|
Conflict of Oyster Cards
On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 12:12:45 +0000, David Hansen
wrote: On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 04:01:07 -0800 (PST) someone who may be Mizter T wrote this:- The Telegraphy Act 1967 requires retailers to collect the address of purchasers of television receiving equipment and pass it on to the television licensing authority - under the law a sale cannot be effected if this doesn't happen. They have to collect an address. However, the public are under no obligation to provide their own address They are if they don't want to find themselves in court:- [Wireless Telegraphy Act 1967] "5 Offences and enforcement (1)Any person who— (a)without reasonable excuse, fails to comply with, or with any notice given under, any of the foregoing provisions of this Part of this Act; or (b)in purported compliance therewith— (i)knowingly or recklessly furnishes any information which is false in a material particular; or (ii)makes or causes to be made or knowingly allows to be made any record which he knows to be false in a material particular, shall be guilty of an offence under the principal Act." ITYF the offence is formed not by the failure to provide the true address but by the deliberate giving of a false address. As a back up there are also the Common Law offences covering fraud and theft in Scotland or deception offences under the Fraud Act in England and Wales. and given that if they do they are highly likely to be spammed it is foolish to give one's own address. If the name and address are collected for the purposes of complying with the WTA then a shop cannot divert that information for its own purposes. |
Conflict of Oyster Cards
On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 11:55:34 +0000, David Hansen
wrote: On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 11:35:08 +0000 someone who may be Ivor The Engine wrote this:- Extended warranty? If someone is coming to repair your TV, it helps if they know where it is. If the customer finds something wrong with their set then they contact the manufacturer (or shop if it was taken out with them). No need for the shop to collect personal information, which they will use to spam people. If the name and/or address are incorrect it might kill the warranty because there is no evidence that the current owner is the person who bought the television. |
Conflict of Oyster Cards
On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 05:08:15 -0800 (PST), Mizter T
wrote: On Feb 7, 11:38*am, Charlie Hulme wrote: Mizter T wrote: On Feb 7, 12:36 am, David Hansen wrote: On Sat, 6 Feb 2010 21:43:54 -0000 someone who may be "Yokel" wrote this:- Argos does as well, resulting in me having to fill in a form at the counter, not on their pay terminal, when I bought a TV from them. Why fill in a form with an address when buying a television? Telegraphy Act of 1967 (as amended). I had to fill in such a form when I bought a video recorder from Tesco. Does the law also apply to to USB Freeview gadgets, I wonder? I think it does, yes - the law covers all 'television receiving apparatus' (or some such) - not saying that retailers necessarily abide by this though. But of course the whole issue is becoming far less clear than it once was - a computer and indeed other internet connected devices can be used to get television streamed 'live' (the BBC streams BBC1 and 2 and the news channel), for which a licence fee is a technical requirement. It isn't "technical" - a receiving licence is required to use apparatus to watch anything that is being currently broadcast over the air but not for anything which is recorded (in that case only the originator of a broadcast still requires a licence). No receiving licence is required if equipment capable of doing so is not installed or used for that purpose. In the case of a computer the mere capability (which won't be there if there is no aerial) is not enough although the TVLRO in the past would possibly not have hesitated to claim otherwise in court. However the details of people buying computers or other such devices aren't passed to TV Licensing. Regardless of other issues re the licence, the simple question of how applicable and relevant it will be over time, given the advancing and merging of technologies, has to be asked. Of course I rather suspect that no government of the future is going to be wildly keen to open the pandora's box that is television licensing and BBC funding. |
Conflict of Oyster Cards
|
Conflict of Oyster Cards
On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 17:05:15 -0000, "Tim Fenton"
wrote: "Ivor The Engine" wrote in message .. . So no practical use for a tourist, are strippenkarts still valid on the trams? They were still valid in central Amsterdam last month for trams & buses - I think you may have to have the OV card for metro (didn't use it). The Strippenkaart ceased to be valid for the Amsterdam Metro last September. I used a day ticket while there later that month, so haven't yet experienced the new system. Indeed. It was a sudden encounter with the closed gates that got me to sort out an OVkaart - I'm there often enough and can claim the deposit. HTM trams were "turned on" to OV on 1 Feb but strippenkaarten are still valid. I must grab and scan a journey history from a GVB machine, those are delightfully unhelpful. The Oyster JH is a model of clarity in comparison, even with its Entry 4.00 Exit 3.00 confusion. On the OV you have to know the "tuig nummer" - for example the NS trains show up as a 4 digit code with no hint of what you rode. -- Old anti-spam address cmylod at despammed dot com appears broke So back to cmylod at bigfoot dot com |
Conflict of Oyster Cards
On Feb 7, 10:57*pm, Tom Anderson wrote: On Sat, 6 Feb 2010, Mizter T wrote: There was one company I had recent online dealings with that didn't have any sort of London option at all - I'm quite sure a good many Londoners wouldn't be too sure of their 'historic' county, for example how many know exactly where ye olde dividing line between Kent and Surrey lay? I've got a broad idea, but that's only coz I've looked it up on maps of yore. Given that the post office doesn't pay any attention to the county, couldn't you fill in whatever you liked? You could - it'd be an interesting test of the extent to which Royal Mail doesn't pay *any* attention whatsoever to a county that's given as part of an address! I dare say one might find that helpful interventions might be made... one can test it for the price of a few stamps, and perhaps some strange looks from your postman, I suppose (that said mass produced mail from mailing houses might be treated with more tolerance for absurd address elements than evidently personally addressed mail). There's still a good number of postman who do give a damn. |
Conflict of Oyster Cards
On Feb 7, 11:03*pm, (Paul Cummins) wrote: In article , (Graeme) wrote: However it is not clever for others on this group to boast about not paying their licence fee. *Given I derive part of my income from it I have every incentive to shop them to the cops. OK. I have a TV, and I do not pay for a TV Licence. I am satisfied that a licence I *do* hold covers me. Feel free to let the police know. However, I'm pretty sure they are uninterested in the matter... Intrigued... gun licence? (Or more likely I suppose, you're not a viewer of broadcast television.) |
Conflict of Oyster Cards
On Feb 7, 11:27*pm, Charles Ellson wrote: On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 05:08:15 -0800 (PST), Mizter T wrote: On Feb 7, 11:38*am, Charlie Hulme wrote: [snip] Does the law also apply to to USB Freeview gadgets, I wonder? I think it does, yes - the law covers all 'television receiving apparatus' (or some such) - not saying that retailers necessarily abide by this though. But of course the whole issue is becoming far less clear than it once was - a computer and indeed other internet connected devices can be used to get television streamed 'live' (the BBC streams BBC1 and 2 and the news channel), for which a licence fee is a technical requirement. It isn't "technical" - a receiving licence is required to use apparatus to watch anything that is being currently broadcast over the air but not for anything which is recorded (in that case only the originator of a broadcast still requires a licence). No receiving licence is required if equipment capable of doing so is not installed or used for that purpose. In the case of a computer the mere capability (which won't be there if there is no aerial) is not enough although the TVLRO in the past would possibly not have hesitated to claim otherwise in court. An computer does have the capability to enable viewing of broadcast television without an aerial, so long as it is internet connected - the BBC themselves stream three of their UK television channels via their own website. See http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcone/watchlive/, replete with the note in the bottom right hand corner that states "Don't forget - to watch TV online as it's being broadcast, you still need a TV Licence." TV Licensing do not however require computer retailers to gather and pass on information about the purchasers addresses to them. My point is that the convergence of technology makes this all rather less clear cut - and there's a good number of people who don't have conventional televisions but who nonetheless watch television nowadays - if it's all 'watch again' stuff on iPlayer, 4oD and the like, no problem, but if it's a live ('as broadcast') TV stream then a TV Licence is required. And if three BBC channels aren't enough, throw "TVCatchup" into the arena and then one can access live streams of over 50 UK channels - see http://www.tvcatchup.com/ and also the wikipedia article on the service here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TVCatchup. The world is more complicated than it once was. |
Conflict of Oyster Cards
On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 16:43:29 -0800 (PST), Mizter T
wrote: On Feb 7, 10:57*pm, Tom Anderson wrote: On Sat, 6 Feb 2010, Mizter T wrote: There was one company I had recent online dealings with that didn't have any sort of London option at all - I'm quite sure a good many Londoners wouldn't be too sure of their 'historic' county, for example how many know exactly where ye olde dividing line between Kent and Surrey lay? I've got a broad idea, but that's only coz I've looked it up on maps of yore. Given that the post office doesn't pay any attention to the county, couldn't you fill in whatever you liked? You could - it'd be an interesting test of the extent to which Royal Mail doesn't pay *any* attention whatsoever to a county that's given as part of an address! I dare say one might find that helpful interventions might be made... one can test it for the price of a few stamps, and perhaps some strange looks from your postman, I suppose (that said mass produced mail from mailing houses might be treated with more tolerance for absurd address elements than evidently personally addressed mail). There's still a good number of postman who do give a damn. Putting the wrong county could have an affect if the OCR fails to recognise the postcode but reads enough of the rest to produce a unique match to an existing address which is not the intended destination but not enough to exclude wrong addresses which would have been ignored if the correct county was shown. |
Conflict of Oyster Cards
On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 17:06:19 -0800 (PST), Mizter T
wrote: On Feb 7, 11:27*pm, Charles Ellson wrote: On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 05:08:15 -0800 (PST), Mizter T wrote: On Feb 7, 11:38*am, Charlie Hulme wrote: [snip] Does the law also apply to to USB Freeview gadgets, I wonder? I think it does, yes - the law covers all 'television receiving apparatus' (or some such) - not saying that retailers necessarily abide by this though. But of course the whole issue is becoming far less clear than it once was - a computer and indeed other internet connected devices can be used to get television streamed 'live' (the BBC streams BBC1 and 2 and the news channel), for which a licence fee is a technical requirement. It isn't "technical" - a receiving licence is required to use apparatus to watch anything that is being currently broadcast over the air but not for anything which is recorded (in that case only the originator of a broadcast still requires a licence). No receiving licence is required if equipment capable of doing so is not installed or used for that purpose. In the case of a computer the mere capability (which won't be there if there is no aerial) is not enough although the TVLRO in the past would possibly not have hesitated to claim otherwise in court. An computer does have the capability to enable viewing of broadcast television without an aerial, so long as it is internet connected - the BBC themselves stream three of their UK television channels via their own website. See http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcone/watchlive/, replete with the note in the bottom right hand corner that states "Don't forget - to watch TV online as it's being broadcast, you still need a TV Licence." Capability is not enough to require licensing otherwise it would be necessary to obtain a licence for a portable television used as a computer or games monitor. http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/faqs/FAQ15/ http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-i...for-your-home/ (note "as they're being shown on TV.") TV Licensing do not however require computer retailers to gather and pass on information about the purchasers addresses to them. The Wireless Telegraphy Act 1967 (not the licensing people) makes that requirement if the equipment retailed constitutes a "television set" (apparatus designed primarily for the purpose of receiving and exhibiting television programmes) where "primarily" will usually kick the requirement into touch. OTOH retailers of computer-based home entertainment systems seem to qualify as "television dealers" under the Act if they aren't already dealing with televisions which I suspect most are likely to. Moving on to e.g. Dixons and similar who are unlikely not to be "television dealers" I can't see how the Act can be applied (WRT collecting addresses) at all to television cards or systems sold without a monitor and even a computer+monitor+card (not sold as an entertainment system) seems to fail the test for being a "television set". My point is that the convergence of technology makes this all rather less clear cut - and there's a good number of people who don't have conventional televisions but who nonetheless watch television nowadays - if it's all 'watch again' stuff on iPlayer, 4oD and the like, no problem, but if it's a live ('as broadcast') TV stream then a TV Licence is required. And if three BBC channels aren't enough, throw "TVCatchup" into the arena and then one can access live streams of over 50 UK channels - see http://www.tvcatchup.com/ and also the wikipedia article on the service here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TVCatchup. It seems to be a Mauritius-registered company which immediately raises the question of why they are operating off-shore. The world is more complicated than it once was. |
Conflict of Oyster Cards
In message
Charles Ellson wrote: [snip] It isn't "technical" - a receiving licence is required to use apparatus to watch anything that is being currently broadcast over the air but not for anything which is recorded (in that case only the originator of a broadcast still requires a licence). No receiving licence is required if equipment capable of doing so is not installed or used for that purpose. In the case of a computer the mere capability (which won't be there if there is no aerial) is not enough Not strictly true as you need a licence to watch BBC material streamed live on the net. -- Graeme Wall This address not read, substitute trains for rail Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail Photo galleries at http://graeme-wall.fotopic.net/ |
Conflict of Oyster Cards
On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 09:47:43 -0800 (PST) someone who may be
ticketyboo wrote this:- Living in a Unitary Authority, I have trouble with the ones that insist on a county (I put the UA name in again). Yep. A lot of incompetent organisations insist that Edinburgh is in Midlothian. It isn't. -- David Hansen, Edinburgh I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000...#pt3-pb3-l1g54 |
Conflict of Oyster Cards
On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 23:12:15 +0000 someone who may be Charles Ellson
wrote this:- ITYF the offence is formed not by the failure to provide the true address but by the deliberate giving of a false address. In an FoI reply the BBC have stated what I repeated. Can't be bothered to look up where I found it, but it was in an anti-BBC tax web site so if I was to rely on it I would double check. As a back up there are also the Common Law offences covering fraud and theft in Scotland or deception offences under the Fraud Act in England and Wales. If one already has a subscription, or has no need for a subscription, then one is not cheating the BBC out of money by poking fun at Stalinism. If the name and address are collected for the purposes of complying with the WTA then a shop cannot divert that information for its own purposes. Such a touching faith in the law. You remind me of party politicians, they think that if they pass a law then that will stop something happening. Of course a shop can do that, it may be illegal, but that does not stop them doing it. -- David Hansen, Edinburgh I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000...#pt3-pb3-l1g54 |
Conflict of Oyster Cards
On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 23:16:03 +0000 someone who may be Charles Ellson
wrote this:- If the name and/or address are incorrect it might kill the warranty because there is no evidence that the current owner is the person who bought the television. Is this a condition of many warranties? -- David Hansen, Edinburgh I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000...#pt3-pb3-l1g54 |
Conflict of Oyster Cards
In message
David Hansen wrote: On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 23:12:15 +0000 someone who may be Charles Ellson wrote this:- ITYF the offence is formed not by the failure to provide the true address but by the deliberate giving of a false address. In an FoI reply the BBC have stated what I repeated. Can't be bothered to look up where I found it, Funny that you never can in these circumstances. but it was in an anti-BBC tax web site so if I was to rely on it I would double check. No you wouldn't, it reinforces your inane prejudices so you'd accept it. -- Graeme Wall This address not read, substitute trains for rail Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail Photo galleries at http://graeme-wall.fotopic.net/ |
Conflict of Oyster Cards
|
Conflict of Oyster Cards
On Feb 7, 12:51*am, Mizter T wrote:
Why does it need to know whether you live in a house or flat/ maisonette, and for that matter what would it matter if it thought you did live in a flat? I live in a flat that is numbered in the sequence for the street (no A, B etc) - so in this kind of software I usually have to call it a house... Neil |
Conflict of Oyster Cards
On Feb 8, 12:27*am, Charles Ellson wrote:
It isn't "technical" - a receiving licence is required to use apparatus to watch ....or record... anything that is being currently broadcast over the air I believe, for that reason, you need a colour licence if you have a B&W TV with a video recorder, because the latter is able to record programmes in colour even if you cannot watch them on the TV attached to it (presumably because you *could* watch them on another TV, which itself may not need to be covered by any licence). Neil |
Conflict of Oyster Cards
On Feb 8, 2:06*am, Mizter T wrote:
My point is that the convergence of technology makes this all rather less clear cut - and there's a good number of people who don't have conventional televisions but who nonetheless watch television nowadays - if it's all 'watch again' stuff on iPlayer, 4oD and the like, no problem, but if it's a live ('as broadcast') TV stream then a TV Licence is required. True. And in Germany it was going to be the case (don't know if it happened or not) that a PC with Internet connection would require a licence. And it's per "TV" in Germany as well, I believe, not just per household. To avoid this silliness, it would make more sense that, within the UK, such "TV archive" websites required the entry of a valid licence number before they could be used, if they were to be brought into the requirement. Neil |
Conflict of Oyster Cards
On Feb 8, 9:12*am, Graeme wrote:
Not strictly true as you need a licence to watch BBC material streamed live on the net. Any TV if it is being streamed at the time it is being broadcast, I understand, not just BBC. Neil |
Conflict of Oyster Cards
On Feb 8, 9:59*am, David Hansen
wrote: Yep. A lot of incompetent organisations insist that Edinburgh is in Midlothian. It isn't. Is it for postal purposes, though? (I know the postal county is not required any more, which begs the question why anyone bothers asking for it). Milton Keynes, like Edinburgh, is a unitary authority, but is still considered to be in Buckinghamshire for addressing purposes. Neil |
Conflict of Oyster Cards
On Feb 8, 11:54*am, wrote:
It would require at least new software in the boxes and then everyone phones their mates and tells them the code or posts the code online anyway. It wouldn't. The boxes can already do it (except the few really cheap ones with no text capability). Neil |
Conflict of Oyster Cards
On Feb 8, 11:00*am, Neil Williams wrote: On Feb 7, 12:51*am, Mizter T wrote: Why does it need to know whether you live in a house or flat/ maisonette, and for that matter what would it matter if it thought you did live in a flat? I live in a flat that is numbered in the sequence for the street (no A, B etc) - so in this kind of software I usually have to call it a house... My point was, why do 'they' even need to know, unless they're selling you insurance or something where it's relevant? I suppose if you're ordering something large, then knowing whether or not it's going to be delivered to a flat might well be helpful and thus flagging it up in the online order system is useful, but as your example makes clear, relying on all flats to have a letter suffix as the sole way of identifying this is daft. |
Conflict of Oyster Cards
In message
Neil Williams wrote: On Feb 8, 9:12*am, Graeme wrote: Not strictly true as you need a licence to watch BBC material streamed live on the net. Any TV if it is being streamed at the time it is being broadcast, I understand, not just BBC. Probably true, it's just I know you need one for watching BBC. Don't know about the others. -- Graeme Wall This address not read, substitute trains for rail Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail Photo galleries at http://graeme-wall.fotopic.net/ |
Conflict of Oyster Cards
On Thu, Feb 04, 2010 at 05:05:22PM +0000, David Hansen wrote:
The stories I have heard about this have contained an account from the council that they start off with notes in bins. That seems rather unhelpful. If there's a random piece of paper on its own in the bin, I just assume that it was damp and stuck to the bin intead of falling out when the bin men upended it. -- David Cantrell | Godless Liberal Elitist I apologize if I offended you personally, I intended to do it professionally. -- Steve Champeon, on the nanog list |
Conflict of Oyster Cards
On Feb 8, 11:07*am, Neil Williams wrote: On Feb 8, 2:06*am, Mizter T wrote: My point is that the convergence of technology makes this all rather less clear cut - and there's a good number of people who don't have conventional televisions but who nonetheless watch television nowadays - if it's all 'watch again' stuff on iPlayer, 4oD and the like, no problem, but if it's a live ('as broadcast') TV stream then a TV Licence is required. True. *And in Germany it was going to be the case (don't know if it happened or not) that a PC with Internet connection would require a licence. *And it's per "TV" in Germany as well, I believe, not just per household. No, my understanding is that it's not per TV / device, it's per household. Wikipedia puts it thus: ---quote--- Starting in 2007, the German government will establish a licence fee for the first working Internet link (e.g. mobile phone or PC) in a household or a company if it is the only source for radio and television. These devices will be charged the radio fee. The licence fee has to be paid even if the device is not attached or has no immediate capabilities to connect to internet. ---quote--- Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licence#Germany I don't know how the detail pans out - e.g. whether mobile phone account that has internet access enabled means the address where that account is registered is liable to pay the licence fee, and whether one can opt out by specifically choosing not to have mobile internet access. Actually I've a feeling that the mobile connection might have to be above a certain speed or (potential) bandwidth or something, e.g. 3G, but I really dunno (I'm wondering whether someone looking at a basic WAP page on a basic handset would really count). And then there's the question of PAYG mobile 'accounts' - but perhaps in Germany these have to be registered to a named holder at a specified address (unlike here where they can be 'anonymous'). To avoid this silliness, it would make more sense that, within the UK, such "TV archive" websites required the entry of a valid licence number before they could be used, if they were to be brought into the requirement. One can easily see a multitude of problems with that, such as a licence fee's number being shared over far and wide. If you then look at some sort of formal login in requirement, then there's a multitude of issues with that - how many logins allowed per licence, how many concurrently connected devices allowed on the same login, enforcement that those multiple logins are not being used by family and/or friends at multiple different locations, some of which may be unlicensed, the burden of actually setting up and managing such a system etc etc. I'm tempted to think that if a licence fee funding model is to continue to be viable, then perhaps the German model might be worth looking at, i.e. one where telco links - fixed or mobile - mean that a licence is required (though there are all the possible complications as noted above). Or else the French model, where the licence fee is collected through the local taxation system - the latter would provide a bit more distance from central government than if the BBC were merely funded by a block grant from central funds (i.e. central taxation). I am a supporter of the Beeb, incidentally (not perfect by any means of course), but I've long wondered how sustainable the current TV licensing model is. Not remotely keen on any strict pay wall subscription model ala Sky though. |
Conflict of Oyster Cards
On Sat, Feb 06, 2010 at 09:43:54PM -0000, Yokel wrote:
Is that the same software that refuses to accept any house number ending in "A" (and there are quite a few) because it thinks you are living in a flat or maisonette? Even the Post Office uses this rubbish software ... The post office don't believe that my address exists either, despite managing to deliver plenty of junk mail. And then there are the idiot companies that use the PAF and actually assume it's correct. The PAF *documentation* tells them that it's not correct - that it always lags behind reality for new buildings, for example. And yet Tesco refused to deliver to me, because my address wasn't in their database. It never stopped them registering me for a loyalty card, selling the address to yet more junk mail companies, or indeed writing to their employee in the flat below me (whose mail I always got because the postman couldn't read). -- David Cantrell | Bourgeois reactionary pig What profiteth a man, if he win a flame war, yet lose his cool? |
Conflict of Oyster Cards
On Feb 8, 11:38*am, Graeme wrote: Neil *Williams wrote: On Feb 8, 9:12*am, Graeme wrote: Not strictly true as you need a licence to watch BBC material streamed live on the net. Any TV if it is being streamed at the time it is being broadcast, I understand, not just BBC. Probably true, it's just I know you need one for watching BBC. *Don't know about the others. "TVCatchup" might exist in something of a legal grey spot, but they seem to be clear in stating that users must have a UK TV licence. Channel 4 also did simulcast streaming for a while (discontinued now), and they made clear that a TV licence was required. Got some idea that when the BBC does events like Wimbledon and multiple 'virtual channels' are offered via "the red button" multiscreen service, if those same 'channels' are offered via streaming online then a licence is again required. (Wait for TV Licensing to remind businesses that they need TV Licences if people are watching World Cup games online at their workplaces this summer!) |
Conflict of Oyster Cards
On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 03:11:12 -0800 (PST)
Neil Williams wrote: On Feb 8, 11:54=A0am, wrote: It would require at least new software in the boxes and then everyone pho= nes their mates and tells them the code or posts the code online anyway. It wouldn't. The boxes can already do it (except the few really cheap ones with no text capability). And how do you propose giving each box a unique code for the program then? Or do you think giving out a single code for a program is secure and no one would ever tell anyone else? B2003 |
Conflict of Oyster Cards
On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 03:09:28 -0800 (PST) someone who may be Neil
Williams wrote this:- Yep. A lot of incompetent organisations insist that Edinburgh is in Midlothian. It isn't. Is it for postal purposes, though? (I know the postal county is not required any more, which begs the question why anyone bothers asking for it). I think you have answered your own question. Even then Edinburgh has not been in Midlothian for a considerable time. Edinburgh has been in Edinburgh since the Tories tried to gerrymander things, before then it was in Lothian (Region) [1]. Only before then was it in Midlothian, the 1970s as I understand it. [1] Edinburgh District and Midlothian District were two parts of Lothian Region. -- David Hansen, Edinburgh I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000...#pt3-pb3-l1g54 |
Conflict of Oyster Cards
On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 03:26:10 -0800 (PST) someone who may be Mizter T
wrote this:- as your example makes clear, relying on all flats to have a letter suffix as the sole way of identifying this is daft. There has been a move to renumber flats in Edinburgh, no letter suffixes but instead number suffixes. This came about because idiot computer programmers came up with software unable to cope with the way tenements are traditionally numbered in Edinburgh, which is typically TFR, 75 Main Street,... TFR is top floor right, there are other abbreviations for the other flats, but idiot computer programmers prevented this and the other abbreviations being entered. -- David Hansen, Edinburgh I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000...#pt3-pb3-l1g54 |
Conflict of Oyster Cards
On Feb 8, 3:39*pm, wrote:
Top up TV requires a special box though. Presumably when you buy the box a note is made of its serial number or something like it and when you pay your subscription you're given a number unique to your box for the next period.. Or at least I imagine thats how it works. It uses viewing cards inserted into the box. Neil |
Conflict of Oyster Cards
On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 06:52:03 -0800 (PST)
Neil Williams wrote: On Feb 8, 3:39=A0pm, wrote: Top up TV requires a special box though. Presumably when you buy the box = a note is made of its serial number or something like it and when you pay your subscription you're given a number unique to your box for the next period= .. Or at least I imagine thats how it works. It uses viewing cards inserted into the box. Not since 2007 it hasn't apparently. B2003 |
Conflict of Oyster Cards
On Feb 8, 5:00*pm, wrote:
It uses viewing cards inserted into the box. Not since 2007 it hasn't apparently. I have had a box since about 2008 (one of the Thomson PVRs) and it does have a viewing card, though I binned it as I decided not to continue the TUTV bit. Might well be that they have changed the setup so you don't *have* to use one of those boxes, though. Neil |
Conflict of Oyster Cards
|
Conflict of Oyster Cards
On Feb 8, 4:11*pm, Neil Williams wrote: On Feb 8, 5:00*pm, wrote: It uses viewing cards inserted into the box. Not since 2007 it hasn't apparently. I have had a box since about 2008 (one of the Thomson PVRs) and it does have a viewing card, though I binned it as I decided not to continue the TUTV bit. Might well be that they have changed the setup so you don't *have* to use one of those boxes, though. No - you basically need a specific "Top Up TV Anytime" box now - the programmes are broadcast encrypted overnight, picked up and recorded by the box, which is essentially a hard-disk PVR/ DVR - the subscriber then has a library of programmes to watch. Apparently there remains a legacy service - unavailable to new subscribers - with a limited range of channels still broadcast for 'live' viewing. All sounds a bit pointless - the latter especially so. Info from: http://www.frequencycast.co.uk/topuptvanytime.html |
Conflict of Oyster Cards
On Feb 8, 5:32*pm, Mizter T wrote:
No - you basically need a specific "Top Up TV Anytime" box now That's what I've got (though now minus the TUTV, which I only had for an initial free period). And it has (well, had) a viewing card. It's not a bad PVR so far as the Freeview ones go. (None seems as good as a Sky+ in software and stability terms, unfortunately). Neil |
Conflict of Oyster Cards
On Feb 8, 4:41*pm, Neil Williams wrote: On Feb 8, 5:32*pm, Mizter T wrote: No - you basically need a specific "Top Up TV Anytime" box now That's what I've got (though now minus the TUTV, which I only had for an initial free period). *And it has (well, had) a viewing card. Sorry, I skim-read your post and missed you saying that. It's not a bad PVR so far as the Freeview ones go. *(None seems as good as a Sky+ in software and stability terms, unfortunately). Sky+ does seem to 'just work' most of the time. |
Conflict of Oyster Cards
|
Conflict of Oyster Cards
On Feb 8, 8:08*pm, (Paul Cummins) wrote: (Mizter T) wrote: Intrigued... gun licence? No. (Or more likely I suppose, you're not a viewer of broadcast television.) Nope, I have Analogue, Freeview and Digital Sat kit here, as well as a TV and a TV tuner for my 22inch PC screen. I am satisfied that I'm not breaking the law, and I believe I could satisfy a Magistrate too. OK, you've got lots of kit for watching broadcast television, so I'm rather guessing you do watch broadcast television. I guess you reckon that you've identified a legal loophole somewhere. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 04:57 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk