"Roderick Stewart" <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote in message
news:uhcifgtsn8v5pgsbqn716mp67ftp0n04jc@4ax.com...
> 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.

I think the reason that a VHS or DVD recorder needs a colour licence is the
possibility that someone with a B&W TV could record the programme (in
colour) and then (horror of horrors) lend the tape/disc to a friend who had
a colour TV. The fact that the friend presumably has his own colour licence
seems to have escaped the policy makers ;-) With a PVR that doesn't have any
(easy!) way of making a copy that can be given to anyone else, it's a bit
harder to justify - but then given enough technical know-how, you can make a
copy from a PVR either by exporting to USB pen drive or by analogue copying
to VHS/DVD via the SCART socket.

The ruling about an STB and a B&W TV seems sensible, because the two parts
together are no more than an B&W with a built-in analogue tuner used to be:
a means of receiving and displaying, without recording. And presumably if
there had been a demand for it, manufacturers would have made B&W TVs with
built-in digital tuners, as for colour TVs with built-in tuners.

On Wed, 21 Jul 2021 19:15:50 +0100, "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:

>. 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.

I suppose you could connect your digital set top box with an HDMI
cable to an audio extractor, then an analogue cable with phono or
3.5mm jack connectors to an amplifier of some sort, or maybe to a
bluetooth adaptor which you would pair with a bluetooth loudspeaker.

Or you could just buy a radio.

Rod.

On Thu, 22 Jul 2021 10:48:02 +0100, "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:

>"Roderick Stewart" <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:uhcifgtsn8v5pgsbqn716mp67ftp0n04jc@4ax.com...
>> 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.
>
>I think the reason that a VHS or DVD recorder needs a colour licence is the
>possibility that someone with a B&W TV could record the programme (in
>colour) and then (horror of horrors) lend the tape/disc to a friend who had
>a colour TV.

But the person who viewed it would not be watching the programme
"live", which in today's language apparently means watching it while
it's being broadcast, even though it's most likely just a playback of
a recording. It would be equivalent to the use of a streaming catchup
service, which for everybody's broadcasts except those of the BBC,
doesn't require a licence.

The only difference would be whose machinery was used to play back the
recording. Making the eligibility for a licence dependent on something
like this makes as much sense as making it dependent on whether or not
it uses its own power source and whether its owner has a licence that
applies somewhere else, which is a real thing apparently, which is
stupid, so maybe they do.

Rod.

"Roderick Stewart" <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote in message
news:c0gifgdsn808b83fvlu928g99evmlfk5rb@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 21 Jul 2021 19:15:50 +0100, "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>
>>. 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.
>
> I suppose you could connect your digital set top box with an HDMI
> cable to an audio extractor, then an analogue cable with phono or
> 3.5mm jack connectors to an amplifier of some sort, or maybe to a
> bluetooth adaptor which you would pair with a bluetooth loudspeaker.
>
> Or you could just buy a radio.

Where's the technical fun and challenge in going for the easy option? ;-)

On 22/07/2021 10:25 am, Roderick Stewart wrote:

[ ... ]

> 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.

I think you're right and that it would be lawful to watch the recording,
or any other recording from any other source.

And "lawful" is the correct concept. It would be a civil matter at best.

I and others have access to many thousands of hours of video material,
some of it off-air recordings. If I did away with the TV aerial and the
satellite dish, and only used the TV and a media player to watch
recordings (plus streamed material over the internet), I wouldn't need a
licence. I wouldn't be receiving broadcasts, after all.

> 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.

Correct. It has to go. Completely. The BBC has to decide whether it
wants to go commercial or subscription (or a mixture of both).

People who are prepared not to have access to BBC broadcasts are morally
entitled to watch FTA programmes transmitted by others and not to have
to pay for the salaries of the Linekers and Graham Nortons of this world.

On 21/07/2021 19:15, NY wrote:
> 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.

I've used a Humax PVR (in real time mode) with an analogue monochrome
monitor, and done so in anger, when my colour set broke, until I
organised a replacement. I used SCART out to BNC in. (The audio always
goes through the Hifi amp and speakers.)

I do and did have a fully paid up, colour, licence.

I don't think the amber phosphor made it a colour monitor!

On 22/07/2021 00:11, JNugent wrote:
>
> On 21/07/2021 11:04 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> 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.

The English is perfectly unambiguous, both because it contains a comma
to separate the phrases and more to the point if one starts out by
assuming your meaning you get a contradiction: The BBC owns Capita is
contradicted by NOT the BBC. Therefore the exchange has only one
possible logical meaning. But why am I not suprised that you can't
understand simple logical colloquial English written as it would be spoken.

Now fuck off back to infant school, where you belong.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 22/07/2021 01:32 pm, Java Jive wrote:
> On 22/07/2021 00:11, JNugent wrote:
>>
>> On 21/07/2021 11:04 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>> 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.
>
> The English is perfectly unambiguous, both because it contains a comma
> to separate the phrases and more to the point if one starts out by
> assuming your meaning you get a contradiction:  The BBC owns Capita is
> contradicted by NOT the BBC.  Therefore the exchange has only one
> possible logical meaning.  But why am I not suprised that you can't
> understand simple logical colloquial English written as it would be spoken.
>
> Now fuck off back to infant school, where you belong.

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

That's you, that is, with your "The BBC, who owns Capita, NOT the BBC."
(whatever that means).

On 22/07/2021 12:41, JNugent wrote:
>
> I and others have access to many thousands of hours of video material,
> some of it off-air recordings. If I did away with the TV aerial and the
> satellite dish, and only used the TV and a media player to watch
> recordings (plus streamed material over the internet), I wouldn't need a
> licence. I wouldn't be receiving broadcasts, after all.

FALSE! You'd need a TV Licence to access BBC streamed material via iPlayer.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 22/07/2021 13:36, JNugent wrote:
>
> On 22/07/2021 01:32 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> On 22/07/2021 00:11, JNugent wrote:
>>>
>>> On 21/07/2021 11:04 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>> The English is perfectly unambiguous, both because it contains a comma
>> to separate the phrases and more to the point if one starts out by
>> assuming your meaning you get a contradiction:  The BBC owns Capita is
>> contradicted by NOT the BBC.  Therefore the exchange has only one
>> possible logical meaning.  But why am I not surprised that you can't
>> understand simple logical colloquial English written as it would be
>> spoken.
>>
>> Now fuck off back to infant school, where you belong.
>
> I'm not the one who has difficulty with written English.
>
> That's you, that is, with your "The BBC, who owns Capita, NOT the BBC."
> (whatever that means).

All this nonsense is still just a continuation of your attempt to move
the goalposts away from your original erroneous claim that the
contractors', Capita's, staff are "BBC minion"s.

The meaning of the above has been explained to you now twice, you're the
one having irrational difficulty with it. Now fuck off back to infant
school until you've learnt:
+ To base your opinions on fact rather than bigotry;
+ To fact-check claims before making them;
+ To apologise when, as so often, you are wrong.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 22/07/2021 01:36 pm, Java Jive wrote:
> On 22/07/2021 12:41, JNugent wrote:
>>
>> I and others have access to many thousands of hours of video material,
>> some of it off-air recordings. If I did away with the TV aerial and
>> the satellite dish, and only used the TV and a media player to watch
>> recordings (plus streamed material over the internet), I wouldn't need
>> a licence. I wouldn't be receiving broadcasts, after all.
>
> FALSE!  You'd need a TV Licence to access BBC streamed material via
> iPlayer.

I know.

On 22/07/2021 02:23 pm, Java Jive wrote:
> On 22/07/2021 13:36, JNugent wrote:
>>
>> On 22/07/2021 01:32 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>> On 22/07/2021 00:11, JNugent wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 21/07/2021 11:04 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> The English is perfectly unambiguous, both because it contains a
>>> comma to separate the phrases and more to the point if one starts out
>>> by assuming your meaning you get a contradiction:  The BBC owns
>>> Capita is contradicted by NOT the BBC.  Therefore the exchange has
>>> only one possible logical meaning.  But why am I not surprised that
>>> you can't understand simple logical colloquial English written as it
>>> would be spoken.
>>>
>>> Now fuck off back to infant school, where you belong.
>>
>> I'm not the one who has difficulty with written English.
>>
>> That's you, that is, with your "The BBC, who owns Capita, NOT the
>> BBC." (whatever that means).
>
> All this nonsense is still just a continuation of your attempt to move
> the goalposts away from your original erroneous claim that the
> contractors', Capita's, staff are "BBC minion"s.

Do they collect money for the BBC or do they collect money for themselves?

The answer to that settles the issue.

> The meaning of the above has been explained to you now twice, you're the
> one having irrational difficulty with it.  Now fuck off back to infant
> school until you've learnt:
>     +    To base your opinions on fact rather than bigotry;
>     +    To fact-check claims before making them;
>     +    To apologise when, as so often, you are wrong.

You have obvious anger-management issues. Not only in managing your own
incandescent anger, but in judging what to be so angry about in the
first place.

You exhibit those failings all the time, irrespective of the subject
matter and of your interlocutor(s).

You might be eligible for treatment.

On 13:51 21 Jul 2021, JNugent said:
> On 21/07/2021 01:45 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 21/07/2021 13:12, JNugent wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> 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?

"They work for the BBC" is ambiguous. It could mean mean:

(1) The work they do on behalf of their employer is for the benefit of
the BBC.

(2) They are employed by the BBC.

On 14:11 21 Jul 2021, Indy Jess John said:

> 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

The point above about the employment status of a contractor who works
off-payroll seems similar what's described in the Inland Revenue's
IR35 rule.

"Java Jive" <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:sdboou$kv2$2@gioia.aioe.org...
> On 22/07/2021 12:41, JNugent wrote:
>>
>> I and others have access to many thousands of hours of video material,
>> some of it off-air recordings. If I did away with the TV aerial and the
>> satellite dish, and only used the TV and a media player to watch
>> recordings (plus streamed material over the internet), I wouldn't need a
>> licence. I wouldn't be receiving broadcasts, after all.
>
> FALSE! You'd need a TV Licence to access BBC streamed material via
> iPlayer.

What is the exact law nowadays? Wasn't it a case at one time that watching a
recording (via iPlayer) did not need a licence whereas watching as broadcast
did need a licence. That always seemed a nit-picking distinction. I know at
some point iPlayer started asking "have you got a licence" and relying on
honesty (and accusations of lying, if caught).

The difficulty comes when you have a TV licence but can still be
(theoretically) prosecuted if watching on a portable TV away from home or at
a house with no licence. Obviously caravanners and campers are allowed to
watch, so there must be special provision for them. There really needs to be
provision for holiday homes which are only lived in part-time: maybe some
form of "as long as it's less than n days in a year" provision, or a reduced
licence fee - on the grounds that if you have a licence at home, you will
not be watching TV there while you are watching it in the second home. But
all that is open to abuse...

On 22/07/2021 02:40 pm, Pamela wrote:
> On 13:51 21 Jul 2021, JNugent said:
>> On 21/07/2021 01:45 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>> On 21/07/2021 13:12, JNugent wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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?
>
> "They work for the BBC" is ambiguous. It could mean mean:
>
> (1) The work they do on behalf of their employer is for the benefit of
> the BBC.
>
> (2) They are employed by the BBC.

Indeed. But they collect money for the BBC; not for themselves.
Everything they do in their interface with the public is done for the
BBC. Irrespective of the exact routing of their salaries, income tax,
National Insurance, etc, they are working under a BBC trademark and not
any other.

NY wrote:

> What is the exact law nowadays?

I think everything via iPlayer requires a licence, from UKSI 2016/704
explanatory notes

"These Regulations amend existing legislation so that, as well as for
receiving live programmes, a TV licence is required to stream or
download any programmes in an on-demand programme service provided by
the BBC (such as the iPlayer)."

JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> On 22/07/2021 02:40 pm, Pamela wrote:
>> On 13:51 21 Jul 2021, JNugent said:
>>> On 21/07/2021 01:45 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>>> On 21/07/2021 13:12, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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?
>>
>> "They work for the BBC" is ambiguous. It could mean mean:
>>
>> (1) The work they do on behalf of their employer is for the benefit of
>> the BBC.
>>
>> (2) They are employed by the BBC.
>
> Indeed. But they collect money for the BBC; not for themselves.
> Everything they do in their interface with the public is done for the
> BBC. Irrespective of the exact routing of their salaries, income tax,
> National Insurance, etc, they are working under a BBC trademark and not
> any other.
>
>

Going back to the OP’s first posting, threatening to “cut your TV off”
sounds much more like a scam call designed to extract money or personal
details. It may be a variant of the cut your Internet off scam.

On Thu, 22 Jul 2021 15:16:40 +0100, "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:

>"Java Jive" <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote in message
>news:sdboou$kv2$2@gioia.aioe.org...
>> On 22/07/2021 12:41, JNugent wrote:
>>>
>>> I and others have access to many thousands of hours of video material,
>>> some of it off-air recordings. If I did away with the TV aerial and the
>>> satellite dish, and only used the TV and a media player to watch
>>> recordings (plus streamed material over the internet), I wouldn't need a
>>> licence. I wouldn't be receiving broadcasts, after all.
>>
>> FALSE! You'd need a TV Licence to access BBC streamed material via
>> iPlayer.
>
>What is the exact law nowadays? Wasn't it a case at one time that watching a
>recording (via iPlayer) did not need a licence whereas watching as broadcast
>did need a licence. That always seemed a nit-picking distinction. I know at
>some point iPlayer started asking "have you got a licence" and relying on
>honesty (and accusations of lying, if caught).
>
>The difficulty comes when you have a TV licence but can still be
>(theoretically) prosecuted if watching on a portable TV away from home or at
>a house with no licence. Obviously caravanners and campers are allowed to
>watch, so there must be special provision for them. There really needs to be
>provision for holiday homes which are only lived in part-time: maybe some
>form of "as long as it's less than n days in a year" provision, or a reduced
>licence fee - on the grounds that if you have a licence at home, you will
>not be watching TV there while you are watching it in the second home. But
>all that is open to abuse...

It is all covered here:-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_the_United_Kingdom

--
brightside S9

On 22/07/2021 03:25 pm, Andy Burns wrote:

> NY wrote:
>
>> What is the exact law nowadays?
>
> I think everything via iPlayer requires a licence, from UKSI 2016/704
> explanatory notes
>
> "These Regulations amend existing legislation so that, as well as for
> receiving live programmes, a TV licence is required to stream or
> download any programmes in an on-demand programme service provided by
> the BBC (such as the iPlayer)."

ISTR that it was one of the changes that came in just a few years ago
when the BBC also undertook to finance the free TV licence for those
aged over a certain age (80? 85?).

I wonder, in the light of the BBC's subsequent welshing on that deal,
many people will feel under any compulsion to comply with the other side
of it?

On 22/07/2021 03:26 pm, Tweed wrote:
> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> On 22/07/2021 02:40 pm, Pamela wrote:
>>> On 13:51 21 Jul 2021, JNugent said:
>>>> On 21/07/2021 01:45 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>> On 21/07/2021 13:12, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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?
>>>
>>> "They work for the BBC" is ambiguous. It could mean mean:
>>>
>>> (1) The work they do on behalf of their employer is for the benefit of
>>> the BBC.
>>>
>>> (2) They are employed by the BBC.
>>
>> Indeed. But they collect money for the BBC; not for themselves.
>> Everything they do in their interface with the public is done for the
>> BBC. Irrespective of the exact routing of their salaries, income tax,
>> National Insurance, etc, they are working under a BBC trademark and not
>> any other.
>>
> Going back to the OP’s first posting, threatening to “cut your TV off”
> sounds much more like a scam call designed to extract money or personal
> details. It may be a variant of the cut your Internet off scam.

Possibly.

But OTOH, the BBC *is* reported to be investigating reported misconduct
by their "TV Licensing" minions when dealing with the public, especially
vulnerable members of the public.

I'm not a bog fan of "no smoke without fire", but I don't think the BBC
would even investigate if they weren't of the prima facie view that
there was a problem.

On 22/07/2021 16:21, JNugent wrote:
>
> But OTOH, the BBC *is* reported to be investigating reported misconduct
> by their "TV Licensing" minions when dealing with the public, especially
> vulnerable members of the public.

No, this is just more no-gent(-leman) bullshit. Firstly, you accused
them of being BBC minions *before* you knew that the BBC themselves had
been investigating them, because that information came from the link I
gave up thread debunking that original lie, and that link clearly shows
that it was NOT TV Licensing minions that were being investigated, it
was Capita minions, and they are a different company, and that is why
you are and were wrong to call them BBC minions, which, as everyone here
knows, you only did out of your well-documented bigoted spite against
the BBC anyway.

> I'm not a bog fan of "no smoke without fire", but I don't think the BBC
> would even investigate if they weren't of the prima facie view that
> there was a problem.

Again reread the link. Then fuck off back to infant school until you've
learnt:
+ To base your opinions on fact rather than bigotry;
+ To fact-check claims before making them;
+ To apologise when, as so often, you are wrong.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 22/07/2021 14:29, JNugent wrote:
>
> You have obvious anger-management issues.

You have obvious English comprehension and rational understanding
issues. Now fuck off back to infant school until you've learnt:
+ To base your opinions on fact rather than bigotry;
+ To fact-check claims before making them;
+ To apologise when, as so often, you are wrong.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 22/07/2021 16:18, JNugent wrote:
>
> BBC's subsequent welshing on that deal

Another piece of anti-BBC bias leading to another factual error. It was
a government, not a BBC, decision:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/articles/over-75s-tvl-update

"n August 2020 - and following the largest consultation in the BBC’s
history - the process was started to transition over 75 households from
free to paid-for TV licences, following the Government’s decision to
withdraw the concession.

The BBC retained a free licence provision for the most vulnerable. Free
TV licences remain available to anyone aged over 75 who is in receipt of
Pension Credit, paid for by the BBC.

This document provides an update on those arrangements, six months after
the change of policy."

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 22/07/2021 06:00 pm, Java Jive wrote:

> On 22/07/2021 14:29, JNugent wrote:
>>
>> You have obvious anger-management issues.
>
> You have obvious English comprehension and rational understanding
> issues.  Now fuck off back to infant school until you've learnt:
>     +    To base your opinions on fact rather than bigotry;
>     +    To fact-check claims before making them;
>     +    To apologise when, as so often, you are wrong.

Dear, oh dear...

Tut tut!

Do at least *try* to keep that nasty temper of yours under control.