The Biased Broadcasting Corporation

[KenjiOgiwara]

1 hour ago, bickster said:

In theory, you are breaking the law if you watch live to air TV without a licence.

In practice, the chances of detection are absolutely minimal

I guess they used antenna detection in the earlier days. When everything comes by fiber cables, how can they detect it? 

[bickster]

Just now, KenjiOgiwara said:

I guess they pretended to use antenna detection in the earlier days.

FTFY

1 minute ago, KenjiOgiwara said:

When everything comes by fiber cables, how can they detect it? 

They need to gain access to the premises, though it could be said anyone paying for a service like Cable or Sky will automatically be required to pay for a licence. Not sure if the Licensing Authority have access to that information though

[Chindie]

The letters they send out if they suspect you've not paid the licence are masterful examples of how to write something that appears threatening.

At uni I lived in a mixed occupancy house for a while and would regularly get TV licence less through. They are written with lots of serious and threatening sounding language that is meant to scare you into acting without actually reading and understanding what they say, and it's brilliant. The ones we used to get were along the lines of 'we know you're being the law. Buy a TV licence now or you'll be in significant trouble. We know you're breaking these laws, and we'll prove it when you're forced to let us inspect your TV equipment. You are breaking the law, it will be better for you if you don't make us prove it, as you'll be then be subject to to prosecution under these acts too. But a TV licence now'.

The irony being I had bought a TV licence.

[choffer]

My brother has had a mexican standoff with them for years as he refuses to buy a TV licence.

He steadfastly refuses to watch any free-to-air telly and will only watch netflix (not iPlayer). They don't believe him as they say he clearly has a telly in the living room. He replies saying that they are welcome to come and visit to see for themselves. He has no aerial and the TV is not tuned in to receive any channels but they've never taken him up on the invitation, even when he told them he'd get chocolate hobnobs in specially for their visit. The letters are, as Chindie says, to scare you into getting a licence. The chances of them taking you to court over it are infinitesimally small.

I questioned him once as to why he won't buy a licence. He said it was because he objected to them dictating that he needed a licence. He really is a belligerent bugger.

[limpid]

1 hour ago, choffer said:

My brother has had a mexican standoff with them for years as he refuses to buy a TV licence.

He steadfastly refuses to watch any free-to-air telly and will only watch netflix (not iPlayer). They don't believe him as they say he clearly has a telly in the living room. He replies saying that they are welcome to come and visit to see for themselves. He has no aerial and the TV is not tuned in to receive any channels but they've never taken him up on the invitation, even when he told them he'd get chocolate hobnobs in specially for their visit. The letters are, as Chindie says, to scare you into getting a licence. The chances of them taking you to court over it are infinitesimally small.

I questioned him once as to why he won't buy a licence. He said it was because he objected to them dictating that he needed a licence. He really is a belligerent bugger.

I don't know if it's changed, but you used to need a licence to operate equipment capable of receiving broadcasts. It makes no difference if you don't watch broadcasts. The licence is for operating the equipment.

[choffer]

Just now, limpid said:

I don't know if it's changed, but you used to need a licence to operate equipment capable of receiving broadcasts. It makes no difference if you don't watch broadcasts. The licence is for operating the equipment.

Quite possibly the case. He's strung it out for 6 years so far though and not heard a peep from them for a couple of years, from what he's said.

[Stevo985]

2 hours ago, Chindie said:

The letters they send out if they suspect you've not paid the licence are masterful examples of how to write something that appears threatening.

At uni I lived in a mixed occupancy house for a while and would regularly get TV licence less through. They are written with lots of serious and threatening sounding language that is meant to scare you into acting without actually reading and understanding what they say, and it's brilliant. The ones we used to get were along the lines of 'we know you're being the law. Buy a TV licence now or you'll be in significant trouble. We know you're breaking these laws, and we'll prove it when you're forced to let us inspect your TV equipment. You are breaking the law, it will be better for you if you don't make us prove it, as you'll be then be subject to to prosecution under these acts too. But a TV licence now'.

The irony being I had bought a TV licence.

Does Dem work for them?

 

 

[snowychap]

 

[peterms]

On 15/04/2019 at 08:00, KenjiOgiwara said:

Total digression, but I've never gotten my head around state subsidized broadcasting. We have the same stuff in Norway, where someone like me whom only watches Netflix and hbo has to pay 400 quid a year to have a TV. Just moronic on so many levels. The idea of paying for your own ride has totally escaped the neanderthal marxists. 

There are two different things here: state subsidy, and the way the system is funded.

The benefits of a state funded broadcaster are obvious to anyone who has seen the alternative.  Enough said.

Funding via a licence is daft.  It is administratively complicated and therefore pointlessly costly, it sets up conflict between the broadcaster and the public, and it fuels falsehoods about how government spending works.

Set a goal to have the best broadcaster in the world, fund it accordingly, pay the money, and change legislation to stop Sky and other forces of evil hamstringing it.

But change the governing body, make it politically neutral, and clear out the arses who currently make the current affairs programmes seem like a home counties golf club dinner.

[LondonLax]

8 hours ago, peterms said:

There are two different things here: state subsidy, and the way the system is funded.

The benefits of a state funded broadcaster are obvious to anyone who has seen the alternative.  Enough said.

Funding via a licence is daft.  It is administratively complicated and therefore pointlessly costly, it sets up conflict between the broadcaster and the public, and it fuels falsehoods about how government spending works.

Set a goal to have the best broadcaster in the world, fund it accordingly, pay the money, and change legislation to stop Sky and other forces of evil hamstringing it.

But change the governing body, make it politically neutral, and clear out the arses who currently make the current affairs programmes seem like a home counties golf club dinner.

The Australian state TV channel is funded from general taxation. It does make funding it less controversial than the lightning rod that is license fee. On the other hand the conservative government is always cutting their funding from the tax pool and the reverse happens when the other team get in. 

[Xann]

Quote

 

BBC host Andrew Neil breached broadcasting rules with false claims about literacy in Scotland, a watchdog has found

During an interview with former SNP leader Alex Salmond on BBC 2's Sunday Politics, Mr Neil claimed that "after a decade of SNP rule, one in five Scots pupils leave primary school functionally illiterate."

Media watchdog Ofcom has found that his statistical claim was not accurate or based on any official source.

Following a complaint about the false statistic, an investigation found that the claim misled viewers during the build-up to elections in 2017.

Neil said his claim was "all too credible, even if not exactly accurate, as I now realise".

It was also found that the BBC attempted to find a source to back up Neil's inaccurate claim, before conceding it was inaccurate and had no basis.

Ofcom is "greatly concerned" with the BBC's handling of the complaint, and the time taken to admit the error.

 

Mirror

[OutByEaster?]

The reporting of the local council elections is interesting. 

What they definitely aren't pointing out is that any party that's in favour of a second referendum has seen their votes up massively whilst the parties most in favour of Leave have seen their votes collapse. 

As things stand, Labour are down about a hundred councillors and the Tories down around four hundred - that's a better bad result for the Tories than for Labour apparently.

Also, UKIP losing three quarters of their councillors is somehow being reported as a good result for them.

Maybe it's me, there's every chance I'm missing the nuance of the results - but the words the BBC have put next to them don't seem to relate entirely to the numbers that are coming in.

 

 

[ml1dch]

12 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

As things stand, Labour are down about a hundred councillors and the Tories down around four hundred - that's a better bad result for the Tories than for Labour apparently.

Also, UKIP losing three quarters of their councillors is somehow being reported as a good result for them.

Maybe it's me, there's every chance I'm missing the nuance of the results - but the words the BBC have put next to them don't seem to relate entirely to the numbers that are coming in.

It does appear to be pretty shoddy. "The fact that all the parties who want to leave are losing huge numbers of seats while the parties that don't are making massive gains is proof that the country is desperate to leave" is almost parody Orwell. 

But the Labour / Conservative comparison is because there was talk of up to a thousand Conservative councillors going while Labour were hoping to make some modest gains, not (relatively) large losses. 

Edited May 3, 2019 by ml1dch

[blandy]

2 hours ago, ml1dch said:

It does appear to be pretty shoddy. "The fact that all the parties who want to leave are losing huge numbers of seats while the parties that don't are making massive gains is proof that the country is desperate to leave" is almost parody Orwell. 

But the Labour / Conservative comparison is because there was talk of up to a thousand Conservative councillors going while Labour were hoping to make some modest gains, not (relatively) large losses. 

I dunno about this, because we (and the BBC) don't know why people voted the way they did. If you're a Tory who wants to "just leave, we should have left already" and you go to the election booth to vote and want to kick the tories for not leaving, and you see the choice is Tory/Lab/Lib/Green - you're not gonna vote tory, you're not gonna vote Labour...so you vote for a remain party, not because you support remain, but because you want to kick the tories. And there are loads of variations on this - "protest votes" to smaller parties, basically.

I got a form with 3 tories on it, 2 independents and a Labour and could do a max of 3 Xs - so I picked the two independents and (holding nose) the Labour one - all as anti Tory votes. I'm about as enthused by Corbyn Labour as I am by malaria.... but needs must.

So it might be right (and I hope it is) the remain and pro environmental parties gained because of those stances, it's by no means clear that's the case. So if the Beeb said that was the case, they'd be (IMO) jumping the gun. The results aren't even all in yet.

On UKIP - they lost their councillors because they didn't stand. It's therefore not really a relevant story at all - they're done, imploded as a party. Milkshake drenched racists.

[peterms]

4 minutes ago, blandy said:

I picked the two independents and (holding nose) the Labour one

I've emailed Mr Corbyn, quoting this as evidence that he is winning over his sternest critics.  I expect someone will be calling round with a membership form. 

 

[Seat68]

I approached this election as not wanting to vote Labour, Tory or UKIP, that left only one candidate, and other than the racist, the only one that lived in my ward. Turned out it was a Green Party candidate, I will be growing dreadlocks next.

[bickster]

9 minutes ago, Seat68 said:

I approached this election as not wanting to vote Labour, Tory or UKIP, that left only one candidate, and other than the racist, the only one that lived in my ward. Turned out it was a Green Party candidate, I will be growing dreadlocks next.

I had four candidates

Labour - nope (Brexit)

Tory - Nope (Brexit)

Lib Dem - Nope (Untrustworthy)

Green - by default it must be

[ml1dch]

48 minutes ago, blandy said:

I dunno about this, because we (and the BBC) don't know why people voted the way they did. If you're a Tory who wants to "just leave, we should have left already" and you go to the election booth to vote and want to kick the tories for not leaving, and you see the choice is Tory/Lab/Lib/Green - you're not gonna vote tory, you're not gonna vote Labour...so you vote for a remain party, not because you support remain, but because you want to kick the tories.

I expect you'd leave the booth without voting, not turn up in the first place or spoil your ballot paper. Protesting by voting for a party whose policy on the thing you are angry about is the exact opposite of what you want is a pretty odd way to protest.

If you or I turned up at the polling station and had a choice of Tory, Labour or UKIP, would we be voting UKIP to register our protest vote against the two main parties? I certainly wouldn't be.

[blandy]

Just now, ml1dch said:

I expect you'd leave the booth without voting, not turn up in the first place or spoil your ballot paper. Protesting by voting for a party whose policy on the thing you are angry about is the exact opposite of what you want is a pretty odd way to protest.

If you or I turned up at the polling station and had a choice of Tory, Labour or UKIP, would we be voting UKIP to register our protest vote against the two main parties? I certainly wouldn't be.

I don't want to cast aspersions on the intelligence, intellect or analytical capacities of angry Brexity tories, so decline to answer this point.

(Also, there's no pigshit at hand with which to make any comparisons).

[chrisp65]

2 hours ago, Seat68 said:

 I will be growing dreadlocks next.

you've posted in Rogue's Gallery

we all know this is quite unlikely