OT - Call Centres......Arrrggggg!

In message <[email protected]>
Ian Rawlings <[email protected]> wrote:

> On 2006-08-24, beamendsltd <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > They've got that covered - even a business, with no aerial at all
> > nad no internet connection, needs a licecnce if they have a PC
> > or any other device capable of displaying a TV picture - e.g. DVD's.
>
> No they don't. Please read the requirements on the TV license
> website. You can have as many bits of TV receiving gear as you want,
> as long as none of them is capable of receiving, e.g. has no aerial,
> then you don't need a TV license. You need to tell them that you do
> not have an aerial connection, and they may send someone round to
> check.
>
> http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/gethelp/faqs.jsp
>

That's not what they sat when the write to us - regularly.....

Richard
--
www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk [email protected]
RISC-OS - Where have all the good guys gone?
Lib Dems - Townies keeping comedy alive

In message <[email protected]>
Torak <[email protected]> wrote:

> Greg wrote:
> > "JD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >
> >>The problem with this is that the ABC (copied from the BBC) is
> >>dependent on funding from general revenue, and hence much more subject to
> >>political pressure by the government of the day.
> >
> >
> > Tell us about it, recently there was a documentary on the BBC claiming not
> > only that nuclear power was safe but that a bit of radiation was actually
> > good for you, I kid you not!. A couple of days later the government told us
> > that it wanted to build more nuclear power stations, a more blatant
> > manipulation of the media I have yet to see outside a dictatorship.
>
> Well, nuclear power is actually fairly safe; yes, when things go wrong
> they go interestingly wrong, but the failure rate is much lower than
> most other methods. And it's far cleaner than, say, coal or oil. In
> Sweden they've even developed a way of safely disposing of the fuel
> rods. Which is nice.

There was a documentry that looked at the "evidence" from Chernobyl,
posing the question; why wasn't the physical evidence of harm caused
by the radiation matching the theortical effects. The
consclusion was, by scientists, not the programme makers, that
the expected problems were extrapolated downwards from the effects
of Hirosima, the only available case study until Chernobyl happened.
A lot of the "evidence" of harmful effects had been deduced from the
Hirosima data (and belived by those chose to), rather than actually
studied for that particular case. It was found, and seeming amongst
scientists who "do" radiation agreed, that below some level (which
Chernobyl was) extrapolating the Hiroshima data fails, and the
actual physical results were nowhere near as bad as would have been
expected (and indeed reported - falsely in some cases).

Richard

--
www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk [email protected]
RISC-OS - Where have all the good guys gone?
Lib Dems - Townies keeping comedy alive

On or around Thu, 24 Aug 2006 11:04:40 +0100, Torak <[email protected]>
enlightened us thusly:

>Greg wrote:
>> CraigB wrote:
>>
>>>Something really scary ...the US and Canada think that NZ is part of
>>>Australia.
>>>Their adverts over here for "Aussie" products and their "Aussie" actors all
>>>speak with a Kiwi accent.
>>
>>
>> Something more scary, Americans know so little about the world outside
>> their borders they have to tak the country onto every capital city "the
>> british prime minister in London-England said..."
>
>Ah, but that's so they don't confuse it with London-Nevada,
>London-Massachusetts or London-Oregon. (I have no idea if there are
>Londons in those states, but they do tend to lift names from everywhere...)
>
>I particularly enjoyed, on a trip to the States, travelling through
>Moscow, Maine, population 620...

There's a Birmingham in Alabama. perhaps Ford could be persuaded to open a
Land Rover factory there?
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
"I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine... War is hell"
Gen. Sherman (1820-1891) Attr. words in Address at Michigan Military
Academy, 19 June 1879.

On or around Thu, 24 Aug 2006 11:02:30 GMT, "GbH"
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>Austin Shackles wrote:
>> On or around Thu, 24 Aug 2006 11:51:59 +1200, EMB <[email protected]>
>> enlightened us thusly:
>>
>>> Duracell Bunny wrote:
>>>
>>>> As an ex-Pom, I'm used to my Pommie friends saying on the phone I
>>>> have a broad Aussie accent, yet to any Aussie here I'm still a
>>>> Pommie sheila. I guess I lose out both ways
>>>
>>> I know the feeling - accused of being a Pom (which I'm not but have
>>> spent a fair bit of time in the UK) when I'm at home, and of being a
>>> Aussie when I'm in the UK (bloody Poms - can't tell a Kiwi accent).
>>>
>>
>> sort of a cross between ozzie and sithe effrican, ain't it?
>>
>> <DARFC>
>>
>> I was once accused of having a chameleon accent - my accent tends to
>> morph to those around me. trouble with that is that people tend to
>> think you're taking the ****.
>
>You aren't?

well, not all the time, no.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
"I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine... War is hell"
Gen. Sherman (1820-1891) Attr. words in Address at Michigan Military
Academy, 19 June 1879.

On 2006-08-24, beamendsltd <[email protected]> wrote:

> That's not what they sat when the write to us - regularly.....

What is the wording they use? On my last reminder card it had "you
need a license to install or use any equipment to receive or record
television programme services" then lists things like TVs, videos, PCs
with receiver cards etc. This does not say that you need a license to
*own* such devices however, a common misconception. You only need a
license to actually use them to receive TV signals.

Write to them to tell them that you have no aerial connections and any
display gear you have cannot receive off-air TV signals in any way,
e.g. satellite etc. I did this in January of this year and have not
heard a peep since other than them sending me a letter in February
saying "thanks for letting us know, we might send a chap round to
check sometime" or words to that effect.

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!

beamendsltd <[email protected]> wrote:

> Ian Rawlings <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> beamendsltd <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> They've got that covered - even a business, with no aerial at all
>>> nad no internet connection, needs a licecnce if they have a PC
>>> or any other device capable of displaying a TV picture - e.g. DVD's.
>>
>> No they don't. Please read the requirements on the TV license
>> website. You can have as many bits of TV receiving gear as you want,
>> as long as none of them is capable of receiving, e.g. has no aerial,
>> then you don't need a TV license. You need to tell them that you do
>> not have an aerial connection, and they may send someone round to
>> check.
>>
>> http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/gethelp/faqs.jsp
>>
>
> That's not what they sat when the write to us - regularly.....

I love the threatening letter detailing the awesome
penalties for not paying promptly that comes in with
the freebie licence we get because me ol' mum is 80.

nigelH



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

In message <[email protected]>
Ian Rawlings <[email protected]> wrote:

> On 2006-08-24, beamendsltd <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > That's not what they sat when the write to us - regularly.....
>
> What is the wording they use? On my last reminder card it had "you
> need a license to install or use any equipment to receive or record
> television programme services" then lists things like TVs, videos, PCs
> with receiver cards etc. This does not say that you need a license to
> *own* such devices however, a common misconception. You only need a
> license to actually use them to receive TV signals.
>

"capable of recieving........" - it specifcally states the having
the capability, even if not used, is sufficient. Mind you, we
havn't had one for a while so perhaps they've had a reality check.

> Write to them to tell them that you have no aerial connections and any
> display gear you have cannot receive off-air TV signals in any way,
> e.g. satellite etc. I did this in January of this year and have not
> heard a peep since other than them sending me a letter in February
> saying "thanks for letting us know, we might send a chap round to
> check sometime" or words to that effect.

I ignore them - if they think I have time to watch TV while at
work then they need to get out more!

>

Richard

--
www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk [email protected]
RISC-OS - Where have all the good guys gone?
Lib Dems - Townies keeping comedy alive

On 2006-08-24, beamendsltd <[email protected]> wrote:

> "capable of recieving........" - it specifcally states the having
> the capability, even if not used, is sufficient. Mind you, we
> havn't had one for a while so perhaps they've had a reality check.

Yes, however capability to receive requires that it has some kind of
feed, a TV with no aerial is not capable of receiving off-air TV
pictures. I agree that it's relatively easy to miss that, and I doubt
that it's entirely an accident, but the situation is that if it can
receive TV signals then it needs a license but a device that could
receive signals if it was connected up is not *currently capable* of
receiving them.

BTW this isn't just me being picky, that's the actual position, if
it's not connected up, it's not capable and doesn't need a license.

> I ignore them - if they think I have time to watch TV while at
> work then they need to get out more!

Indeed, or at home even! I don't miss it at all.

Mind you I don't seem to get much more done than I used to :-(

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!

On 2006-08-24, Nigel Hewitt <[email protected]> wrote:

> I love the threatening letter detailing the awesome
> penalties for not paying promptly that comes in with
> the freebie licence we get because me ol' mum is 80.

It's the usual "fines up to £xxxxx" stuff you get with just about
every legal threat, they tend not to mention that the maximum fine is
only levied in bonkers extreme cases...

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!

beamendsltd wrote:
> In message <[email protected]>
> Ian Rawlings <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 2006-08-24, beamendsltd <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> That's not what they sat when the write to us - regularly.....
>>
>> What is the wording they use? On my last reminder card it had "you
>> need a license to install or use any equipment to receive or record
>> television programme services" then lists things like TVs, videos,
>> PCs with receiver cards etc. This does not say that you need a
>> license to *own* such devices however, a common misconception. You
>> only need a license to actually use them to receive TV signals.
>>
>
> "capable of recieving........" - it specifcally states the having
> the capability, even if not used, is sufficient. Mind you, we
> havn't had one for a while so perhaps they've had a reality check.
>
>> Write to them to tell them that you have no aerial connections and
>> any display gear you have cannot receive off-air TV signals in any
>> way, e.g. satellite etc. I did this in January of this year and
>> have not heard a peep since other than them sending me a letter in
>> February saying "thanks for letting us know, we might send a chap
>> round to check sometime" or words to that effect.
>
> I ignore them - if they think I have time to watch TV while at
> work then they need to get out more!
>
>>
>
> Richard

Since most regulations are based on personal experience then one can easily
figure what they are doing all day.

--
If Your specification is vague or imprecise, you'll likely get what you
asked for not what you wanted!

Do not say it cannot be done, rather what is needed for it to be done!

On Wednesday, in article
<[email protected]>
[email protected] "Ian Rawlings" wrote:

> On 2006-08-23, SteveG <_@_._> wrote:
>
> > Unless the law has changed recently ~ within the past 5 years ~ the
> > license is required if the equipment is "capable" of receiving tv
> > transmissions, irrespective of whether it is being used in that way or not.
>
> Try going to the proper licensing website and reading about it, they
> even give you a handy example, e.g. if you have a normal colour TV not
> connected to an aerial that is only used to watch DVDs and play games
> consoles. They state explicitly that you do NOT need a TV license in
> such a situation as the equipment is not capable of receiving TV
> signals, i.e. it doesn't have an aerial in it. The fact that it's a
> telly is neither here nor there, it has to be a TV plugged into a
> working aerial.
>
> I am in the above situation, I have told them that I am, and they have
> told me that I do not need a TV license but that they may send someone
> round sometime to check (which they won't as I live in a small village
> about an hour from the nearest large towns).

A friend of mine, down Bristol way, has never had a TV. When they
started that advert campaign, a few years ago, which said things like,
"There are 27 houses on Wood Lane; 3 of them don't have TV licences,"
she was a trifle annoyed.

Personally, I think they were lucky they didn't pick the street she
lived on, or she would have been "nuke the site from orbit" annoyed.

--
David G. Bell -- SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.

"I am Number Two," said Penfold. "You are Number Six."

On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 08:41:34 +0100, Austin Shackles
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I was once accused of having a chameleon accent - my accent tends to morph
>to those around me. trouble with that is that people tend to think you're
>taking the ****.

I think a lot of people have them!. Ive got a friend (from here) who
after spending a couple of years travelling and being at uni in
various places ended up with a southern UK/Aussie/US hybrid accent
which we took the **** out of. After being back home for a few months
it has settled down and is almost back to normal.

"Torak" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > Yes there's a lot of it going on, but most is a bit more subtle than
> > telling the nation that a dose or radiation is good for them . I
>
> Which isn't strictly wrong, actually. All depends on the type and level
> of radiation. Humans would find it very difficult to live without UV
> light, for instance, which is strictly speaking radiation.
>
> OK, so they're being a bit sloppy with the context, but they're not
> strictly speaking *wrong*.

They weren't talking about UV, oh no, were explicitly saying that the
radiation from bomb fallout and leaks from nuclear power stations was good
for you in small doses, and not really at all bad for you in larger doses!.

Greg

"beamendsltd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:2827645b4e%[email protected]...

> There was a documentry that looked at the "evidence" from Chernobyl,
> posing the question; why wasn't the physical evidence of harm caused
> by the radiation matching the theortical effects. The
> consclusion was, by scientists, not the programme makers, that
> the expected problems were extrapolated downwards from the effects
> of Hirosima, the only available case study until Chernobyl happened.
> A lot of the "evidence" of harmful effects had been deduced from the
> Hirosima data (and belived by those chose to), rather than actually
> studied for that particular case. It was found, and seeming amongst
> scientists who "do" radiation agreed, that below some level (which
> Chernobyl was) extrapolating the Hiroshima data fails, and the
> actual physical results were nowhere near as bad as would have been
> expected (and indeed reported - falsely in some cases).

Unfortunately they carefully skirted around the fact that the 'evidence'
from Chernobyl was the official government figures, and of course figures
produced by the Russian government in a matter which makes them look
extremely bad in the eyes of the world are entirely reliable aren't they
.

Greg

Torak wrote:

|| Greg wrote:
||| CraigB wrote:
|||
|||| Something really scary ...the US and Canada think that NZ is part
|||| of Australia.
|||| Their adverts over here for "Aussie" products and their "Aussie"
|||| actors all speak with a Kiwi accent.
|||
|||
||| Something more scary, Americans know so little about the world
||| outside their borders they have to tak the country onto every
||| capital city "the british prime minister in London-England said..."
||
|| Ah, but that's so they don't confuse it with London-Nevada,
|| London-Massachusetts or London-Oregon. (I have no idea if there are
|| Londons in those states, but they do tend to lift names from
|| everywhere...)
||
|| I particularly enjoyed, on a trip to the States, travelling through
|| Moscow, Maine, population 620...

That'll be Moscow as in "moss-cow".

--
Rich
==============================

Take out the obvious to email me.

Greg wrote:
> "Torak" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
>>>Yes there's a lot of it going on, but most is a bit more subtle than
>>>telling the nation that a dose or radiation is good for them . I
>>
>>Which isn't strictly wrong, actually. All depends on the type and level
>>of radiation. Humans would find it very difficult to live without UV
>>light, for instance, which is strictly speaking radiation.
>>
>>OK, so they're being a bit sloppy with the context, but they're not
>>strictly speaking *wrong*.
>
> They weren't talking about UV, oh no, were explicitly saying that the
> radiation from bomb fallout and leaks from nuclear power stations was good
> for you in small doses, and not really at all bad for you in larger doses!.

Hehe... giggle... aren't you glad wise people like that are on TV
talking about science rather than actually doing science?

Richard Brookman wrote:
> Torak wrote:
>
> || Greg wrote:
> ||| CraigB wrote:
> |||
> |||| Something really scary ...the US and Canada think that NZ is part
> |||| of Australia.
> |||| Their adverts over here for "Aussie" products and their "Aussie"
> |||| actors all speak with a Kiwi accent.
> |||
> |||
> ||| Something more scary, Americans know so little about the world
> ||| outside their borders they have to tak the country onto every
> ||| capital city "the british prime minister in London-England said..."
> ||
> || Ah, but that's so they don't confuse it with London-Nevada,
> || London-Massachusetts or London-Oregon. (I have no idea if there are
> || Londons in those states, but they do tend to lift names from
> || everywhere...)
> ||
> || I particularly enjoyed, on a trip to the States, travelling through
> || Moscow, Maine, population 620...
>
> That'll be Moscow as in "moss-cow".

Ah, you know it then?

Actually, I suppose, it's more like "Ma's Cow"...

"Torak" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Hehe... giggle... aren't you glad wise people like that are on TV
> talking about science rather than actually doing science?

I would be if I'd seen any attempt to ridicule them, but sadly I haven't,
they seem to have the media well under control these days.

Greg

Greg wrote:
> "Torak" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Hehe... giggle... aren't you glad wise people like that are on TV
>>talking about science rather than actually doing science?
>
>
> I would be if I'd seen any attempt to ridicule them, but sadly I haven't,
> they seem to have the media well under control these days.

Probably because 80% of the viewing public get their general knowledge
from them. I mean, they voted for Bliar twice...

Torak wrote:

|| Richard Brookman wrote:
||| Torak wrote:
|||
||||| Greg wrote:
|||||| CraigB wrote:
||||||
||||||| Something really scary ...the US and Canada think that NZ is
||||||| part of Australia.
||||||| Their adverts over here for "Aussie" products and their "Aussie"
||||||| actors all speak with a Kiwi accent.
||||||
||||||
|||||| Something more scary, Americans know so little about the world
|||||| outside their borders they have to tak the country onto every
|||||| capital city "the british prime minister in London-England
|||||| said..."
|||||
||||| Ah, but that's so they don't confuse it with London-Nevada,
||||| London-Massachusetts or London-Oregon. (I have no idea if there
||||| are Londons in those states, but they do tend to lift names from
||||| everywhere...)
|||||
||||| I particularly enjoyed, on a trip to the States, travelling
||||| through Moscow, Maine, population 620...
|||
||| That'll be Moscow as in "moss-cow".
||
|| Ah, you know it then?
||
|| Actually, I suppose, it's more like "Ma's Cow"...

Yup, that's the one.

--
Rich
==============================

Take out the obvious to email me.