Diary of a junk mail campaigner

Eh Oh... award winning Teletubby discusses the future of the Corporate Telephone Preference Service

nospam@example.com (Junk Buster) — Sat, 18 May 2013 19:19:45 +0100

I don't think I've ever said anything on this blog about the Corporate Telephone Preference Service. In case it doesn't ring any bells, it's an opt-out scheme that's supposed to stop unsolicited sales calls to organisations. Junk callers are legally obliged to check if organisations they want to harass have opted out, which should make it a welcome service.

Or is it?

Graham Smith, who works for the Direct Marketing Association's Teletubby Council and describes himself as an award winning, senior executive recently wrote an article about the future of the opt-out service. According to Mr Smith there are heaps of problems with the scheme:

awareness of the opt-out scheme is poor;
there's a lack of appetite for prosecution;
the registration process is flawed; and
it could be seen as a tax on reputable telemarketing companies.

Mr Smith's conclusion is that the end may be nigh. Many people are already asking for opt-out scheme to be scrapped - and we all know what happens when many people are asking for something.

Should we prepare for the end?

The Corporate Telephone Preference Service isn't going to be abolished. The opt-out scheme is dictated by the Privacy and Electronic Regulations. Unless the Regulations change the opt-out scheme will survive the pleas of many people. Still, it's an interesting discussion and worthwhile to consider the arguments of many people.

The first argument is rather bizarre. It surely is refreshing that a member of the Direct Marketing Association concedes that relatively few junk callers and organisations know about the Corporate Telephone Preference Service - but it's not exactly an argument in favour of scrapping the opt-out scheme. It merely shows that the Teletubby Council is failing to increase the number of junk call companies subscribing to the scheme.

The second argument is flawed for a similar reason. The Direct Marketing Association seems to assume that the Information Commissioner's Office can't be spurred into action. They should no better. After BBC Panorama highlighted the organisation's failure to deal with complaints about breaches of the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations they suddenly started taking action against junk callers that ignore the Telephone Preference Service. Perhaps the Direct Marketing Association could clarify what they've done to whet the appetite of the Information Commissioner's Office, rather than accept that nobody takes the Corporate Telephone Preference Service seriously.

Mr Smith's argument that the registration process for the Corporate Telephone Preference Service is flawed is an interesting one. The problem, according to Mr Smith, is that managers can register the numbers of all their staff, which can prohibit buyers from finding new products or suppliers with better or cheaper offers. It's a remarkably honest statement, but also a remarkably daft one. On what basis should managers not be allowed to register the phone numbers of their staff? Receiving unsolicited sales calls can hardly be called a human right. Why can't the Direct Marketing Association just accept that some organisations have no need for unsolicited offers and are able to shop around without the 'help' of cold callers?

The money argument is probably the main reason why junk callers resent the Corporate Telephone Preference Service. They have to pay £1,100 per year for the list with telephone numbers that are opted out while there are all those 'less reputable' cold callers that simply ignore the opt-out scheme (without being fined or prosecuted). If anything, this argument reinforces the arguments that more should be done ensure that all junk callers subscribe to the opt-out scheme and that offenders are fined.

In short, I reckon it's no good for the industry to complain about the inefficiency of its own opt-out schemes. I'm sure they'd like to scrap the scheme. In fact, I'm sure there are many people in the offices of the Direct Marketing Association that would like to scrap all the industry's opt-out schemes. That, though, isn't a wild card for incompetency and complacency.

Your Choice discovers the wonder that is PDF

nospam@example.com (Junk Buster) — Wed, 08 May 2013 21:09:14 +0100

If you send an e-mail to the Your Choice Dummy Scheme - which you may want to do via Junk Buster - you now get the Your Choice ~~Propaganda~~ Registration Pack™©® as a PDF attached to an e-mail. Until recently the Direct Marketing Association, which runs the opt-out scheme, always sent the pack in the post. The new practice isn't good news for Royal Mail but it does make registering with the scheme a little bit easier.

It would be even better if Your Choice would allow you to complete the form electronically. If, after carefully reading about the potentially disastrous consequences of reducing unsolicited, unaddressed mail, you decide to sign up to the scheme you still have to print the form and spend 60p on a stamp to post it back. That's a pain if you don't have a printer and/or a stamp.

For those of us who don't use printers and/or stamps I've added form fields to the opt-out form. You can grab the form from the Stop Junk Mail website; complete it using any PDF reader; and then send it via e-mail to yourchoice@dma.org.uk. No need to print the form, no need to buy a stamp, and you'll automatically have a copy of your completed opt-out form. Ain't technology marvellous? (Please do note that the Direct Marketing Association probably won't be amused. My guess is that they'll force you to print the form and send it back to them via snail mail ;).

Be careful!

As an aside, if you decide to request the opt-out pack via e-mail you may find that your e-mail provider marks the e-mail from Your Choice as untrustworthy. If you got a Hotmail account, for instance, you'll get this warning:

Be careful! This sender failed our fraud detection checks.

I'm not sure what fraud detection checks the Direct Marketing Association has failed. As far as I can tell it's perfectly save to open the e-mail. But if you don't want to take the risk you can now of course download the alternative form.

Political leaflets and 'No Junk Mail' signs (just a thought)

nospam@example.com (Junk Buster) — Mon, 29 Apr 2013 19:57:06 +0100

So far, I've had only one party-political leaflet for the local elections this Thursday. About a month ago the local Tories suddenly started delivering "regular" newsletters to keep us informed about its War On Potholes. All the other parties seem to have respected the 'No Junk Mail' sign on our door.

I only noticed the absence of political junk mail when I got an e-mail from someone who had delivered a party-political leaflet to a household with a 'No Junk Mail' sign on the letter box. I'm not sure exactly what happened but I gather the recipients took offence. Which raises the question: how should political parties treat anti-junk mail signs?

As I've mentioned many times on this blog, at the moment there isn't an official definition of 'junk mail'. The Direct Marketing Association refuses to acknowledge the existence of anti-junk mail signs (it's not mentioned in its Code of Conduct and they refuse to discuss promoting letterbox stickers with Defra) and so we have to muddle along. Personally, I think junk mail should be defined as 'unaddressed, commercial mail items' - a definition that includes items such as pizza leaflets and brochures from estate agents but not items such as free newspapers and political leaflets. But… you may disagree and argue that the definition should include all unaddressed, unsolicited mail items. For as long as the regulator is unwilling to do its job we're never going to agree.

That said, there are practical solutions.

Until a couple of years ago I used to deliver political leaflets for the local Greens. The question whether or not to ignore 'No Junk Mail' stickers came up once and it turned out that I was the only person in the party who always skipped letterboxes with such signs. The general feeling was that our leaflets were informative (i.e. free from negative campaigning) and an important part of the democratic process. To me that argument sounded rather pretentious and I proposed a compromise; we could check with people who got a 'No Junk Mail' sign on the door whether or not they would like to receive our leaflets. If people tell you they're not interested you don't have to annoy them any more (and they'll almost certainly appreciate that you took the effort to check); and if someone tells you they do want the leaflets you've made contact with a potential voter. The compromise got rejected - which tends to happen when you're in a minority of one - but I still think it was a sensible suggestion. Better, at least, than what the Greens in Brighton came up with a couple of years later.

Weekly roundup: junk calls

nospam@example.com (Junk Buster) — Sun, 28 Apr 2013 20:16:17 +0100

I know, this weekly roundup thing ought to be renamed 'sporadic roundup'. I'm working full time again in my 'real' job and have been busy moving office. Things should quiet down a bit after next week. I hope.

Anyway, here's an update on the campaign!

New website: stopjunkcalls.org.uk

That's right, we're branching out! Stop Junk Calls UK has been set up by someone who has been involved in the campaign for some time and who knows everything there's to know about stopping unsolicited phone calls. At the moment the website is mainly a forum where you can report unsolicited phone calls. Over time, though, it will become an invaluable source of information about how to stop the pest. Please do report any junk calls you get.

In the news: solutions for calling calling

My own involvement in setting up the Stop Junk Calls UK website was limited to techie things such as setting up the hosting and writing a couple of short news stories about junk calls. The main story in recent weeks was a 'Robocalls Challenge' organised by the American Federal Trade Commission. It seems that the most feasible technical solution for preventing junk calls involves setting up a central database and getting phones to check if a number is white, grey or blacklisted. It doesn't sound too promising, in particular because it's so damn easy for junk callers to spoof phone numbers.

Also interesting, and probably a much more effective solution, is a proposal put forward by Adrian Kennard. He has set up a petition calling for a change in the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations that would allow people to fine cold callers £50 for every breach of the Regulations. I'm pretty sure this would make telemarketeers very reluctant to phone numbers that are registered with the Telephone Preference Service. The Direct Marketing Association is opposed to the idea, which is always an indication that it's an effective solution indeed.

What part of 'no spam' don't you understand?

Also interesting is this article by an IT guy who once worked for a company that refused to recognise that its unsolicited e-mails were unsolicited e-mails. It's something senders of any type of unsolicited marketing seem to suffer from; they rarely see their own "communications" as unsolicited junk. Companies that specialise in sending spam often feel that its e-mails are okay because they're better targeted than e-mails advertising Viagra. Cold callers often reckon they're fine because they don't use silent calls and/or because they allow people to opt out. Leaflet deliverers often ignore 'No Junk Mail' signs because they assume the leaflets they deliver aren't junk mail (estate agents spring to mind). If you've ever complained about unsolicited marketing I'm sure you've come across excuses like these, and it wouldn't surprise me if the offender got angry with you for complaining. If so, the article gives an interesting insight into the mindset of such marketeers.

Now, back to unpacking boxes!

Man convicted for facilitating scams (will Royal Mail be next?)

nospam@example.com (Junk Buster) — Fri, 05 Apr 2013 17:25:03 +0100

A man from Bedford has been convicted for facilitating scams. From what I read about the story on the Daily Mirror and Beeb websites it seems he was mainly involved in prize draw scams. Stuff like this:

If you're keeping an eye on this blog you'll recognise this scam; I published this same image only a couple of weeks ago. The image was sent to me by a postman who feels guilty for delivering such "cruel mail" (see Message from a postman).

I think few people will believe that the man who has been convicted had no idea about the scams he was involved in and that he was horrified when he found out. He knew it were scams but until Trading Standard raided his office (Daily Mirror) he didn't care. Which, it seems to me, is not unlike Royal Mail's attitude towards the scam mail business.

To be sure, I'm not suggesting Royal Mail should be opening people's mail - a caricature used by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills in a recent debate about scam mail. I'm talking about scams like the one depicted above. Thousands of Royal Mail employees will have seen this scam letter, and each and every one of them will have recognised it as a scam. Yet, nobody within the company contacted Trading Standards to make them aware of the fraud. On the contrary, Royal Mail has a (soon to be sold) stake in Spring Global Scam Mail - a company that helps criminals hide behind fake UK postcodes. That's exactly, according to the Mirror article, what our scammer from Bedford did.

The postman who contacted me about the scam letter suggested that postmen who knowingly deliver scam mail breach the Fraud Act 2006. If you read Section 6 of the Act it seems this is the case indeed:

The defendant:

had possession or control of;

an article;

for use in the course of or in connection with any fraud.

The wording draws on Section 25 of the Theft Act 1968. The proof required is that the Defendant had the article for the purpose or with the intention that it be used in the course of or in connection with an offence.

A general intention that he or another will commit fraud (meaning an offence under Sections 1-4 of the Act) will suffice. In R v Ellames 60 Cr App R. 7 (CA) the Court of Appeal said:

"In our view, to establish an offence under Section 25 (1) the prosecution must prove that the Defendant was in possession of the article, and intended the article to be used in the course of or in connection with some future burglary, theft or cheat. But it is not necessary to prove that he intended it to be used in the course of or in connection with any specific burglary, theft or cheat; it is enough to prove a general intention to use it for some burglary, theft or cheat; we think that this view is supported by the use of the word "any" in Section 25 (1). Nor, in our view, is it necessary to provide that the defendant intended to use it himself; it will be enough to prove that he had it with him with the intention that it should be used by someone else."

Translated from Legalese: if I produce a scam letter and pay you 33p to deliver it to someone you're committing a fraud, provided that it can be safely assumed that you were aware that the letter you delivered was fraudulent.

Personally, I reckon it would be hugely unfair to prosecute individual postmen. But there is potentially a case against their employer.

Spam from Vodafone

nospam@example.com (Junk Buster) — Wed, 03 Apr 2013 21:09:48 +0100

I've had a mobile phone for just over ten years now. I bought it before I moved to the UK; I reckoned it would be handy to have a mobile while trying to find a job and somewhere to live. The phone is a Sagum MC 3000. A wonderful piece of technology, although I rarely use it. Every time the sim card expires (which seems to happen after the phone hasn't been used for a year or so) I buy a new card and £10 credit. You can deduce from that that I'm not yet ready for an iBad or other 'smart' phones.

The reason for mentioning all this is that only recently I got introduced to spam texts. It happened after buying a Vodafone sim card. My word… they do get a kick out of spamming people who buy their products. It started with weekly messages about topping up before the start of the weekend but I now get spam almost daily about all sorts of 'special offers'. It seems Vodafone thinks it necessary to also send spam on behalf of third parties.

Anyway, today I decided to reply STOP SMS to 9774, as instructed in the latest spam message. I immediately got a message back to say that my marketing preferences will be changed within 28 days.

My marketing preferences?

28 days to stop sending me spam?

I should probably ask them why they made assumptions about my 'marketing preferences' in the first place (they never asked whether or not I want Vodafone spam) and why it takes them 28 days just to stop sending me unsolicited messages (perhaps it's indicative of how technologically advanced Vodafone's is?). I won't bother though; they would just claim that I opted in and that the law allows them up to 28 days to comply with my opt-out request. They're hard-core marketing people who really believe they're doing a people a favour by sending them spam.

So, I'll switch off my phone for 28 days, hope for the best, and never deal with Vodafone again.

Royal Mail to sell stake in Spring Global Scam Mail

nospam@example.com (Junk Buster) — Mon, 18 Mar 2013 17:26:32 +0000

Interesting. Royal Mail is selling its stake in Spring Global Mail; the company famous for helping foreign criminals target people in the UK with postal scams:

PostNL intends to buy Royal Mail stake in Spring Global Mail

Friday 1 March 2013

We are pleased to announce that it is the intention of PostNL to buy Royal Mails stake in Spring Global Mail. After finalisation of the transaction PostNL will be the sole shareholder of Spring.

For our ~~scammers~~ customers it is business as usual. So access to the same products and services at the same level of high quality and competitive price. In addition, and importantly, Spring will continue to be the Sales Agent for Royal Mail outside the United Kingdom.

PostNL are confident that by combining the infrastructure of PostNL with the global reach of Spring it can continue to create a unique proposition to the ~~scam~~ market with an expanded product portfolio.
Source: springglobalmail.com/en/News_Spring_PostNL/

I guess the news isn't all that surprising. The scam business may be lucrative for Royal Mail but being associated with Spring Global Scam Mail is potentially damaging. Royal Mail wasn't a happy bunny, for instance, when in 2011 Panorama investigated how addicted the company is to scam mail.

Royal Mail refused to talk with Panorama but did at the time publish a statement on its website to reassure the public that the company is determined to do all it can to root out scam mail. They could also point to some evidence for that claim; earlier in 2011 Royal Mail and Spring Global had helped the MET intercept a bunch of scam letters. (I don't think they had the option not to help the MET but let's give them a round of applause anyway).

Despite Royal Mail's determination nothing seemed to have changed for the better since 2011. I'm not aware any more scam mail has been intercepted and the reputation of Spring Global is as bad as it always was. Which might explain why Royal Mail has decided to pull out. Next time Spring Global is exposed Royal Mail can say they don't have anything to do with them.

Royal Mail has got nothing to say

To find out more I sent an e-mail to the Royal Mail press office this afternoon:

I read on the Spring Global website that Royal Mail will be selling its stake in the company:

www.springglobalmail.com/en/News_Spring_PostNL/

I haven't found any press releases about this on the Royal Mail website and was wondering if there's any more information available. I'm particularly interested to know whether or not the decision has anything to do with the reputation of Spring Global as a company that facilitates scammers.

To which I got this reply:

Thank you for your enquiry.

Royal Mail has not put out a press release on Spring global and have nothing to add to the statement on their website.

Personally, I find this odd. The latest press releases on the Royal Mail website talk about proof that a card is the key to a Mum's heart this Mother's Day and post boxes that have been given a plaque to commemorate the wonderful achievement of Britons who won a gold medal at the Olympics. Why does Royal Mail's press office publish such trivial 'news' and does it keep quiet about an important business decision that may affect all those people that are being targeted by postal scams? Is Royal Mail no longer determined to do all it can to root out scam mail?

How the 25bn-myth has finally been exposed for what it is

nospam@example.com (Junk Buster) — Wed, 27 Feb 2013 21:25:42 +0000

Here's what Chris Combemale, executive director of the Direct Marketing Association, told BBC Panorama in 2011:

If you can't see the video you're probably using an ancient version of Internet Explorer. Blame Microsoft (and pick another browser).

It's what the junk mail lobby group tells the media every time junk mail comes under attack. On the day Panorama investigated the junk mail industry Mr Combemale said he hoped the programme would provide a balanced view of the arguments. To help journalists understand the issue his organisation paid a PR agency to come up with a fact sheet that explained that the £16 billion generated in sales is a massive contribution to UK plc [sic] at a time when high street retailers are suffering.

It's what won the Direct Marketing Association a Crisis and Issues Management Award in 2011.

It's what they tell Defra. And Defra believes the figure of £16 billion is correct. (In 2010, I asked the Defra policy advisor who deals with junk mail - they dutifully call it direct mail - whether or not he's confident that the industry's research is sound. He said he has no reason to doubt any of the industry's figures).

And, until today it's was what they told you, when you visited the website of the Mailing Preference Service. In fact, people signing up to the opt-out scheme for addressed junk mail got an even more incredible figure:

UK consumers generate over £25 billion of postal sales per year.

But today all that has changed. If you now visit the Mailing Preference Service you're welcomed with this message:

"UK consumers generate millions of pounds of postal sales per year."

What caused the drop from £25 billion to millions was a complaint lodged with the Advertising Standards Authority. Initially, the advertising watchdog didn't want to deal with the complaint. They said it was up to the complainant (it wasn't me!) to prove that the statement was false - and not up to the Direct Marketing Association to prove the statement was true. That decision was overturned in an appeal, and when they finally asked the Direct Marketing Association to substantiate the figure of £25 billion the junk mailers had to admit that they didn't have the specific figures to hand.

Interesting, isn't it? For years they've been contacting journalists to give them facts and figures, so that they in turn can provide the public with a balanced view of the arguments. They're sending out tens of thousands of leaflets to local authorities to ensure local councils don't get any funny ideas about sharing the cost of disposing of junk mail. They insist that people wanting to cut back on junk mail should consider the damage they're doing to the UK economy. But when they're asked to substantiate its facts and figures they don't have them to hand.

I guess this implies that Mr Combemale still maintains that the facts and figures are scientifically sound. He has merely mislaid them; they're probably in amongst a pile of direct mail somewhere on his desk. It's unlikely, therefore, that he will be phoning Panorama to say that he gave them a figure he can't substantiate. Nor do I think he will let Defra know that he lost his research into the blessing that is advertising mail. And he will surely not return the PR Crisis Management Award. All will be business as usual.

It will be interesting, though, to see what he will tell journalists next time junk mail makes headlines. Even more interesting will be to see if journalists will finally dare to question the junk mail industry's facts and figures. That's something Panorama didn't have enough courage for.

Post scriptum

Yes, I did rip the Panorama broadcast from the iPlayer. But no, I didn't do so illegally. I spent quite a few days with the producer of the Panorama episode in May 2011 and got permission to use both bits of the final broadcast as well as lots of footage that wasn't used for the programme. Unlike most of the other content on this blog the video doesn't come under the Creative Commons license; you're not allowed to steal it.

Message from a postman

nospam@example.com (Junk Buster) — Sat, 09 Feb 2013 18:12:30 +0000

I received this yesterday:

"I deliver loads of scam mail which nearly always goes to people that are obviously vulnerable. Today I posted many examples of an obvious scam and even received the same scam letter myself. This post has the logo 'Delivered by Royal Mail' which as far as I understand can only be shown with the permission of Royal Mail or its partner Spring Global Mail (which handles junk mail).

"I feel very guilty delivering this cruel mail; something has to be done to stop the weak being exploited by criminals. If a change of law is needed then government should do that."

And here's an image the "communication" in question:

Sadly, only a couple of days ago government made it clear that it has no intention of doing anything about scam mail. In response to questions from Heather Wheeler MP the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, Jo Swinson, insisted that any change to existing legislation would result in postmen opening people's private mail. You can read the transcript of the debate or, if you got Microsoft Silverlight installed, view it. (Does anyone still have Silverlight installed!?)

I think you'll agree Heather Wheeler talked a lot of sense (and that's not something I say often about a Tory MP). It's a shame that Jo Swinson chose to make a complete caricature of her arguments. Surely it would be easy enough for Royal Mail to weed out scam mail at source. When Royal Mail gets a container with obvious scam mail, like the rubbish depicted above, they could easily check with the Office of Fair Trading whether or not such mail items might perhaps breach the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. The simple fact of the matter is that Royal Mail doesn't want to prevent scam mail. Facilitating scammers is a profitable business.

Helping scammers

It might be interesting to say a few words about the piece of scam mail shown above, to illustrate exactly how Royal Mail makes it easy for criminals to effectively target vulnerable people with scams. As the postman who contacted me pointed out the item features a "Delivered by Royal Mail" logo. This is purely to fool people into thinking that the sender is based in the UK. The item actually originates from France. It entered the UK via Spring Global Mail - a company that specialises in making mailings look as if they were sent from within the UK. Spring Global Mail is popular with scammers - and Royal Mail has got a 33% stake in the business.

You can tell that the above scam mail was produced by French criminals by looking at the return address: Greenford, UB18 7FR. To make mail items look as if they were sent from within the UK Spring Global Mail uses the postcode UB18 7xx. The last two letters of the postcode usually indicate the country of origin (and FR of course stands for France). Senders don't have to reveal where they're based; they can either not use a return at all or use the postcode UB18 7DS. In case you're wondering, DS is short for Destroy. You see, Royal Mail cares about its clientele.

Funny, isn't it. According to our government doing something to prevent scam mail would cause Royal Mail a genuine operational issue about feasibility and the resource required (Column 304WH). Yet, setting up crafty constructions aimed at making people less suspicious of dubious mailings is no problem at all for the company.

Weekly roundup: praise for Thomson Local and a Scottish junk mail revolt

nospam@example.com (Junk Buster) — Sun, 23 Dec 2012 15:47:00 +0000

Praise for Thomson Local

Last week I mentioned someone had started receiving unsolicited e-mails from Thomson Local after cancelling the company's directory via Junk Buster. Thomson Local was quick to respond, and it turns out that it was merely a technical issue.

When you cancel the Thomson Local directory via Junk Buster the application sends a standard e-mail to the company:

From: [ your e-mail address ]
To: distribution@thomsonlocal.com
Subject: Opt out request

Dear Sir or Madam,

My household wishes to opt out of receiving the paper version of the Thomson Local directory. Please could you ensure that the directory is no longer delivered to my address:

[ your name and address ]

On an average day Junk Buster sends about ten such e-mails to Thomson Local. (At times when junk mail is in the news this figure is much higher. For instance, when the Daily Mail launched another attack on junk mail last month Junk Buster fired off 614 opt-out e-mails to Thomson Local in just two days.) To deal with the e-mails Thomson Local's e-mail system looks out for e-mails with 'Opt out request' as the subject, and all those e-mails are automatically acknowledged with the following standard e-mail:

From: david.meikle@thomsonlocal.com
To: [ your e-mail address ]
Subject: Re: Opt out request

Thank you for contacting thomsonLocal.com. We understand that you do not wish to receive a hard copy of the directory. However, we can continue to help you to find what you need locally;-

If you have an iphone - the free thomsonLocal.com app can be downloaded from the iPhone app store, simply go to the app store and search for thomsonlocal.com

If you have an android phone - The thomsonlocal.com app can be downloaded for free by going to the android Market and searching for thomsonlocal.com.

If you have a nokia phone - The thomsonlocal.com app can be downloaded for free from the Nokia Ovi store by clicking here: http://store.ovi.com/publisher/thomsonlocal.com/

Alternatively, we provide an online service with www.thomsonlocal.com

Yours sincerely,
Thomsonlocal.com

The person who accused Thomson Local of spamming had received four such e-mails. The reason was that Thomson Local's e-mails were being sent with a read receipt and that these receipts somehow came back with 'Opt out request' still as the subject. Thomson Local's system therefore automatically sent another standard confirmation e-mail, creating a true e-mail pendulum. They've now solved the problem and have contacted the recipient of all the 'spam'.

It's good to see Thomson Local is actually making an effort to deal with opt-out e-mails it receives. They don't always get it right (remember the 'No Thomson Local' sticker?) and I reckon the standard e-mail should explicitly mention that your address has been taken off the distribution list - the e-mail doesn't confirm this and does read like a marketing e-mail. But, at least they're making an effort. That's not something you could say about ~~Yell~~ Hibu and in particular BT - both companies still find it very difficult to respect people's wishes. Thomson Local is past that stage; they seem to genuinely understand that not everybody is interested in unsolicited directories.

While discussing the issue with the e-mails I asked them how long a Thomson Local opt-out registration lasts nowadays. The answer is indefinitely. They said that they used to ask people from time to time whether or not they still wanted to be opted out. You can imagine the sort of responses we got, they said. Well done to Thomson Local for listening to people (and not hiding behind ignorant statements by the Data Publishers Association).

Return to sender revolt

Charities were (not for the first time) accused of putting pressure on people with little or no money to spare to donate money to good causes. The criticism came from the Scottish Women's Rural Institute - itself a charity.

Apparently, the SWRI unanimously passed a motion earlier year this calling on its 20,000 members to deplore the practice. They then contacted the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator who told them politely that charities may target as many vulnerable people as they like. They're now urging its members to simply return the mail to the sender.

Or, at least that's how the Strathspey and Badenoch Herald has interpreted the SWRI's advice. There's nothing about the junk mail revolt on the SWRI website but the paper quotes the charity as saying:

Our advice, therefore, would be for anyone who receives these letters to write back to the charity and state that they want to be removed for their mailing list. We feel disappointed that there is nothing more that can be done, but if enough people make it clear that this type of mail is not wanted or appreciated, it will send a loud and clear message.

It's worth noting that writing to individual charities isn't the same as returning junk mail. If SWRI members really want to send letters or e-mails to charities they should at least send them a proper data protection notice. It's sad, but it's the only way to ensure the message really comes across loud and clear.

They've arrived!

Speaking of returning unwanted junk mail to senders - I finally got return to sender stampers in the shop again!