Car Boot Posted July 7, 2019 Share Posted July 7, 2019 (edited) 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 July 7, 2019 by Car Boot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Car Boot Posted July 7, 2019 Share Posted July 7, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted July 7, 2019 Share Posted July 7, 2019 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin-H Posted July 7, 2019 Share Posted July 7, 2019 5 minutes ago, melthebell said: Do you ever think things through before you start typing? I think the answer to that is self evident.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted July 7, 2019 Share Posted July 7, 2019 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crookesjoe Posted July 7, 2019 Share Posted July 7, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted July 7, 2019 Share Posted July 7, 2019 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin-H Posted July 7, 2019 Share Posted July 7, 2019 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECCOnoob Posted July 7, 2019 Share Posted July 7, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baron99 Posted July 16, 2019 Share Posted July 16, 2019 (edited) 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 July 16, 2019 by Baron99 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now