Please do not write below the line • Hacker News Board

Re: Please do not write below the line

#311

Post by seoulmetro » Wed, Oct 23, 2024, 2:47 AM UTC

jayflux wrote: post #288

seoulmetro wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Had a white van with huge antennas parked out front for a few days when they were refusing to believe that a large share house of young people didn't watch TV. This was in 2015. We didn't own a TV nor watch. The van soon left after a few days but left a full bottle of yellow liquid. Makes a fun story, but yeah they threaten you a bunch and it's quite sad.

I doubt what you saw was a TV licensing van in 2015. They stopped doing the van stuff in the late 90s / early 2000s. Even if they could “detect” TV in your house they’d have no way of knowing if it’s a live broadcast or streaming/on demand. It may have been an OB van or something else.

I know, I think this was always a joke, especially with the yellow liquid.

Re: Please do not write below the line

#312

Post by manarth » Wed, Oct 23, 2024, 7:39 AM UTC

Xophmeister wrote: post #307

manarth wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There has rarely (if ever) been a separate broadcast signal for B&W vs colour. Broadcasts began in B&W, over time upgraded to colour, but there wasn't a need to broadcast Channel in B&W and broadcast the same channel in colour on a different frequency. One single broadcast signal, and different capabilities of receivers.

But surely B&W TVs only exist with analog tuners?

Oh, I misunderstood the point you were making.

I guess you _could_ have a modern digital receiver with SCART-out (if such a thing exists) to a B&W TV. This BBC article (2018) claims 7,000 people watching TV with a B&W licence – whether they were actually watching it in B&W is not known :-D

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-46125741

Re: Please do not write below the line

#313

Post by mike_hearn » Wed, Oct 23, 2024, 8:01 AM UTC

manarth wrote: post #304

mike_hearn wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The website has a page where it disagrees with that belief, and argues that TVL and the BBC are in fact the same organization: http://www.bbctvlicence.com/TVL-BBC%20hiding%20of%20identiti...

Where I said that the BBC were independent, I was responding to the parent thread which said the BBC are a Government organisation. The BBC are independent of the UK government. The BBC are responsible for TV licencing, and they delegate (outsource) that activity to Capita. The day-to-day interactions, such as the emails from the website, are with Capita's support service, acting on instructions from the BBC.

The BBC aren't really independent of the government. They like to claim this and mostly get away with it, because British governments tend to be lenient with them and don't interfere. But they depend on taxes for the bulk of their income, their existence is defined by law and the government appoints the person who runs it. A change of government could completely change the BBC tomorrow and there'd be nothing anyone working there could do about it.

Re: Please do not write below the line

#314

Post by account42 » Wed, Oct 23, 2024, 8:32 AM UTC

justinclift wrote: post #231

Seems like a series of letters sent by someone with cognitive difficulties? Not really sure what the point of them is, other than documenting some of the weird stuff people doing customer service find themselves responding to. > Having kept all my TVL/BBC envelopes ... Well, that's a thing.

> Seems like a series of letters sent by someone with cognitive difficulties?

No, just someone who isn't a complete NPC.

Re: Please do not write below the line

#315

Post by DonsDiscountGas » Wed, Oct 23, 2024, 10:50 AM UTC

ryandrake wrote: post #180

textninja wrote: post #168

The purpose seems clear to me from the explanation provided. Here's what I read between the lines. 1. Send out thousands of letters expecting some to be returned. They may be returned due to deliverability issues, or they may be returned with a reply attached or (probably less commonly) scrawled on the pages of the letter itself. Replies to letters are of course common whether they're expressly requested or not. 2. G…

But OP was not planning on returning the letter, so it would never be scanned. I think the BBC could have solved this preemptively, by simply making the letter say "Please do not write below this line, if you are returning the letter ."

Or it's a template that they use for a lot of things, many of which are intended to be returned, and nobody took the step to remove it since there is no harm in leaving it.

Also:

> Replies to letters are of course common whether they're expressly requested or not.

Re: Please do not write below the line

#316

Post by timwis » Wed, Oct 23, 2024, 12:31 PM UTC

redundantly wrote: post #12

I love silly, pedantic, obstinate stuff like this. This was a very funny read!

Then you’ll love this guy https://27bslash6.com/missy.html

Re: Please do not write below the line

#317

Post by duxup » Wed, Oct 23, 2024, 1:02 PM UTC

reaperducer wrote: post #186

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…

Many bits of paperwork had a "do not write below the line" type areas. I always wrote something My favorite is those company get-to-know-you questions written or oral that ask you to yourself in one word. "Does not follow directions."

I like to think Steve Jobs would have respected that ... a little, even if that makes them hard to work with.

https://youtu.be/s4Cz49MLh4o?t=143

Re: Please do not write below the line

#318

Post by rainingmonkey » Wed, Oct 23, 2024, 2:26 PM UTC

mike_hearn wrote: post #313

manarth wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where I said that the BBC were independent, I was responding to the parent thread which said the BBC are a Government organisation. The BBC are independent of the UK government. The BBC are responsible for TV licencing, and they delegate (outsource) that activity to Capita. The day-to-day interactions, such as the emails from the website, are with Capita's support service, acting on instructions from the BBC.

The BBC aren't really independent of the government. They like to claim this and mostly get away with it, because British governments tend to be lenient with them and don't interfere. But they depend on taxes for the bulk of their income, their existence is defined by law and the government appoints the person who runs it. A change of government could completely change the BBC tomorrow and there'd be nothing anyone w…

The existence of any media organisation (or any corporation) is defined by law; a change of government could in theory completely change any organisation in the UK.

But yes, "the Chairman and the non-executive members for the nations are appointed by HM The King on the recommendation of Ministers."

In reality, I suspect the ownership structure of a media organisation matters less than the ideologies of its directors.

Re: Please do not write below the line

#319

Post by n4r9 » Wed, Oct 23, 2024, 3:36 PM UTC

icedchai wrote: post #306

jayflux wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/w...

Incredible. And people actually let these "TV inspectors" into their homes?

Yes, in fact there are tens of thousands of convictions every year. They disproportionately target vulnerable people like the disabled, migrants, and single mothers. The kinds of people who are likely to be at home when they come knocking during working hours, and who might have a lot of other things on their plate or might not be fully informed, I guess. There's some proper dystopian examples, for example a woman with Down's syndrome whose council pleaded guilty on her behalf, because it manages her finances. It's horrific.

The Guardian wrote an article about it earlier this year: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2024/feb/29/tv-licence-fee...

Re: Please do not write below the line

#320

Post by chihuahua » Wed, Oct 23, 2024, 5:08 PM UTC

ryandrake wrote: post #178

cal85 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On-topic? Every reply seemed evasive to me. (Regarding how he got them to reply at all, this is required by law of public authorities.)

Hilarious that every time, they responded in a way that was technically on-topic, but totally ignoring the actual questions being asked. Like someone found one word in OP's question, then mindlessly recited a random form response associated with that word.

Chatbots from the time before LLMs.