Gordon Joly wrote:
On 17/06/2010 22:19, David Tomlinson wrote:
1. As a recipient of public money, the BBC can not discriminate
against suppliers (requiring content control).
2. The BBC is subject to Public Service Obligations, and therefore
must reach as wider range of the public as
Nick, has been drinking the BBC kool aid, and thinks we have a weak case.
Well I have submitted a complaint to the BBC suggesting the following
five actual or stated intention of the BBC, in public documents, to
prima facie case of breaking the law.
1. State Aid.
2. Public Service
I'm not a lawyer so I can't answer
-Original Message-
From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk
[mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of David Tomlinson
Sent: 17 June 2010 17:10
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: [backstage] Green Ink.
Nick, has been drinking the BBC kool
Nick Reynolds-FMT wrote:
I'm not a lawyer so I can't answer
I am not a lawyer either, we shouldn't have to say it but:
(from memory)
1. As a recipient of public money, the BBC can not discriminate against
suppliers (requiring content control).
2. The BBC is subject to Public Service
Tomlinson
Sent: 17 June 2010 17:10
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: [backstage] Green Ink.
Nick, has been drinking the BBC kool aid, and thinks we have a weak
case.
Well I have submitted a complaint to the BBC suggesting the following
five actual or stated intention of the BBC
Richard Lockwood wrote:
I'm not a lawyer either, but I can at least translate what David's saying;
ME ME ME ME ME!!! I WANT IT ALL! FOR NOTHING!!! ME ME! GIVE IT TO ME!
I DON'T WANT TO PAY FOR ANYTHING, EVER!!! ME ME ME!!! IT'S MY RIGHT TO
HAVE EVERYTHING FOR NOTHING FOR EVER AND EVER,
6 matches
Mail list logo
