Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Please do not write below the line

bbctvlicence.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 337 posts

Re: Please do not write below the line

#131

Post by noncoml »

donatj wrote: post #108
duxup wrote: post #95

I worked for an old company that had a lot of old processes and paperwork. Many bits of paperwork had a "do not write below the line" type areas. I always wrote something ... nothing ever happened. I once hand delivered some paperwork (I was running late) to HR rather than using the inter office mail service. I asked them about it, they told me "Oh you must be Mathew..." I was HR famous. They didn't actually mind, th…

In a similar vein, I put an ill fitting jacket on a coat rack when I started my current job in 2012. We have moved offices twice, and the coat rack and jacket have followed me across both moves at no effort of my own. We've been working remote now since the beginning of covid, but our office is still open for anyone who wants to use it. I visited earlier this summer and my jacket was gone. I asked our office assistan…

Thanks for sharing this. Made my day a bit brighter

Re: Please do not write below the line

#132

Post by FragenAntworten »

metabagel wrote: post #89
ho_schi wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This fee is hot topic in Germany. Our French friends also enjoy ARTE[1] but seem not to suffer anymore from this ridiculous fee. Actually I’m surprised that the Swiss fee is even higher, despite everything in the Swiss is expensive. [1] Big parts of our public television suck. But ARTE is awesome ! * Borgen * Occupied * Mit offenen Karten * Karambolage * … PS: ARTE is watchable outside of France and Germany in a lot…

Occupied is outstanding, and available in the U.S. on Netflix.

I didn't find it on Netflix, but it seems to be available on Amazon Prime Video.

Re: Please do not write below the line

#133

Post by [deleted] »

anigbrowl wrote: post #74
ZoomZoomZoom wrote: post #61

The most baffling thing here is how the hell did the author get the organisation to respond , on topic, multiple times? In my experience conversing with various entities that are supposed to provide customer support, absolutely anything outside of an extremely narrow set of vetted topics with prepared answers and especially anything technical gets ignored and receives an irrelevant response at best.

It's from 2006, before organizations realized that there were lots of trolls willing to dedicate themselves to wasting other people's time over bullshit.

[deleted]

Re: Please do not write below the line

#135

Post by GuB-42 »

Nition wrote: post #55
dijit wrote: post #8

Likeliest situation is all their stationary destined for send outs have the line; and in situations where the line serves no purpose it does no harm to leave it: so there is little use in having additional process around completely blank stock.

They could have told him that though if it's the case, and the mystery would be solved. But there obviously wasn't any desire (or more charitably - time) on their end to really look into the reasoning or even understand the question. ---- Edit: I will share what I think is a nice a little counterpoint story here, from a business that is clearly still interested in understanding. I sent Lego an email a while ago: I'm…

The thing is, Lego is a "nice" company, and they care about their image. Answering obscure question the best they can goes a long way, people will be more than willing to share their anecdote. That's great publicity, and all you need are a few guys answering emails, most of them are likely to be copy-pasted for the most part, people are not that original. And if you get a truly original question, it may take a bit more time, but the impact will be greater, and I am sure employees have great fun finding these bits of trivia.

TV licensing on the other hand is "evil". They are in the business of collecting a tax that many people see as unfair, and prosecute those who don't pay. Even if their actions are fully justified, they won't make your life better, it is simply not their job. Even if they are genuinely nice in their communication, it won't change the fact that their are after your money and have to be forceful sometimes, and everything will be seen through these lens, so they might just as well assume their evilness.

Re: Please do not write below the line

#137

Post by HPsquared »

duxup wrote: post #95

I worked for an old company that had a lot of old processes and paperwork. Many bits of paperwork had a "do not write below the line" type areas. I always wrote something ... nothing ever happened. I once hand delivered some paperwork (I was running late) to HR rather than using the inter office mail service. I asked them about it, they told me "Oh you must be Mathew..." I was HR famous. They didn't actually mind, th…

Chesterton's menace

Re: Please do not write below the line

#139

Post by ano-ther »

From their main page, it looks like all of the letters with this line have something below it which is redacted.

Could it be that they print the letter (perhaps sign in person as it is a legal document) and then scan/OCR it prior to sending? The redacted thing would then be an identifier for the recipient to be automatically filed.

The email convo is from 2006 and this could be a realistic tech setup for this kind of organisation.

Re: Please do not write below the line

#140

Post by soneil »

gs17 wrote: post #72
busterarm wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but the UK is the only country with a license ridiculous enough to offer you a 50% discount _if you're blind_.

It sounds weirder than that to me: > colour TV: £169.50 per year; monochrome TV: £57.00 per year; blind people: 50% discount People who can't see their color TV at all pay more than people who can but have an old black-and-white one?

People who can’t see their colour TV pay more than people who can’t see their B&W TV.

Oh to be a a fly on the wall when the inspector has to explain the difference to a blind person.

I think it made a lot more sense in the past. The license is set up so it’s a consumption based tax rather than taxing everyone. So only people with TVs paid TV tax. If colour increased the costs, only people consuming colour paid those increases. I imagine it made much more sense before consumption was ubiquitous

Post reply on HN