rhino666
-
Posts
170 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Post article
CAGMag
Blogs
Keywords
Everything posted by rhino666
-
Why is government website carrying fake jobs?
rhino666 replied to 45002's topic in Benefits and HMRC
Talk about burying your head in the sand! -
Why is government website carrying fake jobs?
rhino666 replied to 45002's topic in Benefits and HMRC
Recruitment consultancy is the last refuge of someone with no administration skills!! I've never been able to work out why employers use them so much bearing in mind how useless most of them are, yet they entrust these people to find suitable employees when recruiter can't suitable people to themselves!!! and employs someone with absolutely no knowledge of the subject they're recruiting for. -
Why is government website carrying fake jobs?
rhino666 replied to 45002's topic in Benefits and HMRC
Have a read of this. http://blog.emptylemon.co.uk/2011/08/why-you-should-avoid-most-it-recruitment-agencies/ http://www.contractoruk.com/agencies/recruitment_agency_tricks.html http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=3802177 http://evenitup.wordpress.com/2009/01/21/dealing-with-recruitment-agencies/ -
They (GEIL ) had 12 months to do their work. That 12 months is now well and truly up! From march 2012 that they had to destroy the IP addresses on their CD evidence after 12 months AND write to the people they'd written to letting them know their records had been destroyed. GEIL have NOT done this.
-
Why is government website carrying fake jobs?
rhino666 replied to 45002's topic in Benefits and HMRC
The positions you've been applying for DO NOT EXIST !!!! They're made up, just like the bogey man and the fairy tales in Narnia. What it needs is a body away from the agencies and the government to police these parasites and have some teeth to name and shame or prosecute. I know it's being extreme what's required is for an policing body to make random spot checks in offices. If that agency can't provide the name of a company that's associated with a job position heads should roll!! -
Why is government website carrying fake jobs?
rhino666 replied to 45002's topic in Benefits and HMRC
The big jobsites are just as bad if not worse. Jobsite.co.uk, Monster, indeed, CV library and if you do manage to find a genuine job the agency is the next barrier. If they're swamped which they are, the chances of getting a reply are slim to none, You've no guarantee they've even submitted you for the job EVEN if you fulfil the criteria for the job AND the agency has said they're putting you forward for it, if you're unsuccessful at an interview the chances of them( the agency ) wasting any more of their valuable time on you and letting you know the results are slim to none... after all why should they let you know, there's nothing in it for them. The truth of the matter is this country is still in a mess and its being disguised by all manor of tricks not just by the Govt. The agencies are exacerbating the problem to and there's no one to haul them in and stop these practices because if they were hauled in a lot them would go out of business!! -
Why is government website carrying fake jobs?
rhino666 replied to 45002's topic in Benefits and HMRC
1/3 !!! I think you'll find its a lot more than a 1/3. Its dominated by agencies they aren't checked and DO NOT have to pay anything to put up an ad. What do they get out of this. It gives them more credibility when approaching an employer to use t when there is a genuine vacancy to say they have 0000's of CV. Most the ads on there are just links to other sites like indeed and CV library which eventually result in.........NOTHING!!! It's a friggin joke! -
Sureley a point that should stand for EVERYONE now and in the future is : How are you supposed to know if something is copyrighted if there's no copyright warning before you download or watch something.
-
Looks like more people are trying to get in on Golden Eyes act. ( from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25347913) Thousands of Germans are reported to have been sent letters asking them to pay a fee for porn they are alleged to have streamed illegally online. Law firm Urmann (U+C) is acting on behalf of Swiss copyright protection firm the Archive, and is asking for one-off payments of 250 euros (£210). It confirmed to the BBC that the letters have been sent but would not say how many. A growing number of affected people are claiming to be wrongly accused. According to a German news site, more than 10,000 people are affected. The German case is one of the first to target people accused of streaming rather than downloading pornography. In this case U+C is targeting users who, they claim, have viewed content from porn-streaming site Redtube. The law firm was unwilling to speak about its work to the BBC. Neither was the Archive available for comment. In a twist, its campaign appears to have been taken up by cybercriminals who are sending out fake emails purporting to come from U+C but containing malicious software. It led the law firm to issue a warning on its website urging people not to open the emails. "Fake warnings on behalf of U+C have been sent by email. This email does not come from the law firm. Warnings on behalf of our clients are shipped exclusively by mail," it said. Real evidence The practice of law firms pursuing alleged copyright infringers has become a growing concern in recent years. "In previous cases like this, we've seen some people pushed into paying up when they may have done nothing wrong," said Peter Bradwell of the Open Rights Group. "It can seem more expensive or embarrassing to challenge the accusation. "If a company wants to write to people it claims have infringed their copyright, a court needs to at least make sure the evidence they have is of a high standard and that letters being sent are fair and easy to understand."
-
no i haven't. just in case anyone is watching , a rather large retail has more than enough evidence in the archives to prove downloading isnt necessary.
-
This is from Wiki. Could someone confirm that this is 100% true: because I'm still confused as to how they're pursuing people for films that aren't theirs. On 9 March 2012, Golden Eye went to court in an attempt to obtain an Norwich Pharmacal Order (NPO) for the details of over 9,000 IP addresses from internet service provider O2 (UK)/Telefónica Europe (an internet provider with previous form of not contesting NPO's) in order to service further "speculative invoicing" letters to alleged copyright infringers. Golden Eye were questioned by statutory consumer organisation Consumer Focus regarding the company's ability (or lack of) to connect an IP address with the account holder, the company's role in relation to the copyrights involved and the amount being demanded, which they stated was "far and above the likely actual damages".[68][69] On 26 March 2012,[70] the High Court ordered O2 to hand over the details of 9,124 of its customers details to Golden Eye. However, the judge deemed the proposed £700 fine to be "unsupported and unsupportable" and that the bill payer couldn't automatically be assumed to be guilty of any alleged copyright violation,[71] and therefore any claim made by Golden Eye/Ben Dover Productions/Optime Strategies Ltd couldn't move forward unless the recipient of the company's speculative invoicing letters admitted their own guilt[72] due to the fact that evidence used is unreliable. The wording of any such letters would also be severely restricted, and the "precise wording of the order and of the letter of claim" would be decided at a further hearing.[70] Consumer Focus welcomed the ruling that bill payers couldn't automatically be assumed to be guilty of any alleged copyright violation on their internet connection, commenting that "Consumers should not be subject to the type of threatening letters Golden Eye intended to send to more than 9,000 O2 customers".[73] Golden Eye's lawyer admitted that taking a test case to court would not be cost effective, and therefore the company didn't intend on taking any cases to court and that they relied on those accused paying their "fine".[69] In July 2012, the High Court ruled that Golden Eye would only be granted access to data in relation to Ben Dover Production films, not the titles by twelve other production companies that Golden Eye were acting on behalf of (including Terry Stephen's One Eyed Jack Productions and Justin Ribeiro Dos Santos's Joybear Pictures[74]) and would take 75% of any "damages" paid, which Mr Justice Arnold stated "would be tantamount to the court sanctioning the sale of the intended defendants’ privacy and data protection rights to the highest bidder".[75] This meant that Golden Eye would only be able to target 2,845 of its original target of over 9,000 households.[76] It was revealed in December 2012 that the IP data supplied to O2 (UK)/Telefónica Europe by Golden Eye, from 2,850 alleged copyright infringements of Ben Dover Production films could only be matched to less than 1,000 individuals.[77] In an interview with Vice, Honey claimed his income had dropped 90% in two years and admitted his reasons for his involvement in speculative invoicing was that "if I can't make money out of porn, the only way I can make money is to get to the people who are not buying it".[45]
-
Could anyone tell me isn't this called black mail which is a police matter. The bill payer is my wife so all court threats have gone to her. today she received a letter giving her just under a month to provide evidence of her whereabouts to prove it wasn't her at the PC. Still to this date we've received NO evidence from them confirming the bill payer is the person behind the PC. I'd the other hand would rather they directed their attentions towards me directly , where I have a nasty surprise up my sleeve for them which can't be denied in court but my other half is won't let me talk to them or offer my own name rather than hers. How is this not blackmail ?
-
Doesn't matter , he's still getting paid for it and waving two fingers at the companies !
-
"They told You and Yours: "Premium rate numbers are not designed to be used in this way and we would strongly discourage any listeners from adopting this idea, as they will be liable under our code for any breaches and subsequent fines that result." Why? how else can it be used ? The lines are being used correctly.
-
If anyone went on to SELL the film they've downloaded they'd be quite right to sue for a loss. and what also needs questioning is their "INDEPENDENT" expert witness". Independent to who? Not me.... I didn't ask him but they're paying him so how does that make him independent?
-
So the person a few pages back was wrong!......Not that it's an issue. I just can't see how GEIL can identify a the person at a PC unless they send round people to snoop through peoples curtains.
-
The remark was meant in relation to the way they are conducting themselves.. e.g films that aren't there's directly when the court said they can only go after people who have down loaded GEIL films, and the rest of what they shouldn't be doing is listed here: http://acsbore.wordpress.com/
-
If GEIL are not following court procedure surely they can be reported for this.
-
Point taken. No response unless it's absolutely necessary.
-
They have funding arrangements with the other companies yet they're complaining about a film that isn't even there's when a judge has said they can only take people to court for their own films. So how is this even possible to get this far. In July 2012, the High Court ruled that Golden Eye would only be granted access to data in relation to Ben Dover Production films, not the titles by twelve other production companies that Golden Eye were acting on behalf
-
"ignore them why are you even giving tem the time of day" I have to. I can do without court and not paying these monkeys money for nothing.
-
Am I the only person being put through this ???
-
The problem I have here is that supplying this info can only be done if the matter is taken to court because it would involve tell GEIL where I was and which which hospital patients I was attending away from hospital premises.
-
Can I refuse without prejudice letters ?
-
Help! A response , but not the one I wanted. AND a without prejudice letter. Can I refuse these ?
Latest
Our Picks
Reclaim the right Ltd
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS