BBC 'shelves' Panorama exposé of Comic Relief

reply to post by sapien82


yes First you get the fine 400 pounds or neatrer a grand if its a second offence an so on.

Then if you default on the fine or any payment scheme your hauled infront of a Magistraye an either given an extension or if you've missed to many payments you are sent to prison

Just like any other person whom cant pay or refuses to pay a court imposed fine.

Without the recourse to improon people fines would be meaningless as no criminal would pay.

An its a crime to watch bbc programeing without a licence.

The BBC is one huge steaming dog turd of corruption. How many documentaries has it stopped being aired over the years, and why..


Film maker queries BBC reasons for shelving jewish history documentary

Newsnight documentary on Saville sex claims was shelved to avoid embarrasment

BBC shelves 8 million pounds disaster documentary

BBC wastes 100,00 pounds on Diana tapes that will never be shown

BBC shelves Al-Hariri documentary

These are just a few of the probably hundreds that we'll never know about...

reply to post by Horus12


wow!

The whole system seems to be being exposed of late, from Peado's to drugs to Politicians to Charities to Oil Companies.... I'm sure the list goes on....

TBH I' not surprised at all with this latest revelation on Comic Relief but I reckon Lenny Henry Might be... I've always thought he to be one of the good guys!

I always wondered when I was younger why these celebrities were screaming at the viewers to dig deep in their pockets. These fat, ugly over paid celebrities had a blimin nerve!!

I remember Terry Wogan back in the old days allegedly owned a forest of xmas trees in Scotland. Of course they used to say on the quite, that they did give generously, but it was never publicised.
Surely, if they all gave a million quid they wouldn't need to get the public to dress up like nobs and make the public and viewers feel guilty that 'there is always someone worse off than yourself!' I personally find it quite shocking that they have been allowed to run this stupid red nose day nonsense for so long.

It is begging ... the rich begging for the poor and unfortunate in our society??? Disgusting and yet the homeless begger can't beg? As for the BBC? They should get their act together!!

For Gods sake BBC give public a bit of dignity and stop all this crap!

We all now know why their is so much poverty in the world now. The internet has educated millions and hopefully people in general aren't as naïve now as they once were.

Redistribution of wealth! We can all make our own informed choices now and don't need idiots like Lenny Henry making silly animal noises and patronising us all.
These celebrities should be more concerned about lobbying the government and working on getting rid of this useless selfish and unfit government. I bet they won't want to do that though?? Ohh nooo, it would affect them and they won't do that as it might expose how rich they are where their tax havens are!

My rant for the day!!


hx

andy1972
The BBC is one huge steaming dog turd of corruption. How many documentaries has it stopped being aired over the years, and why..


Film maker queries BBC reasons for shelving jewish history documentary

Newsnight documentary on Saville sex claims was shelved to avoid embarrasment

BBC shelves 8 million pounds disaster documentary

BBC wastes 100,00 pounds on Diana tapes that will never be shown

BBC shelves Al-Hariri documentary

These are just a few of the probably hundreds that we'll never know about...

Soooo true! I think my signature concurs with your view point

reply to post by sapien82


Not even remotely true and by encouraging people to ignore the License fee based on such erroneous information is almost criminal itself.

The License fee is not just for BBC programming - it is a TV license. If you watch ANY live TV broadcast, then you have to pay the fee. If you don't, you can be fined and/or imprisoned. If anyone has told you otherwise they are talking dog crap and by peddling these lies further on here, your almost as bad.

Whether or not you agree with it is neither here nor there. I'm sure we all disagree with it or other taxes in our own way, but simply not paying them is not an option you should recommend.

sapien82
reply to post by Lumpy79

 

The tv license fee is for BBC programming , so as long as you dont watch BBC programmes then you dont have to pay the fee !

Common misconception, sadly. Only a very small percentage of the funds levied from licence fees go to programming, the bulk of it go to pay for the UK's television transmission infrastructure. Those transmitter masts are expensive to maintain, and since they are used by ALL terrestrial television broadcasters in the UK, you have to pony up the licence fee regardless of what TV channels you don't watch.

you should call your cable operator / sky / virgin and ask them to block the all of the BBC channels on your setbox and then get them to write you a letter confirming this
then send it to the BBC and tell them that your BBC channels are blocked with proof from your provider and then cancel your license !

Sorry, but if the cable operator did this, they did a mistake. They will block the BBC channels on request ofc, but that doesn't absolve you from requiring a licence.

I watch all my tv online and those shows are not provided by the BBC

You can legally watch TV online without a licence, including those shows provided by the BBC, the only restriction is that you cannot watch them as they are being broadcast live. Wait 1/2 hour after they've been broadcast, then watch them on iplayer, or 4oD, etc, and you're fine and within the rule of law.

I cancelled my license last year and they said they will cancel it for 2 years and review it then , they may send someone to check if I have a tv plugged in but I will tell them that its not and they cant enter my property as I did not invite them there and kindly ask them to leave !

If they have reasonable suspicion to believe that you are operating television receiving apparatus, they can, and will apply for a search order, then they will come back with a police officer to enforce it. However you are correct in that they have no power to enter your home without a search order.

its a threat of legal action against you , have you ever heard of anyone going to jail for a tv license ?
I haven't and I think it would cost the BBC more in legal fees to prosecute you

I know several people personally who have been fined £1000 by the magistrates court, for operating a TV without a licence. Given that the TV licence enforcement is done by a private company called Capita, and not by the BBC directly, they are highly profit motivated, and are not afraid of dragging you to court, contrary to the popular belief that all they do is make threats. However they will only drag you to court when they are confident of a victory. They are, after all, profit motivated.

Also, its my belief that under UK law, its actually illegal to threaten to sue someone with no real intention to actually do so.

Im not a legal practitioner but I reckon there is a legal loophole there where you would not be required to pay a license fee its extortion under threat of legal action

Its not extortion, its if you watch TV live, then pay your damn licence fee. Its actually the law. Statute law. Written by the government, not the BBC.

sapien82
Im not a legal practitioner but I reckon there is a legal loophole there where you would not be required to pay a license fee its extortion under threat of legal action

I missed this bit...

Surely, using your logic, every tax, bill or other debt would fall under this "loophole" of yours? It isn't a loophole and it isn't extortion. The threat of legal action for non=payment of a tax, bill or fine is perfectly allowable in law, the same as a "threat of legal action" exists if you smash someone's head in with a crowbar....

stumason

sapien82
Im not a legal practitioner but I reckon there is a legal loophole there where you would not be required to pay a license fee its extortion under threat of legal action

I missed this bit...

Surely, using your logic, every tax, bill or other debt would fall under this "loophole" of yours? It isn't a loophole and it isn't extortion. The threat of legal action for non=payment of a tax, bill or fine is perfectly allowable in law, the same as a "threat of legal action" exists if you smash someone's head in with a crowbar....

I stopped paying for a tv license a few years ago, as I DONT watch live broadcasts. I use the tv for my ps3 and only watch online services like bbc iplayer. I explained this to them when they phoned me up and everything was fine. I was not breaking any laws. Like you already stated, you only need the tv license if watching LIVE broadcasts.

Further to that, when I was 14 I was taken to court and prosecuted for not having a tv license, even though it wasnt my responsibility as I was just a minor at the property and it was my parents responsibility.
Didnt stop them finding me guilty(as I was the one that stupidly let the inspector in), I was fined £270 of which they only ever got £50 of from me.

reply to post by OneManArmy


Indeed, doing as you say is perfectly allowable. The license isn't for the TV set, but rather the viewing of live TV. For those who do not wish to pay the license fee, this is how you avoid it.

reply to post by stumason


Actually, you don't need a TV License to watch catch up TV on the Net!

I seriously do wonder why people still pay for Sky!

reply to post by TruthxIsxInxThexMist


I know, which is why I said you need a license for a "live TV broadcast". The BBC themselves will advise if you watch catchup or non-live TV on the net, you don't need a license.

A little update on it.

Donations to Comic Relief have been invested in tobacco and alcohol companies as well as a weapons firm, it has been revealed.

As Comic Relief gives money to charity often over a number of years it can hold millions of pounds at any one time, and uses managed funds which invests the money on the charity’s behalf.
But a probe has revealed some of these investments seem to go against the core mission of Comic Relief as the charity invested hundreds of thousands of pounds in shares in BAE Systems, a weapons company, and alcohol firm Diageo.

The investigation, by BBC Panorama found that Comic Relief made these investments between 2007 and 2009. This included £630,000 worth of shares in BAE systems and £3m in tobacco companies.
Comic Relief’s mission statement says the charity is dedicated to helping people affected by conflict. It also helps fight tuberculosis, and gives money to Target Tuberculosis which believes smoking may be responsible for 20 per cent of the people with TB.

Panorama claims Comic Relief has now changed its accounts, making it difficult to know which companies it was investing in.

Sam Younger, Charity Commission chief executive, said: "If a charity says 'we need to invest for the maximum financial return' that is right,"

"If they go on to say 'we therefore can't have an ethical investment policy', that's wrong."

A spokesman for Comic Relief said: We put the money into large managed funds, as many other leading charities and pension funds do.

"On balance, we believe this is the approach that will deliver the greatest benefits to the most vulnerable people."

The Panorama investigation also uncovered evidence that Save the Children restricted its criticism of energy companies and rising prices because of a lucrative partnership with British Gas.

Dominic Nutt, former head of news at the charity said he tried to campaign on the issue every year but was blocked. The charity ran a fuel poverty campaign in 2012 but claimed British Gas was doing the most to help poorer families. The charity made £1.5m out of their ten year partnership with the company.

Justin Forsyth, chief executive of Save the Children, said: "We would never decide not to campaign on something because of a corporate partnership."

www.telegraph.co.uk...

Hang on a minute...any charity seeking to gain a good ROI on money it has in the bank would have a wide ranging share portfolio spread across as many blue chip companies as possible ( yes tobacco and Arms are blue chip as they will always be required by the consumers and are therefore relatively low risk-high return).

This rule applies to any organisation or individual (the Queen, the UK government both shareholders in similar industries ) and is widely indicative of the gross social irresponsibility prevalent in people who invest in shares without thinking about where the money is going.

The issue is not Comic Relief per say; it's the entire financial system of profiteering from misery whilst looking the other way.

here in the states, this is handy
www.charitynavigator.org...

this one will open some eyes
www.charitywatch.org...

time to set up my own charity...seems others have created their own livelihoods off of other people's good faith generosity

here's a more comprehensive list...if you slide your mouse over the right hand portion of each charity, a line will come up that will take you to their IRS filing....this is where your donations go
www.washingtonpost.com...

reply to post by Jukiodone


Holding onto funds for up to 8 years is skipping the generation it was intended for is it not? Also..

Panorama claims Comic Relief has now changed its accounts, making it difficult to know which companies it was investing in.

Gives the appearance of something to hide.

I will never ever give money to big charities again, as the % that actually gets to the people who need it is derisory. The whole world is upside down, it would seem honesty has become the lie to which you are vilified.

Of course they are shelving it, just like they did the Jimmy Savile scandal.
When will people realise that the BBC isnt on "our" side. It is and has always been a mouthpiece for government propaganda, and a party place for tyrants and sexual deviants who use charitable causes as a front for their true nature.

reply to post by OneManArmy


some guy came here a while ago about us not having a tv licence, i told him to F off and heard nothing since

Horus12

I will never ever give money to big charities again, as the % that actually gets to the people who need it is derisory. The whole world is upside down, it would seem honesty has become the lie to which you are vilified.

The only safe way to be charitable is to take a homeless person for a meal, or go to a hospice just to talk to the terminally ill, it is visiting old peoples homes to talk to the people that have a lifetime of experience that they would just love to share. It is volunteering to work with children to educate them(not abuse them), thats true charity.
Organized charity is nothing more than a source of profit and the mask of respectability for its "owners".

scotsdavy1
reply to post by OneManArmy

 

some guy came here a while ago about us not having a tv licence, i told him to F off and heard nothing since

They sent a letter of demand, I phoned them and told them I own a TV and never watch live broadcasts, told them I only watch iPlayer and use the tv for my playstation. I didnt need to pay a penny, and havent since, that was about 3 yrs ago, to be fair my playstation packed up and I havent needed a tv since.
The best advice for anyone is "dump the damn tv" it is rotting our brains.

But that aside, well played.

Im getting a deju vu feeling, didnt realise Id already said the same thing in this thread already.