Su Moo Nein The Belgium Comeex Foliatet Hist Wat Is Leepking Ingin Thes Tifler
-
Ok but how come I only see these articles if the people are (supposedly) going to the middle east?
I'd never see this article if they suspected this family went to, say, France.
Probably because their relatives who thought they went to, say, France, would be more unlikely to be concerned and report them missing.
And for good reason. No, one parent didn't abduct the kids without the other parent, but that doesn't mean the kids aren't in danger. <deliberately put as many negatives as I could justifiably use in that statement>
-
I agree here, just because it doesn't have the word tax, doesn't mean it isn't a tax.
-
Depends how pendantic you want to be about it. The way I see it, a tax is something the government collects for the government to spend. However, the license fee is collected by the BBC for the BBC to spend. So even though the payment of it is enforced by law, it's not a tax in the purest sense of the term. Plus it's a lot easier to avoid; even if you have a TV, there are ways to get out of paying for a license.
-
Depends how pendantic you want to be about it. The way I see it, a tax is something the government collects for the government to spend.
Ok.........
However, the license fee is collected by the BBC for the BBC to spend.
By what authority does the BBC have the right to do that?
Oh, THE GOVERNMENT'S?!
ALMOST AS IF IT'S A TAX and you're just deluded into thinking otherwise, probably by propagandist BBC broadcasts.
Plus it's a lot easier to avoid; even if you have a TV, there are ways to get out of paying for a license.
By that logic, Greece doesn't have ANY taxes.
-
The way I see it, a tax is something the government collects for the government to spend.
And now we come to a question whether a publicly owned company is government or not.
-
Ok but how come I only see these articles if the people are (supposedly) going to the middle east?
I'd never see this article if they suspected this family went to, say, France.
Yes, you would. Also if they went to [url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/couple-face-jail-after-taking-children-out-of-school-for-holiday-9061412.html]Greece[/url], or [url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-3010891/More-half-British-parents-children-school-avoid-high-prices-holidays-risk-fines-60-pupil.html]Spain[/url] or [url=http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-kent-21923212]just about anywhere else[/url]. The issue is that the UK has [url=https://www.gov.uk/school-attendance-absence/overview]thoroughly insane rules regarding school attendance[/url] which are [url=http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/08/14/am-i-allowed-to-take-my-child-out-of-school-for-a-holiday_n_7332998.html]enforced entirely at random[/url] by [url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-3010891/More-half-British-parents-children-school-avoid-high-prices-holidays-risk-fines-60-pupil.html]complete idiots[/url].
If you look closely, there wasn't a single reference to Turkey in any of that.
-
by the BBC for the BBC to spend
Uh huh...
enforced by law
Ignoring first of all how utterly ridiculous that idea is, money collected by government force is the government's money. If you didn't pay it, the government would be the one you would answer toprobably by
propagandistmind-controllingBBC broadcasts.
-
@RaceProUK said:
The way I see it, a tax is something the government collects for the government to spend.
And now we come to a question whether a publicly owned company is government or not.
An interesting question, and one that's surprisingly difficult to find a definitive answer for. All I can find for certain is that the BBC is publicly owned, but the government cannot directly intervene; that's the job of the BBC Trust, which is independent of the government.Anyway, personally, I don't mind paying the license fee. After all, it's far cheaper than paying Rupert Fucking Murdoch £40 a month for 600 channels of utter garbage, it funds a lot of services beyond just TV, and it stops our Trident captains launching nukes at Moscow.
And no, I'm not making that last one up; if the BBC doesn't broadcast a specific radio show on long wave at a specific time every day (except Sundays), the Trident captains get to open an envelope that could contain an order to nuke Moscow.
-
Anyway, personally, I don't mind paying the license fee.
Right but why is it mandatory?
If I want to pay Rupert Murdoch a billion bucks, why should I have to pay the BBC? You fucking undemocratic commie fuckers.
-
Right but why is it mandatory?
It's only mandatory if you want to watch live TV broadcasts; if you only watch stuff time-shifted on iPlayer and the like, then you don't have to pay the fee.
-
It's only mandatory if you want to watch live TV broadcasts;
That doesn't answer the question, since the cable company ALSO has live TV broadcasts. I guess British people haven't figured out this "rational thought" thing yet.
Anyway I HIGHLY DOUBT the BBC thugs would just believe you if you said you used your TV only to view iPlayer "and the like", whatever the fuck "the like" is.
-
That doesn't answer the question
It does; it applies to all live broadcasts, not just the BBC's. Which, I'll admit, is stupid.
-
It does; it applies to all live broadcasts, not just the BBC's.
So it's not just a tax, it's an extremely unjust tax.
YET YOU DEFEND IT BECAUSE YOU JUST LOVE BEING OPPRESSED I GUESS
Which, I'll admit, is stupid.
Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!??!? Criticism!??!! Where was this 10 posts go?
-
Given the alternatives are to turn the BBC fully commercial, making it just like the excreta that is ITV, BSkyB, et al, or lose the Beeb entirely, the license fee is the least of the evils.
-
I HIGHLY DOUBT the BBC thugs would just believe you if you said you used your TV only to view iPlayer "and the like"
I'm pretty sure I've read that they'll charge you the license fee if you don't even have a TV, because everybody has a TV. If you don't, you really do; you're just lying to try to avoid the fee.
I don't know if that's actually true, and if so, how widespread it is, but I read it on the Interwebz, so it must be true.
-
Dude.
Space: 1999.
Space: 1999, dude.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WZW4groJro
See that logo in the top left? It says ITV. Nothing that created Space: 1999 could be evil.
BTW at the same time ITV was funding Space: 1999's excellent visuals, BBC was running Blakes 7, a show that had admittedly good writing but also a per-episode budget of approximately $4.95. Video-taped with those fucking terrible video cameras the BBC inexplicably used for decades, despite the fact that they bled the FUCK out of any bright color on the screen.
September 13, 1999 - NEVER FORGET
... man that would make a good t-shirt. It'd be so fucking hipster and obscure, nobody would get that shit.
-
Dude... Black Adder. Also the Prisioner. Not enough to save the beeb thanks to the deluge of shit from bbc 3 + 4.
I would actually pay a subscription to the beeb because they have some of the best sports coverage going. But for fucks sake though stop feeding us the garbage on bbc 3+4.
-
The funny thing is if you live outside the UK, you can't pay them for access to their video streams, even though tons of customers would do it.
Probably because years ago they made the retarded decision to set up the BBC America cable network instead, and now they can't let people buy "direct" because it'd undercut the point of BBC America existing.
Not that there's much of a point now, since people are abandoning cable like crazy.
So if you're IN the UK, you have to pay for this shit even if you don't want it. And if you're OUTSIDE the UK, you can't pay for it even if you do want it.
MAKES SENSE, BRITISH PEOPLE!
-
BBC fully commercial, making it just like the excreta that is ITV
As somebody above already pointed out, they compete with the other companies already, meaning the commercial pressures are there. If the BBC would be a shit broadcaster as a commercially funded company, they'd be a shit company now, since it would be the exact same market they would be looking to collect money from
stops our Trident captains launching nukes at Moscow
That's just dumb on pretty much every level
-
All I can find for certain is that the BBC is publicly owned, but the government cannot directly intervene; that's the job of the BBC Trust, which is independent of the government.
Independent, as in brought to life by Queen Elizabeth and with members also appointed by Queen Elizabeth.
-
BTW at the same time ITV was funding Space: 1999's excellent visuals, BBC was running Blakes 7, a show that had admittedly good writing but also a per-episode budget of approximately $4.95.
As much as that?Dude... Black Adder. Also the Prisioner.
Not seen Prisoner, but Blackadder is a classic. Except the first series; that's a bit pants.
Then there's Doctor Who. Yes, quality has varied massively, and the new Who has left some older fans wanting, but you can't deny its success as the longest-running sci-fi series in the world.
And since we're on the subject of sci-fi, I can recommend Hyperspace... but I have no idea how well it would work outside of the UK; it's very British in its humour.
-
-
-
And yet you still refuse to get rid of her position
-
If the BBC would be a shit broadcaster as a commercially funded company, they'd be a shit company now, since it would be the exact same market they would be looking to collect money from
Not quite. The BBC Charter stops the BBC turning into pure vomit; going commercial would remove that control.@RaceProUK said:
stops our Trident captains launching nukes at Moscow
That's just dumb on pretty much every level
Yep, pretty much.
-
Not seen Prisoner, but Blackadder is a classic.
Prisoner's a much better show than Blackadder.
Prisoner is this ... weird genre-hopping psychadelic work of art. With that amazing ending that pissed people the fuck OFF, because Patrick McGoohan is a master troll. Nothing like The Prisoner existed before The Prisoner, and nothing like The Prisoner has existed since The Prisoner, and that includes the 2009 remake of The Prisoner.
Blackadder is just a mediocre sitcom.
BTW the BBC also made this series called Sapphire and Steel, which was about... uh... secret agents who were also the personification of metals(?) solving crimes against the timeline(?) but time (the concept itself) is also somehow the bad guy and... it's pretty amazing.
And since we're on the subject of sci-fi, I can recommend Hyperspace... but I have no idea how well it would work outside of the UK; it's very British in its humour.
Seriously? You're the idiot who likes that show?
I watched it. In like 12 hours of footage, there was one good joke. And it wasn't that good.
(It was the bit where someone asks the captain how many engines the ship has when he's sitting facing a giant diagram of the ship on the wall. And he can't answer.)
-
-
And yet you still refuse to get rid of her position
And lose all that revenue from tourism? I think not!In all seriousness though, the Royal family does do a lot for tourism; we get so much more coming in than we spend maintaining them.
-
-
In all seriousness though, the Royal family does do a lot for tourism; we get so much more coming in than we spend maintaining them.
Oh, if you make money off it, it's OK that you have an absolute fucking monarch in 2015.
FUCK!!! Why do British people always reply to criticism of the royalty with "well it's money-making". HOW MUCH MORE COULD YOU MISS THE POINT!
Guess what? The US South made a lot more money when they had slaves. "OH WELL I GUESS SLAVERY'S OK THEN!" - A British person.
-
@RaceProUK said:
The BBC Charter stops the BBC turning into pure vomit
How so?
It prevents commercial pressure becoming dominant by forcing the BBC to cater to as wide a demographic as it can. All the way from the most gutter-like of the chavs (who have BBC3) to the ponciest (sp?) of the posh (who have BBC4), and everyone in between (who have BBC1 and BBC2, which are the good ones).
-
Guess what? The US South made a lot more money when they had slaves. "OH WELL I GUESS SLAVERY'S OK THEN!" - A British person.
*stands back to admire the height of the strawman*
-
If I want to pay Rupert Murdoch a billion bucks, why should I have to pay the BBC? You fucking undemocratic commie fuckers.
If you're invoking democracy, then the answer "because more people want to see @blakeyrat to suffer than not" is sufficient.it applies to all live broadcasts, not just the BBC's. Which, I'll admit, is stupid.
It's not stupid at all if you think about it.Given the alternatives are to turn the BBC fully commercial, making it just like the excreta that is ITV, BSkyB, et al, or lose the Beeb entirely, the license fee is the least of the evils.
They can still be publicly owned without special tax. Like, they could show commercials to pay for their expenses instead.Who has all the political power of a chopped tomato
Still, she's the government.
-
@Gaska said:
Queen Elizabeth
Who has all the political power of a chopped tomatoI thought there was a deal where the Crown got to keep all of its political authority as long as they never use it.
-
@RaceProUK said:
it applies to all live broadcasts, not just the BBC's. Which, I'll admit, is stupid.
It's not stupid at all if you think about it.
But why should I pay the BBC for the 'privilege' of watching ITV?They can still be publicly owned without special tax. Like, they could show commercials to pay for their expenses instead.
Funnily enough, you just described Channel 4@RaceProUK said:
Who has all the political power of a chopped tomato
Still, she's the government.
Her position is pretty much entirely ceremonial@RaceProUK said:
@Gaska said:
Queen Elizabeth
Who has all the political power of a chopped tomato
I thought there was a deal where the Crown got to keep all of its political authority as long as they never use it.
I don't know if there's anything formal, but that's pretty much how it works in practice
-
We'll need another barn to hold that much straw.
-
So it's only certain types of moral wrongs the British can justify because they're profitable.
-
British royalty is anything but an absolute monarchy, and hasn't been since 1215, although the initial limitations on royal power were very limited and not terribly effective. In the modern era, however, the monarch is little, if anything, more than a figurehead. AIUI, royal assent is still required to all acts of Parliament, but such approval is very much a rubber stamp, and if the current or future monarch ever tried to withhold assent, it probably would trigger the end of the monarchy.
-
It's wrong to give people free money and political power because their ancestor convinced your dumb shit ancestor that God loved him more.
The fact that this shit still exists in 2015 is just fucking EMBARRASSING to all British people everywhere. Seriously.
And no, I don't care if it makes money. That is SO beside-the-point.
-
An interesting question, and one that's surprisingly difficult to find a definitive answer for. All I can find for certain is that the BBC is publicly owned, but the government cannot directly intervene; that's the job of the BBC Trust, which is independent of the government.
Anyway, personally, I don't mind paying the license fee. After all, it's far cheaper than paying Rupert Fucking Murdoch £40 a month for 600 channels of utter garbage, it funds a lot of services beyond just TV, and it stops our Trident captains launching nukes at Moscow.
You have to keep in mind that in some countries, an educated populace and informed voters is considered beneficial to society, and so it's worthwhile to spend public money on an organization such as the BBC.
Over here on our side of the Atlantic, an educated populace and informed voters are considered Un-American.
-
I do not accept that the BBC "educates" the populace. Evidence? See news post that started this all
-
You have to keep in mind that in some countries, an educated populace and informed voters is considered beneficial to society, and so it's worthwhile to spend public money on an organization such as the BBC.
Ah yes, thanks for reminding me that only the BBC has politics shows that actually cover the whole spectrum.Well, Labour, the Tories, and the Lib Dems at least. Which is 95% of UK politics, so it's pretty close.
I do not accept that the BBC "educates" the populace. Evidence? See news post that started this all
One tweet does not a corporation make
-
The royals still wielding anything besides ceremonial power is a bit retarded but they do sell a lot of tat.
No comment.
-
I don't care if it makes money. That is SO beside-the-point.
I'll agree with you on this, but I think this
their ancestor convinced your dumb shit ancestor that God loved him more
rather misses the point. Practically, at least, it was moretheir ancestor convinced your dumb shit ancestor that he was better at leading an army and/or persuading and/or coercing other powerful people into supporting him by being the last one standing when the dust settled.
That this was a sign of God's favor on him has, I think, always been rather dubious (although questioning it out loud may not always have been a life-enhancing action).
-
Whatever, it's still wrong.
-
Besides, the modern monarchy isn't just appealing to tourists; it provides the nation's comedians with a goldmine for satire.
-
it provides the nation's comedians with a goldmine for satire.
You don't need royals for that; elected politicians do just fine, too.
-
True, but somehow it's funnier when it's about the royals
-
it's still wrong
That's your opinion. Personally, I have no problem with a hereditary monarch as a head of state — not necessarily my preferred arrangement, but not an "embarrassment." As a head of government, on the other hand, I wouldn't have a big problem with a pure figurehead, but with any real power, no, I would definitely not to live under such a system. However, if other people do, who am I to criticize their opinions?
-
