The Impartiality Of The BBC.

[Magilla]

bad faith all the way to outright lying, for the sake of a cheap debating shot.

 

The irony! An accuracte description of the vast majority of your posts!

 

It's good that you agree, by your own admission, that TV Licensing has more integrity than you.

 

One of the few things you've said that is true!

Edited December 5, 2017 by Magilla

[Car Boot]

The irony! An accuracte description of the vast majority of your posts!

 

It's good that you agree, by your own admission, that TV Licensing has more integrity than you.

 

One of the few things you've said that is true!

 

In the last part of my post I was referencing a previous post made by L00b, and applying it to TV Licensing:

 

I had you down as a bad faith poster.

 

But I didn't think you'd take bad faith all the way to outright lying, for the sake of a cheap debating shot.

 

I guess we all know better now.

 

Hence my:

 

Perhaps TV Licensing is a 'bad faith poster' (whatever that may mean)?

 

But I don't think that they would take bad faith all the way to outright lying, for the sake of a cheap debating shot.

 

I guess we all know better now.

 

It is of no surprise to me that contributors on this forum who defend the BBC resort to untruths and personal attacks.

[Magilla]

In the last part of my post I was referencing a previous post made by L00b, and applying it to TV Licensing:

 

I know you were. Unfortunately for you it is also an admission, by you, that you think TV Licensing have integrity. Something that you, in light of the veracity of many of your recent posts, clearly don't.

 

You said it, you can't take it back now.

 

To paraphrase yourself: Only an imbecile would make points, that when analysed fully actually disproves his/her argument.

 

Seek help bro

 

---------- Post added 05-12-2017 at 12:40 ----------

 

It is of no surprise to me that contributors on this forum who defend the BBC resort to untruths and personal attacks.

 

Hoisted by your own petard! As Lance Corporal Jones would say "They don't like it up 'em"

Edited December 5, 2017 by Magilla

[Car Boot]

I know you were, unfortunately for you it is also an admission by you that you think they have more integrity than you (in light of the veracity of many of your recent posts).

 

You said it, you can't take it back now.

 

Please link to where I have stated that I believe TV Licensing has more integrity than me.

 

To paraphrase yourself: Only an imbecile would make points, that when analysed fully actually disproves his/her argument.

 

Seek help bro

 

---------- Post added 05-12-2017 at 12:40 ----------

 

 

Hoisted by your own petard! As Lance Corporal Jones would say "They don't like it up 'em"

 

You have distorted my original post, which was this:

 

Only an imbecile would post links to content that disproves his/her argument that the BBC licence fee is a tax on ownership and nothing to do with the content received.

 

For the sake, as L00b unfairly and inaccurately accused me, of making a cheap debating shot.

[Magilla]

For the sake, as L00b unfairly and inaccurately accused me, of making a cheap debating shot.

 

I wouldn't know about L00b, but the vast majority of your posts, particularly in this thread, are nothing more than cheap debating shots.

 

If that's what L00b is accusing you of, then plainly, they're correct! Most of your claims, under further analysis, turn out to be the opposite of that claim.

 

See "Netflix and their light years ahead of the BBCs output" claim, utter utter drivel.

 

See your "mediocre" output claim, and contrast with your, suddenly not "out of touch", Dimbleby interview remarks in that regard.

 

You can't have it both ways... no "Cake and eat it" here for you!

Edited December 5, 2017 by Magilla

[apelike]

You can disagree all you want based on your (lay) understanding of how the TV licence is administered in practice. It doesn't change the legal fact of the thing, until and unless Parliament amends or repeals Section 363 and related (down to 368 IIRC).

 

Actually it does change the legal fact as built into that act is the section I quoted in which the secretary of state can waive the fee completely for a first TV or on any extra TV's in a household. Doing this has already been agreed by Parliament in passing the act as is. As those fees can already be waived another act or amendment is not necessary nor is any repeal.

[Car Boot]

@ Car Boot - same reply as to apelike above, that Wiki section disproves the statutorily black-and-white fact that a TV license is an ownership tax how, exactly? It's not as if I'm twisting or misrepresenting its nature and legal definition, am I?

 

The Wiki link you posted disproves your assertion that the BBC TV licence is an ownership tax by stating that:

 

"It is not necessary to own a TV licence for the purpose of:

 

using a TV to play pre-recorded DVDs or videos.

using a TV as a monitor for a computer games console."

 

There are many other examples of when owning or possessing a TV does not legally require the purchase of a BBC TV licence, according to the link you posted.

 

TV Licensing, fully supported by the BBC, have stated:

 

"A TV Licence is a legal permission to install or use television receiving equipment to watch or record television programmes as they are being shown on TV or live on an online TV service, and to download or watch BBC programmes on demand, including catch up TV, on BBC iPlayer."

[L00b]

Actually it does change the legal fact as built into that act is the section I quoted in which the secretary of state can waive the fee completely for a first TV or on any extra TV's in a household. Doing this has already been agreed by Parliament in passing the act as is. As those fees can already be waived another act or amendment is not necessary nor is any repeal.

No, you misunderstand the point: the section you quoted, 363(6), is that under which the SecState can make all manners of exceptions to the general principle, which is per Section 363(1) of the Communications Act as I quoted it, for the sake of policy implementation.

 

Put very simply, in Section 303:

363 (1) to (4) are the ground/base rules,

363 (5) are statutory exceptions for electronics retailers and TV repairers

363 (6) & (7) provides the SecState with executive powers to make exceptions to the ground/base rule of (1)

 

Put in context: people who don't pay the TV License fee, don't avoid paying it "because it's a content tax and not an ownership tax": they avoid paying it because the SecState decided that 363(1) does not apply to them when they don't receive live broadcasts (the conditions amounting to 'such circumstances, and such purposes' under 6© and (d)). That does not change the ground rule in 363(1), is the point.

 

In exactly the same way, people who don't pay the TV License fee for multiple TV receivers in a household, don't avoid paying it "because it's a household tax and not an ownership tax": they avoid paying it on further TV receivers because the SecState decided that 363(1) only applies to the first TV receiver in a household (note that, under a literal interpretation of 363(1), which would be perfectly legal if the government so chose to apply it, the government would fully entitled to levy the License fee per TV set: the section says 'a TV receiver must not be installed or used', meaning 'each', not 'only one'). That still does not change the ground rule in 363(1). It's just another exception.

 

If you want the Licence fee to not be an ownership tax by definition, then the wording of Section 363 needs to be changed, so that the legal basis on which the Licence fee arises and exists, is not tied to the "installation or use of a TV receiver", but instead gets tied to (e.g.) "live broadcasts" and/or "content authored by the BBC" and variations on those themes. There's a lot of statutory precedent about those expressions in e.g. the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, from which such amendments could be inspired.

 

Such changes are done by MPs in Parliament (is the other point ).

Edited December 5, 2017 by L00b

[Car Boot]

It costs £147 for a BBC TV licence, which is £12.25 per month.

 

It costs £5.99 per month to watch Netflix (£71.88 per year).

 

If, like me, you enjoy watching quality television drama such as 'Narcos' or 'Breaking Bad' then it's time to leave behind the dull as ditchwater programming of the complacent BBC ('Bargain Hunt', 'Doctors' and 'Holby City') and join the 21st Century streaming TV revolution.

 

No 1950's style, old fashioned and out of date, BBC TV licence necessary.

[ECCOnoob]

It costs £147 for a BBC TV licence, which is £12.25 per month.

 

It costs £5.99 per month to watch Netflix (£71.88 per year).

 

If, like me, you enjoy watching quality television drama such as 'Narcos' or 'Breaking Bad' then it's time to leave behind the dull as ditchwater programming of the complacent BBC ('Bargain Hunt', 'Doctors' and 'Holby City') and join the 21st Century streaming TV revolution.

No 1950's style, old fashioned and out of date, BBC TV licence necessary.

 

God sake here we go again. All the focus on just what someone sees on BBC One.

 

You do know the licence fee pays for 1001 other things beyond that dont you?

 

ITS NOT JUST ABOUT THE TV SHOWS.