Noble Lowndes Annuities Ltd
espty
taken over as I am unable to trace them.
As I am nearing retirement, I would like to collect any benefits owing
to me.
Would any-one know if this company still exists, or who has taken over
them.
Martin Bonner
Well a simple google for "Noble Lowndes Annuities" (without the
quotes), found lots of hits. It Noble Lowndes seems to have gone
through a number of owners, but it looks like there are plenty of
leads to follow up.
Haven't they been sending you pension statements every year?
Mouse
Afraid I've no idea, but the Pension Tracing Service (part of the DWP)
might be able to help you - http://www.thepensionservice.gov.uk/tracing/
Mouse.
GB
"espty" <darr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ed35c8b1-4ef4-4180...@j28g2000hsj.googlegroups.com...
Noble Lowndes were brokers, surely? Which company did they arrange your
annuity with?
SidB
They were brokers, but also acted as corporate pension trustee for a
portfolio of clients' schemes.
For what it's worth they were taken over by Sedgwick Group, which was
then in turn swallowed up Mercer Ltd. which is the HR and Employee
Benefits consultancy arm of Marsh & McLennan Companies,Inc.
--
SidB
Doug Giles
SidB;498899 Wrote:
> espty said.....-
> I have a retirement policy with this group who now seem to have been
> taken over as I am unable to trace them.
>
> As I am nearing retirement, I would like to collect any benefits owing
> to me.
>
> Would any-one know if this company still exists, or who has taken over
> them.
>
>
>
> They were brokers, but also acted as corporate pension trustee for a
> portfolio of clients' schemes.
> For what it's worth they were taken over by Sedgwick Group, which was
> then in turn swallowed up Mercer Ltd. which is the HR and Employee
> Benefits consultancy arm of Marsh & McLennan Companies,Inc.
>
> --
> SidB
As it happens I was in exactly the same position having retired. I had
to discover the new incumbents for an annuity which I had and which was
originally arranged with Nobel Lowndes, who at one stage had an official
appointment for statutory annuities bought by employers for
ex-employees, in lieu of NI liabilities after exit from a
non-contributory pension scheme, when leaving their employment. I had
moved house several times after that and even lived outside the UK
working abroad for some years in more than one country, so I had
received no notifications from them or their successors.
I can thus save you the search. (By the way the Pensions Advisory
Service and Pensions Tracing Service were of no help whatsoever.)
Their liabilities are now bourne by Abbey Life Assurance Co. Ltd., and
the contact address is: Client Services Division, PO Box 4896,
Bournemouth, BH8 8XB. Telephone number is one of those nasty disguised
Premium numbers, so avoid using it but write if possible, 0845 6023
603. If you quote the original Nobel Lowndes policy no. they will be
able to trace it from that.
--
Doug Giles
Roland Perry
28 Feb 2008, Doug Giles <Doug.Gile...@legalbanter.co.uk> remarked:
> Telephone number is one of those nasty disguised Premium numbers, so
>avoid using it but write if possible, 0845 6023 603.
0845 is neither disguised nor Premium. On the other hand the 0844's that
are springing up everywhere might reasonably be described that way.
--
Roland Perry
Doug Giles
Roland Perry;500605 Wrote:
> In message Doug.Gile...@legalbanter.co.uk, at 03:15:07 on Thu,
> 28 Feb 2008, Doug Giles Doug.Gile...@legalbanter.co.uk remarked:-
> Telephone number is one of those nasty disguised Premium numbers, so
>
> 0845 is neither disguised nor Premium. On the other hand the 0844's
> that
> are springing up everywhere might reasonably be described that way.
> --
> Roland Perry
I believe you are off topic Roland, in addressing that issue alone in
my post, and you are also completely wrong. Both Ofcom and BT have
admitted now publicly that non-geographic numbers used where "revenue
may be shared" are being used as Premium numbers. Premium number means
a number which is charged at rate over and above a normal (geographic)
number, and where part of the call charge is paid to one or more third
parties. 0845 numbers are used by dial-up isps for exactly that reason
- that they are Premium numbers and that is how they obtain their
revenue to provide the isp service!
These numbers are charged thus at a rate which is much higher than a
normal geographic number; they can be as much as 49 p per minute from
public telephones or mobiles and some CPS telco providers charge much
more than BT per minute. Also such calls are not included in so-called
inclusive packages. Thus they are very expensive to call. They are
Premium numbers in disguise, but with the very worst feature that
chargeable call queuing is permitted, which is not so with 09 overt
Premium numbers.
0845 and other similar Non-Geographic numbers are not charged at a
Local rate as is commonly wrongly claimed! There is no such thing as a
Local rate any longer since BT forced Option 1 (now Weekend free calls)
on all their line rental customers. There is now no difference between
local or distant numbers and there is no such thing as
“National” rate any longer. BT have listed these numbers as
Premium numbers in their call charge price list. This is exactly why
Ofcom are at present considering moving them to be under the control of
PhonePay Plus (was ICSTIS), in a new category of Premium numbers with
call queuing permitted, together with 0871, 0870 070PNS, 0844 and a
number of other new 08 category Premium numbers to be introduced. Some
telcos charge as much as 39 p per minute to call a 0845 number from a
private line telephone. Most 0845 calls are just patched to a normal
geographic landline, and the only reason they are used is to get the
Premium revenue. Savvy consumers are now aware of what the reality is.
{See: http://tinyurl.com/2e8edk
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/nts_forward/responses/
http://www.freeweb.telco4u.net/rachelf/
--
Doug Giles
Roland Perry
29 Feb 2008, Doug Giles <Doug.Gile...@legalbanter.co.uk> remarked:
>> Telephone number is one of those nasty disguised Premium numbers, so
>> avoid using it but write if possible, 0845 6023 603.-
>>
>> 0845 is neither disguised nor Premium. On the other hand the 0844's
>>that are springing up everywhere might reasonably be described that
>>way.
>
>I believe you are off topic Roland, in addressing that issue alone in
>my post, and you are also completely wrong.
It's not off topic to correct the use of a quasi-legal definition as in
this context.
>Premium number means a number which is charged at rate over and above a
>normal (geographic) number,
No it isn't, a Premium number is one that's regulated by Phonepayplus.
>and where part of the call charge is paid to one or more third
>parties. 0845 numbers are used by dial-up isps for exactly that reason
>- that they are Premium numbers and that is how they obtain their
>revenue to provide the isp service!
Digressing slightly, when 0845 numbers were first used by ISPs to gain
revenue it was precisely because the ISP co-located his equipment at the
telephone exchange (or at the end of a fibre supplied at the ISPs cost).
Therefore the call was really only "half a call", from the subscriber to
the telephone exchange(s), but there was no need to pay to deliver the
call to the called subscriber (so some revenue was spare).
The other advantage was that an ISP could publish one local number,
rather than a large number of individual geographically local numbers
(which in principle could also have resulted in revenue share, but were
superceded by the 0845 scheme).
The days of 0845 numbers are limited anyway, although it's taken a lot
longer than Ofcom really wanted.
>They are Premium numbers in disguise,
This proves that you know they aren't *actual* premium numbers - you
merely wish they were classified as such. But given the changes
happening at the moment I'm pretty sure 0845 will die out for all
practical purposes in the next few years (just like 0870 is).
Of course, the result is possibly dozens of different new codes, which I
personally think is simply confusing, rather than "more transparent".
--
Roland Perry
Doug Giles
Roland Perry;500919 Wrote:
> In message Doug.Gile...@legalbanter.co.uk, at 03:20:08 on Fri,
> Telephone number is one of those nasty disguised Premium numbers, so
> avoid using it but write if possible, 0845 6023 603.-
>
> 0845 is neither disguised nor Premium. On the other hand the 0844's
> that are springing up everywhere might reasonably be described that
>
> I believe you are off topic Roland, in addressing that issue alone in
>
> It's not off topic to correct the use of a quasi-legal definition as in
>
> this context.
> Premium number means a number which is charged at rate over and above a
>
>
> No it isn't, a Premium number is one that's regulated by Phonepayplus.
> and where part of the call charge is paid to one or more third
> parties. 0845 numbers are used by dial-up isps for exactly that reason
> - that they are Premium numbers and that is how they obtain their
>
> Digressing slightly, when 0845 numbers were first used by ISPs to gain
>
> revenue it was precisely because the ISP co-located his equipment at
> the
> telephone exchange (or at the end of a fibre supplied at the ISPs
> cost).
> Therefore the call was really only "half a call", from the subscriber
> to
> the telephone exchange(s), but there was no need to pay to deliver the
>
> call to the called subscriber (so some revenue was spare).
>
> The other advantage was that an ISP could publish one local number,
> rather than a large number of individual geographically local numbers
> (which in principle could also have resulted in revenue share, but were
>
> superceded by the 0845 scheme).
>
> The days of 0845 numbers are limited anyway, although it's taken a lot
>
> longer than Ofcom really wanted.
> They are Premium numbers in disguise,-
>
> This proves that you know they aren't *actual* premium numbers - you
> merely wish they were classified as such. But given the changes
> happening at the moment I'm pretty sure 0845 will die out for all
> practical purposes in the next few years (just like 0870 is).
>
> Of course, the result is possibly dozens of different new codes, which
> I
> personally think is simply confusing, rather than "more transparent".
>
> --
> Roland Perry
If you take my advice Espty, you will ignore all of that which will not
help you one iota. The reality is that for us approaching pension age or
already there, if we have only a state pension and not a fat Legal
pension, then to us calling 0845 numbers and being held in a queue
whilst being charged at as much as 49p per minute is an expensive
rip-off! Try 01202 292373 which is given on Saynoto0870 as a geographic
number for Abbey Life Assurance (and can connect you to the department
you need), which if you use 18185 or another similar provider even with
call queuing will cost you a total of only 5 or 6p for up to 2 hours
total call time at peak hours. Much less expensive because you will not
be paying the (hidden) premium.
--
Doug Giles
canaryjayne
Doug Giles;500797 Wrote:
> I doubt whether you are breaking the law on private property. Any one
> gazing at you from above or from the side could perhaps be considered
> to be a Peeping Tom I would have thought?
>
> However, I must ask, are either of the houses adjacent to yours for
> sale at present? Now if you were sunbathing bottomless as well, that
> might be another matter. Not sure of the legality there, even on
> private property, if there is any over-looking from adjacent
> properties, or from above.
Hi thanks for your reply. I am really anxious to know where I stand (or
lie!!) on this.
No ,there is no one living adjacent to me, but I have neighbours living
directly above me.
I make a point of only sunbathing topless (not bottomless!!) when I
think they are out.
However I am afraid I might get caught out one day and just wanted to
know if I was breaking the law.
Any other replies also welcomed.
--
canaryjayne
Roland Perry
>calling 0845 numbers and being held in a queue whilst being charged at
>as much as 49p per minute is an expensive rip-off!
I would agree wholeheartedly with that. Which telco is charging you 49p
for something that should be no more than about 5p?
--
Roland Perry
The Todal
"canaryjayne" <canaryjay...@legalbanter.co.uk> wrote in message
news:canaryjay...@legalbanter.co.uk...
No, I don't see what law you could be breaking, in a private place such as a
garden.
You will obviously have to consider whether any neighbours will be inflamed
with lust and become a nuisance or a danger to you, and you should also
consider what your skin is likely to look like in 20 years - wrinkled and
discoloured.
Palindrome
possible to arrange a beach umbrella (or two), such as to obscure your
line of sight to them, but not to the sun.
They are entitled to quiet enjoyment of their properties too - including
the right to look out of their windows without having the anxiety that,
for all they know, you might take offence at them apparently looking at you.
--
Sue
Roland Perry
on Sat, 1 Mar 2008, Palindrome <m...@privacy.net> remarked:
>The sun presumably doesn't shine out from their windows. So it should
>be possible to arrange a beach umbrella (or two), such as to obscure
>your line of sight to them, but not to the sun.
That's quite difficult if you have a north-facing garden, as the sun
will typically be coming from above the roofline of the houses.
--
Roland Perry
Palindrome
True, particularly with a small garden that doesn't let geometry work to
best advantage.
However, then, Plan B comes into effect - One or two very, very white
beach umbrellas. As the angle subtended between sun and window will be
very small, it is possible to reflect light back at the window with
quite high efficiency. Even if bits of you are in the line of sight
beyond the umbrellas, it does take a determined attempt to see them.
I think anyone who puts on sunglasses to look out at his North-facing
garden can't really complain... ;)
--
Sue
Doug Giles
Roland Perry;501209 Wrote:
> In message Doug.Gile...@legalbanter.co.uk, at 15:40:18 on Fri,
> calling 0845 numbers and being held in a queue whilst being charged at
>
>
> I would agree wholeheartedly with that. Which telco is charging you 49p
>
> for something that should be no more than about 5p?
> --
> Roland Perry
Hi Roland,
They are all shown in the various links I posted, but to summarise it
is certain CPS providers, mobile networks and Public Telephones which
are the most expensive. (By the way, watch out for 00800 numbers too,
which are supposed to be free international numbers, but in the UK are
mostly charged often at quite high rates; in this case only a public
telephone is the best to use since you cannot be ripped off with these
numbers from a public telephone. You just do not enter any cash or
credit!)
Please also note the significance difference with chargeable queue
queuing, where you can find a geographical equivalent number to call
like the one for Abbey Life Assurance which I have quoted. Since if you
call that geographic number using a provider like 18185 a 2 hour call
will cost only say 6 p, whereas with one of the more expensive
providers, calling 0845 with call queuing could easily cost you £11.70
for a 30 minute call. That is a big difference, even for highly-paid
lawyers, when added up over the course of a year!
--
Doug Giles
Roland Perry
Mar 2008, Doug Giles <Doug.Gile...@legalbanter.co.uk> remarked:
>> calling 0845 numbers and being held in a queue whilst being charged at
>>
>> as much as 49p per minute is an expensive rip-off!-
>>
>> I would agree wholeheartedly with that. Which telco is charging you 49p
>>
>> for something that should be no more than about 5p?
>Hi Roland,
>
>They are all shown in the various links I posted,
Too many links (and those I tried were all pressure group rants). What I
need are some vendor price lists.
> but to summarise it is certain CPS providers,
Which ones? I looked up mine and it's 5.4p/min peak.
>mobile networks
10p/min on mine.
>and Public Telephones which are the most expensive.
I can't find the price for those easily, which is an issue in itself.
>a geographical equivalent number to call
Those will always be cheaper, as would an 0800 number.
But this is a bit of a silly conversation because 0845 as a concept is
in its dying days. What you might be better looking at is what sort of
numbers people are transferring their 0845 call centres to.
--
Roland Perry
Alex Heney
wrote:
What rubbish.
They have NO right to be able to look out of their window without
seeing a topless woman.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
I'm fascinated by the way memory diffuses fact.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
Mike Barnard
wrote:
>
>What rubbish.
>
>They have NO right to be able to look out of their window without
>seeing a topless woman.
You mean they SHOULD see one every time they look out? Cool, where do
you live?
Norman Wells
"Alex Heney" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:gvrjs3lka6qs7epv3...@4ax.com...
> What rubbish.
>
> They have NO right to be able to look out of their window without
> seeing a topless woman.
Yes, but whatever you think, she seems to have a problem with this which I
think she should avoid if at all possible.
Now, there's a very nice property next door to me that's for sale....
fjm...@gmail.com
>
> What rubbish.
>
> They have NO right to be able to look out of their window without
> seeing a topless woman.
Absolutely. There is no general right to a view. I might not like what
I can see out of my window but, if its lawfully there, I have no right
to prevent it.
I spend something like 9 months living in accommodation (a Lutheran
theological college as it happens - and there aren't many of them in
the UK). Sitting at my desk and looking up from my work, at almost
exactly neutral eye position was a shower room on the ground floor of
the women's college opposite (New Hall, Cambridge). The glass had
obviously been wrongly fitted so that someone inside would expect them
to be hidden by the glass, but actually a fairly clear view was
provided from the outside.
I did mention this to the college (also via my cousin who was there at
the time) but they never took it very seriously. Fortunately none of
my friends lived on that staircase - so no embarrassment was caused.
I never, for a moment, thought I had a right to stop it. Why should I?
Francis
Roland Perry
<c2e3b9b1-5131-4752...@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, at
13:30:09 on Sun, 2 Mar 2008, "fj...@yahoo.co.uk" <fjm...@gmail.com>
remarked:
>at almost exactly neutral eye position was a shower room on the ground
>floor of the women's college opposite (New Hall, Cambridge). The glass
>had obviously been wrongly fitted so that someone inside would expect
>them to be hidden by the glass, but actually a fairly clear view was
>provided from the outside.
This is an interesting infelicity in certain types of "obscured glass".
In particular that sort where the pseudo-random "lenses" are about an
inch across. Glass like that provides little or no protection for people
within the room, even if the view of outside looks obscured to those
inside the room.
--
Roland Perry
fjm...@gmail.com
>
> This is an interesting infelicity in certain types of "obscured glass".
> In particular that sort where the pseudo-random "lenses" are about an
> inch across. Glass like that provides little or no protection for people
> within the room, even if the view of outside looks obscured to those
> inside the room.
How interesting. I thought something like that might be the case. I
confirmed that the shower did appear to be obscured from the inside.
Francis
Doug Giles
Roland Perry;501338 Wrote:
> In message Doug.Gile...@legalbanter.co.uk, at 15:15:08 on Sat, 1
> Mar 2008, Doug Giles Doug.Gile...@legalbanter.co.uk remarked:--
> calling 0845 numbers and being held in a queue whilst being charged at
>
> as much as 49p per minute is an expensive rip-off!-
>
> I would agree wholeheartedly with that. Which telco is charging you
> 49p
>
> -
> Hi Roland,
>
> They are all shown in the various links I posted,-
>
> Too many links (and those I tried were all pressure group rants). What
> I
> need are some vendor price lists.
> but to summarise it is certain CPS providers,-
>
> Which ones? I looked up mine and it's 5.4p/min peak.
> mobile networks-
>
> 10p/min on mine.
> -
> and Public Telephones which are the most expensive.-
>
> I can't find the price for those easily, which is an issue in itself.
> a geographical equivalent number to call-
>
> Those will always be cheaper, as would an 0800 number.
>
> But this is a bit of a silly conversation because 0845 as a concept is
> in its dying days. What you might be better looking at is what sort of
> numbers people are transferring their 0845 call centres to.
> --
> Roland Perry
Roland,
I do not think that my original post was part of "a silly conversation"
at all, since the point was that I trying to assist the OP to find his
annuity so as to be able to claim it, and to avoid paying the premium
for calling an 0845 number with chargeable call queuing, by pointing
out to him an alternative normal geographic number which he could call.
It has only perhaps become a bit silly since you seem to have homed in
on this to castigate me for pointing out that the 0845 number could be
expensive to call. It seems that you have a penchant for calling 0845
and other non-geographical numbers, and you seem to think they are
great. If you enjoy calling them and paying the premiums for so doing
then fine. I have no objection to that. However, you similarly ought
not to have an objection to those who find the whole scam to be
unacceptable and try to find ways to avoid it. You talk of "rants"
about these issues, but frankly it seems to me that it is you that has
been ranting on this forum about it, just because I warned the OP about
the 0845 number given for the company which has taken over the liability
for his annuity. I really do feel now that you have taken this
completely off the original topic to a point of non-objective argument.
--
Doug Giles
Palindrome
Try reading what I actually wrote. Which wasn't that they have a right
to avoid seeing topless women out of their window.
It would be kind to spare them the anxiety that complaints might be
forthcoming from her.
Not that it would happen in this situation - but they also have a right
not to be harassed when doing something perfectly legal - such as
looking out of their windows. Such as would be caused by repeated
complaints of them oggling her.
--
Sue
bealoid
[snip]
> What rubbish.
>
> They have NO right to be able to look out of their window without
> seeing a topless woman.
The people who gave an ASBO to the woman who'd answer the door in her
underwear would disagree with you.
Alex Heney
No, I don't mean that at all, although it would be nice :-)
Why on earth do you think that having no right not to see something
means that you should see it?
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
If it works, tear it apart and find out why!
Alex Heney
wrote:
It is effectively saying that.
> It would be kind to spare them the anxiety that complaints might be
>forthcoming from her.
I must admit, the thought that they might *have* such anxiety wouldn't
even have crossed my mind without your suggestion.
If somebody does something (anything) where they can be readily seen,
then they have no right to complain about actually being seen.
But "it would be kind" is fair enough, and not at all the same as
"they are entitled".
>
>Not that it would happen in this situation - but they also have a right
>not to be harassed when doing something perfectly legal - such as
>looking out of their windows. Such as would be caused by repeated
>complaints of them oggling her.
Absolutely. She has no more right to complain about them looking at
her than they have to complain about the sight of her.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
When I was a kid, I was an imaginary playmate.
Alex Heney
wrote:
And I still think they were wrong, and that was an abuse of the ASBO
process.
I actually think the whole ASBO system is an abuse of the legal system
anyhow.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
All the easy problems have been solved.
G Hardy
> On Sun, 2 Mar 2008 10:50:04 +0000, Mike Barnard wrote:
>>On Sun, 2 Mar 2008 00:10:13 +0000, Alex Heney wrote:
>>>They have NO right to be able to look out of their window without
>>>seeing a topless woman.
>>
>>You mean they SHOULD see one every time they look out? Cool, where do
>>you live?
>
> No, I don't mean that at all, although it would be nice :-)
>
> Why on earth do you think that having no right not to see something
> means that you should see it?
The way you wrote it might suggest it's mandatory to see a topless woman
when you look out.
Palindrome
I would disagree. There is a lot of difference between seeking to deny
someone from doing something which is entirely legal and having others
attempt to deny yourself from doing something that is entirely legal.
I give you the situation should the OP have the appearance of a young
teenager and the neighbour visibly watching from a window. Whose door do
the police knock on? Whose legal activity would be under threat?
Can the police be trusted to know the law and act appropriately, even if
the OP is clearly not a young teenager?
What if the neighbour is already "known to the police"? And what if
that fact was known to the OP?
Personally, I think that people do have the moral right to expect their
neighbours to do what they can to minimise the impact, or potential
impact, of their activities.
--
Sue
Norman Wells
"Alex Heney" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:og5ms3psu52jvv14q...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 2 Mar 2008 10:50:04 +0000, Mike Barnard
> <m.barnard...@thunderin.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 2 Mar 2008 00:10:13 +0000, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>What rubbish.
>>>
>>>They have NO right to be able to look out of their window without
>>>seeing a topless woman.
>>
>>You mean they SHOULD see one every time they look out? Cool, where do
>>you live?
>
> No, I don't mean that at all, although it would be nice :-)
>
> Why on earth do you think that having no right not to see something
> means that you should see it?
To put it more simply, what I think Alex doesn't mean is that no-one should
not have the right not to see when not looking other than in nothing that
no-one does not reveal.
That's right, isn't it?
PCPaul
Yes, Sir Humphrey.
Alex Heney
wrote:
Sorry, I don't understand the last part of that sentence.
What I was saying is that your statement *appeared* to say that the
person who may be looking out of their window has the right to not
worry about whether the person they see could complain about them
looking.
And the only way that right could be applied IMO would be if the
person to be looked at is not allowed to do whatever the action is
that could possibly cause that anxiety.
>
>I give you the situation should the OP have the appearance of a young
>teenager and the neighbour visibly watching from a window. Whose door do
>the police knock on? Whose legal activity would be under threat?
>
Neither, if the police have any clue about the law.
>Can the police be trusted to know the law and act appropriately, even if
>the OP is clearly not a young teenager?
Not necessarily, and even the CPS can't be *relied* on to know and act
correctly. The magistrates usually get it more right, although I
accept even that is not certain.
>
>What if the neighbour is already "known to the police"? And what if
>that fact was known to the OP?
>
>Personally, I think that people do have the moral right to expect their
>neighbours to do what they can to minimise the impact, or potential
>impact, of their activities.
Possibly, but a moral right is not the same as a legal right.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Buy Land Now. It's Not Being Made Any More.
The Todal
> On Sun, 2 Mar 2008 23:25:03 +0000, Palindrome <m...@privacy.net>
> wrote:
>>
>>I give you the situation should the OP have the appearance of a young
>>teenager and the neighbour visibly watching from a window. Whose door do
>>the police knock on? Whose legal activity would be under threat?
>>
>
> Neither, if the police have any clue about the law.
When the laws are badly drafted it wouldn't be surprising. If you observe a
topless girl, who is to say whether she had a reasonable expectation of
"privacy"? Who is to say whether you observed her "for the purpose of
obtaining sexual gratification" (whatever that is supposed to mean, and I
don't suppose it necessarily means having a wank).
Sexual Offences Act 2003
67 Voyeurism
(1) A person commits an offence if-
(a) for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification, he observes another
person doing a private act, and
(b) he knows that the other person does not consent to being observed for
his sexual gratification.
[snipped remainder which relates to recording images]
68 Voyeurism: interpretation
(1) For the purposes of section 67, a person is doing a private act if the
person is in a place which, in the circumstances, would reasonably be
expected to provide privacy, and-
(a) the person's genitals, buttocks or breasts are exposed or covered only
with underwear,
(b) the person is using a lavatory, or
(c) the person is doing a sexual act that is not of a kind ordinarily done
in public.
(2) In section 67, "structure" includes a tent, vehicle or vessel or other
temporary or movable structure.
John Briggs
Just out of interest, what sexual acts are "of a kind ordinarily done in
public."?
--
John Briggs
Howard Neil
> Just out of interest, what sexual acts are "of a kind ordinarily done in
> public."?
Kissing?
--
Howard Neil
Alex Heney
wrote:
If overlooked by unobscured windows, then there simply cannot be any
expectation of privacy, IMO.
I also do not think that sunbathing (however dressed) comes under the
definition of a private act.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
How do you write zero in Roman numerals?
Alex Heney
Kissing and cuddling, for a start.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Civil wars aren't.
wob...@mailinator.com
> Just out of interest, what sexual acts are "of a kind ordinarily done in
> public."?
Sexual intercourse, double penetration, mutual masturbation, gang-
banging... you name it. All are ordinarily done in public, at a great
many car parks throughout the land. One may be available near you; a
swift Google search for "dogging car parks near <home town>" will be a
revelation.
I expect that's what the legal draftsmen had in mind.
--
Wibbly
Palindrome
It won't (presumably) be you that comes knocking at the door..
--
Sue
John Briggs
After reviewing possible responses, I have settled on "Post a picture and
let us decide that" :-)
--
John Briggs
RobertL
> On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 12:15:08 +0000, "The Todal" <deadmail...@beeb.net>
> wrote:
> How do you write zero in Roman numerals?
You can't, and that's why the years go from 1 BC to 1 AD without a 0
AD.
Robert
The Wanderer
> On Mar 4, 10:50 pm, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 12:15:08 +0000, "The Todal" <deadmail...@beeb.net>
>> wrote:
>
>> How do you write zero in Roman numerals?
>
> You can't,
And always a good pub-quiz question......
--
the dot wanderer at tesco dot net
Alex Heney
wrote:
Whooosh :)
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.
Humbug
wrote:
>On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 08:15:08 +0000, RobertL <rober...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Mar 4, 10:50 pm, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 12:15:08 +0000, "The Todal" <deadmail...@beeb.net>
>>> wrote:
>>
>>> How do you write zero in Roman numerals?
>>
>>You can't, and that's why the years go from 1 BC to 1 AD without a 0
>>AD.
>>
>
>Whooosh :)
Exactly so.
--
Milleniumbug
Palindrome
> On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 08:15:08 +0000, RobertL <rober...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Mar 4, 10:50 pm, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 12:15:08 +0000, "The Todal" <deadmail...@beeb.net>
>>> wrote:
>>> How do you write zero in Roman numerals?
>> You can't, and that's why the years go from 1 BC to 1 AD without a 0
>> AD.
>>
>
> Whooosh :)
Is that the noise that a charter makes when it is broken?
--
Sue
Doug Giles
Palindrome;502092 Wrote:
> Alex Heney wrote:-> -
> On Mar 4, 10:50 pm, Alex Heney m...@privacy.net wrote:-> How do you write zero in Roman numerals?-
> You can't, and that's why the years go from 1 BC to 1 AD without a 0
> AD.
>
> Whooosh :)-
>
> Is that the noise that a charter makes when it is broken?
> --
> Sue
No, it's the noise a broken mandate promise makes about a charter which
is supposedly not a charter anymore, because its name has been changed!
--
Doug Giles
Stuart Bronstein
> If overlooked by unobscured windows, then there simply cannot be
> any expectation of privacy, IMO.
Reminds me of the story about the woman who called police because she
could see her neighbour sunbathing naked from her window. When the
police officer arrived he looked out the window and saw nothing.
"Oh, you can see it" said the woman" if you go upstairs to the bedroom
and stand on the bed."
Stu
The Todal
Why do you attribute a posting to me that I didn't make? And if that's a
"whoosh" I still don't get it.
Alex Heney
wrote:
>RobertL wrote:
He didn't, he just forgot to remove the second level attribution.
the quote level was the same as the attribution level, so it wasn't by
you.
I called him on a whoosh because that is the whole point of that tag
line.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Man who jumps through screen door likely to strain himself.
Cynic
wrote:
>I also do not think that sunbathing (however dressed) comes under the
>definition of a private act.
It certainly does in law - note that one of the definitions in the
appropriate Act of "a private act" is anything in which the buttocks,
genitals or breasts are uncovered or covered only by underwear.
--
Cynic
Roland Perry
Tue, 1 Apr 2008, Cynic <cyni...@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:
>>I also do not think that sunbathing (however dressed) comes under the
>>definition of a private act.
>
>It certainly does in law - note that one of the definitions in the
>appropriate Act of "a private act" is anything in which the buttocks,
>genitals or breasts are uncovered or covered only by underwear.
A swimsuit is not underwear.
--
Roland Perry
Martin Bonner
> In message <psa5v3teibgajruk5c4a851hlot32k2...@4ax.com>, at 22:45:08 on
> Tue, 1 Apr 2008, Cynic <cynic_...@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:
>
> >>I also do not think that sunbathing (however dressed) comes under the
> >>definition of a private act.
>
> >It certainly does in law - note that one of the definitions in the
> >appropriate Act of "a private act" is anything in which the buttocks,
> >genitals or breasts are uncovered or covered only by underwear.
>
> A swimsuit is not underwear.
True, but Cynic's point is that "sunbathing (however dressed)" /may/
come under the definition of a private act. Specifically topless (or
nude) sunbathing clearly does. Whether sunbathing in a thong bikini
counts as having the buttocks "uncovered" is something the courts will
have to decide (if a case is ever bought).
Roland Perry
<5086c5ee-e826-43cd...@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, at
10:35:05 on Wed, 2 Apr 2008, Martin Bonner <martin...@yahoo.co.uk>
remarked:
>> >>I also do not think that sunbathing (however dressed) comes under the
>> >>definition of a private act.
>>
>> >It certainly does in law - note that one of the definitions in the
>> >appropriate Act of "a private act" is anything in which the buttocks,
>> >genitals or breasts are uncovered or covered only by underwear.
>>
>> A swimsuit is not underwear.
>
>True, but Cynic's point is that "sunbathing (however dressed)" /may/
"however dressed" ... "certainly does" ... conveys a different message
to me, though.
--
Roland Perry
Cynic
wrote:
>>> >>I also do not think that sunbathing (however dressed) comes under the
>>> >>definition of a private act.
>>>
>>> >It certainly does in law - note that one of the definitions in the
>>> >appropriate Act of "a private act" is anything in which the buttocks,
>>> >genitals or breasts are uncovered or covered only by underwear.
>>>
>>> A swimsuit is not underwear.
>>
>>True, but Cynic's point is that "sunbathing (however dressed)" /may/
>
>"however dressed" ... "certainly does" ... conveys a different message
>to me, though.
For the avoidance of doubt, I meant that sunbathing would come under
the definition of a "private act" if it is being carried out with
breasts, buttocks or genitals exposed or covered only in underware.
Thus Alex's contention that it would not be regarded as a private act
however the sunbather is dressed is not the case.
I should perhaps have started with "It certainly can" rather than "It
certainly does".
I have some difficulty with the law's definition of a "private act".
Firstly, I do not see how a *man* could be considered to be engaged in
a "private act" by having his breasts exposed. Secondly, there are
naturist resorts where people are routinely naked, and even more
places where women routinely go topless. In such places it cannot be
right for the law to regard as being a "private act" something that
the person routinely does in full public view?
--
Cynic
Alex Heney
wrote:
It doesn't.
It can ONLY be voyeurism if the person "is in a place which, in the
circumstances, would reasonably be expected to provide privacy".
Which means somewhere that there can be no expectation of being seen.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Of all the people I've met you're certainly one of them
Alex Heney
wrote:
>On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 13:55:03 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>>> >>I also do not think that sunbathing (however dressed) comes under the
>>>> >>definition of a private act.
>>>>
>>>> >It certainly does in law - note that one of the definitions in the
>>>> >appropriate Act of "a private act" is anything in which the buttocks,
>>>> >genitals or breasts are uncovered or covered only by underwear.
>>>>
>>>> A swimsuit is not underwear.
>>>
>>>True, but Cynic's point is that "sunbathing (however dressed)" /may/
>>
>>"however dressed" ... "certainly does" ... conveys a different message
>>to me, though.
>
>For the avoidance of doubt, I meant that sunbathing would come under
>the definition of a "private act" if it is being carried out with
>breasts, buttocks or genitals exposed or covered only in underware.
>Thus Alex's contention that it would not be regarded as a private act
>however the sunbather is dressed is not the case.
>
>I should perhaps have started with "It certainly can" rather than "It
>certainly does".
>
I'll give you that one, but only if they are sunbathing on private
property behind an opaque fence/wall/hedge with no overlooking
windows.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Of all the people I've met you're certainly one of them
Alex Heney
wrote:
But only where the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
That's inches away from being millimeter perfect.
bob...@googlemail.com
> >It certainly does in law - note that one of the definitions in the
> >appropriate Act of "a private act" is anything in which the buttocks,
> >genitals or breasts are uncovered or covered only by underwear.
>
> But only where the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy.
That would be, um, "nowhere"
http://googlesightseeing.com/2006/11/28/top-10-naked-people-on-google-earth/
Cynic
wrote:
>>I have some difficulty with the law's definition of a "private act".
>>Firstly, I do not see how a *man* could be considered to be engaged in
>>a "private act" by having his breasts exposed. Secondly, there are
>>naturist resorts where people are routinely naked, and even more
>>places where women routinely go topless. In such places it cannot be
>>right for the law to regard as being a "private act" something that
>>the person routinely does in full public view?
>It doesn't.
>It can ONLY be voyeurism if the person "is in a place which, in the
>circumstances, would reasonably be expected to provide privacy".
>Which means somewhere that there can be no expectation of being seen.
You misunderstand. I was thinking of a case where the person is in
such a place, but is clothed in the same way that they are routinely
seen in public.
e.g. a person is looking into the window of a room in which a topless
woman is sitting watching TV. But this is at a resort where that same
woman routinely walks around in public topless.
Or how about a man sitting in his house without a shirt on? The
definition does not appear to distiguish between the breasts of a man
and a woman, so presumably he would be deemed to be engaged in a
"private act" and the voyeurism law could be used even though in the
UKa man's breasts are not regarded as having the same sexual
connotations as a woman's breasts.
One other flight of fancy - if the police deliberately keep watch on a
secluded alleyway and catch a man who urinates in it, would the police
be guilty of voyeurism because they deliberately looked at a man with
exposed genitals who was in a place where he had had an *expectation*
of privacy?
--
Cynic
Alex Heney
wrote:
>On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 23:15:21 +0100, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net>
>wrote:
>
>>>I have some difficulty with the law's definition of a "private act".
>>>Firstly, I do not see how a *man* could be considered to be engaged in
>>>a "private act" by having his breasts exposed. Secondly, there are
>>>naturist resorts where people are routinely naked, and even more
>>>places where women routinely go topless. In such places it cannot be
>>>right for the law to regard as being a "private act" something that
>>>the person routinely does in full public view?
>
>>It doesn't.
>
>>It can ONLY be voyeurism if the person "is in a place which, in the
>>circumstances, would reasonably be expected to provide privacy".
>
>>Which means somewhere that there can be no expectation of being seen.
>
>You misunderstand. I was thinking of a case where the person is in
>such a place, but is clothed in the same way that they are routinely
>seen in public.
>
>e.g. a person is looking into the window of a room in which a topless
>woman is sitting watching TV. But this is at a resort where that same
>woman routinely walks around in public topless.
>
Where would the offence be?
If she had her curtains closed, and somebody was peering in through a
gap that had been left, then maybe.
>Or how about a man sitting in his house without a shirt on? The
>definition does not appear to distiguish between the breasts of a man
>and a woman, so presumably he would be deemed to be engaged in a
>"private act" and the voyeurism law could be used even though in the
>UKa man's breasts are not regarded as having the same sexual
>connotations as a woman's breasts.
They don't exist so far as the law (or anything else except in a
technical medical sense) is concerned.
>
>One other flight of fancy - if the police deliberately keep watch on a
>secluded alleyway and catch a man who urinates in it, would the police
>be guilty of voyeurism because they deliberately looked at a man with
>exposed genitals who was in a place where he had had an *expectation*
>of privacy?
there can be no expectation of privacy in a public place, or in a
place which is visible from a public place.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
URA Redneck if your brother-in-law is also your uncle.
Alex Heney
Wrong.
First, those do not show sufficient detail to identify any person, but
second, there are plenty of places where you simply cannot be seen by
those cameras.
There is certainly IMO no public place where you can have any
expectation of privacy.
But most private indoor spaces, you can (and I don't count places open
to the general public, such as shop sales floors, as "private" in that
statement)
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Going out of my mind, back in 5 minutes.
espty
wrote:
> Roland Perry;501338 Wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In message Doug.Giles.20f2...@legalbanter.co.uk, at 15:15:08 on Sat, 1
> > Mar 2008, Doug Giles Doug.Giles.20f2...@legalbanter.co.uk remarked:--
> > calling 0845 numbers and being held in a queue whilst being charged at
>
> > as much as 49p per minute is an expensive rip-off!-
>
> > I would agree wholeheartedly with that. Which telco is charging you
> > 49p
>
> > for something that should be no more than about 5p?--
> > -
> > Hi Roland,
>
> > They are all shown in the various links I posted,-
>
> > Too many links (and those I tried were all pressure group rants). What
> > I
> > need are some vendor price lists.
> > -
> > but to summarise it is certain CPS providers,-
>
> > Which ones? I looked up mine and it's 5.4p/min peak.
> > -
> > mobile networks-
>
> > 10p/min on mine.
> > -
> > and Public Telephones which are the most expensive.-
>
> > I can't find the price for those easily, which is an issue in itself.
> > -
> > a geographical equivalent number to call-
>
> > Those will always be cheaper, as would an 0800 number.
>
> > But this is a bit of a silly conversation because 0845 as a concept is
> > in its dying days. What you might be better looking at is what sort of
> > numbers people are transferring their 0845 call centres to.
> > --
> > Roland Perry
>
> Roland,
>
> I do not think that my original post was part of "a silly conversation"
> at all, since the point was that I trying to assist the OP to find his
> annuity so as to be able to claim it, and to avoid paying the premium
> for calling an 0845 number with chargeable call queuing, by pointing
> out to him an alternative normal geographic number which he could call.
>
> It has only perhaps become a bit silly since you seem to have homed in
> on this to castigate me for pointing out that the 0845 number could be
> expensive to call. It seems that you have a penchant for calling 0845
> and other non-geographical numbers, and you seem to think they are
> great. If you enjoy calling them and paying the premiums for so doing
> then fine. I have no objection to that. However, you similarly ought
> not to have an objection to those who find the whole scam to be
> unacceptable and try to find ways to avoid it. You talk of "rants"
> about these issues, but frankly it seems to me that it is you that has
> been ranting on this forum about it, just because I warned the OP about
> the 0845 number given for the company which has taken over the liability
> for his annuity. I really do feel now that you have taken this
> completely off the original topic to a point of non-objective argument.
>
> --
> Doug Giles- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Many thanks, Doug for your information.
I did not use the 0845 number but wrote to them and they have
identified my policy and sent me the necessary claims form.
Looks like that I may get my small pension payment after all.
Regards,
espty
Kirti Bajwa
> I have a retirement policy with this group who now seem to have been
> taken over as I am unable to trace them.
> As I am nearing retirement, I would like to collect any benefits owing
> to me.
> Would any-one know if this company still exists, or who has taken over
> them.
Did you get address of "Noble Lowndes....". I have policy with them but I have not found their address!
Philip Hole
And is now administered by: Abbey Life Assurance Company Limited
Their Postal Address is: 100 Holdenhurst Road
Bournemouth
Dorset
BH8 8AQ
Their Telephone Number is: 01202 290 292
Their Fax Number is: 01202 550 558
Flop
Kirti Bajwa
Philip Hole
And is now administered by: Abbey Life Assurance Company Limited
Their Postal Address is: 100 Holdenhurst Road
Bournemouth
Dorset
BH8 8AQ
Their Telephone Number is: 01202 290 292
Their Fax Number is: 01202 550 558
Flop