I don't know if the BBC qualifies as digital but has anybody else noticed
the new scruffy look of presenters not wearing ties. Do they think it
makes them look like "geezers" or something?
I don't know if the BBC qualifies as digital but has anybody else
noticed the new scruffy look of presenters not wearing ties. Do they
think it makes them look like "geezers" or something?
On 21 Apr 2023 21:01:54 GMT
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
I don't know if the BBC qualifies as digital but has anybody elseBut it does seem to be accompanied by a slight reduction in the
noticed the new scruffy look of presenters not wearing ties. Do they
think it makes them look like "geezers" or something?
habit of the female presenters, always sitting on sofas, to wear what I
call tent-sized dresses, that hide all sights of any legs. Very
Victorian in attitude.
I don't know if the BBC qualifies as digital but has anybody else noticed
the new scruffy look of presenters not wearing ties. Do they think it
makes them look like "geezers" or something?
--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
I can please only one person per day. Today is not your day.
Tomorrow, isn't looking good either.
On 21/04/2023 22:01, Jeff Gaines wrote:
I don't know if the BBC qualifies as digital but has anybody else noticed
the new scruffy look of presenters not wearing ties. Do they think it
makes them look like "geezers" or something?
There seems to be rather a lot of trainers being worn, too.
What has always amused me is the "dressing down" of weather forecasters
for their five minute spot on Countryfile's "weather for the week".
Jeans and checked shirts appear to be de rigueur, so just as much a
uniform as a suit or smart dress/trouser suit for the same spot in the news.
I don't know if the BBC qualifies as digital but has anybody else noticed
the new scruffy look of presenters not wearing ties.
On Sat, 22 Apr 2023 08:08:55 +0100, Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 21/04/2023 22:01, Jeff Gaines wrote:
I don't know if the BBC qualifies as digital but has anybody else noticed >>> the new scruffy look of presenters not wearing ties. Do they think it
makes them look like "geezers" or something?
There seems to be rather a lot of trainers being worn, too.
What has always amused me is the "dressing down" of weather forecasters
for their five minute spot on Countryfile's "weather for the week".
Jeans and checked shirts appear to be de rigueur, so just as much a
uniform as a suit or smart dress/trouser suit for the same spot in the news.
Have you noticed that most people don't wear ties anymore?
In article <xn0o0vccbd9ud3w00i@news.individual.net>,
Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
I don't know if the BBC qualifies as digital but has anybody else noticed >>the new scruffy look of presenters not wearing ties.
And have you noticed that hardly any of them wear a ruff or hose?
In article <xn0o0vccbd9ud3w00i@news.individual.net>,
Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
I don't know if the BBC qualifies as digital but has anybody else noticed
the new scruffy look of presenters not wearing ties.
And have you noticed that hardly any of them wear a ruff or hose?
-- Richard
ichard Tobin wrote:
Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
has anybody else noticed the new scruffy look of presenters not
wearing ties.
And have you noticed that hardly any of them wear a ruff or hose?
They are not a normal part of standard business attire.
I don't know if the BBC qualifies as digital but has anybody else
noticed the new scruffy look of presenters not wearing ties. Do they
think it makes them look like "geezers" or something?
Jeff Gaines wrote:
ichard Tobin wrote:
Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
has anybody else noticed the new scruffy look of presenters not
wearing ties.
And have you noticed that hardly any of them wear a ruff or hose?
They are not a normal part of standard business attire.
A tie hasn't been a regular part of mine for over 25 years ...
But it does seem to be accompanied by a slight reduction in the
habit of the female presenters, always sitting on sofas, to wear what I
call tent-sized dresses, that hide all sights of any legs. Very
Victorian in attitude.
I expect the BBC to have some standards
In article <u20jhl$392pv$1@dont-email.me>,
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
It went downhill when they stopped wearing dinner jackets to read the news.
... on the wireless.
-- Richard
It went downhill when they stopped wearing dinner jackets to read the news.
On 22/04/2023 12:23, Martin wrote:
Have you noticed that most people don't wear ties anymore?
I have, and I am also a non-wearer. Mind you, I have been retired for
rather a long time and never understood the apparent need to wear that >pointless article of clothing anyway.
Have you noticed that most people don't wear ties anymore?
Richard Tobin <richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
In article <xn0o0vccbd9ud3w00i@news.individual.net>, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
I don't know if the BBC qualifies as digital but has anybody else
noticed the new scruffy look of presenters not wearing ties.
And have you noticed that hardly any of them wear a ruff or hose?
-- Richard
It went downhill when they stopped wearing dinner jackets to read the
news.
In article <u20jhl$392pv$1@dont-email.me>, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Richard Tobin <richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
In article <xn0o0vccbd9ud3w00i@news.individual.net>, Jeff Gaines
<jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
I don't know if the BBC qualifies as digital but has anybody else
noticed the new scruffy look of presenters not wearing ties.
And have you noticed that hardly any of them wear a ruff or hose?
-- Richard
It went downhill when they stopped wearing dinner jackets to read the
news.
They didn't wear dinner jackets to read the news. They wore dinner jackets as the person to meet and greet visitors in the evening. That was the
correct attire for that role (Duty officer). In addition, they usually
read the news.
Well it won’t be long before you have a user configurable presenter who you can dress in any attire you choose….
On 22/04/2023 12:23, Martin wrote:
Have you noticed that most people don't wear ties anymore?
They are useful when the top button is missing and you want to fasten it
on a cold day. Though I tend to find many of my clothes seem to have
shrunk so difficult to fasten the top button of the shirts.
I don't know if the BBC qualifies as digital but has anybody else
noticed the new scruffy look of presenters not wearing ties. Do they
think it makes them look like "geezers" or something?
Jeff Layman wrote:
On 22/04/2023 12:23, Martin wrote:
Have you noticed that most people don't wear ties anymore?
I have, and I am also a non-wearer. Mind you, I have been retired for >>rather a long time and never understood the apparent need to wear that >>pointless article of clothing anyway.
Although my ex-employer Bombardier never did have a written (or
even unwritten) dress code, at one point a new relaxed one was
formalised for the division in which I was working. There was no
mention of gender, though it was clearly produced with men in
mind:
Shirts must have a collar.
No predominant logos or slogans.
No blue denim. [other colours presumably OK]
No trainers.
Shorts permissible, but must be tailored.
This was for a trial period. Exactly what they would have done
if they had eventually decided to discontinue it was unclear.
Perhaps they would have had to define what we previously wore
without compulsion.
As it happened there was no reversion. However, the company
had several reorganisations of departments, and some parts of it
were still firmly in the lounge suit era. I stuck to my new
regime
Interestingly, when we occasionally had corporate video
presentations, practically all the global chiefs were tie-less.
Indeed, when I used to visit company sites in Sweden or Germany,
I generally dressed down (to UK standards) so as not to appear
overdressed by theirs.
After too many years, I was happy to ditch the ties. Last time
the subject came up I simply commented that I had signed off many
official Design Certificates, for assorted rolling stock worth
about £700 million, without my tie, and none of them had been
rejected because of this.
I'm quite OK with not wearing ties, but really don't like to see
the top button of the shirt still done up. Must be my age ;-)
In the past fifteen years, since retirement, I think I have
probably worn a tie fewer times than I have fingers, with my suit
for weddings or funerals. I may have worn a casual jacket about
as often.
Chris
The only time I ever worked in an office was a 3 year stint I did in a
tech support call centre, and they specifically mentioned dress codes
but only to say that they didn't have one. Fair enough; a suit and tie
would not have helped me to diagnose network problems, but I have seen
a TV documentary about an emergency call centre where the agents were actually wearing uniforms - to answer the phone! Sometimes I wonder if
the 21st century has fully arrived yet.
On Mon 24/04/2023 07:59, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Sun, 23 Apr 2023 11:46:39 +0100, Chris J Dixon <chris@cdixon.me.uk> wrote:
Jeff Layman wrote:
On 22/04/2023 12:23, Martin wrote:
Have you noticed that most people don't wear ties anymore?
I have, and I am also a non-wearer. Mind you, I have been retired for
rather a long time and never understood the apparent need to wear that >>> pointless article of clothing anyway.
Although my ex-employer Bombardier never did have a written (or
even unwritten) dress code, at one point a new relaxed one was
formalised for the division in which I was working. There was no
mention of gender, though it was clearly produced with men in
mind:
Shirts must have a collar.
No predominant logos or slogans.
No blue denim. [other colours presumably OK]
No trainers.
Shorts permissible, but must be tailored.
This was for a trial period. Exactly what they would have done
if they had eventually decided to discontinue it was unclear.
Perhaps they would have had to define what we previously wore
without compulsion.
As it happened there was no reversion. However, the company
had several reorganisations of departments, and some parts of it
were still firmly in the lounge suit era. I stuck to my new
regime
Interestingly, when we occasionally had corporate video
presentations, practically all the global chiefs were tie-less.
Indeed, when I used to visit company sites in Sweden or Germany,
I generally dressed down (to UK standards) so as not to appear
overdressed by theirs.
After too many years, I was happy to ditch the ties. Last time
the subject came up I simply commented that I had signed off many
official Design Certificates, for assorted rolling stock worth
about £700 million, without my tie, and none of them had been
rejected because of this.
I'm quite OK with not wearing ties, but really don't like to see
the top button of the shirt still done up. Must be my age ;-)
In the past fifteen years, since retirement, I think I have
probably worn a tie fewer times than I have fingers, with my suit
for weddings or funerals. I may have worn a casual jacket about
as often.
Chris
This sort of thing mostly seems to apply in offices. It would be a bit silly to wear expensive suits while rigging cables and climbing in and
out of vans on a TV location shoot for example. It's a bit different
for the actors - they're paid to look a certain way for whatever part they're playing - but nobody else is going to be seen on screen so
will not be making any contribution to the final product on the basis
of what they look like.
The only time I ever worked in an office was a 3 year stint I did in a
tech support call centre, and they specifically mentioned dress codes
but only to say that they didn't have one. Fair enough; a suit and tie would not have helped me to diagnose network problems, but I have seen
a TV documentary about an emergency call centre where the agents were actually wearing uniforms - to answer the phone! Sometimes I wonder if
the 21st century has fully arrived yet.
Not uniforms - 'protective clothing' - uniforms are taxable. Why you
would need protective clothing in a call centre beats me - unless your
boss's name was R**b and threw things at you!
On Sun, 23 Apr 2023 11:46:39 +0100, Chris J Dixon <chris@cdixon.me.uk>
wrote:
Jeff Layman wrote:
On 22/04/2023 12:23, Martin wrote:
Have you noticed that most people don't wear ties anymore?
I have, and I am also a non-wearer. Mind you, I have been retired for
rather a long time and never understood the apparent need to wear that
pointless article of clothing anyway.
Although my ex-employer Bombardier never did have a written (or
even unwritten) dress code, at one point a new relaxed one was
formalised for the division in which I was working. There was no
mention of gender, though it was clearly produced with men in
mind:
Shirts must have a collar.
No predominant logos or slogans.
No blue denim. [other colours presumably OK]
No trainers.
Shorts permissible, but must be tailored.
This was for a trial period. Exactly what they would have done
if they had eventually decided to discontinue it was unclear.
Perhaps they would have had to define what we previously wore
without compulsion.
As it happened there was no reversion. However, the company
had several reorganisations of departments, and some parts of it
were still firmly in the lounge suit era. I stuck to my new
regime
Interestingly, when we occasionally had corporate video
presentations, practically all the global chiefs were tie-less.
Indeed, when I used to visit company sites in Sweden or Germany,
I generally dressed down (to UK standards) so as not to appear
overdressed by theirs.
After too many years, I was happy to ditch the ties. Last time
the subject came up I simply commented that I had signed off many
official Design Certificates, for assorted rolling stock worth
about £700 million, without my tie, and none of them had been
rejected because of this.
I'm quite OK with not wearing ties, but really don't like to see
the top button of the shirt still done up. Must be my age ;-)
In the past fifteen years, since retirement, I think I have
probably worn a tie fewer times than I have fingers, with my suit
for weddings or funerals. I may have worn a casual jacket about
as often.
Chris
This sort of thing mostly seems to apply in offices. It would be a bit
silly to wear expensive suits while rigging cables and climbing in and
out of vans on a TV location shoot for example. It's a bit different
for the actors - they're paid to look a certain way for whatever part
they're playing - but nobody else is going to be seen on screen so
will not be making any contribution to the final product on the basis
of what they look like.
The only time I ever worked in an office was a 3 year stint I did in a
tech support call centre, and they specifically mentioned dress codes
but only to say that they didn't have one. Fair enough; a suit and tie
would not have helped me to diagnose network problems, but I have seen
a TV documentary about an emergency call centre where the agents were actually wearing uniforms - to answer the phone! Sometimes I wonder if
the 21st century has fully arrived yet.
Not uniforms - 'protective clothing' - uniforms are taxable. Why you
would need protective clothing in a call centre beats me - unless your
boss's name was R**b and threw things at you!
perhaps the ceiling is falling down
On 24/04/2023 10:50, charles wrote:
perhaps the ceiling is falling down
Would not surprise me if someone had done a Risk Assessment for that, I
saw quite a number of silly ones which seem to result from people being
told to write a certain number of Risk Assessments as part of their
annual performance thingy. There was about not scalding yourself from drinking hot tea.
The only time I ever worked in an office was a 3 year stint I did in a
tech support call centre, and they specifically mentioned dress codes
but only to say that they didn't have one. Fair enough; a suit and tie
would not have helped me to diagnose network problems, but I have seen
a TV documentary about an emergency call centre where the agents were
actually wearing uniforms - to answer the phone! Sometimes I wonder if
the 21st century has fully arrived yet.
Not uniforms - 'protective clothing' - uniforms are taxable. Why you
would need protective clothing in a call centre beats me - unless your
boss's name was R**b and threw things at you!
On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 10:42:56 +0100, Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com>
wrote:
The only time I ever worked in an office was a 3 year stint I did in a
tech support call centre, and they specifically mentioned dress codes
but only to say that they didn't have one. Fair enough; a suit and tie
would not have helped me to diagnose network problems, but I have seen
a TV documentary about an emergency call centre where the agents were
actually wearing uniforms - to answer the phone! Sometimes I wonder if
the 21st century has fully arrived yet.
Not uniforms - 'protective clothing' - uniforms are taxable. Why you
would need protective clothing in a call centre beats me - unless your
boss's name was R**b and threw things at you!
It didn't look particularly protective. It just looked like uniforms.
For some reason it had evidently been deemed necessary for them to
dress up to take emergency phone calls. I don't think they ever had to
go out and actually deal with the emergencies, as presumably another
team would do that. The callers would never see them so it makes no
sense to me to be concerned with what they look like.
On Tue 25/04/2023 08:51, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 10:42:56 +0100, Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com>
wrote:
The only time I ever worked in an office was a 3 year stint I did in a >>>> tech support call centre, and they specifically mentioned dress codes
but only to say that they didn't have one. Fair enough; a suit and tie >>>> would not have helped me to diagnose network problems, but I have seen >>>> a TV documentary about an emergency call centre where the agents were
actually wearing uniforms - to answer the phone! Sometimes I wonder if >>>> the 21st century has fully arrived yet.
Not uniforms - 'protective clothing' - uniforms are taxable. Why you
would need protective clothing in a call centre beats me - unless your
boss's name was R**b and threw things at you!
It didn't look particularly protective. It just looked like uniforms.
For some reason it had evidently been deemed necessary for them to
dress up to take emergency phone calls. I don't think they ever had to
go out and actually deal with the emergencies, as presumably another
team would do that. The callers would never see them so it makes no
sense to me to be concerned with what they look like.
Just keep your eyes open when watching TV progs about ambulance, police, >breakdown, etc etc and will see pretty well all call takers wear some
sort of uniform that indicates their employer.
Its all about teamwork (allegedly!)
Not uniforms - 'protective clothing' - uniforms are taxable. Why you
would need protective clothing in a call centre beats me - unless your
boss's name was R**b and threw things at you!
In article <u25iv1$9nmq$1@dont-email.me>, Woody
<harrogate3@ntlworld.com>
wrote:
Not uniforms - 'protective clothing' - uniforms are taxable. Why you
would need protective clothing in a call centre beats me - unless your boss's name was R**b and threw things at you!
cf "Taxtopia" by "The Rebel Accountant". This documents in scathing detail how "business" (often an individual) use such dodges to get out of paying tax... thus placing the burden on the rest of us. Seen as a combination of higher tax on those who don't cheat and less for services like the NHS.
Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:... get by tax ....
In article <u25iv1$9nmq$1@dont-email.me>, Woody
<harrogate3@ntlworld.com>
wrote:
Not uniforms - 'protective clothing' - uniforms are taxable. Why you would need protective clothing in a call centre beats me - unless your boss's name was R**b and threw things at you!
cf "Taxtopia" by "The Rebel Accountant". This documents in scathing detail how "business" (often an individual) use such dodges to get out of paying tax... thus placing the burden on the rest of us. Seen as a combination of higher tax on those who don't cheat and less for services like the NHS.
However "business" is still ultimately you and me. It's just a
different set of us.
Yes, I know that there are excessive earners at the top of the tree in
some businesses but those dodges that save a business money mean that
they pay their employees more (or their shareholders - which is mostly
our pension funds).
They money that "they" (corporate entities of some sort) get but tax
avoidance (or even evasion) goes round in a circle back into the
economy in the main.
Illegal/immoral dodges are pretty evenly distrubuted between
individuals and companies, it the same old "us" in both cases.
--
Chris Green
·
Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
In article <u25iv1$9nmq$1@dont-email.me>, Woody
<harrogate3@ntlworld.com> wrote:
Not uniforms - 'protective clothing' - uniforms are taxable. Why you would need protective clothing in a call centre beats me - unless
your boss's name was R**b and threw things at you!
cf "Taxtopia" by "The Rebel Accountant". This documents in scathing
detail how "business" (often an individual) use such dodges to get out
of paying tax... thus placing the burden on the rest of us. Seen as a combination of higher tax on those who don't cheat and less for
services like the NHS.
However "business" is still ultimately you and me. It's just a
different set of us.
Yes, I know that there are excessive earners at the top of the tree in
some businesses but those dodges that save a business money mean that
they pay their employees more (or their shareholders - which is mostly
our pension funds).
They money that "they" (corporate entities of some sort) get but tax avoidance (or even evasion) goes round in a circle back into the economy
in the main.
Illegal/immoral dodges are pretty evenly distrubuted between individuals
and companies, it the same old "us" in both cases.
BTW the main trick used is that "they" *don't* 'earn' their income. They exploit the difference between "earned" and "unearned" income. They also arrange to have no "income" at all. Yet get the benenfits of ultra high wealth in many cases... essentially tax free.
They money that "they" (corporate entities of some sort) get but tax
avoidance (or even evasion) goes round in a circle back into the economy
in the main.
cf above. That's the story they peddle. But facts show otherwise.
Illegal/immoral dodges are pretty evenly distrubuted between individuals and companies, it the same old "us" in both cases.
Also wrong. cf above.
Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
Illegal/immoral dodges are pretty evenly distrubuted between
individuals and companies, it the same old "us" in both cases.
Also wrong. cf above.
OK, so what are these 'companies' other than groups of people?
Yes, some people are nastier than others, we all know that.
There's also the theory that *all* tax is ultimately paid by the
end-user, because if companies have to pay tax, they simply raise the
price that their customer pays, to cover that tax. And so on down the
food chain to you and me.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 07:41:39 |
| Calls: | 6,666 |
| Files: | 12,213 |
| Messages: | 5,336,185 |