Michael <michael@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Paul Day" <pauls@enigma.id.au> wrote in message
> news:1209290291.798791@colossus.enigma.id.au...
>> On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 19:33:11 Horry may have written:
>>>> as she has not "reported" the theft of the phone the debate over
>>>> who has
>>>> to pay is irrelevant, the phone owner/account holder is
>>>> responsible. FULL STOP
>>>
>>> There's no "debate" over who has to pay the phone company, stupid.
>>
>> Isn't there? Can her phone company prove _she_ consented to the 19
>> number charges?
>
> "She" doesnt need to consent. "She" is the legal lessee of the
> service, regardless of who uses the service.

Unlikely given her age.

> She/Police can try to take that person to court to recoup costs, but "she" is still legally liable for the debt

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a fucking clue.