George Kidd (formerly) of PhonepayPlus lies and lies on camera

[mike99]

George Kidd lying to Telecom TV

Lie 1: There are only a few bad apples in PRS

So George, from the following list (which comprises the major PRS providers), please a pick one good apple:

mBlox
Tanla
Zamano
Dialogue
Opera
WIN

Lie 2: PP+ imposes "bars" on PRS firms that defraud or steal from people and these bars prevent further fraud and theft.

In reality, a PP+ "bar" prevents a particular service provider from teaming up with a particular content provider to run a particular scam. To get round the "bar", all the firms have to do is think of a different scam or a different name for the content provider.

Lie 3: The currentconsultation on Mobile phone-paid services and their Marketing will result in fewer spam messages.

First of all this consultation has not yet produced any response from PP+ 7 months on (cf the "2 months" mentioned by George). Secondly, unsolicited promotional messages are the responsibility of ICO (which never takes action against anyone) and unstoppable if they come from abroad. George is conflating this problem with that of unsolicited reverse charge messages. These could be stopped if and when PP+ decides to respond to the consultation and do something; but will it?

Lie 4: PP+ does not need additional powers.

Actually I suppose that this is not really a lie. If we assume that PP+ wishes PRS crime to continue at current rates while PP+ continues to pretend to regulate it (which would seem to be the implication of this interview and everything else that comes out of PP+) then I suppose it is true: PP+ does not need additional powers.

George is no longer in charge at PP+ so this is all rather old hat; nevertheless, it is yet another confirmation (if any were needed) of what those of us who wish to see the effective regulation of PRS are up against.

[mike99]

Actually, my favourite bit of this interview does not involve any out and out lies; it is the bit where George suggests that firms investigated by PP+ will have to get in a team of consultants and "sort out their compliance".

Just imagine the "consultation":

PRS crook:

So, we've paid you several tens of thousands of pounds to investigate our compliance with the PP+ code, what is your conclusion?

Consultant:

Well, our conclusion is that you are stealing hundreds of thousands of pounds a week form unsuspecting members of the public by sending them reverse charge text messages and by encouraging them to call a premium rate number to collect a parcel that does not exist.

PRS crook:

Oh. Thank you. It never occurred to us that we were doing anything wrong here or that we might be in breach of any rules. We shall stop doing this forthwith!

[mike99]

George's blog from Australia is just as successful as his career in PRS regulation.