Antiphony claim customers are 'nutters' and not 'completely stable'

[El Gringo]

26 November 2009
Information provider Antiphony Limited
Service provider Wireless Information Network Ltd


ALLEGED BREACH FIVE

CONTACT INFORMATION (Paragraph 5.8)

“For any promotion, the identity and contact details in the UK of either the service provider or information provider, where not otherwise obvious, must be clearly stated. The customer service phone number required in paragraph 3.3.5 must also be clearly stated unless reasonable steps have previously been taken to bring it to the attention of the user or it is otherwise obvious and easily available to the user.”
[.........]
The Information Provider stated that, in relation to the issue of the PO Box address raised by the Executive, whilst many of its consumers were clear minded it was aware that Chat/Adult services tended to attract some individuals that were not always of a completely stable mindset. It stated that it had received occasional letters, phonecalls and emails that had proved to be somewhat concerning to a number of its employees.

It stated that as its services provided genuine text dating, it had also received occasional police enquiries relating to physical incidents between users of the service. It stated that it had therefore seemed logical to carry a PO Box address in its advertising, primarily so that it did not have ‘nutters’ turning up on its office doorstep.

Formal Reprimand
A fine of £50,000 (comprising £40,000 in respect of the upheld breaches with an uplift of £10,000 in respect of breach history).

--------------------------------
or of course it could be that the company(ies) staff and directors are a bunch of dishonest crooks

mirror"Nathaniel MacLeitch""Jonathan Cresswell"
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en...meta=&aq=f&oq=
http://www.the-scream.co.uk/forums/t28617.html

"amv holdings"scam
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en...meta=&aq=f&oq=

"blue stream"scam
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en...meta=&aq=f&oq=