TV Licence article Discussion

enfield_freddy

Cornucopia wrote: »

The good people of MSE take a light-hearted view on most things.


Not on my planet. A quarter is 25%. Just over a quarter would be something, say, between 26% and 32%, and then we would talk about a third.


Isn't that one of those "fanciful" ideas that you so object to?


The existence of the BBC is a hugely complex thing....

(a) I am quite happy for there to be a practical, legal mechanism for its existence as an entity,
(b) I am happy for those people who like and enjoy the BBC to like and enjoy it,
(c) I am happy for all people to exercise their democratic freedoms in respect of the BBC (though the BBC doesn't seem wildly enthusiastic about that, I have to say),

However,
(d) I am uncomfortable with this notion of it "existing fully" - mainly because I don't know what that means, and of it being "defined by Law", in that it seems in my view to be very selective about its attitude to Law, and does not seem to recognise that the "right" to exist comes with responsibilities.
(e) I do not agree with anything that seeks to place the BBC above rational and reasonable debate that is founded in a basic freedom of speech.


Yes... and? Do you not think that a small proportion of the population could clog up the Courts?


It's both - they are two different scales.


I didn't realise we were going round in circles. And it's certainly not "all the time", since this discussion is only a couple of days old.

I'm not aware of having used any convoluted rhetoric. Perhaps you could point it out? I'm not sure where I've tried to justify the unjustifiable, either, unless by unjustifiable you mean something you disagree with?

On that basis, it seems you are falling back on pointless rhetoric yourself. I'm happy to discuss actual facts, and opinions about those facts. Anything else is a bit pointless.

since this discussion is only a couple of days old.

this discussion was started on this forum , in this thread on 18-03-2008,


perhaps you should try reading it from the start?

Zapito

Cornucopia wrote: »

Not on my planet. A quarter is 25%. Just over a quarter would be something, say, between 26% and 32%, and then we would talk about a third.

Whoops. It may because I am currently concerned about the time (15mins is a quarter of an hour!). Nevertheless 17% is still a substantial figure as an offending rate.

enfield_freddy

Zapito wrote: »

Whoops. It may because I am currently concerned about the time (15mins is a quarter of an hour!). Nevertheless 17% is still a substantial figure as an offending rate.

guestimated , by a company eager to keep there contract perhaps?

Cornucopia

enfield_freddy wrote: »

since this discussion is only a couple of days old.

this discussion was started on this forum , in this thread on 18-03-2008,


perhaps you should try reading it from the start?

Okay, okay. What I meant was that Zapito's first post on this thread was at 7:55 PM on 26-08-2015. So he & I have not been "going round in circles all the time".

One more piece of slippery rhetoric gets me to 6000 posts.

Actually, post #2 sums up a lot of it quite well.

Cornucopia

Zapito wrote: »

Nevertheless 17% is still a substantial figure as an offending rate.

The more I think about it, the more I doubt that it is a true offending rate.

If it were, then 17% of TVL house calls would equate to the 5% overall evasion rate, and that would mean that the other 83% of TVL house calls would equate to a LLF total of 24%, which seems rather high.

Assuming that TVL house calls are randomly split across evaders and LLF, which they may not be (it depends on how good BBC/TV:L's geographic profiling is).

[Deleted User]

Cornucopia wrote: »

The problems with BBC/TVL are so wide-ranging that virtually every aspect of the regime needs to change to address fairness, practicality or legal-compliance.

Thus- <snip>

BBC/TVL needs to remove the requirement, for their employees to meet a minimum number of sales/prosecutions, and scrap the bonus scheme, both of which can encourage illegal behavior, as demonstrated in the "LIES OF LICENCE OFFICER" article I linked to.

[Deleted User]

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

Most people who don't have a fishing licence don't need one.
Most people who don't have a driving licence don't drive.

The same is the case with people who tell TVL they don't need a licence.

What happens if I tell you I don't need a TV Licence?

We will send you confirmation of your No Licence Needed Declaration.

Please note that it's TV Licensing's policy to visit some addresses to check that the occupants don't need a TV Licence. This is because when we visit and make contact, we find almost one in five people that tell us they don't need a TV Licence actually do need one. If we find that you're watching TV illegally you could risk prosecution and a fine of up to £1,000.*

That means that, over four in five of the people they visit, are actually telling the truth.

[Deleted User]

Zapito wrote: »

They need to crack down extremely hard on all such cheats and liars.

By harassing the much larger group, of Legally Licence Free people?

[Deleted User]

Zapito wrote: »

I perceive plain speaking as rather more enlightened.

A pity BBC/TVL don't use it more often.

17% is just over a quarter.

When I went to school, 17% was just under 1/5th.

25% is a quarter.

victor2

Zapito wrote: »

Cornucopia wrote: »

I'm guessing maths is not your forte.

What are you on about? You referred to "an offending rate of 17%". 17% is just over a quarter.

Haven't been following this thread, but that is priceless! :rotfl: