >a desk based assessment of the report.
I accept that such an assessment may well result in a decision of NFA, >either because the incident is de minimus or because there is no
realistic prospect of a sucessful investigation. But I also expect
that, where there is a realistic prospect of a successful
investigation, that investigation will at least be commenced even if
it, too, is later shelved.
Action Fraud, however, did not do that. It never carried out even an initial >assessment of a crime reported to it.
It never passed any crime reports to any investigative body.
It was purely a statistics gathering exercise. Now, that data is
certainly valuable, and needs to be collected. But the collection of
that data is not a substitute for logging and assessing individual >incidents. It's a completely separate process. And it is simply
misleading to present a data collection system as being a place to
report crime.
Fortunately, this lesson does appear to have been learned. Action Fraud is
no more, and its successor, Report Fraud, does promise that every report
will be assessed and passed to the appropriate investigating body.
How effective this is remains to be seen, of course. But it does
represent a recognition that Action Fraud was simply not providing a
useful service to members of the public and victims of crime,
however valuable its data may have been to the police.
Mark
There's nothing wrong with having somewhere to report crime for
statistical purposes. Even the police have that: phone 101, which won't result in an individual enquiry, just a recognition that there's a
general issue (for example certain types of anti-social behaviour) which needs greater attention.
On Mon, 8 Jun 2026 06:52:13 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
There's nothing wrong with having somewhere to report crime for
statistical purposes. Even the police have that: phone 101, which won't
result in an individual enquiry, just a recognition that there's a
general issue (for example certain types of anti-social behaviour) which
needs greater attention.
Is that really true? I always thought 101 was for making non-emergency
crime reports
(and I am pretty sure I was originally encouraged to think
that by the police themselves, though how long ago I couldn't now say).
Admittedly, though, on the one and only time I tried it, the operator told
me to go to my local police station. That was the end of that.
In message <11063d6$34gvv$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:52:38 on Mon, 8 Jun
2026, Handsome Jack <jack@handsome.com> remarked:
On Mon, 8 Jun 2026 06:52:13 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
There's nothing wrong with having somewhere to report crime for
statistical purposes. Even the police have that: phone 101, which
won't result in an individual enquiry, just a recognition that
there's a general issue (for example certain types of anti-social
behaviour) which needs greater attention.
Is that really true? I always thought 101 was for making
non-emergency crime reports
Exactly, crime *reports*, not a call to action investigate each
individual crime.
(and I am pretty sure I was originally encouraged to think
that by the police themselves, though how long ago I couldn't now
say).
As far as I'm aware the call centres in question are manned by the
police (civilians probably).
Admittedly, though, on the one and only time I tried it, the
operator told me to go to my local police station. That was the end
of that.
They would have decided your crime sounded sufficiently important
that it ought to be looked into individually by the local police. But
they want you to go to the police station, rather than have an
internal escalation process.
On 6 Jun 2026 19:07:07 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
Since Action Fraud was shut down for being useless and expensive, Roland Perry
must be one of the few people to suggest that they did a good job. Even
accepting they weren't set up to help individual victims they seem to have >> absorbed a lot of money without producing many useful results.
The data they produced was extremely valuable. The main issue was that it
was badly marketed. It was presented as being a place where victims of crime could report crime and get that crime investigated, when in reality data collection was the primary goal and any possible investigation was a secondary consideration.
On Mon, 8 Jun 2026 06:52:13 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
There's nothing wrong with having somewhere to report crime for
statistical purposes. Even the police have that: phone 101, which won't
result in an individual enquiry, just a recognition that there's a
general issue (for example certain types of anti-social behaviour) which
needs greater attention.
Is that really true? I always thought 101 was for making non-emergency
crime reports (and I am pretty sure I was originally encouraged to think
that by the police themselves, though how long ago I couldn't now say).
Admittedly, though, on the one and only time I tried it, the operator told
me to go to my local police station. That was the end of that.
In message <11063d6$34gvv$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:52:38 on Mon, 8 Jun
2026, Handsome Jack <jack@handsome.com> remarked:
On Mon, 8 Jun 2026 06:52:13 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
There's nothing wrong with having somewhere to report crime for
statistical purposes. Even the police have that: phone 101, which won't
result in an individual enquiry, just a recognition that there's a
general issue (for example certain types of anti-social behaviour) which >>> needs greater attention.
Is that really true? I always thought 101 was for making non-emergency
crime reports
Exactly, crime *reports*, not a call to action investigate each
individual crime.
(and I am pretty sure I was originally encouraged to think
that by the police themselves, though how long ago I couldn't now say).
As far as I'm aware the call centres in question are manned by the
police (civilians probably).
Admittedly, though, on the one and only time I tried it, the operator told >> me to go to my local police station. That was the end of that.
They would have decided your crime sounded sufficiently important that
it ought to be looked into individually by the local police. But they
want you to go to the police station, rather than have an internal
escalation process.
There's nothing wrong with having somewhere to report crime for
statistical purposes. Even the police have that: phone 101, which
won't result in an individual enquiry, just a recognition that
there's a general issue (for example certain types of anti-social
behaviour) which needs greater attention.
Is that really true? I always thought 101 was for making
non-emergency crime reports
Exactly, crime *reports*, not a call to action investigate each
individual crime.
(and I am pretty sure I was originally encouraged to think
that by the police themselves, though how long ago I couldn't now
say).
As far as I'm aware the call centres in question are manned by the
police (civilians probably).
Admittedly, though, on the one and only time I tried it, the
operator told me to go to my local police station. That was the end
of that.
They would have decided your crime sounded sufficiently important
that it ought to be looked into individually by the local police. But
they want you to go to the police station, rather than have an
internal escalation process.
My local Police Station has been closed to visitors for years. I don't
even know where my nearest manned one is any more.
On 07/06/2026 22:38, Mark Goodge wrote:
On 6 Jun 2026 19:07:07 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
Since Action Fraud was shut down for being useless and expensive, >>>Roland Perry
must be one of the few people to suggest that they did a good job. Even
accepting they weren't set up to help individual victims they seem to have >>> absorbed a lot of money without producing many useful results.
The data they produced was extremely valuable. The main issue was
that it was badly marketed. It was presented as being a place where >>victims of crime could report crime and get that crime investigated,
when in reality data collection was the primary goal and any possible >>investigation was a secondary consideration.
So what did TPTB do with the data and how did it benefit us?
On 8 Jun 2026 at 11:11:41 BST, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <11063d6$34gvv$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:52:38 on Mon, 8 Jun
2026, Handsome Jack <jack@handsome.com> remarked:
On Mon, 8 Jun 2026 06:52:13 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
There's nothing wrong with having somewhere to report crime for
statistical purposes. Even the police have that: phone 101, which won't >>>> result in an individual enquiry, just a recognition that there's a
general issue (for example certain types of anti-social behaviour) which >>>> needs greater attention.
Is that really true? I always thought 101 was for making non-emergency
crime reports
Exactly, crime *reports*, not a call to action investigate each
individual crime.
(and I am pretty sure I was originally encouraged to think
that by the police themselves, though how long ago I couldn't now say).
As far as I'm aware the call centres in question are manned by the
police (civilians probably).
Admittedly, though, on the one and only time I tried it, the operator told >>> me to go to my local police station. That was the end of that.
They would have decided your crime sounded sufficiently important that
it ought to be looked into individually by the local police. But they
want you to go to the police station, rather than have an internal
escalation process.
The only time I have phoned 101 they arranged for a relevant police officer to >phone me back to initiate investigation of the crime, and also to ensure we >were currently safe. But perhaps the fact that the nearest police station is >25 miles away may be a factor in this. It is simply untrue to say that 101 is >only
used to gather statistics.--
On Mon, 8 Jun 2026 06:52:13 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
There's nothing wrong with having somewhere to report crime for
statistical purposes. Even the police have that: phone 101, which won't
result in an individual enquiry, just a recognition that there's a
general issue (for example certain types of anti-social behaviour) which
needs greater attention.
Is that really true? I always thought 101 was for making non-emergency
crime reports (and I am pretty sure I was originally encouraged to think
that by the police themselves, though how long ago I couldn't now say).
Admittedly, though, on the one and only time I tried it, the operator told
me to go to my local police station. That was the end of that.
In message <110670q$35muq$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:54:18 on Mon, 8 Jun
2026, Davey <davey@example.invalid> remarked:
My local Police Station has been closed to visitors for years. I don't
even know where my nearest manned one is any more.
That's just part of the plot to deflect reports from the public so they
don't have to investigate.
Maybe turn up on the doorstep of the local
PCC, and ask them to help.
Maybe turn up on the doorstep of the local
PCC, and ask them to help.
This could work on a planet where PCCs published their home addresses
In message <85nb2l5lt60gc8buajqq4hsa7l57ip10vg@4ax.com>, at 22:27:19 on
Sun, 7 Jun 2026, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
On Sat, 6 Jun 2026 10:08:24 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10vvae8$1d0sa$2@dont-email.me>, at 21:09:37 on Fri, 5 Jun >>>2026, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> remarked:
Like Inaction Fraud they are as much use to the general public as a >>>>chocolate fireguard.
Can I remind you again that Action Fraud is not, and never has been, an >>>organisation designed to follow-up individual reports made by the
public.
It gathers (in effect by crowd-sourcing) intelligence on new forms of >>>fraud, and passes that on to law enforcement, so that in turn they can
do their job better.
But that's precisely the problem.
If I report what I believe to be a crime to the relevant authority, my >>expectation is that my report will generate an incident log and, at minimum, >>a desk based assessment of the report.
The organisation you seek, which has that role, is called "The Police".
There's nothing wrong with having somewhere to report crime for
statistical purposes. Even the police have that: phone 101, which won't >result in an individual enquiry, just a recognition that there's a
general issue (for example certain types of anti-social behaviour) which >needs greater attention.
In message <11063d6$34gvv$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:52:38 on Mon, 8 Jun
2026, Handsome Jack <jack@handsome.com> remarked:
On Mon, 8 Jun 2026 06:52:13 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
There's nothing wrong with having somewhere to report crime for
statistical purposes. Even the police have that: phone 101, which won't
result in an individual enquiry, just a recognition that there's a
general issue (for example certain types of anti-social behaviour) which >>> needs greater attention.
Is that really true? I always thought 101 was for making non-emergency >>crime reports
Exactly, crime *reports*, not a call to action investigate each
individual crime.
If I report what I believe to be a crime to the relevant authority, my >>>expectation is that my report will generate an incident log and, at minimum, >>>a desk based assessment of the report.
The organisation you seek, which has that role, is called "The Police".
Well, precisely, Which is why it was incorrect to present Action Fraud as
the place to report crime.
There's nothing wrong with having somewhere to report crime for
statistical purposes. Even the police have that: phone 101, which won't >>result in an individual enquiry, just a recognition that there's a
general issue (for example certain types of anti-social behaviour) which >>needs greater attention.
101 (and its associated online service) is for reporting actual crimes, >includng very serious ones. Every report to 101 gets at least a desk based >assessment, as described in my previous post. The difference between 101 and >999 is that 999 is for crimes in progress which need an emergency response. >There's no difference in the level of investigation which will follow the >report.
On Mon, 8 Jun 2026 11:11:41 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <11063d6$34gvv$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:52:38 on Mon, 8 Jun
2026, Handsome Jack <jack@handsome.com> remarked:
On Mon, 8 Jun 2026 06:52:13 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
There's nothing wrong with having somewhere to report crime for
statistical purposes. Even the police have that: phone 101, which won't >>>> result in an individual enquiry, just a recognition that there's a
general issue (for example certain types of anti-social behaviour) which >>>> needs greater attention.
Is that really true? I always thought 101 was for making non-emergency >>>crime reports
Exactly, crime *reports*, not a call to action investigate each
individual crime.
A call to 101 will always generate an incident number and at least a >desk-based assessment of the report. It will never be treated purely as a >statistical data point.
I bought a pair of trainers( on line)[. . .]" ||------------------------------------------------------------------------|
In theory marketing emails should be stopped if you ask the company to
do so - responsible companies put something in the tail of the message usually along the lines of "to stop receiving these reply with STOP".
In message <n8ce2l5vkl8hvo3tggb1s7kmtnvmueuj9k@4ax.com>, at 22:17:18 on
Mon, 8 Jun 2026, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
A call to 101 will always generate an incident number and at least a >>desk-based assessment of the report. It will never be treated purely as a >>statistical data point.
Let's agree to disagree about that.
In message <frbe2lhhdvn6uktjgvog7nrh22enbkcn22@4ax.com>, at 22:15:52 on
Mon, 8 Jun 2026, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
101 (and its associated online service) is for reporting actual crimes, >>includng very serious ones. Every report to 101 gets at least a desk based >>assessment, as described in my previous post. The difference between 101 and >>999 is that 999 is for crimes in progress which need an emergency response. >>There's no difference in the level of investigation which will follow the >>report.
Having used both, and spoken to insiders, there's an enormous
difference. The majority of 101 reports just end up with a "+ another
one" on a digest of earlier reports.
And nowadays very many 999 reports never get investigated (for example >burglaries, or hit-and-run damage to people's cars).
More Political Science ||---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|
Here's the suggestion that Mr. Ashcroft's Department of Justice may be |
trying to influence the presentation of data concerning crime in the United |
States. It is, after all, simple patriotism to put one's best country forward and, |
according to some, that is in keeping with the intention of the Patriot Act of |
2001. |
|
There is something quite disturbing about this report. |
|
++++++++++ |
|
\Butterfield, Fox. "Some Experts Fear Political Influence on |
Crime Data Agencies," New York Times, 22 September, p. |
33.\" |
In message <j5hj2l9ov0ij2go624qk7hnr8sljn0b1pk@4ax.com>, at 21:11:23 on
Wed, 10 Jun 2026, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
On Tue, 9 Jun 2026 13:08:32 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <n8ce2l5vkl8hvo3tggb1s7kmtnvmueuj9k@4ax.com>, at 22:17:18 on >>>Mon, 8 Jun 2026, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
A call to 101 will always generate an incident number and at least a >>>>desk-based assessment of the report. It will never be treated purely as a >>>>statistical data point.
Let's agree to disagree about that.
You're free to be wrong if you want.
Indeed, as in this instance are you.
On Thu, 11 Jun 2026 09:29:40 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <j5hj2l9ov0ij2go624qk7hnr8sljn0b1pk@4ax.com>, at 21:11:23 on >>Wed, 10 Jun 2026, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
On Tue, 9 Jun 2026 13:08:32 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <n8ce2l5vkl8hvo3tggb1s7kmtnvmueuj9k@4ax.com>, at 22:17:18 on >>>>Mon, 8 Jun 2026, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> >>>>remarked:
A call to 101 will always generate an incident number and at least a >>>>>desk-based assessment of the report. It will never be treated purely as a >>>>>statistical data point.
Let's agree to disagree about that.
You're free to be wrong if you want.
Indeed, as in this instance are you.
Just for once, it would be nice if you would accept that someone else's >personal experience and inside knowledge is superior to your external point >of view.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 69 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 31:38:06 |
| Calls: | 900 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 1,320 |
| D/L today: |
3 files (12,347K bytes) |
| Messages: | 264,989 |