if you beleave kent, there is not opt-in/out agreement, its all down to the ISPs to chose their options, yeah right.......
on another right's related but OT subject to consider.
http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquir...s-due-councils
"
Lie detectors extend their reach to social security helplines
No they're not, yes they are, no they're not....
By
Mark Ballard: Wednesday, 07 May 2008, 5:49 PM
THE GOVERNMENT has put £1.5million up for another round of lie detector test pilots for social security
helplines run by local authorities in the UK.
"
here a link to The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 as mentioned on MF.
Made
2008
Coming into force
26th May 2008
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2008/dra...110811574_en_1
The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008
this section is most interesting on a very quick skim
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2008/dra..._en_2#pt2-l1g5
Misleading actions
"
(3) A commercial practice satisfies the conditions of this paragraph if—
(a) it concerns any marketing of a product (including comparative advertising) which creates confusion with any products, trade marks, trade names or other distinguishing marks of a competitor; or
(b) it concerns any failure by a trader to comply with a commitment contained in a code of conduct which the trader has undertaken to comply with, if—
(i) the trader indicates in a commercial practice that he is bound by that code of conduct, and
(ii) the commitment is firm and capable of being verified and is not aspirational,
and it causes or is likely to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise, taking account of its factual context and of all its features and circumstances.
"
and this is just to much fun to leave out here
"
Aggressive commercial practices
7.—(1) A commercial practice is aggressive if, in its factual context, taking account of all of its features and circumstances—
(a) it significantly impairs or is likely significantly to impair the average consumer’s freedom of choice or conduct in relation to the product concerned through the use of harassment, coercion or
undue influence; and
(b) it thereby causes or is likely to cause him to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise.
(2) In determining whether a commercial practice uses harassment, coercion or undue influence account shall be taken of—
(a) its timing, location, nature or persistence;
(b) the use of threatening or abusive language or behaviour;
(c) the exploitation by the trader of any specific misfortune or circumstance of such gravity as to impair the consumer’s judgment, of
which the trader is aware, to
influence the consumer’s decision with regard to the product;
(d)
any onerous or disproportionate non-contractual barrier imposed by the trader where a consumer wishes to exercise rights under the contract, including rights to terminate a contract or to switch to another product or another trader; and
(e) any threat to take any action which cannot legally be taken.
(3) In this regulation—
(a) “coercion” includes the use of physical force; and
(b)
“undue influence” means
exploiting a position of power in
relation to the consumer so as to apply pressure, even without using or threatening to use physical force, in a way which significantly limits the consumer’s ability to make an informed decision.
"
---------- Post added at 03:31 ---------- Previous post was at 03:02 ----------
it just gets better and better
part 3
OFFENCES
"Offences relating to unfair commercial practices
8.—(1) A trader is guilty of an offence if—
(a) he knowingly or recklessly engages in a commercial practice which contravenes the requirements of
professional diligence under regulation 3(3)(a);..."
"
Penalty for offences
13. A person guilty of an offence under regulation 8, 9, 10, 11 or 12 shall be liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum; or
(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or both...."
"
Offences committed by bodies of persons
15.—(1) Where an offence under these Regulations committed by a body corporate
is proved—
(a) to have been committed with the
consent or connivance of an officer of the body, or
(b) to be attributable to any neglect on his part,
the
officer as well as the body corporate
is guilty of the offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
(2) In paragraph (1) a reference to an officer of a body corporate includes a reference to—
(a)
a director, manager, secretary or other similar officer; and
(b) a person purporting to act as a director, manager, secretary or other similar officer.
(3) Where an offence under these Regulations committed by a Scottish partnership is proved—
(a) to have been committed with the consent or connivance of a partner, or
(b) to be attributable to any neglect on his part,
the
partner as well as the partnership is guilty of the offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
(4) In paragraph (3) a reference to a partner includes a person purporting to act as a partner."
hmm, this parts odd, guilty until proven innocent ?????, not sure i like that part.... an accused person has to
prove innocence ?, perhaps im misreading it as i skim the text!
"
Due diligence defence
17.—(1) In any
proceedings against a person for an offence under regulation 9, 10, 11 or 12
it is a defence for that person to prove—"
Join CF
You are here: 
. 
