Why is this a BBC top story? (LOCKED)
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 Badger11  Beckenham 09 Jan 20 7.37am |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
What the personal views of anyone are doesn't stop them doing their job. I suspect that many people working at the Sun, Express, Mail or Telegraph don't share the political views published in their paper but they still do their jobs. What news items are chosen and who appears on political debate shows have, I believe, been the subject of many complaints from Farage, UKIP, the Brexit party and the like in the past and been investigated both by the BBC and Ofcom and found not to have any substance. There's nothing stopping anyone from doing the same. Those who don't want to pay the licence fee have no need to do so. They just need to abide by the rules. You keep saying this. To legally avoid paying the licence fee you either have to prove to the BBC that you do not have a TV or any equipment capable of functioning as such or you have to prove that you have physically disabled your TV from receiving the BBC. All of the above is very subjective and there have been many court cases where the BBC have denied that the defendant has done this, some they win some they lose. Practically speaking it is not an option for most. Meanwhile the rate of non payment is steadily rising year on year. If it continues at its current rate (last recorded rate was 7%) it will eventually reach a tipping point like the Poll Tax. Edited by Badger11 (09 Jan 2020 7.40am)
One more point |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
| Wisbech Eagle Online Truro Cornwall 09 Jan 20 9.13am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Badger11
You keep saying this. To legally avoid paying the licence fee you either have to prove to the BBC that you do not have a TV or any equipment capable of functioning as such or you have to prove that you have physically disabled your TV from receiving the BBC. All of the above is very subjective and there have been many court cases where the BBC have denied that the defendant has done this, some they win some they lose. Practically speaking it is not an option for most. Meanwhile the rate of non payment is steadily rising year on year. If it continues at its current rate (last recorded rate was 7%) it will eventually reach a tipping point like the Poll Tax. Edited by Badger11 (09 Jan 2020 7.40am) You only have to not watch live TV. Having a set isn't the issue at all. It is my understanding that if the BBC, or anyone else, wishes to suggest you do then it's going to be up to them to prove it and not up to you to prove you didn't. So long as you are 100% clear then what's the problem? They would be idiots to even try. Those who do watch live TV but don't pay deserve to be challenged. As a side issue I remain convinced that the community charge, or "poll tax", is a much fairer way of raising local taxation than either rates or council tax.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 09 Jan 20 9.20am |
 |
|---|---|
|
'You only have to not watch live TV.'.....Not true anyway you to be able to prove that.....Which means cutting you TV off from incoming transmissions. What an appalling requirement from a organisation on individuals to be able to watch television without their lousy and biased channel. Live TV is shown on all the other channels and this automatically stops that.....No, it's not good enough and another way should be found. But it's the BBC.....Another elite organization being given powers far beyond what it deserves.....So guess who defends it. Edited by Stirlingsays (09 Jan 2020 9.24am)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Badger11 Beckenham 09 Jan 20 9.25am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
You only have to not watch live TV. Having a set isn't the issue at all. It is my understanding that if the BBC, or anyone else, wishes to suggest you do then it's going to be up to them to prove it and not up to you to prove you didn't. So long as you are 100% clear then what's the problem? They would be idiots to even try. Those who do watch live TV but don't pay deserve to be challenged. As a side issue I remain convinced that the community charge, or "poll tax", is a much fairer way of raising local taxation than either rates or council tax. I think if you Google this you will find that are many stories of people who would disagree. They tend to follow the same pattern: 1. Person writes to the BBC they no longer have a TV or have disabled the relevant part. Now I agree with your comment it is up to the BBC to prove it however they appear to take the attitude that you are guilty until proven innocent. Frequently they will argue in court that the TV can still receive the BBC rather than that they actually caught the person watching MOTM. The BBC spends over £100m pa on collecting the licence fee and I suspect that they go after these people who are a tiny minority, "pour encourager les autres". Most people like myself do not want to end up in court even if we are innocent. The bigger problem they have is now the hundreds of thousands who simply refuse to pay and make no pretence about it. I agree about the poll tax I never understood what the fuss was about.
One more point |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 09 Jan 20 9.30am |
|
|---|---|
|
A situation where you are forced to pay for a service you deem unsatisfactory or otherwise you have to radically alter you viewing habits or get rid of your TV is so beyond wrong it's amazing the point has to be made. But sadly it does. This is another situation Johnson needs to sort out. Edited by Stirlingsays (09 Jan 2020 9.31am)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Online Truro Cornwall 09 Jan 20 9.40am |
|
|---|---|
|
When specific British groups are referenced then it is them that are addressed in the reply and any subsequent attempted swerves just diversions. Donald Trump isn't British. "Beating" is another interesting term. The OED defines it thus:- "A punishment or assault in which the victim is hit repeatedly." I have never administered, or accepted, a "beating" from anyone, ever. In my world anyone who tried to administer one to me, or mine, would find themselves facing the long arm of the law very rapidly. "Beatings" are what arrogant bully boys and thugs resort to when they realise that their arguments have failed. When such language is used here then you know the discussion is over because your opponent has run out of salient arguments.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 09 Jan 20 9.49am |
|
|---|---|
|
Mmmm....a loser who can't accept that they have lost. Remind us what your position on Brexit was again? Suggesting that nationality has anything relevant to the concept of 'elitism' is fundamentally ridiculous. The concept of elitism is universal. You walked into a trap and you have too much hubris to handle or accept it.....but you are happy to claim 'bullying' when your arguments are shown up. Edited by Stirlingsays (09 Jan 2020 10.03am)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 09 Jan 20 10.15am |
|
|---|---|
|
The poll tax had the issue where a single millionaire living in their mansion pays the same as a hard working pauper in a council house. Then again that's not to say the system is fair anyway...Conversely you can have wealthy adults living next door to a pensioner nowadays where she pays much more than them because they can split it. The real stand out problem with the Poll tax was in the difficulty in collecting it. It meant you had to keep track of people who keep moving from one address to another and perhaps stay nowhere for very long. A huge pain in the arse.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Badger11 Beckenham 09 Jan 20 10.29am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
The poll tax had the issue where a single millionaire living in their mansion pays the same as a hard working pauper in a council house. Then again that's not to say the system is fair anyway...Conversely you can have wealthy adults living next door to a pensioner nowadays where she pays much more than them because they can split it. The real stand out problem with the Poll tax was in the difficulty in collecting it. It meant you had to keep track of people who keep moving from one address to another and perhaps stay nowhere for very long. A huge pain in the arse.
Bromley seem fine with implementing it, an idiot friend said he would refuse to pay it and they would never come after him. I told him this is Bromley not Islington anyway just before he was summoned to court he coughed up. I always suspected that the people who took against it had something to hide e.g. absent fathers not paying child support, illegals, visa over stayers, cash in hand types. In other words the criminal, useless and the feckless who didn't like the idea of the authorities knowing that they existed. Anyway not the right thread for this and ancient history.
One more point |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 09 Jan 20 10.44am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Badger11
Bromley seem fine with implementing it, an idiot friend said he would refuse to pay it and they would never come after him. I told him this is Bromley not Islington anyway just before he was summoned to court he coughed up. I always suspected that the people who took against it had something to hide e.g. absent fathers not paying child support, illegals, visa over stayers, cash in hand types. In other words the criminal, useless and the feckless who didn't like the idea of the authorities knowing that they existed. Anyway not the right thread for this and ancient history. Yep, I'd say that there's a lot of truth to that. Exactly the kind of people who'd be more likely to riot.....though they weren't all criminals and layabouts of course. I think another problem was that the Tories were seen to be sorting out an unfairness for those with money.....So it was manna from heaven for the usual suspects.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Online Truro Cornwall 09 Jan 20 10.45am |
|
|---|---|
|
I will remind you what my position on Brexit was, and is. I haven't "lost" anything, nor will I personally. We will ALL lose as a result. My responses on the use of the term "elite" were directed to the examples given and not to any wider context. Expanding the context simply as a way to try to make cheap jibes appears very juvenile to me. Just the kind of thing that might be expected of a playground bully. The way "elite" is being used today reminds me of the way the term "gay" has changed in my lifetime. When I was a kid it meant carefree and happy. Today it means something completely different. "Elite" has always meant being the top strata of a group. The SAS being a group of elite soldiers. Thus a wholly positive term. Today it is used, by some anyway, as a negative term to indicate a kind of shadowy class who conspire together to organise society for their own benefit, mainly through globalisation. This to me is just further confirmation of how widespread the belief of conspiracy theories has become. There have always been the wealthy, and the super wealthy, who are able to exercise more influence than the average person. Do they conspire? Perhaps, but that's why we have a democracy to make laws that limit their opportunities. The only people that really worry me are those who can influence opinions. They aren't "elite" at all. They are the press barons and our foreign adversaries meddling on social media. That's where we are under attack and where we should be focussing. It's them who are raising the spectre of the "elites" to lay false trails for us to follow. We need to wise up. Thank goodness for the beacon of light that remains our most steadfast protection from all of this. Which is, of course, the BBC.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Midlands Eagle 09 Jan 20 11.00am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
Thank goodness for the beacon of light that remains our most steadfast protection from all of this. Which is, of course, the BBC. I must have lost three months of my life and fallen into a coma on 9th January and woken up today to find that it's the 1st April
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.