An elderly friend just rang me. His wife is gradually going blind, and
now she can't see the TV at all really,so he applied for the blind
concession licence and got it, but then got a demand for a hospital
letter. There was a prolonged exchange of letters, mostly centring
around the delays in getting a letter from the consultant (because she
is due to have tests and treatment that might slow down the
deterioration a bit). The TV licence people rang him this afternoon and
said that if he didn't send a cheque for the remaining £79 they would
cut off his TV reception. He rang me to ask if this was possible.

Is this the way we should treat an 87 year old citizen?

Bill

On 20/07/2021 19:23, williamwright wrote:
>
> An elderly friend just rang me. His wife is gradually going blind, and
> now she can't see the TV at all really,so he applied for the blind
> concession licence and got it, but then got a demand for a hospital
> letter.  There was a prolonged exchange of letters, mostly centring
> around the delays in getting a letter from the consultant (because she
> is due to have tests and treatment that might slow down the
> deterioration a bit). The TV licence people rang him this afternoon and
> said that if he didn't send a cheque for the remaining £79 they would
> cut off his TV reception. He rang me to ask if this was possible.
>
> Is this the way we should treat an 87 year old citizen?

No.

But what can we do about it here? Apart from, as you probably did, tell
him that they were talking bollocks, and that the worst that can happen
to him is a visit by the licensing crew.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 20/07/2021 19:23, williamwright wrote:
> Is this the way we should treat an 87 year old citizen?

Sounds more like a scam.

On 20/07/2021 07:36 pm, Java Jive wrote:

> On 20/07/2021 19:23, williamwright wrote:
>>
>> An elderly friend just rang me. His wife is gradually going blind, and
>> now she can't see the TV at all really,so he applied for the blind
>> concession licence and got it, but then got a demand for a hospital
>> letter.  There was a prolonged exchange of letters, mostly centring
>> around the delays in getting a letter from the consultant (because she
>> is due to have tests and treatment that might slow down the
>> deterioration a bit). The TV licence people rang him this afternoon
>> and said that if he didn't send a cheque for the remaining £79 they
>> would cut off his TV reception. He rang me to ask if this was possible.
>>
>> Is this the way we should treat an 87 year old citizen?
>
> No.
>
> But what can we do about it here?  Apart from, as you probably did, tell
> him that they were talking bollocks, and that the worst that can happen
> to him is a visit by the licensing crew.

But the threat sounds like the sort of thing a BBC minion might attempt
for an easy win.

On Tue, 20 Jul 2021 19:36:38 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:

>On 20/07/2021 19:23, williamwright wrote:
>>
>> An elderly friend just rang me. His wife is gradually going blind, and
>> now she can't see the TV at all really,so he applied for the blind
>> concession licence and got it, but then got a demand for a hospital
>> letter.  There was a prolonged exchange of letters, mostly centring
>> around the delays in getting a letter from the consultant (because she
>> is due to have tests and treatment that might slow down the
>> deterioration a bit). The TV licence people rang him this afternoon and
>> said that if he didn't send a cheque for the remaining £79 they would
>> cut off his TV reception. He rang me to ask if this was possible.
>>
>> Is this the way we should treat an 87 year old citizen?
>
>No.
>
>But what can we do about it here? Apart from, as you probably did, tell
>him that they were talking bollocks, and that the worst that can happen
>to him is a visit by the licensing crew.

They can't cut off anybody's TV reception if it's off-air via an
aerial, and it's not against the law to possess the equipment. The TV
licensing law only applies to the use of it for actually watching
broadcasts, and would require proof, which they can't get if you don't
let them in and don't say anything.

If he is visited by the TV licensing crew, they have no right of
access to anybody's premises unless they arrive with a police officer
and a warrant (which is very unlikely) so all he has to do is tell
them politely that he has nothing to say to them except go away. Just
close the door and say nothing, and there's nothing they can do.

If you have Youtube, there's a channel called "chillijoncarne" where
this is regularly dealt with, and another called "blackbeltbarrister"
that normally deals with general aspects of the law, but has recently
done a couple of episodes on this particular subject.

Rod.

On 20/07/2021 20:44, JNugent wrote:
> On 20/07/2021 07:36 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>
>> On 20/07/2021 19:23, williamwright wrote:
>>>
>>> An elderly friend just rang me. His wife is gradually going blind,
>>> and now she can't see the TV at all really,so he applied for the
>>> blind concession licence and got it, but then got a demand for a
>>> hospital letter.  There was a prolonged exchange of letters, mostly
>>> centring around the delays in getting a letter from the consultant
>>> (because she is due to have tests and treatment that might slow down
>>> the deterioration a bit). The TV licence people rang him this
>>> afternoon and said that if he didn't send a cheque for the remaining
>>> £79 they would cut off his TV reception. He rang me to ask if this
>>> was possible.
>>>
>>> Is this the way we should treat an 87 year old citizen?
>>
>> No.
>>
>> But what can we do about it here?  Apart from, as you probably did,
>> tell him that they were talking bollocks, and that the worst that can
>> happen to him is a visit by the licensing crew.
>
> But the threat sounds like the sort of thing a BBC minion might attempt
> for an easy win.

Your mental flies are undone, revealing just how little your assets are.
FYI, the BBC doesn't collect the TV Licence Fee themselves, and has
even been known to investigate its collection by third parties:

BBC investigating TV licence fee collectors
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39100048

"The BBC has ordered an investigation into reports TV licence fee
collectors targeted vulnerable people, spurred on by an aggressive
incentive scheme.

An investigation by the Daily Mail said bosses at Capita, which collects
the fee, promised bonuses of up to £15,000 a year to catch 28 evaders a
week.

Capita said those statements "do not reflect the high standards we expect".

BBC Director General Tony Hall said Capita had "fallen short" of
standards it expected on behalf of the UK public.

The government said it would talk to the BBC about the company's conduct.

The Daily Mail sent a reporter to interview for a job at Capita, and
allegedly found staff being pushed to gather evidence to take as many
people to court as possible.

One interviewer was recorded saying: "We will drive you as hard as we
can to get as much as we can out of you because we're greedy.""

-----------------

On 19/07/2021 23:18, Java Jive wrote:
>
> There's a simple reason for that: there is more fake news coming from
> the right than the left, as we see constantly here.

And Bill and you have just proved that yet again, you are both living
proof of the saying that it is better to keep your mouth shut and let
everyone think you're a fool, than to open it and remove all shadow of
doubt. When are either of you ever going to be arsed to fact-check your
ridiculous claims?

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 20/07/2021 09:11 pm, Java Jive wrote:
> On 20/07/2021 20:44, JNugent wrote:
>> On 20/07/2021 07:36 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>>> On 20/07/2021 19:23, williamwright wrote:
>>>>
>>>> An elderly friend just rang me. His wife is gradually going blind,
>>>> and now she can't see the TV at all really,so he applied for the
>>>> blind concession licence and got it, but then got a demand for a
>>>> hospital letter.  There was a prolonged exchange of letters, mostly
>>>> centring around the delays in getting a letter from the consultant
>>>> (because she is due to have tests and treatment that might slow down
>>>> the deterioration a bit). The TV licence people rang him this
>>>> afternoon and said that if he didn't send a cheque for the remaining
>>>> £79 they would cut off his TV reception. He rang me to ask if this
>>>> was possible.
>>>>
>>>> Is this the way we should treat an 87 year old citizen?
>>>
>>> No.
>>>
>>> But what can we do about it here?  Apart from, as you probably did,
>>> tell him that they were talking bollocks, and that the worst that can
>>> happen to him is a visit by the licensing crew.
>>
>> But the threat sounds like the sort of thing a BBC minion might
>> attempt for an easy win.
>
> Your mental flies are undone, revealing just how little your assets are.
>  FYI, the BBC doesn't collect the TV Licence Fee themselves, and has
> even been known to investigate its collection by third parties:

"TV Licensing" is a branch of the BBC.

They may not like to admit that, but it's true.

They even advertise BBC programmes on their website, which is od, given
the fiction that the BBC licence is a livence to watch TV services which
do not depend on "licence" money.

<https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/about>
>
> BBC investigating TV licence fee collectors
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39100048
>
> "The BBC has ordered an investigation into reports TV licence fee
> collectors targeted vulnerable people, spurred on by an aggressive
> incentive scheme.

Why would the BBC do that if "TV Licensing" were not a BBC subsidiary?

On 20/07/2021 09:11 pm, Java Jive wrote:

> On 20/07/2021 20:44, JNugent wrote:
>> On 20/07/2021 07:36 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>> On 20/07/2021 19:23, williamwright wrote:
>
>>>> An elderly friend just rang me. His wife is gradually going blind,
>>>> and now she can't see the TV at all really,so he applied for the
>>>> blind concession licence and got it, but then got a demand for a
>>>> hospital letter.  There was a prolonged exchange of letters, mostly
>>>> centring around the delays in getting a letter from the consultant
>>>> (because she is due to have tests and treatment that might slow down
>>>> the deterioration a bit). The TV licence people rang him this
>>>> afternoon and said that if he didn't send a cheque for the remaining
>>>> £79 they would cut off his TV reception. He rang me to ask if this
>>>> was possible.
>
>>>> Is this the way we should treat an 87 year old citizen?
>
>>> No.
>>> But what can we do about it here?  Apart from, as you probably did,
>>> tell him that they were talking bollocks, and that the worst that can
>>> happen to him is a visit by the licensing crew.
>
>> But the threat sounds like the sort of thing a BBC minion might
>> attempt for an easy win.
>
> Your mental flies are undone, revealing just how little your assets are.
>  FYI, the BBC doesn't collect the TV Licence Fee themselves, and has
> even been known to investigate its collection by third parties:

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

<https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/about>

QUOTE:
Who we are
[View in Welsh]
'TV Licensing' is a trade mark of the BBC and is used under licence by
companies contracted by the BBC to administer the collection of the
television licence fee and enforcement of the television licensing system.
The BBC is a public authority in respect of its television licensing
functions and retains overall responsibility.
ENDQUOTE

Go on.... argue against that...

They can't cut people off. The point is its not the consultant its the CVI
the Licensing people need. Certificate of Visual Impairment, It has to be
severe loss though, as partially sighted never were eligible.
The process of registration opens doors to benefits and local authority
services as well and should have been done when the patient was seen,
Normally the patient and the local authority have a copy of this document a
few weeks after registration. If the eye clinic in the hospital have an
ECLO, many do, Eye clinic Liaison officer, contact them directly as most are
working for RNIB and hence are independent of the bungling NHs admin system.
Normally you would pay the full licence until you can get the document and
then you get part of the year back as credit or refund once they agree the
claim.

As its a civil matter, I'm sure any attempt at court action would be very
unwise, and it sounds to me like either the licensing authority have got
their wires crossed or maybe your friend is only registered partially
sighted . If they disagree with that, then its back for a new appointment to
get it changed. There have been delays in CVIs due to the pandemic of
course, but I've never seen them need a letter, as those cost money these
days and are considered private and confidential information. hence the CVI.
Brian

--

This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"williamwright" <wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote in message
news:iloiliF88guU1@mid.individual.net...
> An elderly friend just rang me. His wife is gradually going blind, and now
> she can't see the TV at all really,so he applied for the blind concession
> licence and got it, but then got a demand for a hospital letter. There
> was a prolonged exchange of letters, mostly centring around the delays in
> getting a letter from the consultant (because she is due to have tests and
> treatment that might slow down the deterioration a bit). The TV licence
> people rang him this afternoon and said that if he didn't send a cheque
> for the remaining �79 they would cut off his TV reception. He rang me to
> ask if this was possible.
>
> Is this the way we should treat an 87 year old citizen?
>
> Bill

Not really, I'd expect they have rung them to make sure of that.
I do believe that a lot of people with mild AMD have been trying to get the
half price licence without actually going through the proper channels of
registration. Unfortunately tests and treatment can only work on some sorts
of AMD since once the cells are obscured by the bleed or are dead due to the
lack of blood nothing can make them work again. And this happens to all
eyes, but when it happens in the Macular that is when it really becomes
debilitating as the centre is the only part of the eye capable of detailed
vision. most of the apparent detail elsewhere in your vision is a clever
trick of the brains software scanning the scene with the macular and filling
in the bits later.

Talk to the Macular Society and RNIB about the licensing issue, and see if
they have noticed an increase in the aggression of the authority, but they
cannot know if you are a chancer or genuine.
Brian
Brian

--

This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"MB" <MB@nospam.net> wrote in message news:sd76e2$p7a$2@dont-email.me...
> On 20/07/2021 19:23, williamwright wrote:
>> Is this the way we should treat an 87 year old citizen?
>
> Sounds more like a scam.
>
>

On 21/07/2021 00:11, JNugent wrote:
>
> On 20/07/2021 09:11 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> On 20/07/2021 20:44, JNugent wrote:
>>>
>>> But the threat sounds like the sort of thing a BBC minion might
>>> attempt for an easy win.
>>
>> Your mental flies are undone, revealing just how little your assets
>> are.   FYI, the BBC doesn't collect the TV Licence Fee themselves, and
>> has even been known to investigate its collection by third parties:
>
> "TV Licensing" is a branch of the BBC.

No, it's not, they're independent contractors, so cannot by any stretch
of even your deranged imagination be truthfully described as 'BBC
minions' ...

https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/about/foi-about-tv-licensing-AB15

""TV Licensing” is a trade mark used by companies contracted by the BBC
to administer the collection of television licence fees and enforcement
of the television licensing system. The majority of the administration
of TV Licensing is contracted to Capita Business Services Limited
(‘Capita’). Over-the counter services are provided by PayPoint plc
(‘PayPoint’) in the UK, and by the Post Office in the Isle of Man and
Channel Islands. Target Group Limited (‘Target’) is the supplier for the
Simple Payment Plan. Marketing and printing services are contracted to
RAPP Limited (formerly Proximity London Limited). Media services are
contracted to Havas Media Limited . The BBC is a public authority in
respect of its television licensing functions and retains overall
responsibility."

>> BBC investigating TV licence fee collectors
>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39100048
>>
>> "The BBC has ordered an investigation into reports TV licence fee
>> collectors targeted vulnerable people, spurred on by an aggressive
>> incentive scheme.
>
> Why would the BBC do that if "TV Licensing" were not a BBC subsidiary?

Because they are independent contractors employed by the BBC, as
described above.

But by all means continue to make an arse of yourself about this if you
insist, no-one else is fooled, and why change a habit of a lifetime?

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 21/07/2021 00:36, JNugent wrote:
>
> Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
>
> <https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/about>
>
> QUOTE:
> Who we are
> [View in Welsh]
> 'TV Licensing' is a trade mark of the BBC and is used under licence by
> companies contracted by the BBC to administer the collection of the
> television licence fee and enforcement of the television licensing system.
> The BBC is a public authority in respect of its television licensing
> functions and retains overall responsibility.
> ENDQUOTE
>
> Go on.... argue against that...

I don't need to, you've done it for me ...

"is used under licence by companies contracted by the BBC to administer
the collection of the television licence fee and enforcement of the
television licensing system"

.... so, as your own quote makes clear, the contractors' staff are not
"BBC minions", they are "contractors' minions"

Thank you for proving my point.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 21/07/2021 10:53 am, Java Jive wrote:
> On 21/07/2021 00:11, JNugent wrote:
>>
>> On 20/07/2021 09:11 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>> On 20/07/2021 20:44, JNugent wrote:
>>>>
>>>> But the threat sounds like the sort of thing a BBC minion might
>>>> attempt for an easy win.
>>>
>>> Your mental flies are undone, revealing just how little your assets
>>> are.   FYI, the BBC doesn't collect the TV Licence Fee themselves,
>>> and has even been known to investigate its collection by third parties:
>>
>> "TV Licensing" is a branch of the BBC.
>
> No, it's not, they're independent contractors, so cannot by any stretch
> of even your deranged imagination be truthfully described as 'BBC
> minions' ...
>
> https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/about/foi-about-tv-licensing-AB15
>
> ""TV Licensing” is a trade mark used by companies contracted by the BBC
> to administer the collection of television licence fees and enforcement
> of the television licensing system. The majority of the administration
> of TV Licensing is contracted to Capita Business Services Limited
> (‘Capita’). Over-the counter services are provided by PayPoint plc
> (‘PayPoint’) in the UK, and by the Post Office in the Isle of Man and
> Channel Islands. Target Group Limited (‘Target’) is the supplier for the
> Simple Payment Plan. Marketing and printing services are contracted to
> RAPP Limited (formerly Proximity London Limited). Media services are
> contracted to Havas Media Limited . The BBC is a public authority in
> respect of its television licensing functions and retains overall
> responsibility."
>
>>> BBC investigating TV licence fee collectors
>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39100048
>>>
>>> "The BBC has ordered an investigation into reports TV licence fee
>>> collectors targeted vulnerable people, spurred on by an aggressive
>>> incentive scheme.
>>
>> Why would the BBC do that if "TV Licensing" were not a BBC subsidiary?
>
> Because they are independent contractors employed by the BBC, as
> described above.
>
> But by all means continue to make an arse of yourself about this if you
> insist, no-one else is fooled, and why change a habit of a lifetime?

Cognitive dissonance must be choking you at that end.

Even if so-called "TV Licensing" were not an arm of the BBC, surely the
Beeb would and should have sacked them by now for gross misconduct?

On 20/07/2021 21:01, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> They can't cut off anybody's TV reception if it's off-air via an
> aerial, and it's not against the law to possess the equipment. The TV
> licensing law only applies to the use of it for actually watching
> broadcasts, and would require proof, which they can't get if you don't
> let them in and don't say anything.

Probably similar people to the ones who call to say that they are going
to turn off your Internet connection etc.

On 21/07/2021 10:57, JNugent wrote:
>
> Cognitive dissonance must be choking you at that end.

No, that's apparently your problem ...

> Even if so-called "TV Licensing" were not an arm of the BBC, surely the
> Beeb would and should have sacked them by now for gross misconduct?

You really don't understand this stuff, do you? They are *CONTRACTORS*,
and therefore, as the word implies, subject to a contract between the
parties. Neither side can arbitrarily break such a contract at will,
because they would render themselves open to financial penalties for
doing so. If the BBC wished to terminate the contract early, it would
have to have some definite and legally acceptable reason, probably one
stated in the contract's terms and conditions, for doing so. It is
possible that the contract allows them to do so if the the behaviour of
the contractors is in some clearly defined way considered unacceptable,
but as neither you nor I know the contract's terms and conditions, that
is pointless speculation.

And anyway, this is just an attempt to move the goalposts away from your
original claim that the contractors' staff are "BBC minion"s, which
remains completely untrue.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

This link should download an audio file which explains all of this.
I do have my doubts that there are any black and white sets in use or
indeed sound only receivers though, but this has been read from the web sit,
so what do I know!
Take note of moving the licence name and the ways of proving the case. You
really do need to be registered if you are too blind to see a tv picture.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/c29j2bohh8gzkiy/tv%20licence%20clarification%20from%20august.mp3?dl=1

Its audio, so pass it on.
Brian

--

This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"williamwright" <wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote in message
news:iloiliF88guU1@mid.individual.net...
> An elderly friend just rang me. His wife is gradually going blind, and now
> she can't see the TV at all really,so he applied for the blind concession
> licence and got it, but then got a demand for a hospital letter. There
> was a prolonged exchange of letters, mostly centring around the delays in
> getting a letter from the consultant (because she is due to have tests and
> treatment that might slow down the deterioration a bit). The TV licence
> people rang him this afternoon and said that if he didn't send a cheque
> for the remaining �79 they would cut off his TV reception. He rang me to
> ask if this was possible.
>
> Is this the way we should treat an 87 year old citizen?
>
> Bill

On 21/07/2021 11:12 am, Java Jive wrote:
> On 21/07/2021 10:57, JNugent wrote:
>>
>> Cognitive dissonance must be choking you at that end.
>
> No, that's apparently your problem ...
>
>> Even if so-called "TV Licensing" were not an arm of the BBC, surely
>> the Beeb would and should have sacked them by now for gross misconduct?
>
> You really don't understand this stuff, do you?  They are *CONTRACTORS*,
> and therefore, as the word implies, subject to a contract between the
> parties.  Neither side can arbitrarily break such a contract at will,
> because they would render themselves open to financial penalties for
> doing so.  If the BBC wished to terminate the contract early, it would
> have to have some definite and legally acceptable reason, probably one
> stated in the contract's terms and conditions, for doing so.  It is
> possible that the contract allows them to do so if the the behaviour of
> the contractors is in some clearly defined way considered unacceptable,
> but as neither you nor I know the contract's terms and conditions, that
> is pointless speculation.
>
> And anyway, this is just an attempt to move the goalposts away from your
> original claim that the contractors' staff are "BBC minion"s, which
> remains completely untrue.

Contracts - to the extent that they exist in the form you hint at - can
certainly be broken where a contractor is committing acts of gross
misconduct outside the terms of any contract.

Those people are working for the BBC. The BBC has the sole power to
collect the BBC Licence fee. No-one else has it.

The BBC is responsible for the misconduct of its operators.

On 21/07/2021 11:55 am, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:

> This link should download an audio file which explains all of this.
> I do have my doubts that there are any black and white sets in use or
> indeed sound only receivers though, but this has been read from the web sit,
> so what do I know!
> Take note of moving the licence name and the ways of proving the case. You
> really do need to be registered if you are too blind to see a tv picture.

> https://www.dropbox.com/s/c29j2bohh8gzkiy/tv%20licence%20clarification%20from%20august.mp3?dl=1
>
> Its audio, so pass it on.
> Brian

It is literally impossible to operate a b&w-only TV set to receive
broadcasts in the UK today (and for some considerable time).

Any operable set has to have a UHF digital tuner, even if that tuner is
in a separate box. *Are* there any such tuners that cannot receive
and/or record programmes in colour?

The upshot, among other things, is that a b&W only set doesn't even need
a licence, as it cannot receive broadcast TV.

In article <ilqd58Fjl9oU1@mid.individual.net>,
JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> On 21/07/2021 11:55 am, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:

> > This link should download an audio file which explains all of this.
> > I do have my doubts that there are any black and white sets in use or
> > indeed sound only receivers though, but this has been read from the web sit,
> > so what do I know!
> > Take note of moving the licence name and the ways of proving the case. You
> > really do need to be registered if you are too blind to see a tv picture.

> > https://www.dropbox.com/s/c29j2bohh8gzkiy/tv%20licence%20clarification%20from%20august.mp3?dl=1
> >
> > Its audio, so pass it on.
> > Brian

> It is literally impossible to operate a b&w-only TV set to receive
> broadcasts in the UK today (and for some considerable time).

> Any operable set has to have a UHF digital tuner, even if that tuner is
> in a separate box. *Are* there any such tuners that cannot receive
> and/or record programmes in colour?

> The upshot, among other things, is that a b&W only set doesn't even need
> a licence, as it cannot receive broadcast TV.

Could do, if it had an external video connector

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On Wed, 21 Jul 2021 12:02:00 +0100, JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm>
wrote:

>On 21/07/2021 11:55 am, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:
>
>> This link should download an audio file which explains all of this.
>> I do have my doubts that there are any black and white sets in use or
>> indeed sound only receivers though, but this has been read from the web sit,
>> so what do I know!
>> Take note of moving the licence name and the ways of proving the case. You
>> really do need to be registered if you are too blind to see a tv picture.
>
>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/c29j2bohh8gzkiy/tv%20licence%20clarification%20from%20august.mp3?dl=1
>>
>> Its audio, so pass it on.
>> Brian
>
>It is literally impossible to operate a b&w-only TV set to receive
>broadcasts in the UK today (and for some considerable time).
>
>Any operable set has to have a UHF digital tuner, even if that tuner is
>in a separate box. *Are* there any such tuners that cannot receive
>and/or record programmes in colour?
>
>The upshot, among other things, is that a b&W only set doesn't even need
>a licence, as it cannot receive broadcast TV.
>
>

AIUI a black and white TV connected to a digital tuner, that has no
ability to record, requires only a black and white TV licence.

BICBW 8-)

On 21/07/2021 11:58, JNugent wrote:
>
> On 21/07/2021 11:12 am, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> And anyway, this is just an attempt to move the goalposts away from
>> your original claim that the contractors' staff are "BBC minion"s,
>> which remains completely untrue.

And below you're still trying to wriggle out of losing yet another
argument begun because yet again you made a claim based on bigotry
rather than fact.

> Contracts - to the extent that they exist in the form you hint at - can
> certainly be broken where a contractor is committing acts of gross
> misconduct outside the terms of any contract.

Any contract can be broken if the breaker is prepared to pay the
financial penalties, which may be huge, but this is irrelevant to the
point at issue, which is that the TV Licensing staff are not "BBC
minion"s as claimed by you, they are contractors' minions.

> Those people are working for the BBC.

No, they are *NOT*, they are working for the contractor. Their
contracts and terms of employment are set by the contractors who employ
them, the BBC has nothing to do with the hiring and firing of external
contract staff.

> The BBC has the sole power to
> collect the BBC Licence fee. No-one else has it.

No-one is disputing that, and it's irrelevant as to who employs TV
Licensing staff, which is the responsibility of the contractors involved.

> The BBC is responsible for the misconduct of its operators.

It is not responsible for the misconduct of its contractors' staff, that
is a matter for the contractors themselves. The only redress the BBC
may possibly have against the misconduct of contractors' staff is
through any relevant terms in the contract which may or may not exist,
neither of us know, and all this is still irrelevant to your error in
describing contractors' staff as "BBC minion"s.

In fact all the above is just a continuation of your attempt to move the
goalposts away from your original erroneous claim that the contractors'
staff are "BBC minion"s, which remains completely untrue. When are you
going to fucking grow up and accept the need:
+ To base your opinions on fact rather than bigotry?
+ To fact-check claims before making them?
+ To apologise when you're wrong?

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 21/07/2021 12:26 pm, charles wrote:
> In article <ilqd58Fjl9oU1@mid.individual.net>,
> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> On 21/07/2021 11:55 am, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:
>
>>> This link should download an audio file which explains all of this.
>>> I do have my doubts that there are any black and white sets in use or
>>> indeed sound only receivers though, but this has been read from the web sit,
>>> so what do I know!
>>> Take note of moving the licence name and the ways of proving the case. You
>>> really do need to be registered if you are too blind to see a tv picture.
>
>>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/c29j2bohh8gzkiy/tv%20licence%20clarification%20from%20august.mp3?dl=1
>>>
>>> Its audio, so pass it on.
>>> Brian
>
>> It is literally impossible to operate a b&w-only TV set to receive
>> broadcasts in the UK today (and for some considerable time).
>
>> Any operable set has to have a UHF digital tuner, even if that tuner is
>> in a separate box. *Are* there any such tuners that cannot receive
>> and/or record programmes in colour?
>
>> The upshot, among other things, is that a b&W only set doesn't even need
>> a licence, as it cannot receive broadcast TV.
>
> Could do, if it had an external video connector

It would then be (via some modification or a box with a UHF out) a
colour receiver with a b&w display!

On 21/07/2021 01:04 pm, Java Jive wrote:
> On 21/07/2021 11:58, JNugent wrote:
>>
>> On 21/07/2021 11:12 am, Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>> And anyway, this is just an attempt to move the goalposts away from
>>> your original claim that the contractors' staff are "BBC minion"s,
>>> which remains completely untrue.
>
> And below you're still trying to wriggle out of losing yet another
> argument begun because yet again you made a claim based on bigotry
> rather than fact.
>
>> Contracts - to the extent that they exist in the form you hint at -
>> can certainly be broken where a contractor is committing acts of gross
>> misconduct outside the terms of any contract.
>
> Any contract can be broken if the breaker is prepared to pay the
> financial penalties, which may be huge, but this is irrelevant to the
> point at issue, which is that the TV Licensing staff are not "BBC
> minion"s as claimed by you, they are contractors' minions.
>
>> Those people are working for the BBC.
>
> No, they are *NOT*, they are working for the contractor.  Their
> contracts and terms of employment are set by the contractors who employ
> them, the BBC has nothing to do with the hiring and firing of external
> contract staff.

The contractor is working for the BBC!

It certainly isn't working for itself!

>> The BBC has the sole power to collect the BBC Licence fee. No-one else
>> has it.
>
> No-one is disputing that, and it's irrelevant as to who employs TV
> Licensing staff, which is the responsibility of the contractors involved.
>
>> The BBC is responsible for the misconduct of its operators.
>
> It is not responsible for the misconduct of its contractors' staff, that
> is a matter for the contractors themselves.  The only redress the BBC
> may possibly have against the misconduct of contractors' staff is
> through any relevant terms in the contract which may or may not exist,
> neither of us know, and all this is still irrelevant to your error in
> describing contractors' staff as "BBC minion"s.

They all work for the BBC. No-one else may authorise the minions to
collect the BBC Tax.

> In fact all the above is just a continuation of your attempt to move the
> goalposts away from your original erroneous claim that the contractors'
> staff are "BBC minion"s, which remains completely untrue.  When are you
> going to fucking grow up and accept the need:
>     +    To base your opinions on fact rather than bigotry?
>     +    To fact-check claims before making them?
>     +    To apologise when you're wrong?

They work for the BBC. They do not work for themselves.

On 21/07/2021 08:04, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:
> They can't cut people off. The point is its not the consultant its the CVI
> the Licensing people need. Certificate of Visual Impairment, It has to be
> severe loss though, as partially sighted never were eligible.
> The process of registration opens doors to benefits and local authority
> services as well and should have been done when the patient was seen,
> Normally the patient and the local authority have a copy of this document a
> few weeks after registration. If the eye clinic in the hospital have an
> ECLO, many do, Eye clinic Liaison officer, contact them directly as most are
> working for RNIB and hence are independent of the bungling NHs admin system.
> Normally you would pay the full licence until you can get the document and
> then you get part of the year back as credit or refund once they agree the
> claim.
>
>
> As its a civil matter, I'm sure any attempt at court action would be very
> unwise, and it sounds to me like either the licensing authority have got
> their wires crossed or maybe your friend is only registered partially
> sighted . If they disagree with that, then its back for a new appointment to
> get it changed. There have been delays in CVIs due to the pandemic of
> course, but I've never seen them need a letter, as those cost money these
> days and are considered private and confidential information. hence the CVI.
> Brian
>

Thanks so much Brian. I've passed all that on to Jack. I'm sure it will
be helpful.

Bill

On 21/07/2021 08:12, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:
> Not really, I'd expect they have rung them to make sure of that.
> I do believe that a lot of people with mild AMD have been trying to get the
> half price licence without actually going through the proper channels of
> registration. Unfortunately tests and treatment can only work on some sorts
> of AMD since once the cells are obscured by the bleed or are dead due to the
> lack of blood nothing can make them work again. And this happens to all
> eyes, but when it happens in the Macular that is when it really becomes
> debilitating as the centre is the only part of the eye capable of detailed
> vision. most of the apparent detail elsewhere in your vision is a clever
> trick of the brains software scanning the scene with the macular and filling
> in the bits later.
>
> Talk to the Macular Society and RNIB about the licensing issue, and see if
> they have noticed an increase in the aggression of the authority, but they
> cannot know if you are a chancer or genuine.
> Brian
> Brian
>
Thanks again Brian