TV licensing threats

dave4545454

Kayak10 wrote: »

This sort of post is how and why the ORIGINAL thread is totally lost among all the writers If only those that want to comment stick to the main thread a lot of " misinformation " would never have been put on MSE

All the "misinformation" has been written by you.

Luckily the others on here know what they are talking about and stick to the facts

Cornucopia

ricky_v's post is entirely accurate AFAICT.

I'd rather see a dozen like that than one that stuck to the point but required correction to misinformation within it.

wiogs

Kayak10 wrote: »

As I said the reason for the link was towards the end about how the BBC took over the licence It was never started to fund the inept people ( that's being polite ) that run the BBC

According to that, admittedly out of date, article the licence fee was started to fund the people who run the BBC.

Cornucopia

Whatever the historical perspective, it's quite clear that the Licence Fee is used to pay for the BBC - by any rational definition of "licence fee", "pay" and "BBC" anyone might come up with.

People quibble (usually offering up weak defences to the licence fee regime) and claim that some is hived off for this and for that, which has been true on a couple of occasions, to a very limited extent.

The big picture is generally more enlightening, which is that the system is one big conflict of interest. The regime is largely designed and implemented for the benefit of its main beneficiary - and they have been found wanting as a consequence of that.

Buzby

However, as they are backed by an Act of Parliament (Communications Act 2000) it has been democratically agreed by MPs and the only way to change it is to seek an amendment or replacement. The process starts by making representations to your MP.

Other broadcasters are lining up for a slice of BBC's income so the claim of conflict of interest is steadily being weakened.

[Deleted User]

I'd be very surprised, if it has been democratically agreed by MPs, that they should behave the way they do, ie. using misleading/threatening letters, aggressive callers, etc.

Cornucopia

Exactly, the evidence of any such agraeement would be legislation that provided us with the detail of the process. There is no such legislation.

Kayak10

dave4545454 wrote: »

All the "misinformation" has been written by you.

Luckily the others on here know what they are talking about and stick to the facts

Your are wrong I may have been some of the time But NOT all the time Just because posters dispute what I've said doesn't make it wrong
Several post I've made that are disputed ARE very wrong I was there they weren't so how can they know
Yet again the original thread is NOT being followed :-(

Kayak10

Buzby wrote: »

However, as they are backed by an Act of Parliament (Communications Act 2000) it has been democratically agreed by MPs and the only way to change it is to seek an amendment or replacement. The process starts by making representations to your MP.

Other broadcasters are lining up for a slice of BBC's income so the claim of conflict of interest is steadily being weakened.

Exactly what I've been saying and doing If only more contacted their MP then just may be in 2015/16 the charter WILL get changed Specially as the current incumbent will be looking for your votes in 2015

Kayak10

Bedsit_Bob wrote: »

I'd be very surprised, if it has been democratically agreed by MPs, that they should behave the way they do, ie. using misleading/threatening letters, aggressive callers, etc.

Thank god for someone returning to the original thread And my MP certainly didn't agree with the way the letters are written hence him passing on to the MP responsible who passed to Ms Doubtfire