On 21/07/2021 13:12, JNugent wrote:
>
> On 21/07/2021 01:04 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> 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!

The contractors' staff are working for the contractors, not the BBC,
therefore they aren't and cannot be described truthfully as "BBC minion"s.

> It certainly isn't working for itself!

On the contrary, that's exactly what every company does - it works to
maximise the profit to its shareholders.

>>> 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.

Very well, persist in this factual error, as you always do, that's why
nothing you say here is believed by anybody, but the facts are as I've
stated them, and others will judge by those, not your childishly
stubborn endless incantations of a lie.

>> 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.

Nonsense, your persistence when proven wrong shows that you are now
knowingly lying just to avoid admitting that you're wrong - the BBC's
only legal relationships are with the contractors, they have no legal
relationship with contractors' individual staff; contractors' staff work
for the contractors and their contracts' terms and conditions are set by
and are an internal matter for the contractors.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 21/07/2021 01:45 pm, Java Jive wrote:
> On 21/07/2021 13:12, JNugent wrote:
>>
>> On 21/07/2021 01:04 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>> 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!
>
> The contractors' staff are working for the contractors, not the BBC,
> therefore they aren't and cannot be described truthfully as "BBC minion"s.
>
>> It certainly isn't working for itself!
>
> On the contrary, that's exactly what every company does  -  it works to
> maximise the profit to its shareholders.

If they're purely working for themselves and not for the BBC, they're
obviously committing a criminal offence, seeking to take money for
themselves under the pretext that it is for the BBC.

>>>> 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.
>
> Very well, persist in this factual error, as you always do, that's why
> nothing you say here is believed by anybody, but the facts are as I've
> stated them, and others will judge by those, not your childishly
> stubborn endless incantations of a lie.
>
>>> 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.
>
> Nonsense, your persistence when proven wrong shows that you are now
> knowingly lying just to avoid admitting that you're wrong  -  the BBC's
> only legal relationships are with the contractors, they have no legal
> relationship with contractors' individual staff; contractors' staff work
> for the contractors and their contracts' terms and conditions are set by
> and are an internal matter for the contractors.

They work for the BBC. They do not work for themselves. If they were
collecting the money for themselves, it would be theft, pure and simple.

Are you accusing them of theft?

On 21/07/2021 12:49, BrightsideS9 wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Jul 2021 12:02:00 +0100, JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm>
> wrote:
>
>
> 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.
>
>
You could argue ever since the late 60s, black and white TV's could
receive colour signals perfectly well, it's just that they couldn't use
them.

On 21/07/2021 01:55 pm, Mark Carver wrote:
> On 21/07/2021 12:49, BrightsideS9 wrote:
>> On Wed, 21 Jul 2021 12:02:00 +0100, JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
> You could argue ever since the late 60s, black and white TV's could
> receive colour signals perfectly well, it's just that they couldn't use
> them.

Maybe. But this has been discussed in a similar place quite recently,
and the wording of the legislation was quoted, which I recall as not
requiring the viewing of material in colour.

In extremis, making some no doubt simple modification could render any
55" LED Smart TV incapable of colour display. Perhaps even going into
the menu and turning down the colour might suffice.

On 21/07/2021 10:53, 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.

From your own quote: "The BBC is a public authority in
respect of its television licensing functions and retains overall
responsibility."

Thus they are not *independent* contractors. Although the staff are
employed and managed by the contractor, what they actually do under the
heading "TV Licensing" is supposed to be wholly defined in the contract
terms, and the BBC retains overall responsibility for what they do.

That said, without seeing the contract, I have no way of telling whether
the role really is wholly defined, but any ambiguity or shortfall
remains the responsibility of the BBC.

Jim

On 21/07/2021 13:51, JNugent wrote:
> On 21/07/2021 01:45 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 21/07/2021 13:12, JNugent wrote:
>>>
>>> On 21/07/2021 01:04 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 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!
>>
>> The contractors' staff are working for the contractors, not the BBC,
>> therefore they aren't and cannot be described truthfully as "BBC
>> minion"s.
>>
>>> It certainly isn't working for itself!
>>
>> On the contrary, that's exactly what every company does  -  it works
>> to maximise the profit to its shareholders.
>
> If they're purely working for themselves and not for the BBC, they're
> obviously committing a criminal offence, seeking to take money for
> themselves under the pretext that it is for the BBC.

Whatever well-chosen homilies may say on its website, any company's
purpose is to make money for its shareholders; one way of doing that is
to be paid to fulfil contracts, and that is what is happening here,
their contract empowers them to collect money owing to the BBC -
no-one, except possibly individual contractors' employees as per Bill's
example, is making false claims.

>>> They work for the BBC. They do not work for themselves.
>>
>> Nonsense, your persistence when proven wrong shows that you are now
>> knowingly lying just to avoid admitting that you're wrong  -  the
>> BBC's only legal relationships are with the contractors, they have no
>> legal relationship with contractors' individual staff; contractors'
>> staff work for the contractors and their contracts' terms and
>> conditions are set by and are an internal matter for the contractors.
>
> They work for the BBC. They do not work for themselves. If they were
> collecting the money for themselves, it would be theft, pure and simple.

See above, stop lying!

> Are you accusing them of theft?

See above, stop lying!

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 21/07/2021 12:02, JNugent 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.
>
>
>
But (devil's advocate) if the licence holder is too blind to see the TV
picture, how would they know whether it is a colour of B&W set?

Jim

On 21/07/2021 14:11, Indy Jess John wrote:
>
> On 21/07/2021 10:53, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> Because they are independent contractors employed by the BBC, as
>> described above.
>
> From your own quote: "The BBC is a public authority in
> respect of its television licensing functions and retains overall
> responsibility."
>
> Thus they are not *independent* contractors.

They are independent in the sense of hiring and firing their own staff,
which is how I meant it in this context, however I entirely accept what
you go on to say below.

> Although the staff are
> employed and managed by the contractor, what they actually do under the
> heading "TV Licensing" is supposed to be wholly defined in the contract
> terms, and the BBC retains overall responsibility for what they do.
>
> That said, without seeing the contract, I have no way of telling whether
> the role really is wholly defined, but any ambiguity or shortfall
> remains the responsibility of the BBC.

Yes, none of us know what the contracts say, which makes any further
discussion in that directions utterly pointless, but that still doesn't
make individual contractors' staff "BBC minion"s, which is what this
argument is about.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 21/07/2021 14:06, JNugent wrote:
> On 21/07/2021 01:55 pm, Mark Carver wrote:
>> On 21/07/2021 12:49, BrightsideS9 wrote:
>>> On Wed, 21 Jul 2021 12:02:00 +0100, JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>> You could argue ever since the late 60s, black and white TV's could
>> receive colour signals perfectly well, it's just that they couldn't
>> use them.
>
> Maybe. But this has been discussed in a similar place quite recently,
> and the wording of the legislation was quoted, which I recall as not
> requiring the viewing of material in colour.
>
> In extremis, making some no doubt simple modification could render any
> 55" LED Smart TV incapable of colour display. Perhaps even going into
> the menu and turning down the colour might suffice.
>
I don't believe for one moment that any of the (5000 ?) b/w licence
holders are still watching in b/w

I did have a b/w telly in my garage that I bought second hand when a
student in 1982. I had that fed from an OnDigital box, using the OnD's
box UHF modulator.
With only days to go before DSO here (2012) the LOPT in it went bang,
its friend the OnD box became a doorstep at DSO as well of course.

On Wed, 21 Jul 2021 12:49:50 +0100, BrightsideS9
<reply_to_address_is_not@invalid.invalid> wrote:

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

It seems I understod it OK.

Freedom of information request RFI20111288 disclosure document. See
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/90515/response/228588/attach/html/4/RFI20111288%20Disclosure%20document.pdf.html
Excerpt 4 has a unfrmatted chart.[1]
Excerpt 5 has the statement re digi boxes and b&w TV lidence.

[1] It is better seen in
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_the_United_Kingdom
about one third down uner heading:- "When a TV licence is not
required"

--
brightside S9

On 21/07/2021 02:19 pm, Indy Jess John wrote:
> On 21/07/2021 12:02, JNugent 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.
>>
>>
>>
> But (devil's advocate) if the licence holder is too blind to see the TV
> picture, how would they know whether it is a colour of B&W set?

Don't such people get a discount of another sort?

On 21/07/2021 02:14 pm, Java Jive wrote:
> On 21/07/2021 13:51, JNugent wrote:
>> On 21/07/2021 01:45 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>> On 21/07/2021 13:12, JNugent wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 21/07/2021 01:04 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> 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!
>>>
>>> The contractors' staff are working for the contractors, not the BBC,
>>> therefore they aren't and cannot be described truthfully as "BBC
>>> minion"s.
>>>
>>>> It certainly isn't working for itself!
>>>
>>> On the contrary, that's exactly what every company does  -  it works
>>> to maximise the profit to its shareholders.
>>
>> If they're purely working for themselves and not for the BBC, they're
>> obviously committing a criminal offence, seeking to take money for
>> themselves under the pretext that it is for the BBC.
>
> Whatever well-chosen homilies may say on its website, any company's
> purpose is to make money for its shareholders; one way of doing that is
> to be paid to fulfil contracts, and that is what is happening here,
> their contract empowers them to collect money owing to the BBC  -
> no-one, except possibly individual contractors' employees as per Bill's
> example, is making false claims.
>
>>>> They work for the BBC. They do not work for themselves.
>>>
>>> Nonsense, your persistence when proven wrong shows that you are now
>>> knowingly lying just to avoid admitting that you're wrong  -  the
>>> BBC's only legal relationships are with the contractors, they have no
>>> legal relationship with contractors' individual staff; contractors'
>>> staff work for the contractors and their contracts' terms and
>>> conditions are set by and are an internal matter for the contractors.
>>
>> They work for the BBC. They do not work for themselves. If they were
>> collecting the money for themselves, it would be theft, pure and simple.
>
> See above, stop lying!
>
>> Are you accusing them of theft?
>
> See above, stop lying!

You are the one accusing "TV Licensing" of theft.

And in fairness, they must be guilty of that unless they are collecting
money for the BBC.

On 21/07/2021 02:54 pm, BrightsideS9 wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Jul 2021 12:49:50 +0100, BrightsideS9
> <reply_to_address_is_not@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 21 Jul 2021 12:02:00 +0100, JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm>
>> wrote:
>>
> [snip]
>>>
>>> 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-)
>
> It seems I understod it OK.
>
> Freedom of information request RFI20111288 disclosure document. See
> https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/90515/response/228588/attach/html/4/RFI20111288%20Disclosure%20document.pdf.html
> Excerpt 4 has a unfrmatted chart.[1]
> Excerpt 5 has the statement re digi boxes and b&w TV lidence.
>
>
> [1] It is better seen in
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_the_United_Kingdom
> about one third down uner heading:- "When a TV licence is not
> required"
>

Thanks for that. It makes sense.

I did love this bit:

"Television use away from home

....The use of a television set which is powered solely by its own
internal batteries is covered for any address by the user's main home
licence, but requires a separate licence if it is plugged into the mains
or other external power source, such as a car battery; this also applies
to TV-enabled mobile telephones."

Good luck to the BBC (and its subsidiary "TV Licensing") in trying to
get a BBC Tax fee out of anyone seen with an iPhone they've got plugged
into the car's cigar lighter (as anyone is well advised to do whenever
possible).

On 21/07/2021 02:22 pm, Java Jive wrote:
> On 21/07/2021 14:11, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>
>> On 21/07/2021 10:53, Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>> Because they are independent contractors employed by the BBC, as
>>> described above.
>>
>>  From your own quote: "The BBC is a public authority in
>> respect of its television licensing functions and retains overall
>> responsibility."
>>
>> Thus they are not *independent* contractors.
>
> They are independent in the sense of hiring and firing their own staff,
> which is how I meant it in this context, however I entirely accept what
> you go on to say below.
>
>> Although the staff are employed and managed by the contractor, what
>> they actually do under the heading "TV Licensing" is supposed to be
>> wholly defined in the contract terms, and the BBC retains overall
>> responsibility for what they do.
>>
>> That said, without seeing the contract, I have no way of telling
>> whether the role really is wholly defined, but any ambiguity or
>> shortfall remains the responsibility of the BBC.
>
> Yes, none of us know what the contracts say, which makes any further
> discussion in that directions utterly pointless, but that still doesn't
> make individual contractors' staff "BBC minion"s, which is what this
> argument is about.
>
<https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/about/who-we-are-AB4>

QUOTE:
'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

"TV Licensing" is thus a (presumably registered) *trademark* *of* *the*
BBC*.

TV Licensing therefore *is* the BBC, irrespective of whomever the beeb
instructs to do its dirty work. For the present at least...

On 21/07/2021 15:51, JNugent wrote:
>
> On 21/07/2021 02:14 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> On 21/07/2021 13:51, JNugent wrote:
>>>
>>> If they're purely working for themselves and not for the BBC, they're
>>> obviously committing a criminal offence, seeking to take money for
>>> themselves under the pretext that it is for the BBC.
>>
>> Whatever well-chosen homilies may say on its website, any company's
>> purpose is to make money for its shareholders; one way of doing that
>> is to be paid to fulfil contracts, and that is what is happening here,
>> their contract empowers them to collect money owing to the BBC  -
>> no-one, except possibly individual contractors' employees as per
>> Bill's example, is making false claims.
>>
>>>> Nonsense, your persistence when proven wrong shows that you are now
>>>> knowingly lying just to avoid admitting that you're wrong  -  the
>>>> BBC's only legal relationships are with the contractors, they have
>>>> no legal relationship with contractors' individual staff;
>>>> contractors' staff work for the contractors and their contracts'
>>>> terms and conditions are set by and are an internal matter for the
>>>> contractors.
>>>
>>> They work for the BBC. They do not work for themselves. If they were
>>> collecting the money for themselves, it would be theft, pure and simple.
>>
>> See above, stop lying!
>>
>>> Are you accusing them of theft?
>>
>> See above, stop lying!
>
> You are the one accusing "TV Licensing" of theft.

You really are some sad shit-faced little liar - *I* never accused TV
Licensing or indeed anyone of theft, in fact I never used the word
previously in this thread at all, it was *YOU* and *YOU ALONE* who used
that word, which I immediately contradicted, by explaining how a
contract worked, as in "see above" to where I said "their contract
empowers them to collect money owing to the BBC".

All this nonsense 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 is 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 16:04, JNugent wrote:
>
> QUOTE:
> '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

Exactly, "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 the contractors employees are
not BBC employees, and therefore cannot truthfully be described as "BBC
minion"s.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 21/07/2021 04:44 pm, Java Jive wrote:
> On 21/07/2021 15:51, JNugent wrote:
>>
>> On 21/07/2021 02:14 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>> On 21/07/2021 13:51, JNugent wrote:
>>>>
>>>> If they're purely working for themselves and not for the BBC,
>>>> they're obviously committing a criminal offence, seeking to take
>>>> money for themselves under the pretext that it is for the BBC.
>>>
>>> Whatever well-chosen homilies may say on its website, any company's
>>> purpose is to make money for its shareholders; one way of doing that
>>> is to be paid to fulfil contracts, and that is what is happening
>>> here, their contract empowers them to collect money owing to the BBC
>>> - no-one, except possibly individual contractors' employees as per
>>> Bill's example, is making false claims.
>>>
>>>>> Nonsense, your persistence when proven wrong shows that you are now
>>>>> knowingly lying just to avoid admitting that you're wrong  -  the
>>>>> BBC's only legal relationships are with the contractors, they have
>>>>> no legal relationship with contractors' individual staff;
>>>>> contractors' staff work for the contractors and their contracts'
>>>>> terms and conditions are set by and are an internal matter for the
>>>>> contractors.
>>>>
>>>> They work for the BBC. They do not work for themselves. If they were
>>>> collecting the money for themselves, it would be theft, pure and
>>>> simple.
>>>
>>> See above, stop lying!
>>>
>>>> Are you accusing them of theft?
>>>
>>> See above, stop lying!
>>
>> You are the one accusing "TV Licensing" of theft.
>
> You really are some sad shit-faced little liar  -  *I* never accused TV
> Licensing or indeed anyone of theft, in fact I never used the word
> previously in this thread at all, it was *YOU* and *YOU ALONE* who used
> that word, which I immediately contradicted, by explaining how a
> contract worked, as in "see above" to where I said "their contract
> empowers them to collect money owing to the BBC".

Make your mind up.

Are they collecting for the BBC or collecting for themselves?

You're the one who said they weren't collecting for the BBC, and the
only logical conclusion from that would be that they were keeping the money.

So... which IS it?

> All this nonsense 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 is 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?

You're the one who is wrong in trying to absolve the BBC from
responsibility for the misconduct of their subsidiary, "TV Licensing".

On 21/07/2021 04:50 pm, Java Jive wrote:
> On 21/07/2021 16:04, JNugent wrote:
>>
>> QUOTE:
>> '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
>
> Exactly, "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 the contractors employees are
> not BBC employees, and therefore cannot truthfully be described as "BBC
> minion"s.

Who owns "TV Licensing"?

On 21/07/2021 17:02, JNugent wrote:
> On 21/07/2021 04:44 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 21/07/2021 15:51, JNugent wrote:
>>>
>>> On 21/07/2021 02:14 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 21/07/2021 13:51, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> If they're purely working for themselves and not for the BBC,
>>>>> they're obviously committing a criminal offence, seeking to take
>>>>> money for themselves under the pretext that it is for the BBC.
>>>>
>>>> Whatever well-chosen homilies may say on its website, any company's
>>>> purpose is to make money for its shareholders; one way of doing that
>>>> is to be paid to fulfil contracts, and that is what is happening
>>>> here, their contract empowers them to collect money owing to the BBC
>>>> - no-one, except possibly individual contractors' employees as per
>>>> Bill's example, is making false claims.
>>>>
>>>>>> Nonsense, your persistence when proven wrong shows that you are
>>>>>> now knowingly lying just to avoid admitting that you're wrong  -
>>>>>> the BBC's only legal relationships are with the contractors, they
>>>>>> have no legal relationship with contractors' individual staff;
>>>>>> contractors' staff work for the contractors and their contracts'
>>>>>> terms and conditions are set by and are an internal matter for the
>>>>>> contractors.
>>>>>
>>>>> They work for the BBC. They do not work for themselves. If they
>>>>> were collecting the money for themselves, it would be theft, pure
>>>>> and simple.
>>>>
>>>> See above, stop lying!
>>>>
>>>>> Are you accusing them of theft?
>>>>
>>>> See above, stop lying!
>>>
>>> You are the one accusing "TV Licensing" of theft.
>>
>> You really are some sad shit-faced little liar  -  *I* never accused
>> TV Licensing or indeed anyone of theft, in fact I never used the word
>> previously in this thread at all, it was *YOU* and *YOU ALONE* who
>> used that word, which I immediately contradicted, by explaining how a
>> contract worked, as in "see above" to where I said "their contract
>> empowers them to collect money owing to the BBC".
>
> Make your mind up.
>
> Are they collecting for the BBC or collecting for themselves?
>
> You're the one who said they weren't collecting for the BBC,

LIAR! On the contrary, and for the third time, I specifically wrote:
"their contract empowers them to collect money owing to the BBC".

>> All this nonsense 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 is 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?
>
> You're the one who is wrong in trying to absolve the BBC from
> responsibility for the misconduct of their subsidiary, "TV Licensing".

I'm not trying to absolve anyone from anything, I'm simply correcting
the latest of your endless factual errors.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 21/07/2021 17:03, JNugent wrote:
> On 21/07/2021 04:50 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 21/07/2021 16:04, JNugent wrote:
>>>
>>> QUOTE:
>>> '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
>>
>> Exactly, "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 the contractors
>> employees are not BBC employees, and therefore cannot truthfully be
>> described as "BBC minion"s.
>
> Who owns "TV Licensing"?

The BBC, who owns Capita, NOT the BBC.

QED

--

Fake news kills!

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

"BrightsideS9" <reply_to_address_is_not@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:6r8gfght35jodf99datnc2olu33saa929k@4ax.com...

> Freedom of information request RFI20111288 disclosure document. See
> https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/90515/response/228588/attach/html/4/RFI20111288%20Disclosure%20document.pdf.html
> Excerpt 4 has a unfrmatted chart.[1]
> Excerpt 5 has the statement re digi boxes and b&w TV lidence.

That's unambiguous and definitive:

[quote]
be aware of the following:

.. When a digital set top box that has no recording facility is attached to
a black and
white television with no means to view in colour, then a black and white
licence is
required.

.. When a digital set top box is only used to listen to sound, through a
Hi-Fi system or
similar, with no means to view the picture, then no licence is required.

A TV Licence is not needed to listen to radio.
[/quote]

The problem would be finding a set top box that has is old enough to have an
(analogue) RF output, or a B&W TV that is new enough that it has a SCART
(analogue) or HDMI (digital) input.

On 21/07/2021 05:52 pm, Java Jive wrote:
> On 21/07/2021 17:03, JNugent wrote:
>> On 21/07/2021 04:50 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>> On 21/07/2021 16:04, JNugent wrote:
>>>>
>>>> QUOTE:
>>>> '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
>>>
>>> Exactly, "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 the contractors
>>> employees are not BBC employees, and therefore cannot truthfully be
>>> described as "BBC minion"s.
>>
>> Who owns "TV Licensing"?
>
> The BBC, who owns Capita, NOT the BBC.
>
> QED

The BBC owns Capita, you say.

OK.

I didn't know that, but will take your word for it on this occasion,
mainly because it fits with the rest of the known facts.

Thank you for the information.

On 21/07/2021 22:03, JNugent wrote:
>
> On 21/07/2021 05:52 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> On 21/07/2021 17:03, JNugent wrote:
>>> Who owns "TV Licensing"?
>>
>> The BBC, who owns Capita, NOT the BBC.
>>
>> QED
>
> The BBC owns Capita, you say.

Good God, now you can't even fucking read:

Your question: Who owns "TV Licensing"?
My answer: The BBC.
My question: Who owns Capita?
My answer: NOT the BBC.

QED

Now fuck off back to school!

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 21/07/2021 11:04 pm, Java Jive wrote:
> On 21/07/2021 22:03, JNugent wrote:
>>
>> On 21/07/2021 05:52 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>> On 21/07/2021 17:03, JNugent wrote:
>>>> Who owns "TV Licensing"?
>>>
>>> The BBC, who owns Capita, NOT the BBC.
>>>
>>> QED
>>
>> The BBC owns Capita, you say.
>
> Good God, now you can't even fucking read:
>
> Your question: Who owns "TV Licensing"?
> My answer: The BBC.
> My question:  Who owns Capita?
> My answer: NOT the BBC.

That's a lie.

You said (in response to "Who owns TV Licensing"?):

QUOTE:
The BBC, who owns Capita, NOT the BBC.
ENDQUOTE.

> QED
>
> Now fuck off back to school!

I'm not the one who has difficulty with written English.

That's you, that is.

On Wed, 21 Jul 2021 13:55:57 +0100, Mark Carver
<mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>On 21/07/2021 12:49, BrightsideS9 wrote:
>> On Wed, 21 Jul 2021 12:02:00 +0100, JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>You could argue ever since the late 60s, black and white TV's could
>receive colour signals perfectly well, it's just that they couldn't use
>them.

You could say much the same about a video recorder. It can receive
broadcasts but without a screen it doesn't enable the viewing of them,
and therefore logically shouldn't need a licence.

However, as far as I know it does need a licence if you use it to
receive broadcasts. Also, it unavoidably receives them in colour, no
matter what kind of display you attach to it. Therefore if it is
reception in this case (and not viewing as in other cases) that
renders it eligible for a licence, it would have to be a licence to
receive what it receives, not what an attached display displays, so it
does need a licence, not because of logic but because they say so.

I'm not sure what the legal position would be if you recorded a
broadcast legally while you had a licence and then cancelled your
licence. Would it be legal to watch the recording? Since the licensing
of a recorder appears to apply only to reception and not viewing,
maybe it would be OK because the recording would have been made
legally while a licence was in force, but I'm not a lawyer. Would it
make a difference if the recorder were powered by its own battery and
operated by someone who had a TV licence for premises elsewhere? (This
is one of the conditions that applies to simple TV sets so maybe
recorders too). If it makes a recording under the command of a timer,
does it matter who sets the timer? What if the timer is set by someone
who has a licence, but the recording is watched by others who don't?
What if the timer is set while a licence is in force to record
something after the licence has been cancelled? What if it's a repeat
timer that records the first episode of something while a licence is
in force, but then sets itself automatically to record the other
episodes after it has been cancelled?

So many questions, so little sense. The entire TV licensing system is
an inconsistent tangled mess that belongs in the past.

Rod.