<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgmqrrlej5o>
Several programmes axed, including Cross Incontinents.
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgmqrrlej5o>
Several programmes axed, including Cross Incontinents.
On 17/06/2026 17:32, Andy Burns wrote:
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgmqrrlej5o>
Several programmes axed, including Cross Incontinents.
I bet they won't cut the high salaries paid to performers and to non-programme-makers such as CEO, senior managers, finance etc. It will
all be productive staff (and the programmes they work on) who will be axed.
Too many times it is the core public-facing business that is shrunk and
the parasites whose jobs are safe.
Also, I have never seen the benefit of a live link that might be lost
when the item to be presented could be recorded locally and then sent to
the newsroom to be slotted into the news at the appropriate point.
I reckon we will still have one BBC reporter asking another BBC reporter
for their opinion,
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgmqrrlej5o>
Several programmes axed, including Cross Incontinents.
Alternatively, if there is comedy at 23:00 I assume
this could be played out automatically.
On 19/06/2026 16:49, Scott wrote:
Alternatively, if there is comedy at 23:00 I assume
this could be played out automatically.
Won't it already be played out automatically?)
Not sure about 'comedy'?
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgmqrrlej5o>
Several programmes axed, including Cross Incontinents.
On Wed, 17 Jun 2026 17:32:19 +0100
Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgmqrrlej5o>
Several programmes axed, including Cross Incontinents.
When I realised that BBC News feeds from their team Jerusalem were
indeed biased, I started watching alternatives and in particular
France24. Do I need a TV licence for that?
On 19/06/2026 18:41, pinnerite wrote:
On Wed, 17 Jun 2026 17:32:19 +0100
Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgmqrrlej5o>
Several programmes axed, including Cross Incontinents.
When I realised that BBC News feeds from their team Jerusalem were
indeed biased, I started watching alternatives and in particular
France24. Do I need a TV licence for that?
Yes.-a It's a licence to receive television transmissions, not just BBC ones.
On 19/06/2026 18:41, pinnerite wrote:
On Wed, 17 Jun 2026 17:32:19 +0100
Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgmqrrlej5o>
Several programmes axed, including Cross Incontinents.
When I realised that BBC News feeds from their team Jerusalem were
indeed biased, I started watching alternatives and in particular
France24. Do I need a TV licence for that?
Yes. It's a licence to receive television transmissions, not just BBC ones.
On Fri, 19 Jun 2026 20:30:27 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
On 19/06/2026 18:41, pinnerite wrote:
On Wed, 17 Jun 2026 17:32:19 +0100
Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgmqrrlej5o>
Several programmes axed, including Cross Incontinents.
When I realised that BBC News feeds from their team Jerusalem were
indeed biased, I started watching alternatives and in particular
France24. Do I need a TV licence for that?
Yes. It's a licence to receive television transmissions, not just BBC ones.
Unless he lives in France :-)
On a more serious note, I see France has abolished the TV licence and broadcasting is funded from VAT. In Denmark it is funded through
general taxation. I think we should abolish the TV licence and its administration and fund the BBC from general taxation. The idea that
the licence fee guarantees the independence of the BBC is a complete
myth as the Government sets the licence fee and the BBC has to
maintain good relations with the Government, especially around Charter renewal time.
Also, I have never seen the benefit of a live link that might be lost
when the item to be presented could be recorded locally and then sent
to the newsroom to be slotted into the news at the appropriate point.
it might be live when you see it for the first time, but if its repeated
2 or 3 times and hour on a "news" channel ??
On 19/06/2026 11:14, Indy Jess John wrote:
I reckon we will still have one BBC reporter asking another BBC
reporter for their opinion,
If it is a news event that is happening all day then it is difficult for single reporter to be updated or even go to the bog.
If you do not believe in live reports then why not not just buy a
newspaper next morning?
On 19/06/2026 20:30, Norman Wells wrote:
On 19/06/2026 18:41, pinnerite wrote:
On Wed, 17 Jun 2026 17:32:19 +0100
Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgmqrrlej5o>
Several programmes axed, including Cross Incontinents.
When I realised that BBC News feeds from their team Jerusalem were
indeed biased, I started watching alternatives and in particular
France24. Do I need a TV licence for that?
Yes.-a It's a licence to receive television transmissions, not just BBC
ones.
If it a tax just to receive tV transmissions should that money actually
go to the BBC or should it be kept by the Government to fund the NHS
etc.
Alternatively if that is the justification for the tax then perhaps
all broadcasters should get an equal share.
Make the BBC a subscription service and see how many people actually subscribe.-a Perhaps fund the BBC with advertising - they already have so much of that now, albeit advertising their own content.
I think we should abolish the TV licence and its
administration and fund the BBC from general taxation.
On 20/06/2026 09:54, Scott wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jun 2026 20:30:27 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
On 19/06/2026 18:41, pinnerite wrote:
On Wed, 17 Jun 2026 17:32:19 +0100
Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgmqrrlej5o>
Several programmes axed, including Cross Incontinents.
When I realised that BBC News feeds from their team Jerusalem were
indeed biased, I started watching alternatives and in particular
France24. Do I need a TV licence for that?
Yes.-a It's a licence to receive television transmissions, not just
BBC ones.
Unless he lives in France :-)
In which case he'll probably be watching it illegally.-a I can't watch
the BBC in France even though I have a TV licence.
Can you explain which law is being brokenthe rUaWireless Telegraphy Act 2006 and the rUaCommunications Act 2003
David Wade wrote:
Can you explain which law is being brokenthe rUaWireless Telegraphy Act 2006 and the rUaCommunications Act 2003
In article <k1lc3lpm1fnd33pgrfafq6ejntaleqoh5t@4ax.com>,
Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
I think we should abolish the TV licence and its
administration and fund the BBC from general taxation.
As
is a political activist
organisation,
is a
million miles from neutral.
lies directly and by omission about
almost everything but most obviously, Climate, Israel, Trump and the
Grooming gangs. In honesty, it's a disgrace and I'm ashamed of it.
Why do you think that people who cannot stand the BBC and have more
sense than to watch it, should be forced to pay for it?
Having said that. My preferred option would be that
stopped
the
wokery and the adolescent 6th form political position, grew up
and
truthful and once again
earn the respect
once had before
was captured, wouldn't that
be nice.
On 20/06/2026 15:32, Andy Burns wrote:
David Wade wrote:
Can you explain which law is being brokenthe rUaWireless Telegraphy Act 2006 and the rUaCommunications Act 2003
How do these apply to someone in France?
Both these acts specifically state they apply to the UK and in the case
of the Wireless Telegraphy Act to some extent UK territorial waters.
On 20/06/2026 16:24, David Wade wrote:
On 20/06/2026 15:32, Andy Burns wrote:
David Wade wrote:
Can you explain which law is being brokenthe rUaWireless Telegraphy Act 2006 and the rUaCommunications Act 2003
How do these apply to someone in France?
Both these acts specifically state they apply to the UK and in the case
of the Wireless Telegraphy Act to some extent UK territorial waters.
I thought that the reason he couldn't watch in France is that his IP
address there would show as being in France, and he couldn't use iPlayer
to see any programmes because iPlayer won't allow streaming from a
non-UK IP address.
He /might/ be able to watch a broadcast signal in the north of France
from a UK transmitter, but it'd be iffy at best (it's why Rowridge
transmits in horizontal polarisation as well as VP for those
experiencing co-channel interference from France).
On 20/06/2026 17:20, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 20/06/2026 16:24, David Wade wrote:
On 20/06/2026 15:32, Andy Burns wrote:
David Wade wrote:
Can you explain which law is being brokenthe rUaWireless Telegraphy Act 2006 and the rUaCommunications Act 2003
How do these apply to someone in France?
Both these acts specifically state they apply to the UK and in the case
of the Wireless Telegraphy Act to some extent UK territorial waters.
I thought that the reason he couldn't watch in France is that his IP
address there would show as being in France, and he couldn't use
iPlayer to see any programmes because iPlayer won't allow streaming
from a non-UK IP address.
No but if he has a UK house with an internet connection he can VPN back through his home internet connection, so it would appear to the BBC he
was watching from home....
https://nordvpn.com/blog/home-vpn-server/
On 20/06/2026 15:32, Andy Burns wrote:
David Wade wrote:
Can you explain which law is being brokenthe rUaWireless Telegraphy Act 2006 and the rUaCommunications Act 2003
How do these apply to someone in France?
Both these acts specifically state they apply to the UK and in the case
of the Wireless Telegraphy Act to some extent UK territorial waters.
On 20/06/2026 10:58, Norman Wells wrote:
On 20/06/2026 09:54, Scott wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jun 2026 20:30:27 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
On 19/06/2026 18:41, pinnerite wrote:
On Wed, 17 Jun 2026 17:32:19 +0100
Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgmqrrlej5o>
Several programmes axed, including Cross Incontinents.
When I realised that BBC News feeds from their team Jerusalem were
indeed biased, I started watching alternatives and in particular
France24. Do I need a TV licence for that?
Yes.-a It's a licence to receive television transmissions, not just
BBC ones.
Unless he lives in France :-)
In which case he'll probably be watching it illegally.-a I can't watch
the BBC in France even though I have a TV licence.
Can you explain which law is being broken?
On 20/06/2026 16:24, David Wade wrote:
On 20/06/2026 15:32, Andy Burns wrote:
David Wade wrote:
Can you explain which law is being brokenthe rUaWireless Telegraphy Act 2006 and the rUaCommunications Act 2003
How do these apply to someone in France?
Both these acts specifically state they apply to the UK and in the
case of the Wireless Telegraphy Act to some extent UK territorial waters.
It's undoubtedly copyright infringement which is international, and
possibly fraud by deception depending on the circumstances.
On a more serious note, I see France has abolished the TV licence and broadcasting is funded from VAT.
Having said that. My preferred option would be that the BBC stopped
the wokery and the adolescent 6th form political position, grew up
and stared to honour their charter by being truthful and once again
earn the respect they once had before it was captured, wouldn't that
be nice.
On 20/06/2026 09:54, Scott wrote:
On a more serious note, I see France has abolished the TV licence and
broadcasting is funded from VAT.
So pensioners, children, foreigners etc will all be paying it as VAT is
a universal tax on everyone?
There is no way the BBC can survive in its present form because it's
not the 1950s any more.
How is it copyright infringement? The BBC broadcast on Freesat, un- encrypted, free-to-air.
On 21/06/2026 08:26, Roderick Stewart wrote:
There is no way the BBC can survive in its present form because
it's not the 1950s any more.
By that argument we could close all libraries and might as well
close the universities as well.
David Wade wrote:
How is it copyright infringement? The BBC broadcast on Freesat, un-
encrypted, free-to-air.
The Metro newspaper is given away free of charge in railway stations
without needing any secret decoder ring to read it, does that make it non-copyright?
On 21/06/2026 08:26, Roderick Stewart wrote:
There is no way the BBC can survive in its present form because it's
not the 1950s any more.
By that argument we could close all libraries and might as well close
the universities as well.
In article <11187ad$lgp5$1@dont-email.me>,
JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
On 21/06/2026 08:26, Roderick Stewart wrote:
There is no way the BBC can survive in its present form because
it's not the 1950s any more.
By that argument we could close all libraries and might as well
close the universities as well.
Oh come on, if you close the universities where are young people
going to be brainwashed into progressive, far far left, woke idiots?
We need the next generation to completely kill of the likes of
Jaguar, previous woke idiocy didn't finish the job. Also if you
closed Unis, think of the knock on effect on blue/red hair dye
manufacturers.
:-)
Seriously though I know many people that enjoy the use of their local
library and I don't see them as a subversive national suicide
institution.
Universities, well clearly they are a problem, I don't know of a
solution to deal with them but hopefully one day some government will
make them behave with budget control. We can only hope.
On 2026-06-21 10:46, Bob Latham wrote:
In article <11187ad$lgp5$1@dont-email.me>,
JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
On 21/06/2026 08:26, Roderick Stewart wrote:
There is no way the BBC can survive in its present form because
it's not the 1950s any more.
By that argument we could close all libraries and might as well
close the universities as well.
Oh come on, if you close the universities where are young people
going to be brainwashed into progressive, far far left, woke
idiots?
Where are they going to go to get that now? You're idiocies are
completely deranged.
We need the next generation to completely kill of the likes of
Jaguar, previous woke idiocy didn't finish the job. Also if you
closed Unis, think of the knock on effect on blue/red hair dye manufacturers.
:-)
Difficult to see any humour in the deranged whinings of a brainwashed
fool.
Seriously though I know many people that enjoy the use of their
local library and I don't see them as a subversive national suicide institution.
Neither are universities. The nearest thing to a 'national suicide institution' are the online sewers that you frequent and whose misinformation you swallow hook line and sinker. Almost everything
that you ever post here originated from Russian disinformation
sources being repeated other people as stupid as you.
Universities, well clearly they are a problem, I don't know of a
solution to deal with them but hopefully one day some government
will make them behave with budget control. We can only hope.
If the libraries only carried publications that projected The Gospel According to Saint Marx-Lenin, you might have had a point, but they donrCOt and so you donrCOt.
On 21/06/2026 11:24, Spike wrote:
If the libraries only carried publications that projected The
Gospel According to Saint Marx-Lenin, you might have had a point,
but they donat and so you donat.
But people can be taught online so no need for the university
structures and staff. That is the argument used against the BBC
by the Far Right.
The problems with the BBC tax is that it is pretty much though not
entirely, compulsory.
On 21/06/2026 21:33, Bob Latham wrote:
The problems with the BBC tax is that it is pretty much though not entirely, compulsory.
So similar to the Advertising Tax, you to pay it unless you want to
only buy unbranded products and even if you never watch commercial
TV or listen to commercial radio.
On 21/06/2026 21:33, Bob Latham wrote:
The problems with the BBC tax is that it is pretty much though not
entirely, compulsory.
So similar to the Advertising Tax, you to pay it unless you want to only
buy unbranded products and even if you never watch commercial TV or
listen to commercial radio.
On 21/06/2026 11:24, Spike wrote:
If the libraries only carried publications that projected The Gospel
According to Saint Marx-Lenin, you might have had a point, but they donrCOt >> and so you donrCOt.
But people can be taught online so no need for the university structures
and staff. That is the argument used against the BBC by the Far Right.
On Mon, 22 Jun 2026 07:29:40 +0100, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
On 21/06/2026 21:33, Bob Latham wrote:
The problems with the BBC tax is that it is pretty much though not
entirely, compulsory.
So similar to the Advertising Tax, you to pay it unless you want to only
buy unbranded products and even if you never watch commercial TV or
listen to commercial radio.
You can choose which products to buy without breaking any laws.
You can't choose which broadcasts to watch without breaking any laws,
because you're legally required to pay the BBC to watch *any*
broadcasts, even if they're nothing to do with the BBC.
The only escape from this nonsense is not to watch broadcasts at all,
and even then you'll be sent frequent threatening letters implying
that you're breaking the law even though they don't know anything
about you. I only cancelled my TV licence a couple of years ago but
I've already got a folder full of these official looking letters,
obviously designed to mislead and intimidate, and every single one of
them addressed to "The legal occupier".
And yes, when I cancelled the licence I actually did fill in their
online form, even though there is no legal requirement to do so, to
explain that I no longer needed one, but it hasn't stopped them
sending letters that seem to assume "guilty until proven innocent" and
that I'm somehow obliged to contact them again to explain myself, even
though nobody is obliged to contact them at all. I don't get letters
like this from any of the supermarkets or any other household utility.
I know I can regard this as a mere irritant, but there are probably
people who are scared into paying when they don't need to. It's a
despicable practice and needs to stop.
Rod.
On 21/06/2026 21:33, Bob Latham wrote:
The problems with the BBC tax is that it is pretty much though not
entirely, compulsory.
So similar to the Advertising Tax, you to pay it unless you want to only
buy unbranded products and even if you never watch commercial TV or
listen to commercial radio.
On Mon, 22 Jun 2026 07:29:40 +0100, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
On 21/06/2026 21:33, Bob Latham wrote:
The problems with the BBC tax is that it is pretty much though not
entirely, compulsory.
So similar to the Advertising Tax, you to pay it unless you want to only
buy unbranded products and even if you never watch commercial TV or
listen to commercial radio.
You can choose which products to buy without breaking any laws.
You can't choose which broadcasts to watch without breaking any laws,
because you're legally required to pay the BBC to watch *any*
broadcasts, even if they're nothing to do with the BBC.
The only escape from this nonsense is not to watch broadcasts at all,
and even then you'll be sent frequent threatening letters implying
that you're breaking the law even though they don't know anything
about you. I only cancelled my TV licence a couple of years ago but
I've already got a folder full of these official looking letters,
obviously designed to mislead and intimidate, and every single one of
them addressed to "The legal occupier".
And yes, when I cancelled the licence I actually did fill in their
online form, even though there is no legal requirement to do so, to
explain that I no longer needed one, but it hasn't stopped them
sending letters that seem to assume "guilty until proven innocent" and
that I'm somehow obliged to contact them again to explain myself, even
though nobody is obliged to contact them at all.
I don't get letters
like this from any of the supermarkets or any other household utility.
I know I can regard this as a mere irritant, but there are probably
people who are scared into paying when they don't need to. It's a
despicable practice and needs to stop.
On 19/06/2026 11:49, JMB99 wrote:
On 19/06/2026 11:14, Indy Jess John wrote:I wasn't arguing about the live reports, only pointing out that it isn't >strictly necessary to show it live with the risks of signal loss when it >could be recorded as it happens and sent as a recording that can be
I reckon we will still have one BBC reporter asking another BBC
reporter for their opinion,
If it is a news event that is happening all day then it is difficult for
single reporter to be updated or even go to the bog.
If you do not believe in live reports then why not not just buy a
newspaper next morning?
shown without that risk just a couple of minutes later.
On 20/06/2026 09:54, Scott wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jun 2026 20:30:27 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
On 19/06/2026 18:41, pinnerite wrote:
On Wed, 17 Jun 2026 17:32:19 +0100
Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgmqrrlej5o>
Several programmes axed, including Cross Incontinents.
When I realised that BBC News feeds from their team Jerusalem were
indeed biased, I started watching alternatives and in particular
France24. Do I need a TV licence for that?
Yes. It's a licence to receive television transmissions, not just BBC ones.
Unless he lives in France :-)
In which case he'll probably be watching it illegally. I can't watch
the BBC in France even though I have a TV licence.
On a more serious note, I see France has abolished the TV licence and
broadcasting is funded from VAT. In Denmark it is funded through
general taxation. I think we should abolish the TV licence and its
administration and fund the BBC from general taxation. The idea that
the licence fee guarantees the independence of the BBC is a complete
myth as the Government sets the licence fee and the BBC has to
maintain good relations with the Government, especially around Charter
renewal time.
I think that's been done to death here.
Also, I have never seen the benefit of a live link that might be lost
when the item to be presented could be recorded locally and then sent to
the newsroom to be slotted into the news at the appropriate point.
it might be live when you see it for the first time, but if its repeated
2 or 3 times and hour on a "news" channel ??
On Sat, 20 Jun 2026 11:04:13 +0100, Indy Jess John <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
On 19/06/2026 11:49, JMB99 wrote:
On 19/06/2026 11:14, Indy Jess John wrote:I wasn't arguing about the live reports, only pointing out that it isn't
I reckon we will still have one BBC reporter asking another BBC
reporter for their opinion,
If it is a news event that is happening all day then it is difficult for >>> single reporter to be updated or even go to the bog.
If you do not believe in live reports then why not not just buy a
newspaper next morning?
strictly necessary to show it live with the risks of signal loss when it
could be recorded as it happens and sent as a recording that can be
shown without that risk just a couple of minutes later.
Would this be a breach of Ofcom rules, to present an item as 'Live'
when it is not? I think they are quite strict about that.
On 22/06/2026 09:56, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jun 2026 07:29:40 +0100, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
On 21/06/2026 21:33, Bob Latham wrote:
The problems with the BBC tax is that it is pretty much though not
entirely, compulsory.
So similar to the Advertising Tax, you to pay it unless you want to only >>> buy unbranded products and even if you never watch commercial TV or
listen to commercial radio.
You can choose which products to buy without breaking any laws.
Not everything is legal to buy, even if you want it to be.
You can't choose which broadcasts to watch without breaking any laws,
because you're legally required to pay the BBC to watch *any*
broadcasts, even if they're nothing to do with the BBC.
Actually, you pay the government. The money you pay, like any other >taxation, goes into the Consolidated Fund and can be distributed however
the government decides. At present the government passes an amount >equivalent to what it receives to the Department for Culture, Media and >Sport which then historically pays it similarly to the BBC.
The only escape from this nonsense is not to watch broadcasts at all,
... and not use iPlayer
and even then you'll be sent frequent threatening letters implying
that you're breaking the law even though they don't know anything
about you. I only cancelled my TV licence a couple of years ago but
I've already got a folder full of these official looking letters,
obviously designed to mislead and intimidate, and every single one of
them addressed to "The legal occupier".
Quite right too. It's not a personal licence but a licence for the >premises, which the great majority do require.
On 22/06/2026 12:29, Scott wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jun 2026 11:04:13 +0100, Indy Jess John
<bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
On 19/06/2026 11:49, JMB99 wrote:
On 19/06/2026 11:14, Indy Jess John wrote:I wasn't arguing about the live reports, only pointing out that it isn't >>> strictly necessary to show it live with the risks of signal loss when it >>> could be recorded as it happens and sent as a recording that can be
I reckon we will still have one BBC reporter asking another BBC
reporter for their opinion,
If it is a news event that is happening all day then it is difficult for >>>> single reporter to be updated or even go to the bog.
If you do not believe in live reports then why not not just buy a
newspaper next morning?
shown without that risk just a couple of minutes later.
Would this be a breach of Ofcom rules, to present an item as 'Live'
when it is not? I think they are quite strict about that.
I think it depends on the delay. A lot of the Vox Pops have some sort
of delay so that swear words can be bleeped out before transmission.
Ofcom clearly permit that.
That is the same old nonsensical chestnut. Advertising is part of the mechanism - competition - which keeps prices lower than they otherwise
might or would have been.
Or "repeated" live, endlessly and concurrently with another BBC channel.
Of course the resignation of the Prime Minister is very important news,
but today the BBC decided that BBC1 would show exactly the same as the
BBC News Channel all morning. Then, to add insult to injury, at 1215 on
BBC2 (which had been showing the programmes which would have been on
BBC1), they left on "Politics Live", so effectively showing the same
thing on three channels!
Just about everybody can receive BBC1, BBC2, and the BBC News channel.
So why did they move BBC1 programmes to BBC2, when, according to the
Radio Times, from 0900 to 1215 BBC2 was supposed to be showing "BBC
News" - i.e. the BBC News Channel!
It's just the sort of thing that gets those not interested in politics rightly annoyed (and perhaps those interested in it as well). The BBC
should be offering a choice, *not* what it has been doing this morning.
It's just the sort of thing that gets those not interested in politics rightly annoyed (and perhaps those interested in it as well). The BBC
should be offering a choice, *not* what it has been doing this morning.
On 22/06/2026 10:13, JNugent wrote:
That is the same old nonsensical chestnut. Advertising is part of the
mechanism - competition - which keeps prices lower than they otherwise
might or would have been.
The same old nonsense about advertising keeping prices down, it just
adds layer(s) of people to be paid without contributing anything.
Not had the TV on yet but did any of them have live coverage from
Bodybags' train.-a It is the sort of thing they like to do.
On 22/06/2026 12:44, Jeff Layman wrote:
It's just the sort of thing that gets those not interested in politics
rightly annoyed (and perhaps those interested in it as well). The BBC
should be offering a choice, *not* what it has been doing this morning.
Not had the TV on yet but did any of them have live coverage from
Bodybags' train. It is the sort of thing they like to do.
On 19/06/2026 11:42, Abandoned Trolley wrote:
Also, I have never seen the benefit of a live link that might be
lost when the item to be presented could be recorded locally and
then sent to the newsroom to be slotted into the news at the
appropriate point.
it might be live when you see it for the first time, but if its
repeated 2 or 3 times and hour on a "news" channel ??
Or "repeated" live, endlessly and concurrently with another BBC
channel.
Of course the resignation of the Prime Minister is very important
news, but today the BBC decided that BBC1 would show exactly the same
as the BBC News Channel all morning. Then, to add insult to injury,
at 1215 on BBC2 (which had been showing the programmes which would
have been on BBC1), they left on "Politics Live", so effectively
showing the same thing on three channels!
Just about everybody can receive BBC1, BBC2, and the BBC News
channel. So why did they move BBC1 programmes to BBC2, when,
according to the Radio Times, from 0900 to 1215 BBC2 was supposed to
be showing "BBC News" - i.e. the BBC News Channel!
It's just the sort of thing that gets those not interested in
politics rightly annoyed (and perhaps those interested in it as
well). The BBC should be offering a choice, *not* what it has been
doing this morning.
On 22/06/2026 10:13, JNugent wrote:
That is the same old nonsensical chestnut. Advertising is part of the
mechanism - competition - which keeps prices lower than they otherwise
might or would have been.
The same old nonsense about advertising keeping prices down, it just
adds layer(s) of people to be paid without contributing anything.
On Mon, 22 Jun 2026 12:44:49 +0100
Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 19/06/2026 11:42, Abandoned Trolley wrote:Not being a football fanatic, I find a similar thing with World Cup
Also, I have never seen the benefit of a live link that might be
lost when the item to be presented could be recorded locally and
then sent to the newsroom to be slotted into the news at the
appropriate point.
it might be live when you see it for the first time, but if its
repeated 2 or 3 times and hour on a "news" channel ??
Or "repeated" live, endlessly and concurrently with another BBC
channel.
Of course the resignation of the Prime Minister is very important
news, but today the BBC decided that BBC1 would show exactly the same
as the BBC News Channel all morning. Then, to add insult to injury,
at 1215 on BBC2 (which had been showing the programmes which would
have been on BBC1), they left on "Politics Live", so effectively
showing the same thing on three channels!
Just about everybody can receive BBC1, BBC2, and the BBC News
channel. So why did they move BBC1 programmes to BBC2, when,
according to the Radio Times, from 0900 to 1215 BBC2 was supposed to
be showing "BBC News" - i.e. the BBC News Channel!
It's just the sort of thing that gets those not interested in
politics rightly annoyed (and perhaps those interested in it as
well). The BBC should be offering a choice, *not* what it has been
doing this morning.
coverage. One moment I can be watching a programme on BBC1, then
suddenly it moves to BBC2 because some folk are kicking a ball around >somewhere in the Americas. Why not leave the running programme where it
is already, and show the new one on a different channel?
In article <111akok$1akqh$1@dont-email.me>,
JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
On 21/06/2026 21:33, Bob Latham wrote:
The problems with the BBC tax is that it is pretty much though not
entirely, compulsory.
So similar to the Advertising Tax, you to pay it unless you want to
only buy unbranded products and even if you never watch commercial
TV or listen to commercial radio.
Commercial TV has feedback. If they go too woke and produce progs
people don't like then the audience will drop and the tv companies
revenue.
The BBC are fully aware of what they are doing, it's intentional and
that most people hate it but so what, they demand their money anyway.
No connection with truth or reality.
Bob.
On Mon, 22 Jun 2026 12:04:18 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
On 22/06/2026 09:56, Roderick Stewart wrote:Clarify this then. In the old days I believe that battery operated TV receivers (with the battery wholly enclosed) were exempt from TV
On Mon, 22 Jun 2026 07:29:40 +0100, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
On 21/06/2026 21:33, Bob Latham wrote:
The problems with the BBC tax is that it is pretty much though not
entirely, compulsory.
So similar to the Advertising Tax, you to pay it unless you want to only >>>> buy unbranded products and even if you never watch commercial TV or
listen to commercial radio.
You can choose which products to buy without breaking any laws.
Not everything is legal to buy, even if you want it to be.
You can't choose which broadcasts to watch without breaking any laws,
because you're legally required to pay the BBC to watch *any*
broadcasts, even if they're nothing to do with the BBC.
Actually, you pay the government. The money you pay, like any other
taxation, goes into the Consolidated Fund and can be distributed however
the government decides. At present the government passes an amount
equivalent to what it receives to the Department for Culture, Media and
Sport which then historically pays it similarly to the BBC.
The only escape from this nonsense is not to watch broadcasts at all,
... and not use iPlayer
and even then you'll be sent frequent threatening letters implying
that you're breaking the law even though they don't know anything
about you. I only cancelled my TV licence a couple of years ago but
I've already got a folder full of these official looking letters,
obviously designed to mislead and intimidate, and every single one of
them addressed to "The legal occupier".
Quite right too. It's not a personal licence but a licence for the
premises, which the great majority do require.
licence.
How do we stand now when nearly everyone has a mobile phone
or a tablet? I thought they required a licence but by your logic if
they are used outdoors they do not. Is a garden classed as 'premises'?
On 22/06/2026 13:10, Scott wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jun 2026 12:04:18 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
On 22/06/2026 09:56, Roderick Stewart wrote:Clarify this then. In the old days I believe that battery operated TV
On Mon, 22 Jun 2026 07:29:40 +0100, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
On 21/06/2026 21:33, Bob Latham wrote:
The problems with the BBC tax is that it is pretty much though not >>>>>> entirely, compulsory.
So similar to the Advertising Tax, you to pay it unless you want to only >>>>> buy unbranded products and even if you never watch commercial TV or
listen to commercial radio.
You can choose which products to buy without breaking any laws.
Not everything is legal to buy, even if you want it to be.
You can't choose which broadcasts to watch without breaking any laws,
because you're legally required to pay the BBC to watch *any*
broadcasts, even if they're nothing to do with the BBC.
Actually, you pay the government. The money you pay, like any other
taxation, goes into the Consolidated Fund and can be distributed however >>> the government decides. At present the government passes an amount
equivalent to what it receives to the Department for Culture, Media and
Sport which then historically pays it similarly to the BBC.
The only escape from this nonsense is not to watch broadcasts at all,
... and not use iPlayer
and even then you'll be sent frequent threatening letters implying
that you're breaking the law even though they don't know anything
about you. I only cancelled my TV licence a couple of years ago but
I've already got a folder full of these official looking letters,
obviously designed to mislead and intimidate, and every single one of
them addressed to "The legal occupier".
Quite right too. It's not a personal licence but a licence for the
premises, which the great majority do require.
receivers (with the battery wholly enclosed) were exempt from TV
licence.
No, that's another misunderstanding. They were never exempt, nor are
they now. The use of such devices was permitted under the domestic
premises licence when away from home. If you didn't have one, you were >acting illegally.
How do we stand now when nearly everyone has a mobile phone
or a tablet? I thought they required a licence but by your logic if
they are used outdoors they do not. Is a garden classed as 'premises'?
Same thing. You need a TV licence for your home. Then you'll be
covered for any mobile devices away from home.
The BBC has been hyping-up the coming heatwave and the possibility of a new June temperature record, and this morning Justin Rolat managed completely
not to mention that the previous such record was nearly 70 years go in 1957rCawell before rCOglobal warmingrCO.
On Mon, 22 Jun 2026 15:23:40 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
On 22/06/2026 13:10, Scott wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jun 2026 12:04:18 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
On 22/06/2026 09:56, Roderick Stewart wrote:Clarify this then. In the old days I believe that battery operated TV
On Mon, 22 Jun 2026 07:29:40 +0100, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
On 21/06/2026 21:33, Bob Latham wrote:
The problems with the BBC tax is that it is pretty much though not >>>>>>> entirely, compulsory.
So similar to the Advertising Tax, you to pay it unless you want to only >>>>>> buy unbranded products and even if you never watch commercial TV or >>>>>> listen to commercial radio.
You can choose which products to buy without breaking any laws.
Not everything is legal to buy, even if you want it to be.
You can't choose which broadcasts to watch without breaking any laws, >>>>> because you're legally required to pay the BBC to watch *any*
broadcasts, even if they're nothing to do with the BBC.
Actually, you pay the government. The money you pay, like any other
taxation, goes into the Consolidated Fund and can be distributed however >>>> the government decides. At present the government passes an amount
equivalent to what it receives to the Department for Culture, Media and >>>> Sport which then historically pays it similarly to the BBC.
The only escape from this nonsense is not to watch broadcasts at all, >>>>... and not use iPlayer
and even then you'll be sent frequent threatening letters implying
that you're breaking the law even though they don't know anything
about you. I only cancelled my TV licence a couple of years ago but
I've already got a folder full of these official looking letters,
obviously designed to mislead and intimidate, and every single one of >>>>> them addressed to "The legal occupier".
Quite right too. It's not a personal licence but a licence for the
premises, which the great majority do require.
receivers (with the battery wholly enclosed) were exempt from TV
licence.
No, that's another misunderstanding. They were never exempt, nor are
they now. The use of such devices was permitted under the domestic
premises licence when away from home. If you didn't have one, you were
acting illegally.
Thanks for clarifying my understanding. Was there not a fairly
flexible interpretation whereby students were allowed to use a TV at university regardless of whether their parents were watching TV at
home at the same time?
When you say 'you' and 'your' I assume you mean everyone living in theHow do we stand now when nearly everyone has a mobile phone
or a tablet? I thought they required a licence but by your logic if
they are used outdoors they do not. Is a garden classed as 'premises'?
Same thing. You need a TV licence for your home. Then you'll be
covered for any mobile devices away from home.
home. Does this mean living as a sole residence, main residence or
living there at all? Does it include a holiday home? Does the wholly contained battery rule apply, so a device cannot be used for watching
TV while plugged in?
Is there not some myth that a programme on BBC One attracts a higher
audience than one on BBC Two?
In which case he'll probably be watching it illegally. I can't watch
the BBC in France even though I have a TV licence.
I think you will find it is legal to watch France24 in France.
and even then you'll be sent frequent threatening letters implying
that you're breaking the law even though they don't know anything
about you. I only cancelled my TV licence a couple of years ago but
I've already got a folder full of these official looking letters,
obviously designed to mislead and intimidate, and every single one of
them addressed to "The legal occupier".
Quite right too. It's not a personal licence but a licence for the >premises, which the great majority do require.
On Mon, 22 Jun 2026 12:04:18 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
and even then you'll be sent frequent threatening letters implying
that you're breaking the law even though they don't know anything
about you. I only cancelled my TV licence a couple of years ago but
I've already got a folder full of these official looking letters,
obviously designed to mislead and intimidate, and every single one of
them addressed to "The legal occupier".
Quite right too. It's not a personal licence but a licence for the
premises, which the great majority do require.
If they can prove that somebody isn't paying when they should be, who
do they prosecute, the person or the premises?
On Mon, 22 Jun 2026 14:12:51 +0100, Scott
<newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
Is there not some myth that a programme on BBC One attracts a higher >>audience than one on BBC Two?
In the days of analogue TV sets that would default to the first button
on the tuner when switched on, and a lack of remote controls so that
you'd have to get up and walk across the room to change channels, many
people would be watching BBC1 out of sheer inertia.
This may account for such a myth, if there is one, allthough most
people at the BBC today could only have heard of it from stories told
by their grandparents.
On Mon, 22 Jun 2026 12:33:30 +0100, Scott
<newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
In which case he'll probably be watching it illegally. I can't watch >>>the BBC in France even though I have a TV licence.
I think you will find it is legal to watch France24 in France.
It might even be legal to watch the BBC in France. I don't know what
French law says about watching foreign programmes, but British law
certainly has no jusidiction in France.
Going back a generation, in the days of VHF/UHF dual standard, a lot
of people had VHF-only sets and by definition could not not watch
BBC2. Also BBC2 had a reputation for being too posh.
On Tue, 23 Jun 2026 07:14:17 +0100, Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jun 2026 12:33:30 +0100, Scott
<newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
In which case he'll probably be watching it illegally. I can't watch
the BBC in France even though I have a TV licence.
I think you will find it is legal to watch France24 in France.
It might even be legal to watch the BBC in France. I don't know what
French law says about watching foreign programmes, but British law
certainly has no jusidiction in France.
What if you use a router at home?
In article <93gk3ld39pbrkq1c0aqoll62qscu8r84ml@4ax.com>,
Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
Going back a generation, in the days of VHF/UHF dual standard, a lot
of people had VHF-only sets and by definition could not not watch
BBC2. Also BBC2 had a reputation for being too posh.
Absolutely, I remember that well.
Earlier than that, my parents had a BBC only tv and when ITV started
we had a second aerial and conversion box. For us it was VHF 4 for
BBC and 8 for ITV.
Bob.
That is the same old nonsensical chestnut. Advertising is part of the mechanism - competition - which keeps prices lower than they otherwise
might or would have been.
There is another sort of advertising, but that's rare, and probably even rarer on TV.-a That's for new classes of product that people would
benefit from, but hadn't realised that they existed or that they would
be of benefit.-a I'd call that an educational advert.-a (More common are adverts for products which would be better for people to go without.)
A lot of the time, I've aleady spotted the new product on the shelf and either tried it, or decided not to try it before I've ever seen the
advert for it, so the spend falls into the "50% of ads which are a waste
of money".
On 23/06/2026 09:22, Bob Latham wrote:
In article <93gk3ld39pbrkq1c0aqoll62qscu8r84ml@4ax.com>,The channel numbers varied depending on which transmitter delivered the >signal. Where I grew up it was VHF 1 for BBC and VHF 9 for ITV.
Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
Going back a generation, in the days of VHF/UHF dual standard, a lot
of people had VHF-only sets and by definition could not not watch
BBC2. Also BBC2 had a reputation for being too posh.
Absolutely, I remember that well.
Earlier than that, my parents had a BBC only tv and when ITV started
we had a second aerial and conversion box. For us it was VHF 4 for
BBC and 8 for ITV.
Bob.
On 23/06/2026 09:19, Scott wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jun 2026 07:14:17 +0100, Roderick Stewart
<rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jun 2026 12:33:30 +0100, Scott
<newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
In which case he'll probably be watching it illegally. I can't watch >>>>> the BBC in France even though I have a TV licence.
I think you will find it is legal to watch France24 in France.
It might even be legal to watch the BBC in France. I don't know what
French law says about watching foreign programmes, but British law
certainly has no jusidiction in France.
What if you use a router at home?
In the UK, which this group concerns, You need a licence.
On 23/06/2026 07:22, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jun 2026 12:04:18 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
and even then you'll be sent frequent threatening letters implying
that you're breaking the law even though they don't know anything
about you. I only cancelled my TV licence a couple of years ago but
I've already got a folder full of these official looking letters,
obviously designed to mislead and intimidate, and every single one of
them addressed to "The legal occupier".
Quite right too. It's not a personal licence but a licence for the
premises, which the great majority do require.
If they can prove that somebody isn't paying when they should be, who
do they prosecute, the person or the premises?
The 'legal occupier', being the person responsible for activities on his >premises.
On Tue, 23 Jun 2026 09:37:15 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
On 23/06/2026 09:19, Scott wrote:So if you login to your home broadband from France to watch TV in
On Tue, 23 Jun 2026 07:14:17 +0100, Roderick Stewart
<rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jun 2026 12:33:30 +0100, Scott
<newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
In which case he'll probably be watching it illegally. I can't watch >>>>>> the BBC in France even though I have a TV licence.
I think you will find it is legal to watch France24 in France.
It might even be legal to watch the BBC in France. I don't know what
French law says about watching foreign programmes, but British law
certainly has no jusidiction in France.
What if you use a router at home?
In the UK, which this group concerns, You need a licence.
France you are committing an offence in the UK if you do not have a UK licence.
What if you use VPN in France, would that be an offence also?
A lot of the time, I've aleady spotted the new product on the shelf
and either tried it, or decided not to try it before I've ever seen
the advert for it, so the spend falls into the "50% of ads which
are a waste of money".
Exactly
After more than 50 years of watching their adverts, I can assure you
that Carlsberg is definitely not the worlds best lager - although
Persil possibly washes whiter
And not everybody loves Raymond
On 23/06/2026 17:11, Scott wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jun 2026 09:37:15 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
On 23/06/2026 09:19, Scott wrote:So if you login to your home broadband from France to watch TV in
On Tue, 23 Jun 2026 07:14:17 +0100, Roderick Stewart
<rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jun 2026 12:33:30 +0100, Scott
<newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
In which case he'll probably be watching it illegally. I can't watch >>>>>>> the BBC in France even though I have a TV licence.
I think you will find it is legal to watch France24 in France.
It might even be legal to watch the BBC in France. I don't know what >>>>> French law says about watching foreign programmes, but British law
certainly has no jusidiction in France.
What if you use a router at home?
In the UK, which this group concerns, You need a licence.
France you are committing an offence in the UK if you do not have a UK
licence.
Yes. According to The Communications (Television Licensing) Regulations >2004:
"'television receiver' means any apparatus installed or used for the
purpose of receiving (whether by means of wireless telegraphy
or otherwise) any television programme service, whether or not it is >installed or used for any other purpose".
That reads on to the router.
What if you use VPN in France, would that be an offence also?
The VPN server would have to be in the UK and would have to be licensed
for it to be legal. I doubt if such a ruse actually works, but you may
know different.
On Tue, 23 Jun 2026 17:33:14 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
On 23/06/2026 17:11, Scott wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jun 2026 09:37:15 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
On 23/06/2026 09:19, Scott wrote:So if you login to your home broadband from France to watch TV in
On Tue, 23 Jun 2026 07:14:17 +0100, Roderick Stewart
<rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jun 2026 12:33:30 +0100, Scott
<newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
In which case he'll probably be watching it illegally. I can't watch >>>>>>>> the BBC in France even though I have a TV licence.
I think you will find it is legal to watch France24 in France.
It might even be legal to watch the BBC in France. I don't know what >>>>>> French law says about watching foreign programmes, but British law >>>>>> certainly has no jusidiction in France.
What if you use a router at home?
In the UK, which this group concerns, You need a licence.
France you are committing an offence in the UK if you do not have a UK
licence.
Yes. According to The Communications (Television Licensing) Regulations
2004:
"'television receiver' means any apparatus installed or used for the
purpose of receiving (whether by means of wireless telegraphy
or otherwise) any television programme service, whether or not it is
installed or used for any other purpose".
That reads on to the router.
Thanks. I think you are correct. IIRC in the old days the word
'establishing' was used, which would seem to cover the situation.
What if you use VPN in France, would that be an offence also?
The VPN server would have to be in the UK and would have to be licensed
for it to be legal. I doubt if such a ruse actually works, but you may
know different.
I thought some elements of the BBC recommended this to overcome the restrictions on BBC Sounds. I'll see if I can find more.
On 23/06/2026 20:36, Scott wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jun 2026 17:33:14 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
On 23/06/2026 17:11, Scott wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jun 2026 09:37:15 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
On 23/06/2026 09:19, Scott wrote:So if you login to your home broadband from France to watch TV in
On Tue, 23 Jun 2026 07:14:17 +0100, Roderick Stewart
<rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jun 2026 12:33:30 +0100, Scott
<newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
In which case he'll probably be watching it illegally.-a I can't >>>>>>>>> watch
the BBC in France even though I have a TV licence.
I think you will find it is legal to watch France24 in France.
It might even be legal to watch the BBC in France. I don't know what >>>>>>> French law says about watching foreign programmes, but British law >>>>>>> certainly has no jusidiction in France.
What if you use a router at home?
In the UK, which this group concerns, You need a licence.
France you are committing an offence in the UK if you do not have a UK >>>> licence.
Yes.-a According to The Communications (Television Licensing) Regulations >>> 2004:
"'television receiver' means any apparatus installed or used for the
purpose of receiving (whether by means of wireless telegraphy
or otherwise) any television programme service, whether or not it is
installed or used for any other purpose".
That reads on to the router.
Thanks. I think you are correct. IIRC in the old days the word
'establishing' was used, which would seem to cover the situation.
What if you use VPN in France, would that be an offence also?
The VPN server would have to be in the UK and would have to be licensed
for it to be legal.-a I doubt if such a ruse actually works, but you may >>> know different.
so if i vpn through my home which has a tv licence, thats legal?
so if i vpn through my home which has a tv licence, thats legal?
Coors managed to produce one of the worst available drinks, Coors Lite
(!!), but then also made Killian's Red, which was perfectly acceptable.
Coors managed to produce one of the worst available drinks, Coors Lite
(!!), but then also made Killian's Red, which was perfectly acceptable.
really ?
I would say that one of the reasons for pubs closing might be the heroic efforts that brewers go to in order to eliminate customers
Products like Watneys Red Barrel, Charringtons "Best" bitter, Whitbread
"Big Head" trophy Bitter (the pint that thinks its a quart) and Harp
Lager led the field for a while but theres plenty of competition now
from the likes of Carling Black label
On 23/06/2026 20:57, David Wade wrote:
so if i vpn through my home which has a tv licence, thats legal?
There were lots of hints that the Starmer regime was wanting to restrict
the use of VPN but we have no idea what Bodybags will do when he takes
over.
I might be misremembering, but wasn't there a great cartoon from the
time of the beers you mention which showed the wastepipes from the men's urinals feeding straight back into the barrels in the cellar?
Well yes, but how do you differ between legitimate use, for example to access my NAS when roaming, or to watch the BBC. Its the same VPN tunnel.
On 24/06/2026 08:25, Abandoned Trolley wrote:
Coors managed to produce one of the worst available drinks, Coors Lite
(!!), but then also made Killian's Red, which was perfectly acceptable.
really ?
I would say that one of the reasons for pubs closing might be the heroic
efforts that brewers go to in order to eliminate customers
Products like Watneys Red Barrel, Charringtons "Best" bitter, Whitbread
"Big Head" trophy Bitter (the pint that thinks its a quart) and Harp
Lager led the field for a while but theres plenty of competition now
from the likes of Carling Black label
I might be misremembering, but wasn't there a great cartoon from the
time of the beers you mention which showed the wastepipes from the men's >urinals feeding straight back into the barrels in the cellar?
On 24/06/2026 09:08, David Wade wrote:
Well yes, but how do you differ between legitimate use, for example to
access my NAS when roaming, or to watch the BBC. Its the same VPN tunnel.
The term VPN has been hijacked by a particular off label use of the underlying technology, to provide services to obscure the true identity
of the end user.-a The use here is more like the on label use, to extend
a LAN, whilst using the public internet to actually carry the traffic.
The politicians are concerned about the off label use.
I might be misremembering, but wasn't there a great cartoon from the
time of the beers you mention which showed the wastepipes from the men's
urinals feeding straight back into the barrels in the cellar?
Quite probably - and possibly in Private Eye ?
Theres also an urban myth (or is it ?) regarding a publican avoiding conviction for serving alcohol to minors when it was proved that WRB was actually less than 2% proof - it is said that the product was "withdrawn
from the market" shortly afterwards
On 22/06/2026 10:13, JNugent wrote:
That is the same old nonsensical chestnut. Advertising is part of the
mechanism - competition - which keeps prices lower than they otherwise
might or would have been.
My impression is that the main purpose of advertising, particularly TV advertising, is to stop the market working, by pushing brands that
charge above the market price.
There is another sort of advertising, but that's rare, and probably even rarer on TV. That's for new classes of product that people would
benefit from, but hadn't realised that they existed or that they would
be of benefit.
I'd call that an educational advert. (More common are
adverts for products which would be better for people to go without.)
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 70 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 01:29:22 |
| Calls: | 949 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 1,325 |
| Messages: | 280,988 |