BBC: your tax dollars at work

a reply to: bastion

I don't see anything about the reclassification there... you're just diverting to different issues from what I can see.

originally posted by: nonspecific
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

I think the main difference is that you seem to be basing your views on some stuff you saw on the internet and the kind of propaghanda that was about in the cold war but we can work on that

Or maybe you're just in denial of reality and you're insulted because I'm attacking the place where you apparently live and you seek to defend it, it's perfectly understandable. The AU is becoming highly socialist and progressive also, in fact most nations in the Commonwealth Realm are, including Canada and others. I'm not saying this is something purely isolated to the UK or that you live in a communist nation, I'm saying this is a dangerous road to head down and there are many warning signs to tell you that. I mean many people seem to love the idea of a nanny state so obviously they wont agree with me, but I most certainly don't want to march full steam ahead towards a one world socialist nanny state, so you'll have to forgive me for that.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Yeah I am going to stop talking to you now as this is going nowhere and if it makes you feel better you won ok.

Peace and stuff.

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
a reply to: bastion

I don't see anything about the reclassification there... you're just diverting to different issues from what I can see.

I'm not sure which part you're missing. All three articles are about the current action to stop the reclassification and how it's not in effect - are you aware the white paper ratification you cited would be due to come into effect April 2018 before the UK tax year ends?

If still confused I can only suggest you read up on Politics, Parliament and the UK Press and Public Service Broadcasting in the UK as without the fundamental understanding of these concepts it's a waste of time trying to have a discussion. In training to be a journalist I had to spend four years learning about these and UK Politics at regional and national levels. I'm pretty certain Audabon (sp?) is highly trained in UK politics, law and legislation too given their thorough comprehension of it (may be wrong but doubt it).

We're not making these things up to have an argument on the internet, just trying to describe the reality vs warped interpretation many in both UK and abroad hold about the BBC.

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
a reply to: audubon

Well considering I've been on ATS many years and this is the first thread I've made directly related to the UK I'd say you're assumptions are wrong.

Well, you would, wouldn't you.

a reply to: bastion

The articles talks about actions to cut license fees for older people and stuff like that and why it would be bad, I'm not seeing the part where they are against a reclassification of the license fee to be a tax. Can you directly quote the relevant part of the article which says that.

a reply to: audubon

Well then go on, show me the endless threads where I have obsessed about the license fee or anything else in the UK for that matter.

a reply to: nonspecific

Indeed, it wont go anywhere when you automatically assume all my views must be based on propaganda... good day.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
a reply to: bastion

The articles talks about actions to cut license fees for older people and stuff like that and why it would be bad, I'm not seeing the part where they are against a reclassification of the license fee to be a tax. Can you directly quote the relevant part of the article which says that.

It's in the white paper you quoted. The over 75s cut is just one part of the governments attempt to scrap the liscence fee and replace it with a tax based system. There's been an election since that white paper and the Tory DUP coalition pact has introduced a whole new level of attempts to undermine the BBC.

This is why understanding of UK politics, legislation etc is vital as they're all clearly outlined in the sources but the context is getting lost in translation.

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
Well then go on, show me the endless threads where I have obsessed about the license fee or anything else in the UK for that matter.

I didn't claim any such thing. But what you stated, without prompting, was that this subject 'bothers' you. That's not a statement that the idea has only just occurred to you, it's a specific statement that it's an ongoing concern.

What's more, it's an unusual ongoing concern to have, because the object of your concern doesn't affect you at all.

Here are two very basic definitions of 'obsession' (Merriam-Webster):

a state in which someone thinks about someone or something constantly or frequently especially in a way that is not normal
: someone or something that a person thinks about constantly or frequently

a reply to: nonspecific

Is it just me or has the Biased Broadcasting Corporation become "The State" that The Young Ones one parodied?

a reply to: bastion

I quoted Wikipedia not a white paper. I'm pretty sure what you're talking about is something entirely different to the reclassification in 2016 which Wikipedia mentions. A reclassification simply means they changed the terminology, they did not propose a new tax based scheme, they admitted the license fee was already a tax and reclassified it as such. If you think Wikipedia is wrong then feel free to correct it.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

This is priceless. A BBC employee is being told he is wrong about the BBC, by someone outside the UK who thinks Wikipedia is a trustworthy and reliable source. I don't need to read any more of this thread, so I'm unsubscribing now as it cannot surpass this pinnacle of absurdity.

originally posted by: audubon
I didn't claim any such thing. But what you stated, without prompting, was that this subject 'bothers' you. That's not a statement that the idea has only just occurred to you, it's a specific statement that it's an ongoing concern.

What's more, it's an unusual ongoing concern to have, because the object of your concern doesn't affect you at all.

Thanks for the psychological analysis professor, if you care to look what I actually said was: "What bothers me is extreme over-regulation and taxes with no solid argument for their existence". That doesn't just mean I disagree or get annoyed by the idea of a tv license, it's the overall principle of having liberties trampled which annoys me, but actually you're right I don't really care a whole lot about tv licenses since it doesn't directly affect me. However knowing other people have to put up with such a bloated framework does irk me a bit regardless of what nation it occurs in because I am able to feel empathy for other people.

originally posted by: audubon
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

This is priceless. A BBC employee is being told he is wrong about the BBC, by someone outside the UK who thinks Wikipedia is a trustworthy and reliable source. I don't need to read any more of this thread, so I'm unsubscribing now as it cannot surpass this pinnacle of absurdity.

What's priceless is a BBC employee thinking his/her opinion isn't highly biased in a debate such as this.

originally posted by: Cymru
a reply to: nonspecific

Is it just me or has the Biased Broadcasting Corporation become "The State" that The Young Ones one parodied?

I have no idea, I only ever watch masterchef on it these days as not into sports main stream news or c list celebreties trying to dance lol.

As I said earler in this shambles of a discussion all news outlets are owned and manipulated by something. The fact that the bbc is under the thumb makes it no different from the rest unless you are trying to perpetuate the nonsense about the UK being a socialist state full of weak willed ninnys that is.

originally posted by: audubon
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

This is priceless. A BBC employee is being told he is wrong about the BBC, by someone outside the UK who thinks Wikipedia is a trustworthy and reliable source. I don't need to read any more of this thread, so I'm unsubscribing now as it cannot surpass this pinnacle of absurdity.

Also the point is I'm not just going to go off what one random guy on a forum says, sorry but imo a Wikipedia page backed up with numerous references is a more reliable source in this case until proven otherwise. Look how many people in this thread have made contradicting claims about what the tv license is or is not, if I were to believe everything I read and believed someone just because they claimed to work at the BBC I'd be believing a bunch of nonsense. In fact I'm more inclined to remain skeptical when I'm being told something by a BBC employee, especially in a thread like this.

originally posted by: audubon

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
Any form of media funded by mandatory taxes is clearly not a good thing and is what happens in communist nations with state sponsored TV.

Why is it not a good thing? And the BBC is independent of the Government, so what happens in 'communist nations' is irrelevant.

So it might be, but its full of whats known as 'leftists' and those parrots known as 'news readers' just spout whatever is put before them.

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder

Yeah you can choose not to pay it by not owning a television. If you drive on a road you're putting wear on it and taxes make sense to help maintain the roads and build new roads. Considering the UK is one of the only places on Earth that has a TV tax I'd say it doesn't make much sense. Who does it hurt to have a TV in your home, have you read that Wikipedia page about the license, it says you cannot watch a hand held battery powered TV without a license, you get taxed for each installed TV, you cannot watch TV using your license away from home if someone at home is still watching TV, you can have a search warrant issued for your residence to check if you have any TV's installed, I mean the amount of regulations and laws are completely insane and yet you guys defend this stuff like it's nothing... which just goes to prove my point even further oddly enough.

you have a licence per household not per device, handheld devices are covered by the users home licence, you can watch as many devices as you want at the same time.
you will not have your house searched, but a lot of people think this is true, and the people who try to enforce the tv licence are sometimes a bit dishonest about this.
I'm not a fan of the tv licence but your idea of what it is is way off.

on the handheld device thing, there used to be a loophole (not sure if you can still do this), but students living in dorms were covered by their home address, so could watch tv on a laptop as long as it was not plugged in to the mains, if you plugged it in while streaming live tv you were braking the law, but not if unplugged.