PE
IIRC, it was posted on here a couple of weeks ago by a BBC employee.
If that's the case, then that person should re-read his/her contract of employment very carefully.
It was posted a few weeks ago.
I don't exactly see the problem though as the view is a view seen although with the projectors one at least three times a day.
Who are you anyhow? You're not one of these people like the library music moaners are you?
Pete
Founding member
freddy posted:
itsrobert posted:
freddy posted:
Photography is not permitted on any BBC premises unless one has special permission to do so. Even if permission has been granted, I'm sure that publishing said photographs on the internet would be frowned upon. Just an observation to be treated as you wish.
IIRC, it was posted on here a couple of weeks ago by a BBC employee.
If that's the case, then that person should re-read his/her contract of employment very carefully.
It was posted a few weeks ago.
I don't exactly see the problem though as the view is a view seen although with the projectors one at least three times a day.
Who are you anyhow? You're not one of these people like the library music moaners are you?
GS
Gavin Scott
Founding member
Oh calm down freddy. It only shows the set as it appears on television. By any chance, are you a low-grade manager?
RE
If that, chief coffee maker would probably be more on the mark.
Gavin Scott posted:
Oh calm down freddy. It only shows the set as it appears on television. By any chance, are you a low-grade manager?
If that, chief coffee maker would probably be more on the mark.
FR
Whether I'm the DG, a low-grade manager, chief coffee maker or trainee assistant floor mopper-up is irrelevant. I'm merely pointing out the possible consequences of breaking one's contract of employment. If people wish to run that risk, then fine. But also consider the possible implications of the Forum hosting copyrighted images. It's not just the poster who is potentially in hot water, but the site administrator too.
Just food for thought. No need for anyone to get out of their pram and start throwing insults.
Just food for thought. No need for anyone to get out of their pram and start throwing insults.
FR
So that's your getaway vehicle is it? Do you kill the people from it aswell or do you get out first?
Not quite sure how to respond to such a probing question. I think I'll just let it pass.
Hymagumba posted:
freddy posted:
Just food for thought. No need for anyone to get out of their pram and start throwing insults.
So that's your getaway vehicle is it? Do you kill the people from it aswell or do you get out first?
Not quite sure how to respond to such a probing question. I think I'll just let it pass.
GS
Gavin Scott
Founding member
The point Rod, Jane or whoever you are is; we all have a whole lifetime for jobsworths to come along and remind us of the rulebook. I'm certainly not employed by you, and I'd sooner you spared us your pep talk.
You might want to have a think about your comments in light of the *actual* picture shown. There is nothing of the studio itself apart from the hood of the autocue. The rest is as we all know it. No entrances, exits, no equipment, NOTHING. Perhaps you should be less concerned with the letter of the law and try and show some common sense.
I suppose you would never dream of making the odd personal call, or browsing the odd internet forum in work time? No? Perhaps you want to remind us of what your rulebook tells you about that, too.
You might want to have a think about your comments in light of the *actual* picture shown. There is nothing of the studio itself apart from the hood of the autocue. The rest is as we all know it. No entrances, exits, no equipment, NOTHING. Perhaps you should be less concerned with the letter of the law and try and show some common sense.
I suppose you would never dream of making the odd personal call, or browsing the odd internet forum in work time? No? Perhaps you want to remind us of what your rulebook tells you about that, too.
FR
And I'm not employed by you, Gassy Scrote. I don't recall telling anyone what to do - merely pointing out possible consequences - so don't even think about telling me what to do. You can 'sooner' as much as you like, but I will post whatever, wherever and whenever I see fit thank you very much.
Gavin Scott posted:
I'm certainly not employed by you, and I'd sooner you spared us your pep talk.
And I'm not employed by you, Gassy Scrote. I don't recall telling anyone what to do - merely pointing out possible consequences - so don't even think about telling me what to do. You can 'sooner' as much as you like, but I will post whatever, wherever and whenever I see fit thank you very much.
GS
So, poor memory or just a liar. Hmm, I can't decide.
And Gassy Scrote? Poor. I thought my Rod Jane and Freddy reference was funnier.
Gavin Scott
Founding member
freddy posted:
And I'm not employed by you, Gassy Scrote. I don't recall telling anyone what to do - merely pointing out possible consequences - so don't even think about telling me what to do.
freddy posted:
If that's the case, then that person should re-read his/her contract of employment very carefully.
So, poor memory or just a liar. Hmm, I can't decide.
And Gassy Scrote? Poor. I thought my Rod Jane and Freddy reference was funnier.