It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

BBC informs your boss, school if your comment is offensive or inappropriate

page: 2
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 19 2017 @ 09:23 AM
link   
a reply to: EvillerBob

Also i'm starting to think that advertisement is just a bonus for the propaganda machine.

The people who push the agenda have all the money they want, or can print some more.




posted on May, 19 2017 @ 09:31 AM
link   
a reply to: EvillerBob
If you look at the way the two paragraphs are divided, the more specific threat is limited to "where the BBC reasonably believes that you are or may be in breach of applicable laws".
I think the reason they offer that statement is that the Data Protection Act and similar legislation controls how personal information can be used, and so they are obliged to give warning of this particular way of using it.



posted on May, 19 2017 @ 09:38 AM
link   
a reply to: EartOccupant

Shame no-one at the Beeb thought to alert the authorities about Jimmy Saville for all those years.

Their extortion methods against those who aren't registered as license holders are pretty darn criminal, too.

Propaganda and low quality, copied ideas for programmes is all I see from them these days. With the proliferation of free view channels, admittedly commercial ones, the idea of a license fee is becoming a throwback to the days when a third channel was a novel new idea.

The stealth tax they charge clearly isn't spent on their output and goes directly into the bosses pockets. They should be sucking up to the consumers not issuing threats.

I can't even name a single programme that I watch regularly on the tax channel.

Oh dear... Now they're gonna tell my boss.
Good luck with that. I don't have one.
edit on 19-5-2017 by Tulpa because: Spilling



posted on May, 19 2017 @ 10:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Christosterone

Well, we have a conservative government at the moment, so rights and liberty are not on the agenda.

Thats the same no matter where in the world you are.


Or no matter which party rules either.



posted on May, 19 2017 @ 11:14 AM
link   
The only thing that worries me about this is the BBC's definition of 'offensive or inappropriate behavior'.

For instance, if I called the BBC out for supporting and assisting Jimmy Saville with his dirty pedophilia crimes and how they banned John Lydon (aka Jonny Rotten from Sex Pistols) from the BBC for even to dare speak out about it, then would my post be classed as offensive/inappropriate behavior?



posted on May, 19 2017 @ 03:27 PM
link   
I guess sheeple dont like trolls.

Even though trolls are a vital part of this century.

I'm not saying people who post offensive content are all trolls. I am just saying that trolls that post on websites are actually helping to point out the flaws in our society. And point out the lies.

But of course in the high and mighty positions of the world.... they can't stand to listen to it.

So they are going to ruin your life because they won't make any changes for the better.



posted on May, 19 2017 @ 07:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: EartOccupant
So the BBC has in their Privacy an Cookie policy a note that they can use your personal information to tell your Boss or School or the authorities that you made a comment on their site, not according to their standards.




Link of source: Heatstreet
Of-course I don't approve of such comments as well.
But how far is this going? I can imagine if something is against the law, that they warn authorities. Fair enough i guess.
But your Boss? Or school? Isn't that playing "judge" ?

What do you think? Is this a good or a bad thing?





Welcome to private corporations. Their platform, their rules. You agree to them when you use the site.



posted on May, 20 2017 @ 05:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: EvillerBob

originally posted by: CthulhuMythos
The only way to tackle this is to boycott their websites and news feeds. No traffic = no revenue = end of their website. Sometimes no action is the best action.


The BBC is funded by an annual fee that every household in the UK must pay if they receive television broadcasts - which now includes over cable/internet.


I know this, I live in the UK (and deliberately now do not have a tv). However, they also have websites and other branches which will be funded from other means. Also if nobody goes to their websites, they have no audience, their website then will be worthless.



posted on May, 20 2017 @ 07:35 AM
link   
a reply to: CthulhuMythos

My suggestion, and I'm serious here, is that with today's technology it shouldn't be too difficult to switch the BBC over to a pay to view channel.
That way, the ones who actually want it can watch it.
The rest of us can then just opt out without fear of threats and extortion to pay for a service we neither want nor use.

Maybe then they'd stop being such a cocky bunch of money wasting idiots.



posted on May, 20 2017 @ 07:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Tulpa

Lol just don't pay it, I haven't since 1998.
The 'enforcement' agents are a good chuckle because they have no authority so I tell them to # off out of my property or I'll use reasonable force to remove them.
They # off every time.

I'm actually disappointed they haven't knocked my door for over a year because I miss the amusement, I guess they move on to easy prey instead like single mothers or whatever.
edit on 20.5.2017 by grainofsand because: typo's



posted on May, 20 2017 @ 07:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tulpa
a reply to: CthulhuMythos

My suggestion, and I'm serious here, is that with today's technology it shouldn't be too difficult to switch the BBC over to a pay to view channel.
That way, the ones who actually want it can watch it.
The rest of us can then just opt out without fear of threats and extortion to pay for a service we neither want nor use.

Maybe then they'd stop being such a cocky bunch of money wasting idiots.



you know, I have often wished they would do that. If you take the annual fee of around £150/year, that comes to 41p per day, making it 1.7p per hour. Now I don't have a tv, but do like to watch the rugby (especially the 6 nations) which now due to the rules from the BBC, cannot be done on the net as it is being broadcast at the same time. So, why not let me pay to view it, say £2.00 for the afternoon. That is a huge profit for them and keeps everyone happy. They would then be forced to remove all the drivel they pump out, coz nobody pays to view that, and would increase the good programmes they make, which people wouldn't mind paying for.



posted on May, 20 2017 @ 07:55 AM
link   
a reply to: grainofsand

Nice.
I've seen a few good YouTube videos of people who know how to deal with them.
I feel sorry for those who get intimidated into paying.
I'm fortunate enough to have accommodation where its dealt with by someone else but I've had to pay enough in other places. I've moved around a lot.
Its just not worth it for a service I never use but they never believe it, though, do they?



posted on May, 20 2017 @ 08:02 AM
link   
a reply to: CthulhuMythos

I suspect the revenue would drop so drastically it would probably finish them off.
They've taken the tax for granted for so long they're fantasising that we are all glued to their channel all day.
I think the reality would come as a bit of a shock.



posted on May, 20 2017 @ 08:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Tulpa

# them, they are a source of amusement to me lol, I love it when they knock my door.
And on topic, what's wrong with any Web info provider telling employers that their employee was being a prick online while using their bandwidth to be a prick?



posted on May, 20 2017 @ 08:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Tulpa

I agree and I am sure that is the very reason why they have not made it pay per view as yet.



posted on May, 20 2017 @ 08:28 AM
link   
a reply to: grainofsand

Well it shouldn't really bother me because I don't do stuff like that.
There's always the potential for abuse when people appoint themselves as judge over other peoples behaviour.
Its kind of insidious and Big Brotherish.
I mean its subjective as to what constitutes being a dick. A bit like being offended. Most stuff would roll off me like water of the old ducks back but its bad enough for most people at work without worrying about losing a job over a silly comment.
I could see some people trying to get offended over the slightest thing and using it as an excuse to get someone fired.
When I used computers at work I never used them for anything else but it just seems over the top trying to be internet police for revenge.
Surely they could delete whatever they want or block whoever they want without involving third parties.



posted on May, 20 2017 @ 12:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Tulpa

I'm with you but nobody is forced to use any service provided by the BBC, internet or otherwise.
So long as I'm not forced to use them I don't care what their terms of service are.



posted on May, 20 2017 @ 12:33 PM
link   
That is no different than what most social sites do. If they think you have broken laws or are using their service for any nefarious purposes, they will give the authorities your information.



posted on May, 20 2017 @ 12:36 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Exactly.
Don't like the terms of service, don't use them.



posted on May, 20 2017 @ 12:36 PM
link   
a reply to: EartOccupant

I'm pretty sure this is a modern example of why Ben, George, Paul, John and a bunch of other boys grew tired of the Crown's bull# and revolted.

When do we get to make the UK the 51st state, anyway? Only then will it go full circle. Let's invade Britain.




top topics



 
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join