On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 16:56:44 +0000, David Hansen
wrote:

It is the arrogance of the BBC in collecting their subscription, in
particular the threatening unsolicited marketing materials they send
out demanding an answer, which needs to be sorted. I don't have a
subscription for all sorts of things and none of them bombard me
with threatening pieces of paper.

But how many of these subscriptions of which you speak are backed by
an Act of Parliament?

Sticking your head in the sand and calling it a conspiracy shouldn't
make it go away.

On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 17:09:20 +0000 someone who may be Ivor The
Engine wrote this:-

It is the arrogance of the BBC in collecting their subscription, in
particular the threatening unsolicited marketing materials they send
out demanding an answer, which needs to be sorted. I don't have a
subscription for all sorts of things and none of them bombard me
with threatening pieces of paper.

But how many of these subscriptions of which you speak are backed by
an Act of Parliament?

Quite a few of them.

The nearest to the BBC are the Performing Rights Society. However,
they do take "get lost" for an answer. The BBC breaks various rules
and regulations by continuing to threaten people who are not
interested in receiving the marketing materials they pour out.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000...#pt3-pb3-l1g54