Skip to main content

Bin the PPI calls

'Hello, I'm not selling anything, I just
want to ask you a few questions...'
I'm sure I'm not alone in having been pestered with calls on my mobile, telling me that I ought to get compensation for my PPI (something that, as a self-employed person I couldn't have sensibly taken out) - and just as that fad is fading, we will no doubt be hit by loads of calls for the next banking miss-selling scandal: probably Sentinel card protection insurance.

I never get calls like this on my home phone, because I'm registered with the Telephone Preference Scheme. This is a brilliant service (UK-only, but there may be equivalents elsewhere, particularly in other EU countries) where you register you number and all legitimate call centres should take you off their calling lists. It's not 100 per cent perfect. It can't stop those calls from the Indian subcontinent claiming to be from 'Windows' and telling you your PC is compromised. And the occasional legitimate call slips through where the lists haven't been updated - though they then apologise and hang up if you tell them you are TPS registered. But on the whole, it's wonderful. We never get those irritating teatime cold calls about double glazing or whatever the sales push du jour happens to be.

However, I was increasingly getting those mobile nasties. It had never occurred to me to check whether mobile phones can also be listed - but apparently they can. So I will be running, not walking to the TPS website to register. It's quick and easy. You can register your landline, mobile and even business number if you have one (the only proviso is that the business version has to be renewed each year, while the personal version is self-renewing). There is also a mail equivalent, though most people are less fussy about junk mail, which, after all, is less intrusive.

Have you registered for TPS? If not, why not?
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp
117 comments
Read more

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor
25 comments
Read more

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense
6 comments
Read more