Slashdot Mirror

The UK Telephone preference service states in their FAQ that Residential or Sole Trader numbers do not need to be renewed, however corporate numbers (for corporations who do not want to be bothered by other corporations making unsolicited sales calls) do need to renew their CTPS subscription every year.

Interestingly, they ask that if you move, but maintain the same telephone number, to contact them. It may be implied from this (although I have found no evidence) that ceased telephone numbers are removed from the list in some automated telco-DMA manner, which would make sense (but since when as making sense had anything to do with real life?)

Interestingly, the Telephone Preference Service is a supression list service maintained by the direct marketing association, but is a regulatory requirement specified in the Privacy and Electronic Communcations (EC Directive) Regulations 2003 which states that it is OFCOM's (the regulator) responsibility to maintain such a list.

Confused? I am... (although having been a TPS subscriber on all my lines for some years, it does appear to work).

And if it were not within six months, they sold you the warranty. Which means that the warranty itself has to fulfil reasonable expectations - so they have to provide a service that a 'reasonable individual' would consider satisfactory. There are also ways to complain about unfair contract terms (I think it's Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999).

They have offered a guarantee on top of statutory rights; they may also see fit to sell a warranty, which is basically an insurance policy. Consumer rights on the guarantee are set out in http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2002/20023045.htm (see 'Consumer Guarantees'), so you can sue on the basis of their failure to keep to the terms of the contract.

There's a nice example of failure to keep to the terms in the Trading Standards leaflet on the topic. They also suggest some strategies for solving this sort of problem.

Communications Act 2003 ( http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/20030021.htm )

368
Meanings of television receiver and use
(1)
In this Part television receiver means any apparatus of a description specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State setting out the descriptions of apparatus that are to be television receivers for the purposes of this Part. ( http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/ukpga_2003002 1_en_34#pt4-l1g363 )

-----

Statutory Instrument 2004 No. 692

The Communications (Television Licensing) Regulations 2004

( http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2004/20040692.htm )

Part III

Meaning of "television receiver"
          9. - (1) In Part 4 of the Act (licensing of TV reception), "television receiver" means any apparatus installed or used for the purpose of receiving (whether by means of wireless telegraphy or otherwise) any television programme service, whether or not it is installed or used for any other purpose.

        (2) In this regulation, any reference to receiving a television programme service includes a reference to receiving by any means any programme included in that service, where that programme is received at the same time (or virtually the same time) as it is received by members of the public by virtue of its being broadcast or distributed as part of that service.

Communications Act 2003 ( http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/20030021.htm )

368
Meanings of television receiver and use
(1)
In this Part television receiver means any apparatus of a description specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State setting out the descriptions of apparatus that are to be television receivers for the purposes of this Part. ( http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/ukpga_2003002 1_en_34#pt4-l1g363 )

-----

Statutory Instrument 2004 No. 692

The Communications (Television Licensing) Regulations 2004

( http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2004/20040692.htm )

Part III

Meaning of "television receiver"
          9. - (1) In Part 4 of the Act (licensing of TV reception), "television receiver" means any apparatus installed or used for the purpose of receiving (whether by means of wireless telegraphy or otherwise) any television programme service, whether or not it is installed or used for any other purpose.

        (2) In this regulation, any reference to receiving a television programme service includes a reference to receiving by any means any programme included in that service, where that programme is received at the same time (or virtually the same time) as it is received by members of the public by virtue of its being broadcast or distributed as part of that service.

Communications Act 2003 ( http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/20030021.htm )

368
Meanings of television receiver and use
(1)
In this Part television receiver means any apparatus of a description specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State setting out the descriptions of apparatus that are to be television receivers for the purposes of this Part. ( http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/ukpga_2003002 1_en_34#pt4-l1g363 )

-----

Statutory Instrument 2004 No. 692

The Communications (Television Licensing) Regulations 2004

( http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2004/20040692.htm )

Part III

Meaning of "television receiver"
          9. - (1) In Part 4 of the Act (licensing of TV reception), "television receiver" means any apparatus installed or used for the purpose of receiving (whether by means of wireless telegraphy or otherwise) any television programme service, whether or not it is installed or used for any other purpose.

        (2) In this regulation, any reference to receiving a television programme service includes a reference to receiving by any means any programme included in that service, where that programme is received at the same time (or virtually the same time) as it is received by members of the public by virtue of its being broadcast or distributed as part of that service.

It's not the EU law that matters, but how it's implemented in UK law (my emphasis):

Copyright in a literary work, other than a computer program or a database, or in a dramatic, musical or artistic work, the typographical arrangement of a published edition, a sound recording or a film, is not infringed by the making of a temporary copy which is transient or incidental...

You can see the full text here. I guess computer games (being both computer programs and artistic works) are a bit of a grey area, but computer programs aren't. Or have I missed more recent legislation? Of course, IANAL.

I'm assuming that section 125 of the Communications Act is the relevant section... somebody else further up the page posted it.

Whether or not you are avoiding a charge seems to be the important point, and makes the difference between connecting to, say, an anonymous FTP server on the internet (where there is no charge), and the internet via a home wireless network (where there is a charge for the broadband connection being avoided).

• 125 Dishonestly obtaining electronic communications services
  • (1)
    A person who--
    • (a) dishonestly obtains an electronic communications service, and
    • (b)does so with intent to avoid payment of a charge applicable to the provision of that service,
    is guilty of an offence.
  • (2)
    It is not an offence under this section to obtain a service mentioned in section 297(1) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (c. 48) (dishonestly obtaining a broadcasting or cable programme service provided from a place in the UK).
  • (3)
    A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable--
    • (a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both;
    • (b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to a fine, or to both.

Here's the relevant section of the Computer Misuse Act 1990:

• 1 Unauthorised access to computer material
  • (1)
    A person is guilty of an offence if--
    • (a) he causes a computer to perform any function with intent to secure access to any program or data held in any computer;
    • (b) the access he intends to secure is unauthorised; and
    • (c) he knows at the time when he causes the computer to perform the function that that is the case.
  • (2)
    The intent a person has to have to commit an offence under this section need not be directed at--
    • (a) any particular program or data;
    • (b) a program or data of any particular kind; or
    • (c) a program or data held in any particular computer.
  • (3)
    A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to both.

• 125 Dishonestly obtaining electronic communications services
  • (1)
    A person who--
    • (a) dishonestly obtains an electronic communications service, and
    • (b)does so with intent to avoid payment of a charge applicable to the provision of that service,
    is guilty of an offence.
  • (2)
    It is not an offence under this section to obtain a service mentioned in section 297(1) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (c. 48) (dishonestly obtaining a broadcasting or cable programme service provided from a place in the UK).
  • (3)
    A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable--
    • (a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both;
    • (b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to a fine, or to both.

Here's the relevant section of the Computer Misuse Act 1990:

• 1 Unauthorised access to computer material
  • (1)
    A person is guilty of an offence if--
    • (a) he causes a computer to perform any function with intent to secure access to any program or data held in any computer;
    • (b) the access he intends to secure is unauthorised; and
    • (c) he knows at the time when he causes the computer to perform the function that that is the case.
  • (2)
    The intent a person has to have to commit an offence under this section need not be directed at--
    • (a) any particular program or data;
    • (b) a program or data of any particular kind; or
    • (c) a program or data held in any particular computer.
  • (3)
    A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to both.

Read the F'ing Legal Opinion...

IANAL, but the lead opinion by Judge Posner on WGN v. United Video can be found here: http://www.projectposner.org/case/1982/693F2d622

In a nutshell, it was ruled a copyright violation for United Video, a satellite carrier, to replace WGN's content embedded in teletext (or the use of the vertical blanking interval to transmit content to tv watchers) with its own content when relaying WGN's broadcasts to cable television.

Why? Because WGN owned the programming and paid United Video to transmit the programming in total; this included news stories and station guides embedded in the vblank.

Specifically, Judge Posner states: "The cable system selects the signals it wants to retransmit, pays the copyright owners for the right to retransmit their programs, and pays the intermediate carrier a fee for getting the signal from the broadcast station to the cable system. The intermediate carrier pays the copyright owners nothing, provided it really is passive in relation to what it transmits, like a telephone company..."

He continues, and mentions viewers/users: "The cable system planned to run the teletext on a different channel (which the viewer would select, if we understand correctly, by pushing a button on the decoder) from the one on which it runs the nine o'clock news. But the cable system never received the teletext. United Video did not retransmit it along with the nine o'clock news but instead substituted teletext supplied by Dow Jones, containing business news. WGN and its affiliate brought this suit to enjoin, as a copyright infringement, United Video's failure to retransmit WGN's teletext along with the nine o'clock news."

The issue in question (in 1982, mind you) was never that of users circumventing embedded commercials, which they could easily do by simply a) not pressing the decoder button, b) not switching the channel to view the commercial, or c) not buying the decoder in the first place. The issue was that United Video was specifically paid a fee by the cable system to retransmit programming. It interfered instead; users/viewers were not part of the contractual loop. I.e., there is no implied consent to third parties in any contractual agreement - you pay me $.02 each time someone loads an ad. If no one loads them, that is your problem, not mine.

However, the actions of Danny Carlton, registrant of Whyfirefoxisblocked.com, aka Jack Lewis of JackLewis.net, aka Danny Carlton of Dannycarlton.com, may very well fall into the category of a Denial of Service attack, with all the liabilities that entails. In the UK, these are legal.

According to the UK Computer Misuse Act of 1990, Section 3.(2), and as amended in the Police and Justice Bill of 2006, Part 5, Section 34 & 35:

"For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) above the requisite intent is an intent to do the act in question and by so doing--

(a) to impair the operation of any computer,

(b) to prevent or hinder access to any program or data held in any computer, or

(c) to impair the operation of any such program or the reliability of any such data, whether permanently or temporarily."

Blocking a specified browser is nothing more than a Denial of Service attack in another form.

Why? Because the access holder/user (i.e. cable or Internet subscriber) pays the service provider for access to the Internet, which the service provider then, well, provides. Service providers then connect to other service providers to access data on other servers and other computers, which is transmitted over cables, phone lines, etc. Advertisers pay domain holders or website owners to display ads on their sites, or to pay by the click.

The doma

Statutory Instrument 1999 No. 2083
The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999


Terms
          5. - (1) A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.

        (2) A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term.

        (3) Notwithstanding that a specific term or certain aspects of it in a contract has been individually negotiated, these Regulations shall apply to the rest of a contract if an overall assessment of it indicates that it is a pre-formulated standard contract.

        (4) It shall be for any seller or supplier who claims that a term was individually negotiated to show that it was.

        (5) Schedule 2 to these Regulations contains an indicative and non-exhaustive list of the terms which may be regarded as unfair.

Assessment of unfair terms
          6. - (1) Without prejudice to regulation 12, the unfairness of a contractual term shall be assessed, taking into account the nature of the goods or services for which the contract was concluded and by referring, at the time of conclusion of the contract, to all the circumstances attending the conclusion of the contract and to all the other terms of the contract or of another contract on which it is dependent.

        (2) In so far as it is in plain intelligible language, the assessment of fairness of a term shall not relate-

            (a) to the definition of the main subject matter of the contract, or

            (b) to the adequacy of the price or remuneration, as against the goods or services supplied in exchange.

Effect of unfair term
          8. - (1) An unfair term in a contract concluded with a consumer by a seller or supplier shall not be binding on the consumer.

        (2) The contract shall continue to bind the parties if it is capable of continuing in existence without the unfair term.

SCHEDULE 2
Regulation 5(5)

INDICATIVE AND NON-EXHAUSTIVE LIST OF TERMS WHICH MAY BE REGARDED AS UNFAIR

          1. Terms which have the object or effect of-

(q) excluding or hindering the consumer's right to take legal action or exercise any other legal remedy, particularly by requiring the consumer to take disputes exclusively to arbitration not covered by legal provisions, unduly restricting the evidence available to him or imposing on him a burden of proof which, according to the applicable law, should lie with another party to the contract.

> In the UK it's highly arguable if using a camcorder in a cinema is a criminal (rather than civil) offence,

"Highly arguable"? You make it sound like copyright infringement hasn't been a criminal offence in the UK for almost 20 years.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_1988004 8_en_1.htm

Do you mean Section 63? Section 58 concerns the taking of intimate samples. Literally taking the piss.

Or was your post some kind of elaborate pun?

Do you mean Section 63? Section 58 concerns the taking of intimate samples. Literally taking the piss.

Or was your post some kind of elaborate pun?

Did the photographer need permission to take that photograph? Does he/she have the right to release it under such a license?

No. The church has the right to make agreement not to take photographs a condition of entry to the cathedral, but as far as I know it doesn't, which means there's no restriction on taking such photographs. Even if it did, photographs could be taken from outside the private area.

Is there a U.K. law violated in any of that?

No, and the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act of 1988 is quite explicit about this.

FYI: I DID PAY FOR THE CONTENT!!!

I am required by law to pay a sum of money to own a device capable of recieving TV signals.

I have no objegtion to locking content to the UK's borders, I reside within such borders.

However the DRM is being used to block my access, me, a British National and resident in the UK for my entire life. Apparently I am not British enough? To prove I am British I need to pay hundereds of pounds to a FORIEGN company before I am permitted access to said content. Would you care to explain that?

I do so like your insiuation that although I pay sums of money to the TLA that still doesn't give me any right to access content I payed for. Though it gives rights to foriegn corporations!

The BBC is clearly violating it's agreement, AFAIK it is prohibited from "interfering in comercial markets", yet they require purchase of expensive licenses and software to access there content, and this money goes to a private entity.

Once again Ofcom has fialed in it's duty under Part 1 Section 3 of the Cummunications Act 2003.
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/20030021.htm

I think the focus is in the wrong place, the BBC has shown it will ignore it's legal and moral responsibilities to the British public. We should not be asking them to do what they are required to do. We should be asking the appropriate legal authorities to prosecute the BBC to the fullest extent possible under British law for the violations it has commited.

When you find someone who breaks into your house repeatedly do you ask him to stop till he does, or do you phone the police and have the scum bag sent to jail. Why is this ANY different?

As Usual IANAL

DRM free content? Absolutely. I have to pay my TV license every year for the BBC. For the most part, I think it is value for money. The BBC news site is worth the license fee all by itself. For comparison, I pay about a third of the cost of a license on a Slashdot subscription each year and Slashdot is less than a third of the quality.

However, I'm of the opinion that if you're going to force people to pay for a service through a tax, then the products of that government service should be free in the BSD style sense of the word. In fact, I'd go as far as saying that this needs to be codified in to law. In fact, we may already have in the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Having just read the first section of the act, you could make a questionable legal argument that if you make a request for the unDRMED content and they fail to give you that version they are in breach of the act. If you have to buy a Windows machine just to watch one of their publicly broadcast snippets I'd say that obstructs the request for the information sufficiently for it to become unlawful. No other department is free to restrict requests in that manner!

We've already paid for the service so give us the bloody content in a usable format!

Simon

In this case it's about the illegal use of resources - botnets work by hacking PCs and using them to send mail via their Internet connections, which in most countries would be punishable under their equivalent of the UK Wireless Telegraphy Act (actually I think the 2006 revision changed that, but the principle is still there) irrespective of the content in the spam. Also, the vast percentage of spam promotes illegal or semi-illegal products or is a front for scams. Yes, anyone who responds to spam is a fool, but in the end, if they're conned out of anything than a crime has been committed somewhere.

The British Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 will inform you that such activity includes "failure to secure regular attendance at school of registered pupil", and "if a constable in uniform has reasonable grounds for believing that the presence or behaviour of a group of two or more persons in any public place in the relevant locality has resulted, or is likely to result, in any members of the public being intimidated, harassed, alarmed or distressed.", but thankfully neither "failure to prominently display one or more approved insignias," nor "failure to convey a positive attitude." We may have to wait for the next draft for the latter two.

...so I'm not sure whether these people were potentially "guilty". See Fraud Act 2006. We need advice from a lawyer.

The KJV is "Crown Copyright" (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/advice/crown-copyright/ind ex.htm), ie, not copyrighted by an individual but by the monarchy. Presumably it would go into public domain 80 years after the UK became a republic, but I bet that the incoming republican government would outdo Disney in its attempts to maintain copyright on government documents (which is what Crown Copyright mainly applies to). Most of the rest of the world doesn't acknowledge Crown Copyright, but we have to here in the UK!

In short, what's the point in voting when both parties are equally as corrupt and when the decisions taken there never effect you?

Well on the 3rd of May I'll have the choice of at least seven parties on the regional list, all with a reasonable chance of being elected. But the constituency vote is the same old nonsense where I have to vote Lib Dem to keep the Tories out. I think there's room for improvement here...

A politics where issues are not decided based on the party your belong to but what improves the lives of the people of the country.

Basically, I think party allegiances should be banned from the constituency vote, so that those elected have a responsibility to the voters and the voters only.

Think about this for a second, think of one piece of legislation passed in the last ten years that has positively impacted anyone you know in the first world?

You couldn't have thought very hard. Off the top of my head...

• The Smoking, Health and Social Care (Scotland) Act 2005
• Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003
• The Graduate Endowment (Scotland) Regulations 2001

...have all benefited me personally.

Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 "If any person with the appropriate permission under Schedule 2 believes, on reasonable grounds- (a) that a key to the protected information is in the possession of any person, ... the person with that permission may, by notice to the person whom he believes to have possession of the key, impose a disclosure requirement in respect of the protected information."

And that's when you're allowed to protest in the UK.

(Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 prevents protest or demonstration within 1km of parliament)

Oops that should be European Convention of Human Rights; the implementation into UK law, the Human Rights Act, is here. The relevant part would be articles 4 and 5. Article 3, prohibition of torture and inhumane treatment is also a good one...

Like most tools of Big Media, he just ripped off someone else's work, namely the English Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

Are you sure the UK doesn't have a bill of rights?

> I CAN force Microsoft to reveal all information they hold about me

Here's a link to Microsoft UK's data protection registration information, for the curious:

http://www.esd.informationcommissioner.gov.uk/esd/ DoSearch.asp?reg=3273345

However, if you paid your £10 and asked, he answer would probably be "nothing". The definition of "personal data" in the Data Protection Act (which you can read online at http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts1998/80029--a.htm - do have a look, it's not too hard to decipher; all EU states have essentially equivalent legislation) is

  "personal data" means data which relate to a living individual who can be identified-
      (a) from those data, or
      (b) from those data and other information which is in the possession of, or is likely to come into the possession of, the data controller.

I think they would claim that they cannot identify you from the information that they record. Any thoughts?

Better yet, it's an extraditable offence.

Although extradition with the USA seems to be a one-sided agreement at the moment.

"This is likely part of agreements made in secret host city dealings with the Olympic committees. It seems to happen in all other host cities"

Or in whole countries. Here's the UK version, from 1995:

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1995/Ukpga_1995003 2_en_2.htm#mdiv2

More recently when London decided to host an olympics, they also felt that this piece of legislation was necessary:

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/20060012.htm

"This is likely part of agreements made in secret host city dealings with the Olympic committees. It seems to happen in all other host cities"

Or in whole countries. Here's the UK version, from 1995:

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1995/Ukpga_1995003 2_en_2.htm#mdiv2

More recently when London decided to host an olympics, they also felt that this piece of legislation was necessary:

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/20060012.htm

In the UK, I believe this kind of thing falls foul of the Computer Misuse Act - deleting the user's home directory in this example seems pretty well covered by the Act as being an offence.

This is illegal in the UK. It quite clearly falls under Section 3 of the Misuse of Computers Act 1990.

The fact that the aggrieved party may have been committing a crime by using the software without authorisation does not alter anything. Two wrongs do not make a right. Deleting files from a user's home directory goes above and beyond reasonable force and is a criminal offence punishable by five years' imprisonment and/or a fine.

This is illegal in the UK. It quite clearly falls under Section 3 of the Misuse of Computers Act 1990.

The fact that the aggrieved party may have been committing a crime by using the software without authorisation does not alter anything. Two wrongs do not make a right. Deleting files from a user's home directory goes above and beyond reasonable force and is a criminal offence punishable by five years' imprisonment and/or a fine.

I'm not aware that bit changed eg the Negative Resolution Procedure requires that Parliament put forward a motion opposing the order within 40 days:
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/60051--b.htm# 16

Presumably the Govt can still guillotine any debate there.

even the stupid TV-License (gosh, I have received tens of "this is the final advice, we are knocking down your door next time").

Something I've been waiting for someone to try for a while. If you've informed them that you don't have a TV (or, conversely, do have a licence), but they continue sending the letters anyway, they may be in breach of the Malicious Communications Act, 1988.

It'd be fun trying it, at least. :)

Do try to keep up, Colonial chums.

Do try to keep up, Colonial chums.

I've always wondered why New Labour have passed laws to rewrite the constitution at whim, to arbitrarily punish innocent people and perform mass-surveillance at a level that Orwell never dreamed of... knowing that the people they most fear, the Tory Party, would be guaranteed to win the next election.

I've always wondered why New Labour have passed laws to rewrite the constitution at whim, to arbitrarily punish innocent people and perform mass-surveillance at a level that Orwell never dreamed of... knowing that the people they most fear, the Tory Party, would be guaranteed to win the next election.

IANAL but given the text of this act: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/60035--a.htm I can imagine laywers having a field day in any court case involving shill bidding on ebay.

The times is alas as much of a rag these days as the mail so I rarely take any of its statements on face value.

As for shill bidding on ebay, especially if you are just a private individual and it was your friend that did the being, being prosecutable under that act... well I'll wait till I hear something a little more authorative that posts on /. or an article on the times. eg the result of a court case prosecuting this!

I'm not saying I agree with it, I don't. I also know for a fact it goes on all the time. But its not likely to stop any time soon, so when I bid on items I plan accordingly.

In this case the relevant legislation for you to look at is the Police Act 1997, sections 91 and following.

Well they could have taken a walk down to the DC and plugged directly into whatever server was being used. However British Computer Law is pretty indepth, and for anyone interested have a read: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1990/Ukpga_1990001 8_en_2.htm#mdiv1 "Saving for certain law enforcement powers. 10. Section 1(1) above has effect without prejudice to the operation-- (a) in England and Wales of any enactment relating to powers of inspection, search or seizure; and (b) in Scotland of any enactment or rule of law relating to powers of examination, search or seizure."

Wrong, nowhere in the Data Protection Act 1998 does it allow the subject of data retention (I.E. you) to request unmitigated deletion of data held. You can go to court to ask the judge to rule on deletion or correction (at the courts discretion) of incorrect or inappropriate data, but theres no clause held within the Act of Parliament to force a company to delete appropriate and correct retained data on request.

Many 'law' firms on the Internet have it wrong when they are suggesting deletion on request is required. Its very easy to check on these things, UK law is written plainly and available to the public:

1998 Data Protection Act

There has been no relevent update or amendment to this Act that adds the above rights either.

Well, you've got another one here. My family spans the changeover - I'm 27 and was taught 100% metric units at school, whereas my older (+10 yrs) sisters had the misfortune of having to learn both. I have no clue about metric units beyond what's needed for those still superficially in use, i.e. miles and pints.

I say superficial because a) there are very few examples left and they're all dying out, and b) UK 'imperial' measurements were all re-defined as multiples of metric units a while ago anyway - for instance a pint is legally defined as 0.568 litres (usually rounded up to 570ml for obvious reasons).

I think the point about things like miles and pints is that the unit is really disconnected from the quantity - even in 100% metric Ireland you still buy a pint of beer. We might still drive miles but and until someone justifies spending x100 odd million to change the road signage - the real barrier I think - it doesn't really matter. The real last vestige of imperial units are stones, pounds and ounces for weight and they'll take care of themselves.

Of course, there are the occurrences where we've long since forgotten what the numbers actually mean - for instance, it always amuses me that you can go to the local builder's merchants and buy 10 metres of 4x2.

Britain has no such explicit, written right to free speech as the First Amendment