« Topics
1234...202122232425
Inspector Sands13,585 posts since 25 Aug 2004
TUPE wouldn't have applied or been necessary in the TSW/Westward case as the old company was bought by the new one. So it's just like any other company takeover - for example when Sky changed ownership last year.
Incidently ATV/Central was the same company but different structure and shareholding so it wouldn't have applied there either.


The problem with TUPE is trying to apply more recent legislation to historical situations.

That's not a problem in real life of course.


But in the historic situation you suggested even if it did exist it definitely wouldn't have applied
JKDerry1,593 posts since 15 Oct 2016
UTV Newsline
Have Channel ever had any competition for their franchise / licence?

In the 1991 franchise round they had one competitor against them - "CI3 Group" who bid £102,000 and lost on the quality threshold. Channel Television bid just £1,000 for the franchise and thanks to them passing the quality threshold, they won by default.
Ne1L C921 posts since 11 Sep 2011
Have Channel ever had any competition for their franchise / licence?

In the 1991 franchise round they had one competitor against them - "CI3 Group" who bid £102,000 and lost on the quality threshold. Channel Television bid just £1,000 for the franchise and thanks to them passing the quality threshold, they won by default.


C13 was backed by John Nettles.
Riaz608 posts since 6 Jan 2016
Yes, retained unopposed.


Are definitely able to confirm that the Channel Islands was up for franchise in exactly the same way as other ITV regions, prior to 1991, even though it is legally outside of the UK? Did the governments of the Channel Islands have any additional authority or say over who provided the service?

I have wondered if CTV was a true programme contractor or a unique example of an outpost of the ITV network.
JKDerry1,593 posts since 15 Oct 2016
UTV Newsline
Yes, retained unopposed.


Are definitely able to confirm that the Channel Islands was up for franchise in exactly the same way as other ITV regions, prior to 1991, even though it is legally outside of the UK? Did the governments of the Channel Islands have any additional authority or say over who provided the service?

I have wondered if CTV was a true programme contractor or a unique example of an outpost of the ITV network.

The act of parliament which established ITV was extended in 1960 to cover the Channel Islands so yes, the Channel Islands was just the same as the rest of the ITV network in terms of franchise bids.
TedJrr188 posts since 11 Sep 2005
Anglia (East) Look East
.......//...
The act of parliament which established ITV was extended in 1960 to cover the Channel Islands so yes, the Channel Islands was just the same as the rest of the ITV network in terms of franchise bids.


Wasn't it an Order in Council (ie the Privy Council) that, at least in UK law, extended the ITA's powers to the Channel Islands. The basis must have been some resolution passed in the States of Guernsey and Jersey (the States , being the parliaments of both places.

Presumably, the Privy Council has authority over the Bailiwicks of Guernsey and Jersey because the sovereign authority of the Duke of Normandy (Her Maj) is also the authority behind the Privy Council?

I doubt that a UK Act of Parliament has any authority whatever over the Islands, which is why an Order in Council was used?
davidhorman2,223 posts since 8 Mar 2005
Channel Channel Islands

In the 1991 franchise round they had one competitor against them - "CI3 Group" who bid £102,000 and lost on the quality threshold. Channel Television bid just £1,000 for the franchise and thanks to them passing the quality threshold, they won by default.


This info is also available at https://www.channelonline.tv/our-history/ although I thought that domain had long been given up by Channel TV.
Riaz608 posts since 6 Jan 2016
In the US they have local affiliates of national TV networks. A similar system was never used in the UK because instead the IBA had programme contractors.

CTV was technically the closest programme contractor to an affiliate because of its small size, monodirectional video link, and that it produced next to nothing for the network. Second in line was Ulster which did have a bidirectional video link and networked a programme once in a blue moon.
1
Ne1L C gave kudos