Author Topic: White van man (Ch.5)  (Read 1169 times)

White van man (Ch.5)
« on: 13 November, 2010, 09:03:23 am »
There is a new tv series on ch.5, as per title.
http://www.five.tv/shows/white-van-man
On last nights show there was one person, owner of a marque company continually shown using his mobile phone whilst driving.
Ok we all know there are some drivers who will not stop this, despite the dangers, but surely Ch5 has an obligation in what it shows  :-\
Anyway how the hell do these people get away with this when they are even being filmed using their bloody phones >:(

Jaded

  • The Codfather
  • Formerly known as Jaded
Re: White van man (Ch.5)
« Reply #1 on: 13 November, 2010, 09:59:26 am »
Was it obviously filmed after the ban?

Sounds like the drivers need reporting to the police  ;D
It is simpler than it looks.

mAsTa RiDaH

Re: White van man (Ch.5)
« Reply #2 on: 13 November, 2010, 12:48:44 pm »
This must been made post 2003, so I really don't know what Channel 5 are doing. Unless of course they are showing a repeat of a programme more then eight years old.

rogerzilla

  • When n+1 gets out of hand
Re: White van man (Ch.5)
« Reply #3 on: 13 November, 2010, 01:24:35 pm »
Mobile phone law came into force 1/12/2003.

Therefore if any vehicles are visible in the programme with a registration mark of 04 (used from 1 March 2004) or later, you have him.  Even if they're all pixellated out, look for a current model Ford Mondeo, Vauxhall Insignia etc for proof.

Ch5 might argue that the van was on the back of a low loader for the interior shots, but I would call BS factor 10, and so would any decent prosecutor.
Hard work sometimes pays off in the end, but laziness ALWAYS pays off NOW.

Re: White van man (Ch.5)
« Reply #4 on: 13 November, 2010, 01:38:36 pm »
This must been made post 2003, so I really don't know what Channel 5 are doing. Unless of course they are showing a repeat of a programme more then eight years old.

I dont know, the commentry keeps going on about how van man is going to get us out of the recession  :-\

But if it was pre 2003 then it would make sense.