Time to take your meds (or get new specs).

I quoted where you did immediately underneath.


It doesn't say a single word about selling to other countries. You are just imagining what you want to imagine to try and make your absurd case.


To be blunt, this is probably one of the most ridiculous things you've posted.

I know you are desperate to try and defend your claim but this is beyond stupid. If it were true, Nike, Gap and Apple would never be able to operate because the conditions under which the producers of their goods operate would be completely illegal in the US.

And that is a vastly bigger market than a few odd TV programmes.


If I did, I'm sure I'd find that you've pulled this nonsense out of thin air.

As I said, you generally have no expectation of privacy in a public place, so that's not an issue.


PACE doesn't apply because we're not talking about filming criminal acts.


Again the guidelines are clear that it doesn't apply.

Other things that can apply in specific situations, but not in general, are the terrorism acts, and copyright in works of art, and the official secrets act. You also have to be careful of libel issues. If your film implies a subject has certain opinions or endorses a particular product, a consent form would help protect against a suit. Continuing to photograph after you've been asked to stop could be considered harassment, and might get you arrested under public order laws.

Lots of things can restrict the freedom, but the default position is free.


Who is "we"? If you are talking about some organisation that you work for, then I think you are confusing their in-house policy with British law. If you mean everyone, then you are wrong.


Schools generally aren't public places, and you will need permission from the owner to film. So that's different.


No. You quoted me saying consent forms would be necessary to sell The Apprentice to America. I didn't say that the BBC needed to sell The Apprentice to America (which is what you claimed I said), or that they had any plans to at all.


It says they are needed to be sold. Why would they be needed to be sold within this country, given we agree about the British laws not needing them?

Trust me, selling abroad is a real reason for needing them. IStockPhoto is an example of an American company that requires consent forms, even for photos that were taken under UK law. A company like that wants a uniform policy; they don't want to treat each country of origin as a special case.

Given that this is a forum about TA ...


That section is headed by tyhe following: "Standard contributor consent forms have been drawn up for use when engaging a substantial contributor".

In this thread we are talking about casual participants rather than "substantial contributor", so that section is irrelevant and your case fails.


A still picture is completely different to a TV programme.

You've completely ignored (surprise, surprise) my most salient point that if you rather fanciful assertion that US companies wanted their suppliers to operate according to US law was correct, Nike, Gap and Apple would by right up the creek.

brangdon, I think it's best for me to bow out of this discussion because I feel I have gone as far as I could without insulting your intelligence.

I hope you now see I didn't say what you claimed you quoted me as saying. My argument is that the BBC want consent forms as a general rule, and The Apprentice is no exception.


No, the point still applies. It does say in the earlier section there may not be time to get a consent form from more casual contributors, but even in that case they do need consent. And the reason they need consent is a separate issue to how they obtain it. The reason includes needing consent to resell the programme.


No, similar legal issues apply. Cite chapter and verse if you disagree. (You've not produced any evidence in this debate so far.)


Those companies do in fact have PR problems because of their working practices abroad. For example, from this BBC article:

The two hugely successful international brands claim that regular monitoring ensures that most factories are free of unethical working practices.
[...]
Nike spokesman Todd McKean says "unfortunately we've found on occasion in different places isolated instances (of child labour) which I would say this is isolated."
[...]
Nike and the Gap told Panorama they were working with the factory to improve conditions. Nike now say they may pull out altogether in December.

I hope this makes Nike's position clear. They distance themselves from the bad things abroad, and say they are doing what they can to stop it. Your implication that if it's abroad they don't care and can do what they like, doesn't fit the facts. And most other companies would hate to have the bad PR Nike have had over this.

That isn't what it says.


No. YOU provide a citation that actually backs you up rather than citing something that doesn't and then trying to pretend that it does.


You've hit the nail on the head.

They don't like bad PR!

They are not concerned with US law, they are concerned with bad publicity. There's no way some cable company are going to get bad publicity because a foreign TV company didn't get a consent form from someone they asked for an opinion about the length of Paris Hilton's skirt.

Yes, it is. Your comprehension skills are lacking.


That's exactly what I've been saying since #18. Go back and read it again. "If it was found they had paid for films which had been made without the consent of the subjects, it would be considered unethical, and bad PR, even if not actually illegal."

Again, your comprehension skills are lacking.

It doesn't actually matter to the BBC why foreign companies want consent forms. It makes selling easier if they have them, so they get them if they reasonably can.

I don't know whether you are being deliberately obtuse or you really cant understand this fairly basic English.

"Standard contributor consent forms have been drawn up for use when engaging a substantial contributor not covered by the standard contract procedure, regardless of the length of the contribution or fee."

Which part of "substantial contributor" are you having trouble with?


Which is downright stupid!

Whilst it's understandable that investigative journalists might wasn't to investigate virtual child slave labour they are not going to mount an investigation into whether some documentary producer got an unnecessary piece of paper.

Try and get a grip.


Nope. You are clutching at the most microscopic of straws to try and support a totally ridiculous argument.

You said (in #16) that you weren't disagreeing about the BBC routinely getting consent forms. So the debate is only about why they get consent forms. The section you cite does not address that. It merely confirms that they have standard consent forms for substantial contributors. The reason for getting consent applies both to casual and substantial contributors, and applies whether the consent is codified by a standard form or inferred by the subject allowing filming to continue.

Whether unethical behaviour is likely to be investigated by a journalist is by the bye. Companies still prefer to be ethical, and it's still good PR if they can point to ethical policies. Especially if it doesn't cost them anything.

I really hesitated before posting this. Your failure to follow arguments, coupled with a refusal to produce any evidence, and your general tone, have made it less fun for me to debate with you. I doubt I'll reply further, but don't mistake silence for consent.