Starmer dumps doormat?

[Roland Perry]

In article 
<AANLkTi=uESsKWL9MF-WafUfGSVZ1N3enGsw=ZFmZvMaa at mail.gmail.com>, Matthew 
Pemble <matthew at pemble.net> writes
>On 22 January 2011 11:17, Roland Perry <lists at internetpolicyagency.com>
>wrote:
>  In article <731509C0-5F9D-4D2B-91ED-21B0FA91FA05 at batten.eu.org>, Ian
>  Batten <igb at batten.eu.org> writes
>
>  Perhaps the sender has given consent by leaving the message on what
>  he can presumably identify as an answering machine service that
>  might be accessed by multiple household members, and the recipient
>  similarly has given consent for all household members to dial 1571.
>
>In which case, are you lawfully allowed to listen passed the "traffic
>data", "This is a message for Jennifer"?

Etiquette would sometimes decree that one stopped listening, yes; but my 
observation is that in the overwhelming number of cases in *our* 
household, even if the message is *for* Jennifer, she'd expect me to 
listen to it and relay it to her. And we'd want to avoid the "why didn't 
you tell me so-and-so called" scenario, and you might not get the "who" 
until the end of the message!

In a bit of thread convergence with NHS issues, I note that they 
withhold their number, and are much coyer about what messages they 
leave, or what they say to "other people" who answer the phone. So to 
some extent custom and practice is "sender beware".

>And do you want, hypothetically, your kids listening to some of your
>messages? Even though you can stop them dialling 1571 (at, least, not
>without attracting the attention of the s.s.)

Dialling 1571 appears to be in the same camp as putting their clothes 
away in the wardrobe and loading dirty plates into the dishwasher - they 
don't seem to understand how it's done. (Unlike setting the VCR, where 
they are better at it than the adults).
-- 
Roland Perry