Has anybody here ever had a complaint about the BBC upheld? Christian
Fraser said on a news programme a few days ago that the UK doesn't have
a constitution. I complained and pointed out we are one of the oldest democracies in the world, that we house the Mother of Parliaments, and
our constitution is one of the oldest in the world. I got the usual
bland reply telling me they had watched a recording and then tried to
put it into a context where it would be a true statement, although they didn't deny it was what he said.
The sooner we sell off he BBC the better.
On Sat 21/01/2023 08:47, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Has anybody here ever had a complaint about the BBC upheld? Christian
Fraser said on a news programme a few days ago that the UK doesn't have
a constitution. I complained and pointed out we are one of the oldest
democracies in the world, that we house the Mother of Parliaments, and
our constitution is one of the oldest in the world. I got the usual
bland reply telling me they had watched a recording and then tried to
put it into a context where it would be a true statement, although they
didn't deny it was what he said.
The sooner we sell off he BBC the better.
I think there is a word missing there - we don't have a WRITTEN
constitution. If CF did say written then the BBC is correct, but if he
didn't then the BBC is definitely in the wrong.
Has anybody here ever had a complaint about the BBC upheld? Christian
Fraser said on a news programme a few days ago that the UK doesn't have a constitution. I complained and pointed out we are one of the oldest democracies in the world, that we house the Mother of Parliaments, and our constitution is one of the oldest in the world. I got the usual bland
reply telling me they had watched a recording and then tried to put it
into a context where it would be a true statement, although they didn't
deny it was what he said.
The sooner we sell off he BBC the better.
On 21/01/2023 08:47, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Has anybody here ever had a complaint about the BBC upheld? Christian
Fraser said on a news programme a few days ago that the UK doesn't have a
constitution. I complained and pointed out we are one of the oldest
democracies in the world, that we house the Mother of Parliaments, and our >> constitution is one of the oldest in the world. I got the usual bland
reply telling me they had watched a recording and then tried to put it
into a context where it would be a true statement, although they didn't
deny it was what he said.
The sooner we sell off he BBC the better.
I thought the Manx Parliament was older?
Has anybody here ever had a complaint about the BBC upheld? Christian
Fraser said on a news programme a few days ago that the UK doesn't have a constitution. I complained and pointed out we are one of the oldest democracies in the world, that we house the Mother of Parliaments, and
our constitution is one of the oldest in the world. I got the usual
bland reply telling me they had watched a recording and then tried to
put it into a context where it would be a true statement, although they didn't deny it was what he said.
The sooner we sell off he BBC the better.
Has anybody here ever had a complaint about the BBC upheld? Christian
Fraser said on a news programme a few days ago that the UK doesn't have a constitution. I complained and pointed out we are one of the oldest democracies in the world, that we house the Mother of Parliaments, and our constitution is one of the oldest in the world. I got the usual bland
reply telling me they had watched a recording and then tried to put it
into a context where it would be a true statement, although they didn't
deny it was what he said.
The sooner we sell off he BBC the better.
--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
If you ever find something you like buy a lifetime supply because they
will stop making it
On 21/01/2023 at 08:47, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Has anybody here ever had a complaint about the BBC upheld? Christian >>Fraser said on a news programme a few days ago that the UK doesn't have a >>constitution. I complained and pointed out we are one of the oldest >>democracies in the world, that we house the Mother of Parliaments, and our >>constitution is one of the oldest in the world. I got the usual bland
reply telling me they had watched a recording and then tried to put it
into a context where it would be a true statement, although they didn't >>deny it was what he said.
The sooner we sell off he BBC the better.
And that's a reason for destroying a world-recognised and acclaimed
British institution?
In article <xn0nx3wu444naeu006@news.individual.net>, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
Has anybody here ever had a complaint about the BBC upheld? Christian
Fraser said on a news programme a few days ago that the UK doesn't have a
constitution. I complained and pointed out we are one of the oldest
democracies in the world, that we house the Mother of Parliaments, and
our constitution is one of the oldest in the world. I got the usual
bland reply telling me they had watched a recording and then tried to
put it into a context where it would be a true statement, although they
didn't deny it was what he said.
The sooner we sell off he BBC the better.
There is no written constitution
Has anybody here ever had a complaint about the BBC upheld?
Christian
Fraser said on a news programme a few days ago that the UK doesn't have
a constitution.
I complained and pointed out we are one of the oldest
democracies in the world, that we house the Mother of Parliaments, and
our constitution is one of the oldest in the world.
I got the usual
bland reply telling me they had watched a recording and then tried to
put it into a context where it would be a true statement, although they didn't deny it was what he said.
The sooner we sell off he BBC the better.
But we don't have one do we? Governments can rewrite the law and do so all >the time. As for the bib, I have noticed of late that if they put up an
email for them, nobody ever gets back to you, It seems far worse if its
the crowd at media City in Salford. I mean its hardly rocket science to
send an automated reply to the effect that your email has been opened is
it?
What is the point in soliciting comment if it never is being read?
Brian
On 21/01/2023 10:00, charles wrote:
In article <xn0nx3wu444naeu006@news.individual.net>, Jeff GainesThe UK constitution is largely in writing. What we don't have is a
<jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
Has anybody here ever had a complaint about the BBC upheld? Christian
Fraser said on a news programme a few days ago that the UK doesn't have a >>> constitution. I complained and pointed out we are one of the oldest
democracies in the world, that we house the Mother of Parliaments, and
our constitution is one of the oldest in the world. I got the usual
bland reply telling me they had watched a recording and then tried to
put it into a context where it would be a true statement, although they
didn't deny it was what he said.
The sooner we sell off he BBC the better.
There is no written constitution
codified constitution in a single document. That's unusual but not unique.
Has anybody here ever had a complaint about the BBC upheld? Christian
Fraser said on a news programme a few days ago that the UK doesn't have a constitution. I complained and pointed out we are one of the oldest democracies in the world, that we house the Mother of Parliaments, and our constitution is one of the oldest in the world. I got the usual bland
reply telling me they had watched a recording and then tried to put it
into a context where it would be a true statement, although they didn't
deny it was what he said.
The sooner we sell off he BBC the better.
On Sat 21/01/2023 08:47, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Has anybody here ever had a complaint about the BBC upheld? Christian >>Fraser said on a news programme a few days ago that the UK doesn't have a >>constitution. I complained and pointed out we are one of the oldest >>democracies in the world, that we house the Mother of Parliaments, and
our constitution is one of the oldest in the world. I got the usual bland >>reply telling me they had watched a recording and then tried to put it >>into a context where it would be a true statement, although they didn't >>deny it was what he said.
The sooner we sell off he BBC the better.
I think there is a word missing there - we don't have a WRITTEN
constitution. If CF did say written then the BBC is correct, but if he
didn't then the BBC is definitely in the wrong.
We don't have a written constitution but we certainly have a
constitution, which is evidenced in writing in many ways.
One of many, many reasons. It's lack of impartiality being the main one,
if it leant any further to the left it would fall over.
On 21/01/2023 in message <tqggoh$2ilrk$1@dont-email.me> Wilf wrote:
On 21/01/2023 at 08:47, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Has anybody here ever had a complaint about the BBC upheld? Christian >>>Fraser said on a news programme a few days ago that the UK doesn't have a >>>constitution. I complained and pointed out we are one of the oldest >>>democracies in the world, that we house the Mother of Parliaments, and our >>>constitution is one of the oldest in the world. I got the usual bland >>>reply telling me they had watched a recording and then tried to put it >>>into a context where it would be a true statement, although they didn't >>>deny it was what he said.
The sooner we sell off he BBC the better.
And that's a reason for destroying a world-recognised and acclaimed
British institution?
One of many, many reasons. It's lack of impartiality being the main one,
if it leant any further to the left it would fall over.
But we don't have one do we? Governments can rewrite the law and do so all >the time. As for the bib, I have noticed of late that if they put up an
email for them, nobody ever gets back to you, It seems far worse if its the >crowd at media City in Salford. I mean its hardly rocket science to send an >automated reply to the effect that your email has been opened is it?
What is the point in soliciting comment if it never is being read?
On 21/01/2023 at 08:47, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Has anybody here ever had a complaint about the BBC upheld? Christian
Fraser said on a news programme a few days ago that the UK doesn't have a
constitution. I complained and pointed out we are one of the oldest
democracies in the world, that we house the Mother of Parliaments, and
our
constitution is one of the oldest in the world. I got the usual bland
reply telling me they had watched a recording and then tried to put it
into a context where it would be a true statement, although they didn't
deny it was what he said.
The sooner we sell off he BBC the better.
And that's a reason for destroying a world-recognised and acclaimed
British institution?
On 21/01/2023 11:02, Wilf wrote:
On 21/01/2023 at 08:47, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Has anybody here ever had a complaint about the BBC upheld? Christian
Fraser said on a news programme a few days ago that the UK doesn't have a >>> constitution. I complained and pointed out we are one of the oldest
democracies in the world, that we house the Mother of Parliaments, and
our
constitution is one of the oldest in the world. I got the usual bland
reply telling me they had watched a recording and then tried to put it
into a context where it would be a true statement, although they didn't
deny it was what he said.
The sooner we sell off he BBC the better.
And that's a reason for destroying a world-recognised and acclaimed
British institution?
Not by itself. But it is a tiny further example of a BBC culture of
"never admit we were wrong and never apologise"[1]. It wasn't a point
that requires sanction or correction. But when they won't even accept
that he was wrong then they come across as no different from any other >political body with an agenda of its own.
[1] well, not until faced with the risk of legal action and heavy costs
On 21/01/2023 11:14, Jeff Gaines wrote:
We don't have a written constitution but we certainly have a
constitution, which is evidenced in writing in many ways.
As already explained to you, we don't have a constitution because no-one
can define unambiguously what it is. You are welcome to try to define
it, but I bet you can't come up with a definition that is both
unambiguous and widely agreed upon.
On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 11:22:45 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
On 21/01/2023 11:14, Jeff Gaines wrote:
We don't have a written constitution but we certainly have a
constitution, which is evidenced in writing in many ways.
As already explained to you, we don't have a constitution because no-one
can define unambiguously what it is. You are welcome to try to define
it, but I bet you can't come up with a definition that is both
unambiguous and widely agreed upon.
Do we not have common law either then?
On 21/01/2023 11:22, Java Jive wrote:
On 21/01/2023 11:14, Jeff Gaines wrote:
We don't have a written constitution but we certainly have a
constitution, which is evidenced in writing in many ways.
As already explained to you, we don't have a constitution because
no-one can define unambiguously what it is. You are welcome to try to
define it, but I bet you can't come up with a definition that is both
unambiguous and widely agreed upon.
How much are you willing to wager and who will you accept as the arbiter?
On 21/01/2023 10:00, charles wrote:
In article <xn0nx3wu444naeu006@news.individual.net>, Jeff Gaines
<jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
Has anybody here ever had a complaint about the BBC upheld? Christian
Fraser said on a news programme a few days ago that the UK doesn't have a >>> constitution. I complained and pointed out we are one of the oldest
democracies in the world, that we house the Mother of Parliaments, and
our constitution is one of the oldest in the world. I got the usual
bland reply telling me they had watched a recording and then tried to
put it into a context where it would be a true statement, although they
didn't deny it was what he said.
The sooner we sell off he BBC the better.
There is no written constitution
The UK constitution is largely in writing. What we don't have is a
codified constitution in a single document. That's unusual but not unique.
On 21/01/2023 11:14, Jeff Gaines wrote:
We don't have a written constitution but we certainly have a
constitution, which is evidenced in writing in many ways.
As already explained to you, we don't have a constitution because no-one
can define unambiguously what it is. You are welcome to try to define
it, but I bet you can't come up with a definition that is both
unambiguous and widely agreed upon.
You certainly make a valid point. I used to listen to Feedback before
Roger Bolton was removed (for giving the BBC a hard time?). Whatever
the issue, the BBC invariably always said the listener(s) were wrong
and the BBC knew better.
But we don't have one do we? Governments can rewrite the law and do so all the time. As for the bib, I have noticed of late that if they put up an
email for them, nobody ever gets back to you, It seems far worse if its the crowd at media City in Salford. I mean its hardly rocket science to send an automated reply to the effect that your email has been opened is it?
What is the point in soliciting comment if it never is being read?
On 21/01/2023 in message <tqggoh$2ilrk$1@dont-email.me> Wilf wrote:
On 21/01/2023 at 08:47, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Has anybody here ever had a complaint about the BBC upheld? Christian
Fraser said on a news programme a few days ago that the UK doesn't have a >>> constitution. I complained and pointed out we are one of the oldest
democracies in the world, that we house the Mother of Parliaments, and our >>> constitution is one of the oldest in the world. I got the usual bland
reply telling me they had watched a recording and then tried to put it
into a context where it would be a true statement, although they didn't
deny it was what he said.
The sooner we sell off he BBC the better.
And that's a reason for destroying a world-recognised and acclaimed
British institution?
One of many, many reasons. It's lack of impartiality being the main one,
if it leant any further to the left it would fall over.
The sooner we sell off he BBC the better.
The sooner you understand the British system of government the better.
Think for a moment about how many letters and EMails the BBC receive?
To give a personalised response to every one would be VERY expensive.
Actually, a lot of it probably is written - just not all in one place.
On 21/01/2023 10:00, Scott wrote:
Actually, a lot of it probably is written - just not all in one place.
I am no expert on the Consitution but I think the diifference is that
our one is more flexible and relying on precedent but ones like the US
one are inflexible and almost worshipped like the muslims with their book.
On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 11:10:41 +0000, Robin <rbw@outlook.com> wrote:
On 21/01/2023 10:00, charles wrote:
In article <xn0nx3wu444naeu006@news.individual.net>, Jeff Gaines
<jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
Has anybody here ever had a complaint about the BBC upheld? Christian
Fraser said on a news programme a few days ago that the UK doesn't have a >>>> constitution. I complained and pointed out we are one of the oldest
democracies in the world, that we house the Mother of Parliaments, and >>>> our constitution is one of the oldest in the world. I got the usual
bland reply telling me they had watched a recording and then tried to
put it into a context where it would be a true statement, although they >>>> didn't deny it was what he said.
The sooner we sell off he BBC the better.
There is no written constitution
The UK constitution is largely in writing. What we don't have is a
codified constitution in a single document. That's unusual but not unique.
Until recently there has been a general understanding of the British
way of doing things.
As long as you're British of course, or you've been brought up in the
British way of life. Maybe customs and traditions are not as permanent
a way of preserving things as we have previously relied upon,
particularly as we dilute (or some might say pollute) our indigenous
culture with some other very different ones. Maybe we should consider preserving our fundamental values by writing them down for everybody
to understand.
On 21/01/2023 in message <tqggoh$2ilrk$1@dont-email.me> Wilf wrote:
On 21/01/2023 at 08:47, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Has anybody here ever had a complaint about the BBC upheld? Christian
Fraser said on a news programme a few days ago that the UK doesn't
have a
constitution. I complained and pointed out we are one of the oldest
democracies in the world, that we house the Mother of Parliaments,
and our
constitution is one of the oldest in the world. I got the usual bland
reply telling me they had watched a recording and then tried to put it
into a context where it would be a true statement, although they didn't
deny it was what he said.
The sooner we sell off he BBC the better.
And that's a reason for destroying a world-recognised and acclaimed
British institution?
One of many, many reasons. It's lack of impartiality being the main one,
if it leant any further to the left it would fall over.
But taken overall, I personally think it's pretty balanced.
You can't expect balance in each and every report or programme.
On 21/01/2023 in message <tqghj0$2iqgn$1@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:
The sooner we sell off he BBC the better.
The sooner you understand the British system of government the better.
You have said you are not a "lawyer" (which is an American qualification, doesn't exist in the UK) and boy does it show.
On 21/01/2023 in message <tqghj0$2iqgn$1@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:
The sooner you understand the British system of government the better.
You have said you are not a "lawyer" (which is an American
qualification, doesn't exist in the UK)
and boy does it show.
In article <tqgn7v$2jmcq$1@dont-email.me>,
Wilf <wilf@postingx.uk> wrote:
But taken overall, I personally think it's pretty balanced.
The BBC is extremely :-
Pro EU, Anti Brexit.
Pro BLM.
Pro Net Zero.
Climate change fanatical.
Pro Vaccines, Masks, Lockdown
Pro political correctness.
Pro Immigration and support for poor channel refugees.
Anti Tory (not that there are any now).
Pro people's rights to protest in favour of the above but not against.
Etc. etc. There are plenty of others.
There is never a trace of balance on any of those subjects ever.
The BBC's upper middle class liberal/left opinion is fact in their
eyes.
You can't expect balance in each and every report or programme.
But on all the issues of the day, there's is never any balance. It's
not even allowed for anyone to make a counter argument certainly not
without sneering and an "expert" view quickly used dismiss the
heretic POV.
The BBC is not what it was a decade or two ago, it is now a
propaganda outlet for the establishment and the far left and nothing
more. Just look at their weather maps now, with the dark red and
black areas, nothing to do with science just pure undiluted
propaganda.
During covid we had daily death figures pushing the agenda, funnily
I'm told we don't have that for the ~100 people per day excess deaths
(5 year average) we have in the UK at the moment. I can't think why
that might be, oh maybe I can.
Disingenuous, awful BBC, supplier of bias reinforcement to the
clapping seals.
Such a shame.
Bob.
Here’s what the general population think
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/is-the-bbc-more-favourable-towards-labour-the-left-or-the-conservatives-the-right
Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 21/01/2023 in message <tqghj0$2iqgn$1@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:
The sooner we sell off he BBC the better.
The sooner you understand the British system of government the better.
You have said you are not a "lawyer" (which is an American qualification, >>doesn't exist in the UK) and boy does it show.
I think you will find the Law Society of England and Wales refers to
lawyers, as does the Crown Prosecution Service. Solicitors and Barristers
are specialised sub groupings.
In article <tqgn7v$2jmcq$1@dont-email.me>,
Wilf <wilf@postingx.uk> wrote:
But taken overall, I personally think it's pretty balanced.
The BBC is extremely :-
Pro EU, Anti Brexit.
Pro BLM.
Pro Net Zero.
Climate change fanatical.
Pro Vaccines, Masks, Lockdown
Pro political correctness.
Pro Immigration and support for poor channel refugees.
Anti Tory (not that there are any now).
Pro people's rights to protest in favour of the above but not against.
Etc. etc. There are plenty of others.
There is never a trace of balance on any of those subjects ever.
The BBC's upper middle class liberal/left opinion is fact in their
eyes.
You can't expect balance in each and every report or programme.
But on all the issues of the day, there's is never any balance. It's
not even allowed for anyone to make a counter argument certainly not
without sneering and an "expert" view quickly used dismiss the
heretic POV.
The BBC is not what it was a decade or two ago, it is now a
propaganda outlet for the establishment and the far left and nothing
more. Just look at their weather maps now, with the dark red and
black areas, nothing to do with science just pure undiluted
propaganda.
During covid we had daily death figures pushing the agenda, funnily
I'm told we don't have that for the ~100 people per day excess deaths
(5 year average) we have in the UK at the moment. I can't think why
that might be
Disingenuous, awful BBC, supplier of bias reinforcement to the
clapping seals.
On 21/01/2023 11:08, Brian Gaff wrote:
But we don't have one do we? Governments can rewrite the law and do so all >> the time. As for the bib, I have noticed of late that if they put up an
email for them, nobody ever gets back to you, It seems far worse if its the >> crowd at media City in Salford. I mean its hardly rocket science to send an >> automated reply to the effect that your email has been opened is it?
What is the point in soliciting comment if it never is being read?
Think for a moment about how many letters and EMails the BBC receive?
To give a personalised response to every one would be VERY expensive.
On 21/01/2023 11:27, Scott wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 11:22:45 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
On 21/01/2023 11:14, Jeff Gaines wrote:
We don't have a written constitution but we certainly have a
constitution, which is evidenced in writing in many ways.
As already explained to you, we don't have a constitution because no-one >>> can define unambiguously what it is. You are welcome to try to define
it, but I bet you can't come up with a definition that is both
unambiguous and widely agreed upon.
Do we not have common law either then?
See section 'Common law and statute':
https://www.iclr.co.uk/knowledge/topics/the-english-legal-system/
On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 11:10:41 +0000, Robin <rbw@outlook.com> wrote:
On 21/01/2023 10:00, charles wrote:
In article <xn0nx3wu444naeu006@news.individual.net>, Jeff Gaines
<jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
Has anybody here ever had a complaint about the BBC upheld? Christian
Fraser said on a news programme a few days ago that the UK doesn't have a >>>> constitution. I complained and pointed out we are one of the oldest
democracies in the world, that we house the Mother of Parliaments, and >>>> our constitution is one of the oldest in the world. I got the usual
bland reply telling me they had watched a recording and then tried to
put it into a context where it would be a true statement, although they >>>> didn't deny it was what he said.
The sooner we sell off he BBC the better.
There is no written constitution
The UK constitution is largely in writing. What we don't have is a
codified constitution in a single document. That's unusual but not unique.
Until recently there has been a general understanding of the British
way of doing things.
As long as you're British of course, or you've been brought up in the
British way of life. Maybe customs and traditions are not as permanent
a way of preserving things as we have previously relied upon,
particularly as we dilute (or some might say pollute) our indigenous
culture with some other very different ones. Maybe we should consider >preserving our fundamental values by writing them down for everybody
to understand.
Overall the BBC is pretty well balanced, and is immeasurably more so than >yourself.
On 21/01/2023 10:00, Scott wrote:
Actually, a lot of it probably is written - just not all in one place.
I am no expert on the Consitution but I think the diifference is that
our one is more flexible and relying on precedent but ones like the US
one are inflexible and almost worshipped like the muslims with their book.
On 21/01/2023 in message <tqghj0$2iqgn$1@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:
The sooner we sell off he BBC the better.
The sooner you understand the British system of government the better.
You have said you are not a "lawyer" (which is an American qualification, >doesn't exist in the UK) and boy does it show.
On 21 Jan 2023 12:23:48 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
On 21/01/2023 in message <tqghj0$2iqgn$1@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:
The sooner we sell off he BBC the better.
The sooner you understand the British system of government the better.
You have said you are not a "lawyer" (which is an American qualification, >>doesn't exist in the UK) and boy does it show.
You sure you are not thinking of 'attorney'?
On 21/01/2023 in message <tqh2ff$2lio0$1@dont-email.me> Tweed wrote:
Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 21/01/2023 in message <tqghj0$2iqgn$1@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote: >>>
The sooner we sell off he BBC the better.
The sooner you understand the British system of government the better.
You have said you are not a "lawyer" (which is an American qualification, >>> doesn't exist in the UK) and boy does it show.
I think you will find the Law Society of England and Wales refers to
lawyers, as does the Crown Prosecution Service. Solicitors and Barristers
are specialised sub groupings.
Creeping Americanism, standards are falling everywhere.
On 21/01/2023 in message <tqggoh$2ilrk$1...@dont-email.me> Wilf wrote:
On 21/01/2023 at 08:47, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Has anybody here ever had a complaint about the BBC upheld? Christian >>Fraser said on a news programme a few days ago that the UK doesn't have a >>constitution. I complained and pointed out we are one of the oldest >>democracies in the world, that we house the Mother of Parliaments, and our >>constitution is one of the oldest in the world. I got the usual bland >>reply telling me they had watched a recording and then tried to put it >>into a context where it would be a true statement, although they didn't >>deny it was what he said.
The sooner we sell off he BBC the better.
And that's a reason for destroying a world-recognised and acclaimedOne of many, many reasons. It's lack of impartiality being the main one,
British institution?
if it leant any further to the left it would fall over.
--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
The first five days after the weekend are the hardest.
On 21/01/2023 11:12, Jeff Gaines wrote:
One of many, many reasons. It's lack of impartiality being the main one,The usual complaint of one who has leaned too far to the right and has
if it leant any further to the left it would fall over.
fallen over mentally.
On 21/01/2023 in message <6e5oshd79ehhhl9cs0lamsdjmgi6frnnvn@4ax.com>
Scott wrote:
On 21 Jan 2023 12:23:48 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
On 21/01/2023 in message <tqghj0$2iqgn$1@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote: >>>
The sooner we sell off he BBC the better.
The sooner you understand the British system of government the better.
You have said you are not a "lawyer" (which is an American qualification, >>> doesn't exist in the UK) and boy does it show.
You sure you are not thinking of 'attorney'?
No. In the UK we have solicitors and barristers so "lawyer" gives no indication of the qualifications or role of a person.
On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 11:22:45 +0000, Java Jive <ja...@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
On 21/01/2023 11:14, Jeff Gaines wrote:
We don't have a written constitution but we certainly have a
constitution, which is evidenced in writing in many ways.
As already explained to you, we don't have a constitution because no-one >can define unambiguously what it is. You are welcome to try to defineDo we not have common law either then?
it, but I bet you can't come up with a definition that is both
unambiguous and widely agreed upon.
On 21/01/2023 12:27, MB wrote:
On 21/01/2023 10:00, Scott wrote:
Actually, a lot of it probably is written - just not all in one place.
I am no expert on the Consitution but I think the diifference is thatIf the US constitution had been any good it wouldn't have needed so many amendments.
our one is more flexible and relying on precedent but ones like the US
one are inflexible and almost worshipped like the muslims with their book.
--
Max Demian
On Saturday, 21 January 2023 at 11:27:04 UTC, Scott wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 11:22:45 +0000, Java Jive <ja...@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
On 21/01/2023 11:14, Jeff Gaines wrote:Do we not have common law either then?
We don't have a written constitution but we certainly have a
constitution, which is evidenced in writing in many ways.
As already explained to you, we don't have a constitution because no-one
can define unambiguously what it is. You are welcome to try to define
it, but I bet you can't come up with a definition that is both
unambiguous and widely agreed upon.
Yes we do, but it is not codified either.
Over the centuries more offences have become codified Offences Against the Person 1861, Theft 1968 and so on.
The common law offence / tort of assault can still be charged or sued for.
On 21/01/2023 in message <6e5oshd79ehhhl9cs0lamsdjmgi6frnnvn@4ax.com>
Scott wrote:
On 21 Jan 2023 12:23:48 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
On 21/01/2023 in message <tqghj0$2iqgn$1@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:
The sooner we sell off he BBC the better.
The sooner you understand the British system of government the better.
You have said you are not a "lawyer" (which is an American qualification, >>>doesn't exist in the UK) and boy does it show.
You sure you are not thinking of 'attorney'?
No. In the UK we have solicitors and barristers so "lawyer" gives no >indication of the qualifications or role of a person.
You sure you are not thinking of 'attorney'?No. In the UK we have solicitors and barristers so "lawyer" gives no indication of the qualifications or role of a person.
--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
Tell me what you need, and I'll tell you how to get along without it.
On Saturday, 21 January 2023 at 11:18:13 UTC, Java Jive wrote:
On 21/01/2023 11:12, Jeff Gaines wrote:
One of many, many reasons. It's lack of impartiality being the main one, >>> if it leant any further to the left it would fall over.
The usual complaint of one who has leaned too far to the right and has
fallen over mentally.
Rightarded.
On 21/01/2023 in message <tqh2ta$2llac$1@dont-email.me> Tweed wrote:
Here’s what the general population think
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/is-the-bbc-more-favourable-towards-labour-the-left-or-the-conservatives-the-right
Interesting, probably reflects the insidious socialist propaganda
machine that is out in force.
On Saturday, 21 January 2023 at 17:24:17 UTC, Jeff Gaines wrote:
SNIP
No. In the UK we have solicitors and barristers so "lawyer" gives no
You sure you are not thinking of 'attorney'?
indication of the qualifications or role of a person.
In England we have qualified solicitors, barristers (advocates in Scotland) and notaries.
On 21/01/2023 in message <tqh3kq$2louj$1@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:
Overall the BBC is pretty well balanced, and is immeasurably more so
than yourself.
Presumably that is just your opinion (which you are entitled to of
course) since it is not supported by fact.
On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 11:43:54 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
On 21/01/2023 11:27, Scott wrote:
Do we not have common law either then?
See section 'Common law and statute':
https://www.iclr.co.uk/knowledge/topics/the-english-legal-system/
Thanks. Looks much the same principle as the constitution, which you
say does not exist
On 21/01/2023 16:38, Scott wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 11:43:54 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
On 21/01/2023 11:27, Scott wrote:
Do we not have common law either then?
See section 'Common law and statute':
https://www.iclr.co.uk/knowledge/topics/the-english-legal-system/
Thanks. Looks much the same principle as the constitution, which you
say does not exist
Common law exists, being routinely applied in the courts, but if you
can't tell me what the constitution actually is, how can you claim we
have one?
On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 18:44:00 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
On 21/01/2023 16:38, Scott wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 11:43:54 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
On 21/01/2023 11:27, Scott wrote:
Do we not have common law either then?
See section 'Common law and statute':
https://www.iclr.co.uk/knowledge/topics/the-english-legal-system/
Thanks. Looks much the same principle as the constitution, which you
say does not exist
Common law exists, being routinely applied in the courts, but if you
can't tell me what the constitution actually is, how can you claim we
have one?
Question for you the - please tell me what the common law is.
On 21/01/2023 18:52, Scott wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 18:44:00 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
On 21/01/2023 16:38, Scott wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 11:43:54 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
On 21/01/2023 11:27, Scott wrote:
Do we not have common law either then?
See section 'Common law and statute':
https://www.iclr.co.uk/knowledge/topics/the-english-legal-system/
Thanks. Looks much the same principle as the constitution, which you
say does not exist
Common law exists, being routinely applied in the courts, but if you
can't tell me what the constitution actually is, how can you claim we
have one?
Question for you the - please tell me what the common law is.
It's explained in the link I've already given, that's why I gave it.
On 21/01/2023 19:09, Scott wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 19:06:30 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
On 21/01/2023 18:52, Scott wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 18:44:00 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
Question for you the - please tell me what the common law is.
It's explained in the link I've already given, that's why I gave it.
No, your link tells me how it operates not what it is.
"The common law is the law declared by judges, derived from custom and >precedent. It originated with the legal reforms of King Henry II in the
12th century and was called “common” because it applied equally across
the whole country."
Seems clear enough to me.
On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 19:06:30 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
On 21/01/2023 18:52, Scott wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 18:44:00 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
Question for you the - please tell me what the common law is.
It's explained in the link I've already given, that's why I gave it.
No, your link tells me how it operates not what it is.
Solicitors and barristers are sub groups of lawyers. There are other groups >who are neither but are still lawyers. Lawyer is an umbrella term.You sure you are not thinking of 'attorney'?
No. In the UK we have solicitors and barristers so "lawyer" gives no >>indication of the qualifications or role of a person.
On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 19:37:26 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
On 21/01/2023 19:09, Scott wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 19:06:30 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
On 21/01/2023 18:52, Scott wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 18:44:00 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> >>>>> wrote:
Question for you the - please tell me what the common law is.
It's explained in the link I've already given, that's why I gave it.
No, your link tells me how it operates not what it is.
"The common law is the law declared by judges, derived from custom and
precedent. It originated with the legal reforms of King Henry II in the
12th century and was called “common†because it applied equally across >> the whole country."
Seems clear enough to me.
Not to me. I don't see how this differs from the constitution, which
is equally derived from custom and precedent and applies equally
across the country. It may have originated in a different century but
this does not alter the principle.
On Saturday, 21 January 2023 at 17:24:17 UTC, Jeff Gaines wrote:
SNIP
No. In the UK we have solicitors and barristers so "lawyer" gives no >>indication of the qualifications or role of a person.
You sure you are not thinking of 'attorney'?
In England we have qualified solicitors, barristers (advocates in
Scotland) and notaries.
In the UK, but not the US, an attorney is any person legally empowered by >another person or company to act on their behalf e.g. >https://www.gov.uk/power-of-attorney
On 21/01/2023 in message <879oshtihfvi6ks747l6ksr5ohi5g3ll1k@4ax.com>
Scott wrote:
No. In the UK we have solicitors and barristers so "lawyer" gives no
indication of the qualifications or role of a person.
In what way does this make it an American term?
In America you can qualify as a "lawyer" then either act as what we call
a solicitor (generally working in an office) or what we call a barrister
(who has the right to address a court) and who usually works in a narrow highly specialised field.
No. In the UK we have solicitors and barristers so "lawyer" gives no >>indication of the qualifications or role of a person.
In what way does this make it an American term?
On 21/01/2023 17:49, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
On Saturday, 21 January 2023 at 17:24:17 UTC, Jeff Gaines wrote:
SNIP
No. In the UK we have solicitors and barristers so "lawyer" gives no >>>indication of the qualifications or role of a person.
You sure you are not thinking of 'attorney'?
In England we have qualified solicitors, barristers (advocates in
Scotland) and notaries.
we also have other lawyers
In what way does this make it an American term?
On 21/01/2023 in message
<94e0772c-d2a4-f52c-d5db-c13abe1a2299@outlook.com> Robin wrote:
On 21/01/2023 17:49, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
On Saturday, 21 January 2023 at 17:24:17 UTC, Jeff Gaines wrote:
SNIP
No. In the UK we have solicitors and barristers so "lawyer" gives no
You sure you are not thinking of 'attorney'?
indication of the qualifications or role of a person.
In England we have qualified solicitors, barristers (advocates in
Scotland) and notaries.
we also have other lawyers
Be interested to know who you feel falls in that category.
An added factor you appear to be overlooking is the effect of
devolution in Scotland and Wales.
On 21/01/2023 17:46, Scott wrote:
In what way does this make it an American term?
I looked in the OED and did not see any suggestion that either LAWYER or >ATTORNEY are Americanisms. They might have slightly different meanings
there but they have history of use in English.
On 21/01/2023 21:06, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 21/01/2023 in message
<94e0772c-d2a4-f52c-d5db-c13abe1a2299@outlook.com> Robin wrote:
On 21/01/2023 17:49, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
On Saturday, 21 January 2023 at 17:24:17 UTC, Jeff Gaines wrote:
SNIP
No. In the UK we have solicitors and barristers so "lawyer" gives no >>>>>indication of the qualifications or role of a person.
You sure you are not thinking of 'attorney'?
In England we have qualified solicitors, barristers (advocates in >>>>Scotland) and notaries.
we also have other lawyers
Be interested to know who you feel falls in that category.
You can start by adding chartered legal executives, registered foreign >lawyers and lawyers with foreign qualifications who don't carry out
reserved work.
Then add in those who provide legal services with a qualification (eg LLB
or CILEX).
After that there's a long spectrum before you reach the gutter. That's
'cos "lawyer" has no special meaning in the UK. Someone can call themself
a lawyer whether or not they have a qualification or are regulated.
On 21/01/2023 16:44, Scott wrote:
An added factor you appear to be overlooking is the effect of
devolution in Scotland and Wales.
What effect? Both have their own channels opting out from network.
They do not make as many programmes as the national networks but that is
to be expected with their smaller size and so smaller licence income.
The Scottish commercial TV channel seem to produce even fewer programmes
for local viewing.
On 21/01/2023 12:03, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 11:10:41 +0000, Robin <rbw@outlook.com> wrote:
On 21/01/2023 10:00, charles wrote:Until recently there has been a general understanding of the British
In article <xn0nx3wu444naeu006@news.individual.net>, Jeff Gaines
<jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
Has anybody here ever had a complaint about the BBC upheld? Christian >>>>> Fraser said on a news programme a few days ago that the UK doesn't have a >>>>> constitution. I complained and pointed out we are one of the oldest
democracies in the world, that we house the Mother of Parliaments, and >>>>> our constitution is one of the oldest in the world. I got the usual
bland reply telling me they had watched a recording and then tried to >>>>> put it into a context where it would be a true statement, although they >>>>> didn't deny it was what he said.
The sooner we sell off he BBC the better.
There is no written constitution
The UK constitution is largely in writing. What we don't have is a
codified constitution in a single document. That's unusual but not unique. >>
way of doing things.
As long as you're British of course, or you've been brought up in the
British way of life. Maybe customs and traditions are not as permanent
a way of preserving things as we have previously relied upon,
particularly as we dilute (or some might say pollute) our indigenous
culture with some other very different ones. Maybe we should consider
preserving our fundamental values by writing them down for everybody
to understand.
Maybe all natives should be required to do the British Citizenship Test.
And be thrown out when we fail.
On 21/01/2023 20:01, Scott wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 19:37:26 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
On 21/01/2023 19:09, Scott wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 19:06:30 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
On 21/01/2023 18:52, Scott wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 18:44:00 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:
Question for you the - please tell me what the common law is.
It's explained in the link I've already given, that's why I gave it.
No, your link tells me how it operates not what it is.
"The common law is the law declared by judges, derived from custom and
precedent. It originated with the legal reforms of King Henry II in the
12th century and was called “common” because it applied equally across
the whole country."
Seems clear enough to me.
Not to me. I don't see how this differs from the constitution, which
is equally derived from custom and precedent and applies equally
across the country. It may have originated in a different century but
this does not alter the principle.
The so-called constitution has not yet been defined in unambiguous and
exact terms in the way Common Law has above.
Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 21/01/2023 in message <tqh2ff$2lio0$1@dont-email.me> Tweed wrote:
Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 21/01/2023 in message <tqghj0$2iqgn$1@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote: >>>>
You have said you are not a "lawyer" (which is an American qualification, >>>> doesn't exist in the UK) and boy does it show.The sooner we sell off he BBC the better.
The sooner you understand the British system of government the better. >>>>
I think you will find the Law Society of England and Wales refers to
lawyers, as does the Crown Prosecution Service. Solicitors and Barristers >>> are specialised sub groupings.
Creeping Americanism, standards are falling everywhere.
The word lawyer has been around since the 14th century, somewhat before >America was discovered.
On 21/01/2023 in message <tqh7i1$2me1r$1@dont-email.me> Tweed wrote:
Solicitors and barristers are sub groups of lawyers. There are other groups >>who are neither but are still lawyers. Lawyer is an umbrella term.You sure you are not thinking of 'attorney'?
No. In the UK we have solicitors and barristers so "lawyer" gives no >>>indication of the qualifications or role of a person.
The umbrella term in the UK was always "the legal profession". I'd be >interested to know what the "other groups" are.
On 21/01/2023 in message ><e2cdbaa3-25e4-4cfc-92b5-91eeecb9c1e9n@googlegroups.com> R. Mark Clayton >wrote:
On Saturday, 21 January 2023 at 17:24:17 UTC, Jeff Gaines wrote:
SNIP
No. In the UK we have solicitors and barristers so "lawyer" gives no >>>indication of the qualifications or role of a person.
You sure you are not thinking of 'attorney'?
In England we have qualified solicitors, barristers (advocates in
Scotland) and notaries.
In the UK, but not the US, an attorney is any person legally empowered by >>another person or company to act on their behalf e.g. >>https://www.gov.uk/power-of-attorney
I know nothing about Scottish law, my studies were English law only.
On 22/01/2023 in message <mj2qshh0l3g1f9rq94cs0itcoofr8in8tj@4ax.com>
Scott wrote:
I know nothing about Scottish law, my studies were English law only.
For present purposes, all you need to know is that the Scots term for
a barrister is an advocate.
Presumably only if whoever said so is qualified to make the statement?
I know nothing about Scottish law, my studies were English law only.
For present purposes, all you need to know is that the Scots term for
a barrister is an advocate.
On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 17:29:24 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 21/01/2023 in message <tqh2ff$2lio0$1@dont-email.me> Tweed wrote:
Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 21/01/2023 in message <tqghj0$2iqgn$1@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote: >>>>>
You have said you are not a "lawyer" (which is an American qualification, >>>>> doesn't exist in the UK) and boy does it show.The sooner we sell off he BBC the better.
The sooner you understand the British system of government the better. >>>>>
I think you will find the Law Society of England and Wales refers to
lawyers, as does the Crown Prosecution Service. Solicitors and Barristers >>>> are specialised sub groupings.
Creeping Americanism, standards are falling everywhere.
The word lawyer has been around since the 14th century, somewhat before >>America was discovered.
From the Oxford English Dictionary-
" 1. A person with knowledge of the law; a member of the profession of
the law; esp. a solicitor, a barrister. LME".
On 21 Jan 2023 21:02:04 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgne...@outlook.com>
wrote:
On 21/01/2023 in message <tqh7i1$2me1r$1...@dont-email.me> Tweed wrote:
Solicitors and barristers are sub groups of lawyers. There are other groups >>who are neither but are still lawyers. Lawyer is an umbrella term.You sure you are not thinking of 'attorney'?
No. In the UK we have solicitors and barristers so "lawyer" gives no >>>indication of the qualifications or role of a person.
The umbrella term in the UK was always "the legal profession". I'd be >interested to know what the "other groups" are.Professors of Law?
On Sunday, 22 January 2023 at 10:00:18 UTC, Scott wrote:
On 21 Jan 2023 21:02:04 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgne...@outlook.com>
wrote:
On 21/01/2023 in message <tqh7i1$2me1r$1...@dont-email.me> Tweed wrote:Professors of Law?
Solicitors and barristers are sub groups of lawyers. There are other groupsYou sure you are not thinking of 'attorney'?
No. In the UK we have solicitors and barristers so "lawyer" gives no >>>>> indication of the qualifications or role of a person.
who are neither but are still lawyers. Lawyer is an umbrella term.
The umbrella term in the UK was always "the legal profession". I'd be
interested to know what the "other groups" are.
Some are qualified as solicitors - e.g. [Prof. E. Rex Makin, who even
acted for me once] - others are not.
On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 21:06:40 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
On 21/01/2023 20:01, Scott wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 19:37:26 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
On 21/01/2023 19:09, Scott wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 19:06:30 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> >>>>> wrote:
No, your link tells me how it operates not what it is.
On 21/01/2023 18:52, Scott wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 18:44:00 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:
Question for you the - please tell me what the common law is.
It's explained in the link I've already given, that's why I gave it. >>>>>
"The common law is the law declared by judges, derived from custom and >>>> precedent. It originated with the legal reforms of King Henry II in the >>>> 12th century and was called “common†because it applied equally across >>>> the whole country."
Seems clear enough to me.
Not to me. I don't see how this differs from the constitution, which
is equally derived from custom and precedent and applies equally
across the country. It may have originated in a different century but
this does not alter the principle.
The so-called constitution has not yet been defined in unambiguous and
exact terms in the way Common Law has above.
Which is entirely different from saying we don't have a constitution.
There are two views whether an 'unwritten' constitution is a
constitution. Yours and mine obviously differ.
On 21/01/2023 in message <tqhrjq$2pk4e$1@dont-email.me> MB wrote:
I looked in the OED and did not see any suggestion that either LAWYER
or ATTORNEY are Americanisms. They might have slightly different
meanings there but they have history of use in English.
Lawyer is an American qualification, in England the equivalents are
Solicitor and Barrister.
On 22/01/2023 09:59, Scott wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 21:06:40 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
On 21/01/2023 20:01, Scott wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 19:37:26 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
On 21/01/2023 19:09, Scott wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 19:06:30 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:
No, your link tells me how it operates not what it is.
On 21/01/2023 18:52, Scott wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 18:44:00 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> >>>>>>>> wrote:
Question for you the - please tell me what the common law is.
It's explained in the link I've already given, that's why I gave it. >>>>>>
"The common law is the law declared by judges, derived from custom and >>>>> precedent. It originated with the legal reforms of King Henry II in the >>>>> 12th century and was called “common” because it applied equally across >>>>> the whole country."
Seems clear enough to me.
Not to me. I don't see how this differs from the constitution, which
is equally derived from custom and precedent and applies equally
across the country. It may have originated in a different century but >>>> this does not alter the principle.
The so-called constitution has not yet been defined in unambiguous and
exact terms in the way Common Law has above.
Which is entirely different from saying we don't have a constitution.
I repeat my original question: "How can you claim we have something that
we cannot even define?"
There are two views whether an 'unwritten' constitution is a
constitution. Yours and mine obviously differ.
It's not the fact that it's unwritten, it's the fact that it's undefined.
R. Mark Clayton <notyalckram@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, 22 January 2023 at 10:00:18 UTC, Scott wrote:
On 21 Jan 2023 21:02:04 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgne...@outlook.com>
wrote:
On 21/01/2023 in message <tqh7i1$2me1r$1...@dont-email.me> Tweed wrote: >>>>Professors of Law?
Solicitors and barristers are sub groups of lawyers. There are other groupsYou sure you are not thinking of 'attorney'?
No. In the UK we have solicitors and barristers so "lawyer" gives no >>>>>> indication of the qualifications or role of a person.
who are neither but are still lawyers. Lawyer is an umbrella term.
The umbrella term in the UK was always "the legal profession". I'd be
interested to know what the "other groups" are.
Some are qualified as solicitors - e.g. [Prof. E. Rex Makin, who even
acted for me once] - others are not.
There’s also the distinction between being qualified as a solicitor, ie >having passed the exams, and being qualified AND holding a practising >certificate, which comes with an annual fee. Some lawyers require the >qualification but don’t need the certificate.
Lawyer is meaningless.
On 22/01/2023 08:22, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 21/01/2023 in message <tqhrjq$2pk4e$1@dont-email.me> MB wrote:
I looked in the OED and did not see any suggestion that either LAWYER or >>>ATTORNEY are Americanisms. They might have slightly different meanings >>>there but they have history of use in English.
Quite, and that is the pertinent point.
Lawyer is an American qualification, in England the equivalents are >>Solicitor and Barrister.
As the person originally childishly criticised by you because of my use of >the well-known internet acronym IANAL, I can quite categorically state
that I wasn't referring to any particular legal qualification, and neither
is the term particularly associated with any one nation or national legal >system. For example, the search terms "American" and "United States" both >get zero hits on this page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IANAL
Now shut the fuck up and stop behaving like a stubborn child.
On 22/01/2023 08:24, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Lawyer is meaningless.
If it's meaningless, then how come others have been able to quote its >dictionary definition at you? I do so again:
lawyer
noun
noun: lawyer; plural noun: lawyers
a person who practises or studies law, especially (in the UK) a solicitor
or a barrister or (in the US) an attorney.
So it's a generic term, the exact meaning of which can depend on its
context, and my use of it in IANAL was entirely appropriate.
There is a chapter in a book about the history of Ryanair, where it
recounts a period when Michael O'Leary actively encouraged staff to
tell any customers making complaints to fuck off.
One of many, many reasons. It's lack of impartiality being the main one,
if it leant any further to the left it would fall over.
On 22/01/2023 in message <tqjb3e$340uf$1@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:
On 22/01/2023 08:22, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 21/01/2023 in message <tqhrjq$2pk4e$1@dont-email.me> MB wrote:
I looked in the OED and did not see any suggestion that either
LAWYER or ATTORNEY are Americanisms. They might have slightly
different meanings there but they have history of use in English.
Quite, and that is the pertinent point.
Lawyer is an American qualification, in England the equivalents are
Solicitor and Barrister.
As the person originally childishly criticised by you because of my
use of the well-known internet acronym IANAL, I can quite
categorically state that I wasn't referring to any particular legal
qualification, and neither is the term particularly associated with
any one nation or national legal system. For example, the search
terms "American" and "United States" both get zero hits on this page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IANAL
Now shut the fuck up and stop behaving like a stubborn child.
I can't accept your statements as you are not qualified to make them.
On 22/01/2023 in message <tqjcmn$3493d$1@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:
On 22/01/2023 08:24, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Lawyer is meaningless.
If it's meaningless, then how come others have been able to quote its
dictionary definition at you? I do so again:
lawyer
noun
noun: lawyer; plural noun: lawyers
a person who practises or studies law, especially (in the UK) a
solicitor or a barrister or (in the US) an attorney.
So it's a generic term, the exact meaning of which can depend on its
context, and my use of it in IANAL was entirely appropriate.
Did you forget the space between "I" and "ANAL"?
I know you are not a "Lawyer" because of your replies and the fact there
is no such qualification in the UK.
On 22/01/2023 13:36, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 22/01/2023 in message <tqjcmn$3493d$1@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:
On 22/01/2023 08:24, Jeff Gaines wrote:Did you forget the space between "I" and "ANAL"?
Lawyer is meaningless.
If it's meaningless, then how come others have been able to quote
its dictionary definition at you? I do so again:
lawyer
noun
noun: lawyer; plural noun: lawyers
a person who practises or studies law, especially (in the UK) a >>>solicitor or a barrister or (in the US) an attorney.
So it's a generic term, the exact meaning of which can depend on its >>>context, and my use of it in IANAL was entirely appropriate.
Nyah! Nyah! Nyah!
I know you are not a "Lawyer" because of your replies and the fact
there is no such qualification in the UK.
I wasn't referring to a qualification, merely using a generic term to >describe any of several possible professions.
On 21/01/2023 in message <tqh2ta$2llac$1@dont-email.me> Tweed wrote:
Here’s what the general population think
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/is-the-bbc-more-favourable-towards-labour-the-left-or-the-conservatives-the-right
Interesting, probably reflects the insidious socialist propaganda
machine that is out in force.
On 21/01/2023 16:24, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 21/01/2023 in message <tqh2ta$2llac$1@dont-email.me> Tweed wrote:
Here‘s what the general population think
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/is-the-bbc-more-favourable-towards-labour-the-left-or-the-conservatives-the-right
Mind, I read the Torygraph every week for balance, and even _They_
don't like the Tories much these days!
In message <tqjg3a$34pj8$1@dont-email.me>, Java Jive
<java@evij.com.invalid> writes
On 22/01/2023 13:36, Jeff Gaines wrote:
I know you are not a "Lawyer" because of your replies and the fact
there is no such qualification in the UK.
I wasn't referring to a qualification, merely using a generic term to
describe any of several possible professions.
If 'singer' is a generic term for someone who engages in singing, why
can't 'lawyer' be a generic term for someone who is concerned with the law?
In article <tqjqre$362lu$3@dont-email.me>,
Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 21/01/2023 16:24, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 21/01/2023 in message <tqh2ta$2llac$1@dont-email.me> Tweed wrote:
Here‘s what the general population think
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/is-the-bbc-more-favourable-towards-labour-the-left-or-the-conservatives-the-right
Anyone believe yougov polls. Well, I suppose someone must.
Mind, I read the Torygraph every week for balance, and even _They_
don't like the Tories much these days!
That's likely because there are no tories anymore. There are a bunch
of WEF puppets who have wrecked everything and seem to have no clue
how to fix a single thing. They are sticking with net-zero despite
the facts that all it can achieve is more poverty, cold homes and
death. Such is their unbelievable incompetence some are asking if
it's deliberate.
If 'singer' is a generic term for someone who engages in singing, why
can't 'lawyer' be a generic term for someone who is concerned with the
law?
Exactly, of course it can be used in that way, and in this country that's >probably its most common usage. The problem here is not etymology or
usage, but merely that Jeff Gaines can't bring himself to admit that he's >lost an argument, nor follow the usual advice to someone who's in a hole: >Stop digging!
On 21 Jan 2023 11:12:37 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
On 21/01/2023 in message <tqggoh$2ilrk$1@dont-email.me> Wilf wrote:
On 21/01/2023 at 08:47, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Has anybody here ever had a complaint about the BBC upheld? Christian
Fraser said on a news programme a few days ago that the UK doesn't have a >>>> constitution. I complained and pointed out we are one of the oldest
democracies in the world, that we house the Mother of Parliaments, and our >>>> constitution is one of the oldest in the world. I got the usual bland
reply telling me they had watched a recording and then tried to put it >>>> into a context where it would be a true statement, although they didn't >>>> deny it was what he said.
The sooner we sell off he BBC the better.
And that's a reason for destroying a world-recognised and acclaimed
British institution?
One of many, many reasons. It's lack of impartiality being the main one,
if it leant any further to the left it would fall over.
Selective reporting
Cult of the personality
Populist presentational style
I believe in plurality of sources but I wouldn't abolish the BBC
though.
On 21/01/2023 at 08:47, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Has anybody here ever had a complaint about the BBC upheld? Christian
Fraser said on a news programme a few days ago that the UK doesn't have a
constitution. I complained and pointed out we are one of the oldest
democracies in the world, that we house the Mother of Parliaments, and
our
constitution is one of the oldest in the world. I got the usual bland
reply telling me they had watched a recording and then tried to put it
into a context where it would be a true statement, although they didn't
deny it was what he said.
The sooner we sell off he BBC the better.
And that's a reason for destroying a world-recognised and acclaimed
British institution?
The BBC can't be "sold off" because it doesn't belong to the state.
It is a private organisation with unbelievably wide and
unjustifiable legal privileges.
The main one of those is that it is entitled to have £159 a year
out of the pockets of those who watch TV, irrespective of whether
they watch, or even want to watch, the BBC's output. Imagine the
furore if it were proposed that The Sun or the Daily Telegraph
should have an analogous privilege.
The BBC needs to be stripped of the ability to pick pockets and
should sink or swim on its own merits. If it's as great as its
supporters claim (and I do not claim that it is not excellent), it
will have no difficulty in raising revenue via voluntary
subscription.
Anyone opposing that is actually admitting that people are being
forced to pay for what they don't want (the BBC). And there can be
no justification for that. Those who want to pay Amazon, Netflix,
Disney+, etc, and to watch ITV, C4 and C5 free of charge, should be
allowed to do so without being forced to subsidise the preferences
of others as a condition of consuming their own choice(s) of
provider.
On 21/01/2023 11:19 am, Scott wrote:
On 21 Jan 2023 11:12:37 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
On 21/01/2023 in message <tqggoh$2ilrk$1@dont-email.me> Wilf wrote:
On 21/01/2023 at 08:47, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Has anybody here ever had a complaint about the BBC upheld? Christian >>>>> Fraser said on a news programme a few days ago that the UK doesn't
have a
constitution. I complained and pointed out we are one of the oldest
democracies in the world, that we house the Mother of Parliaments,
and our
constitution is one of the oldest in the world. I got the usual bland >>>>> reply telling me they had watched a recording and then tried to put it >>>>> into a context where it would be a true statement, although they
didn't
deny it was what he said.
The sooner we sell off he BBC the better.
And that's a reason for destroying a world-recognised and acclaimed
British institution?
One of many, many reasons. It's lack of impartiality being the main one, >>> if it leant any further to the left it would fall over.
Selective reporting
Cult of the personality
Populist presentational style
I believe in plurality of sources but I wouldn't abolish the BBC
though.
Neither would I.
Just the compulsory nature of the BBC subscription.
On 21/01/2023 11:19 am, Scott wrote:
On 21 Jan 2023 11:12:37 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 21/01/2023 in message <tqggoh$2ilrk$1@dont-email.me> Wilf wrote:
On 21/01/2023 at 08:47, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Has anybody here ever had a complaint about the BBC upheld?
Christian Fraser said on a news programme a few days ago that the UK >>>> doesn't have a constitution. I complained and pointed out we are one >>>> of the oldest democracies in the world, that we house the Mother of
Parliaments, and our constitution is one of the oldest in the world. >>>> I got the usual bland reply telling me they had watched a recording
and then tried to put it into a context where it would be a true
statement, although they didn't deny it was what he said.
The sooner we sell off he BBC the better.
And that's a reason for destroying a world-recognised and acclaimed
British institution?
One of many, many reasons. It's lack of impartiality being the main
one, if it leant any further to the left it would fall over.
Selective reporting Cult of the personality Populist presentational
style
I believe in plurality of sources but I wouldn't abolish the BBC though.
Neither would I.
Just the compulsory nature of the BBC subscription.
As I don't watch adverts, can I deduct the cost of advertising from the
goods that I buy?
On 23/01/2023 12:41, JNugent wrote:
On 21/01/2023 11:19 am, Scott wrote:
On 21 Jan 2023 11:12:37 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
On 21/01/2023 in message <tqggoh$2ilrk$1@dont-email.me> Wilf wrote:
On 21/01/2023 at 08:47, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Has anybody here ever had a complaint about the BBC upheld? Christian >>>>>> Fraser said on a news programme a few days ago that the UK doesn't >>>>>> have a
constitution. I complained and pointed out we are one of the oldest >>>>>> democracies in the world, that we house the Mother of Parliaments, >>>>>> and our
constitution is one of the oldest in the world. I got the usual bland >>>>>> reply telling me they had watched a recording and then tried to
put it
into a context where it would be a true statement, although they
didn't
deny it was what he said.
The sooner we sell off he BBC the better.
And that's a reason for destroying a world-recognised and acclaimed
British institution?
One of many, many reasons. It's lack of impartiality being the main
one,
if it leant any further to the left it would fall over.
Selective reporting
Cult of the personality
Populist presentational style
I believe in plurality of sources but I wouldn't abolish the BBC
though.
Neither would I.
Just the compulsory nature of the BBC subscription.
As I don't watch adverts, can I deduct the cost of advertising from the
goods that I buy?
JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
Scott wrote:
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 21/01/2023 in message <tqggoh$2ilrk$1@dont-email.me> Wilf wrote:
On 21/01/2023 at 08:47, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Has anybody here ever had a complaint about the BBC upheld?
Christian Fraser said on a news programme a few days ago that the UK >>>>>> doesn't have a constitution. I complained and pointed out we are one >>>>>> of the oldest democracies in the world, that we house the Mother of >>>>>> Parliaments, and our constitution is one of the oldest in the world. >>>>>> I got the usual bland reply telling me they had watched a recording >>>>>> and then tried to put it into a context where it would be a true
statement, although they didn't deny it was what he said.
The sooner we sell off he BBC the better.
And that's a reason for destroying a world-recognised and acclaimed
British institution?
One of many, many reasons. It's lack of impartiality being the main
one, if it leant any further to the left it would fall over.
Selective reporting Cult of the personality Populist presentational
style
I believe in plurality of sources but I wouldn't abolish the BBC though.
Neither would I.
Just the compulsory nature of the BBC subscription.
The "Compulsory BBC Subscription" is the result of Parliament, not the BBC itself.
On 21/01/2023 11:12, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 21/01/2023 in message <tqggoh$2ilrk$1@dont-email.me> Wilf wrote:There was a complaint recently that it was too far to the right, though
On 21/01/2023 at 08:47, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Has anybody here ever had a complaint about the BBC upheld? Christian
Fraser said on a news programme a few days ago that the UK doesn't
have a
constitution. I complained and pointed out we are one of the oldest
democracies in the world, that we house the Mother of Parliaments,
and our
constitution is one of the oldest in the world. I got the usual bland
reply telling me they had watched a recording and then tried to put it >>>> into a context where it would be a true statement, although they didn't >>>> deny it was what he said.
The sooner we sell off he BBC the better.
And that's a reason for destroying a world-recognised and acclaimed
British institution?
One of many, many reasons. It's lack of impartiality being the main
one, if it leant any further to the left it would fall over.
it was probably in a left of centre newspaper.
On 23/01/2023 at 14:29, Phil_M wrote:
As I don't watch adverts, can I deduct the cost of advertising from the
goods that I buy?
Good one.
What cost is he talking about?
On 21/01/2023 11:14, Jeff Gaines wrote:
We don't have a written constitution but we certainly have a
constitution, which is evidenced in writing in many ways.
As already explained to you, we don't have a constitution because no-one
can define unambiguously what it is. You are welcome to try to define
it, but I bet you can't come up with a definition that is both
unambiguous and widely agreed upon.
--
Fake news kills!
I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website: www.macfh.co.uk
Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 21/01/2023 in message <tqh2ff$2lio0$1@dont-email.me> Tweed wrote:
Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 21/01/2023 in message <tqghj0$2iqgn$1@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote: >>>>
You have said you are not a "lawyer" (which is an American qualification, >>>> doesn't exist in the UK) and boy does it show.The sooner we sell off he BBC the better.
The sooner you understand the British system of government the better. >>>>
I think you will find the Law Society of England and Wales refers to
lawyers, as does the Crown Prosecution Service. Solicitors and Barristers >>> are specialised sub groupings.
Creeping Americanism, standards are falling everywhere.
The word lawyer has been around since the 14th century, somewhat before America was discovered.
On 21/01/2023 16:44, Scott wrote:
An added factor you appear to be overlooking is the effect of
devolution in Scotland and Wales.
What effect? Both have their own channels opting out from network. They
do not make as many programmes as the national networks but that is to
be expected with their smaller size and so smaller licence income.
The Scottish commercial TV channel seem to produce even fewer programmes
for local viewing.
On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 11:22:45 +0000
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
As already explained to you, we don't have a constitution because no-one
can define unambiguously what it is. You are welcome to try to define
it, but I bet you can't come up with a definition that is both
unambiguous and widely agreed upon.
I respecfully disagree. We do have a constitution. It has three components:
a) The common law
b) Legislation passed through parliament and approved by the sovreign
c) Precedents established by the judges.
These are tiered.
Those of a lower court are not binding on a superior court but not vice versa.
Your newsgroup software has erroneously included my sig in your reply,--
Fake news kills!
I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk
I believe in plurality of sources but I wouldn't abolish the BBC
though.
Neither would I.
Just the compulsory nature of the BBC subscription.
As I don't watch adverts, can I deduct the cost of advertising from the
goods that I buy?
On Sunday, 22 January 2023 at 10:00:18 UTC, Scott wrote:
On 21 Jan 2023 21:02:04 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgne...@outlook.com>
wrote:
On 21/01/2023 in message <tqh7i1$2me1r$1...@dont-email.me> Tweed wrote:Professors of Law?
Solicitors and barristers are sub groups of lawyers. There are other groupsYou sure you are not thinking of 'attorney'?
No. In the UK we have solicitors and barristers so "lawyer" gives no >>>>> indication of the qualifications or role of a person.
who are neither but are still lawyers. Lawyer is an umbrella term.
The umbrella term in the UK was always "the legal profession". I'd be
interested to know what the "other groups" are.
Some are qualified as solicitors - e.g. [Prof. E. Rex Makin, who even acted for me once] - others are not.
On 22/01/2023 08:22, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 21/01/2023 in message <tqhrjq$2pk4e$1@dont-email.me> MB wrote:
I looked in the OED and did not see any suggestion that either LAWYER
or ATTORNEY are Americanisms. They might have slightly different
meanings there but they have history of use in English.
Quite, and that is the pertinent point.
Lawyer is an American qualification, in England the equivalents are
Solicitor and Barrister.
As the person originally childishly criticised by you because of my use
of the well-known internet acronym IANAL, I can quite categorically
state that I wasn't referring to any particular legal qualification, and neither is the term particularly associated with any one nation or
national legal system. For example, the search terms "American" and
"United States" both get zero hits on this page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IANAL
Now shut the fuck up and stop behaving like a stubborn child.
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 22/01/2023 09:59, Scott wrote:
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
Scott wrote:
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> ote:
On 21/01/2023 19:09, Scott wrote:
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
Scott wrote:
On Sat, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
Question for you the - please tell me what the common law is.
It's explained in the link I've already given, that's why I gave it.
No, your link tells me how it operates not what it is.
"The common law is the law declared by judges, derived from custom and >>>>>> precedent. It originated with the legal reforms of King Henry II in the >>>>>> 12th century and was called “common†because it applied equally across
the whole country."
Seems clear enough to me.
Not to me. I don't see how this differs from the constitution, which >>>>> is equally derived from custom and precedent and applies equally
across the country. It may have originated in a different century but >>>>> this does not alter the principle.
The so-called constitution has not yet been defined in unambiguous and >>>> exact terms in the way Common Law has above.
Which is entirely different from saying we don't have a constitution.
I repeat my original question: "How can you claim we have something that
we cannot even define?"
There are two views whether an 'unwritten' constitution is a
constitution. Yours and mine obviously differ.
It's not the fact that it's unwritten, it's the fact that it's undefined.
I think we can just respectfully disagree on that.
On 23/01/2023 16:21, JNugent wrote:
What cost is he talking about?
When he buys a product that was advertised on TV, but he did not buy it
after seeing the advert, he would like to be refunded the subsidy made
to ITV, UK TV, etc, that is included in the price of the product and
went towards providing him with free of charge programmes.
He's basically saying that advertising supported TV involves taking
payments from the public for things they may not have wanted to pay for.
The logic works a bit better, if the advert wasn't on a channel he
watched, as then he doesn't even get the benefit of TV service for the premium he is paying for the product.
Advertising keeps prices down, not up. It is part of the mechanism of
the process of competition.
As I don't watch adverts, can I deduct the cost of advertising from the
goods that I buy?
When he buys a product that was advertised on TV, but he did not buy it
after seeing the advert, he would like to be refunded the subsidy made
to ITV, UK TV, etc, that is included in the price of the product and
went towards providing him with free of charge programmes.
I tried to contact British Gas by email as I wanted to send
attachments. Not possible.
I tried to contact John Lewis by mail about a subject that did not fit
any of the boxes in their web-based system. We no longer monitor
this email address.
You can choose which goods to buy, either expensive well advertised
ones or cheaper ones. You don't have to pay a fee to one vendor to be
allowed to buy goods from any of the others.
I wasn't referring to a qualification, merely using a generic term to describe any of several possible professions.
On 23/01/2023 19:16, Roderick Stewart wrote:
You can choose which goods to buy, either expensive well advertised
ones or cheaper ones. You don't have to pay a fee to one vendor to be
allowed to buy goods from any of the others.
In practice you have little choice unless you want to but poorer quality >unbranded items.
If 'singer' is a generic term for someone who engages in singing, why
can't 'lawyer' be a generic term for someone who is concerned with the
law?
On 22/01/2023 14:09, Java Jive wrote:
I wasn't referring to a qualification, merely using a generic term to
describe any of several possible professions.
Rather like the way that we can call someone an engineer in the UK when
he is unlikely to be a Chartered Engineer.
Applies to many trades and professions.
On 23/01/2023 17:20, David Woolley wrote:
When he buys a product that was advertised on TV, but he did not buy it >>after seeing the advert, he would like to be refunded the subsidy made
to ITV, UK TV, etc, that is included in the price of the product and
went towards providing him with free of charge programmes.
I remember many years there was a newspaper article that quoted the >proportion of the cost of various items that was spent on advertising. It
was much higher on many items than I suspected!
During my study of economics they used soap powder as an example. Long
time ago but something like 10d was the cost of the product and most of
the rest of the price you paid was spent persuading you to buy it.
In article <k37dgvFmegtU1@mid.individual.net>,
JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
The BBC can't be "sold off" because it doesn't belong to the state.
It is a private organisation with unbelievably wide and
unjustifiable legal privileges.
The main one of those is that it is entitled to have £159 a year
out of the pockets of those who watch TV, irrespective of whether
they watch, or even want to watch, the BBC's output. Imagine the
furore if it were proposed that The Sun or the Daily Telegraph
should have an analogous privilege.
The BBC needs to be stripped of the ability to pick pockets and
should sink or swim on its own merits. If it's as great as its
supporters claim (and I do not claim that it is not excellent), it
will have no difficulty in raising revenue via voluntary
subscription.
Anyone opposing that is actually admitting that people are being
forced to pay for what they don't want (the BBC). And there can be
no justification for that. Those who want to pay Amazon, Netflix,
Disney+, etc, and to watch ITV, C4 and C5 free of charge, should be
allowed to do so without being forced to subsidise the preferences
of others as a condition of consuming their own choice(s) of
provider.
Thank you.
A well written solid argument.
+1
Bob.
On Tue, 24 Jan 2023 07:38:33 +0000, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
On 23/01/2023 19:16, Roderick Stewart wrote:
You can choose which goods to buy, either expensive well advertised
ones or cheaper ones. You don't have to pay a fee to one vendor to be
allowed to buy goods from any of the others.
In practice you have little choice unless you want to but poorer quality
unbranded items.
Unbranded goods are not always poorer quality. The choice is yours.
Rod.
Little choice. Even the likes of Aldi advertise on the TV as do almost
every other supermarket.
On 21/01/2023 11:18 pm, MB wrote:
On 21/01/2023 16:44, Scott wrote:
An added factor you appear to be overlooking is the effect of
devolution in Scotland and Wales.
What effect? Both have their own channels opting out from network. They
do not make as many programmes as the national networks but that is to
be expected with their smaller size and so smaller licence income.
They don't have ANY income direct from "licence income".
That all goes to the BBC's head office and is doled out to its regional
and local outposts (including local radio) by that head office. It is >possible that HQ might allocate "the licence fee collected in respect of >postcodes XXXXX to ZZZZZ", but that would still be a HQ decision and >allocation.
The Scottish commercial TV channel seem to produce even fewer programmes
for local viewing.
I expect the STV / Grampian produce as much local news and news
magazine-type programming as any English former franchise area (eg,
Anglia, Meridian, Tyne-Tees) does, plus in the case of STV from time to
time, a bit of stuff for the network ("Taggart" is the most obvious of
those over the years).
The same will be true of the former HTV's Welsh studios.
In article <k37djrFmegtU2@mid.individual.net>, JNugent ><jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
On 21/01/2023 11:19 am, Scott wrote:
On 21 Jan 2023 11:12:37 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote: >> >
On 21/01/2023 in message <tqggoh$2ilrk$1@dont-email.me> Wilf wrote:
On 21/01/2023 at 08:47, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Has anybody here ever had a complaint about the BBC upheld?
Christian Fraser said on a news programme a few days ago that the UK
doesn't have a constitution. I complained and pointed out we are one
of the oldest democracies in the world, that we house the Mother of
Parliaments, and our constitution is one of the oldest in the world.
I got the usual bland reply telling me they had watched a recording
and then tried to put it into a context where it would be a true
statement, although they didn't deny it was what he said.
The sooner we sell off he BBC the better.
And that's a reason for destroying a world-recognised and acclaimed
British institution?
One of many, many reasons. It's lack of impartiality being the main
one, if it leant any further to the left it would fall over.
Selective reporting Cult of the personality Populist presentational
style
I believe in plurality of sources but I wouldn't abolish the BBC though.
Neither would I.
Just the compulsory nature of the BBC subscription.
The "Compulsory BBC Subscription" is the result of Parliament, not the BBC >itself.
No I think you should pay extra since without advertising sales would
fall and the unit cost of each item would increase 😄
On 23/01/2023 at 14:29, Phil_M wrote:
As I don't watch adverts, can I deduct the cost of advertising from theGood one.
goods that I buy?
On Mon, 23 Jan 2023 15:55:24 +0000, Wilf <wilf@postingx.uk> wrote:
On 23/01/2023 at 14:29, Phil_M wrote:
As I don't watch adverts, can I deduct the cost of advertising from theGood one.
goods that I buy?
No I think you should pay extra since without advertising sales would
fall and the unit cost of each item would increase :-)
Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jan 2023 15:55:24 +0000, Wilf <wilf@postingx.uk> wrote:
On 23/01/2023 at 14:29, Phil_M wrote:
As I don't watch adverts, can I deduct the cost of advertising from the >>>> goods that I buy?Good one.
No I think you should pay extra since without advertising sales would
fall and the unit cost of each item would increase :-)
So you mean watching telly makes things cheaper? Perhaps we should have a >national campaign to do this to beat inflation :)
On 23/01/2023 20:33, JNugent wrote:
Advertising keeps prices down, not up. It is part of the mechanism of
the process of competition.
Rubbish
JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
On 21/01/2023 11:18 pm, MB wrote:
On 21/01/2023 16:44, Scott wrote:
An added factor you appear to be overlooking is the effect of
devolution in Scotland and Wales.
What effect? Both have their own channels opting out from network. They >>> do not make as many programmes as the national networks but that is to
be expected with their smaller size and so smaller licence income.
They don't have ANY income direct from "licence income".
That all goes to the BBC's head office and is doled out to its regional
and local outposts (including local radio) by that head office. It is
possible that HQ might allocate "the licence fee collected in respect of
postcodes XXXXX to ZZZZZ", but that would still be a HQ decision and
allocation.
The Scottish commercial TV channel seem to produce even fewer programmes >>> for local viewing.
I expect the STV / Grampian produce as much local news and news
magazine-type programming as any English former franchise area (eg,
Anglia, Meridian, Tyne-Tees) does, plus in the case of STV from time to
time, a bit of stuff for the network ("Taggart" is the most obvious of
those over the years).
My impression is that STV (North and Central) produce more local news
than ITV when you take into account the STV late news and Scotland
Tonight. .
The same will be true of the former HTV's Welsh studios.
On 24/01/2023 16:21, Scott wrote:
No I think you should pay extra since without advertising sales would
fall and the unit cost of each item would increase 😄
They always claim that but didn't the ITV strike, years ago, have little effect on sales.
I expect the STV / Grampian produce as much local news and news
magazine-type programming as any English former franchise area (eg,
Anglia, Meridian, Tyne-Tees) does, plus in the case of STV from time to
time, a bit of stuff for the network ("Taggart" is the most obvious of
those over the years).
On 24/01/2023 04:20 pm, Scott wrote:As far as I can see, ITV London has late night news from 10:30-10:45
JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
On 21/01/2023 11:18 pm, MB wrote:
On 21/01/2023 16:44, Scott wrote:
An added factor you appear to be overlooking is the effect of
devolution in Scotland and Wales.
What effect? Both have their own channels opting out from network. They >>>> do not make as many programmes as the national networks but that is to >>>> be expected with their smaller size and so smaller licence income.
They don't have ANY income direct from "licence income".
That all goes to the BBC's head office and is doled out to its regional
and local outposts (including local radio) by that head office. It is
possible that HQ might allocate "the licence fee collected in respect of >>> postcodes XXXXX to ZZZZZ", but that would still be a HQ decision and
allocation.
The Scottish commercial TV channel seem to produce even fewer programmes >>>> for local viewing.
I expect the STV / Grampian produce as much local news and news
magazine-type programming as any English former franchise area (eg,
Anglia, Meridian, Tyne-Tees) does, plus in the case of STV from time to
time, a bit of stuff for the network ("Taggart" is the most obvious of
those over the years).
My impression is that STV (North and Central) produce more local news
than ITV when you take into account the STV late news and Scotland
Tonight. .
There is late night local news on ITV. And a half-hour local news
magazine 18:00 - 18:30, Mon - Friday.
The same will be true of the former HTV's Welsh studios.
On Tue, 24 Jan 2023 18:58:05 +0000
MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
On 23/01/2023 17:57, JNugent wrote:
I expect the STV / Grampian produce as much local news and news
magazine-type programming as any English former franchise area (eg,
Anglia, Meridian, Tyne-Tees) does, plus in the case of STV from time to
time, a bit of stuff for the network ("Taggart" is the most obvious of
those over the years).
I am always surprised that STV don't appear to make any use of ITV's
extra channels. But perhaps they are 'owned' by ITV and they either
have no access or would have to pay to use them.
Probably not enough potential viewers to make it worth them forking out
for the extra channels. I frequently wonder how a large proportion of the >Freeview channels survive as their viewing figures must be below 6 (or even 5) >digits most of the time. Apparently TalkTV had a measured zero for one of >their programs - Tom Newton Dunns show - at some point last year.
On 23/01/2023 17:57, JNugent wrote:
I expect the STV / Grampian produce as much local news and news
magazine-type programming as any English former franchise area (eg,
Anglia, Meridian, Tyne-Tees) does, plus in the case of STV from time to
time, a bit of stuff for the network ("Taggart" is the most obvious of
those over the years).
I am always surprised that STV don't appear to make any use of ITV's
extra channels. But perhaps they are 'owned' by ITV and they either
have no access or would have to pay to use them.
On 23/01/2023 17:57, JNugent wrote:
I expect the STV / Grampian produce as much local news and news
magazine-type programming as any English former franchise area (eg,
Anglia, Meridian, Tyne-Tees) does, plus in the case of STV from time to
time, a bit of stuff for the network ("Taggart" is the most obvious of
those over the years).
I am always surprised that STV don't appear to make any use of ITV's
extra channels. But perhaps they are 'owned' by ITV and they either
have no access or would have to pay to use them.
JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
On 24/01/2023 04:20 pm, Scott wrote:
JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
On 21/01/2023 11:18 pm, MB wrote:
On 21/01/2023 16:44, Scott wrote:
An added factor you appear to be overlooking is the effect of
devolution in Scotland and Wales.
What effect? Both have their own channels opting out from network. They >>>>> do not make as many programmes as the national networks but that is to >>>>> be expected with their smaller size and so smaller licence income.
They don't have ANY income direct from "licence income".
That all goes to the BBC's head office and is doled out to its regional >>>> and local outposts (including local radio) by that head office. It is
possible that HQ might allocate "the licence fee collected in respect of >>>> postcodes XXXXX to ZZZZZ", but that would still be a HQ decision and
allocation.
The Scottish commercial TV channel seem to produce even fewer programmes >>>>> for local viewing.
I expect the STV / Grampian produce as much local news and news
magazine-type programming as any English former franchise area (eg,
Anglia, Meridian, Tyne-Tees) does, plus in the case of STV from time to >>>> time, a bit of stuff for the network ("Taggart" is the most obvious of >>>> those over the years).
My impression is that STV (North and Central) produce more local news
than ITV when you take into account the STV late news and Scotland
Tonight. .
There is late night local news on ITV. And a half-hour local news
magazine 18:00 - 18:30, Mon - Friday.
As far as I can see, ITV London has late night news from 10:30-10:45
(15 minutes). STV has STV News at 10:30-10:40 then Scotland Tonight
at 10:40-11:05 (total 35 minutes).
Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
On 23/01/2023 17:57, JNugent wrote:
I expect the STV / Grampian produce as much local news and news
magazine-type programming as any English former franchise area (eg,
Anglia, Meridian, Tyne-Tees) does, plus in the case of STV from time to >>>> time, a bit of stuff for the network ("Taggart" is the most obvious of >>>> those over the years).
I am always surprised that STV don't appear to make any use of ITV's
extra channels. But perhaps they are 'owned' by ITV and they either
have no access or would have to pay to use them.
Probably not enough potential viewers to make it worth them forking out
for the extra channels. I frequently wonder how a large proportion of the
Freeview channels survive as their viewing figures must be below 6 (or even 5)
digits most of the time. Apparently TalkTV had a measured zero for one of
their programs - Tom Newton Dunns show - at some point last year.
AIUI these extra channels are available in Scotland, just branded
ITV2, ITV3 etc.
I wonder if STV gets a share of the advertising revenue.
On 24/01/2023 06:22 pm, Scott wrote:
JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
On 24/01/2023 04:20 pm, Scott wrote:
JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
On 21/01/2023 11:18 pm, MB wrote:
On 21/01/2023 16:44, Scott wrote:
An added factor you appear to be overlooking is the effect of
devolution in Scotland and Wales.
What effect? Both have their own channels opting out from network. They >>>>>> do not make as many programmes as the national networks but that is to >>>>>> be expected with their smaller size and so smaller licence income.
They don't have ANY income direct from "licence income".
That all goes to the BBC's head office and is doled out to its regional >>>>> and local outposts (including local radio) by that head office. It is >>>>> possible that HQ might allocate "the licence fee collected in respect of >>>>> postcodes XXXXX to ZZZZZ", but that would still be a HQ decision and >>>>> allocation.
The Scottish commercial TV channel seem to produce even fewer programmes >>>>>> for local viewing.
I expect the STV / Grampian produce as much local news and news
magazine-type programming as any English former franchise area (eg,
Anglia, Meridian, Tyne-Tees) does, plus in the case of STV from time to >>>>> time, a bit of stuff for the network ("Taggart" is the most obvious of >>>>> those over the years).
My impression is that STV (North and Central) produce more local news
than ITV when you take into account the STV late news and Scotland
Tonight. .
There is late night local news on ITV. And a half-hour local news
magazine 18:00 - 18:30, Mon - Friday.
As far as I can see, ITV London has late night news from 10:30-10:45
(15 minutes). STV has STV News at 10:30-10:40 then Scotland Tonight
at 10:40-11:05 (total 35 minutes).
I bet that's popular with the viewer. :-)
But... STV does not have a remit to produce programmes for "the whole of >Scotland". If it did, Border Television (ie, ITV) would have had its
large cross-border transmission area reduced. And the separate Grampian >region would have ceased to exist.
STV's bailiwick is the Central Belt, not Scotland.
I assume it is or as a commercial organisation STV would not air it. I believe that historically STV news has been more popular then the BBC.
On 25/01/2023 13:53, Scott wrote:
I assume it is or as a commercial organisation STV would not air it. I
believe that historically STV news has been more popular then the BBC.
STV has a public service obligation, which almost certainly includes
news. ><https://www.gov.uk/government/news/broadcasting-reforms-to-create-new-golden-age-of-british-tv-and-help-nations-public-service-broadcasters-thrive>.
It isn't operating in an unregulated market.
On 25/01/2023 01:53 pm, Scott wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jan 2023 13:28:50 +0000, JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com>
wrote:
On 24/01/2023 06:22 pm, Scott wrote:
JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
On 24/01/2023 04:20 pm, Scott wrote:
JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
On 21/01/2023 11:18 pm, MB wrote:
On 21/01/2023 16:44, Scott wrote:
An added factor you appear to be overlooking is the effect of >>>>>>>>> devolution in Scotland and Wales.
What effect? Both have their own channels opting out from network. TheyThey don't have ANY income direct from "licence income".
do not make as many programmes as the national networks but that is to >>>>>>>> be expected with their smaller size and so smaller licence income. >>>>
That all goes to the BBC's head office and is doled out to its regional >>>>>>> and local outposts (including local radio) by that head office. It is >>>>>>> possible that HQ might allocate "the licence fee collected in respect of
postcodes XXXXX to ZZZZZ", but that would still be a HQ decision and >>>>>>> allocation.
The Scottish commercial TV channel seem to produce even fewer programmes
for local viewing.
I expect the STV / Grampian produce as much local news and news
magazine-type programming as any English former franchise area (eg, >>>>>>> Anglia, Meridian, Tyne-Tees) does, plus in the case of STV from time to >>>>>>> time, a bit of stuff for the network ("Taggart" is the most obvious of >>>>>>> those over the years).
My impression is that STV (North and Central) produce more local news >>>>>> than ITV when you take into account the STV late news and Scotland >>>>>> Tonight. .
There is late night local news on ITV. And a half-hour local news
magazine 18:00 - 18:30, Mon - Friday.
As far as I can see, ITV London has late night news from 10:30-10:45
(15 minutes). STV has STV News at 10:30-10:40 then Scotland Tonight
at 10:40-11:05 (total 35 minutes).
I bet that's popular with the viewer. :-)
I assume it is or as a commercial organisation STV would not air it. I
believe that historically STV news has been more popular then the BBC.
But... STV does not have a remit to produce programmes for "the whole of >>> Scotland". If it did, Border Television (ie, ITV) would have had its
large cross-border transmission area reduced. And the separate Grampian
region would have ceased to exist.
Grampian has ceased to exist.
STV's bailiwick is the Central Belt, not Scotland.
No, you are mistaken. There are two franchises: STV Central and STV
North. The latter replaced Grampian and covers the whole of the north
of Scotland.
That's just STV and Grampian with name changes.
Did Grampian, under either of its names, ever produce anything other
than local news?
How about the large swathe of lowland Scotland within the transmission
area of Border TV (as it once was) in Carlisle?
I expect its local news now comes from Manchester.
On Wed, 25 Jan 2023 13:28:50 +0000, JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com>
wrote:
On 24/01/2023 06:22 pm, Scott wrote:
JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
On 24/01/2023 04:20 pm, Scott wrote:
JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
On 21/01/2023 11:18 pm, MB wrote:
On 21/01/2023 16:44, Scott wrote:
An added factor you appear to be overlooking is the effect of
devolution in Scotland and Wales.
What effect? Both have their own channels opting out from network. They
do not make as many programmes as the national networks but that is to >>>>>>> be expected with their smaller size and so smaller licence income.
They don't have ANY income direct from "licence income".
That all goes to the BBC's head office and is doled out to its regional >>>>>> and local outposts (including local radio) by that head office. It is >>>>>> possible that HQ might allocate "the licence fee collected in respect of >>>>>> postcodes XXXXX to ZZZZZ", but that would still be a HQ decision and >>>>>> allocation.
The Scottish commercial TV channel seem to produce even fewer programmes
for local viewing.
I expect the STV / Grampian produce as much local news and news
magazine-type programming as any English former franchise area (eg, >>>>>> Anglia, Meridian, Tyne-Tees) does, plus in the case of STV from time to >>>>>> time, a bit of stuff for the network ("Taggart" is the most obvious of >>>>>> those over the years).
My impression is that STV (North and Central) produce more local news >>>>> than ITV when you take into account the STV late news and Scotland
Tonight. .
There is late night local news on ITV. And a half-hour local news
magazine 18:00 - 18:30, Mon - Friday.
As far as I can see, ITV London has late night news from 10:30-10:45
(15 minutes). STV has STV News at 10:30-10:40 then Scotland Tonight
at 10:40-11:05 (total 35 minutes).
I bet that's popular with the viewer. :-)
I assume it is or as a commercial organisation STV would not air it. I believe that historically STV news has been more popular then the BBC.
But... STV does not have a remit to produce programmes for "the whole of
Scotland". If it did, Border Television (ie, ITV) would have had its
large cross-border transmission area reduced. And the separate Grampian
region would have ceased to exist.
Grampian has ceased to exist.
STV's bailiwick is the Central Belt, not Scotland.
No, you are mistaken. There are two franchises: STV Central and STV
North. The latter replaced Grampian and covers the whole of the north
of Scotland.
That's just STV and Grampian with name changes.
Did Grampian, under either of its names, ever produce anything other
than local news?
How about the large swathe of lowland Scotland within the transmission
area of Border TV (as it once was) in Carlisle?
I expect its local news now comes from Manchester.
On 25/01/2023 16:39, JNugent wrote:
That's just STV and Grampian with name changes.
Did Grampian, under either of its names, ever produce anything other
than local news?
How about the large swathe of lowland Scotland within the transmission
area of Border TV (as it once was) in Carlisle?
I expect its local news now comes from Manchester.
Yes they did used to do some non-news programmes. I remember a medical programme on new discoveried which I think was Grampian rather than STV.
I think they have also done some programmes about the oil industry.
They did do quite a number of local programmes in the past, even some
Gaelic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grampian_Television
At one time a local politician wanted Fort William area to get Grampian!
On Wed, 25 Jan 2023 16:39:03 +0000, JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com>
wrote:
On 25/01/2023 01:53 pm, Scott wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jan 2023 13:28:50 +0000, JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com>
wrote:
On 24/01/2023 06:22 pm, Scott wrote:
JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
On 24/01/2023 04:20 pm, Scott wrote:
JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
On 21/01/2023 11:18 pm, MB wrote:
On 21/01/2023 16:44, Scott wrote:
An added factor you appear to be overlooking is the effect of >>>>>>>>>> devolution in Scotland and Wales.
What effect? Both have their own channels opting out from network. TheyThey don't have ANY income direct from "licence income".
do not make as many programmes as the national networks but that is to
be expected with their smaller size and so smaller licence income. >>>>>
That all goes to the BBC's head office and is doled out to its regional
and local outposts (including local radio) by that head office. It is >>>>>>>> possible that HQ might allocate "the licence fee collected in respect of
postcodes XXXXX to ZZZZZ", but that would still be a HQ decision and >>>>>>>> allocation.
The Scottish commercial TV channel seem to produce even fewer programmes
for local viewing.
I expect the STV / Grampian produce as much local news and news >>>>>>>> magazine-type programming as any English former franchise area (eg, >>>>>>>> Anglia, Meridian, Tyne-Tees) does, plus in the case of STV from time to
time, a bit of stuff for the network ("Taggart" is the most obvious of >>>>>>>> those over the years).
My impression is that STV (North and Central) produce more local news >>>>>>> than ITV when you take into account the STV late news and Scotland >>>>>>> Tonight. .
There is late night local news on ITV. And a half-hour local news
magazine 18:00 - 18:30, Mon - Friday.
As far as I can see, ITV London has late night news from 10:30-10:45 >>>>> (15 minutes). STV has STV News at 10:30-10:40 then Scotland Tonight >>>>> at 10:40-11:05 (total 35 minutes).
I bet that's popular with the viewer. :-)
I assume it is or as a commercial organisation STV would not air it. I
believe that historically STV news has been more popular then the BBC.
But... STV does not have a remit to produce programmes for "the whole of >>>> Scotland". If it did, Border Television (ie, ITV) would have had its
large cross-border transmission area reduced. And the separate Grampian >>>> region would have ceased to exist.
Grampian has ceased to exist.
STV's bailiwick is the Central Belt, not Scotland.
No, you are mistaken. There are two franchises: STV Central and STV
North. The latter replaced Grampian and covers the whole of the north
of Scotland.
That's just STV and Grampian with name changes.
No, it's clear evidence that you were talking nonsense when you
claimed STV's remit was central Scotland only.
Did Grampian, under either of its names, ever produce anything other
than local news?
I think there were variations in the Grampian schedule.
If this has
any relevance to the argument (which I cannot see) you could always
try Google.
How about the large swathe of lowland Scotland within the transmission
area of Border TV (as it once was) in Carlisle?
I expect its local news now comes from Manchester.
Try Carlisle: https://www.itv.com/news/border/2012-03-04/contact-us
Yes, that's understandable. Offhand, though, I don't recall ever seeing
a Grampian-made programme on the network (ie, in England).
Well, the distribution for 405 gave them BBC Aberdeen
On 25/01/2023 16:39, JNugent wrote:
That's just STV and Grampian with name changes.
Did Grampian, under either of its names, ever produce anything other
than local news?
How about the large swathe of lowland Scotland within the transmission
area of Border TV (as it once was) in Carlisle?
I expect its local news now comes from Manchester.
Yes they did used to do some non-news programmes. I remember a medical programme on new discoveried which I think was Grampian rather than STV.
I think they have also done some programmes about the oil industry.
They did do quite a number of local programmes in the past, even some
Gaelic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grampian_Television
At one time a local politician wanted Fort William area to get Grampian!
On 21/01/2023 12:27, MB wrote:
On 21/01/2023 10:00, Scott wrote:
Actually, a lot of it probably is written - just not all in one place.
I am no expert on the Consitution but I think the diifference is that
our one is more flexible and relying on precedent but ones like the US
one are inflexible and almost worshipped like the muslims with their
book.
If the US constitution had been any good it wouldn't have needed so many amendments.
On 25/01/2023 21:51, JNugent wrote:
Yes, that's understandable. Offhand, though, I don't recall ever seeing
a Grampian-made programme on the network (ie, in England).
I think there was a locally made programme about Piper Alpha that got
some awards that was show nationally but can't remember if it was BBC or
ITV.
On 25/01/2023 05:04 pm, Scott wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jan 2023 16:39:03 +0000, JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com>
wrote:
On 25/01/2023 01:53 pm, Scott wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jan 2023 13:28:50 +0000, JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com>
wrote:
On 24/01/2023 06:22 pm, Scott wrote:
JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
On 24/01/2023 04:20 pm, Scott wrote:
JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
On 21/01/2023 11:18 pm, MB wrote:
On 21/01/2023 16:44, Scott wrote:
An added factor you appear to be overlooking is the effect of >>>>>>>>>>> devolution in Scotland and Wales.
What effect? Both have their own channels opting out from network. TheyThey don't have ANY income direct from "licence income".
do not make as many programmes as the national networks but that is to
be expected with their smaller size and so smaller licence income. >>>>>>
That all goes to the BBC's head office and is doled out to its regional
and local outposts (including local radio) by that head office. It is >>>>>>>>> possible that HQ might allocate "the licence fee collected in respect of
postcodes XXXXX to ZZZZZ", but that would still be a HQ decision and >>>>>>>>> allocation.
The Scottish commercial TV channel seem to produce even fewer programmes
for local viewing.
I expect the STV / Grampian produce as much local news and news >>>>>>>>> magazine-type programming as any English former franchise area (eg, >>>>>>>>> Anglia, Meridian, Tyne-Tees) does, plus in the case of STV from time to
time, a bit of stuff for the network ("Taggart" is the most obvious of
those over the years).
My impression is that STV (North and Central) produce more local news >>>>>>>> than ITV when you take into account the STV late news and Scotland >>>>>>>> Tonight. .
There is late night local news on ITV. And a half-hour local news >>>>>>> magazine 18:00 - 18:30, Mon - Friday.
As far as I can see, ITV London has late night news from 10:30-10:45 >>>>>> (15 minutes). STV has STV News at 10:30-10:40 then Scotland Tonight >>>>>> at 10:40-11:05 (total 35 minutes).
I bet that's popular with the viewer. :-)
I assume it is or as a commercial organisation STV would not air it. I >>>> believe that historically STV news has been more popular then the BBC. >>>>>
But... STV does not have a remit to produce programmes for "the whole of >>>>> Scotland". If it did, Border Television (ie, ITV) would have had its >>>>> large cross-border transmission area reduced. And the separate Grampian >>>>> region would have ceased to exist.
Grampian has ceased to exist.
STV's bailiwick is the Central Belt, not Scotland.
No, you are mistaken. There are two franchises: STV Central and STV
North. The latter replaced Grampian and covers the whole of the north >>>> of Scotland.
That's just STV and Grampian with name changes.
No, it's clear evidence that you were talking nonsense when you
claimed STV's remit was central Scotland only.
Have the regional transmission areas been changed since the franchises
were last renewed?
They haven't in England. STV was not the ITV contractor for the whole of >Scotland. And still isn't. Just for the Central Belt (as I understand
the region is known). There were and are two other contractors for Scotland.
Did Grampian, under either of its names, ever produce anything other
than local news?
I think there were variations in the Grampian schedule.
That isn't the same thing, as you are aware. Regional contractors have
always jealously guarded their independence and sometimes transmitted
network programmes at idiosyncratic times, even days of the week.
If this has
any relevance to the argument (which I cannot see) you could always
try Google.
How about the large swathe of lowland Scotland within the transmission
area of Border TV (as it once was) in Carlisle?
I expect its local news now comes from Manchester.
Try Carlisle: https://www.itv.com/news/border/2012-03-04/contact-us
Whew... an ITV contractor keeping its promises. If only the rest of them
had done the same.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 04:37:31 |
| Calls: | 6,666 |
| Files: | 12,213 |
| Messages: | 5,335,886 |