How many times have you asked me that question, now?
I don't have to propose a solution.
But, I don't think there is a viable solution that would be fully compatible with the HRA. That takes us down the route of funding via general taxation, with all the benefits that gives. The only issue being the size and cost of the present BBC, which I do not see any Govt being willing to absorb into central budgets willingly.
He keeps asking because you never give a convincing answer.
....because you don't really want a solution. You want a BBC cut by 75% only showing content you approve of.
As has been pointed out before, they don't have to absorb anything. LF money would effectively be new money into the "central" tax coffers. A system such as adding to council tax could work just fine.
Anyone else noticed the TVL ads on DS aren't as unpleasant as they once were? What with me and Bedsit Bob getting quite nice, almost acceptable, letters from them, perhaps TVL are finally learning that courtesy encourages people to feel co-operative.
He keeps asking because you never give a convincing answer.
....because you don't really want a solution. You want a BBC cut by 75% only showing content you approve of.
Come on, you know that's not true.
As has been pointed out before, they don't have to absorb anything. LF money would effectively be new money into the "central" tax coffers. A system such as adding to council tax could work just fine.
There would, as a minimum, need to be a mechanism to relate the payments to ability to pay.
And whether you like it or not, the nature of Government accounting is that moving expenditure within its scope (whether centrally or locally) does add that amount to the budget, even if it is removed in another sector.
What like the woman you cited ho clearly and irrationally over reacted?
Someone on the "resistance" forum has had a virtually identical experience with their partner, too.
What you don't seem to understand is that your "over-reaction" is simply the normal reaction of a person who is not familiar with the deceit implicit in the way "TVL" work.
Quite simply, "TVL" address an "audience" that spans people with no knowledge of their psycho-drama, and those with complete knowledge. Unfortunately, for fairness sake, the communications need to be delivered to be truthful and non-threatening at the level of appreciation of the completely uninitiated. To do otherwise puts those people at a distinct disadvantage.
and talking of a lack of convincing answers - i love the way you skipped over a lot of what i posted a few days ago, on the grounds of going over the same ground again (or some such), when as we both know Cornucopia, it was more to do with you being called on, for example, your made up Risk Analysis Formula, which was able for you to arrive at a Risk Analysis of infinity, yet when i used some different figures in your formula, and arrived at Risk Analysis of 2, i, unlike you, was being too literal.
still, it all saved you conceding that your formula was nothing more than made up nonsense to deflect a point.
and whilst the likes of myself, U00..., Mossy, mikw etc are guilty of stifling debate, i'd very much be interested in knowing what place you feel there is for an online Resistance that does little more than bang on about BBC Scum, vent paranoid rantings about people who disagree with them must be BBC Scum employees, and openly encourage each other to troll other forums.
you did say there's a (constructive?) place for that - rather than skip over that, i'd be interested in knowing what you feel that place is?
"Without challenge", I said. Why would I show them around? Why not simply tell them to go away, and if they refuse, threaten to call the Police?
Can I assume you have withdrawn your incorrect comment about search warrants?
you, or A N Other more cooperative person would want to show them round to demonstrate that they do not require a tv licence, and put a stop to letters for a year or two.
and because they appreciate the situation tvl are in with regards how they are able to establish who does and who does not require a licence.
you really need to stop seeing your view as the only course of action that a reasonable, cooperative person would take.
you, or A N Other more cooperative person would want to show them round to demonstrate that they do not require a tv licence, and put a stop to letters for a year or two.
I, being someone with an understanding of the law, know that I do not have to demonstrate that I do not need a licence. Furthermore, I know that by acceding to such a demand, it creates the expectation (a) that others will do the same, when they may not want to; and (b) that the same principles can be extended to other things.
and because they appreciate the situation tvl are in with regards how they are able to establish who does and who does not require a licence.
They have no legal need or reason to establish that in this way.
you really need to stop seeing your view as the only course of action that a reasonable, cooperative person would take.
If they want entry and are refused they can get a search warrant, easy.
Hardly "easy".
Magistrates don't issue Search warrants just because someone wants to gain entry to a property.
They issue them because they are satisfied there are good grounds for suspecting some unlawful activity has taken place, is taking place, or will be taking place.
and talking of a lack of convincing answers - i love the way you skipped over a lot of what i posted a few days ago, on the grounds of going over the same ground again (or some such), when as we both know Cornucopia, it was more to do with you being called on, for example, your made up Risk Analysis Formula, which was able for you to arrive at a Risk Analysis of infinity, yet when i used some different figures in your formula, and arrived at Risk Analysis of 2, i, unlike you, was being too literal.
The purpose of the formula was to try to get over the point that you have so far been unwilling to accept, that if there is zero positive benefit to something and even a small disbenefit, then the likelihood is that given a free choice, people will decide not to do it.
And can we not go down the "stopping the letters" line, again, please. The letters can be stopped in other ways, and it is only "TVL"'s deliberate misinformation that prevents every affected person from knowing that.
still, it all saved you conceding that your formula was nothing more than made up nonsense to deflect a point.
There is no point to deflect. I do not agree with you that there is any benefit to the home search, from the standpoint of someone who is LLF. There's really no more to add.
and whilst the likes of myself, U00..., Mossy, mikw etc are guilty of stifling debate, i'd very much be interested in knowing what place you feel there is for an online Resistance that does little more than bang on about BBC Scum, vent paranoid rantings about people who disagree with them must be BBC Scum employees, and openly encourage each other to troll other forums.
I'm not sure they've used the word "troll". I think that what they are recognising is that this place is hostile to negative views about the BBC, and that by airing such views here, there is an expectation about how the "usual suspects" will react. Generally, I've found that they are not disappointed.
you did say there's a (constructive?) place for that - rather than skip over that, i'd be interested in knowing what you feel that place is?
You are characterising their views in a particular way that is not entirely justified or constructive. (Though bear in mind my previous comments regarding the perceived treasonous behaviour of the BBC).
In the most basic sense, there is a need for forums that are tolerant to anti-BBC views, whilst there are those that exist that are not. Such views form legitimate opinion, and can sometimes be supported by factual reporting from the industry. In the particular case of "TVL", people come to those forums and are able to get completely impartial and legally sound advice of a sort that tends to get clouded in partisan noise on DS.
The simple question of what options there are for a LLF person seeking to minimise their interaction with "TVL" (which is their right) has provoked all sorts of nonsensical "debate" here. Whilst in the other forums, two or three well-reasoned posts can highlight all of the relevant options and their pros and cons. It is in that area (given "TVL"'s misinformation) that I think they are most valuable.
Kate Fisher, of TV Licensing, said... 'The message is clear. We have the technology to ensure that anyone watching TV without a valid licence can and should expect a visit, wherever they live.
Also, the headline does read:-
"The new TV detector which can reach into any home".
Seems pretty clear, they are saying it can detect any operating TV.
That being the case, I wonder why there has never been a conviction, based on detection evidence
I think the similarity between scams and "TVL" is reasonably clear - though the objectives are different.
A scam uses misinformation to encourage the public to believe something that isn't true so that they will willingly part with money to the benefit of the scammer.
"TVL" uses misinformation to encourage the public to believe things that aren't true so that they will willingly forego their rights - (supposedly) making the task of enforcement easier and cheaper.
An Act could be written meaning it applied to all people.
You couldn't make TV Licence conditions apply to non-Licence holders, any more than you could make non-driving licence holders, subject to the conditions that apply to a driving licence.
That'd be like trying to make you bound, by my Contract of Employment, or your occupancy, of your privately owned home, subject to my tenancy agreement.
Comments
He keeps asking because you never give a convincing answer.
....because you don't really want a solution. You want a BBC cut by 75% only showing content you approve of.
As has been pointed out before, they don't have to absorb anything. LF money would effectively be new money into the "central" tax coffers. A system such as adding to council tax could work just fine.
What like the woman you cited ho clearly and irrationally over reacted?
There would, as a minimum, need to be a mechanism to relate the payments to ability to pay.
And whether you like it or not, the nature of Government accounting is that moving expenditure within its scope (whether centrally or locally) does add that amount to the budget, even if it is removed in another sector.
What you don't seem to understand is that your "over-reaction" is simply the normal reaction of a person who is not familiar with the deceit implicit in the way "TVL" work.
Quite simply, "TVL" address an "audience" that spans people with no knowledge of their psycho-drama, and those with complete knowledge. Unfortunately, for fairness sake, the communications need to be delivered to be truthful and non-threatening at the level of appreciation of the completely uninitiated. To do otherwise puts those people at a distinct disadvantage.
IIRC the tvl guy did nothing threatening, said nothing coercive, and she made no effort to actually speak to the guy.
whatever else, please don't make that out to be rational behaviour.
Iain
still, it all saved you conceding that your formula was nothing more than made up nonsense to deflect a point.
and whilst the likes of myself, U00..., Mossy, mikw etc are guilty of stifling debate, i'd very much be interested in knowing what place you feel there is for an online Resistance that does little more than bang on about BBC Scum, vent paranoid rantings about people who disagree with them must be BBC Scum employees, and openly encourage each other to troll other forums.
you did say there's a (constructive?) place for that - rather than skip over that, i'd be interested in knowing what you feel that place is?
Iain
you, or A N Other more cooperative person would want to show them round to demonstrate that they do not require a tv licence, and put a stop to letters for a year or two.
and because they appreciate the situation tvl are in with regards how they are able to establish who does and who does not require a licence.
you really need to stop seeing your view as the only course of action that a reasonable, cooperative person would take.
Iain
That's correct.
Communications Act Section 364
Even if such a condition were permissible, it would only apply to people who had a TV Licence.
An Act could be written meaning it applied to all people.
This has nothing to do with what i asked you.
As corn would say "irrelavant"!
They have no legal need or reason to establish that in this way.
So do you.
The original statement was that no one ever bought a licence they didn't need. Clearly that's not true.
How does recording, on a database, whether a property is licenced or not, help in "verifying the properties licence requirements"
As above, how does having a property's licence status (ie. licensed or not licensed) recorded on a database, tell you if it requires a licence
Who said that?
Hardly "easy".
Magistrates don't issue Search warrants just because someone wants to gain entry to a property.
They issue them because they are satisfied there are good grounds for suspecting some unlawful activity has taken place, is taking place, or will be taking place.
And can we not go down the "stopping the letters" line, again, please. The letters can be stopped in other ways, and it is only "TVL"'s deliberate misinformation that prevents every affected person from knowing that.
There is no point to deflect. I do not agree with you that there is any benefit to the home search, from the standpoint of someone who is LLF. There's really no more to add.
I'm not sure they've used the word "troll". I think that what they are recognising is that this place is hostile to negative views about the BBC, and that by airing such views here, there is an expectation about how the "usual suspects" will react. Generally, I've found that they are not disappointed.
You are characterising their views in a particular way that is not entirely justified or constructive. (Though bear in mind my previous comments regarding the perceived treasonous behaviour of the BBC).
In the most basic sense, there is a need for forums that are tolerant to anti-BBC views, whilst there are those that exist that are not. Such views form legitimate opinion, and can sometimes be supported by factual reporting from the industry. In the particular case of "TVL", people come to those forums and are able to get completely impartial and legally sound advice of a sort that tends to get clouded in partisan noise on DS.
The simple question of what options there are for a LLF person seeking to minimise their interaction with "TVL" (which is their right) has provoked all sorts of nonsensical "debate" here. Whilst in the other forums, two or three well-reasoned posts can highlight all of the relevant options and their pros and cons. It is in that area (given "TVL"'s misinformation) that I think they are most valuable.
If it's even 50% effective, why have there not been any convictions obtained by detection evidence
Also, the headline does read:-
"The new TV detector which can reach into any home".
Seems pretty clear, they are saying it can detect any operating TV.
That being the case, I wonder why there has never been a conviction, based on detection evidence
A scam uses misinformation to encourage the public to believe something that isn't true so that they will willingly part with money to the benefit of the scammer.
"TVL" uses misinformation to encourage the public to believe things that aren't true so that they will willingly forego their rights - (supposedly) making the task of enforcement easier and cheaper.
You couldn't make TV Licence conditions apply to non-Licence holders, any more than you could make non-driving licence holders, subject to the conditions that apply to a driving licence.
That'd be like trying to make you bound, by my Contract of Employment, or your occupancy, of your privately owned home, subject to my tenancy agreement.
It has everything to do with what you asked.
You said:-
"Isn't that more pay TV's angle? Offering prizes and "free" gifts which are not all that they appear?"