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.
originally posted by: MrCrow
a reply to: 83Liberty
Another element to this "scandal" is the disparity in pay between male and female "stars". Makes no sense to me!
The Magistrates are going to generally want a name and if they have acquired such without your consent or help then who ever done so could very well be in breach of the data protection act.
originally posted by: audubon
originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: audubon
How do you get an search warrant without a name and/or sufficient reason for such???
You don't and most self respecting Magistrates would never issue such.
Search warrants in theses cases are predominantly premises-specific, and don't need an identified suspect. Magistrates (being laypeople and easily swayed by professionals) hand them out like confetti. Something would have to be seriously and glaringly wrong for an application to be refused.
The bar the authority needs to cross is set at the 'reasonable suspicion' level. 'Reasonable suspicion' is not precisely defined, so it can include statements such as 'we opened the letterbox and heard the sound of the the Jeremy Kyle show, accompanied by derisive laughter from an occupant of the house'.
Congratulations on avoiding a search for 20 years or so, that's quite impressive.
originally posted by: sapien82
originally posted by: Cropper
I don't have a problem with the BBC and what they broadcast, I couldn't give a fig about how much they pay their staff. The only thing that would be fair, is to give people a choice to pay the fee, and if we don't pay, they scramble the channel just like Sky or any other subscription service does.
But that won't happen because they know they would go bankrupt within weeks.
You think its ok they harbor pedophiles and protect them from prosecution and actively block investigations into their pedophile activities ?
originally posted by: ignorant_ape
compelled to point out that :
since 2016 - use of the BBC iplayer service [ in ANY mode ] now requires at TV licence
i am unsure of the status of other online TV services [ chanel 4 , ITV etc ] - as i never used them - because of idiotic adverts
A licence is needed if you have a device that is able to broadcast any live (programs as they are being broadcast to ) You need to be covered by a TV Licence to watch or record live TV programmes on any channel download or watch any BBC programmes on iPlayer – live, catch up or on demand. This applies to any provider you use and any device, including a TV, desktop computer, laptop, mobile phone, tablet, games console, digital box or DVD/VHS recorder.
originally posted by: 83Liberty
originally posted by: MrCrow
a reply to: 83Liberty
Another element to this "scandal" is the disparity in pay between male and female "stars". Makes no sense to me!
You're correct and I did mention it in my OP.
The fact is the top seven earners on the list are male, white and aged over 50.
However, I am personally not a fan of so called 'positive discrimination'.
The thing I did miss from my post is the disparity between white and BAME employees.
This image from the BBC says a lot...
To be fair to the BBC, they have done a good job reporting and analysing all this.
originally posted by: SprocketUK
BAME make up around 13% of the UK population sauce, so 10 out of 96 top earners seems fair enough, doesn't it?
originally posted by: 83Liberty
originally posted by: SprocketUK
BAME make up around 13% of the UK population sauce, so 10 out of 96 top earners seems fair enough, doesn't it?
If you say 10 out of 96 top earners are BAME, then that does sound fairly equal.
However, if you consider the top 25 are all white, then that doesn't sound great.
The Adam Smith Institute reported in 2015 that one in 10 criminal prosecutions in the United Kingdom are now BBC television licencing charges.