Jump to content


TV licence thread

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Car Boot said:

Some interesting information there in the link. Thank you for sharing.

 

Let's hope that change is not far off.

 

Shame on the BBC. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How much of the licence fee is paid back to the government in tax?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ECCOnoob said:

I could not give a fig whether the stats are against are women, men, animal or alien.

 

That's what quite rightly happens when you break a law in this country - you get prosecuted.

 

The law says that you need a licence to receive ANY broadcast television.  

 

If someone chooses to break that law that is a criminal offence and the culprit is quite rightly liable for prosecution.

 

What exactly is the problem here?   

 

Where is this persecution you speak of? 

 

The problem is that watching television is considered by most people, including the BBC, to be an essential part of society and those who cannot afford to do so (because of the unique way in which the BBC is funded) are in a state of enforced material deprivation. 

 

The persecution is the fact that the BBC is persistently targeting women, particularly women in very low income brackets, year on year to achieve its targets regarding prosecution of BBC TV licence fee evaders. Women on very low incomes, very often single parents, are massively over represented in the numbers prosecuted (nearly three quarters of those sent to court every year are female). 

 

The BBC has stated there is no evidence of discrimination against women, but the figures speak for themselves. It was only a short time ago that the BBC claimed it didn't discriminate against women when it came to pay, before it was exposed and shamefully admitted that it never practices what it preaches.

Edited by Car Boot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, melthebell said:

When it's not discrimination, must try harder

The BBC for years stated that there was no systemic discrimination against women when it came to BBC pay equality with men. For years the BBC resisted revealing the pay disparity between men and women, until it was forced to do so by a change in the law.

 

It was only after this change in the law revealed the secretive and illegal BBC pay structure which did indeed discriminate against women that the BBC admitted there was a problem.

 

The BBC is not to be trusted. The unique way the BBC is funded has created a culture of secrecy and discrimination which damages our society. 

 

End the persecution of women in poverty. Smash the BBC TV licence fee - by any means necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Car Boot said:

The BBC for years stated that there was no systemic discrimination against women when it came to BBC pay equality with men. For years the BBC resisted revealing the pay disparity between men and women, until it was forced to do so by a change in the law.

 

It was only after this change in the law revealed the secretive and illegal BBC pay structure which did indeed discriminate against women that the BBC admitted there was a problem.

 

The BBC is not to be trusted. The unique way the BBC is funded has created a culture of secrecy and discrimination which damages our society. 

 

End the persecution of women in poverty. Smash the BBC TV licence fee - by any means necessary.

Do you ever think things through before you start typing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, melthebell said:

Do you ever think things through before you start typing?

I think the answer to that is self evident.. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Robin-H said:

I think the answer to that is self evident.. 

I know but I like to see what gibberish he'll post in response lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, ECCOnoob said:

I could not give a fig whether the stats are against are women, men, animal or alien.

 

That's what quite rightly happens when you break a law in this country - you get prosecuted.

 

The law says that you need a licence to receive ANY broadcast television.  

 

If someone chooses to break that law that is a criminal offence and the culprit is quite rightly liable for prosecution.

 

What exactly is the problem here?   

 

Where is this persecution you speak of? 

 

It's still a 'Law' that you must carry a bale of hay in your vehicle at all times.

 

Do you have a bale of hay in your car everytime you travel?

 

If you don't, then you are a criminal. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, crookesjoe said:

It's still a 'Law' that you must carry a bale of hay in your vehicle at all times.

 

Do you have a bale of hay in your car everytime you travel?

 

If you don't, then you are a criminal. 

i never knew the BBC was that old :O

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, crookesjoe said:

It's still a 'Law' that you must carry a bale of hay in your vehicle at all times.

 

Do you have a bale of hay in your car everytime you travel?

 

If you don't, then you are a criminal. 

No it isn't. 

 

http://www.southamptontaxis.org/blog/94/Do-taxi-drivers-need-to-carry-a-bale-of-hay-in-their-boot-by-law

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, crookesjoe said:

It's still a 'Law' that you must carry a bale of hay in your vehicle at all times.

 

Do you have a bale of hay in your car everytime you travel?

 

If you don't, then you are a criminal. 

Firstly, I thought that law applied to Taxis not regular vehicles.   

 

In any event, as such law is not actively enforced the answer is no I dont.   However, if the the state decided to start actively prosecuting people for failing to do I would either have to chance may way or be prepared to get caught out and be liable for charges.

 

What is well known and even publicised is that they ARE actively prosecuting people who dont have a television licence.  The law is clearly enforceable and therefore people either comply or face the consequnences.  

 

I really dont get your point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forr an organisation moaning about being cash strapped, anyone watching the BBC's endless credits roll by for about 5 mins at the end of Wimbledon on Sunday night would be thinking their rolling in money. 

 

Why did the men's final require 3 commentators & then Sue Barker at the end just interviewing them.  All in all there must have been well over 50 commentators involved for the tv production.  Then came the separate commentators for BBC 5 live?  Why can't the TV commentary be shared with the radio?

 

The number of producers, directors, executive producers & executive directors ran into hundreds. 

 

Last figures I can find is from 2017 which state the BBC spent £60 million covering Wimbledon fortnight. 

Edited by Baron99

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.