Isn’t it the case that automated marketing calls are not allowed to any number without prior consent?

An automated call which is a marketing call can only be made to a non-TPS number. Your right that if I consent to an automated call that would override TPS registration.

It’s relevant therefore if marketing automated calls are made to TPS registered numbers.

The regulation in question (no 19 of the PECR 2003, covering recorded messages) does not allow consent to be implied by a failure to register with the TPS.

Failure to register with the TPS only implies consent to receipt of attended marketing calls (as covered by regulation 21).

The whole issue of consent to unsolicited calls is bizarre anyway. Most people would be keen to hear of something, of which they were perhaps unaware, that could be to their advantage. Nobody wants to have their time wasted.

Registration with the TPS is mostly based on experience of many unwanted calls, or a desire to receive the BT caller id service free of charge. (BT did this to frustrate the efforts of its competitors who were picking up lots of business through telephone marketing, as encouraged by Ofcom.)

Those who are “pro-TPS” are getting very close to achieving their apparant objective, which is to make it meaningless. The small proportion of unregistered numbers, and the groups who are represented there, already makes compliant direct marketing only worthwhile for those who wish to contact a particular unrepresentative proportion of the population.

The TPS is therefore worthless as an instrument of “choice”.

As I said – I’ve used similar techniques before when they were legal though I wasn’t convinced they achieved very much.

Yes it is used in the US (though no-where near as modern as has been portrayed) however there you can use it to (1) push-poll and (2) Identify individuals for follow up as potential supporters and activists. It’s pretty clear neither of those is allowed here.

The arguments about TPS are two-fold. Firstly did we call TPS numbers? That’s not explict but no-one has come out to say that we didn’t and calling TPS numbers would be consistent with our position that this was market research.

But secondly in our pro-TPS campaign we set a lot of store by respect for people’s privacy and the spirit of the legislation. Indeed Martin Tod specifically criticised just this technique. That’s the position we now seem to have turned our back on.

As for evidence we weren’t breaking the law – I think developments since justify my concerns.

The ICO has reviewed the script and found that it does represent “marketing”. It is now waiting for evidence of anyone who received a call without having given prior consent.

Action at this stage would not include any penalty, just a warning to the party (and thereby to others) that this is not allowed.

My concern is for the understanding of the regulatory position that this leaves in the public domain. The “its a survey” excuse is used by many cold callers with something to sell. In the public interest we need it to be known that abuses will be followed up if reported and appropriate action taken.

If the party “gets away with” this it will have set back the cause of regulating telephone marketing to the disadvantage of those who conduct it properly and recipients of calls from those who do not.

I am grateful to Lib Dem MPs who helped me in my campaign against Silent Calls. It is most disappointing to find that the party has moved away from me on this issue, as well as others.

1. Even if it works it will start an arms race. We know the other two big parties are better funded than we are. Why in the name of God would we want to introduce something into British politics which increases the power of money over grass roots activism?

2. I have never met anyone who isn’t annoyed by robbo calling and just puts the phone down.

3. Its “McCampaigning”. Synthetic,artificial,sterile and inauthentic. It simply sticks in my liberal throat.

I have thought more than twice about public criticism but I feel very strongly about this.

I know nothing about opinion polling, so it comes down to whether I find CCF or Chris Rennard more trustworthy, and I have no idea who CCF is.

OK, clearly you’re as eager to avoid answering the question as Jo Christie-Smith, though I think your reference to a “half-truth” is actually clear enough

I’d be interested to hear whether anyone at is willing to say “I believe what Rennard said was true.”

Well, at least – apparently – we agree that what Rennard said wasn’t true. Even if it was terribly “negative” of me to mention that obvious fact.

The fact of this matter is that Rennard was promoting a politically-motivated perspective and therefore what he said would be more accurately described as a ‘half-truth’. It always stirs up controversy to make such a statement, but you shouldn’t be fooled into hasty condemnation by provocation as anyone who reacts exposes their partiality and will provoke a counterreaction. It’s an old tactic because it’s an effective tactic.

Well, what do you call it when someone says something that’s not true, and everyone knows it’s not true?

I’m not a Tory – I’ve been a member of the Lib Dems for more than 20 years. That’s why I’m unhappy at the dishonesty.

If it doesn’t bother you and others here, there’s obviously nothing I can do about that. But I do think it’s a bit sad, and I don’t think the electorate is quite as gullible as some people are assuming.

Your negativism begins to grate very quickly.

That’s a rather waffly way of avoiding answering the question.

As I said above, everyone knows this wasn’t really a market research exercise (as Rennard claims it was) because – apart from any other considerations – surveying a hundredth as many people would have been perfectly adequate for market research.

As with other issues, it’s the blatant dishonesty of the party’s position that offends me.